Poll: Arming the UK Police
- Thread starter BGH122
- Start date
To be honest, I'm of the belief that this video is the exceptions to what is otherwise a flawless rule. When do you hear of incidents like this happening on a regular basis?
The thing you have to remember is that guns and practically any other weapons are extremely restricted within the entirety of Great Britain (and possibly Northern Ireland, I'm not sure on that account) and as a result the police rarely NEED to use these weapons.
Look at the crime rates. Is the UK a lawless wasteland? No. It's got a fairly low crime rate. It'd be a foolish notion to introduce firearms now. It would surely just increase the crime rate, or at least the violence.
That's my opinion anyway.
The thing you have to remember is that guns and practically any other weapons are extremely restricted within the entirety of Great Britain (and possibly Northern Ireland, I'm not sure on that account) and as a result the police rarely NEED to use these weapons.
Look at the crime rates. Is the UK a lawless wasteland? No. It's got a fairly low crime rate. It'd be a foolish notion to introduce firearms now. It would surely just increase the crime rate, or at least the violence.
That's my opinion anyway.
While I have respect for the UK police (my uncle is an officer) but I must say that video is rather embarrassing that it took thirty and that long to take him down (yeah rushing him with the wheelie bin is super effective! Why not throw the bin at him to distract him?)
As for the poll I voted option 2 as the ideal (I'm against option one since there would be offices who abuse their power for owning a gun and option three is least effective should a problem arise for needing some fire powers).
As for the poll I voted option 2 as the ideal (I'm against option one since there would be offices who abuse their power for owning a gun and option three is least effective should a problem arise for needing some fire powers).
I picked the 2nd option however I think that if they do need a gun in situations where violence is likely it should either be the rubber bullets sort or heavily regulated normal guns that is locked up in a safe and has to be approved by someone before they can even get into the safe.
I do not want trigger happy police shooting me for having the audacity to be black and wear a hood in cold weather, I mean police have guns and you get situations when they mistake someone's intent and there are more accidental deaths of civilians.
I do not want trigger happy police shooting me for having the audacity to be black and wear a hood in cold weather, I mean police have guns and you get situations when they mistake someone's intent and there are more accidental deaths of civilians.
Non-lethal weapons would have been the best solution.
It's rather silly to jump to "HE MUST BE SHOT DEAD" without even considering the other options.
It's rather silly to jump to "HE MUST BE SHOT DEAD" without even considering the other options.
I like how you give an extreme example of a serious crime as a pre-text to sway the debate in your favour.
http://letyoutellit.com/2010/07/03/16-year-old-boy-shots-and-kills-2-police-officers-with-a-ak-47/
Legalise guns for all as suggested in this thread and we get examples of the above video.
Also arming police with guns can equal http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chibrknews-9yearold-boy-shot-on-southwest-side-20110520,0,7347575.story
Shock stories don't justify debates either way, more fact's and statistics are needed here on all sides, rather than just assumptions based on bias opinion's (Seriously The amount of North american's in here, commenting on the need for the police to have guns without knowing much, if anything about the way the UK is, is laughable)
Still, No to officers carrying guns, specially trained officers are on standby and are able to respond to incidents much much quicker than regular officers anyway, if a regular officer meets a perp with a gun by chance, that's chance alone, and he must call back-up for back off. When responding to a call about an incident involving firearms, special police will be there double quick.
And although I can't be bothered to re-search statistics, I'd be willing to venture more criminals would actively seek to carry fire-arms if they knew they would be confronted with them.
http://letyoutellit.com/2010/07/03/16-year-old-boy-shots-and-kills-2-police-officers-with-a-ak-47/
Legalise guns for all as suggested in this thread and we get examples of the above video.
Also arming police with guns can equal http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chibrknews-9yearold-boy-shot-on-southwest-side-20110520,0,7347575.story
Shock stories don't justify debates either way, more fact's and statistics are needed here on all sides, rather than just assumptions based on bias opinion's (Seriously The amount of North american's in here, commenting on the need for the police to have guns without knowing much, if anything about the way the UK is, is laughable)
Still, No to officers carrying guns, specially trained officers are on standby and are able to respond to incidents much much quicker than regular officers anyway, if a regular officer meets a perp with a gun by chance, that's chance alone, and he must call back-up for back off. When responding to a call about an incident involving firearms, special police will be there double quick.
And although I can't be bothered to re-search statistics, I'd be willing to venture more criminals would actively seek to carry fire-arms if they knew they would be confronted with them.
Honestly, the OP shows a clear lack of respect or care for the mentally ill. That man does not deserve to be shot dead in the slightest, and I find the idea that killing him is better because it would reduce the strain police resources disgusting.
The British police should never, ever be routinely armed with guns.
The sight of American policemen pulling their guns out at every minor offender makes me sick.
If you are going to pull a gun on someone, it must only be because you are going to shoot them. A police force which needs to bully minor offenders into doing anything in this way is not one I want in my country.
The police have already lost a lot of respect amongst the younger generation in Britain. With youtube and other communication, people can see the dozens of examples of policemen hiding their IDs then wading, baton first, into groups of largely peaceful protesters which has previously gone unnoticed. I shudder to think what would have happened at some of our relatively peacefl protests if the police had been armed with guns. They couldn't even keep their more unstable members from attacking (and murdering) bystanders and pulling cripples from their wheelchairs.
If the police can show themselves as keepers of the peace and protectors of the public, rather than the fist of the government as they are at the moment, and if we see ANY reason for actually arming the police rather than the once or twice per year shooting (that armed police could not have stopped anyway), I might be more open to considering the possibility.
The sight of American policemen pulling their guns out at every minor offender makes me sick.
If you are going to pull a gun on someone, it must only be because you are going to shoot them. A police force which needs to bully minor offenders into doing anything in this way is not one I want in my country.
The police have already lost a lot of respect amongst the younger generation in Britain. With youtube and other communication, people can see the dozens of examples of policemen hiding their IDs then wading, baton first, into groups of largely peaceful protesters which has previously gone unnoticed. I shudder to think what would have happened at some of our relatively peacefl protests if the police had been armed with guns. They couldn't even keep their more unstable members from attacking (and murdering) bystanders and pulling cripples from their wheelchairs.
If the police can show themselves as keepers of the peace and protectors of the public, rather than the fist of the government as they are at the moment, and if we see ANY reason for actually arming the police rather than the once or twice per year shooting (that armed police could not have stopped anyway), I might be more open to considering the possibility.
No, not at all. Citizens carrying and owning firearms leads to armed robberies, murders, crimes of passion or opportunity and increased paranoia. School shootings happen because someone with issues has access to lethal weapons. Without the weapons available, any issues don't result in innocent people dying.Westerschwelle said:
Police carrying guns would also result in more shootings, but not of the massacre variety. More the "shoot first, ask questions later" sort. Criminal looks like he's making a move, shoot him. Without the ability or option to take a life, we don't have criminals, real or suspected getting shot very often. Also, police need to have some limits on their powers, they shouldn't have the right to take a life. Armed response units are only deployed for serious situations on higher authority, that's how it should be...officers then are the tool, not the decision makers. That's thankfully not just my opinion but the way the system works in the UK, and I'm grateful for it. I would hate living in a country where everyone has guns.
I voted for option 3.
The old American tactic of "shoot the bad guys dead" is neither civilised or effective. Such extreme measures should only be employed when absolutely necessarily. Even in the case of Osama, I thought it was uncalled for.
But my main reason is that I am a firm believer in bringing as few guns as possible into the country. I don't think giving 30,000+ people firearms is going to help anything, especially seeing as we already have regular instances of unlawful killings by police officers in this country.
In my opinion, the police officers in the video did a fairly good job, though it's not an approach I particularly advocate. The key is patience and calmness. 5 minutes isn't a very long time, yet the officers were able to bring a clearly aggravated and dangerous man to safety in that time.
The old American tactic of "shoot the bad guys dead" is neither civilised or effective. Such extreme measures should only be employed when absolutely necessarily. Even in the case of Osama, I thought it was uncalled for.
But my main reason is that I am a firm believer in bringing as few guns as possible into the country. I don't think giving 30,000+ people firearms is going to help anything, especially seeing as we already have regular instances of unlawful killings by police officers in this country.
In my opinion, the police officers in the video did a fairly good job, though it's not an approach I particularly advocate. The key is patience and calmness. 5 minutes isn't a very long time, yet the officers were able to bring a clearly aggravated and dangerous man to safety in that time.
Well, the Icelandic police is trained to deal with these kind of situations through years of training (unarmed).
While it's not the same for British officers.
Anywho, THIS VIDEO IS HILLARIOUS!
While it's not the same for British officers.
Anywho, THIS VIDEO IS HILLARIOUS!
Legalize firearms brits! It'll be the first step to reclaim your government and keep the IRA out!
i'm all for it, with training. a lot of chavs don't give two shits about the police because they know there's very little they can actually do. if they chavs start getting violent and the police can pull out a gun, the chavs would think twice before starting problems
I remember a time when they used to walk up and down the high street in Liverpool with machine guns and thinking to myself: Does increase or decrease the chance of someone being hurt?
Obviously, at least to me, the answer is that it creates more danger.
Obviously, at least to me, the answer is that it creates more danger.