Poll: Should every policeman be armed

[Guitarmasterx7]

Yes. Granted, they shouldn't use them for smaller domestic problems but they're absolutely necessary to keep order in today's world.

 

[Trivun]

...
OT, there have been too many instances where innocents have been killed by armed police, such as Ian Tomlinson in the G20 riots...

Not 'armed' police in the UK sense - they were not carrying guns, just the usual truncheon n spray, with additional armour for their 'riot' role.

I've met uk armed police, and they were very professional and extremely scary (as they should be when they turn up at your frond door packing smgs and what looked like an M209...). However, if every cop was packing there's be the constant fear that they would make a mistake, and with lethal weapons there's not much margin for error.

You make a good point there, and I have only one reply:

"Everyone and their mum is packing round here."
"Like who?"
"Farmers."
"Who else?"
"Farmer's mums."

Cookie for the reference...

 

[timmytom1]

If you mean armed with guns doesn`t that just make them the millitary??

 

[timmytom1]

No. More than half the New Zealand police force refused to go constantly armed. Many even threatened to quit the force if it became mandatory.

Sheep don't fight back.

...Sorry, I had to

Oh my friend. I have the scars and the "home movies" to prove they do...

Are you welsh???

 

[scotth266]

People like me? Good to see we're being objective here.

*sighs* Sorry if I seem a little forceful. However, this country was built upon the principle of personal freedom when it comes to possessing firearms, and with good reason (aka: we can revolt against the government if it goes COMPLETELY out of line).

Besides, "gun-related crime" can include all sorts of things, including accidental killings, which are classified as some sort of homicide. Also, those numbers could include people having been killed with guns for legitimate reasons (someone tries to rob your house/attack you).

I'm not saying that gun-related statistics are wrong, but rather that they tend to get inflated/deflated by whoever is bringing them up due to various factors.

 

[xxcloud417xx]

Definitely should be... I mean, if someone comes at a cop with a gun and all he has is a stick... that is one fucked cop.

 

[ace_of_something]

I am a former cop (blah blah long story I got disabled off duty lets leave it at that)

I find it curious that everyone jumps to 'guns' as 'being armed' When I went to Scotland and England you're constables were armed granted it was with batons and what might have been mace; that is still armed.
The other countries in Europe I didn't see any law enforcement officials outside of customs so I'm not real sure.
In China it seemed like it depended where I was at but some of them had guns too.

All police anywhere in the world are armed in some way it is usually a level appropriate with how the populous is armed. You can't expect to stop a bunch of rock throwing, knife wielding people with sticks and harsh language. You have to be at the same level or one level above to protect, serve, and control.

 

[deathninja]

Gods no, arm anyone, everyone, just not the fucking Specials.

Enlighten me; what's the difference, 'ere?

In the UK:

Police Officers - Exactly as expected, full powers of arrest.

Community Support Officers - Plastic police, powers to fine for minor offences, main duties include dealing with littering, antisocial behaviour and watching as kids drown [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1565292/PCSOs-who-stood-by-as-boy-drowned-named.html].

Special Constables - The weekend warriors of policing, civvies who function in a limited role part time, usually traffic wardens and other tinpot Hitlers.

 

[dwightsteel]

I dunno about you, but if I'm raping some dudes' wife while belting out "Singing in the Rain" (one web-cookie for reference,) I am not going to be stopped by anything less than bullets penetrating my person, or classical music. (I am now making it childishly easy to guess the reference.)

....You must be quite the dedicated rapist. I mean theoretically speaking, if I was the type of person to rape anything, I'm pretty sure somebody pointing a loaded gun my way would be enough to get me to stop. Or at least it would kill the mood enough to were the raping would have to stop. That is, if I was into...you know...raping things.

 

[dwightsteel]

Gods no, arm anyone, everyone, just not the fucking Specials.

Enlighten me; what's the difference, 'ere?

In the UK:

Police Officers - Exactly as expected, full powers of arrest.

Community Support Officers - Plastic police, powers to fine for minor offences, main duties include dealing with littering, antisocial behaviour and watching as kids drown [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1565292/PCSOs-who-stood-by-as-boy-drowned-named.html].

Special Constables - The weekend warriors of policing, civvies who function in a limited role part time, usually traffic wardens and other tinpot Hitlers.

It sounds like the "Special Constables" still get the coolest title though.

 

[scotth266]

People like me? Good to see we're being objective here.

*sighs* Sorry if I seem a little forceful. However, this country was built upon the principle of personal freedom when it comes to possessing firearms, and with good reason (aka: we can revolt against the government if it goes COMPLETELY out of line).

Besides, "gun-related crime" can include all sorts of things, including accidental killings, which are classified as some sort of homicide. Also, those numbers could include people having been killed with guns for legitimate reasons (someone tries to rob your house/attack you).

I'm not saying that gun-related statistics are wrong, but rather that they tend to get inflated/deflated by whoever is bringing them up due to various factors.

First off, there's a reason it's called the Second Ammendment. It wasn't in your original constitution. That's like saying your country was "built" on the Twenty-Seventh Amendment.

And whilst my own words were perhaps a bit vague, I invite you to examine the statistics I've linked to. Compare the results between the UK and US. Even allowing for the statistics being slightly, off, your gun-wielding country is still many times more violent than my unarmed country.

The Bill of Rights was ratified almost immediately after the Constitution. As in, it was stuff that they were going to pass anyway, but didn't want to include in the main document, as that was going to be just the basics of how the government functioned.

And some info for you: the figures you linked to were percentages of homicides. As in, every single death in that statistic that wasn't an accident was intentional, so the person would have just picked up a knife or a baseball bat and killed them anyway. Do guns make this process easier? Yes, but they also provide people with a means of defending themselves. It's a neccessary evil.

 

[Quick Ben]

I only have one word of comment for this: Escalation

 

[LordMarcusX]

Someone may have mentioned this, but in my opinion, every CITIZEN, in addition to the police or military should be armed (should he or she so choose to be).

 

[Howid]

I dunno about you, but if I'm raping some dudes' wife while belting out "Singing in the Rain" (one web-cookie for reference,) I am not going to be stopped by anything less than bullets penetrating my person, or classical music. (I am now making it childishly easy to guess the reference.)

A Clockwork Orange.

Also, Police obviously need to be armed to do their job properly. But I do think that there should be more restrictions on who exactly can become an officer. Anyone can become an officer but most people are stupid and can't handle the responsibility that comes with the power.

 

[Gormers1]

The police in norway are unarmed, except when they know that the guys theyre after is armed. In the latest riot here (a pretty big one), they were not armed with anything less than tear gas grenades (or what you call it), and no one got hurt.

Someone may have mentioned this, but in my opinion, every CITIZEN, in addition to the police or military should be armed (should he or she so choose to be).

Why?
Isnt it better that no one is armed?

 

[Bruiser80]

They're the god damn police. They should be armed. How can they be expected to uphold the law, if they don't have a way to enforce it. Having unarmed police, is the same as having just a bunch of normal people, wearing uniforms, with an unusual amount of legal knowledge.

Okay, let me give you two scenarios:

1) A man walks into a newsagents in Dallas carrying a gun. He doesn't intend to use it, just to scare people a little. He orders the cashier to open the register and give him the money. The cashier does so but in the process hits the silent alarm. Police arrive on the scene and an officer enters with a gun pointed at the robber. Through the window the robber can see more police with guns pointed at the doorway. The officer tells the robber to put the gun down. The robber gets scared; he panics. He shots the police officer and runs outside firing. The other police open fire and kill the robber. One robber, and one police officer are killed.

2) A man walks into a newsagents in Glasgow carrying a gun. He doesn't intend to use it, just to scare people a little. He orders the cashier to open the register and give him the money. The cashier does so but in the process hits the silent alarm. Police arrive on the scene and an officer enters, unarmed and without acting threatening towards the robber. Through the window the robber can see more police standing outside. The officer asks the robber to put the gun down. Not being in any immediate danger, the robber is able to think and see that there is no way for him to get out of this situation. Even if he were to shoot this officer and run he'd just be caught later and then he'd be charged with murder instead of just theft. The robber puts the gun down and allows the officer to take him into custody. No-one dies.

In Britain officers are trained to deal with threatening behaviour without having to point a gun at the criminal. This diplomacy is almost always more effective at preventing violence than the threatening tactics used by armed police. In fact, these two examples illustrate why, as avykins pointed out, New Zealand officers refused to carry guns. It just puts everyone at much greater risk.

I can understand the "getting shot by own weapon" downside of carrying a firearm, which probably happens more than anyone would like to admit.

Regarding situation #2, wouldn't the first responding officer call in the armed police once they saw the gun? (Through the window, as you stated) Then you're back to the same standoff as situation #1.

I don't think I could approach a situation knowing that I'm at a significant disadvantage, special negotiating skills aside. All the cop knows is that they have a weapon. They don't know why it's out, just that it's out and it can kill somebody. If it's pointed at the cop with intent, they're going down.