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

[Mantonio]

When polled, most police say they don't WANT to carry on the beat. They don't feel it necessary. And statistics show that on the whole, that's correct.

Pushing firearms into their hands and saying 'Now shoot at the people you've been sworn to protect' will not solve anything.

 

[Treblaine]

Obviously not for riots but the thing is armed police are an absolute necessity with the level of gun crime in the UK yet the general public still think it is alien for police to have guns. They assume police should be passive and gentle.

If more people got used to the idea of police being armed they couldn't use it as an excuse to riot when police justifiably shoot a gunman who is running amok!

One of reasons why the riots started was due to the police shooting someone in the head.More guns would make this even worse

That guy was armed with a live and loaded gun. IPCC has confirmed it.

Or Do you suggest the "operation human shield" tactic of dealing with gun crime, just keep throwing police officers at gunmen absorbing bullets till they run out of ammo?[/sarc]

 

[irani_che]

we are english, a 16 year old with a boxcutter is enough to make us shit our pants and go into hysteria

give english police guns and they automatically go into a jumpy trigger finger mode. At least american police are used to guns, hell, the average midwestern person probably knows more about guns than most english policemen

 

[steampunk42]

there was riot in a town near where i live. the police resorted to non violent weps. meaning rubber bullets, those will drop a person just as fast as a bullet. i say distribute those first, no reason to go straight to shooting lead.

 

[TheXRatedDodo]

Violence begets violence, no.

 

[Treblaine]

When polled, most police say they don't WANT to carry on the beat. They don't feel it necessary. And statistics show that on the whole, that's correct.

Pushing firearms into their hands and saying 'Now shoot at the people you've been sworn to protect' will not solve anything.

I'm sure they said the same thing in Cumbria.

But when a spree killer went on a rampage there the police had no choice but to run away, so allowing someone with a weapon with little firepower to claim many so victims.

Police don't want to be generally armed as it excuses them from having to actually combat armed gunmen, an be negligent in their duty of protecting the public from such armed psychopaths.

PS: police are not actually sworn to protect, they are sworn to uphold the law. It is no conflict in principals to shoot a maniac on a killing spree or arrest a gun toting gangster without fear of being gunned down.

 

[Mr.White]

No.

England has been policed perfectly fine without guns for years, bringing them in would only escalate things (not limited to the riot), people would start getting guns "for self defence" because criminals would start carrying them to combat the police and inevitably use them in regular crimes.

The police are already well equipped (i've seen those extending baton things put some pretty big guys in tears), it's just a shame that there are so many rules and regulations (as well as "political correctness") in place meaning that nothing can be done, for example I remember there being a police handbook saying that youths could not be called "youths" in case it hurt their feelings, and that's just how to talk to someone.

 

[Yorkshire_matt]

Guns aren't a deterrent, I've seen police armed with guns (not sure what they were but looked to be an assault rifle) patrolling Nottingham; if thats what the police have what do the criminals have?

The police just need to be able administer beatings and not be restrained from really sorting out the trouble causers

 

[somonels]

If anything then the military should train reserves to handle such riots.

 

[Alxast45]

I think it is a good idea for some grroups of police . not all. but some for instance for catching armed maniacs you wouldnt bring a tazer

 

[Valdus]

One of reasons why the riots started was due to the police shooting someone in the head.More guns would make this even worse

*sighes* get the facts right. Some forces do have guns, but are only brought in for very specific cases. In the case you mentioned it was because the suspect was believed to have firearms.

Now...if you're a police officer and you're told "Go over there and arrest that hostile crazy person with a gun" are you gonna be satisfied with a stick? Hell no. Guns don't just shot you know, they can intimidate as well. Have you ever been held at gun point? In that type of scenario you don't need to be shot for the gun to have a significant impact. What's more the suspect was actually shot by accident, something far less likely to happy if the police had more experience with firearms.

Also, while that may have started the riots it's not really the fault of guns. The rioters are anti-guns or anything like that. They're just thugs who were looking for an excuse to smash and steal. Even without the earlier shooting they still would have rioted - it just means they would have waited for a different reason to do so.

 

[Jamieson 90]

No way, we already have armed response units which are enough. To be honest I would not trust our standard police with guns.

 

[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.

 

[orangeban]

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

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.

 

[Viral_Lola]

This is a tough one. I think the police being able to have access to guns could be useful but the UK not having guns has been working for them just fine. I think it would be a bad idea to issue them guns when there are riots going on. Maybe look into non-lethal alternatives?

 

[Karma168]

Guns in the hands of the average bobby? No way in hell. Arming riot police with rubber bullets and giving them permission to shoot the rioters? yeah i can see that as a good deterrent.

Rioters don't care about the police being there because they know the police have orders not to be aggressive and only fight back if attacked, as long as the rioters leave the police alone they are untouchable. That needs to change, the police should be given the orders to aggressively deal with the rioters, taking as many of them down as possible as fast as possible, rubber bullets are a good first step.

 

[TheXRatedDodo]

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.

 

[El Luck]

...Are you an idiot?

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

Yes, because these riots started after the police shot and killed a man, obviously the correct answer to how to stop them is to let the police shoot and kill more people!

Stop ascribing American cultural viewpoints onto other cultures. We don't have your Freudian obsession with willy-extensions of death, so fuck off and leave us in peace.

 

[SammiYin]

Yes, a criminal isn't going to give two shits about gun law, so he would happily blaze away at a policeman, and what can the policeman do to defend himself? Say "Please come here sir and let me handcuff you"
It's a fucking joke, I don't care about the lives of scum, so kill them.