Poll: Should British Police be armed?

[the.gill123]

snip.

snip snip

Thanks for that, it appears that the UK laws are similar, i.e. background checks and licences, though the only guns you can buy here are either Bolt Action Rifles or shotguns that can hold no more than 2 shells at a time. This is slightly disapointing though, as it does mean that Drawn Together lied to me, you can't go out and buy guns from a vending machine.

You may, however, be interested to know that the ATF does NOT regulate muzzle-loading weapons, including smoothbore cannon. So as far as Washington is concerned it would be perfectly legal for you to have an artillery piece in your front lawn.

I really don't know what to say to that, except that if I ever move to America I'm going to have the biggest Howitzer I can find in my garden, also it does explain why the Mythbusters have been able to build their own cannons.

 

[let's rock]

Yes, I can see them having to shoot people being bad, but in the end it would decrease crime, and they would only shoot criminals, if they do that than I belive it's the criminal's own damn fault, they shouldn't have comitted a crime if they didn't want to get shot

 

[Durandal_1707]

Tasers, possibly. Proper guns, no. We have substantially less violent crime than the US, and I'd like to keep it like that.

No you don't. You have less murder and rape, and that's ALL. In every other crime, the UK crime rates are well over the US's, if you actually care to look into it yourself.

I think the UK's CITIZENRY needs to be armed (following, of course, weapon safety and responsibility courses that weed out the stupid and legally irresponsible). this is a country where currently, by law, you are not considered to have the right to defend yourself.

Remember kids, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away!

 

[Conza]

Quite divided, I am in the slightly smaller minority, I would certainly arm the police.

Criminals already have access to firearm weaponary, it is only logical to arm the police with the exact same types of weapons. I feel much safer in Australia when I see my state's police force, armed, and on patrol, if I weren't a law abiding citizen I would think twice before commiting a crime, if it could lead to me being shot in the arm or the leg, or if they missed, a quick end. No guns, all you need to do is out run and out smart them.

I can't think of any reason not to quite frankly, loss of human life? Nope, that doesn't do it for me.

 

[let's rock]

snip.

snip snip

Thanks for that, it appears that the UK laws are similar, i.e. background checks and licences, though the only guns you can buy here are either Bolt Action Rifles or shotguns that can hold no more than 2 shells at a time. This is slightly disapointing though, as it does mean that Drawn Together lied to me, you can't go out and buy guns from a vending machine.

You may, however, be interested to know that the ATF does NOT regulate muzzle-loading weapons, including smoothbore cannon. So as far as Washington is concerned it would be perfectly legal for you to have an artillery piece in your front lawn.

I really don't know what to say to that, except that if I ever move to America I'm going to have the biggest Howitzer I can find in my garden, also it does explain why the Mythbusters have been able to build their own cannons.

No, you can't have anything with a barrel length equal to or more than .5 inches that isn't intended to be used as a shotgun or can projest an explosive device a distance away http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destructive_device

Quite divided, I am in the slightly smaller minority, I would certainly arm the police.

Criminals already have access to firearm weaponary, it is only logical to arm the police with the exact same types of weapons. I feel much safer in Australia when I see my state's police force, armed, and on patrol, if I weren't a law abiding citizen I would think twice before commiting a crime, if it could lead to me being shot in the arm or the leg, or if they missed, a quick end. No guns, all you need to do is out run and out smart them.

I can't think of any reason not to quite frankly, loss of human life? Nope, that doesn't do it for me.

THANK YOU, now if the rest of the world thought like this crime would plumit

 

[the.gill123]

snip.

snip snip

Thanks for that, it appears that the UK laws are similar, i.e. background checks and licences, though the only guns you can buy here are either Bolt Action Rifles or shotguns that can hold no more than 2 shells at a time. This is slightly disapointing though, as it does mean that Drawn Together lied to me, you can't go out and buy guns from a vending machine.

You may, however, be interested to know that the ATF does NOT regulate muzzle-loading weapons, including smoothbore cannon. So as far as Washington is concerned it would be perfectly legal for you to have an artillery piece in your front lawn.

I really don't know what to say to that, except that if I ever move to America I'm going to have the biggest Howitzer I can find in my garden, also it does explain why the Mythbusters have been able to build their own cannons.

No, you can't have anything with a barrel length equal to or more than .5 inches that isn't intended to be used as a shotgun or can projest an explosive device a distance away http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destructive_device

Darn, it looks like I won't be moving to America afterall.

 

[thylasos]

I think the UK's CITIZENRY needs to be armed (following, of course, weapon safety and responsibility courses that weed out the stupid and legally irresponsible). this is a country where currently, by law, you are not considered to have the right to defend yourself.

Apart from with reasonable force.

Also, it's not illegal to own a firearm here. You just have to have some kind of justification for doing so and inform the police, who'll require character references, evidence of membership of a gun club, and evidence of safe storage facilities in your home, as well as a short interview to determine your intentions in gun ownership and your commitment to gun safety.

That doesn't sound terribly unreasonable, to me.

 

[Treblaine]

You mean after that incident last month? Are you SERIOUS? One guy got shot a hundred miles south of me and I got made a victim of the riots way up north, so FUCK NO!

Dude, those looters don't give a crap about some gun toting gangster in London getting shot for being a gun-toting-gangster. 99% of them couldn't even name the suspect, certainly none of them gave ANY time for ANY investigation.

What they DO care about is the sudden realisation that the police have pretty much given up, that iv enough criminal mass in one flash mob then they can loot a store of all it's shit without fear of arrest. Because there are too many of them, a "riot" technically though really it's just looting combined with extraordinarily callous vandalism and arson.

I mean police went on the radio and EXPLICITLY stated they will not attempt to intervene to stop a mob from looting a store "if there is a chance someone might get hurt".

Police have officially gotten too weak.

The police didn't want to arrest anyone, as for every person arrested, at least one officer had to escort the prisoner through the ENTIRE booking process and there was only one custody officer for an area with thousands of looters. The police were paralysed by bureaucracy and wrong-headed unaccountable police chiefs.

You know the Home Secretary can't order ANY of the chiefs of police to do ANYTHING! The police really are a law unto themselves and they decide to sit back and watch their city burn, rather than take some fucking responsibly for enforcing law and order!

While firearms are actually not relevant to quelling looting. Greater powers are, the power to deal some bloody lips and mass arrests of the type of scum that would burn down a whole city block just because they didn't see anything worth nicking.

Rubber bullets, water cannons, tear gas, mass arrests. That's what it takes.

The same attitude that keeps our bobbies without a side-arm stopped them deploying water cannons and rubber bullets when they were needed.

 

[Treblaine]

Anyone else notice how this Poll is much closer now than it was before the August Riots?

 

[Ruuvan]

No.

If you arm them then the criminals will have to get hold of guns - or more guns, as the case may be - and it would just lead to more gun crimes everywhere. Then more armed police. Then more criminals with guns, then more crime! It goes on and on -sobs-

Worth saying I think we deal with our gun crimes well enough as it is. We have the means to respond to it, what?

 

[Durandal_1707]

I think the UK's CITIZENRY needs to be armed (following, of course, weapon safety and responsibility courses that weed out the stupid and legally irresponsible). this is a country where currently, by law, you are not considered to have the right to defend yourself.

Apart from with reasonable force.

Also, it's not illegal to own a firearm here. You just have to have some kind of justification for doing so and inform the police, who'll require character references, evidence of membership of a gun club, and evidence of safe storage facilities in your home, as well as a short interview to determine your intentions in gun ownership and your commitment to gun safety.

That doesn't sound terribly unreasonable, to me.

Except if you use the gun when you actually need to, IE when your home is being broken into, you're suddenly a horrible criminal facing jailtime. If you can't legally use it to defend yourself and your property, you may as well have a paperweight.

I admit openly I'm nowhere near approaching an expert on Britain's legal system, but researching Britain's gun laws, crime rates, and several high-profile incidents involving firearms for a speech class last semester left me frothing at the mouth like a rabid dog in the midst of a seizure. So, that research, while I can probably still dig up and cite my sources, is what I have to go on.

 

[xXAsherahXx]

I'm an American, and therefore not entirely up to date on the British police force so I'm commenting on what I've heard.

I really don't believe that UK police should be armed, I hear they have a bad case of stupidity. You guys should start a reform movement. Petition for mental evaluations on a bi-yearly basis or something, and more transparency. Anything really to correct the moral compass.

In general though, I think armed police have the potential to deal with crime much more efficiently. Guns may not prevent crime, but they can silence it pretty quickly.

 

[Your Fearless Captain]

I think all police should have fully automatic assault rifles. The local station should also have at-least two tanks is working order at all times. And flamethrowers. And swords that are like 4 feet (1.2192 meters) long.

 

[Neyon]

You all do realise there already are armed police in Britain? Not every officer has a firearm and not every officer needs one but there are armed units all across the country. You will often see armed police at transport hubs such as the underground, in and around airports and often walking around london.

 

[JoeThree]

Bad people will always try to rob, rape, and kill one another, and ultimately then it's just a matter of who has the best weapons in regards to if they succeed - them, or the people trying to stop them. Now, you remove guns from the cops, and they're pretty much fucked if they run into a criminal who dares to break the law by possessing a firearm illegally. In a situation where noone has guns, and it comes down to whoever has the best nonlethal weapons, you're essentially in a stalemate. Why not give the advantage to the people charged with protecting the innocent? Now, if the citizenry does not have confidence in their protectors, then that's another issue all together that needs addressing.

 

[Joshimodo]

I voted no because I don't believe in arming anyone. No one should have the power to kill someone. Not even police. It probably reduces crime, but it could increase anger at police and authorities and incite more violence.

I say give them knives. It takes guts, passion, and drive to kill someone with a knife. I figure if they can do that, then there must be a good reason for it. Otherwise they'll have to figure something else out.

If police have guns, they can kill people and get away with it. They can injure people and get away with it. "In the name of the law". I don't even trust the law itself. I don't want it to be able to shoot me if I don't agree with it.

Bullshit on all accounts.

The police shouldn't have the power to kill someone, but they should have the equipment to adequately defend themselves and the public from danger.

It does not take guts, passion or drive to kill with a knife. All it requires is closer proximity. That is a ridiculous suggestion with no potential benefits.

The police in the UK can't get away with anything. The red tape is so thick that even a shot fired that missed would be logged, filed, discussed and elaborated upon. As for "not trusting the law", that's also a dull approach. The police are like any other group. People, not the group, define trustworthiness. Most cops in major UK locations are under ridiculous amounts of scrutiny, so wouldn't step out of line for the most part for fear of persecution.

The last sentence is just a grim reminder of how misconstrued the view of the police is. Not agreeing with them causing them to shoot you? Even in the US that isn't the case.



Anyway, yes, arm specific units and train them appropriately. Not every beat cop bobby needs to pack a gun, just a stun gun and some spray stuff. Met cops should be allowed a pistol, and certain areas should have access to more weaponry (though some areas such as London and Birmingham already do, which is good).

Let's face it - A lot more trouble is caused when (criminal) civilians are carrying weaponry, and the law enforcement isn't.

 

[claymoreguy18]

Yes. Because if its a guy with a gun vs. a guy without a gun most of the time the guy with the gun will win. So if a robber has a gun and the policeman (or woman) does not then chances are the officer will lose.
It sucks but it often doesn't matter who is actually right and who is actually wrong when you have the gun then you are always right. period.
Then again I'm an American so maybe I'm a little biased.

thats a stupid metaphor,
extend it to both people having guns? their both right? that makes no sense at all.
Im sure as hell proud we don't need to resort to deadly means to protect out general public.

No at that point it goes to the person who can use the gun better like the officer who has training and the criminal doesn't.
I'm not saying I like it but that is how it has always been the man with the bigger stick is the boss. You can disarm your police force but then all you are doing is sending them to their deaths.
The world sucks.

 

[likalaruku]

Cops really just need something that can function as a weapon & a force field at the same time.

 

[nklshaz]

I voted yes. I don't think they should be lethally armed, but I think a stun gun and some tear gas will work alright for the especially dangerous troublemakers. But I definitely don't think that anyone should have the power to kill someone, which is why I feel the need to make it very clear that I think they should be NON-lethaly armed.