Poll: Arming the UK Police

[Arsen]

The guy should have been shot within seconds. Say all you want about police brutality, at least when people do these kind of things in America they are subdued in a justifiable manner. Even then, the "brutality" of it is sheer opinion anyway brought on by irrational fears towards police officers in the first place.

And no...I don't give a shit what his mental condition, upbringing, sociological argument is about.

He.should.have.been.killed. if he was threatening others with it and refused to surrender.

OT - First option. Anything otherwise is absolutely ball to the wall, shit-fucking insane. I feel sorry for the people of the UK from time to time as well as many other countries for the fact that they can't defend themselves by any armament necessary.

 

[bpm195]

The problem I have with using that video as evidence if it took place in America the criminal would have most likely had a gun making the situation that much more dangerous. Technically he probably couldn't own a gun legally, but that's not a huge obstacle here.

 

[spectrenihlus]

To clarify my previous point, I believe that officers should have guns if criminals have guns, which doesn't seem to be the case in the UK, unlike most other places.

On the mention of escalation, like I said before, that's probably one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Criminals have guns because when they only have knives they get the crap beat out of them by their "victims" far more often than when they have guns, which also make them feel more powerful. Criminals don't arm themselves to protect themselves from cops, criminals arm themselves so that when they are about to get caught they can shoot the officer and get away. If you'd tried saying that if officers didn't carry guns they wouldn't get shot in the US, you'd probably be laughed out of where-ever you were. Criminals also arm themselves because it lets them kill other criminals easier, makes gang wars far more effective (You can't do a drive-by with a knife....)

I bet they could do it with a lance.

 

[Conza]

Well, I could re-check that. In fact I did! ect

I was talking to Gordon wasn't I? The one who put that BS in my quote? snipping is one thing, but I REFUSE to have someone put words in my mouth I didn't say, here's a perfectly good example of how I don't appreciate people writting things for me;

...If even one of those police officers had a firearm, they could've shot the suspect in the chest, arm, leg, ect, not fatally wounding them, and removing any possibility that the suspect would harm anyone else. Threat contained, damage none. In this scenario it took the time of 30+ officers to detain '1' person. That is inefficent when the cost of a single round would've saved all that hassle.

Let me just go back, and kill someone, then hit the quote button on your post, just to be sure.

See? It's not nice, and it's not true, let me disclaimer this example by saying, no homocides occured as a result of this fabrication.

Option one. To protect and serve the people, law enforcements require firearms.

If you aren't persuaded by the video, then I thank the fact you are not in charge of any state or federal Australian police authorities, because firearms should never be removed from their side, and under any circumstance theyy do or do not believe to need a firearm, they should carry one, because anything could happen.

police officers are there to keep the peace, not kill people. The UK doesn't suffer from out of control criminality and we have almost no gun crime. What possible use could we have for arming our officers when there is no clear need for them to be so?

I'm picking on you because my post comes after yours. Watch the video. If even one of those police officers had a firearm, they could've shot the suspect in the chest, arm, leg, ect, not fatally wounding them, and removing any possibility that the suspect would harm anyone else. Threat contained, damage none. In this scenario it took the time of 30+ officers to detain '1' person. That is inefficent when the cost of a single round would've saved all that hassle.

EDIT: And let me add, if anyone else was actually wounded, or forbid, killed as a result of no firearms as could've easily been the case in this scenario, you might think twice about giving the proper tools, to the people we entrust our safety to.

See that?

Yes of course I see that, I wrote it.

Now, let me trim...parts:

Watch the video. If even one of those police officers had a firearm, they could've shot the suspect in the chest, arm, leg, ect, not fatally wounding them, and removing any possibility that the suspect would harm anyone else. Threat contained, damage none. In this scenario it took the time of 30+ officers to detain '1' person. That is inefficent when the cost of a single round would've saved all that hassle.

...further trim:

If even one of those police officers had a firearm, they could've shot the suspect in the chest, ... not fatally wounding them, ... damage none.

Those are your words, in sequence, and I do not believe the way I quoted them significantly changed the meaning of what was said.

Ah, so, if I added into your quote that you said the following...

Those ....sequence, and I do not ...quoted them ...meaning ...said.

Oh no, see I get it now, removing portions of the sentence to make me sound like I can't write properly only further distils my writing, to be more succinct. I get next time then!... *shakes head*.

Even if it did change what you said to mean something else, you then said this:

... shooting in the chest is an old school method used up until Vietnam (not that the UK was there of course), where a 7.62 round would plant someone in the ground if you shot them in the chest.

ect ect 'super snip'

.308 Winchester (7.62x51mm NATO)

ect ect 'super snip'

Still no record of an unarmoured victim surviving a shot to the chest with a 7.62x51mm rifle round, and yet another voice saying you never shoot to wound, only to kill.

It's almost as if the entire internet thinks you were talking shite there, isn't it?

Wow, talk about flamethrowering a spot of grass... on the wrong lawn! Now, that last person you quoted, I can't speak for, since I didn't read his inital post, but I can speak for myself by saying, all of my posts to date, on this thread, speak to wounding NOT (if that word there has been formatted to make it clear enough for you) killing.

I said, you don't need to shoot people in the chest, for petes sake, all that nonsense on people not surviving a shot to the chest with a 7.62 is so, SO irrelevent, it's sad, I'm sorry you wasted you time at the very least but that entire sum of research was misdirected.

I wasn't suggesting we start arming the police with 308s, so they can start shooting people, I'm saying give them 'some weapon' to have as a last resort. Fark.

 

[Shoqiyqa]

That information you posted though is...well, pretty damn interesting. I'd like to find more on the topic, but I REALLY couldn't possibly imagined the chances of surviving some of those gunshots as being THAT high. I always knew that a number of people survived being shot in the head, but SIXTY PERCENT!!? I really want to find more information backing that up.

Kind of amazing, it was, yes. Looking at the numbers, I think that's "70% died without reaching the hospital and 40% of the remainder died despite living long enough to get there," because it wouldn't make sense any other way.

I suspect, also, that a non-fatal "gunshot wound to the head" treated in a city hospital in the USA is likely to be from a pistol held sideways and above head height and fired downwards without aiming or from someone firing a MAC-10 at the queue outside a nightclub. From memory, someone tried that quite recently, hit his target in the shin, someone else in the arse and a second bystander in the hand and missed them all with the rest of the magazine, or something like that. There must be a lot of places a bullet can hit a head, graze the skull and exit again without getting into the CNS or just go through the mouth, nose or ear without touching the skull at all.

 

[Jester00]

every german cop has a pistol and there's an hk mp5 in every police car. and i'm happy about that. option 1.

 

[Treblaine]

Edit: How in the hell would you guys manage something like this :
http://youtu.be/NT_T9zytit0

As many have said above me, you arm the police, you end up arming the criminals, which just leads to more fatal violence.

HOOOOWWW?!?

That makes no sense especially considering how well brit armed criminals are already.

A lot of people say god made the earth in 6 days but doesn't matter how many people say it, it just makes no god damn sense.

 

[Shoqiyqa]

As many have said above me, you arm the police, you end up arming the criminals ...

HOOOOWWW?!?

As every cop is a criminal,
and all the sinners saints.
As black is white ...

 

[BGH122]

Well, I wrote to my Member of Parliament about the issue and it's being forwarded to the Home Secretary (who decides these things). It'll be interesting to see her reply. I'll post the synopsis here when I get a reply.

Sorry about not personally answering each question, but I've been inundated. I didn't expect this to be such a busy thread.