Poll: Should every policeman be armed

[Bruiser80]

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.

What were the riots about? Were there any arrests? If there were, I doubt those people weren't hurt. I'm picturing police in riot gear beating the crap out of violent protesters.

edit: I stand corrected. And it only led to 4 McDonalds getting destroyed

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?

In the US, that's not going to happen anytime soon. Repealing an original amendment to the Bill of Rights would take some serious legal work. Requires 2/3 of the house, senate, presidential approval, supreme court approval (by not knocking it down as unconstitutional), and (I think) unanimous ratification by all the state governments.

Laws are a lot easier to pass. 50+% of house and senate, 2/3 if overriding a presidential veto, and supreme court approval. That's why laws restricting gun ownership (full auto rifles, for example), get passed, but an outright ban on guns probably won't happen.

That being said, US police has to be armed because encountering somebody with a gun and intent to do harm is likely.

 

[ILPPendant]

Here are some fun facts: (well, you might hesitate to call them facts since I haven't cited any sources, but they're certainly points of interest)

The Met recently shied away from receiving not more regular firearms but tasers, and even these are only assigned to firearms officers, not beat officers. They don't want to cause undue fear or suspicion among the general populace. Given that tasers don't exactly have a terrific record for either safety or user intelligence (US Police: less-lethal=indiscriminate compliance tool) I can hardly blame them. The same thing seems to be happening across the country.

Gun crime gets a lot of press in the UK but police are comparatively unconcerned about it. Certainly guns are dangerous but the thing people tend to neglect is that most criminals really suck at aiming. Knife crime has and still does claim many more lives and is a much higher priority for police forces than kids who literally can't shoot straight. I bet a sizeable proportion fire with their eyes closed.

Armed police receive enough suspicion as it is, as the whole Jean Charles de Menezes fiasco proved. Giving police even more weapons and thus reducing the aggregate training is going to help neither public relations nor officer morale. Having the power to kill someone is a big responsibility and many officers may not feel comfortable with it.

 

[Simriel]

...
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...

Hot Fuzz.
'Is it true, that there is a spot in a man's head, that if you shoot it, his head will just explode?'

 

[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...

Hot Fuzz.
'Is it true, that there is a spot in a man's head, that if you shoot it, his head will just explode?'

Well done, you win a cookie for the reference. And because you added with your own quote, one of my favourites no less, as a special bonus the cookie is now internet flavoured. Enjoy

 

[clem]

If they were unarmed how would they police things?

In the UK we only have 'armed police squads' that can only take fire-arms for jobs if they've had special training AND the current situation justifies their need. Your normal bobby on the beat has a truncheon and mace, that's it.

What do they do if someone starts firing a gun?

Gun crime is exceedingly rare in the UK, because guns are illigal and difficult to get hold of for criminals. Whereas in the US, guns are legal, and gun crime is out of hand.

Nobody should have guns in my opinion. Not even the police.

Wait, Gun crime is out of hand here in the US? I live in a low-crime state so I must have missed that. Knife crime is out of hand in Scotland so I infer that it is a trade off.

I live in the US too, and compared with the UK, yes, gun crime and violent crime rates here are much higher than in the UK. I also lived in the UK for 3 years, and must say I "respected" the unarmed police there as much as I do the armed police here, but I wasn't doing any thuggery and had I been my perspective would probably be much different.

I'll look for some stats to support my crime rate claim.

Edit: I'm wrong; see below.

 

[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.

What were the riots about? Were there any arrests? If there were, I doubt those people weren't hurt. I'm picturing police in riot gear beating the crap out of violent protesters.

Well...: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Oslo_riots
As for video footage, there were a lot of videos from this incident but not a lot of people getting captured. As mentioned in wikipedia, 160 were arrested, not that many.

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD_1PFbhAKI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbZpxj_HWyI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d-wLzJP00k&feature=related
http://atvs.vg.no/player/?id=20635
(in the videos I remember, most of them didnt have teargas either, and was only marching in "walls")

Well anyways, they weren't carrying guns, they werent even carrying batons... Only marching forward while holding hands (or spraying teargas) and occasionally running after random guy. But none of the captured was hurt, and no one was seriously hurt either.

edit: Youre probably right about the last part there. But even though Norway is a small country, the crime rate is pretty high. But at the same time, not so many get robbed by guns or killed by one carrying. And the "but we need to defend ourselves" statement is not that valid at least here. People are much more likely going to do something stupid sooner or later if they have a gun in their cars dashboard (even if they supposedly are the "good guy").
If somebody gets killed, its by a knife... But those are hard to ban...

 

[fix-the-spade]

Edit# nevermind, read a later post that proved me wrong.

 

[clem]

If they were unarmed how would they police things?

In the UK we only have 'armed police squads' that can only take fire-arms for jobs if they've had special training AND the current situation justifies their need. Your normal bobby on the beat has a truncheon and mace, that's it.

What do they do if someone starts firing a gun?

Gun crime is exceedingly rare in the UK, because guns are illigal and difficult to get hold of for criminals. Whereas in the US, guns are legal, and gun crime is out of hand.

Nobody should have guns in my opinion. Not even the police.

Wait, Gun crime is out of hand here in the US? I live in a low-crime state so I must have missed that. Knife crime is out of hand in Scotland so I infer that it is a trade off.

I live in the US too, and compared with the UK, yes, gun crime and violent crime rates here are much higher than in the UK. I also lived in the UK for 3 years, and must say I "respected" the unarmed police there as much as I do the armed police here, but I wasn't doing any thuggery and had I been my perspective would probably be much different.

I'll look for some stats to support my crime rate claim.

Well, my claim is at least half false.

Violent crime rates in the US are LOWER that other major European countries, though murder rates are higher (primarily due to abnormally high murder rates in impoverished urban communities), and incarceration rates are the highest in the west.

Here's the crime survey for England and Wales from last year.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0708.pdf

Here are comparison statistics by category for all nations reporting:

http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/cri-crime


UK v. US comparisons are difficult because until January of this year the British Crime Survey didn't include victims under the age of 16, although 25% of rapes are committed against children under 16 and 4 out of 10 muggings are conducted BY offenders under 16.

I fear I'm off topic with this, because I don't think that whether the police are armed or not has shown to be much of a factor with relation to crime rates.

There have been several studies of the (low tolerance; fight "nuisance-crimes" first) very successful crime reduction strategies employed in New York city this past decade, and how they might be employed in the UK.

 

[vamp rocks]

i think every officer should have guns, or none should have them... the reason there are so little firearms in the UK is because almost none are being imported, if the average beat cop started carrying a gun then there would be a lot of guns imported, all it takes is one stolen shipment or one crooked cop and then there are an abundance of guns on the black market... so if you bring some in then you are potentially arming the criminals, which means every single cop now needs a firearm for self defense...

in my opinion i say yes, give every officer a gun.. people are more likely to stop if you point a gun at them.... but do not put guns in one area and none in others, because it will end badly...

 

[vamp rocks]

Okay, let me give you two scenarios:

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.

thats not what would happen though, do you honestly think an unarmed officer would go up to a man with a potentially loaded gun, that goes waaaaay beyong normal operating procedure.. they would call in the armed response team and you would be back to situation 1, except the robber has several assault rifles pointed at him and not a couple glocks

b

 

[J-Man]

Initially, I was against anyone non-military having firearms, but I think law enforcement members should carry a weapon. I think the American system works; officers with sidearms, and perhaps a shotgun, and all auxiliary personnel unarmed. However, the only reason for them to do this is because of the right to bear arms. Remove that, and cops could do without guns.

 

[GonzoGamer]

As a resident of NYC, I would have to say no.
And I'm not even black.
There are obviously some people that should never be given a gun... or a taser for that matter and a good 7/8ths of the NYPD fall into that category.

 

[Travdelosmuertos]

This is something I find strange about American culture. You all have such a massive obsession with guns thanks to your second amendment. I mean seriously, are you compensating for something?

Whenever someone suggests taking away the right to keep and bear arms you always raise a fuss that it will leave police and law abiding citizens without protection whilst leaving the criminals armed. This argument is completely fallacious when we look at the evidence: Countries like the US with high levels of gun possession not only have much higher levels of gun violence, but much higher crime rates in general. Compare that with the UK, where almost no-one carries guns and only specialist members of the police force are actually armed, and not only do we have almost twenty-five times fewer gun related murders than the US, but 75% fewer murders in general*.

If America were to get over its national fixation with firearms and stop letting everyone who wants a gun have one then we would likely see gun crime rates drop practically overnight.

*All figures based on per head of population. Figures courtesy of Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_crime#Homicides_by_country] with verifiable sources.

Personally, I'm not much of a pro-gun guy. I generally agree with the argument that banning guns will decrease crime, as well. But, the general attitude in America is that you don't trust your government, even if someone you like is in power. Hence, why the 2nd amendment is so important to many Americans. They believe - keyword here being "they", not ME - that without the threat of violence against the government there is no guarantee of personal freedom. Again, I do not necessarily agree with that. I'm just trying to help you understand the political mindset that goes on here.

 

[Adfest]

The police are there to protect and serve. Doing so requires them to respond to incidents that can involve anything from an old lady on the side of the highway with a flat tire to a suicidal maniac holding a billing office hostage with an assault rifle. More often than not, police don't know the full details of what they are being called to. It is stupid and dangerous to put a police officer out on the street if they are not prepared for anything. Especially if the only reason they are not fully prepared has to do with a few civilians being afraid of the guns they carry.

Guns, in the hands of the police, are tools that they use to protect themselves and you. You don't need to be afraid of them.

 

[ElephantGuts]

They're the police, I would both hope and expect them to be armed. If not, I'll just take car of things myself.

But slightly more seriously, considering the dangerous nature of their job, they need to be able to defend themselves (and others) and match whatever threat is posed against them.

 

[teisjm]

Of coure they should.

They have to be able to stand up against armed criminals so they better bring more than a stick to a gunfight