Your police aren't armed? Our police have guns, nightsticks, pepper spray, tazers, etc. And those are just the walk-the-streets dudes. So if a drunk guy assaults them they are just supposed to ask him nicely to stop? This no sense makes.
Poll: Should British Police be armed?
- Thread starter mortalsatsuma
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If regular police had guns, it would probably lower crime, but I do not personally believe guns solve as many problems as they cause.
There are specialist units, and tasers are more than adequate.
I feel safe approaching police officers, if they were armed, i'd feel threatened. In a way, I would feel some of my civil liberties would be removed.
The armed police at airports make me feel uneasy.
If police had guns, I for one would not feel safer.
There are specialist units, and tasers are more than adequate.
I feel safe approaching police officers, if they were armed, i'd feel threatened. In a way, I would feel some of my civil liberties would be removed.
The armed police at airports make me feel uneasy.
If police had guns, I for one would not feel safer.
Ian Tomlinson was shoved (and possibly hit with a truncheon) in a riot, how is that possibly a case that police should not have guns? Is it that the police should have know better than to ever shove someone... IN A RIOT!!?!?Hip Priest said:
I'd also say that Jean Charles de Menezes is a VERY strong case that confining guns to Specialist Armed Units is a recipe for disaster.
There were MANY unarmed surveillance teams post-7/7 watching many suspected cells and only a few armed officers to go around. When a Suspected-Bomber (SB) left his flat the surveillance unit could not just arrest the SB, they didn't have any guns.
They had no choice but to call the Armed Response unit to intercept the SB but with several problems INHERENT with them being a separate unit:
-2nd hand information they got such a vague description they went after De Menezes and completely lost the actual Suspect.
-Poor communication INHERENT with them being a separate unit they assumed this was to stop an imminent suicide bombing rather than merely a precautionary arrest
-Going underground they lost all radio contact for any further communication or confirmation with the informed surveillance team.
So they went after the wrong man with the wrong objective.
This would never had happened had the surveillance unit popped out of their hide and arrested the Suspected-bomber at gun point as soon as he turned the corner.
You look at all the big fuck ups of British Armed Responses, it is because they are a SWAT-like response for when all you need is calm, guarded but armed local police response.
British policing currently there are only two settings: cold and way too hot!
For example, someone dials 999 to report some kid shooting at birds. Probably just some kid messing around with an air rifle off their private land. The appropriate response is for the local constable to drive down there, with a pistol in his holster at the ready... in the chance it isn't an air rifle and whoever has it means harm to people. The most likely scenario is the kid gives the air-rifle to the copper who marches the kid away for the ear-bollocking of a lifetime.
Sending in the Armed Response unit like a god-damn SWAT team, to hold the poor kid at the point of machine guns is NOT a proportional response.
Keep the armed response unit for sieges, raids and so on.
But far safer would be to leave much to local coppers to have a gun.
Arm the police with a shock gun, a police baton and a pepper spray - Good
Arm the police with a gun, a shotgun or a bazooka - Bad
Arm the police with a gun, a shotgun or a bazooka - Bad
I think the police should be allowed to self-equip other pro's do it eg. lots of army guys buy civvy kit that works better than govt issue.
I for one wouldn't stand in the way of any motivated police professional wanting to save tax payers cash by investing in his/her own electric stun gun/Kalashnikov or even bolas.
Hey I put my money where my mouth is. I just bought my own correction fluid for work. Some people care about doing a good job Mr No-Gun Cop.
I for one wouldn't stand in the way of any motivated police professional wanting to save tax payers cash by investing in his/her own electric stun gun/Kalashnikov or even bolas.
Hey I put my money where my mouth is. I just bought my own correction fluid for work. Some people care about doing a good job Mr No-Gun Cop.
Isn't that a bit unfair. A few out of a hundred act like total jackasses so all must be prosecuted. If that was applied to citizens then we would all be dead by now. Isay give them guns with rubber bullets but under extreme circumstances give them live ammo with orders to incapacitate. Not kill.TStormer said:
Well that one isn't nessercarily true, there are quite a few martial arts that are primarily concerned with endowing students with discapline, are sports or have a strong spiritual component to them (I myself have trained in many martial arts, and the ones which train people and agree that some of them do have a morally grey area to them in regards to how they would be utilised and by who).Use_Imagination_here said:
Guns have no ambiguity in regards to this subject, firearms are primarily designed with the sole intention of killing the target (it's hard to think of alternative uses for them).
fistly
/RAGE AT OP FOR MAKING THIS THREAD AGAIN FFS
use
the
god-damn
search
box.
there are literally 20 of these threads, go read one necro it if you really feel the need.
and ^ this
police are there to police the Populace, not EXECUTE the Populace.
if you join the police force you represent the law and enforce it, you are not suddenly judge jury and executioner you have no right to run around the street deciding who lives and dies
ad-hock
the motto is:
'serve and protect' not
'shoot to kill'
blue uniform does not equal god mode.
/RAGE AT OP FOR MAKING THIS THREAD AGAIN FFS
use
the
god-damn
search
box.
there are literally 20 of these threads, go read one necro it if you really feel the need.
SeanTheOriginal said:
and ^ this
police are there to police the Populace, not EXECUTE the Populace.
if you join the police force you represent the law and enforce it, you are not suddenly judge jury and executioner you have no right to run around the street deciding who lives and dies
ad-hock
the motto is:
'serve and protect' not
'shoot to kill'
blue uniform does not equal god mode.
No, just no, its like being cautious of someone carrying a large bucket of hot water, something could go wrong except in the case of weapons when something goes wrong you may end up dead. Just like people should be careful of cars, or fire etc...Use_Imagination_here said:
Also comparing martial arts which teaches you mostly non-lethal ways of stopping your opponent to things that shoot projectiles at incredibly high speeds that pierce through your body and are known to cause major amounts of damage is a reason to be concerned. I mean there are very few areas of the body you can shoot without severing a vein or an artery or causing damage to a vital organ or leaving the person critically injured and thats if your a good shot and in the right frame of mind. Shooting someone and not killing them when you have account for wind, gravity, distance, bystanders etc...
If you play Call of Duty online go look at your accuracy, that could give you a good reminder of how many bullets can go stray
I'm glad the no voters are winning, the idea that it would lower crime is ridiculous.
Think on what they would use their firearms for.
Then think on how often those scenarios arise.
Right, very few and barely ever. They would NOT fire on looters or protesters (one of the things which disgusted me in people's reaction to the looting was the blasé 'shoot them' approach. Something we were outraged by when other countries did it).
A firearm shouldn't be drawn unless they're willing to use it and they should only use it if needs be (life threatening). So, no. Gods no. It only escalates things.
Tasers? Well they have a lot more going for them but I'd personally like to see some rigorous testing done on them, particularly those shotgun ones. They look useful.
Think on what they would use their firearms for.
Then think on how often those scenarios arise.
Right, very few and barely ever. They would NOT fire on looters or protesters (one of the things which disgusted me in people's reaction to the looting was the blasé 'shoot them' approach. Something we were outraged by when other countries did it).
A firearm shouldn't be drawn unless they're willing to use it and they should only use it if needs be (life threatening). So, no. Gods no. It only escalates things.
Tasers? Well they have a lot more going for them but I'd personally like to see some rigorous testing done on them, particularly those shotgun ones. They look useful.
This may be slightly off topic, but what weapons CAN'T civilians buy in the US?
I.e. I assume you can't go out and buy a rocket launcher, some M67s and a Bazooka, though it would probably make a fun 4th July.
I.e. I assume you can't go out and buy a rocket launcher, some M67s and a Bazooka, though it would probably make a fun 4th July.
More armed police = more 'accidental' killings...which generally leads to violent public backlash.
Why would you possibly feel threatened because they have a pistol on their hip or rifle at port-arms? They aren't pointing at you? What kind of paranoia does it take? When you see your mum chopping vegetables do you get paranoid she might suddenly stab you in the face?!?!Confused_Dude said:
Also. In what that are your civil liberties in ANY WAY removed by the police being armed?
Do you think it is a civil right to have a weak and passive police "force"?
What about the police's civil responsibility to serve and protect? They can't do that with the meagre tools they have against armed or multiple assailants. How can they protect you from armed madmen when they are running the opposite direction as they are completely ill equipped for the job.
Don't you have a right to be protected from murder? UK government refuses to deport refugees back to countries where people are trying to kill them. Yet if someone tries to kill you in the UK, the regular police are expected to stand down because the are deliberately no equipped for the task.
Police to a certain extent are SUPPOSED to be feared, by CRIMINALS! It is easy to make the police seem harmless and lovely to the law abiding public, but to the cost of the criminals utterly disregarding the police. Look at the August Riots where the police refused to use ANY projectile weapons, either rubber bullets or water-cannon. The police were ridiculously passive, stating categorically they REFUSED to stop looters in case one of them might get hurt. Better let them pillage and burn than one of them takes a rubber bullet in the calf.
Every criminal knows waving a gun around will get the police to back off and escape, evading justice.
I live in Texas. Just about every peace officer here is armed, regardless of job description, and there's an AR-15 or a 12 gauge in every squadcar. Armed suspects are just too common here for the cops to not have firearms. Besides, our proximity to heavily armed mexican drug cartels keeps everyone nervous. (most of the weapons the drug runners use are illegal both here and in mexico, but that doesn't stop them shooting anyone)
No, because our police force already works in their present unarmed state. If they were having serious issues and were not able to keep the peace effectivley without some hardware to back them up, I would agree.
However, as it is, I would say that the British police are currently one of the best adverts for non-lethal crime fighting and deterrant, and I think that instead of talking about arming them we should be finding ways to un-arm everyone else.
The more we can accomplish without guns, the better.
However, as it is, I would say that the British police are currently one of the best adverts for non-lethal crime fighting and deterrant, and I think that instead of talking about arming them we should be finding ways to un-arm everyone else.
The more we can accomplish without guns, the better.
Rocket launchers, heavy machine guns, and most explosive devices are classified by the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) as "destructive devices" and are illegal for civilian sale or possession. Most assault rifles require individual registration with the ATF, along with payment of significant taxes and licensing fees. Additional State & Local restrictions may apply as well.the.gill123 said:
Handguns generally require a background check and waiting period before purchase. The only firearms without Federal restrictions are bolt-action hunting rifles and sporting shotguns, I believe. Most states have their own laws regarding purchase & ownership, and most municipalities forbid the discharge of firearms within city limits.
As long as countries that don't allow guns have way lower rates of lethal violence/crime I don't believe in arming anyone.
I will clarify
I will clarify