Poll: Arming the UK Police

[Cowabungaa]

That video is silly indeed, and would be solved a lot quicker if the cops had at least tazers or pistols. Something to put someone done with as little harm as possible from, for the officer, a safe distance.

But I have always held the strong belief that the people should have the ability to be as well equipped as the government they elect.

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

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.

Though you're putting the officers at a huge risk there. One wild swing of that machete, and you're done for. And in this case you have to wonder, who's health is more important? Some deranged person who hacks around with a huge knife, endangering lots of people, or the people trying to keep everyone safe from that guy.

 

[BGH122]

*snip*

Don't the police have tasers? Especially in London surely? 'Cus I would have tased the shit out of that guy.

Nope, some units are issued them as standard, but AFOs are the only units routinely issued tazers.

 

[b3nn3tt]

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.

I'm not so sure about that. I know it isn't a fantastic source, but have you ever watched any of those shows where the police are filmed dealing with various incidents? Cos there are plenty of power-trippers there, who use more aggression and force than is necessary and seem to look for any excuse to behave like dicks. Obviously, this isn't the norm within the police force, but I just think that guns would exacerbate the problem.

 

[googleback]

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.

Every police officer should have a taser gun. at most one that fires rubber bullets. guns are a backwards tool for modern law enforcement. In america not so much but as better technology is available (like a taser/knockout gun that has the range and effectiveness of a bullet firing pistol) they'll have to stick with that.

here in the UK however, taking up guns is taking a step backwards. America legalized guns for freedom and the constitutional rights, and they suffer for it because criminals abused it and flooded the country with illegal weapons when people who were not allowed weapons for whatever reason still wanted one.

We just don't need it over here.

 

[Ketsuban]

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.

 

[Scabadus]

The video looks more like a poorly handled situation rather than a reason for police to carry guns. If the officers had had guns, what would the result have been? The man with a machete was mentally ill, he almost certainly wouldn't have surrendered just because the officers had a firearm: he would have been shot and possibly killed.

As it was, yes everyone stood around on the street for a long time but nobody got hurt. I say it was poorly handled because the officers didn't get access to equipment capable of non-lethal incapacitation for a relativly long time.

 

[BGH122]

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'll try to find it for you. It might have been violent crime overall, but the article was written by a US lawyer (iirc) about the legalisation of firearms and he was talking about the inefficacy of gun criminalisation to prevent shootings.

I'm not so sure about that. I know it isn't a fantastic source, but have you ever watched any of those shows where the police are filmed dealing with various incidents? Cos there are plenty of power-trippers there, who use more aggression and force than is necessary and seem to look for any excuse to behave like dicks. Obviously, this isn't the norm within the police force, but I just think that guns would exacerbate the problem.

Yeah, definitely not a great source. Do they even make those for the UK? Aren't the Cops style shows just US cops? The only UK cops shows I've seen are traffic offences.

The video looks more like a poorly handled situation rather than a reason for police to carry guns. If the officers had had guns, what would the result have been? The man with a machete was mentally ill, he almost certainly wouldn't have surrendered just because the officers had a firearm: he would have been shot and possibly killed.

As it was, yes everyone stood around on the street for a long time but nobody got hurt. I say it was poorly handled because the officers didn't get access to equipment capable of non-lethal incapacitation for a relativly long time.

But, again, hindsight is 20/20. I refer you to my post on the previous page that pointed out that officers are killed or seriously injured (and as recently as a few weeks ago) in the exact same situation.

Are we supposed to die for the public in order to allow a mentally ill person who's murdered a police officer to live? In what way is that even remotely fair? Would you respect the lives of cop killers more than the police? As I've said before, I'm happy to die for the safety of this country, but don't ask me to die frivolously because you refused me the necessary equipment to save my lives and that of MOPs.

 

[erztez]

That video is silly indeed, and would be solved a lot quicker if the cops had at least pistols.

But I have always held the strong belief that the people should have the ability to be as well equipped as the government they elect.

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

Nah, M1A2s and AH-64s and their kind are pretty much worthless in urban warfare environment. Cities are where medium/long barrels and low-yield explosives SHINE.

 

[Master Kuja]

I don't see why beanbag shotguns or weapons along those lines can't be used, I'll tell you right now a swift high velocity bean bag to the bollocks will take out the biggest 300 pound weight lifting son of a *****.

Firearms are by no means a necessity and introducing them will just make criminals all the more dangerous, as they'll be infinitely more willing to arm themselves too, it may make the police more effective at responding to situations like those posted by the OP, but then you've got the problem of there being more armed criminals, so is the trade off really worth it when you've got non-lethal weapons that, as said above, will take down the biggest, 300 pound weight lifting son of a ***** and reduce them to a crying child?

Hell, beat officers in our town now are carrying tasers and I STILL think that's a better option than firearms.

If they absolutely MUST carry them, leave them to very specialist divisions with exceptional training in their usage.

 

[88chaz88]

Every police officer should have a taser gun. at most one that fires rubber bullets. guns are a backwards tool for modern law enforcement. In america not so much but as better technology is available (like a taser/knockout gun that has the range and effectiveness of a bullet firing pistol) they'll have to stick with that.

here in the UK however, taking up guns is taking a step backwards. America legalized guns for freedom and the constitutional rights, and they suffer for it because criminals abused it and flooded the country with illegal weapons when people who were not allowed weapons for whatever reason still wanted one.

We just don't need it over here.

I agree completely, though I don't consider a taser as being armed as for the most part it's non-lethal.

I'll try to find it for you. It might have been violent crime overall, but the article was written by a US lawyer (iirc) about the legalisation of firearms and he was talking about the inefficacy of gun criminalisation to prevent shootings.

Well it's good to know the source isn't biased at all... I'm guessing this lawyer was also a member of the NRA.

 

[BGH122]

Firearms are by no means a necessity and introducing them will just make criminals all the more dangerous, as they'll be infinitely more willing to arm themselves too, it may make the police more effective at responding to situations like those posted by the OP, but then you've got the problem of there being more armed criminals, so is the trade off really worth it when you've got non-lethal weapons that, as said above, will take down the biggest, 300 pound weight lifting son of a ***** and reduce them to a crying child?

I've addressed this previously in the thread, but I'll repost it here:

I don't understand this logic, could you elucidate? Why would firearms in the hands of officers entail firearms in the hands of criminals? It's a movie nonsense that minor criminals arm up to fight the police; criminals know that the murder of a police officer is one of the few offences that'll see 25-life. Minor criminals arm up to assault the public and other criminals, the police are an irrelevance. Most of the time, a gang with a gun has that gun because of threats from other gangs, not coppers.

Madmen, as pictured in the video, arm up sporadically and with little pattern. Sometimes heavily, sometimes with whatever's lying around. Since they've got no clear plan, the police's armaments shouldn't affect theirs.

Organised career criminals do arm up heavily if they're expecting police resistance, but they're already packing assault rifles so unless they're going to one up us with tomahawk missles then I don't really see what more they can do.

Well it's good to know the source isn't biased at all... I'm guessing this lawyer was also a member of the NRA.

But his statistic was from the UK's crime statistics, not his own, so his biases are irrelevant.

 

[b3nn3tt]

I'm not so sure about that. I know it isn't a fantastic source, but have you ever watched any of those shows where the police are filmed dealing with various incidents? Cos there are plenty of power-trippers there, who use more aggression and force than is necessary and seem to look for any excuse to behave like dicks. Obviously, this isn't the norm within the police force, but I just think that guns would exacerbate the problem.

Yeah, definitely not a great source. Do they even make those for the UK? Aren't the Cops style shows just US cops? The only UK cops shows I've seen are traffic offences.

Yeh, there are several over here. A lot of them are traffic ones, where the camera is set up in the police car, but even those have their fair share of power-trippers. There are others where they follow police round town centres on Friday nights, or to parties where people have complained, things like that.

Regardless of the power-trippers, I still can't see that having police carry firearms would help anything, it would just lead to an increase in gun-related deaths. The only scenarios in which I can conceive that police would need guns is if the criminal has a gun, in which case the special gun units are sent anyway.

 

[Cowabungaa]

That video is silly indeed, and would be solved a lot quicker if the cops had at least pistols.

But I have always held the strong belief that the people should have the ability to be as well equipped as the government they elect.

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

Nah, M1A2s and AH-64s and their kind are pretty much worthless in urban warfare environment. Cities are where medium/long barrels and low-yield explosives SHINE.

It's not like modern militaries aren't equiping themselves with various other tools to deal with situations like that, tools that outperform anything a civilian can get. Not to mention training.

 

[googleback]

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.

exactly why we shouldn't have guns, if you don't even understand what a taser actually does to someone how will you understand the gravitas of arming the entire country?

http://www.break.com/index/20cop.html

So you'd rather be shot dead than take that?

That's a Taser. Is that man on fire? don't throw around insults when they're all you have. it makes you look stupid.

 

[88chaz88]

But his statistic was from the UK's crime statistics, not his own, so his biases are irrelevant.

Haven't we already established that "gun crime being up by 34%" is too vague so far to be credible?

Edit: By the way I don't trust statistics at all since my accounting tutor once claimed he was employed by the government to make data turn into statistics that make things look good or bad. That 34% could be starting at a time where the population was 40% less.

 

[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.

 

[BGH122]

Yeh, there are several over here. A lot of them are traffic ones, where the camera is set up in the police car, but even those have their fair share of power-trippers. There are others where they follow police round town centres on Friday nights, or to parties where people have complained, things like that.

Regardless of the power-trippers, I still can't see that having police carry firearms would help anything, it would just lead to an increase in gun-related deaths. The only scenarios in which I can conceive that police would need guns is if the criminal has a gun, in which case the special gun units are sent anyway.

But you must accept, and be okay with saying, that you're essentially arguing that the police should continue to face better armed criminals on a daily basis with no means to retrieve the weapon from the criminal by force. You must also say that you're okay with police officers dying preventably so that their murderers can live. This just seems like a callous disregard for the people who've dedicated their lives (sometimes at the cost of their life) to keeping you safe.

A knife, regardless of size, beats a hollow metal tube any day especially when the 'approved strike zone' for that hollow metal tube is 'to the back of the leg or thigh'. Seriously, it's like the public and politicians want us to die.

 

[erztez]

That video is silly indeed, and would be solved a lot quicker if the cops had at least pistols.

But I have always held the strong belief that the people should have the ability to be as well equipped as the government they elect.

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

Nah, M1A2s and AH-64s and their kind are pretty much worthless in urban warfare environment. Cities are where medium/long barrels and low-yield explosives SHINE.

It's not like modern militaries aren't equiping themselves with various other tools to deal with situations like that, tools that outperform anything a civilian can get. Not to mention training.

Oh, but you don't count on the fact that in case of civil war, half the army will usually go with the insurrectionists
Also, if I ever feel the need to overthrow my government(doubtful, the guys here are ineffectual enough to be harmless), I'm heading straight towards the nearest army supply depot. On the other hand, our army is still using AK-47 knockoffs...so maybe we should just stick with baseball bats.

OT: Was just thinking about the cop situation here, and I think I know why I support them having guns. It's because I'm pretty sure that whatever handguns they're issued, I can get better, lowest bidder and all

 

[BGH122]

But his statistic was from the UK's crime statistics, not his own, so his biases are irrelevant.

Haven't we already established that "gun crime being up by 34%" is too vague so far to be credible?

Here we go. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2656875.stm]

There's the article. It's quite interesting, especially with regards to NYC's historically persistently higher murder rate.

 

[Daveman]

I don't think they have the right to make that decision. It's too easy to fall back on it and just shoot someone. I understand they face nutters. My friends dad once had to arrest a guy who was totally off his face on meth and he sprayed the guy several times and it did nothing and he almost got his ear bitten off. I still don't think guns are a good idea, not when we could just use tasers or something.