Poll: Arming the UK Police

[BGH122]

yes, 35% of what it was before,still not very much though. all of a sudden giving everyone the right to bear arms would be a death sentence for a lot of people.

It's literally the worst possible thing to legalize right now.

35% is quite a lot actually. If we let there be a 35% increase in crime in our zones then we'd be fired.

Regardless, I'm not arguing for gun legalisation. That's an issue that's been raised separately from the OP.

I think, though, that there's a difference between reasonable force and shooting someone. In the case of a police officer vs. someone wielding a knife, why would shooting the knife-bearer be a better solution than, say, tasering them or using a bean-bag shotgun. There are plenty of non-lethal alternatives to guns that still have the effect of incapacitating a criminal.

But that's a false dichotomy: it's not a case of exclusively lethal or exclusively non-lethal arms. A firearm would only be used once all non-lethal alternatives had failed.

 

[nad302]

"he doesn't look happy does he" lol

 

[Cowabungaa]

Good luck equiping the civilian population with Abraham tanks and Apache gunships. As noble as your intention sounds, it's completely useless.

I find it more productive a belief than 'meh, we can't win anyway.'

Productive in that it ranks up a higher bodycount perhaps.

Weapons tend to aid in the killing of one's enemy in a war, yes.

And I'd rather avoid a pointless one. Just look at the recent situation in Libya, what would've happened if the NATO wouldn've helped the rebels with bombardements? They would've been grinded into dust, and that's not even such a well-equiped army they're up against.

 

[hazabaza1]

They should probably be given non-lethal weapons. Tasers, bean bag guns and the such. That's probably help a lot, and result in little or even no deaths.

 

[chainer1216]

perhaps when a man is actually wielding a med-long range weapon, like an weapon that fires projectiles.

you do not use a shotgun just to kill a goldfish.

you're analogy fails. goldfish are not dangerous by any means, a man with a sword is.

the more correct analogy would be "you do not need a shotgun to kill a shark". kinda losses its impact doesn't it?

anyway, the specific incident in the video, guns were not required, a taser would of done just fine, even here in the states they wouldn't of shot the guy.

but as for police and firearms in general, they should all train with and carry a handgun. theyre powerful tools of intimidation, most people tend to forget why theyre running amok when theyre staring down the barrel of a gun, and those that dont? well, it very likely a matter of him, you, or them at that point, and unless you can get close enough to tase and restrain them...well *shrugs*

 

[InfiniteSingularity]

If the police have guns, so too should the citizens, to protect themselves from the police.

Yes

 

[coppah20HE]

I should probably make the point that, in Australia, guns are prohibited, yet all police officers are issued with firearms upon graduation from police academy.

Believe it or not, its not anarchy here, in fact things are pretty good.

 

[JoshGod]

None, if the police have guns, then the public should be allowed guns, and hence you will generate more shooting.

Actually no, countries with a lot of guns have less crime. America is exempt due to the state by state laws on guns, and proximity to Mexico.

Not those mexicans again?
I was thinking there would be more deaths than crime.

 

[Dectomax]

I mean, who else finds it idiotic that the weapon that firearms units are equipped with is a fricking MP5?!

There is a reason for that...The police use the MP5 due to it's small calibre round. A 9mm Round will not penetrate the wall. This means that if a Squad is inside a building there is no chance of shooting through a wall and injuring anyone on the other side. This is also why the SAS use it in CQB.

 

[googleback]

yes, 35% of what it was before,still not very much though. all of a sudden giving everyone the right to bear arms would be a death sentence for a lot of people.

It's literally the worst possible thing to legalize right now.

35% is quite a lot actually. If we let there be a 35% increase in crime in our zones then we'd be fired.

Regardless, I'm not arguing for gun legalisation. That's an issue that's been raised separately from the OP.

Firstly the article is from 2003. secondly, arming police officers is a step backwards; giving them guns makes them more likely to use deadly force. giving them a taser (unless the guy is wearing a suit of armour) allows them to handle things like a police force should rather than an army.

I cannot stress enough how we simply do not need to arm the police. Non lethal is the way forwards. it's not about having the means to kill bad guys, its about having the means to defend them selves in a last resort, which a gun will never be. not with today's technology.
if a man is holed up in his house firing a machine gun into the street, call in the tactical squad. if a man in the street has a gun, you leave the area THEN call the tactical squad! how would starting a gunfight be a better way of dealing with the situation?

 

[Daystar Clarion]

If the police get guns, I want guns too.

The people advocating "non-lethal" weaponry (no such thing) are idiots - I'd rather be shot dead than burnt or electrocuted, thanks. The people arguing that we don't need guns because of statistics are idiots - statistics can easily be and are doctored.

Ah man, that was hilarious.

Thanks for that, I needed a good laugh.

What? You weren't joking?

...

...

...

[sub]Eeep.[/sub]

 

[richd213]

For all those that want guns to be legalised, try and remember the dunblane massacre. You can't be sure that the people you're giving guns won't go nuts.

i voted for option 2 on the poll. I would like for it to have been no guns at all (tasers are better to have I think, but only with proper training) but it is sometimes necessary.

 

[MrGalactus]

I would say disband all UK police, as well as all police forces across the globe.

 

[Tourmeta]

Give everyone a machete.

^ Yes, people police!

 

[trouble_gum]

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

I dunno, how did you guys manage it? From the video it seems like the answer is "pretty badly."

400 armed cops versus 2 guys, how many police and civilian casualties?

Yeah...arming the police is the way forward and this video shows it. The first thing a police representative says is that their guns were useless because the criminals were wearing body armour.

Look up the stats on bank robbery in the U.K - it doesn't happen very often, and fully-automatic weapons with armour-piercing bullets don't tend to be a part of the criminal arsenal.
It's all about escalation - more armed police leads to more armed criminals and generally, the criminals can get bigger, better gear than the police due to budgets and legal constraints on what they can use. These guys brought serious firepower because they knew that large numbers of armed police would be deployed to counter them.

This kind of bank robbery just doesn't happen in the U.K - when our criminals want to robs banks, they force the people with vault access to take them inside the bank outside of business hours. The largest 'bank' robbery in the UK of recent time involved pistols and two gunshots being fired. Neither of which were aimed at or injured any person.

Trying to directly compare and contrast the U.S and the U.K when it comes to arming the police simply doesn't work because of cultural, political and social differences. It's a simple fact that, because the police over here don't carry guns as routine, this kind of large scale shootout tends not to happen, as there's less reason for the criminals themselves to bring equivalent or superior weaponry. Equally, people with guns on a rampage is big news over here, as it doesn't happen much. Not that I'm saying bank shootouts occur daily in the States, or that you guys have a scheduled time for "maniac with gun to rampage through town" - but that gunfire is a more regular component of crime in the the U.S because...well...guns are a more regular component of day to day life.

People have guns, the police have guns, police response to guns is to bring more guns, so criminals have guns and their response to the police is to bring bigger guns.

Now, it may sound from the tone of this, that I'm dead set against the U.K police being armed. And, to a certain extent, I am. At least at the beat constable level. I do think that they should be given more opportunities to employ lethal force when everything else has failed and there should way less money wasted on public inquiries when our police do actually shoot someone. All the fuss when Raoul Moat was tasered and died was pretty unbelievable, especially after all the media outcry over the police failing to catch and shoot the gunman in Cumbria a couple of months previously.

Specifically, I think the restrictions on where in the body the police can shoot people are moronic, when clearly, disabling shots to the legs will end situations like that cited in the OP quicker. Equally, why shouldn't the police be allowed to bring sharpshooters with tranq darts to that sort of thing? We'd do it with a dangerous animal, so why not with a dangerous human waving a sword?

 

[googleback]

Give everyone a machete.

^ Yes, people police!

SON, YOU'LL MAKE COMMISSIONER ONE DAY!

 

[SpAc3man]

I think that video is testament to how guns are not needed. If cops in the UK were armed, that man would have been dead 20 seconds into that video. Instead he now has a chance to recover from whatever mental illness he is suffering from.

Here in New Zealand the police are armed with pepper spray, a baton and as of recently a taser. They seem to cope pretty well. When more force is required the Armed Offenders Squad are called in.

 

[ZombieGenesis]

Seriously, a majority of people think we should arm all UK police?

It's official, people are not smart.

 

[b3nn3tt]

I think, though, that there's a difference between reasonable force and shooting someone. In the case of a police officer vs. someone wielding a knife, why would shooting the knife-bearer be a better solution than, say, tasering them or using a bean-bag shotgun. There are plenty of non-lethal alternatives to guns that still have the effect of incapacitating a criminal.

But that's a false dichotomy: it's not a case of exclusively lethal or exclusively non-lethal arms. A firearm would only be used once all non-lethal alternatives had failed.

True, police could have both, but I'd wager that within a month of that being brought into effect someone would be shot who could have been incapacitated using non-lethal means. I think that if police were allowed guns, then the abuse of that allowance would quickly follow. Not that I'm saying that all police officers are trigger-happy people who are just waiting for their chance to blow someone's head off, but there would undoubtedly be some who are like that.

As I said before, the only time that I can conceive that the police would need guns is when criminals have guns, and that's what specialist gun squads are for.

 

[BGH122]

Firstly the article is from 2003.

I'll concede that.

I cannot stress enough how we simply do not need to arm the police. Non lethal is the way forwards. it's not about having the means to kill bad guys, its about having the means to defend them selves in a last resort, which a gun will never be.

But this is incorrect. As I've mentioned before in this thread, tazers aren't 100% effective (far from it) and their efficacy depends highly on how the probes space themselves at the point of contact. If they're too closely grouped to centre mass then the recipient's arm and leg muscles still have (lessened) control and pain is the only real deterrent (which CS already provides; it doesn't work). If they're too highly spaced away from centre mass then apparently this doesn't work either (don't ask me, I've never used one, this is all from chatting with AFOs). If you're in a situation when you have to stop an armed assailant right this instant then a tazer won't necessarily work and your choice to opt for your tazer instead of your firearm could cost an innocent their life.

If we could find a non-lethal that works as effectively as a firearm then I'd be all for it. Anything that spares lives works best, but the lives of innocents must be an infinitely higher priority than those of armed criminals.

I reiterate: if you menace the public with a deadly weapon, refuse to surrender the weapon to the police and then attempt to murder the police officers who attempt to relieve you of your weapon then you forgo your right to safety.

True, police could have both, but I'd wager that within a month of that being brought into effect someone would be shot who could have been incapacitated using non-lethal means. I think that if police were allowed guns, then the abuse of that allowance would quickly follow. Not that I'm saying that all police officers are trigger-happy people who are just waiting for their chance to blow someone's head off, but there would undoubtedly be some who are like that.

As I said before, the only time that I can conceive that the police would need guns is when criminals have guns, and that's what specialist gun squads are for.

But if an officer genuinely resorted to a firearm as anything but a last resort then the IPCC would have their arse. I agree that'd be a cold comfort to the victim's family, but I also still put forward that you're arguing that the actual deaths of police officers are less important than the hypothetical deaths from abuse of the powers which could prevent police deaths. Furthermore, it seems to me that your exact same logic should be used to disarm all officers on the grounds that it'd prevent any accidental deaths. Jean Charles would still be alive if no police anywhere were armed.

There are already checks in place to prevent police abusing their powers and from my first hand experience they work extraordinarily well. Everyone's very aware that there are always more accepted recruits than we have need for and doing something as innocuous as striking an 'unapproved' strike zone could see us sacked or worse. Actually murdering someone would see us gaoled and you don't want to know what they do to police in jail.