Poll: Should British Police be armed?

[mortalsatsuma]

I know this question has probably been asked many times before but I need some help with an essay I am handing in tomorrow with the title being the one above. I'm looking for peoples opinions on the subject, especially Americans who already have armed police "Protecting and serving" them and whether they think it is a good or a bad thing to have armed police and whether You think it has any effect on the levels of crime in your country.

 

[InfiniteSingularity]

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.

 

[BlueberryMUNCH]

Yep, in an ideal world I'd approve.

In reality? I seriously doubt it could ever happen. Riot risk and suck eh.

 

[Zarkov]

I think there should be special layer of the police that are allowed to have guns, but the every day police officer should not.

There needs to be some enforcement, but trusting every police officer with something that can take a life easily is just asking for trouble.

 

[thylasos]

No, we simply don't have the same levels of gun-crime or gun ownership for it to be necessary, and the SO19 firearms units can be called upon if they're needed for a specific operation.

Never mind that the idea doesn't have popular support, especially given the recent outrages over police complicity in unlawful killings, even where firearms weren't involved.

It's not a part of our culture, and I dare say it would simply result in the criminal element upping their game, in terms of thei own use of firearms and so on.

 

[Duskwaith]

They do a good enough job beating up newspaper sellers and guys in wheel chairs without firearms so I would say no.

Even when they have guns the mess up, like the shooting dead of that guy that sparked the london riots with a police bullet ending up in another police mans radio not to mention the shooting dead of said man without justifiable intent

 

[DannyHale09]

I think so, yes.

 

[AssassinFisH]

If the police start arming themselves, so will the criminals. At the moment we have specialist armed police and that works just fine. If all police were armed public relations would take a massive nosedive, which would completely go against the pledge of the British policing.

 

[ShindoL Shill]

i saw a video of the police defending themselves and the public from someone with a machete using bins.
so in some situations, tasers can get help.

 

[Da Orky Man]

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

 

[Michael Hirst]

Arming Police leads to an abuse of power and more distrust from the public which is exactly what caused the initial outcry before the riots. While I will say that a lot of the riots frther down the line were due to the realization that the criminals thought they could get away with it I will say that the initial outcry was a response to a police force which at times can seem to have zero accountability for immoral actions and/or abuse of their power.

Specialized units of armed police are a better idea because this means that only in extreme cases where the police are hunting a dangerous group of people they have the option to go in armed. If the police all come armed then it's more likely for criminals to also arm themselves out of fear of the police firing upon them...vicious cycle which leads to some of the problems that parts of America suffer from now.

EDIT: I'm talking about guns and live ammunition here, Tasers I'm okay with because it's only in the very rarest of cases that they cause lasting damage to a person.

 

[therockdemon]

giving police guns will not reduce crime but it will make them better suited to deal with more serious crime without calling for more officers

 

[Apocalypse0Child]

You could probably lower the crime levels just as much by disbanding the police as arming them. Nobody is scared of the police anymore. No one cares. All the things that happened recently in London, I won't deny I was one of the people calling for the army to get involved, because lets face it, a new tv isn't worth getting shot over. But the police aren't a symbol of fear anymore, they're just another 'figure of authority' that nobody takes seriously because of the fact that half of them are bent (corrupt*) anyway.

 

[orangeban]

Oooh, lovely, this ol' chestnut again. Here's what I think, we don't need all our police armed, gun crime is exceedingly rare in Britain, and lots of it is pre-planned, not spur of the moment type stuff. And pre-planned gun crime is when you bring in armed response teams anyway.

I say that arming regular cops would just be expensive and a waste of resources (you have to provide guns and train the coppers) that would lead to civilians being shot (gung-ho policepeople) and possibly more criminals arming themselves.

 

[Aur0ra145]

I know this question has probably been asked many times before but I need some help with an essay I am handing in tomorrow with the title being the one above. I'm looking for peoples opinions on the subject, especially Americans who already have armed police "Protecting and serving" them and whether they think it is a good or a bad thing to have armed police and whether You think it has any effect on the levels of crime in your country.

My first thought: Ya'll outlawed guns, right? So why should the police ever need to respond to a threat with firearms?

In all honesty, the UK does not have the same mind set as America. Different cultures, different ideas. What works here in a America will not necessarily work in the UK.

I like that my police department issues firearms to all its officers. Furthermore, I like that I can acquire a CHL and carry a firearm myself. But I live in a place where this is normal, no one does a double take when a firearm is present (unless it's goddy and gold plated.)

I actually have a hard time fathoming a place where you're not allowed to own firearms. I just don't get what's so bad about them and why there is a huge stigma and phobia surrounding them.

Statement: From what I've read of the UK's idea of firearm handling and by speaking to those whom I know in the UK. I think that the open carry of firearms by police officers would not be well received. HOWEVER, I do believe that if an officer were to be allowed to conceal carry a firearm the public reaction wouldn't be so bad.

Interesting question though, do ya'll fear your government? Is that why you wouldn't want patrol officers to carry firearms?

Ending Note: You only deserve what you earn.

 

[Dags90]

I imagine it would be quite hard to keep the peace without arms. How would you begin to cuff someone?

OT: No, and this thread has been done before.

 

[Jordi]

It seems that everybody here is equating "armed" with "having a firearm" rather than "having a weapon". I think that the police should be armed to a degree that means that they will have a significant upper hand against the adversaries that they are likely to encounter. That means that traffic police don't really need a lot of weapons at all. A cop patrolling the street probably doesn't need a gun, but might need a baton, pepper spray or a taser. If you want to go one step further, you could give them guns with rubber bullets.

I disagree with people saying that giving police guns means that they can just kill people and get away with it. I guess that depends on the country. I know that in the Netherlands even the cops who carry a gun fire it very rarely, and when they do it gets investigated to hell and if there is something even slightly fishy about the situation, the cop (or soldier) will likely be suspended, fired or prosecuted.

 

[Actual]

I'm English. This is a bad idea.

Our police do need better equipment, less lethal options like ranged tazers, bean bag guns and rubber bullets would be fine with me.

This will allow police to control dangerous situations just as well, if not better, as with a gun and will greatly reduce the chance of death for criminals and innocent bystanders.

EDIT: Info just for those who aren't British; In the UK normal police carry pepper spray and a baton, police cars usually have body armour and riot shields in the trunk/boot. Only special response units carry actual live ammo guns.

 

[Jamash]

No, the Police are armed enough where it matters (SO19, CNC etc.) and arming every regular Police Officer with a sidearm would be an prohibitively expensive and dangerous undertaking.

It's not just a simple matter of giving every person a gun, every Officer would have to be retrained extensively in the safe use and handling of a firearm, something that would cost a lot of money and something that not everyone would pass or want to do.

I'd imagine there would be large numbers of the Police who would refuse to carry a side-arm and use it on a person, it certainly wasn't something they joined the Police for, so if it was mandatory there would be a massive reduction in the numbers of Police due to people leaving.

Those vacancies may get filled, but probably only by people who had no desire to join the Police before (i.e. to actually serve and protect the community), but are suddenly very keen now that they get issued with a gun. They type of people who only join up because they want a gun and didn't/couldn't join the Army are probably the last people you want to issue a gun to.

Another issue is that if every Police Officer was armed, there would be a sudden influx of 140,000+ firearms on the streets of Britain. Not only would this make the criminals and opponents of the Police feel the need to be armed themselves, but a lot of those standard issue side-arms on the belts of Bobbys would make tempting targets for criminals. There would be a rise in attacks on Officers and fake 999 calls with the intention of luring the Police into ambushes* so they can steal their guns (*not "head 'em off at the pass" types of ambushes, but luring Officers into a small and confined flat with 4 people waiting to attack kind of ambush).

Not every existing Police Officer has the physical strength, hand-to-hand skills or mindset to defends themselves against multiple attackers in such a situation, but if we were to replace every Officer who isn't "hard enough" and lacks a "shoot-to-kill" killer instinct and reflexes, then that would be a great loss for the Community and Britain as a whole.

It seems that everybody here is equating "armed" with "having a firearm" rather than "having a weapon".

That's because in the UK, "armed" in the context of the Police does mean "having a firearm".

The Armed Response Unit aren't just Police with Batons in a fast car, and when said Officers burst into a building and shout "ARMED POLICE!" they don't mean "I have a Baton too", they mean "I have a firearm and I will use it".