Poll: Arming the UK Police

[Dana22]

The British Police is the only police force I am aware of that doesn't carry firearms. But now you are telling me that they arent even trained to use them ? ...

What about Irish Garda ?

 

[alrekr]

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.

You can get a shotgun or rifle license without to much trouble. However rules on keeping guns are very strict; so wandering around town with your boomstick.

Strangley enough you can own a hadngun in northern ireland (part of the UK).

The UK tends to focus on preventing blackmarket ammunition over the firearms themselves as its tends to more effective and anyhow what use is a gun without any bullets.

Many of the few cases of gun wiedling nutter in the UK usually centre around someone with a shotgun license going off the rails.

Also what use is personal gun in the majority of situations?
-someone mugs you: no time to pull a gun if they have you at gunpoint
-someone robs a bank your in: pulling a gun out would probably get you killed (also as more guns in country means better armed criminals)
-someone breaks into your house: okay so you shoot him; now you could go to jail for excessive use of force

 

[Cypher10110]

What if the state is acting in an unlawful way?
And you wish to rebel in a lawful manner?
But they arrest you unlawfully, to quell your lawful rebellion.

If you add guns into that situation it will only get worse.

If you trust your government, and stay out of their business. Then what you say is true. But if you do not trust or agree with what your government is doing, you need to have a voice. At the moment the police are silencing this voice.

Well I don't know how it is in the UK but here the state can't do unlawful things because they wouldn't have the backing of the armed forces. We have a system where soldiers have to refuse orders wich contradict current law and humanitarian rights. But that could have to do with our history so I don't know how it is in other countrys.

"Can't do unlawful things"
Because it is against the law?
The only laws that cannot be broken are the laws of nature. Every other law is a choice.

Arresting someone without charging them with an offence (and without having substantial evidence to support the arrest) is against the law. Most people, when asked by a police officer to "come with me, please" will say yes, out of respect/fear. You have every right to stay where you are unless they present either a warrant for your arrest or evidence for your arrest.

I'm guessing you were imagining a more dramatic "police state" type situation in your reply. I'm sure the armed forces work in a similar way over here to prevent such a thing.

It's just when it's happening so close to home, you can begin to feel like the people who are supposed to protect you are not working in your best interests. They're working in the best interests of their employers. Because that is what they have been trained to do.

At the end of the day a country is just a giant corporation. So big that you're born into it.

 

[Canid117]

The first poll option is good. The second is impractical because you can never really know when you are going to need a weapon. The third is your current system. How is that holding up? The fourth is what happens when a super-idealist who has never left his living room gets put in charge of real world policy.

 

[Grospoliner]

Why not arm them with tazer guns first?

 

[Wicky_42]

To all those saying that we should legalise firearms, I honestly don't see your logic. This is a mental patient with a machete, in america he would have been a mental patient armed with a gun.

Contrary to all you're stereotypes and bad jokes getting a firearm in the US isn't as easy as buying a Machete, with that you go to the freaking Superstore half a block down the road and you're golden, which leads to situations like this. In most states he probably wouldn't pass a background check and get cleared for a permit any type of gun and in others he would still have a three day waiting period to buy a rifle and even then it's a crime to carry them around in most states

Because I'm sure that that's what the various school shooters you've had to deal with went through ¬_¬

Face it, in the states this guy could have already had a gun, gone out into the streets and started shooting. Cops would have turned up, gun battles, lots of potential for death all round. Here, the worst your average muppet is going to have is a big knife, which is beaten by big bits of plastic, and no-one dies (though one plonker maces himself... >.>). Madman, arrested, peace restored, job done and done right.

When we do have shooters - take that banker last year leaning out of an upstairs window with a shotgun, or that dickhead of a taxi driver shooting up a town - the armed response deals with it, not a beat cop; gunmen pose a completely different scenario, calling for completely different skill-sets than a petty thief or car theft.

 

[Klaflefalumpf]

I doubt anybody is still reading this far into this thread for this to matter but:

As a resident of the UK who isn't from London (Contrary to popular foreign and UK Parliamentary belief we do exist.) I'd be friggin' pissed if every Bobby was armed based purely on a handful of occasions where it would have been worthwhile. That said the non-lethal solutions mentioned already in this thread would't be a bad idea to have in the Police vehicles for the rare occasions.

Armed specialists however? That's just common bloody sense.

It would be nice if we didn't have to deal with more irrelevant laws elsewhere in the country because of the circumstances in London.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

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.

Get hit by a tazor then tell me you would rather be dead please. And mean it. You know what its like being dead? Its kinda forever. You dont mean that. And if you do youre an idiot. ALso last i checked a tazor is non lethal... so there is such thing. I can totally use this fluffy duster as a weapon. Its a non lethal weapon. I can hit you with it. It might hurt if i do it with the plastic. But its not going to KILL YOU.

Guns have to be legal in america because guns were already present in the population. However in the UK mass gun ownership was never present meaning banning them was much easier. Its easier to ban something no one has than to ban something everyone has and is met with much less resistance. Its too late for America, they need guns now to balance everything out. We dont. We need better weapons and training, thats for sure, (i mean that video was pathetic), we need longer harder batons, pellet guns and tazors all to be standard issue.

 

[GaryH]

To all those saying that we should legalise firearms, I honestly don't see your logic. This is a mental patient with a machete, in america he would have been a mental patient armed with a gun.

Contrary to all you're stereotypes and bad jokes getting a firearm in the US isn't as easy as buying a Machete, with that you go to the freaking Superstore half a block down the road and you're golden, which leads to situations like this. In most states he probably wouldn't pass a background check and get cleared for a permit any type of gun and in others he would still have a three day waiting period to buy a rifle and even then it's a crime to carry them around in most states

It's not based on stereotypes and bad jokes. One of the many times that I've been to the US I decided that I wanted to see what it was like to shoot a hand gun. All I needed was an ID and some cash to have a gun in my hand (this was in Florida, by the way. I'm aware that laws differ from state to state). I didn't own the gun, but with enough insanity and a little luck I could have been loose in the street with it.

I don't buy that a 3 day waiting period is going to do anything but delay a shooting by 3 days, or that a law against carrying a rifle in public is going to deter someone who would threaten an officer with a machete.

I'm not saying that everyone in america is a gun nut and that shootings are everywhere, because that is clearly not the case. But mistakes are made with background checks and the occasional nutcase begs, borrows or steals a hand gun and kills someone. If it even happens even -once- it's one too many times.

We're not entirely safe in the UK either, as the above post pointed out, but that's why I want trained police to have more access to firearms. I don't see how arming the public will do anything more than increase the amount of gun crime here.

 

[bloob]

You guys seriously don't have long distance tazer guns in the UK? It took what, 20 minutes to even get riot shields in play? No tear gas? I saw no bean bag shotguns.

Those are all perfectly acceptable non-lethal weapons that ALL officers should have access to. This would have ended with 2 officers rather than over 30 if you had ANY of this devices. Devices most US CITIZENS can purchase without a license.

I'm all for the banning of firearms. Assault rifles and handguns in civilian hands is just foolish. But for Police not to have effective non-lethal means of disabling a clearly insane man is a bit ridiculous.


Edit: How in the hell would you guys manage something like this :
http://youtu.be/NT_T9zytit0

As firearms aren't as readily available in the UK something like that is less likely to happen and if it does they wouldn't have fully automatic weapons. It is for situations like that the SO19 would be deployed

 

[yukshee]

What if we legalised guns in the UK but not bullets?

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

That's ridiculous. It shouldn't take 30 officers and 20 minutes to restrain one psycho. Either tazer his ass or put a bullet in him. He could have seriously injured an officer or a civilian if left to his own devices.

 

[alrekr]

, shot in the leg or hit with a LTL round like a beanbag.

Well truth is leg shots can in a large number of cases be fatal; also police forces are trained to shoot for the chest (except if the perp is thought to have a bomb vest in whic case its headshots) as its the largest area with greatest chance of hit (and hitting some random in the background).

Most of your limbs have arteries which if severed will release huge amounts of blood at high pressure; thus being a pain to prevent blood loss from.

Bottom line: guns rarely make a situation any safer

 

[TheEvilCheese]

Standard Police SHOULD be able to carry Tazers in my opinion, but not all officers should have guns.

I think that some 'regular' police should be given arms training, but arming an entire police force does not seem to be the best idea here.

 

[Knusper]

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.

Why do you feel the need to carry a knife, (no matter how small since a 1 inch blade can pierce the heart) Carrying for protection is what causes the majority of knifings in the country anyway,

I'm sorry I didn't make that clear. I meant it as a hypothetical scenario to show that I can be arrested for having an offensive weapon but the police have several - I do actually agree with knife laws (except the one which doesn't allow me to get a Balisong).

 

[Lethos]

I always think it's interesting to observe that we, in the UK think the Americans are crazy for having guns legal, whilst the Americans think we are crazy for having guns illegal. It just demonstrates how much the culture of the country you are born in can effect you.

Anyway, to answer the question. Naw, I live in London and I'm happy with the police and civilians being unarmed. It seems more civil.

 

[SilentCom]

I would have to vote for option one. A police force that isn't armed cannot keep the peace. If they have the training and discipline, then they would not abuse their power. Although, I would have to say that a healthy alternative to firearms would be tasers or some other non-lethal weapon. Batons and pepperspray only work in close proximity, they need something with range.

 

[Jegsimmons]

well yeah arm the guys. if i knew OUR cops were un armed, id have a hay-day, also, do those guys NOT have pepper spray or tasers?!

yeah, this is another reason why the public should be armed, if American cops take on average 4 and a half minutes to arrive at a dire emergency, what the hell would unarmed cops do? how long would it take for them to go back to the station to be rearmed? but i digress.
even though from what i understand armed and dangerous suspects are fairly rare in the UK because of it being an island and all, but this shows they wouldn't be fully prepared if he was armed with smuggled firearms.

 

[Lionsfan]

Because I'm sure that that's what the various school shooters you've had to deal with went through ¬_¬

Face it, in the states this guy could have already had a gun, gone out into the streets and started shooting. Cops would have turned up, gun battles, lots of potential for death all round. Here, the worst your average muppet is going to have is a big knife, which is beaten by big bits of plastic, and no-one dies (though one plonker maces himself... >.>). Madman, arrested, peace restored, job done and done right.

When we do have shooters - take that banker last year leaning out of an upstairs window with a shotgun, or that dickhead of a taxi driver shooting up a town - the armed response deals with it, not a beat cop; gunmen pose a completely different scenario, calling for completely different skill-sets than a petty thief or car theft.

In Columbine the guns were acquired via illegal sources; as it's been said in this thread before if someone really wants something 9 times out of 10 they're going to get it. Virginia Tech was a failure by the gun store owner. And those are brought up all the time as failures in the system, but what about the millions of people who buy guns and don't go shooting up schools? What about all the crimes stopped by people who are licensed to concealed carry? It's just like Fox News, because they make the most shockwaves they get the most press. You don't hear about the normal stories where a guy was turned down to purchase a gun and nothing came of it. Further, you cant just say this guy would have already had a gun here, just like I can't really say he never would have gotten a gun. We just don't know how it would have turned out, but it's more likely he wouldn't have gotten a gun.

It's not based on stereotypes and bad jokes. One of the many times that I've been to the US I decided that I wanted to see what it was like to shoot a hand gun. All I needed was an ID and some cash to have a gun in my hand (this was in Florida, by the way. I'm aware that laws differ from state to state). I didn't own the gun, but with enough insanity and a little luck I could have been loose in the street with it.

Yes, true. There really isn't any argument for that, someone probably could do that, in that case there's not much you can do unless someone working at the Range shoots you before you make it out the door.

I don't buy that a 3 day waiting period is going to do anything but delay a shooting by 3 days, or that a law against carrying a rifle in public is going to deter someone who would threaten an officer with a machete.

It's more based on the fact that most crimes are in the heat of the moment by unstable individuals than anything else. You can always buy an axe/machete/insert-any-yard-tool at the store and go off, but because buying a gun is more difficult most people don't bother.

I'm not saying that everyone in america is a gun nut and that shootings are everywhere, because that is clearly not the case. But mistakes are made with background checks and the occasional nutcase begs, borrows or steals a hand gun and kills someone. If it even happens even -once- it's one too many times.

That's the great debate we have over here. I do think stricter enforcement of the laws needs to be thought about. The fact is that some Pawnstores and whatnot very rarely do the background check and are always swayed by greenbacks, that needs to stop for sure.

We're not entirely safe in the UK either, as the above post pointed out, but that's why I want trained police to have more access to firearms. I don't see how arming the public will do anything more than increase the amount of gun crime here.

I'm not going to argue arming the public over there, that's something for resident's of the UK to decide, not some guy who tells everyone he's a Canadian when going abroad to avoid the hate that's due from the previous administration. I think that Police need a step up above the average criminal, whether it's rubber bullets or bean bag guns or plain old guns.

 

[Bigsmith]

I've always said that I think that the the police should be armed, with standard side arms but I also think that guns shouldn't be made legal in this country so the police can have the upper hand.

Although, arming the police with fire arms could provoke an increase in armed gun crimes in this country which would increase the illegal smuggling of fire arms into the country so making them legal would mean that the government would be able to control who had a gun and would be able profit from the possible increase in the amount of people purchasing guns.