Poll: Arming the UK Police

[mb16]

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

actually it depends on what task they are being used for. Other groups use G36c and others HK417.

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.

In the uk you can have a gun. For instant i have:
a over-under shotgun
a semi-auto shotgun (in real tree cammo)
a .22 air rifle
Also in the next few years i hope to get my Fire Arm Certificate(FAC) so then i can get a pull-back rifle (basically bolt action) Once i have that i may buy things like this

 

[EvilPicnic]

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!'?

I meant a telescoping baton, and it certainly does > a small concealed knife like most muggers use.

This madman with a machete thing is obviously an exceptional circumstance that was handled badly at the time. It is not cause to give your average bobby a gun for his patrol past the school-grounds and around the church.

 

[LandoCristo]

While I think that cops should be able to defend themselves in a pinch, if British cops haven't needed guns before, I'm not sure they should be armed at all times.

 

[BGH122]

I would prefer such a person be eliminated from society permanently, or studied from within a glass tube.

I disagree with execution, I only ask that the police be granted the ability to defend themselves and the public.

I meant a telescoping baton, and it certainly does > a small concealed knife like most muggers use.

This madman with a machete thing is obviously an exceptional circumstance that was handled badly at the time. It is not cause to give your average bobby a gun for his patrol past the school-grounds and around the church.

Those things the officers in the video are brandishing (and struck the armed suspect with) are telescopic batons. They're thin metal or carbon derivative tubes; they do very little if one follows the correct procedure to 'strike to the back of the leg or thigh'. A knife, with no such striking restriction, is far more effective.

 

[b3nn3tt]

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.

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.

That being said, I do agree that things have become too bureaucratic. I think it's ridiculous that police officers can lose there jobs and even face prison for deviating from the 'approved strike zone' when attempting to take down someone who could do them some serious harm. But I don't think that guns are the answer to this.

 

[Master Kuja]

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.

My belief that this would be the case would more or less be psychological, sure, firearms in the hands of the police would deter lesser criminals, but those who are intent on commiting crime? You damn well better believe that they'll still go for it and I firmly believe that if they're set on doing it, they can and will arm up in response to the police getting weapons in their hands.

This wouldn't even be precluded to organised criminals, the average criminal that finds themselves determined to rob a store, or some equivalent action, for whatever needs must, would most likely arm up in order to better defend themselves against the police that will inevitable come a-knockin'.

My belief may be wrong, but I still stand by the fact that a criminal will most likely think "If the police have guns, and are willing to use them on ME, why shouldn't I have one to defend myself from them?"

It's all down to basic human psychology, if a person perceives an increased sense of threat, then they'll equip themselves accordingly.

 

[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?

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.

Well I'd rather be mugged than murdered. Crime in the UK is a little higher that the US, but assaults and especially murders are down. Oh and rape too.

Oh but we'll blame this on "particular cultural factors" shall we?

Edit: This made me lol.

"When guns were available in England they were seldom used in crime. A government study for 1890-1892 found an average of one handgun homicide a year in a population of 30 million."

Really? I guess this can't be down to much less disposable income, less firearms circulating around the world, or them being much less effective back then. Not to mention the less crime that got reported back then.

 

[joemegson94]

As regular UK police don't carry guns, you get fewer incidents like shooting dead a man who has a model swords, the kind of crap you hear about i the US.

 

[BGH122]

My belief that this would be the case would more or less be psychological, sure, firearms in the hands of the police would deter lesser criminals, but those who are intent on commiting crime? You damn well better believe that they'll still go for it and I firmly believe that if they're set on doing it, they can and will arm up in response to the police getting weapons in their hands.

This wouldn't even be precluded to organised criminals, the average criminal that finds themselves determined to rob a store, or some equivalent action, for whatever needs must, would most likely arm up in order to better defend themselves against the police that will inevitable come a-knockin'.

But this already happens. If someone is robbing a store because they're a penniless drug addict (as they usually are) then they can't afford those highly marked up black market gun prices. If they're a professional blag then they're already using a firearm (typically a legally purchased shotgun using illegal ammo registered to someone else with the end sawn off). This belief that granting the police guns causes criminals to buy guns is fallacious, not least because criminals aren't setting out to fight the police (as laid out already).

Well I'd rather be mugged than murdered. Crime in the UK is a little higher that the US, but assaults and especially murders are down. Oh and rape too.

Oh but we'll blame this on "particular cultural factors" shall we?

Fine, if she's wrong then refute her. Or I guess you could just opt for pretending that socioeconomic factors (which her historical report of NYC's murder rate vs London proves to be a cause) don't exist and mocking her.

 

[googleback]

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.

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.

EDIT: THAT'S FROM 2003!?

 

[Nerfherder17]

It would be ideal to arm the police. Except too many of them are just thugs. The idea of being protected is ok, but I don't wanna be threatened by these apes for walking around with friends after a certain time, especially since we've never caused anyone any harm. I wouldn't want anyone to have that much power. If police need weapons, then have a dispatchable armed response force, but lesser than a SWAT team, which would be useful for smaller incedents but save recources.

 

[88chaz88]

As regular UK police don't carry guns, you get fewer incidents like shooting dead a man who has a model swords, the kind of crap you hear about i the US.

I don't know about being shot "dead". Just being shot at all would put a pisser on my day.

 

[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.