Poll: Should UK police be given guns as standard issue?
- Thread starter miketehmage
- Start date
Tazers are great for riots. When rioters see a few of their mates flopping around like fish, they might reconsider whether or not that much pain is worth what they can loot.miketehmage said:
Actual guns, less so.
I voted yes, but mostly for the tazers. They're a great "middle ground" for dealing with crap like this.
The UK is a very, very different place to the US. We don't want guns, we don't want our police to have guns.
Sure, some criminals have guns, but they're mostly activated replicas or antiques; we're an awful long way from being awash with the things. It's actually pretty difficult to get hold of guns here, and our gun crime statistics back that up. There are specialist units who can respond to gun crime when it's necessary to do so.
And guns would be useless in these riots anyway, because the rioters would have to believe that the police would actually use them for them to be a deterrent, and they're only going to believe that after somebody gets gunned down. This may just make them angrier.
Sure, some criminals have guns, but they're mostly activated replicas or antiques; we're an awful long way from being awash with the things. It's actually pretty difficult to get hold of guns here, and our gun crime statistics back that up. There are specialist units who can respond to gun crime when it's necessary to do so.
And guns would be useless in these riots anyway, because the rioters would have to believe that the police would actually use them for them to be a deterrent, and they're only going to believe that after somebody gets gunned down. This may just make them angrier.
Allegedly. The riots started because of doubt concerning the officers story, and because a witness claimed that the man who got shot was pinned to the ground at the time. The bullet that shattered a police radio, supposedly fired by the suspect, was police issue and all. Not saying I believe either story over the other, but just thought i'd explain the situation. Lot of people who don't get what the riots are actually about, assuming it's just idiots protesting the police doing their job.Thanatus1992 said:
Same as above.Soxafloppin said:
Taken from wiki*
'Unlike the majority of police forces in the United Kingdom, the PSNI is the only territorial police force that routinely arms all of its officers.[19] Officers are issued the Glock 17 pistol, phasing out the now considered obsolete Ruger Speed Six revolvers previously issued. Previously long arms were routinely issued: either the Heckler & Koch MP5, or rifles such as Heckler & Koch G3s, G36Cs or HK33s which replaced Ruger AC-556 select fire rifles. Long arms are still routinely carried in areas of higher threat such as North and West Belfast or various border areas.'
I grew up around Soliders and fully armed officers in the Armagh and Co. Down areas, was just the norm to see it, plus we have a loooooooooong history of regular riots, with mostly(i stress this) limited gunfire in the last few years. Think it was only till resently i was supprised to find out Other UK areas the officers dont have a side arm.
Still is odd to me seening this.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_Service_of_Northern_Ireland#Firearms
First of all, a gun only kills based on the user. The problem is they're easy to use (Quoth Futurama, "Simple point and click interface"). Second of all, if every person wanted to stay in line, then we wouldn't need police in the first place, so someone has to take care of the ones who do step out of line and we can't leave it to an emotional mob.UberaDpmn said:
OT: I would say no to standard issue. Maybe I would say yes to a specific jurisdiction with higher-than-usual gun violence but I think someone mentioned there was already a dedicated force for gun violence in the UK so that would probably be out, too.
Can someone explain to me what's with all the rioting down here? I heard that some guy got shot by a police officer but I haven't heard of any foul play. I mean, I'm not saying that all our policemen should be armed but when it's necessary then action should be taken. Either way, it's certainly not a good reason to go apeshit and start looting.
On the topic of guns being standard issue... no, I think I would meet you halfway and say that more policemen should have guns to deal with situations like this but I wouldn't go as far as standard issue.
On the topic of guns being standard issue... no, I think I would meet you halfway and say that more policemen should have guns to deal with situations like this but I wouldn't go as far as standard issue.
Thats because they are personnal protection weapins due to the security threat over here they are also allowed to carry said firearm when off duty since mainland England isnt full of armed paramilitary forces.Soxafloppin said:
Well the IPCC has came out saying that the bullet lodged in the cops radio was a bullet from another police weapon not to mention theres extreme doubt over the fact the supposed criminal ever actually fired.
I don't think that they should, they should be given them at times like this. The riots are dangerous to a point at which giving them guns will do good by scaring people off the streets. It would also mean that they could spread out more.
I'm a kiwi and in my experience, giving firearms to police officers is a bad idea unless is it accompanied by a complete series of psychological tests and a shakedown of the police organisation from the ground up to weed out people who should not or could not be trusted with firearms and the responsibilities of their use in law enforcement.
No way, too dangerous. The guns could be taken from them by mobs and used against them, this whole riot started from a protest about the police shooting someone. How is guns going to help?
They may sound very neat but they cause massive damage, and some of the protestors being 8-10 year olds the damage could be devastating, and how do you think an angry mob would respond to that?UltraDeth said:
Violence does not solve a violence problem, it only fuels it.
No, regular police officers shouldn't have guns. Generally, and especially in a place like Britain, there are very few situations that require guns. In America, you hardly ever hear about police saving the day with guns where guns were necessary; however, you're always hearing about situations where they weren't necessary, but since they were there, the situation escalated.
In america, pointing aggressively at a police officer can get you shot in the face. 12 times.
And thats fine. Cops werent drafted to that job, and theres a lot of wackos with guns out there (often acquired illegally). So don't fuck with cops, or you get shot in the face.
And thats fine. Cops werent drafted to that job, and theres a lot of wackos with guns out there (often acquired illegally). So don't fuck with cops, or you get shot in the face.
in australia, our police carry guns (and i'm given to believe they're all cocked and loaded and all the gunnery business i have no clue about), i assumed police in most countries do (don't they have submachine guns in france?)
ideally they should be able to resolve a situation without one but beyond needing to "use" the gun itself there's probably a profound psychological benefit to the cop, and a profound psychological threat to the victim, to justify them being at least armed with them
i'm not saying they should USE them in the riots that i'm guessing provoked this thread, more that "oh shit, a guy has a gun and is issuing drug crazed threats... quick, THE PEPPER SPRAY!" isn't necessarily going to help much
honestly, i don't know... i don't know what it's like to be a cop or a criminal in that situation to know exactly what a gun would do (beyond the shooting thing), but despite that obvious ignorance, i'm going to say yes they should be given guns standard issue. they should be loath to use them, but yes
ideally they should be able to resolve a situation without one but beyond needing to "use" the gun itself there's probably a profound psychological benefit to the cop, and a profound psychological threat to the victim, to justify them being at least armed with them
i'm not saying they should USE them in the riots that i'm guessing provoked this thread, more that "oh shit, a guy has a gun and is issuing drug crazed threats... quick, THE PEPPER SPRAY!" isn't necessarily going to help much
honestly, i don't know... i don't know what it's like to be a cop or a criminal in that situation to know exactly what a gun would do (beyond the shooting thing), but despite that obvious ignorance, i'm going to say yes they should be given guns standard issue. they should be loath to use them, but yes
Just to clarify the only rounds recovered are police issue. The man killed didn't fire any shots, so all you people saying he was returning fire... POW!
couldn't think of anything more meaningful than pow... oh well...
couldn't think of anything more meaningful than pow... oh well...
They shouldn't be able to sue for police brutality. If you comit a crime, you should have to pay the consequences. Also, a cop will only shoot you if given sufficient reasoning, so don't give him that reason to do so. If a cop shoots you, usualy it's you're own damn fault. Ok there are bad cops out there, but it's not enough to just say they are all bad and take their guns