Poll: Arming the UK Police

[daniel the immortal]

works for australia all our cops are packing heat

 

[sinterklaas]

Wait, so because the guy in the video has a deadly weapon, he deserves to die?
Imagine in another, far more common situation, where rather than mental illness, the perpetrator's off his face on booze? Does this mean he should die? He's not in control of his actions is he?
If the police had firearms, the man in the video would be dead. At least he still has a chance at life.

Or, you know, they could shoot him in his arm or another nonlethal area. Swinging a machete around and chasing cops is reason enough to shoot.

If the coppers had guns, it'd be just as bad as America, where innocent people are regularly killed by antsy or downright stupid police officers who shouldn't even have such a powerful fucking weapon.

Police officers in the Netherlands have guns. Our citizens don't. We don't have any problems here.

It makes no sense for a police officer not to be armed with guns. To be honest, until today I had never heard of a police force without guns... Must be ridiculous.

 

[EvilPicnic]

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.

It is a single statistic that means nothing on it's own.

To quote some slightly more recent stats, between 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 incidence of firearms-related homicides rose by 18%. Sounds bad, yeah?

Actually that's an increase from 49 homicides to 59. This is basically nothing compared to any US city.

And as you can see on the graph that 35% thing was probably right 8 years ago. But current trends are for a reduction in overall gun crime:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6960431.stm

From more recent overall crime:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8153392.stm

And last year:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8472007.stm

So really, this is scaremongering. Yes the police are overworked, underpaid and underfunded. Yes there are serious structural and policy problems too. But there is no justification for arming them.

I mean, if there was, wouldn't the Tories be calling for it? Why isn't David Cameron arming the police right now?

Because this is a nonsense. The average bobby in this country doesn't need a gun. In certain units, definitely. But not your average policeman.

 

[RivFader86]

If the police can have guns, I should be able to.

People in the UK can't have guns? I mean that is tough. In NYC it is difficult to get a firearm for everywhere carry, but you are allowed to have one in your home for protection.

Not sure if dogstille meant carry or own...which are two entirely different things. Dunno how it is in the UK but here in germany it's quite easy to get a license to own a gun (own not carry...if you transport it it has to be gun and ammo stored in different locked cases) but to get a license to carry it ready to fire is almost impossible as you have to prove you need to have a gun because you are in more danger than the generall public (not because you live in a "bad neighbourhood" but you personally....like a politician or a judge for example) and even then you aren't allowed to carry them at public events

 

[88chaz88]

Or, you know, they could shoot him in his arm or another nonlethal area. Swinging a machete around and chasing cops is reason enough to shoot.

You know that shooting a pistol is very different from a light gun game in the arcades right? You want to try shooting a man in the arm while he's "swinging a machete around"? The result won't be pretty.

Also a shot in the arm or leg can still kill.

 

[googleback]

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.

Agreed.
I think the cost of actually arming every police officer in the UK needs to be taken into account, surely that cost could be put into developing/purchasing weapons that are non lethal, but with the effectiveness and reliability of a gun. both psychologically and in use.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbHyx9HY1bc&feature=related

That sort of thing. it's got the looks of a gun but it wont kill you.

 

[BGH122]

stats

Fair do's, I surrender the stats point.

So really, this is scaremongering. Yes the police are overworked, underpaid and underfunded. Yes there are serious structural and policy problems too. But there is no justification for arming them.

I mean, if there was, wouldn't the Tories be calling for it? Why isn't David Cameron arming the police right now?

because this is a nonsense. The police in this country don't need guns. Elsewhere, maybe. But not here.

Huh? Why would David 'slash and burn' Cameron be calling for a policy which would vastly increase the costs of the police force?

Furthermore, my contention wasn't that cops need guns to stop criminals with guns, my contention was that cops need guns to stop criminals with any deadly weapon. For criminals with guns we've got specialist units. I'm too fatigued to continue arguing this for now. I'll come back later and respond to you properly.

Agreed.
I think the cost of actually arming every police officer in the UK needs to be taken into account, surely that cost could be put into developing/purchasing weapons that are non lethal, but with the effectiveness and reliability of a gun. both psychologically and in use.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbHyx9HY1bc&feature=related

That sort of thing. it's got the looks of a gun but it wont kill you.

I don't think what it looks like matters, as long as it works. But we need something in the meantime to keep us from getting killed.

 

[The Lugz]

Simply put:
it is not the job of police officers to be judge jury and executioner

i'd be happy with cops in the uk having stun grenades, or specialized shotguns to floor people but not kill them, but that in itself is a hard technological challenge
it would have stopped mr crazy-ass in your video at least, you can either put down your blade or be knocked on your ass repeatedly from a safe distance until you're too sore to move, i think that's a good compromise

the ultimate answer is this, but it need so much more time and money invested in it before it's even half way viable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNEOI7bYl3c

just punk the bad guys, Crytek style.

 

[uttaku]

Dear god no! Option 3 all the way. Yes we need some police armed with guns, to deal with criminals armed with guns I would far rather not arm the majority of the police, considering the UK's very low gun crime rate we don't need to arm the police and in the nicest possible way how many people are shot unnessarily by armed police in the states? also it may just be cos I'm English but the concept of people with guns makes me nervous no matter who they are.

 

[similar.squirrel]

I think they should be issued with riot-control firearms. Rubber bullets and those beanbag guns. Don't really see the point in giving them something capable of killing, when it's possible to incapacitate from a distance.

 

[googleback]

I don't think what it looks like matters, as long as it works. But we need something in the meantime to keep us from getting killed.

I mean the scare factor of seeing a gun.

 

[Baneat]

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.

What's wrong with the MP5?

 

[mirasiel]

Allow the populace of this country to re-arm and take care of their own self-protection with fear of being branded a dangerous psychopath for seeing the obvious weakness of the Police* .

As a citizen I am comfortable with regular officers having standard access to 9mm pistols/shotguns just so long I am allowed to arm myself. Hell I would love to just legally collect weapons and go sport shooting without being harrassed constantly by the local bobbies acting on their Chiefs prejudices.


*Since we have yet to perfect either cloning or personal teleportation at best you'll be lucky to get the police on site with in 10-15 minutes, my personal experience (for reporting violent attempted break ins by persons armed with lethal weapons) is more like 30 to 40 minutes and the only reason I haven't found myself fighting a violent nutjob in close quarters is because both residences had their doors replaced with heavier duty security doors/locks because the previous tennants had not been so lucky.

 

[googleback]

Or, you know, they could shoot him in his arm or another nonlethal area. Swinging a machete around and chasing cops is reason enough to shoot.

You know that shooting a pistol is very different from a light gun game in the arcades right? You want to try shooting a man in the arm while he's "swinging a machete around"? The result won't be pretty.

Also a shot in the arm or leg can still kill.

Instantly too. if you aim to wound why would you not just use a Taser?

 

[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.

What's wrong with the MP5?

Nothing, it is a very capable rifle. It's also reliable, H&K have a tendency for making good quality rifles. That's also why The British Army let them redesign the L85 after the A1 variant performed less than adequately.

 

[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.

Mexico is pretty dangerous, allowing cartels to flourish. Hell, a police chief was assassinated CIA kill squad style by one ex military cartel with armament equivalent to the US army. This also means that they sell drugs in America, where the American police force has to deal with them.

Without crime, the increase in death wouldn't be much. The only difference is that maybe a gun might go off and hurt someone, but that is gun safety and something they should have all learned ahead of time instead on relying on TV.

I don't doubt mexico's affect, however over here we have a problems with teenage pregnancy (sex ed), I doubt weaponry education will do so well either (i realise they're different, but the kind of people that are the problem are unlikely to change from education). Also it is very easy for someone scared to pull the trigger.

 

[Burs]

I dont know If this has already been said but in the UK when using Lethal firearms the law states that ANY shot fired by a Police officer at a target HAS to be a Killing shot.

Also do you think the government doesnt discuss this with their officers, I've been a Special Constable (part-time bobby) for almost two years now, Every time this comes up the Police themselves turn it down, as Im sure others have said It just means that the scum on the streets are just going to arm themselves more.

Also a Weapon Is very intimidating to the public which causes them to dislike/fear/hate us which encourages crime and prevents us from doing our jobs, I have a good rep in my town becuase I help people and thats what policing should be about.

By the Way the majority of the Armed officers in the home office police forces today are armed with MP9's, G36's and glocks ^.^

 

[Atheist.]

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?

Pretty sure I gave several viable alternatives to your sharpshooter tranq darts idea in my post, so I'm in agreement with that. And as I said, I'm against guns for the most part.

Actually, though, there were zero deaths in that shootout. Crazy, eh? If you look at bank robberies in America, we really don't have things like this happening. This was just a one off kind of deal. My main point still stands. It's not like it's impossible to smuggle an assault rifle and body armor into the UK, granted it would be quite difficult.

I'm totally against cops using guns. I mean, did you see that instance with the deaf whittler getting shot to death by a cop for carrying a 5" knife in public (Legal if the knife pertains to your profession) over in Seattle several months ago?

Also note that once the Police re-equipped with proper gear the criminals went down quite quickly.

I agree there's a difference in culture and all that jazz, but that really wasn't my point at all.

 

[luke10123]

I would be interested to see the results of this poll if you were to remove the opinions of everyone from the US. Gun control FTW! isn't it logical to assume that having fewer guns, we will have fewer shootings as well?