Poll: Should British Police be armed?
- Thread starter mortalsatsuma
- Start date
Recommended Videos
absolutely. Police need to be able to "one up" whoever they're trying to apprehend. Having armed police is essential to bringing an appropriate response to any assailant.
Even my campus police are heavily armed, they carry handguns and have rifles in their cars. They're ready to respond to ANY threat, and they HAVE had to respond to shootings and the like. It's not just for show.
You should see how much more respect the police get when they're armed. People aren't afraid, just very aware of their capabilities. Firearms tend to force the officers to act more professionally too. Pulling a gun on someone is deadly serious and they really have to check all their personal reservations at the door...not like pulling a tazer or pepper spray.
Edit: I should also mention that I turned off my "campus alerts" text service because I was tired of being told about all the shootings. That's what happens when you give gang-bangers a scholarship. They take that once in a lifetime opportunity to do the same damn shit they do at home.
Even my campus police are heavily armed, they carry handguns and have rifles in their cars. They're ready to respond to ANY threat, and they HAVE had to respond to shootings and the like. It's not just for show.
You should see how much more respect the police get when they're armed. People aren't afraid, just very aware of their capabilities. Firearms tend to force the officers to act more professionally too. Pulling a gun on someone is deadly serious and they really have to check all their personal reservations at the door...not like pulling a tazer or pepper spray.
Edit: I should also mention that I turned off my "campus alerts" text service because I was tired of being told about all the shootings. That's what happens when you give gang-bangers a scholarship. They take that once in a lifetime opportunity to do the same damn shit they do at home.
I say yes. Now I am American, and I know guns are illegal over there. But what if someone smuggles a gun over, the police are helpless, and carrying a gun could keep the situation from getting worse,.
Well this isn't an over-used thread that I never tire of.....
But well! My answer has always been and always will be NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
There are special divisions of the police that can respond to armed threats and use guns as a last resort, we don't need regular copper having guns, it's just a liability waiting to cause an accident, I mean hell - why do you need guns on an average day when stun guns, pepper spray and plenty of other disabling items work better without harming anyone permanently?
But well! My answer has always been and always will be NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
There are special divisions of the police that can respond to armed threats and use guns as a last resort, we don't need regular copper having guns, it's just a liability waiting to cause an accident, I mean hell - why do you need guns on an average day when stun guns, pepper spray and plenty of other disabling items work better without harming anyone permanently?
I don't feel qualified to comment on this as I'm Australian and have no clue as to what the police are like in the UK or the quality of them. However here in AUS the police are armed and I have to say that I think it is beneficial. By arming police officers they no longer become a person of authority and a watcher of the area but also as someone who can protect you from attackers. I do support gun control even though it may lead to more but it leads to less killings but I think the police should be armed, again I don't know much about the UK, as it also means they would d things that someone without the assurance of weapons would not. Would you go stop attackers from mugging someone with a knife if you had no weapon? So why is it expected of cops to stop attackers?
Rather than a stick/club/baton type thing police officers should get swords 
*Guy speeding pulls over*
*police officer comes over and taps on the window with the hilt end of the sword*
"Sir you were going over the speed limit"
Who the hell would fuck with you if you have a sword drawn?
*Guy speeding pulls over*
*police officer comes over and taps on the window with the hilt end of the sword*
"Sir you were going over the speed limit"
Who the hell would fuck with you if you have a sword drawn?
Not with heavy weaponry but something enough to scare rioters and keeps back the general public in dire needs. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of nobody owning guns but unfortunately, guns are a needed scare tactic in today's world. So yes on being armed; no on rifles and shot guns and the over-the-top weapons.
Agreed completely, you need to have a feel of this country and how it feels to not have armed police officers while living in the UK to decide whether we should have armed officers or not, if this was all UK people answering the poll, there would be a much larger majority of no votes.Lethos said:
I'm not sure anymore.
It just seems to invite the pigs among the cops to abuse them and kill innocents.
It just seems to invite the pigs among the cops to abuse them and kill innocents.
Nope. Tis fine the way it is. Regular Officers have CS Gas (pepper spray), Baton (just as lethal as a gun if you get hit on the bonce but not as threatening), stab vest and a direct line to support. There are armed response teams that have guns and are used efficiently against terrorist threats, bombers and other people with guns.
I personally love this comment, it completely lacks any kind of aspect to the fact that if your mentality would be bit different you wouldn't be destroying half a city, loot everything that is loose (and even then you screw it loose) and burn everything that can be ignited, also destroy the legacy and life of innocent people (referring to a certain elderly barber).Duskwaith said:
Yeah, the other side is completely innocent, it is all because of the police yeah. Please come to Finland and still say the with a straight face, see the difference in mentality and our level of responsibility over our actions even when we are pissed off. And btw, our police is armed and armed well, each one of them is armed with a melee, non-lethal and lethal weapon. We even have a theoretic riot unit also, but that sees less action than our special operations unit. We trust our police and they trust us, we aren't stupid neither are they.
In my opinion, if the other side would have any care or feelings of responsibility there would be no need for use of weapons, there would be no riots, there would be no need for anyone to use violence against anyone.
If you are ready to point flaws in your government, you should also point the flaws in the people. Since both are really flawed at the moment. Just to think about, you used to be able to control half of the world. It is not just the government what I have seen is that the people give no reasons for the government to trust the people, expect from the "they have to".
Great, going to have to be the Token Northern Irish here, but oh well.
The UK has most of their officers Unarmed apart from specialists, but if you are Counting all of the British isles, Northern Irish police are fully armed FYI, so less blanket statments.
And as ive said in other Similar topics, Yes they should be armed but ONLY to the level the local crime rates are at, also they should be fully and reguarly trained in the use of said weapons.
The UK has most of their officers Unarmed apart from specialists, but if you are Counting all of the British isles, Northern Irish police are fully armed FYI, so less blanket statments.
And as ive said in other Similar topics, Yes they should be armed but ONLY to the level the local crime rates are at, also they should be fully and reguarly trained in the use of said weapons.
I'm American and I voted no. The reason for this is because the UK has a different culture that isn't as tolerant of firearms and giving police routine access to firearms would probably upset the general public. Police are meant to protect the peace not upset. In certain circumstances, the police should be given access to weaponry to subdue dangerous citizens. It should be a progression, so they would be allowed tasers and teargas and whatever first. When it gets really bad, then they should be allowed to utilize firearms. This would be like an armed confrontation by the criminal or some kind of hostage situation or something.
Overall, the police in the UK probably shouldn't be allowed access to firearms when they are on patrol but only in the most extreme circumstances.
Overall, the police in the UK probably shouldn't be allowed access to firearms when they are on patrol but only in the most extreme circumstances.
Thing in the UK (at least where I am (I know in Northern Island a large number of police on street patrol are armed response units due to history of unrest and armed IRA members)) is that it is really hard to get an unlicensed firearm and the only ones you can get a license for are shotguns (non automatic) and hunting rifles (bolt action). Whats even harder is getting bullets; most gangs who do have guns tend to have a few clips between a couple of dated weapons. Thats why we have lots of knife crime; criminals can those quite easy.Forlong said:
I get your point about how criminals not playing fair. Thing is as guns are hard for gangs to get they tend to save them and not carry them around; so unless they plan on shooting someone they won't be packing heat. Also police always send in the armed response guys (who can always be seen at likely terroits targets such as airports) if a gang is suspected of being armed with firearms.
