Poll: Arming the UK Police

[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?

 

[shadowform]

I'd be in favour of gun decriminalisation, but I can't see it happening. Why do you feel that the citizens need protection from police officers, if I may ask?

Really awkward question since you're from the UK, but if you want the honest answer there was a really big issue with how the government was running things in this country a few hundred years ago and it's really stuck in the public consciousness.

Really - comparing the gun control situation in the UK and US is a difficult thing because the two have operate on a lot of different social theories and just general environment. There's the general attitude that the populace not only has the right to be armed, but SHOULD be armed to keep the government in check. Aside from this, there's the utility of firearms for hunting (still a very popular pastime - and source of food - where i grew up, for instance), which I think would be much more common here because there's a lot more land that's still more or less wild and undeveloped.

 

[EllEzDee]

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.

There's no such place on the human body that's not considered lethal to force a piece of hot metal into. A shot into the arm or leg can easily sever an artery, leading to the person bleeding too quickly for the body to cope with.
It's a Hollywood myth that you can get shot in the arm, or even take one in the gut, and easily live to tell the tale; chances are, you're going to die.

 

[Vykrel]

that video was simply embarrassing, to be honest... they should be carrying guns, i say either option 1 or 2. i chose option 2 because its closer to what people are used to in the UK, but still gives the police a better chance against criminals.

seriously, some criminals will NOT go down from beatings, pepper spray, or tasings. and in many situations, they will have the opportunity to cause someone serious harm or even kill someone in the time it takes to finally bring them down... but if the cops have at least one firearm, that kind of outcome can be avoided rather easily. of course, it would always be a last resort.

a good example in favor of the UK police getting firearms is a situation that happened in my area in like the '90s. a big ass guy did some things that led to the cops being called. if i recall correctly, he was off his rocker from being high on cocaine or something, and the cops beat him, tasered him, and sprayed him with pepper spray, and at some point he managed to put a female officer in a headlock. she couldnt breathe, and would have been unconscious in moments, even dead if he had held her much longer, but one officer was forced to shoot him in the head after the man ignored multiple warnings. if this had happened in the UK, i think its safe to say that the female officer would have been killed.

 

[Randomologist]

I'm going to vote for a fifth option, that guns should be issued in certain areas. Rough areas of big cities or housing estates, those kind of places. Where I live, the only guns are with farmers, unlikely to be trouble, hence armed police not needed. Though we do of course have armed units available.

 

[Burs]

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?

Would be quite interesting to read How many pro-gun posters in this tread are 13 year olds -.-

 

[Daverson]

Option two. Though with some elements from option one. I've noticed a lot of police in the US tend to have shotguns in patrol vehicles. This sort of approach would probably the best, as it'd maintain the atmosphere of "I don't need to worry about you shooting me within the next 5 seconds" you currently have with the police over here, while still giving them a good degree of flexibility when it comes to dealing with situations like the OP gave us.

The majority of British people don't own guns, and don't want to own guns. We've got a good thing going on with police patrols not carrying firearms (just look at the plethora of "Police point gun at old lady" stories in the US news). The majority of those who do legally own firearms are pretty responsible, we're talking more along the lines of, owns a shotgun for hunting, or a .22 for target shooting, rather than, owns twenty AR-15s to stop the government from trying to take away his AR-15s.

Though, we can't expect criminals to just be polite, can we? Someone's already posted the story that came to mind, when armed police found a pretty nasty pile of ordinance under a schoolchild's bed. (Though, I don't think he mentioned it was a schoolchild). Pistols, and other easily concealed firearms are effectively completely illegal in the UK (outside some high ranked public servants, you won't find legally owned pistols, as they fall into section 5, which require special permission from the Home Secretary for private ownership). The shotgun looks like a Remington 1100 (basically a semi-automatic 870), which can technically be owned by anyone legally (if they have an SGC, of course!), but I doubt it was legally obtained (probably stolen from someone).

 

[Burs]

But we dont want them, it cuases more problems then good!

all that is needed Is increased restraint training (Ive learnt more doing the Friday/Saturday night shifts then I did in training) and Increased Physical training (lets get rid of the tubby bobbies)

 

[Bealzibob]

I choose option 5...

Arm them with tazers like any logical person would. It's (mostly) non-lethal and ranged thus solving every problem presented by this situation.

Would shooting him really be the ideal solution to dealing with a clearly mentally unstable person?

 

[Danny Ocean]

lol@all the Americans skewing this vote.

It worked out ok in the end. No-one needed to get shot. What's the problem?