Poll: Should British Police be armed?

[orangeban]

I know this question has probably been asked many times before but I need some help with an essay I am handing in tomorrow with the title being the one above. I'm looking for peoples opinions on the subject, especially Americans who already have armed police "Protecting and serving" them and whether they think it is a good or a bad thing to have armed police and whether You think it has any effect on the levels of crime in your country.

My first thought: Ya'll outlawed guns, right? So why should the police ever need to respond to a threat with firearms?

In all honesty, the UK does not have the same mind set as America. Different cultures, different ideas. What works here in a America will not necessarily work in the UK.

I like that my police department issues firearms to all its officers. Furthermore, I like that I can acquire a CHL and carry a firearm myself. But I live in a place where this is normal, no one does a double take when a firearm is present (unless it's goddy and gold plated.)

I actually have a hard time fathoming a place where you're not allowed to own firearms. I just don't get what's so bad about them and why there is a huge stigma and phobia surrounding them.

Statement: From what I've read of the UK's idea of firearm handling and by speaking to those whom I know in the UK. I think that the open carry of firearms by police officers would not be well received. HOWEVER, I do believe that if an officer were to be allowed to conceal carry a firearm the public reaction wouldn't be so bad.

Interesting question though, do ya'll fear your government? Is that why you wouldn't want patrol officers to carry firearms?

Well, we don't really equate the governemnt with the police, especially the Conservatives (who are in power), who often try to make cuts to the police and such.

And I'm not sure "fear" is the right word, more like, "dis-trust". I think the general view with the police is that they don't need guns normally, and giving them guns would only lead to a rise in crims with guns and a rise in people who get accidentally shot by the police.


Another point: We didn't outlaw guns. Obviouslly you can't have a machine-gun or anything (not sure about the laws at shooting ranges, don't think you can have them there either) and you can't have a handgun either (this was put in place after a school shooting involving one). You can have a rifle or a shotgun, but there are strict laws about it. You need a reason (e.g. shooting pests on a farm, shooting clay pigeons) and a safe to keep it in. And you can't carry it about town.

Rest assured that for me, a British person, the idea of going to a place where anyone around me could be carrying a gun is incredibly weird and odd to me. So the feeling goes both ways.

 

[MuzzleFlash]

http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/17/britain%E2%80%99s-criminal-utopia/?s-criminal-utopia/

Here's one opinion.

That Tony Martin story still sickens me. I'd have done the exact same thing in his situation, except now I'd have to figure out how to dispose of a couple of bodies.

 

[orangeban]

http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/17/britain%E2%80%99s-criminal-utopia/?s-criminal-utopia/

Here's one opinion.

My response to that article? I don't think rioters being gunned down by street vendors would be a good thing. Or mugging victims shooting the mugger. For me, a death is worse than a robbing.

 

[ChiryX]

British police dont have guns? Holy shit, guess U learn something new every day. Here in the great county of Finland all the cops have guns but they only take them out in a situation where somebody might be armed, wich makes me wonder what kind of a retard decided not to give the police guns xD

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Police in the UK do have guns, they are called CO19 and they respond to any incident needing firearm backup. As guns are not sold in shops to whoever wants them, there is no need to arm all police. Give them tazers, but not fire arms.

 

[ChiryX]

No. Might not raise them but arming the cops would only make situations themselves worse. But we could give them halberds and shields. With the gun laws in the UK firearms on the police is overkill.

Brits really want to live in the dark age now do they

 

[AngloDoom]

Why does everyone think that the absolute only way for police to use a gun is killing someone?

That's what a gun's main purpose is for - ending life.

I mean, apart from threatening to end someone's life, I honestly can't see another reliable way of using a gun to prevent crime. Maybe I'm just tired though and I'm missing the point?


OT: No. There's no need to arm the police, we don't have the same culture and fear of crime as the US and as such what works there may not necessarily work here. To be honest, there's always going to be one dickhead police-officer somewhere in England having a bad day who's going to use his uniform to take it out on someone else. I've got a friend who looks a typical metal-head and he almost had his prescription pills, his inhaler, and even his Epipen taken away from him because the officer just assumed it was some incredibly well-hidden drugs. My friend refused to hand over the items, since he is massively asthmatic and requires his medication on him at all times. The officer tried yelling, threatening arrest, but my friend stood his ground until she eventually dawdled away when another office came as 'back-up'.
In the same situation, with a dickhead like that, I wouldn't be surprised if they'd have pulled a gun on him to get their way. Regular bobbies do not have the training or the right to make quick decisions about who lives and dies.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

No, never, please stop asking.

If you knew the question had been asked before, why didn't you simply look for the answer?

Seriously, this is getting insulting now.

 

[ChiryX]

Why does everyone think that the absolute only way for police to use a gun is killing someone?

That's what a gun's main purpose is for - ending life.

I mean, apart from threatening to end someone's life, I honestly can't see another reliable way of using a gun to prevent crime. Maybe I'm just tired though and I'm missing the point?


OT: No. There's no need to arm the police, we don't have the same culture and fear of crime as the US and as such what works there may not necessarily work here. To be honest, there's always going to be one dickhead police-officer somewhere in England having a bad day who's going to use his uniform to take it out on someone else. I've got a friend who looks a typical metal-head and he almost had his prescription pills, his inhaler, and even his Epipen taken away from him because the officer just assumed it was some incredibly well-hidden drugs. My friend refused to hand over the items, since he is massively asthmatic and requires his medication on him at all times. The officer tried yelling, threatening arrest, but my friend stood his ground until she eventually dawdled away when another office came as 'back-up'.
In the same situation, with a dickhead like that, I wouldn't be surprised if they'd have pulled a gun on him to get their way. Regular bobbies do not have the training or the right to make quick decisions about who lives and dies.

Cops have a long training perioid about guns and only use guns in life threatening situations, even then they very rarely aim to kill..

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

All police in every country should have guns. The threat of the gun is necessary to maintain order.

 

[AngloDoom]

Cops have a long training perioid about guns and only use guns in life threatening situations, even then they very rarely aim to kill..

I'm not going to ever go ahead and call myself an expert on anything gun-related, but I can't imagine blasting heated metal into, and possibly through, another' person's body would ever be considered an effective non-lethal restraining method. Just saying "they'll not aim for the heart" makes it sound like being shot is something you brush off. I just wouldn't imagine a squad of individuals having the accuracy and nerves to successfully shoot someone flawlessly in a non-lethal area, from a distance, without chance of killing them.

If you're aiming to use a gun in a non-lethal way, it'd be better just to scrap the gun and just use something non-lethal in the first place, rather than police trying to pot-shot a fleeing murderer's calf-muscle from the other side of the street.

EDIT - Typos.

 

[Zantos]

I'm going to go with Yes, but with a big but. They should be armed, but only if they require the same qualifications and go through the same level of training as other armed forces in Europe. In Britain, there are no official pre-requisite qualifications, just a fitness and vision test along with the ability to demonstrate important qualities in an interview. In many countries such as Sweden and Switzerland (in fact, I think most of Europe) requires it to be a graduate level job along with the above qualities. Also I think (but can't guarantee) that in Sweden they have to have first done their national service. That's what I was told by my swedish flatmate, but can't find any evidence to back it up. The training and probation period is also much longer in those countries.

So yeah, if we cracked our police force up to the same level as other countries with armed police, I think they should be. But in the current state, definitely not.

 

[shawy03]

http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/17/britain%E2%80%99s-criminal-utopia/?s-criminal-utopia/

Here's one opinion.

their are riots in america and other countries with guns qouting a source from the n.r.a is pointless, its his job to make guns sound effective, if people in london had guns how many of those who were smashing and burning would be the ones brandishing them?

 

[Daveman]

Nope, most crime just doesn't need it. In the instances we do need it then they are armed and that's all that's needed. We're already capable of killing people with Tasers as shown by the few recent cases of taser deaths, so I hardly think introducing guns will do anything except make things even worse.

Also anyone who mentions the riots can get fucked because what they're suggesting is shooting teenagers.

 

[RuralGamer]

No; the lack of guns gives the criminals less need to use guns. We already have special armed response units and whilst they don't always get praised for doing it right, I suppose they get the job done.

Give them tazers. If things get to out of hand call in the SAS... or SBS because I never here of them doing anything.

Good, then that means they're doing their jobs properly

 

[ultimateownage]

Police are armed. With batons. There's a unit of armed police if they need them.
Why would we need every policeman to carry a deadly weapon? The police are there to keep order, not to murder people.

 

[MaxwellEdison]

Check out us in the US.
There's what happens when you do.

 

[The Heik]

I voted no because I don't believe in arming anyone. No one should have the power to kill someone. Not even police. It probably reduces crime, but it could increase anger at police and authorities and incite more violence.

I say give them knives. It takes guts, passion, and drive to kill someone with a knife. I figure if they can do that, then there must be a good reason for it. Otherwise they'll have to figure something else out.

If police have guns, they can kill people and get away with it. They can injure people and get away with it. "In the name of the law". I don't even trust the law itself. I don't want it to be able to shoot me if I don't agree with it.

And what, you think that they won't do it with knives? If anything, knives are a far worse thing to give a person. Knives don't have serial numbers imprinted onto every last important part (inculding the bullets). Knives aren't registered to the weilder, which allows said parts to be traced to them. Knives don't cost an arm and a leg to keep maintained and armed. And knives aren't loud, so using one rarely draws attention.

Anyways, you're assuming that every last officer of the law is evil, and that could not be farther from the truth. Most police have never even used their weapon except at the firing range, and most will never have to use in the real world. The whole purpose of having it there is to ensure that they are able to defend themselves and the people they are sworn to protect should the need arise. It's a defensive weapon only.

Besides, have you seen the amount of paperwork and scrutiny that an officer has to go through if they so much as pull that gun out of its holster, let alone fire it? The effort one would need to try and circumvent it as "bad cop" is far beyond the limits of most humans' willingness to do so.

 

[Jakub324]

No, they shouldn't. If the police get guns, so will the gangs, and that'll just make them even more dangerous. However, they should all have training to use them and receive them when heading to a dangerous call.

 

[Airsoftslayer93]

Little thing called escalation, arming the police will just cause the criminals to arm themselves better, and so on so forth. Maybe giving them all tazers would be good though, would help deal with situations where a little bit of range is needed.

Also, people shouldn't be afraid of their government, arming the police would just cause more fear.