• Should every police officer be armed?
    134 replies, posted
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;37817178]are you questioning whether culture has an effect on a population and why? i can't possibly answer that, I'm not a sociologist. [editline]27th September 2012[/editline] you can't compare the statistics because the test group isn't the same, and even if you do, you'll notice few firearm involved incidents in the uk and Japan, and many more in the us.[/QUOTE] [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6960431.stm][img]http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44075000/gif/_44075309_f_arms_recorded_gra203.gif[/img][/url] Just under ten thousand instances of crime involving firearms in the UK is far from "few incidents," and ironically it's actually gone up since the ban on handguns in the late '90s. I don't deny, however, that the US has more crime, but that's mostly due to the gang culture bred in the US, not the idea that the cops are armed so the criminals must be too, often American criminals are armed because other criminals are armed, and they need to protect themselves and their investments from opposing gangs. I mentioned, though, that Japan has strict gun control, yet all their average officers are armed, however their crime rates are nowhere near those of the US. The average Japanese police officer is prepared for the possibility of an armed conflict, as rare as it may be, they can contain the situation and protect themselves, then call in the SWAT team. In the UK, the average cop doesn't carry a gun (I've heard interesting historical anecdotes as to why, it's not due to the "lack" of gun crime), and therefor is unprepared for an armed confrontation, and unable to defend themself in the event of one. The situation is not controlled until a SWAT team arrives, which could take a while and cost lives in the process. Violent crime may not happen often, but it happens, and it's best that all officers are prepared to face a violent, armed criminal on equal ground, else the criminal will have the advantage in the situation, and that can, as has been shown with the deaths of those two officers, be fatally dangerous. Giving a cop a gun will not make them a trigger-happy nut, it will not make them any more oppressive than they are now, and it is an absolutely minuscule to the point of being completely negligible possibility that their gun will ever be taken from their holster in the line of duty. As long as they receive appropriate training in the handling of firearms and the use of force this won't lead to some sort of violent police oppression in the UK, nor will it somehow make it easier for criminals to get guns, at least, no easier than it already is [url=www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/manchester-police-shootings-death-for-sale-1333566](surprisingly easy, hundred pounds a gun, 5 a bullet)[/url]. In order to be able to effectively combat something like that, an officer needs to be on at least equal ground, and that's accomplished with a handgun.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;37828400][url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6960431.stm][img]http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44075000/gif/_44075309_f_arms_recorded_gra203.gif[/img][/url] Just under ten thousand instances of crime involving firearms in the UK is far from "few incidents," and ironically it's actually gone up since the ban on handguns in the late '90s. I don't deny, however, that the US has more crime, but that's mostly due to the gang culture bred in the US, not the idea that the cops are armed so the criminals must be too, often American criminals are armed because other criminals are armed, and they need to protect themselves and their investments from opposing gangs. I mentioned, though, that Japan has strict gun control, yet all their average officers are armed, however their crime rates are nowhere near those of the US. The average Japanese police officer is prepared for the possibility of an armed conflict, as rare as it may be, they can contain the situation and protect themselves, then call in the SWAT team. In the UK, the average cop doesn't carry a gun (I've heard interesting historical anecdotes as to why, it's not due to the "lack" of gun crime), and therefor is unprepared for an armed confrontation, and unable to defend themself in the event of one. The situation is not controlled until a SWAT team arrives, which could take a while and cost lives in the process. Violent crime may not happen often, but it happens, and it's best that all officers are prepared to face a violent, armed criminal on equal ground, else the criminal will have the advantage in the situation, and that can, as has been shown with the deaths of those two officers, be fatally dangerous. Giving a cop a gun will not make them a trigger-happy nut, it will not make them any more oppressive than they are now, and it is an absolutely minuscule to the point of being completely negligible possibility that their gun will ever be taken from their holster in the line of duty. As long as they receive appropriate training in the handling of firearms and the use of force this won't lead to some sort of violent police oppression in the UK, nor will it somehow make it easier for criminals to get guns, at least, no easier than it already is [url=www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/manchester-police-shootings-death-for-sale-1333566](surprisingly easy, hundred pounds a gun, 5 a bullet)[/url]. In order to be able to effectively combat something like that, an officer needs to be on at least equal ground, and that's accomplished with a handgun.[/QUOTE] My point was that you can't compare the statistics and say 'yes they need guns!'. I don't think they need guns, for the sole reason that they don't want guns, and if they do want guns, they already can get one. [editline]28th September 2012[/editline] They themselves are perfectly capable of assessing the situation, their job, and decide whether or not they want to carry a firearm. They massively decide not to, and thus I don't think you should force them to.
My brother is a detective and honestly I wouldn't feel safe having him go out on duty without a weapon. You guys can argue that if cops didn't have weapons, criminals wouldn't need them either and that's complete crap. Would there be less criminals carrying around weapons? I would say definitely but for the sake of those who risk their lives,to serve, protect and save the lives of innocent citizens, I think handguns are a necessity. These aren't people who apply for a license and walk out the door with machine guns, these are officers of the law who are thoroughly trained and investigated before being hired.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;37828400][url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6960431.stm][img]http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44075000/gif/_44075309_f_arms_recorded_gra203.gif[/img][/url][/QUOTE] You should divide those numbers by population. More people = more incidents.
[QUOTE=Nikita;37838732]You should divide those numbers by population. More people = more incidents.[/QUOTE] Also, as carrying handguns is an offence, the figures would inevitably go up if behaviour doesn't change. The graph means nothing really.
Considering that we're currently at a [URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18900384"]30 year low for crime in the UK, with gun crime down 16% and knife crime down 5% on the previous year[/URL], I would argue that we don't need routinely armed police. What happened in Manchester was a tragedy, yes, but seeing as it was two police officers called out to a routine burglary call who were then ambushed with grenades and firearms, I don't think them being armed would have a difference to the outcome.
dragon dildos will make them niggas run in fear. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Not debating" - Megafan))[/highlight]
I feel that it's up to the individual police officer to decide what types of 'tools/weapons' to walk around with where and when. c:
I think this certain situation here shows that police officers need to be armed to protect not just the community but themselves from people like this: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cX5CPx4RKWw[/media]
[QUOTE=-n3o-;37984203]I think this certain situation here shows that police officers need to be armed to protect not just the community but themselves from people like this: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cX5CPx4RKWw[/media][/QUOTE] Err, I don't see anyone getting hurt in this video, they called in extra cops with riot gear and they arrested him (from what I can see). I don't see how shooting the guy would have been a better ending..
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;37984541]Err, I don't see anyone getting hurt in this video, they called in extra cops with riot gear and they arrested him (from what I can see). I don't see how shooting the guy would have been a better ending..[/QUOTE] There are many other possible ways this could have ended, they we're pretty lucky no-one got hurt.
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;37984541]Err, I don't see anyone getting hurt in this video, they called in extra cops with riot gear and they arrested him (from what I can see). I don't see how shooting the guy would have been a better ending..[/QUOTE] You don't need to actually kill the person, just pointing a gun at someone is often enough for them to surrender as they know they can't win
[QUOTE=matt.ant;37985068]You don't need to actually kill the person, just pointing a gun at someone is often enough for them to surrender as they know they can't win[/QUOTE] Yes because people who go swinging machetes at cops in the middle of the street are usually very sane and reasonable.
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;37984541]Err, I don't see anyone getting hurt in this video, they called in extra cops with riot gear and they arrested him (from what I can see). I don't see how shooting the guy would have been a better ending..[/QUOTE] Having a firearm does not necessitate it's use, it simply allows for it should the need arise. It seems rather odd to me, albeit I'm from the US, that one crazed individual brandishing a machete in the streets would necessitate twenty or so odd police officers. "Don't bring a batton (and or trash bin) to a machete fight." It seems one or two officers with hand guns could have assuaged the individual more quickly and with less risk to the lives of everyone involved, as apposed to a giant mass of glorified citizens with sticks and plexi-glass shields. I understand the premise, and respect anyone who would serve as a UK police officer, but in practice I find the strategy wanting.
[QUOTE=Rayjingstorm;37987589]Having a firearm does not necessitate it's use, it simply allows for it should the need arise. It seems rather odd to me, albeit I'm from the US, that one crazed individual brandishing a machete in the streets would necessitate twenty or so odd police officers. "Don't bring a batton (and or trash bin) to a machete fight." It seems one or two officers with hand guns could have assuaged the individual more quickly and with less risk to the lives of everyone involved, [b]as apposed to a giant mass of glorified citizens with sticks and plexi-glass shields.[/b] I understand the premise, and respect anyone who would serve as a UK police officer, but in practice I find the strategy wanting.[/QUOTE] Don't ye think that's rather pompous? I don't see US police officers with their little guns doing a better job at all.
Baton and stungun would be more than enough to keep me happy; if any weapon is even needed. That being said, I do live in one of the 'safest' cities in the UK.
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;37987758]Don't ye think that's rather pompous? I don't see US police officers with their little guns doing a better job at all.[/QUOTE] I'll concede that was a rather hyperbolic statement, but I'm just trying to point out the inherent inefficiency of a system whereby the act of subduing one individual with only a knife necessitates more than one or two officers, let alone ten or twenty. I mean to say that I would prefer a smaller amount of more effective forces, as apposed to a large amount of under-equipped ones. Again, this is an opinion and I have nothing to substantiate my claims that it would have helped in this situation besides my own intuition.
In my opinion they should definitley be armed. Not neccesarily make use of it but someone would be less likely to attack an officer if he knew he was armed.
[QUOTE=Rayjingstorm;37989203]I'll concede that was a rather hyperbolic statement, but I'm just trying to point out the inherent inefficiency of a system whereby the act of subduing one individual with only a knife necessitates more than one or two officers, let alone ten or twenty. I mean to say that I would prefer a smaller amount of more effective forces, as apposed to a large amount of under-equipped ones. Again, this is an opinion and I have nothing to substantiate my claims that it would have helped in this situation besides my own intuition.[/QUOTE] none of us know, that's why i choose to stand by the officers themselves whom all agree they do not need to carry a firearm. and it's not like they can't carry, they may choose to, they just don't.
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;37993822]none of us know, that's why i choose to stand by the officers themselves whom all agree they do not need to carry a firearm. and it's not like they can't carry, they may choose to, they just don't.[/QUOTE] If it were true that they are more effective without a gun, I would support it. If I were paying more to support larger police forces of under-equipped men so that they could be less effective in protecting me and my family, I wouldn't give a damn as to what they prefer. Hypothetically speaking, of course.
Every man should have a gun, guns levels everyone just about the same. You bet that criminal will have a weapon, even if it is banned. [QUOTE=matt.ant;37985068]You don't need to actually kill the person, just pointing a gun at someone is often enough for them to surrender as they know they can't win[/QUOTE] One of the most important rules they teach you in shooting lessons is not to take your gun off unless you're shooting, a gun is no mean of showing power, it's a last resort.
No. I don't believe arming police officers in the UK past what is currently in place will benefit the nation.
[QUOTE=Clunj;37999625]No. I don't believe arming police officers in the UK past what is currently in place will benefit the nation.[/QUOTE] I agree. Gun crime is almost unheard of here, the stuff of legends.
Just equip police officers with non-lethal self defense weapons like pepper spray and tasers.
[QUOTE=jaykray;38013882]I agree. Gun crime is almost unheard of here, the stuff of legends.[/QUOTE] Uh correct me if I'm wrong But wasn't there a period of time recently where you guys had armed police actively patrolling certain sections of london? I don't imagine that is done out of the blue just for shits and giggles.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;38099119]Uh correct me if I'm wrong But wasn't there a period of time recently where you guys had armed police actively patrolling certain sections of london? I don't imagine that is done out of the blue just for shits and giggles.[/QUOTE] You'll have to be more specific, I don't remember hearing about that.
[QUOTE=Clunj;37999625]No. I don't believe arming police officers in the UK past what is currently in place will benefit the nation.[/QUOTE] Mainland UK you mean, in northern ireland something like over 90% of police officers are armed. On the other hand, with one of the best police forces there is (just look at how they were called in to show the london forces how it should be done during the rioting), they know what they're doing and you don't get all that shooting first and asking questions later like in the US.
[QUOTE=zombojoe;38098395]Just equip police officers with non-lethal self defense weapons like pepper spray and tasers.[/QUOTE] Because pepper spray and tasers are really helpful versus a man with a handgun. [sp]and some people, like 12% or something, are immune to mace's effects[/sp]
Yes. The reason is if I call 911 I would want a man with a gun or any type of weapon.
[QUOTE=Kevjumba;38290789]Yes. The reason is if I call 911 I would want a man with a gun or any type of weapon.[/QUOTE] Why if it's not needed? If you call 999 in the UK and say "there's a man with a gun here" they will send the armed response team - so they'll have weapons. If you say "there's a man with a knife / bat / anything else they won't.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.