Poll: Should British Police be armed?

[Verlander]

snip

As a Special Police officer, I reckon I've got some good insight for ya there

Firstly, they ARE armed. The difference is, that for the majority of police, their weapons are more sophisticated, and don't kill the criminal. Now, I have a hard time seeing why anyone considers this a bad thing?

Simply put, a situation where an officer kills anyone, criminal or not, puts the police in a position where they have just committed a major crime. Although police have leniency and suchlike, they do not have "licenses to kill", and that, again is a good thing. The police need to be answerable to the law, otherwise we have created a publicly well funded criminal gang. That would be bad. The police are human too, and there will always be those who abuse power.

A lot of the people who want the police in this country to be armed, have not thought about it very well. It DOESN'T work in any other country. In fact we have the finest force in the world, something that we are continuously praised for, while many countries request our officers to help train theirs, and offer instant promotions for transfers within the commonwealth.

There are situations where armed officers ARE needed, and they exist. Go to Westminster, and you will see officers armed with state of the art semi automatic assault rifles, and lots of them. Similarly, the Met has many different units that are equipped to deal in deadly force. We have sharpshooters, we have riflemen. They can deal with extreme situations, and are specifically trained to do so. We do NOT need to average bobby on the beat to have a gun, and it's ridiculous to think that we do.

There are other issues with it, namely money (insurance costs, lawsuits and equipment costs would rise dramatically), safety issues (not only are guns clearly dangerous, but it makes an officer into a deadly threat, and criminals will react to them in kind), and frankly, there is the fact that it isn't necessary.

To all of those who believe we do, you have to question why you think that. Should all criminals be dealt with deadly justice? Should a man be shot for running a red light? Does a small town drug dealer deserve to be permanently paralysed for selling weed? These are all true examples of what has happened with guns.

Frankly, the idea that the British should take any sort of note from American police is ridiculous. While America excels at many things, it's police force is not one of them. The fitness and training that our force does is incredible, and second to none. If those advocating armed police are worried about the force being soft, or ineffective, there is a MUCH better way to change that, which is change your attitudes towards the police. Where America DOES excel is in it's treatment of the police by everyday people. In America many people are raised to respect and trust the police. In this country, they are not. Treat them with the same respect that our soldiers get, stop reading the filth and lies that are our countries shame (newspapers), and spread this mentality around. Police aren't there to be dicks, or to get off on some sort of power trip. They are there to deal with criminals, and criminals alone.

 

[Scabious]

If we can't trust them with a gun, we shouldn't trust them with enforsing our laws.

 

[orangeban]

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..

In Britain armed police always aim to kill. Or at least, they aim for the torso, which is the largest body part, which is generally a kill area.

 

[El Poncho]

Don't change what isn't broken.

 

[Verlander]

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.

The training is intensive, and I think you have your information slightly wrong on the British police.

Firstly, it's near impossible to get a job with the police. The majority now have, or are trained to graduate level. Most new police officers are ex army. Secondly, depending on where you live (different situation and location require different training), your training lasts for on average 6 months, with two years of extra courses while you are also gaining on the job experience. You are on probation for these years. All police are trained to deal with firearms, and most to use them (again, depending on the area).

Of those countries you've mentioned, we regularly deploy our instructors over there to help them train. Our force is famous for a reason, and that is why it enjoys such a success rate. The newspapers rarely report this, as they sell more issues saying the contrary. I do however appreciate that this country has very little respect for anything, and it's a massive shame.

 

[Simalacrum]

I'm an Englishman, and as soon as the government even hinted at arming our police, I'd go on a protest march.

Crime, gun crime in particular, simply isn't an issue in Britain; to arm the police would mean the gangs would arm themselves too. It would just escalate a situation that is relatively mild anyways. Most murders in Britain are knife related, and any gun-related incident is swiftly responded with a squad full of police armed with MP5's.

 

[Zantos]

Snip

Yeah, the problem with this topic is is so bloody impossible to find unbiased information, if any at all, that I had to flip a coin on whether or not it was even worth me posting anything.

As much as those countries are used as examples of armed police and low crime rates, I couldn't actually find anything that linked the two things, there are plenty of arguments that suggest the national attitude would give them a low crime rate anyway.

Sorry if my post was rather misinformed, as I said coin toss on if it was even worth posting. Damn tails never fails rule.

 

[Zantos]

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

Or send in the Royal Marines Commandos, British ninjas!


Disclaimer: I know that the best royal marines commandos go into selection for the SBS, I just wanted an excuse to post the ninja video.

 

[Verlander]

Snip

Yeah, the problem with this topic is is so bloody impossible to find unbiased information, if any at all, that I had to flip a coin on whether or not it was even worth me posting anything.

As much as those countries are used as examples of armed police and low crime rates, I couldn't actually find anything that linked the two things, there are plenty of arguments that suggest the national attitude would give them a low crime rate anyway.

Sorry if my post was rather misinformed, as I said coin toss on if it was even worth posting. Damn tails never fails rule.

It wasn't so much misinformed... what you said wasn't false, there was just more to it than that. Being a copper is a good job, decent money, rewarding and all that. Bloody hard to become one though

 

[Kryzantine]

I say yes, and this is because I have grown up in NYC, where it isn't uncommon to find 6-man squads armed with assault rifles and sniffer dogs in subway stations now, and where I don't recall a single shooting incident involving them. They're a very effective deterrent. Even the regular police armed with pistols and shotguns, they're effectively trained on gun usage. Of course you're going to have a cop that screws up in the heat of the moment, but Britain already has those too.

The important thing to note is that even though America has more gun violence, because guns are legal weapons and people simply use them a lot more, Britain has a higher level of physical assaults and an absurdly higher level of muggings. Muggers are frightened about cops with guns. Maybe Britain's city streets can be safer by arming street cops with pistols, and I'm certain that they can be trained en masse in proper firearm protocol. I don't see the British police having the same problems that some American police had when people didn't trust cops with guns.

The only problem I can see is a legitimate threat, really, and that's the amount of power being given to a police force. But I think that Britain has a crime problem it's keeping on the low, by not talking about it, and that it should be addressed.

 

[Rockchimp69]

I think there should be special layer of the police that are allowed to have guns, but the every day police officer should not.

There needs to be some enforcement, but trusting every police officer with something that can take a life easily is just asking for trouble.

I think that's how they do it. So if there is an armed robbery the police can fight back. But most of the time it means people aren't shot and killed for petty theft.

 

[Hotshots]

Aren't they? They are In Northern Ireland anyway.

 

[Dogstile]

British police are armed. They're called an Armed Response Unit. They're very good with their guns.

 

[Player 2]

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

Here's one opinion.

The author of that article is a moron who has no idea what he's talking about; most of what he wrote is untrue, and the rest is fear mongering bullshit wrapped in half-truths.

 

[The Man With the Soap]

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.

You realize that often times, the criminals that the police go after are better armed than they are, right?

 

[TStormer]

When you see cops charging an innocent crowd on horseback, when you see a cop pulling a guy out of a wheelchair and when you see the hoofprint of one of their fucking bestial mounts on your mate's steel toecap boots in a fucking peaceful protest, you know that those bastards don't need guns.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

As an American, and therefore born gun-lover, if stereotypes are to be believed, I vote no. See, in the US of A, police need guns because criminals have easy access to guns, and the police being unarmed would leave them at a disadvantage. Over in the UK, the criminals are not armed, so why the hell do the police need guns? So they can not shoot anybody, since they are pretty much never going to have the right to use lethal force? After all, most cases in the US of lethal force being authorized are the police either having a suspect aim at them with a gun, or appear to be reaching for a gun. Take away the gun, and you have an unauthorized shooting.

Tasers, on the other hand, make sense. If you've got a suspect charging you with a knife, you want to have some way to subdue him quickly. But a gun is not necessary, given UK gun laws.

 

[twistedmic]

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'.

Did your friend explain that he was highly asthmatic and he needed his medication on hand to prevent serious health problems, or did he just simply refuse to hand over the medication? If he did explain the situation and the cop was still yelling at him and threatening arrest, then the cop was a prick. If he didn't bother explaining, then the cop had reasonable doubt.
Also, did you friend have proof that the medication was his (i.e. his name printed on the labels and photo i.d., prescription cards etc?)?

 

[Jodah]

Nope. It works for them for the most part being unarmed. That being said it isn't the right answer for all police forces. If the US police forces were suddenly unarmed there would be rioting in the streets. English police are used to it, Americans are not.

 

[manaman]

Tasers, possibly. Proper guns, no. We have substantially less violent crime than the US, and I'd like to keep it like that.

Eh, the UK has more violent crime then South Africa. We are talking orders of magnitude bigger then the US. Enough so that different crime reporting statistics, and justice systems can't make up the entirety of the difference. About the only statistics the US can be seen as truly ahead on are gun crime (as a subset of total crime) and homicides. Even then the vast majority of those come from specific small socioeconomic groups around the country. In other words, it's a tiny percentage of the population committing the vast majority of those crimes, and in only specific areas. You are far safer walking down the streets in most US cities then are are in most UK cities.