Poll: Arming the UK Police

[orangeban]

Of course police in Britain need firearms. The legal system is tough in this country, but in a really relaxed way. The criminals incarcerated often end up having better lives than most people living in the middle class. It's a joke that inmates can get leather couches, plasma screen TV's and all the food they can eat (all at the expense of the tax payer I might add.)

Firearms won't solve our hideous legal system, but it will take us one step forward. For example, a Policeman is not allowed to make contact with a suspect in an aggressive way. Now, the suspect can lie, and say it was aggressive for example. In which case the officer would be stripped of his title, and fired. And the suspect is eligible to apply for compensation, and a formal apology, and an inquiry into the state of the police attitude. Absolute joke.

Police should be tough to enforce the law in a country like this. Because it's out of control.

No way, no how is the life for prisoners better than most middle-class peoples life.
People don't seem to get that prison's main punishment isn't not having TV or radio or books, it is the restrictions on liberty that is the real punishment. Follow the law and you have freedom, otherwise...

Also, do you know that we have a reason for not treating the prisoners like shit? If you make prison all about punishment (give prisoners little nice things, or none at all) then they are much more likely to reoffend, which is why we focus on rehabilitation instead. So your tax-payers money is actually going to prisoners, so that they stop commiting crime.

Secondly, suspects are innocent until proven guilty. That rule is golden and must always be enforced. No one has the right to be abused in anyway if they're perfectly law-abiding citizens. And even if someone does claim they were touched aggressively, they spend a long time making sure this was true (why would anyone not claim they were aggressively touched if they would instantly get let off?)

Also, you are living in some kind of parallel earth Britain my friend if you think (I presume you mean) crime is out of control. It really isn't, our crime rates are low, low enough that my consituencies party was focusing on "youth deliquents" and Anti-Social Behaviour Orders as part of it's law and order schtick. If they can focus on that, then other crime isn't too much of a problem.

But it's been confirmed that the reason British prisons are so crowded is because criminals WANT to go back to prison! It's an easier life in there! It's easier than getting a real job and living in the real world.

Tbh, it's a sad country when prisoners prefer prison to the outside.

Again I am forced to disagree. Firstly http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/06/uk_prisons_in_the_uk/html/5.stm is a very interesting link (from the BBC no less) that, while not mentioning causes of reoffence does mention worryingly high levels of suicide and self-harm in prison. If prison is so great why would this be the case?

And now I want to analyse your view more closely. The "prisoners need harsh punishment, rather than rehabilitation" viewpoint often accompanies a view that crime is the fault of the individual, and therefore the individual should be punished. The rehabilitation argument is often accompanied by the idea that crime is (at least partly) the fault of society. The figures in that bbc link show that a much higher percentage of prisoners ran away from their parents, were excluded from school and have no qualifications. This shows that criminals often turn to crime since they have been dealt a shit card in life, and with rehabilitation they get the opportunity to be good citizens and live proper, legal lives.

"But," you may say, "Your generalization of me into the 'crime is the fault of the individual alone' group is unfair. I happen to have the few that crime is societies failure but that prisoners get it too easy anyway."

Well, even if you do say that, this idea still aplies. With the idea that criminals are not fundamentally bad people comes the idea that by punishing them severely, and thus breeding hatred of the system and the state in particular can warp someone into a "bad person" or at least someone who radically disagrees with society. But by being relatively easy on them (remember, they still lose liberty which is perhaps the greatest thing you can take from a person other than life) and showing them how to be functioning citizens we create a safer world with more productive, happy people, which is what we all want.

 

[rossatdi]

Got the knife stats also per capita? Or just general violent crime?

No but I'm sure the glory of the internet can help you out. Its higher than some and lower than others, what it doesn't have is maniacs running around and cutting up police officers despite a few tragic cases.

Just seems strange that the source you pulled for gun crime wouldn't have other violent crimes?

I presume wikipedia does. The fact is that most violent crime is not preventable by any level of armament. If someone decides to take a butcher knife, kick in someone else's door and stab them to death, police armed with mecha suits aren't going to be able to do anything. Similarly, if someone thinks carrying a knife with them is a great idea, gets in to a heated debate at the pub and knifes someone, superman is unlikely to be able to intervene in time.

Now if the country was experiencing massed gangs of knife and gun wielding nutters driving police off the street and slaughtering the gentle folk of Blighty I'd be all for arming with police with fully automatic, cyanide tipped, explosive round firing light machine guns.

If the police can have guns then so should citizens. Gun control is such a stupid concept. Your taking guns away from people that want to LEGALLY obtain one. Criminals don't get guns legally their freaking criminals. Either politicans are all idiots or they just like knowing pissed off citizens that will probably crack one day cant fight back as well as they can. Didn't crime in the UK go up like 40% after the gun ban? Makes no sense whatsoever. That's politicans for you though. Logic and common sense are two things you can't have to be a politician for some reason. Glad I live in America.

Er, no I don't think crime went up 40% in the UK after the gun ban. Like to see where you heard that mumbo-jumbo from! Sourced via wiki, via various government stat bureaus (for 2000):

1. Intentional homicides per 100,000 inhabitants:
UK 1.7 | US 5.5

USA! USA! USA!

2. Percentage of homicides carried out with a firearm:
UK 8% | US 46%

USA! USA! USA!

3. By deduction: Intentional homicides by firearm per 100,000 inhabitants:
UK 0.14 | US 2.5

USA! USA! USA!

===

Now I really like America and Americans, in fact I've lived there and I married one, but the sheer comedy value of letting a domestic population own handguns and automatic weaponry is great. Rifles and shotguns fine, I guess, hunting and home protection (and ticks that anachronistic 'militia' bit in the constitution).

The US is probably in too deep for a 'ban' but to preach to other countries without a major problem? That's just silly. Loads of crimes are committed with guns and many are stopped by it. But you know what? Legally owned guns become illegally owned guns quite easily. If I legally own a couple of guns and someone burgles my house and steals a gun, that's a quick route to a vast stockpile of illegal firearms. That's a lot easier than smuggling them onto an island nation too.

 

[Baneat]

Got the knife stats also per capita? Or just general violent crime?

No but I'm sure the glory of the internet can help you out. Its higher than some and lower than others, what it doesn't have is maniacs running around and cutting up police officers despite a few tragic cases.

Just seems strange that the source you pulled for gun crime wouldn't have other violent crimes?

I presume wikipedia does. The fact is that most violent crime is not preventable by any level of armament. If someone decides to take a butcher knife, kick in someone else's door and stab them to death, police armed with mecha suits aren't going to be able to do anything. Similarly, if someone thinks carrying a knife with them is a great idea, gets in to a heated debate at the pub and knifes someone, superman is unlikely to be able to intervene in time.

Now if the country was experiencing massed gangs of knife and gun wielding nutters driving police off the street and slaughtering the gentle folk of Blighty I'd be all for arming with police with fully automatic, cyanide tipped, explosive round firing light machine guns.

As much as I hate pragmatic arguments as a deontologist, you can't use two entirely different sources to draw a conclusion like that, so, gun crime per capita when forced to resort to an alternative in the comparison is useless without that alternative. Maybe 200,000 more victims died from guns after it was legalised, useless unless a good number less were being killed by knives before, if you get me.

 

[Confused_Dude]

We must note that the vast majority of people voting here are not from the UK. There is no such culture where everyone has the right to bear arms, and this is there is such low gun crime, and it is rare for police to carry.

Guns + More Guns = Bigger problem.

 

[Shoqiyqa]

How about this: allow your police to carry weapons in their cars; that way they wouldn't have to wait a half hour or more if they need to use them. The guns could be hidden and locked up.

Works fine until someone steals the car.

 

[rossatdi]

Got the knife stats also per capita? Or just general violent crime?

No but I'm sure the glory of the internet can help you out. Its higher than some and lower than others, what it doesn't have is maniacs running around and cutting up police officers despite a few tragic cases.

Just seems strange that the source you pulled for gun crime wouldn't have other violent crimes?

I presume wikipedia does. The fact is that most violent crime is not preventable by any level of armament. If someone decides to take a butcher knife, kick in someone else's door and stab them to death, police armed with mecha suits aren't going to be able to do anything. Similarly, if someone thinks carrying a knife with them is a great idea, gets in to a heated debate at the pub and knifes someone, superman is unlikely to be able to intervene in time.

Now if the country was experiencing massed gangs of knife and gun wielding nutters driving police off the street and slaughtering the gentle folk of Blighty I'd be all for arming with police with fully automatic, cyanide tipped, explosive round firing light machine guns.

As much as I hate pragmatic arguments as a deontologist, you can't use two entirely different sources to draw a conclusion like that, so, gun crime per capita when forced to resort to an alternative in the comparison is useless without that alternative. Maybe 200,000 more victims died from guns after it was legalised, useless unless a good number less were being killed by knives before, if you get me.

I'm afraid I don't. The figures independent of dodgy calculation speak for themsevles. American kill each other way more often, and generally speaking they use guns. The raw figure of death per head of capita is calculable even if it doesn't prove a causality. But the murder rate in the US is staggering compared to the UK and Western Europe. It could all be cultural. Guns could play a factor. Perhaps the higher level of religiosity plays a factor? Who knows, you can definitely corralate them.

 

[Shoqiyqa]

A police officer with a handgun can only shoot a suspect up to 100 meters away reliably.

Our priorities can't be the same here.

Wait, really, "internal chnoval" for the captcha? Chernobyl was scary enough thousands of miles away. Why would I want to internalise it?

Anyway, yes, 100 metres with a handgun?

Definitions of Effective Range for Non-Sniper Rifles [http://gunwiki.net/Gunwiki/FactorsOfEffectiveRange]

Absolute maximum effective range: This the "this round is not considered lethal after crossing this threshold" distance. Neither of the other two common "maximum range" values will be greater than this. Purportedly, NATO defines this as the point at which the projectile's kinetic energy dips below 85 joules (62.7 foot-pounds). This is typically claimed when recounting that the P90's effective range is 400 meters on unarmored targets, as classified by NATO. It's worth noting that while the P90 looks neater than the civilian PS90, the extra barrel length increases the muzzle velocity and thus the civilian model actually has a longer absolute max effective range.
Maximum effective range on a point target: This is the maximum range at which an average shooter can hit a human-sized target 50% of the time. "Point target" is basically a euphemism for hitting a human torso sized area in this context. If this range were greater than the absolute maximum, the absolute maximum would be quoted (a non-lethal hit may be accurate, but it's not effective).
Maximum effective range on an area target: This is the maximum range at which an average shooter can hit a vehicle-sized target 50% of the time. In other words, this is the maximum distance at which it would make sense to open fire on a group or vehicle, etc. If this range were greater than the absolute maximum, the absolute maximum would be quoted (a non-lethal hit may be accurate, but it's not effective).

Sniper rifle effective range: Sniper rifles are judged by entirely different criteria. A sniper rifle's effective range is judged based upon the range at which one shot, carefully fired by an expert marksman, is guaranteed to strike the target. Sniper weapons tend not to list point or area effective ranges, as sniper rifle effectiveness is not calculated with 50/50 hit ratios.

Ranges for Specific Non-Sniper Weapons

Weapon Caliber Source Maximum range Max Effective, Point Max Effective, Area

M9 Pistol 9mm Purportedly US military rating 1800m 50m ?
AK-47 7.62x39mm Rough Internet consensus ? ~400m ?
AK-74 5.45x39mm Friend's recollection of Russian military ranges ? ? 800m
M-14 7.62x51mm FAS ??? 460m ???
M-16A2 20" 5.56mm US Army 3600m 550m 800m
M2 ("Ma Deuce") 50 BMG US Army 6764m 1500m 1830m
M-4 14.5" 5.56mm US Army 3600m 500m 600m
M-9 (Beretta design) 9mm US Army 1800m 50m ???

According to that, an average shooter can hit a human-sized target 50% of the time at 50m with a 9mm pistol. Standing calmly at the range, taking my time, I used to be able to put in saucer-sized (between palm-sized and side-plate-sized) groups at 25m with a 9mm, but I really doubt that means I'd get 100% accuracy at 50m on a target twice that size in a hurry, outdoors, in a situation that actually warranted shooting someone. If you don't hit the target, where does the bullet go? Our priorities can't be the same here.

 

[Baneat]

A police officer with a handgun can only shoot a suspect up to 100 meters away reliably.

Our priorities can't be the same here.

Wait, really, "internal chnoval" for the captcha? Chernobyl was scary enough thousands of miles away. Why would I want to internalise it?

Anyway, yes, 100 metres with a handgun?

Definitions of Effective Range for Non-Sniper Rifles [http://gunwiki.net/Gunwiki/FactorsOfEffectiveRange]

Absolute maximum effective range: This the "this round is not considered lethal after crossing this threshold" distance. Neither of the other two common "maximum range" values will be greater than this. Purportedly, NATO defines this as the point at which the projectile's kinetic energy dips below 85 joules (62.7 foot-pounds). This is typically claimed when recounting that the P90's effective range is 400 meters on unarmored targets, as classified by NATO. It's worth noting that while the P90 looks neater than the civilian PS90, the extra barrel length increases the muzzle velocity and thus the civilian model actually has a longer absolute max effective range.
Maximum effective range on a point target: This is the maximum range at which an average shooter can hit a human-sized target 50% of the time. "Point target" is basically a euphemism for hitting a human torso sized area in this context. If this range were greater than the absolute maximum, the absolute maximum would be quoted (a non-lethal hit may be accurate, but it's not effective).
Maximum effective range on an area target: This is the maximum range at which an average shooter can hit a vehicle-sized target 50% of the time. In other words, this is the maximum distance at which it would make sense to open fire on a group or vehicle, etc. If this range were greater than the absolute maximum, the absolute maximum would be quoted (a non-lethal hit may be accurate, but it's not effective).

Sniper rifle effective range: Sniper rifles are judged by entirely different criteria. A sniper rifle's effective range is judged based upon the range at which one shot, carefully fired by an expert marksman, is guaranteed to strike the target. Sniper weapons tend not to list point or area effective ranges, as sniper rifle effectiveness is not calculated with 50/50 hit ratios.

Ranges for Specific Non-Sniper Weapons

Weapon Caliber Source Maximum range Max Effective, Point Max Effective, Area

M9 Pistol 9mm Purportedly US military rating 1800m 50m ?
AK-47 7.62x39mm Rough Internet consensus ? ~400m ?
AK-74 5.45x39mm Friend's recollection of Russian military ranges ? ? 800m
M-14 7.62x51mm FAS ??? 460m ???
M-16A2 20" 5.56mm US Army 3600m 550m 800m
M2 ("Ma Deuce") 50 BMG US Army 6764m 1500m 1830m
M-4 14.5" 5.56mm US Army 3600m 500m 600m
M-9 (Beretta design) 9mm US Army 1800m 50m ???

According to that, an average shooter can hit a human-sized target 50% of the time at 50m with a 9mm pistol. Standing calmly at the range, taking my time, I used to be able to put in saucer-sized (between palm-sized and side-plate-sized) groups at 25m with a 9mm, but I really doubt that means I'd get 100% accuracy at 50m on a target twice that size in a hurry, outdoors, in a situation that actually warranted shooting someone. If you don't hit the target, where does the bullet go? Our priorities can't be the same here.

Yes I thought that was a strange one, at prone with a scoped air-rifle (More accurate than a real one at closer ranges) I could hit about a 1 inch spread at 25m

But the sights on a pistol are relatively massive, you hold it with one hand for ranged shooting and the thing itself isn't accurate..

You sure you meant 100 meters?

 

[Shoqiyqa]

If even one of those police officers had a firearm, they could've shot the suspect in the chest, ... not fatally wounding them ... damage none.

*crackle* Hello, Charlie Six Three, this is Mike One Zero. I spell: Whisky, Tango, Foxtrot, over?

 

[lllumpy]

The thing about arming police in the UK is it would mean hundreds of thousands of guns being brought in to the country, making it much easier for criminals to get hold of them. Police using guns is also questionable because of the possible danger to civillians in weapons being misused or firefights breaking out between criminals and police.
I live in england and i think most police should carry tazers, at the moment a very small minority do and only when they're going on a dangerous call. People worry about tazers being lethal to people with heart conditions but i think that isn't a big problem considering police would recive training and only use them on people who are resisting arrest

 

[CharrHearted]

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.

They can't in Britain but the police in ireland carry them around and us irish aren't allowed firearms so we're brutalised for nothing most of the time.

 

[rossatdi]

Cops - guns = lolwut?

They're no better than a neighborhood watch.

agreed
not much else to say here

Must be why the US has such a low murder rate compared to the UK. Oh, wait...

 

[Baneat]

A police officer with a handgun can only shoot a suspect up to 100 meters away reliably.

Our priorities can't be the same here.

Wait, really, "internal chnoval" for the captcha? Chernobyl was scary enough thousands of miles away. Why would I want to internalise it?

Anyway, yes, 100 metres with a handgun?

Definitions of Effective Range for Non-Sniper Rifles [http://gunwiki.net/Gunwiki/FactorsOfEffectiveRange]

Absolute maximum effective range: This the "this round is not considered lethal after crossing this threshold" distance. Neither of the other two common "maximum range" values will be greater than this. Purportedly, NATO defines this as the point at which the projectile's kinetic energy dips below 85 joules (62.7 foot-pounds). This is typically claimed when recounting that the P90's effective range is 400 meters on unarmored targets, as classified by NATO. It's worth noting that while the P90 looks neater than the civilian PS90, the extra barrel length increases the muzzle velocity and thus the civilian model actually has a longer absolute max effective range.
Maximum effective range on a point target: This is the maximum range at which an average shooter can hit a human-sized target 50% of the time. "Point target" is basically a euphemism for hitting a human torso sized area in this context. If this range were greater than the absolute maximum, the absolute maximum would be quoted (a non-lethal hit may be accurate, but it's not effective).
Maximum effective range on an area target: This is the maximum range at which an average shooter can hit a vehicle-sized target 50% of the time. In other words, this is the maximum distance at which it would make sense to open fire on a group or vehicle, etc. If this range were greater than the absolute maximum, the absolute maximum would be quoted (a non-lethal hit may be accurate, but it's not effective).

Sniper rifle effective range: Sniper rifles are judged by entirely different criteria. A sniper rifle's effective range is judged based upon the range at which one shot, carefully fired by an expert marksman, is guaranteed to strike the target. Sniper weapons tend not to list point or area effective ranges, as sniper rifle effectiveness is not calculated with 50/50 hit ratios.

Ranges for Specific Non-Sniper Weapons

Weapon Caliber Source Maximum range Max Effective, Point Max Effective, Area

M9 Pistol 9mm Purportedly US military rating 1800m 50m ?
AK-47 7.62x39mm Rough Internet consensus ? ~400m ?
AK-74 5.45x39mm Friend's recollection of Russian military ranges ? ? 800m
M-14 7.62x51mm FAS ??? 460m ???
M-16A2 20" 5.56mm US Army 3600m 550m 800m
M2 ("Ma Deuce") 50 BMG US Army 6764m 1500m 1830m
M-4 14.5" 5.56mm US Army 3600m 500m 600m
M-9 (Beretta design) 9mm US Army 1800m 50m ???

According to that, an average shooter can hit a human-sized target 50% of the time at 50m with a 9mm pistol. Standing calmly at the range, taking my time, I used to be able to put in saucer-sized (between palm-sized and side-plate-sized) groups at 25m with a 9mm, but I really doubt that means I'd get 100% accuracy at 50m on a target twice that size in a hurry, outdoors, in a situation that actually warranted shooting someone. If you don't hit the target, where does the bullet go? Our priorities can't be the same here.

Yes I thought that was a strange one, at prone with a scoped air-rifle (More accurate than a real one at closer ranges) I could hit about a 1 inch spread at 25m

But the sights on a pistol are relatively massive, you hold it with one hand for ranged shooting and the thing itself isn't accurate..

You sure you meant 100 meters?

What point are you trying to make? If you can't hit a target at 300 feet with a pistol, put your gun away and stick to call of duty.

*A pistol you practice with daily and have adjusted the sights yourself. Regardless, this just stresses the use of rifles even more.

Please, show me you doing this, if it's super easy, because I just looked up 100yd (100m returned nothing) pistol shooting and got a couple of trick shots videos.

 

[Dogstile]

A police officer with a handgun can only shoot a suspect up to 100 meters away reliably.

Our priorities can't be the same here.

Wait, really, "internal chnoval" for the captcha? Chernobyl was scary enough thousands of miles away. Why would I want to internalise it?

Anyway, yes, 100 metres with a handgun?

Definitions of Effective Range for Non-Sniper Rifles [http://gunwiki.net/Gunwiki/FactorsOfEffectiveRange]

Absolute maximum effective range: This the "this round is not considered lethal after crossing this threshold" distance. Neither of the other two common "maximum range" values will be greater than this. Purportedly, NATO defines this as the point at which the projectile's kinetic energy dips below 85 joules (62.7 foot-pounds). This is typically claimed when recounting that the P90's effective range is 400 meters on unarmored targets, as classified by NATO. It's worth noting that while the P90 looks neater than the civilian PS90, the extra barrel length increases the muzzle velocity and thus the civilian model actually has a longer absolute max effective range.
Maximum effective range on a point target: This is the maximum range at which an average shooter can hit a human-sized target 50% of the time. "Point target" is basically a euphemism for hitting a human torso sized area in this context. If this range were greater than the absolute maximum, the absolute maximum would be quoted (a non-lethal hit may be accurate, but it's not effective).
Maximum effective range on an area target: This is the maximum range at which an average shooter can hit a vehicle-sized target 50% of the time. In other words, this is the maximum distance at which it would make sense to open fire on a group or vehicle, etc. If this range were greater than the absolute maximum, the absolute maximum would be quoted (a non-lethal hit may be accurate, but it's not effective).

Sniper rifle effective range: Sniper rifles are judged by entirely different criteria. A sniper rifle's effective range is judged based upon the range at which one shot, carefully fired by an expert marksman, is guaranteed to strike the target. Sniper weapons tend not to list point or area effective ranges, as sniper rifle effectiveness is not calculated with 50/50 hit ratios.

Ranges for Specific Non-Sniper Weapons

Weapon Caliber Source Maximum range Max Effective, Point Max Effective, Area

M9 Pistol 9mm Purportedly US military rating 1800m 50m ?
AK-47 7.62x39mm Rough Internet consensus ? ~400m ?
AK-74 5.45x39mm Friend's recollection of Russian military ranges ? ? 800m
M-14 7.62x51mm FAS ??? 460m ???
M-16A2 20" 5.56mm US Army 3600m 550m 800m
M2 ("Ma Deuce") 50 BMG US Army 6764m 1500m 1830m
M-4 14.5" 5.56mm US Army 3600m 500m 600m
M-9 (Beretta design) 9mm US Army 1800m 50m ???

According to that, an average shooter can hit a human-sized target 50% of the time at 50m with a 9mm pistol. Standing calmly at the range, taking my time, I used to be able to put in saucer-sized (between palm-sized and side-plate-sized) groups at 25m with a 9mm, but I really doubt that means I'd get 100% accuracy at 50m on a target twice that size in a hurry, outdoors, in a situation that actually warranted shooting someone. If you don't hit the target, where does the bullet go? Our priorities can't be the same here.

Yes I thought that was a strange one, at prone with a scoped air-rifle (More accurate than a real one at closer ranges) I could hit about a 1 inch spread at 25m

But the sights on a pistol are relatively massive, you hold it with one hand for ranged shooting and the thing itself isn't accurate..

You sure you meant 100 meters?

What point are you trying to make? If you can't hit a target at 300 feet with a pistol, put your gun away and stick to call of duty.

*A pistol you practice with daily and have adjusted the sights yourself. Regardless, this just stresses the use of rifles even more.

Three hundred feet? Thats the size of a American football field, you're expecting the typical person to have the skill to do that every time?

Looks like you're the one who needs to go back to playing COD

Edit: This is factoring in wind, stress, etc. Too many factors for a perfect shot.

 

[Verlander]

In London, a lot of the police do have guns... just so ya know....

Why bother shooting an idiot like that? There are real criminals in this country/city, and they get dealt with swift action.

Also, it's funny reading Americans laughing at this. Have you guys seen your fat, truck stop, hillbilly police with their big poofy moustaches? What a joke. There's a reason the UK police, particularly the Met, are world famous, and that's because they can handle a situation better than most countries, without the need to kill people at random

(also, for anyone mocking the UK about guns, remember that we have the finest sharp shooters in the world in our army, as well as most military world records )

 

[Treblaine]

We must note that the vast majority of people voting here are not from the UK. There is no such culture where everyone has the right to bear arms, and this is there is such low gun crime, and it is rare for police to carry.

Guns + More Guns = Bigger problem.

That's not logical.

Man gets stabbed, bleeding internally so

Surgeon says: "I must operate on this man to stop the bleeding"

NO! Knives caused this, more knives - even the expert surgical use of a scalpel - is wrong because... err... knives are bad. NO MORE KNIVES! {sarc}

Guns are not like a toxic pollutant in the atmosphere that once present negatively affects everyone homogeneously. You tell a CO19 officer that "guns + more guns = bigger problem" and He'll rightly interpret that as you telling him to tackle armed gunmen without firearms.

Guns are the only way to respond to armed gunmen, and in the past decade firearms offences have been worse than they have ever been, in 2007 there were over 11'000 crimes committed involving a firearm (and that's not including air-guns). That's over 30 incidences per day that the patrolling police officer has no choice but to turn tail and run away from.

A far larger proportion involve a high probability of a gun being involved that the police are forced to retreat unless the criminal is utterly incompetent that will give them the chance to escape or break the chain of evidence making any conviction impossible.

But by perverted logic unarmed police DOES protect them because as soon as a firearm is suspected: they get to run away. Doesn't help those poor people who cannot escape or happen to cross a roving gunman as in the case of Derrick Bird. I suppose this goes explain why recent police polls showed most don't want to be armed, there is the element of self-interest there. I'm quite sure if you polled them if they'd like to do riot duty most would rather patrol some nice country village instead.

Also why should it matter who votes is from UK or not? Is The Channel some kind of barrier to logic, because it is not barrier to the millions of guns smuggled into the UK.

Their opinions matter because this is an issue that would benefit from global opinion and experiences.

 

[Ashbax]

Im in ireland and we have the same problem. Our guys dont even get goddamn tazers, just crappy spray and crappy batons. Recently enough a guy with a shotgun was able to keep back a fuckload of gardai (our cops) in a similar situation, someone could easily have been killed if he didnt show restraint.

And again a guy with a large knife/machete slashed a cop, stole his car, and drove around the airport for like 20 goddamn minutes and tried to crash into a plane, that was just this friday during the queens visit.
I mean, when someone has a gun, what are they gonna do, throw the baton at them?
Give cops guns.

 

[Treblaine]

Three hundred feet? Thats the size of a American football field, you're expecting the typical person to have the skill to do that every time?

Looks like you're the one who needs to go back to playing COD

Edit: This is factoring in wind, stress, etc. Too many factors for a perfect shot.

Pistol shooting is far less about the gun or bullets ballistics and far more the shooter's pure skill. Say a pistol carbine firing the same calibre you could make a great shot with, all bulls-eyes at 300 feet, and take a pistol in the same calibre, put it in a vice to fire it removing all physiological factors, it is mechanically an accurate gun it also hits bulls-eye every time at 300 feet.

But aiming the pistol, you may find can't put more than 1 in 5 bullets even on the target at 300 feet.

The problem is pistols are really really poor aiming and shooting devices:
-smaller mass to absorb recoil
-no buttstock to absorb recoil
-shorter sight radius making aiming errors larger
-rear sight further from eye
-no buttstock to rest your cheek on
-no fore stock for better angle control
-smaller grip area means trigger pull also disrupts hold much more
-greater muzzle blast from short barrel

But this doesn't make it impossible to be accurate, just HARDER, it takes more experience and practice to get good but people can be capable of unbelievable feats of dexterity with enough practice.

That's why pistol shooting is so important as an Olympic sport, it is far more a measure of the shooter's physical and mental ability from dedication and commitment than rifle shooting - which is far too rewarding to those who spend the most on the most accurate rifle.

Ultimately you can't say that's mechanically impossible, it's physiologically hard but not impossible:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWDOmugz17U

 

[Treblaine]

How about this: allow your police to carry weapons in their cars; that way they wouldn't have to wait a half hour or more if they need to use them. The guns could be hidden and locked up.

Works fine until someone steals the car.

Guns locked in a safe, low-jack the car so it can be tracked.

Probability of stealing the guns = way way lower than obtaining firearms by any other means.

Also, getting your car stolen? Seriously how incompetent does a cop have to be to allow that, only possible by leaving the car unlocked with the keys in the ignition or leaving it unattended out of sight with no car-alarm engaged.

If police can't stop their cars being stolen WHILE ON DUTY then we have serious problems.

 

[kgpspyguy]

Why do so many people want to take away my legal guns I'm not going to shoot anyone...and nobody shoots at me cuz I gotta gun.