Poll: Arming the UK Police

[InfiniteSingularity]

I don't believe anyone should have guns, for many reasons. I don't think anyone should get special treatment just because of their job - police included. They are not an exception

The reason is because it can be incredibly dangerous if a) the police officer is "corrupt" which happens all too easily because police appear to be above the law, b) the police officer makes a false judgement, or c) an accident occurs related to, say, a stray bullet, for instance.

Police, in my eyes, seem to be too exempt from the law - they have priority over regular citizens, they have the command of anyone, and giving them the means to kill in an instant is ridiculous. I don't believe in guns because they make killing too easy - it makes the death of someone feel quick and without remorse. I don't believe in guns at all, and I believe they should be banned for any person, but if you give them to police you're giving them permission to use them. Which often means killing people.

Basically I have a problem with police having "special rights" because they're police. They're no more important than anyone else, and shouldn't be treated as such.

 

[88chaz88]

Do I want armed police bullying their way through like in the US or any other third world nation?

Nope.

Keep our forces unarmed. Obviously exepting the specially trained squads.

The police here in NYC are actually quite polite most of the time. There are a few bad eggs as will happen in a police force of 50000 officers, but in general no complaints.

Well since you want to use the NYPD as an example then here's a scene where a number of police were "needed" to arrest a cyclist who was merely cycling up the sidewalk for a couple of seconds to his mate's house.

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

But yes, as you said, every police force has bad eggs. I still feel the need for every cop to be armed as excessive though. I don't believe that more guns = less problems.

I'm not sure what I saw there but no one was shot and all the cops had guns. I cycle in NYC and only made the mistake of riding my bike on the sidewalk once, I'll tell you that.

But why were their guns needed? The example I gave is about total overkill. You didn't need more than one or two officers on the scene and neither of them needed to be armed.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Arm the officers and continue to keep guns out of the public's hands. Then they don't need them as much.

 

[Extraintrovert]

The only thing that would have resulted from the police officers here being armed is someone shot to death despite doing little but standing around and shouting at people. Yes, they require better gear for such situations, yes, it could have been handled much better, and yes, specialist forces are necessary, but that is exactly why they're specialist; those with government sanction to wield deadly weapons better be damn sure they know what they're doing.

 

[BGH122]

To use the above video as an example, if even 1 of the officers had an FN303 and only aimed for the legs the 15 rounds would be more than enough to take down or at the very least hinder the man to allow an arrest to be made safely

It'd also almost certainly be illegal; centre-mass is the only legal shot area for AFOs.

I find it ironic that I could walk down the street with a pocket knife and be arrested for carrying a dangerous weapon and the guys who are arresting me have CS spray, batons and handcuffs. Hypocrisy much? I think no one should have guns.

In a perfect would I'd totally agree, but the old adage (much abused) that 'if you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns' is valid. If criminals were removed from the equation then the police oughtn't be armed, but if criminals were removed from the equation then there oughtn't be police!

The reason the police need weapons isn't to stop law abiding MOPs, it's to stop the seriously dangerous outlaws from hurting MOPs.

 

[YesIPlayTheBagpipes]

that would be a small child's collection in the US.

 

[Bon_Clay]

I don't own any guns myself, but I think banning them from citizens is pretty stupid. Its a pointless law. People who use guns in the ways that make people dislike them and want them banned are specifically the type of people who will still get guns regardless of you saying they can't. People who plan on committing crimes don't go to a store and buy a gun and follow proper procedure and register it.

There are times when police officers are going to need guns to save lives. But they should always be held to the same laws as normal people, and have to follow strict procedure. If they go around busting into people's homes without warrants or just cause, you should have every right to shoot them first in self defense as you would to any other armed intruder. Just because you have a badge doesn't mean everything you do is right you are incapable of committing a crime. People are innocent until proven guilty, and their rights, as well as ability to defend their rights, stay in place until that time.

You don't need a police state to take down a guy with a machete. I'm pretty sure riot gear, bean bag guns, and that sort of thing could have taken him down. But in cases where someone is putting other people's lives in danger, they have forfeited their guarantee to safety, so if deadly force is really necessary to save the innocent people then I would support it.

 

[b3nn3tt]

I'd say that there's a happy middle ground, and that would be giving police officers non-lethal projectiles, like rubber bullets or bean bag shotguns. That way you can take someone down safely, quickly, effectively and without having to kill them.

I think that allowing police officers to carry guns would lead to far more problems than it would solve. Cases like the one in the OP are extremely rare, most police calls are for incidents that definitely do not require to use of guns. Giving the police force guns would just lead to more people signing up because they want to use a gun. The police force is full of enough power-trippers as it is, we definitely don't need it to be full of power-trippers with guns.

 

[erztez]

We just need to make this thing man-portable is all

Spoiler

Problem solved

The moment that thing becomes man portable, that full size version will be burning down cities.

I know, AWESOME, right?

Also, want big ass versions of this installed on satellites, also, want small hand-held civilian versions for self-defense/lunch.

 

[ICantBelieveItGoesBoom]

How would a gun have helped at all in that situation? All they could have done is murdered a mentally ill man. The only way that could have been handled better was if they had brought the shields and clubs earlier, I mean look how easily they got him once they had those.

In the poll I voted for police to only bring firearms when needed, but now I probably think it's better to have only special divisions that can use firearms.

 

[BGH122]

But why were their guns needed? The example I gave is about total overkill. You didn't need more than one or two officers on the scene and neither of them needed to be armed.

When you first arrive at a scene as the first officer to arrive you don't know what you're going to be facing. It could be that you've heard that some guy is 'mouthing off' so, hey, why bring a gun? But what if it turns out that the mouthy guy in question has a gun and is willing to use it when you arrive at the scene? What if he shoots you or an MOP because you didn't bring your firearm?

This is why the firearms are required.

How would a gun have helped at all in that situation? All they could have done is murdered a mentally ill man. The only way that could have been handled better was if they had brought the shields and clubs earlier, I mean look how easily they got him once they had those.

You're seeing this with all the 20/20 of hindsight. Sure, this time they managed to detain him with standard issue gear, but what about PC Albuery [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13467323], stabbed on a routine car stop? What about PC Henry [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/4974008/Police-officer-stabbed-to-death-by-schizophrenic-cannabis-user.html], stabbed to death attempting to relieve a paranoid schizophrenic of his knife (and yes, PC Henry was wearing a stab vest)? You see where I'm going with this.

We're willing to die for the safety of this country's people, but don't ask us to die because you refused us the ability to defend ourselves.

 

[Caligulove]

Option 2 sounds reasonable, but I think that would be hard to enforce, and hard to define and standardize situations where a firearm/possible lethal force would be warranted. Not to mention how they would carry around the firearms, if some kind of locking mechanism in a patrol car or on a belt would be implemented, or what exactly?

Option 3 also makes sense, but then I guess that depends on the likelihood of the populace/criminals being armed against regular cops in areas. Wouldn't make sense to keep the policy if cops would just be thrown at bad guys with guns while only wielding a baton.

 

[88chaz88]

Do I want armed police bullying their way through like in the US or any other third world nation?

Nope.

Keep our forces unarmed. Obviously exepting the specially trained squads.

The police here in NYC are actually quite polite most of the time. There are a few bad eggs as will happen in a police force of 50000 officers, but in general no complaints.

Well since you want to use the NYPD as an example then here's a scene where a number of police were "needed" to arrest a cyclist who was merely cycling up the sidewalk for a couple of seconds to his mate's house.

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

But yes, as you said, every police force has bad eggs. I still feel the need for every cop to be armed as excessive though. I don't believe that more guns = less problems.

I'm not sure what I saw there but no one was shot and all the cops had guns. I cycle in NYC and only made the mistake of riding my bike on the sidewalk once, I'll tell you that.

But why were their guns needed? The example I gave is about total overkill. You didn't need more than one or two officers on the scene and neither of them needed to be armed.

But what if it turned out to be uglier? What if one of the guys on the street pulled out an AK? Then what? Wait for the real police to arrive?

There was a time when US police carried only handguns and were not legally allowed to carry rifles. Then these two men happened:

[link]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaUWXlAXhps&feature=related[/link]

Well then we'll create laws to cater to the exceptions then... If just pulling out an AK in the middle of the street becomes common place then I'd say your society has bigger problems then armed police.

When you first arrive at a scene as the first officer to arrive you don't know what you're going to be facing. It could be that you've heard that some guy is 'mouthing off' so, hey, why bring a gun? But what if it turns out that the mouthy guy in question has a gun and is willing to use it when you arrive at the scene? What if he shoots you or an MOP because you didn't bring your firearm?

This is why the firearms are required.

See above.

 

[erztez]

We just need to make this thing man-portable is all

Spoiler

Problem solved

The moment that thing becomes man portable, that full size version will be burning down cities.

I know, AWESOME, right?

Also, want big ass versions of this installed on satellites, also, want small hand-held civilian versions for self-defense/lunch.

Break the window on your microwave and haul it on a cart.

Tried, kept tripping over the extension cord. Also, after 2 or 3 klicks, it gets REALLY expensive.

 

[AmosMoses]

Still, gun crime has been steadily tracking upwards at 34% per year since guns were completely abolished a few decades back in the UK.

I'd definitely like to hear where that statistic is from. 34% of what? and what is that as a percentage of violent crime?

I'd say there is maybe a discussion to be had about police carrying arms. But the public having one "in your home for protection" is a cast-iron A-grade bad idea, it seems to me.

 

[googleback]

That guy in the video would have been put down by a taser just as easily as a gun.

The only reason cops need to carry guns in america is because guns are legal. so everybody bloody has one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence

England and Wales % of gun crime violence: 8%
America: 46%

No we do NOT need guns just as much as America do.

Source: My entire family are police officers.


Now watch that video again, this time imagine that man had access to guns like the American's do...

 

[88chaz88]

Do I want armed police bullying their way through like in the US or any other third world nation?

Nope.

Keep our forces unarmed. Obviously exepting the specially trained squads.

The police here in NYC are actually quite polite most of the time. There are a few bad eggs as will happen in a police force of 50000 officers, but in general no complaints.

Well since you want to use the NYPD as an example then here's a scene where a number of police were "needed" to arrest a cyclist who was merely cycling up the sidewalk for a couple of seconds to his mate's house.

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

But yes, as you said, every police force has bad eggs. I still feel the need for every cop to be armed as excessive though. I don't believe that more guns = less problems.

I'm not sure what I saw there but no one was shot and all the cops had guns. I cycle in NYC and only made the mistake of riding my bike on the sidewalk once, I'll tell you that.

But why were their guns needed? The example I gave is about total overkill. You didn't need more than one or two officers on the scene and neither of them needed to be armed.

But what if it turned out to be uglier? What if one of the guys on the street pulled out an AK? Then what? Wait for the real police to arrive?

There was a time when US police carried only handguns and were not legally allowed to carry rifles. Then these two men happened:

[link]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaUWXlAXhps&feature=related[/link]

Well then we'll create laws to cater to the exceptions then... If just pulling out an AK in the middle of the street becomes common place then I'd say your society has bigger problems then armed police.

That problem is why we have armed police.

Well okay then. I'll repeat that I'm glad to have the bulk of our forces unarmed in a country where gun crime isn't as rife.

 

[EvilPicnic]

As far as I can tell from that video, no one was harmed and the guy was arrested. So what, in the US the guy would've just been killed? Seems a bit barbaric to me.

But in seriousness, there are big differences between the US and UK, our crime statistics are very different and our country's very different. I don't think many of the US responders understand the UK that much.

Firearm-related homicides statistics are around 50 deaths, per year. For the entire UK. We just don't have a gun culture.

It's like that film Hot Fuzz, y'know, when the cop is sent to the seemingly quiet village... except that it's actually that quiet.

And it's not as though there are no armed police. Around me in London there are quite a lot, guarding various places, and there are always some on-call for when they are needed.

But since police truncheon > knife, the police are always on top of the game here. And for the same reason we don't have the death penalty, our police generally don't carry lethal weapons. Because it's overkill.

 

[BGH122]

I think that allowing police officers to carry guns would lead to far more problems than it would solve. Cases like the one in the OP are extremely rare, most police calls are for incidents that definitely do not require to use of guns. Giving the police force guns would just lead to more people signing up because they want to use a gun. The police force is full of enough power-trippers as it is, we definitely don't need it to be full of power-trippers with guns.

This seems to be a common misconception. Only 8% of applicants are ever accepted into the police force and part of our core values are customer care and diversity. I've only met one 'power tripper' PC in my entire life and he failed his two year probation.

Sure, arming the police would lead to people signing up to get into firefights, but we already have people signing up to get into punch ups and guess what? They fail their probationary period, or their initial application.

But since police truncheon > knife, the police are always on top of the game here. And for the same reason we don't have the death penalty, our police generally don't carry lethal weapons. Because it's overkill.

Wha-?! No, knife > retractable batons (we don't use truncheons anymore, like all sincere attempts to defend ourselves, they're barbaric). Did you genuinely watch that video and think 'hey, he's got a 2 foot machete, but look at how that retractable baton strike to the approved strike area in the back of the leg slightly annoyed him!'?

 

[ICantBelieveItGoesBoom]

How would a gun have helped at all in that situation? All they could have done is murdered a mentally ill man. The only way that could have been handled better was if they had brought the shields and clubs earlier, I mean look how easily they got him once they had those.

In the poll I voted for police to only bring firearms when needed, but now I probably think it's better to have only special divisions that can use firearms.

Shoot him in the arm and/or leg.

Or do exactly what they did and surround him without harming him. Shooting in the arm or leg can still kill.