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

[Devil's Due]

Not a single gun was fired by the rioters. Not a single gun was found on the rioters.

I invite you to the same. A man was shot [http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/08/09/this-is-criminality-pure-and-simple] by a rioter, and became the first fatality in the London 2011 Riots.

First fatality. After I wrote that. Check the timestamps please. Also it's questioned whether he was shot by a rioter or simply during the riot, the two haven't been connected yet.

That does not mean the argument is invalid, Evil, until it has been proven otherwise. Lastly, yes, the first fatality. There have been three more after that from a car hitting them. I do not have to check the timestamps, because you don't get a sudden reprieve for an argument just because the reply was yesterday.

Just because you're my Escapist buddy doesn't mean I can't spar with you. ;-)

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I do not have to check the timestamps, because you don't get a sudden reprieve for an argument just because the reply was yesterday.

Was, not has - therefore timestamps are relevant. Would you like to check the person I was replying to and pick at his argument as well? Or is this just personal?

 

[Devil's Due]

Was, not has - therefore timestamps are relevant. Would you like to check the person I was replying to and pick at his argument as well? Or is this just personal?

The only part that can be considered personal is the part that you're my friend here on The Escapist, other than that; no. I saw a flaw in your argument that I knew was wrong, and I pointed the evidence to the contrary.

Alas, however, I shall not be returning to this thread no giving a reply. I simply delivered the facts that I felt were appropriate to deliver, and that is all.

 

[JoesshittyOs]

Give them a standard issue heavy rifle that stays in the trunk of their car, and can only be unlocked by asking the Chief of Police in emergencies like where someone is starting to shoot up a neighborhood.

Seriously, you don't want guns. Us Americans have them and there is a rather large amount of fuck ups. And I don't know about anyone else, but I rarely hear of many times when a firearm saved a life.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

what, the uk police dont have guns? thats crazy. What happens if the bad guy has a gun? everyone sits around and waits for the swat team to arrive while the nutter shoots at the officer?

And im not american either. Australian cops carry firearms too. I think as long as you make sure the policeman uses it right and harshly punish any who dont, theres nothing wrong with it. We just recently had a story where a woman came at an officer with a knife, so he shot her in the leg. He asked her to put the knife down and backed away until he had no choice. She lived and so did the cop.

Theres an element of respect to it. When theres a dozen criminals and two cops, the cops could easily get the shit kicked out of them, but if they have guns. That will give the criminals pause.

 

[katsumoto03]

The only reason you would arm policemen during a riot is if you wanted them to kill the rioters.

That's simply not gonna fly.

If they do that, I am officially on the side of the rioters.

 

[Puzzlenaut]

If the police had guns, so would the criminals. Case closed.

 

[AssassinFisH]

If the police had guns, so would the criminals. Case closed.

Well said

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Of course the police should have standard issue guns. However, more so than that British citizens should have the option available to have guns as well. During the LA riots business owners were seen on top of their places of business or in front of their places of businesses with firearms able to protect what they had worked hard to build. British shop owners should be able to do the same. Simply put criminals could honestly give a shit about gun laws and denying any police officer or private citizen the means to protect themselves is absurd.

As a US citizen my right to own and carry a gun to protect myself and possibly others is one of my most treasured rights and one I take full advantage of. I've owned a firearm and had a permit to carry since I was legally able. In a perfect world the police would be able to keep everyone safe at all times. Our world is far from perfect though and since I can't carry a policeman with me I carry my pistol.

Thankfully I've never had to pull my weapon in defense of myself or others. However, I've never had a seatbelt protect me from going headlong through my windshield either and I still buckle up when I get in a car. I take great comfort in knowing should the day ever come when I need to protect myself, my home, or my family I will be equipped and able to do so.

This logic is so nice until you realize that if the 1000's of people breaking and burning down houses with people inside them would all have guns as well.. it would be a shit storm. The capitol would LITERALLY BE A WARZONE. Firefights and shoot outs. it would be fucking Baghdad in there. Terrible idea to arm EVERYONE. Imagine these crazed animals with guns? I would predict HUNDREDS of deaths. THOUSANDS even if random firing just started happening all along the street.

Also FYI far more rioters than police. The rioters have NO way to harm police properly (throwing stuff i guess) as long as they retain formation and hold ground as a unit, even if heavily outnumbered. Guns takes this advantage away. The police would be annihilated. I have a hunting bow, a katana , and a kukri. I will fuck anyone who attempts to loot my house. I dont need a gun. Im pretty damn far from the rioting as it is. We can still defend ourselves. Giving guns to EVERYONE INCLUDING THE RIOTERS is a shit shit shit shit shit idea. I hate these people. The last thing i want is for the to legally be able to arm themselves.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

Also FYI far more rioters than police. The rioters have NO way to harm police properly (throwing stuff i guess) as long as they retain formation and hold ground as a unit, even if heavily outnumbered. Guns takes this advantage away. The police would be annihilated. I have a hunting bow, a katana , and a kukri. I will fuck anyone who attempts to loot my house. I dont need a gun. Im pretty damn far from the rioting as it is. We can still defend ourselves. Giving guns to EVERYONE INCLUDING THE RIOTERS is a shit shit shit shit shit idea. I hate these people. The last thing i want is for the to legally be able to arm themselves.

what? i mean sure the police have the advantage with their riot gear....but the rioters have their fists, and theres thousands of them. They could beat the police.

edit: they could also stab them, bash their heads in with rocks and throw molotov cocktails

 

[Richard Eis]

No. Not as standard.

Also, you are mixing two different things. Riot police and normal police. Using one incident to demand guns for a different set of circumstances is naive at best.

Guns should be used sparingly, if at all. The role of a police officer is not to shoot bad guys. This isn't the old west in some tacky american movie.

The police in America are feared and hated. I've heard of Americans laughing at our crime and police levels and style.

That's better than our reaction of total horror at theirs.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Also FYI far more rioters than police. The rioters have NO way to harm police properly (throwing stuff i guess) as long as they retain formation and hold ground as a unit, even if heavily outnumbered. Guns takes this advantage away. The police would be annihilated. I have a hunting bow, a katana , and a kukri. I will fuck anyone who attempts to loot my house. I dont need a gun. Im pretty damn far from the rioting as it is. We can still defend ourselves. Giving guns to EVERYONE INCLUDING THE RIOTERS is a shit shit shit shit shit idea. I hate these people. The last thing i want is for the to legally be able to arm themselves.

what? i mean sure the police have the advantage with their riot gear....but the rioters have their fists, and theres thousands of them. They could beat the police.

edit: they could also stab them, bash their heads in with rocks and throw molotov cocktails

Please attempt to punch a riot shield or helmet until it breaks. Go on. I challenge you. Like is aid with correct training, proper backing up, baton use, and use of channels and narrow streets a few officers can hold out against a lot of rioters. The idea being that it takes MORE rioters to overpower LESS police. And that guns remove that advantage. Not 10 policemen can defeat a whole army. Of course they cant. They just have the quality over the quantity.

 

[Ilikemilkshake]

Definatly not.. it was guns that got us into this mess with the riots..

 

[ZeroChan]

The reason I'm thinking of this is because of the riots, police are unable to act effectively because the country removes power from them when people are able to sue for police brutality.

becuase arming them with machine guns would be a better idea to deal with rioters. im assuming your very very young, or uneducated enough to not know about bloody sunday, tianaman square, or peterloo. arming the police would NOT help put down the riots.

Our police are equipped with pepper spray and big sticks.

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

our police have tazers. and the american police have firearms becuase the common civilian has access to firearms. you CAN'T compare two ENTIRELY seperate forces like that. the americans are in a entirely different country and culture.

Police in this country are simply taken as a joke, and it's not their own fault, it's because we won't allow the use of proper equipment to act as a deterrent.

you've never been near the police in action have you? again, im willing to bet your some white middle class person whose closest interaction with the police has been when they come to your school. the police have access to firearms, they carry (as a matter of course) CS spray, batons and handcuffs. again becuase we are in ENGLAND not the US there is no need for them to carry .45s. british police also aren't armed force becuease they want to be able to interact with ordinary civilians.

If that's the case then good, hats off the the officer. I want to shake his hand. What the fuck country do we live in where someone can shoot at a police officer and people don't expect there to be repercussions for it?

that police officer won't be charged. the officer who shot charles de menzize is still working. armed police regularly shoot people who are armed and firing on them. they DON'T get kicked out the force. its what armed police are for. we don't live in a country where you shoot at police and don;t get repurcussions.

Edit: I'm aware that arming the police wouldn't stop the riots, but it would make people think alot harder before the burn innocent's houses down.

how exactly would this work? they would see someone going into the house and pump a .308 round through their kidneys so the "criminal" can roll on the ground in agony before dying? yes, becuase THAT is a reasonable response. arming police DOES NOT put down riots. all it leads to is the criminals arming themselves. then we would be like the US.

Thank you so much for breaking this down for me. Yours was the most useful and informative response I've read so far in this whole thread.

I'm from the US, so I was under the impression that UK police didn't carry guns at all...
Which then led to much confusion when I heard about the police fatally shooting some guy before the riots started.

 

[GBlair88]

Spoiler: Some UK police are already armed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_Service_of_Northern_Ireland

 

[Veteran]

Bloody hell, where exactly did the OP state that he thought using firearms on protestors was a good idea? Seems to be a lot of people making their own inferences here.

Anyway, on topic, no - we shouldn't arm the police. We need to ensure that they get the respect they deserve - the lack of fear of reprisal is one of the reasons the looting is so widespread - but we shouldn't arm them (outside of the armed response units, of course).

 

[HotFezz8]

Thank you so much for breaking this down for me. Yours was the most useful and informative response I've read so far in this whole thread.

I'm from the US, so I was under the impression that UK police didn't carry guns at all...
Which then led to much confusion when I heard about the police fatally shooting some guy before the riots started.

firstly; having read that back my reply comes across as, and was, snappish and less patient than it should be. thanks for your reply, which made me reread it and realise i was a bit of a c*nt in my response.

i have friends in the police, and having finished university its where my career path is aimed.

the british police don't carry weapons as standard, there ARE units which are armed (Armed Response Veichles typically, and specialised Metropolitan Police based SWAT like units tasked with deliberate operations (CO19)) but these are the minority, and are generally specifically trained to deal with armed incidents with the minimum of violence necessary.

for instance in the shooting which sparked off the recent riots, the killed criminal/civilian was shot twice, once (fatally) in the chest, once in the bicep.

the biggest problem with this system is that it is not understood and poorly depictated. having spent time in America (New York) its not surprising to see why the americans see the british police as fools for not carrying weapons. the truth is that firearms in britain are almost unheard of, and therefore arming the police as a whole organistation.

another problem can be that british police lack the experience to react to situations outside their normal operations.

it can also lead to unarmed police being confronted with armed perpertrators (in 2010 a man called Brian Bird (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings) killed something like 11 people in a shooting rampage that took place over a morning) before armed officers can be summoned. but this is very VERY rare.

hope this helped some more. again sorry for snapping earlier.

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

Why not give them a gun with less than lethal ammo, such as rubber ammuntion?

It will still allow them to protect themselves (It's just as incapacitating as a real bullet for the most part) without causing as much injury.

Honestly, EVERYBODY should be using this ammo. Less accidental gun killings and so on.

 

[Xanthious]

This logic is so nice until you realize that if the 1000's of people breaking and burning down houses with people inside them would all have guns as well.. it would be a shit storm. The capitol would LITERALLY BE A WARZONE. Firefights and shoot outs. it would be fucking Baghdad in there. Terrible idea to arm EVERYONE. Imagine these crazed animals with guns? I would predict HUNDREDS of deaths. THOUSANDS even if random firing just started happening all along the street.

Also FYI far more rioters than police. The rioters have NO way to harm police properly (throwing stuff i guess) as long as they retain formation and hold ground as a unit, even if heavily outnumbered. Guns takes this advantage away. The police would be annihilated. I have a hunting bow, a katana , and a kukri. I will fuck anyone who attempts to loot my house. I dont need a gun. Im pretty damn far from the rioting as it is. We can still defend ourselves. Giving guns to EVERYONE INCLUDING THE RIOTERS is a shit shit shit shit shit idea. I hate these people. The last thing i want is for the to legally be able to arm themselves.

You are under the assumption that allowing people to arm themselves in the name of self defense automatically means everyone in the country will run out to do so. I can tell you that is not the case in the least. Even though it's perfectly legal in the state I live in to carry a concealed and loaded firearm with you damn near anywhere the vast VAST majority of people don't. Out of the entire massive group that encircles my co-workers family and friends I know a grand total of one other person who owns a pistol, and he doesn't carry it he keeps it locked up in his home.

Furthermore, from what I've seen a lot of the rioters are younger folks or poor folks these aren't the types of people who would be likely to be able to qualify for or be able to afford a gun even if they were given the option.

Despite their amazing lack of good judgement so far I honestly doubt that many of the rioters would think for a second that getting into a firefight with the British police is anything that resembles a good idea. Every time we've had riots in the states it rarely, if ever, breaks out into firefights. Rioters aren't out there looking to go down in a hail of gunfire they are out there to cause some trouble and maybe score some free shit. The second they would be dumb enough to introduce a firearm into the equation they are essentially agreeing to make their life forfeit.

In the end it absolutely baffles me to see people on here so terribly sheepish about law abiding citizens being allowed to defend their lives and their belongings. Criminals are going to get guns if they need them I promise you that. By denying guns to the masses you are only denying them to the law abiding citizens who would be very unlikely to ever do anything with them to cause trouble. As I said before, I've carried a pistol nearly every day for over a decade now and I've yet to have to pull it self defense thankfully. The bottom line is, to borrow a quote from the movie Shane, "A gun is a tool, no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it."

 

[stevo82]

Give the cops guns! Simple as that! A dangerous unarmed offender who resists arrest can naturally be immobilised by pepper spray or by a taser- fine! But if the police officer is amongst the first to an armed scene I would want him/her to be armed and able to shot the offender who is holding a gun and endangering innocent civilians, rather than hold back for the armed squad team to arrive, which may take up to 10-15 minutes. Having guns in patrol cars is a start, but having them on police officers' waists are a lot more useful. I'm not English, but a New Zealander, and we also have a semi-unarmed police force. All detectives carry guns and a recent legislation has been passed for all cars to be supplied with a locked gun box in them. Good, but not good enough! In NZ (popn 4 million) this may work, but in a metropolis like London (I'm not referring to what is taking place at the moment) I would expect police officers to be armed at all times.

I also question why those who have anti-gun sentiments continue to refer to the USA as the sole example. Do you realise that safe and low crime countries such as Holland, Belgium and Japan that police hold guns? Do you hear about that many gun accidents/incidents by police in Spain, France, or Germany? Perhaps arming them may even mean that when police have to use them accidents such as the one that took place last week in London may not happen again. Well-trained gun users would not shoot with the intent to kill. British police officers are ill-equipped and from what I hear untrained in firearms. See this article (nothing to do with police academy movie!):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2011/03_march/21/police_academy4.shtml

I also disagree with the argument that arming the police would result in a greater prevalence of firearms. Take a look at Japan, which has some of the tightest gun laws on earth, yet its police carry firearms... And deaths resulting from gun crime are definitely lower than the UK's and amongst the lowest in the 1st world.