Poll: Should UK police be given guns as standard issue?

[seraphy]

Over 400 people have been killed over the past 10 years thanks to police contact in UK, and no policeman have ever been convicted for murder or manslaughter. Anyone really think all those 400 cases were all justified?

http://www.economist.com/node/13497460?story_id=13497460&CFID=53674719&CFTOKEN=46502193

There is link if anyone wants to check my numbers.

And you want to give every police a gun? Really?

Police brutality is real problem and in this case too it is starting to be quite clear that man who police shot didn't shoot at polices first or even back at them.

 

[Karma168]

The reason people can sue for police brutatlity is because a beating isn't a punishment allowed by any law court. No punishment involves some copper hitting you.

So if you are attacking the riot police and they use the baton to subdue you (which is the entire point of having it) you can sue for brutality? It's your own bloody fault for starting the fight, if you attack someone and they beat you up you can't then sue them for assault as you caused the fight. Liability should play an important part in any civil case.

Of course that only applies to heat of the moment cases, if the police are giving you a kicking because 'you deserved it' then yes you should be able to sue as that is excessive brutality.

 

[Millardo]

To answer the poll, yes, the police should be armed. They are a civilian peace keeping force, not meter maids with sticks. If the person in question who got shot fired on the officers first, he deserved to get killed. He made a conscious decision to oppose and buck the laws and law enforcement officers in that country.

As for the a lot of comments about guns being available to the criminals and mutts in America, 49 of our 50 states has passed and implemented concealed carry laws that allow law abiding citizens without a felony conviction on their records to apply for, receive training in and own and carry legal firearms. The only state that doesn't allow this is Illinois, my state. Thanks Chicago.

 

[Bebus]

Standard issue? Hell no. A good police force keeps order through respect, not fear.

But for these riots? We have scum setting fire to occupied buildings and throwing firebombs. Bring in the special units, anybody seen doing so should be shot. They pose a direct threat to the lives of police officers and the law abiding public and should be put in the ground.

For the thugs robbing the buildings and causing non-lethal havoc, rubber bullets and water cannons.

 

[oktalist]

No. The everyday police here do not have the mental ability to use guns properly.

BTW my sister lives in central London.

Guns would sure as hell not help in a riot. Rioters could overpower them and steal the guns or they could get shot, which would result in an escalation of violence by the others. The problem at the moment is just not having enough personnel. [EDIT]And, of course, the social problems which have disenfranchised these people to begin with.[/EDIT]

And these riots are not really related to the shooting of Mark Duggan. The peaceful protest about his shooting simply provided an assembly point for the rioters. It could have been a protest about anything.

Lets look for a moment at our American cousins... Oh wait, guns and tazers.

And they are so much more effective. (sarcasm)

Police in this country are simply taken as a joke, and it's not their own fault

Well, it kind of is.

From what I've heard the riots started after a peaceful protest which occured because a criminal was shot by a police officer. (After shooting at him first I've heard)

It's too early to be definite, but the IPCC say ballistics tests show no evidence that the illegal firearm found at the scene had been discharged.

Edit: I'm aware that arming the police wouldn't stop the riots, (And of course I don't expect them to fire upon people rioting)

I would expect them to fire upon rioters. I wouldn't want them to, but I would expect them to, knowing their track record.

Also people are saying that we have special armed police units that are very effective. And that's true, but do they get called in before or after an unarmed police officer with a family waiting at home is gunned down?

Before.

 

[gNetkamiko]

From what I've heard the riots started after a peaceful protest which occured because a criminal was shot by a police officer. (After shooting at him first I've heard)

From what I've heard, the riots started because the police BROUGHT THE GUY TO THE GROUND AND PINNED HIM THERE before shooting (and killing) him.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that considered an "execution"?

EDIT: Also, I never heard exactly what the guy did that he deserved to get shot for, but as I've stated he was detained before they killed him, which is something that shouldn't have happened.

 

[Malrock]

There have been situations where arms being issued, may have acted as a detterant/control to a worsening situation, but the riots do not - in any way or form - require the use of leathal force....just man power and intellegant action.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

As someone who lives in South East London, and pretty much right near all this rioting shit, I say: Give every policemen a gun and let them shoot anyone breaking windows, starting fires, brandishing weapons or harming innocents. It's not fair that normal law abiding people like myself have to live in fear of being attacked, more clearly needs to be done.

As for how this started, I'm with you on how good it was for that policemen to defend himself by using lethal force, if I had a gun, and someone shot at me, I would shoot back, I would probably empty the entire clip.

It's easy to sit on the sidelines and theorise that a gun causes more problems than they solve but my opinion is that given to the right people, they can do a world of good.

If you happen to be in a situation to stop a criminal without harming yourself or any other innocent person, then do it! please!

 

[Thundero13]

[HEADING=1]NO![/HEADING]
NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!
NOBODY ANYWHERE SHOULD WVER HAVE GUNS! GUNS KILL! KILLING IS BAD! GUNS SHOULDN'T EXIST!
...
Sorry that i'm shouting so much, I just really hate guns, the very idea that somebody would want to use one sends my brain into shut down...
So no, I don't think they should

 

[ComicsAreWeird]

Rubber bullets are an option. It´s a good way to maintain the law without using lethal force.

 

[Pontus Hashis]

Stoping riots with guns?
FUCK NO!

 

[Treblaine]

Violence begets violence, no.

Then explain what the hell is going on in London?

The police have been extraordinarily passive and these thuggish goons have exploited it mercilessly.

Look throughout history of weak Neural countries like Belgium living next door to bullies like Nazi Germany. What happened there?

I've been on the receiving end of bullying and being passive and conciliatory only makes you a target! It only stopped when frankly I made friends with tough guys who were willing to use threats of violence to get it to stop.

I don't think it's just a black and white issue. This country is a fucking mess, and people are pissed off. Some of them, I am sure, have a reason, and many of them, I am also sure, don't.
I sit somewhere in the middle. I don't condone it but I'm also not going to talk out against it.

But what you're saying is you compromised your ideals of peacefulness because it meant your life was easier? How fucking pathetic.
I've also had to deal with bullying, and now I am about as peaceful as they come, it still makes me an easy target, yet I refuse to compromise on that, and that extends to our police force. This may have started with a gun, but it doesn't have to end with more guns, that would only make things worse.
Plus, perhaps you should read 1984. I have always been wary about Politicians. Give them an inch and they will take a mile. We already have zero privacy, CCTV absolutely everywhere, an armed police force is the next step and I'd rather not see it go that way when it really doesn't need to.

Who said black and white? There is a continuous spectrum of being more weak and being more taken advantage of.

"But what you're saying is you compromised your ideals of peacefulness because it meant your life was easier? How fucking pathetic."

I didn't compromise my ideals, my friends who stood up for me are not bullies, they were kind and decent to me. But they were just willing to threaten and use force against unwarranted aggression that I was not willing to and did not ask for.

I don't have tough friends any more. Frankly, I am an isolated loner and I don't know how to stand up for myself. Why do I lack this confidence? Bullying? Probably.

"This may have started with a gun, but it doesn't have to end with more guns, that would only make things worse."

HOW?!?!? How can you deal with armed gunmen other than with guns!!?!?!

I've read Orwell's 1984 and you are focusing far too much on the superficial like CCTV and not the central tenements of 1984's government and society.

 

[GraveeKing]

No. No. No.
Bad idea. Look what happened to America. This is a terrible idea. It encourages Lethal force usage. I Do see how it could be used but in the end, it only encourages criminals to carry more guns too - which is a danger to everyone. So in the end, it's a giant loss.

 

[Gottesstrafe]

Being an American and far removed from the riots, I'd like to know what the UK equivalent to the American S.W.A.T. team is called.

Also, while the consensus here seems to be favor not giving the police firearms as standard issue, surely other nonlethal alternatives would be acceptable for these kinds of situations, right? Water cannons and teargas was mention earlier, but there's also paintball guns that shoot special "pepperballs", rubber bullets, "bean bag" shotgun rounds, and of course the FN 303. I'm not saying that the police should feel free to open fire on crowds with "nonlethal" weaponry or that accidents won't happen, but it'd probably be a sight better than just arming them with batons and pepper spray.

 

[demoman_chaos]

A better way to counter the riots is to go for some old school style training. Ancient roman and viking tactics. Form up, press forward, drive the pigs off the field. They stand and fight, whack them with your stick a few times. Or get a taser with a long handle (2 ft, about the size of a gladius) and jab them with that.

 

[StBishop]

Listen to the man.

Watched that episode tonight.

I think it'd be interesting to have the poll set up as follows:
Am a Brit; Yes
Am a Brit; No
Am not a Brit; Yes
Am not a Brit; No

 

[CrystalShadow]

Uh, why?

There are enough examples of Police using unnecessary force already. You want to make the results even worse, by giving every police officer a gun?

I can almost guarantee that the rate of police harming someone in the UK who didn't deserve it is higher than the incidence of anyone using a weapon against the police that would have worked out better if all police officers were armed.

The UK already has severe Orwellian tendencies. The last thing you want is giving the police more power.

And I say this knowing someone who works for the police force... Even she is aware that there's a surprising number of police officers around that abuse their power one way or another...

 

[Warlordnipple]

Wow I hate this century. The point of America having a heavily armed populace and probably the point of the British having a poorly armed police force is because the police do not exist to protect you the exist to protect the established power from the lower classes. The less power the government has over the lower classes generally the more balanced weapons level between the police and general populace. So if you want to create a system that could very easily fall into fascism then yea arming the police without arming the populace would be a good idea.

 

[AmericanTed]

Let's tally your post.

Murder in Britain? NONE last night. America? 81: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/04/21/weekinreview/20070422_MARSH_GRAPHIC.html

Let's remember for a second that the population in Britain is FAR lower than that of the USA, try taking a single state for example, for a better test, or find a way to make these statistics into percentages rather than raw numbers that don't give an accurate view to anything.

OK, 2004 : US : 30,000 deaths to firearms. 292 Million people. Chance of death by firearm : Roughly 1 in 10,000

UK: 49 deaths to firearms: 61 million people: Chance of death by firearms: Less than one in a million.

you cant compare shootings in the us to shootings in the uk. why? because there are less guns in the uk, but people still get stabbed. just because there arent guns doesnt mean nobody will die because some piece of human trash wanted their stuff.