Poll: Should every policeman be armed

[EvilMaggot]

With a RPG (if someone hijacked a car and wont stop)
a Flamethrower (if someone is running away into a field... BURN!!)
Minigun (if youre to lazy aiming a pistol)

hmm... and a Barret sniper rifle... just to kill over long range...oh.. did it have to be realistic ? sorry ^^

yes a pistol

 

[Kumomaru]

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.

One, wikis are the most unreliable web source in history.

Two, if an outlaw wants a gun, he'll get it. Period. It doesn't really matter what laws are in place.

Three, you aren't talking about police, you're talking about the average citizen on the streets. Sure, don't make it easy to get a gun, but don't take it away completely

Four, the second amendment was put into effect to protect ourselves where the government CAN'T, or from the government itself, as the case may be.

Five, the reason gun violence in america is so high isn't because of the second amendment, it's because gun access is so damn easy for everyone, including demented freaks like the columbine shooters.

Just make it harder for people, particularly psychopaths, to get a gun, it's not rocket science (which oddly enough is pretty simple at the core: push something hard enough and it goes)

 

[Seydaman]

The point of the police isnt to scare people, this isnt communist russia or nazi germany. Have you heard of the "to protect and serve" motto? Although i have no qualms about your kid beating policy.

hahhaha kid beating policy,

 

[Seydaman]

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.

One, wikis are the most unreliable web source in history.

Two, if an outlaw wants a gun, he'll get it. Period. It doesn't really matter what laws are in place.

Three, you aren't talking about police, you're talking about the average citizen on the streets. Sure, don't make it easy to get a gun, but don't take it away completely

Four, the second amendment was put into effect to protect ourselves where the government CAN'T, or from the government itself, as the case may be.

Five, the reason gun violence in america is so high isn't because of the second amendment, it's because gun access is so damn easy for everyone, including demented freaks like the columbine shooters.

Just make it harder for people, particularly psychopaths, to get a gun, it's not rocket science (which oddly enough is pretty simple at the core: push something hard enough and it goes)

all you need to do to get a gun is a backround check. but we like guns because...there awesome? i really don't know

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

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?

Yes, we all have small penises and british people have massive wangs that they use for self defense by bopping each other in the face and head...

zzzzz

just shut up.

 

[Ago Iterum]

I dunno. I kind of like the whole "may carry a firearm" thing.
Yeah, people die, but that's going to happen anyway. At least getting shot is a quick and easy way to go.

Wouldn't that depend on where you were shot? I'd imagine having a metal slug implanted in you in a non instantly lethal manner would be quite unpleasant.

Anyways, I'm in favour of cops being armed. Don't want to get shot? Don't break the law.

You have a couple minutes of shock to operate before the horrific agony sets in, if I'm not mistaken.
That's enough time to charge the person with the gun and either:
A Shoot him in the face with his own weapon.
B Get killed in the attempt.

Hahaha *witty retort*

*Counter retort implying that you enjoy the company of the same sex in a sexual manner*

Damn it, I'm comprimised. Time to go to college, hooray for afternoon lessons.

I'm telling your parents, young man.

Parents? I AM my parents > I will skip morning lessons if I so please, it was only a dull lecture on contextual studies anyway, WHO NEEDS THAT? MUAHAHAHA.

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

You have to be at the same level or one level above to protect, serve, and control.

Interesting, American Police work under the assumption of always having to be one level above and never at the same level.

 

[Wyatt]

im American, for years this kind of topic just amazed me, i couldnt (still cant really) understand this anti-gun attitude of our fellow '1st world' neighbors. i though for the longest while that it was just being used as an excuse to 'bash America'. then it kinda hit me one day. its not , you lot really DO think that taking guns away from police and turning them into paper tigers is a good idea.

now dont assume that im jumping into this as a red neck cow-boy NRA type with my T-shirt saying you will take my guns over me cold dead body. im not. in fact ive kinda come to admire your attitudes.

sure it makes no God damn common sense, for US Americans. im comfortable with my guns and my society. i dont lose sleap over the fact that a 'bad guy' might be armed with a gun, if im in a bar (pub) and i get into a chat with someone and decide to bust him in the mouth im not even slightly thinking that he may have a gun any more than hes worried about ME having one. i dont worry about walking down the street and being shot at, i dont worry about the local State Trooper walking up to my car and seeing the 9MM on his hip, in short im not at all worried about guns. its not just words either i mean this. guns really arent a problem in my country. not for the vast majority of us anyhow.

now having said this i can also see how our neighbors might think this odd. i laughed out loud with one posters comment that "Oh woe is the new generation that is conformed into being comfortable with oppression." arming cops is being oppressed? DISarming your average member of society is somehow stoping oppression? ......... this makes no sense to me in a realistic kinda of way. but it DOES make sense in a 'we can do better' kind of way.

the things i read that say basicaly that 'the world would be a much better place without guns' often gets lost in the roaring of laughter by those of us that refuse to agree. but if one steps back and thinks about it, one cant help bur relize its true. the world WOULD be a better place without guns.

this leads though too the follow up truth. untill we can come up with a way to rid the world of guns so NO ONE has access to them, than just making them illegal in your own little part of the world will do nothing but get you dead when the conflict with those that dont agree with you comes into being.

i cant help but make this one Observation though. im gunna pick on our UK neighbors with this but i dont mean to offend them or imply that they are any worse than others. in fact i have nothing but love and respect for my UK brothers.

anyhow, id like to ask you guys who think that guns are bad, why you arm your military? certianly you should lead by example and send your troops into forign countrys unarmed if you expect them to follow suit shouldnt you? and how can you justify allowing your military to be armed when certianly that would qualify as oppression MUCH more so than a simple cop with a side arm would. i mean after all if their ever was some kind of realistic revolt against the government you have to KNOW that it wouldnt be the cops putting it down, but the military, right?

i think a world without guns is something we should ALL be working at. its NOT a joke, its a proper goal for civilized humans. the devil's in the details though and as long as i see people trumpeting anti-gun nonsence in reguards to cops and totaly ignoring that it isnt the cops that hold power in our societys but our MILITARYS, and every single person posting here from what ever nation, lives under 'oppression' from those armed to the teeth militarys of their OWN nations ive yet to see any kind of a comment that is anti-gun that doesnt strike me as laughable at the minimum and just flat out stupid in the main.

its not the guns that are the problems its the attitudes of force that are. as long as people in a society need to be FORCED to do something than what mater the kind of force that is used? are you any less dead if your beat to death with a club than shot with a gun? are you any less in jail if your put their at gun point than if your draged there by a cop with a club? ........... i could go on to finish this point if i need to but the sharp ones will ahve gotten the idea by now.

as long as our societys need to use force to compel people to follow our laws, what ever those laws may be, there is a need for weapons. it doesnt matter if those weapons are clubs, guns, tasers, mace, tanks, bombs, or a simple fist. the issue isnt with the weapons used but with the ideals that motivate that usage that needs to be changed.

anything else is just ignorant pie in the sky wishful thinking.

 

[Plauged1]

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.)

So.....you want the metal pole? .) Haha. Joke.

Yeah why wouldnt they be armed? I mean not EVERY official (like the trigger happy bastard who shoots kids on sight cause he assumes they are trouble makers)needs to be armed with a gun, but at the very least pepper spray, and a partner with a gun.

 

[KaiRai]

kid beating sounds like a just slap them about lol.

but anyways i dont have to punish my kids with slaps,

1. my raised voie works just as well

2. my wife will punish th kids with a slap if need be

and any mp's who think this is wrong then open you eyes and look at where your human rights act has got england into, run by a bunch of over weight over paid fatcats who we keep in a great wage with our taxes.

The Human Rights Act doesn't actually make smacking illegal. It qualifies as reasonable chastisement. However if you shake, leave a mark or cause actual injury to your child then this is not permitted.

Also, the HR Act has very little to do with how our country is actually run. It just means that all of Parliament's legislation must coincide with the European Convention on Human Rights.

How is your child going to learn without a lasting scar as a reminder?

Also, Yes and no on the armed police. Yes, because in Britain now there is such a flow of guns that armed police can't react fast enough. And no because every time the police actually police something the human rights lawyers will cry, and moan, and someone will try to sue, lose a police officer their job and write a sob story to the paper. It makes my blood boil.


EDIT: Also, cop cars should be mounted with .50 cals, and all cops should carry round a minimi or GPMG. Who would fuck with the police then!? Crime would go through the floor

 

[sneakypenguin]

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.

Total crimes per capita
Rank Countries Amount
# 1 Dominica: 113.822 per 1,000 people
# 2 New Zealand: 105.881 per 1,000 people
# 3 Finland: 101.526 per 1,000 people
# 4 Denmark: 92.8277 per 1,000 people
# 5 Chile: 88.226 per 1,000 people
# 6 United Kingdom: 85.5517 per 1,000 people
# 7 Montserrat: 80.3982 per 1,000 people
# 8 United States: 80.0645 per 1,000 people
# 9 Netherlands: 79.5779 per 1,000 people
# 10 South Africa: 77.1862 per 1,000 people
# 11 Germany: 75.9996 per 1,000 people
# 12 Canada: 75.4921 per 1,000 people
# 13 Norway: 71.8639 per 1,000 people
# 14 France: 62.1843 per 1,000 people
# 15 Seychelles: 52.9265 per 1,000 people
# 16 Hungary: 44.9763 per 1,000 people
# 17 Estonia: 43.3601 per 1,000 people
# 18 Czech Republic: 38.2257 per 1,000 people
# 19 Italy: 37.9633 per 1,000 people
# 20 Switzerland: 36.1864 per 1,000 people
# 21 Portugal: 34.3833 per 1,000 people
# 22 Slovenia: 33.6236 per 1,000 people
# 23 Poland: 32.8573 per 1,000 people
# 24 Korea, South: 31.7267 per 1,000 people
# 25 Mauritius: 29.1982 per 1,000 people

 

[johnman]

If they were unarmed how would they police things?

The police in britian dont have guns and they police, however there are more and more reasons for giving them tazers at the very least.

And in britan we have a alot of thngs called PCSO's (polcie community support officers) whos job is to walk around and make it look like the polcie are there. They dont even have the same powers of an regualr polcie officer but are being used in large numbers due to thier cheapness.
I would never in a million years give them a firearm as they are little more than civilains in police clothing with the bare minium of training.

 

[painfull2006]

How is your child going to learn without a lasting scar as a reminder?

Also, Yes and no on the armed police. Yes, because in Britain now there is such a flow of guns that armed police can't react fast enough. And no because every time the police actually police something the human rights lawyers will cry, and moan, and someone will try to sue, lose a police officer their job and write a sob story to the paper. It makes my blood boil.

+1 im all for them having guns, it will lower crime like there is no tomorrow, at least violent crimes

I think none lethal weapons like stun guns should be looked into again

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

I think none lethal weapons like stun guns should be looked into again

UK Cops can't even use stun guns and tazers?

 

[Shapsters]

Cops cant even control themselves with tasers, how can they be able to handle guns?

 

[KaiRai]

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.

Nope, we refer to them in the same way we refer to people with special needs. Did you look at that gormy woman in the picture!?

 

[Sewblon]

If they were unarmed how would they police things?

America is the only country where you guys like to communite with violence and guns, idiot.

Communite is not a word. Russia still has the secret police, third-world countries are much more violent then us. I live in bear country I need guns to not be eaten.

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

all you need to do to get a gun is a backround check. but we like guns because...there awesome? i really don't know

Most Americans who own firearms use them for recreation and/or killing vermin.

 

[painfull2006]

I think none lethal weapons like stun guns should be looked into again

UK Cops can't even use stun guns and tazers?

Im prity sure they cant

 

[Nightfall2021]

I did a paper in college on Gun Control, and it was a few years ago so the numbers may be a bit off.

The vast majority of firearm related assaults and robberies are caused by unregistered or illegally obtained firearms. The deaths caused by registered firearms are typically accidents (kids shooting themselves at home) or would happen anyway (someone murdering their spouse of family).

If you look at the numbers here in the US violent crime with items like knives far outstrips firearm related crime. Also, the states that have carry laws typically have less gun violence than states without them (people are less likely to shoot someone when that person may be armed).

Like it or not, guns are nearly essential in American Culture. This country was built on the back of a rifle, and has been defended with one for years. To take away that right will be the first step in a direction that can lead to the rest of our constitutional rights being taken away.

As such, police should be allowed to have guns. The problems people have with bad cops or bullies come from the police officers themselves, not the fact they carry a 9mm on their hip.

But, looking at the problem and solving it as its core seems to be beyond most people. They simply want to take the tools these people sometimes use to cause problems rather than handle the people that cause the problems directly.