Poll: Arming the UK Police
- Thread starter BGH122
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I come from Cumbria the area that had the two gunmen on the loose recently. Derrick Bird and Raoul Moat both of which used provately owned hunting weapons to go on a rampage.
The locals here are armed with rifles and shotguns for hunting, the farmers are better armed than the police lol. It's like Texas only with sheep and rain.
I think the British government are worried about escalation but as it is even the 'crime of passion criminals' are capable of aquiring firearms. I don't think a small calibre pistol or somthing for a minority of veteran police would be too much to ask for. Or, just keep it as it is and increase the number of armed response units.
The locals here are armed with rifles and shotguns for hunting, the farmers are better armed than the police lol. It's like Texas only with sheep and rain.
I think the British government are worried about escalation but as it is even the 'crime of passion criminals' are capable of aquiring firearms. I don't think a small calibre pistol or somthing for a minority of veteran police would be too much to ask for. Or, just keep it as it is and increase the number of armed response units.
Okay, so option three is just 'keep things as they are now', right?
I'd pick option 1, mostly because I live in Northern Ireland and the police are usually armed here anyway. Of course, I believe firearms training should be strict, and harsh punishments for ANY kind of misconduct.
I'm all for legalising more wide civilian possession of firearms over here too, but that's just me. Okay, you're entitled to own as many shotguns as you want given a few conditions (Smoothbore, 2-round magazine (plus one in the chamber), shotgun licence, all shotguns secured to the satisfaction of the local police department, et cetera) but it's still quite restrictive in what you can choose. With equally strict training and harsh punishment for firearms misconduct as well, of course.
Edit;
Actually, simply supplying them with tasers would have diffused this situation very effectively as well. I'm all for avoiding death where it's possible.
I'd pick option 1, mostly because I live in Northern Ireland and the police are usually armed here anyway. Of course, I believe firearms training should be strict, and harsh punishments for ANY kind of misconduct.
I'm all for legalising more wide civilian possession of firearms over here too, but that's just me. Okay, you're entitled to own as many shotguns as you want given a few conditions (Smoothbore, 2-round magazine (plus one in the chamber), shotgun licence, all shotguns secured to the satisfaction of the local police department, et cetera) but it's still quite restrictive in what you can choose. With equally strict training and harsh punishment for firearms misconduct as well, of course.
Edit;
Actually, simply supplying them with tasers would have diffused this situation very effectively as well. I'm all for avoiding death where it's possible.
That's...wrong.EvilPicnic said:
I can get a gun in any country under 24 hours, UK included. If I wanted to. And I don't.
Might not be an assault rifle, but I'll get my hands on something that shoots lead using sulfur, charcoal, and potassium nitrate. Hell, if need be, I can BUILD one.
Remember, if you outlaw guns in, let's say, Poland, then what exactly is stopping people from buying them in, let's say, Russia?
Also,
"According to the US Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, and Tobacco (BAFT), around 4.37 million firearms are produced in the US every year. According to "Small Arms Survey 2001", it is estimated that at least 347 million small arms were produced worldwide between 1945 and 2000."
If you don't buy 'em, someone else will.
This seems more a case of making more specialist teams ready for these sorts of incidents and re-defining situations in which they should be used.
As for the machete man, surely riot shiled or tasers would have been enough. That all seemed needlessly complex, though brave and warranting a lot of respect.
As for the machete man, surely riot shiled or tasers would have been enough. That all seemed needlessly complex, though brave and warranting a lot of respect.
I kind of agree, but on the other hand I think it's important to note that serious crime is much lower in UK compared to America.
That being said, our forces shouldn't be unprepared for situations like this. I would stress the officers get a hell of a lot of training with firearms before being issued them. That might sound obvious to some people, but I wouldn't want the police in my country walking around with handguns they can't operate properly.
That being said, our forces shouldn't be unprepared for situations like this. I would stress the officers get a hell of a lot of training with firearms before being issued them. That might sound obvious to some people, but I wouldn't want the police in my country walking around with handguns they can't operate properly.
HAS to be a killing shot? Please cite the law in question for me, as I doubt that this is the case. I agree with the rest of your thoughts.Burs said:
Anyway, fewer guns = fewer deaths. If people have guns, people are going to die. I'm curious as to why no tazer showed up for the situation in the video, but it isn't a reason why police need guns as standard issue.
No...you wouldn'tSparrow said:
We have exactly that here, and let me tell you, that's why I'm carrying myself. Cops here couldn't hit a barn door while inside the barn.
Little example
As a civilian, you need an accuracy rating of 80 to get a license
As a state cop, you need 70
As a metro cop, you need to know which end of the metal thingie the smaller metal thingie comes out.
Fun, innit?
Variant to topic, but this answers a question I've been meaning to ask on a Torchwood forum. In one episode of Torchwood (season one), the character of PC (Police Constable) Gwen Cooper is taken into an indoor firing range by Jack, shown a selection of handguns (some of which appear to be police issue) and told that she'd "need to learn to use them."
That was confusing, because I figured that she should know already, being a police officer. Turns out she doesn't because UK police aren't armed - makes sense for the show, but really fucking terrifies me as a person. Guns are what makes armed forced something to be respected and feared. Sure, the legal right to arrest and fine might be enough for some people, and nightsticks/batons and spray might for others, but what about those that aren't fearful of those things?
That was confusing, because I figured that she should know already, being a police officer. Turns out she doesn't because UK police aren't armed - makes sense for the show, but really fucking terrifies me as a person. Guns are what makes armed forced something to be respected and feared. Sure, the legal right to arrest and fine might be enough for some people, and nightsticks/batons and spray might for others, but what about those that aren't fearful of those things?
"Never point a firearm at anything you do not intend to destroy"mightybozz said:
Also, there is no such thing as a gunshot wound that isn't potentially lethal. It doesn't matter where you're hit; if you're shot and you don't get medical attention, you will almost certainly die. It's just a case of 'how long'.
I agree that the fact that the UK police usually don't carry firearms does have it's benefits; such as the fact that no-one died here. I'd say that's a fairly positive outcome. A taser would have been pretty helpful, though...
Well as many people have said, we simply don't have guns here. Which means gun crime is incredibly rare. Police shootings are also rare, and (usually) properly investigated like any other potential offence.
When it comes to beating the shit out of people in protests and dragging them out of wheelchairs, we're not so good...
When it comes to beating the shit out of people in protests and dragging them out of wheelchairs, we're not so good...
There are nearly 7000 authorised firearms officers in the UK, and we are a small island. All major airports and political buildings have armed officers present, as well as armed response teams being on call. So it's not true that there are no armed officers. But mostly they're not needed.Nerdfury said:
And that whole arming yourself out of fear thing works the other way too; criminals know they won't get shot out of hand and so don't feel the need to arm themselves with firearms to protect themselves. It's like the reduction of nuclear weapons, it leads to a general de-escalation of violence and tension across the board.
Saying you'd be terrified is quite interesting: here in the UK we don't live in fear at all, and there are no suggestions at all to arm the police. Notice that nearly all the 'OMG how awful' posts are from users outside the UK and most of the 'errr...why would we need to?' posts are from UK users. The grass really is greener.
In fact, if police got given lethal weapons as standard, I think most people would be pretty pissed off...
I get the distinct feeling this thread has been massively affected by the numbers of Americans posting here so I will just say this and hope someone reads it.
We are and will remain a country with a massively different culture from you, firearms have not and hopefully never will be commonplace here arming rank and file police officers is simply an insane idea. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not anti-gun by any stretch of the imagination I realise that sometimes they are a necessary tool.
It does strike me though that any society that feels a need for everyone to be armed in order to feel safe is more than a little insecure. But like I said, different cultures, different ways of doing things.
I leave you with this quote from a friend of my family who served in an inner city police force for several years and was involved in a fair amount of violence in his time.
We are and will remain a country with a massively different culture from you, firearms have not and hopefully never will be commonplace here arming rank and file police officers is simply an insane idea. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not anti-gun by any stretch of the imagination I realise that sometimes they are a necessary tool.
It does strike me though that any society that feels a need for everyone to be armed in order to feel safe is more than a little insecure. But like I said, different cultures, different ways of doing things.
I leave you with this quote from a friend of my family who served in an inner city police force for several years and was involved in a fair amount of violence in his time.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people, the gun does make it a whole lot easier though.
I can't read 7 pages of most my fellow Americans saying "let their be guns" regardless of if i share the notion to arm the police with them we have guns built into are society.
The issue isn't should they have guns it is do they have the need for them and so far all i see them needing is non-lethal projectiles like a shotgun that shoots only beanbags and the like.
I say Option 3 for the most part if guns are needed.
Also for the record i find the use of a video when you already have some solid facts to be more harmful than helpful cause it made me only think you are trying to get people to agree with you and don't have the facts to back up your position.
The issue isn't should they have guns it is do they have the need for them and so far all i see them needing is non-lethal projectiles like a shotgun that shoots only beanbags and the like.
I say Option 3 for the most part if guns are needed.
Also for the record i find the use of a video when you already have some solid facts to be more harmful than helpful cause it made me only think you are trying to get people to agree with you and don't have the facts to back up your position.
I think they should be armed with tazers and yell "Pika. Pika. PIKACHUUU!!" when tazing.
OT: I think option is the best, but they should only be allowed to use it in situations where it's absolutely neccessary to protect or save someone.
OT: I think option is the best, but they should only be allowed to use it in situations where it's absolutely neccessary to protect or save someone.