Poll: Arming the UK Police
- Thread starter BGH122
- Start date
yup, they should be armed. if they come accross a surprise situation, they should be ready. and they should be ready for anything. currently, they are not. my theory is that the police should never be outgunned by the criminal, or else they automatically have the disadvantage.
Certainly not, but if he repeatedly refuses to surrender his weapon, attempts to potentially murder officers who attempt to extricate said weapon and menaces the public with said weapon then he deserves to be shot to disable. Shots to disable aim for centre mass, not the head. A shot to the head would be illegal, even for an AFO or SFO.EllEzDee said:
That's incorrect, iirc. However, we do have a rapidly increasing assault with deadly weapon stats climb (roughly 34% per year, last source I read was BBC) even despite the fact that we're pressured to downgrade such offences to possession.Mantonio said:
Mantonio said:
Found in a minor gang's stash mere weeks ago in London. It's far, far easier to obtain these weapons than non-criminals believe.
Arm the police, but don't legalise guns.
It's a whole different political climate in the UK compared to the US. USA has a codified constitution, we have Parliamentary Supremacy for the 2 houses of parliament and the Royal Prerogative for the executive. Even without the firearm discrimination the government has absolute power over the people, and they have their own ways of keeping a check in balance. Govt automatically must dissolve if they don't demand the confidence of the commons.
It's a whole different political climate in the UK compared to the US. USA has a codified constitution, we have Parliamentary Supremacy for the 2 houses of parliament and the Royal Prerogative for the executive. Even without the firearm discrimination the government has absolute power over the people, and they have their own ways of keeping a check in balance. Govt automatically must dissolve if they don't demand the confidence of the commons.
The problem is escalation: we are our police then criminals will have to start arming themselves, and they essentially enter an arms race (maybe a bit of an exaggeration, but the point still stands).
The reason our gun crime is low is because criminals don't need to use guns - they're expensive and difficult to get hold of, so the only reason they'd need them is if they are serious or if the police all had guns.
I feel safe knowing that the police in this country don't need guns yet, it makes us feel just a bit more civilised knowing that our crime isn't that bad yet. We do have a lot of knife crime, but the police are equipped to deal with that. Gun crime in this country is no where near the level seen in other countries, partly due to the difficulty of getting guns and partly because, if the police don't use them, criminals see them as an expensive item they just don't need.
And while armed police work well in America, you guys have supermarkets selling guns - of course your police need them. I will never understand why you feel safe with armed police, because the reason they're armed is because the average criminal is armed as well. That's a terrifying society (no offence, I just find the idea that anyone can buy a gun regardless of whether they are a responsible person to be rather scary).
I say keep the police unarmed because arming them will only lead to an 'arms race' between them and the criminals, helping no one.
I sleep relatively well at night not because I know the police don't carry guns, but because I know they don't NEED to carry guns.
Also, our crime rates may be fairly high but not necessarily as bad a the media will have you believe: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb0611/hosb0611?view=Binary
The reason our gun crime is low is because criminals don't need to use guns - they're expensive and difficult to get hold of, so the only reason they'd need them is if they are serious or if the police all had guns.
I feel safe knowing that the police in this country don't need guns yet, it makes us feel just a bit more civilised knowing that our crime isn't that bad yet. We do have a lot of knife crime, but the police are equipped to deal with that. Gun crime in this country is no where near the level seen in other countries, partly due to the difficulty of getting guns and partly because, if the police don't use them, criminals see them as an expensive item they just don't need.
And while armed police work well in America, you guys have supermarkets selling guns - of course your police need them. I will never understand why you feel safe with armed police, because the reason they're armed is because the average criminal is armed as well. That's a terrifying society (no offence, I just find the idea that anyone can buy a gun regardless of whether they are a responsible person to be rather scary).
I say keep the police unarmed because arming them will only lead to an 'arms race' between them and the criminals, helping no one.
I sleep relatively well at night not because I know the police don't carry guns, but because I know they don't NEED to carry guns.
Also, our crime rates may be fairly high but not necessarily as bad a the media will have you believe: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb0611/hosb0611?view=Binary
I really don't think standard police officers should be armed in the UK. The lack of firearms and very low gun-related crime rates in the UK is one of the few things that I think is good about this country - officers are human as well, and accidents can (and do) happen; arming anyone with a gun can lead to risks of normal people being harmed. Incidents like in the video above simply do not happen often - in most incidences firearms aren't necessary, and arming officers as standard will simply encourage them to use them (or threaten to use them) in situations where it really isn't required.
edit: I think that arming police officers with taser's would be a much better idea; while they can still be on the occasion lethal, it's a lot less dangerous than a gun. The situation in the video would have been handled very easily in such a circumstance.
edit: I think that arming police officers with taser's would be a much better idea; while they can still be on the occasion lethal, it's a lot less dangerous than a gun. The situation in the video would have been handled very easily in such a circumstance.
Sadly, they do. They just aren't reported unless they're particularly noteworthy (prolonged standoff, death or severe bodily harm etc). The stats game also makes it look like they don't happen. Even though May has claimed the stats game was a New Labour experiment that she's ditched, ACPO (the bosses, Association of Chief Police Officers) are still pressuring officers to downgrade charges.Simalacrum said:
Reasoning should always be attempted regardless of whether the officer in question is in possession of a firearm. The use of a firearm to resolve a conflict is a last ditch solution after the suspect has repeatedly refused to surrender the weapon and has resisted police attempts to extricate said weapon.Ultratwinkie said:
After watching that video, something I thought was interesting, What exactly would the police have done if he had tried to run into somebodies house, and it was unlocked? Would the police just let him attack whoever's inside? How would they stop him? This whole thing could have ended so much worse.
I'd have to go with option A.
I'm a UK resident and I feel that the police should be equiped much better than actually are, though I must admit I don't think it is very likely to happen.
What I would like to see, and don't understand why it hasn't happened yet, is the regular bobby being armed with more "less lethal weapons". I don't mean things like tazers and cs spray though, they arn't as reliable as need to be in a situation where an officer or member of the public is at risk. They may work on some lads that have had a couple too many on a friday night but they don't quite do the trick against the full blown nutters like the bloke in the above video.
No, what I am talking about are the the kind of less leathals that have a physical knockdown effect such as rubber/wax bullets, beanbag rounds ect.
I can understand why they were never used in the past as a shotgun was generally required to use them and in the PR/PC obsessed country that we live in you can see why they wouldn't be standard issue, however, with platforms like the FN303 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_303] available this isn't so much of an issue.
I'm a UK resident and I feel that the police should be equiped much better than actually are, though I must admit I don't think it is very likely to happen.
What I would like to see, and don't understand why it hasn't happened yet, is the regular bobby being armed with more "less lethal weapons". I don't mean things like tazers and cs spray though, they arn't as reliable as need to be in a situation where an officer or member of the public is at risk. They may work on some lads that have had a couple too many on a friday night but they don't quite do the trick against the full blown nutters like the bloke in the above video.
No, what I am talking about are the the kind of less leathals that have a physical knockdown effect such as rubber/wax bullets, beanbag rounds ect.
I can understand why they were never used in the past as a shotgun was generally required to use them and in the PR/PC obsessed country that we live in you can see why they wouldn't be standard issue, however, with platforms like the FN303 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_303] available this isn't so much of an issue.
I've lived in the UK for over 20 years (all my life, put it that wayBGH122 said:
), and I haven't witnessed a single incident of the like shown in the video, ever.And as I said in my edit, I think a taser would have been a much better idea - the guy in the video didn't seem like the type to be threatened by a gun, and he would in all likelihood have been killed had the officers been armed with lethal weapons; an incident that would have been avoided had the officers been armed with tasers.
Also, is it just me or is it anyone living outside of the UK who are mostly calling for arming the UK officers?
Well thankfully one police force in the UK already carries firearms as standard issue. Namely the PSNI for obvious reasons and I say yes to number 1. Firearms in the hands of trained officers are a necessary evil to ensure the safety of themselves and the public they protect. In a perfect world the already established firearm units would be sent to where they are needed and the lesser armed officers would handle the rest. If you arrive on the scene and find you need a gun then you probably can't wait half an hour to an hour hoping one will turn up.
option one, hands down. sure, you'll get a few incidents where a cop shoots someone when they could've avoided it, but now you've got cops getting shot by criminals while they can't even defend themselves. and not all of the outrage you get is justified.
there was one incident here where people got angry because a cop arrested someone, the guys brother and two friends attacked the officer, the officer shoots one in the knee and killed another in self-defence. and then people are all outraged that a police officer killed someone. well yeah, OF COURSE HE DID! he got attacked by three guys at once! I mean... what did they think was going to happen when they attacked a dude with a gun?
there was one incident here where people got angry because a cop arrested someone, the guys brother and two friends attacked the officer, the officer shoots one in the knee and killed another in self-defence. and then people are all outraged that a police officer killed someone. well yeah, OF COURSE HE DID! he got attacked by three guys at once! I mean... what did they think was going to happen when they attacked a dude with a gun?
I never claimed that restricting gun ownership reduces crime over all, i was pointing out that the UK has one of the lowest gun homicide rates in the world- so, with regards to gun legislation, we are doing something right.Eri said:
We'd have had to have rushed him. If there's any danger to an MOP then we have to put their lives first. It would have almost certainly resulted in serious wounds or deaths, but it's preferable to letting Joe Public take one in the neck from a nutter with a machete. This is why we joined the police: to make the country a safer place, even if it costs us our lives. Of course, with a firearm, the officers could have shot to neutralise the threat if an MOP were in danger.Eri said:
I've heard from AFOs that these don't work very well and deaths resulting are generally blamed squarely on the officer since "it's a non-lethal so you must have used it wrongly". Take a few of those to the sternum or temple at medium range and you could be looking at a fatality outcome.silentx3ro said:
I'd certainly support non-lethal alternatives, but since even a stab vest pretty much leaves only potential killshots open, I think lethal firearms also need to be issued.
