Poll: Should every policeman be armed

[Ziadaine_v1legacy]

I think that coppers should be armed with guns but only after vigorous training in WHEN to use it.

What do they do if someone starts firing a gun?

Australia has fairly strict gun laws and therefore murders/shootouts involving them are decreasing especially after the Port Arthur massacre and the subsequent ban on semi automatic rifles

Lets not forget the amount of corrupted Cops we've had throught '08-'09 So far as well, Ranging from Drugs, Weapons and Childrens Toys Designed to be Weapons with Drugs in them, to Child [You-Know-What-Material]. Its badly getting out of hand. :|

Edit: Oh right, The gun topic. well including above if there armed they wont go quietly if caught. they'll take out anyone who might pose a threat. verbal or physcial wise.

 

[HateDread]

If they were unarmed how would they police things?

In the UK we only have 'armed police squads' that can only take fire-arms for jobs if they've had special training AND the current situation justifies their need. Your normal bobby on the beat has a truncheon and mace, that's it.

What do they do if someone starts firing a gun?

Like, who? Handguns and semi-auto rifles are banned. Nobody has guns. Oh, i forgot, the criminals do. DUH! Way to go UK.

Like the conversation I overheard, between two security guards, here in Australia:

S1- "Well, if we stop wearing guns the criminals will stop using them!"
S2- *Facepalm* "Ugh"

 

[LockHeart]

kid beating sounds like a just slap them about lol.

but anyways i dont have to punish my kids with slaps,

1. my raised voie works just as well

2. my wife will punish th kids with a slap if need be

and any mp's who think this is wrong then open you eyes and look at where your human rights act has got england into, run by a bunch of over weight over paid fatcats who we keep in a great wage with our taxes.

The Human Rights Act doesn't actually make smacking illegal. It qualifies as reasonable chastisement. However if you shake, leave a mark or cause actual injury to your child then this is not permitted.

Also, the HR Act has very little to do with how our country is actually run. It just means that all of Parliament's legislation must coincide with the European Convention on Human Rights.

And this means it has very little to do with how our country is run? It's forcing out elected representatives to virtually give up Parliamentary Sovereignty in favour of kowtowing to the EU.

Also, I believe the police should be properly trained and equipped with firearms, but then I favour allowing law-abiding citizens to own firearms for the defence of their persons and property.

 

[demonsaber]

This is something I find strange about American culture. You all have such a massive obsession with guns thanks to your second amendment. I mean seriously, are you compensating for something?

Whenever someone suggests taking away the right to keep and bear arms you always raise a fuss that it will leave police and law abiding citizens without protection whilst leaving the criminals armed. This argument is completely fallacious when we look at the evidence: Countries like the US with high levels of gun possession not only have much higher levels of gun violence, but much higher crime rates in general. Compare that with the UK, where almost no-one carries guns and only specialist members of the police force are actually armed, and not only do we have almost twenty-five times fewer gun related murders than the US, but 75% fewer murders in general*.

If America were to get over its national fixation with firearms and stop letting everyone who wants a gun have one then we would likely see gun crime rates drop practically overnight.

*All figures based on per head of population. Figures courtesy of Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_crime#Homicides_by_country] with verifiable sources.

We also have more populace which raises more hatred and animosity (granted we are spread out more that you folks but the point is still valid). And the gun statistics are blown out of proportion. American food kills far more than our obsession with guns.

 

[Abedeus]

Melee? Everyone. Guns? Only those that might encounter criminals. For example, investigators don't need guns, but field cops do.

 

[Levziemuch]

I <3 conspiracy theorists ^_^

 

[demonsaber]

kid beating sounds like a just slap them about lol.

but anyways i dont have to punish my kids with slaps,

1. my raised voie works just as well

2. my wife will punish th kids with a slap if need be

and any mp's who think this is wrong then open you eyes and look at where your human rights act has got england into, run by a bunch of over weight over paid fatcats who we keep in a great wage with our taxes.

The Human Rights Act doesn't actually make smacking illegal. It qualifies as reasonable chastisement. However if you shake, leave a mark or cause actual injury to your child then this is not permitted.

Also, the HR Act has very little to do with how our country is actually run. It just means that all of Parliament's legislation must coincide with the European Convention on Human Rights.

And this means it has very little to do with how our country is run? It's forcing out elected representatives to virtually give up Parliamentary Sovereignty in favour of kowtowing to the EU.

Also, I believe the police should be properly trained and equipped with firearms, but then I favour allowing law-abiding citizens to own firearms for the defence of their persons and property.

My point was that it is not the HR Act which is turning our Politicians into fatcats as Evilmonkeysniper0182 seemed to claim.

Besides, Parliamentary Sovereignty is not bound by the HR Act, nor is it limited by the ECHR. If it deemed it necessary our government could decide to repeal the HR Act whenever they wanted, and then they would no-longer be subject to the ECHR. Our sovereignty is not threatened by the EU because we can pull out any time we want.

Trust me, I'm a University law student and I'm taking an exam on this exact stuff in less than three weeks.

This is something I find strange about American culture. You all have such a massive obsession with guns thanks to your second amendment. I mean seriously, are you compensating for something?

Whenever someone suggests taking away the right to keep and bear arms you always raise a fuss that it will leave police and law abiding citizens without protection whilst leaving the criminals armed. This argument is completely fallacious when we look at the evidence: Countries like the US with high levels of gun possession not only have much higher levels of gun violence, but much higher crime rates in general. Compare that with the UK, where almost no-one carries guns and only specialist members of the police force are actually armed, and not only do we have almost twenty-five times fewer gun related murders than the US, but 75% fewer murders in general*.

If America were to get over its national fixation with firearms and stop letting everyone who wants a gun have one then we would likely see gun crime rates drop practically overnight.

*All figures based on per head of population. Figures courtesy of Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_crime#Homicides_by_country] with verifiable sources.

We also have more populace which raises more hatred and animosity (granted we are spread out more that you folks but the point is still valid). And the gun statistics are blown out of proportion. American food kills far more than our obsession with guns.

The statistics I gave were "per head of population", as in, for example, 2.5 people per every 100,000 of the population. For the purpose of these statistics it doesn't matter that you have a larger population because these deal with the proportion of it which is affected by gun crime.

[EDIT]: Besides, even if your country does have increased animosity (which I'm sceptical of) giving your population guns is not the solution to the problem. Indeed, you're just giving and already angry mob the means to go and kill each other. Surely under these circumstance it would be a better idea to take away everyone's weapons?

Or teach them responsibility. Like I said in another thread, I have had access to a shotgun and ammo since I was 14. I have never once thought, wow this bastard pissed me off, let's go get the shotgun and blast someone.

Now I disagree with totally stripping citizens of their arms, however we do need to step up gun control and require every arm to be registered. Anyone caught with an unregistered firearm should have instant jail time and the weapon should be scrapped for it's metal or destroyed if it is polymer. Make it harder for criminals to get weapons and all will be gravy. (sure its lumpy gravy but still gravy)

Also knowing my fellow countrymen, if you took our firearms away murder statistics will shoot up in other weaponry areas.

 

[Kai-Tiger]

i say not all police cause we have an officer here called Sutton and he is such an asshole if you had a squirt gun he would shoot u and say you were threatning him

 

[Ionami]

i think yes, get them kicking ass on the street again and make people scared of them.

that or give your kids a smack when they are younger to get some disapline into them

sorry bout my spellings

There are so many things WRONG with that post, I don't really know where to begin... but I'll being anyways.

1. Half the reason we NEED police is because people beat their kids.

2. Police are not meant for SCARING people. They're meant to PROTECT and SERVE the public.

3. What do you mean by kicking ass? Are you saying they need more guns so they can shoot more people?

Honestly, I think there are certain areas of certain cities, in which police should probably be carrying guns. But likewise, there are areas where there's just no need. And therefore, not ALL police need to carry guns.

 

[scotth266]

If America were to get over its national fixation with firearms and stop letting everyone who wants a gun have one then we would likely see gun crime rates drop practically overnight.

*All figures based on per head of population. Figures courtesy of Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_crime#Homicides_by_country] with verifiable sources.

Ok, so we'll be like Japan, and instead of high gun crime rates we'll have high knife crime rates, along with a small(but still quite present) amount of gun crime. People like you fail to understand the point: criminals are CRIMINALS, hence they will break the law using whatever means necessary.

Oh, and most cops should have guns: just not certain kinds.

 

[Jupsto]

no all police forces should be based on ours (england).

I'm just joking but ours obviously does kick ass since it doesn't need as many guns.

 

[ProfessorLayton]

Yes. They should. What would happen if someone opened fire on them? That's like asking if the military should be armed.

 

[demonsaber]

I would agree that all police should be armed. However only those that are designated to actually take out threats should have metal ammunition in their mine firearm. Standard issue sidearms should use rubber bullets and their weapon that they keep in the trunk of their cruiser could have lethal class ammunition.

 

[Garzo]

Where I live all the police are armed. Every single one of them. I can't remember ever hearing about them shooting someone though. Not to say they haven't I suppose...

 

[freakyHippo]

It depends on whether or not the populus is armed. The majority of crime are crimes of oppertunity and passion. If it is likely that the population committing these crimes of oppertunity or passion are going to be armed then it makes perfect sense for the police to be armed, as it protects the citzens in the vacinity of the crime if the police can neutralise any threat posed by a gun carrying member of the public who may crack under a pressure situation, like being arrested. If the population isn't armed then when said person cracks or commits their crime they are less likely to be armed and so the police don't need to be armed with leathel weaponry to subdue and arrest the crime commiter.

There will always be a hardcore criminal emelment in all societies that will posses firearms so it makes no sense to have No armed police, but for your average beat cop/bobbie on the street it depends on the populus.

Gods no, arm anyone, everyone, just not the fucking Specials.

Yeah do arm the Specials, that'd be great. They can finally get a fucking message to rudi with a gun
and pose around like gansters
and mount an assault on south africa to free nelson mandella

i love a good play on words me

 

[LockHeart]

kid beating sounds like a just slap them about lol.

but anyways i dont have to punish my kids with slaps,

1. my raised voie works just as well

2. my wife will punish th kids with a slap if need be

and any mp's who think this is wrong then open you eyes and look at where your human rights act has got england into, run by a bunch of over weight over paid fatcats who we keep in a great wage with our taxes.

The Human Rights Act doesn't actually make smacking illegal. It qualifies as reasonable chastisement. However if you shake, leave a mark or cause actual injury to your child then this is not permitted.

Also, the HR Act has very little to do with how our country is actually run. It just means that all of Parliament's legislation must coincide with the European Convention on Human Rights.

And this means it has very little to do with how our country is run? It's forcing out elected representatives to virtually give up Parliamentary Sovereignty in favour of kowtowing to the EU.

Also, I believe the police should be properly trained and equipped with firearms, but then I favour allowing law-abiding citizens to own firearms for the defence of their persons and property.

My point was that it is not the HR Act which is turning our Politicians into fatcats as Evilmonkeysniper0182 seemed to claim.

Besides, Parliamentary Sovereignty is not bound by the HR Act, nor is it limited by the ECHR. If it deemed it necessary our government could decide to repeal the HR Act whenever they wanted, and then they would no-longer be subject to the ECHR. Our sovereignty is not threatened by the EU because we can pull out any time we want.

Trust me, I'm a University law student and I'm taking an exam on this exact stuff in less than three weeks.

Same here, well 4 weeks, but whatever...

Sorry, Parliamentary Sovereignty was the wrong term to use. What I mean is that the HRA does impact on how our country is run - which of the major parties will abolish it anytime soon? None will, because under the Copenhagen Criteria we pretty much have to implement the ECHR.

The point is, our politicians have already surrendered wide swathes of our national sovereignty to the EU, for example the VAT rate; who we can and cannot trade with; at what rates our tariffs are set; and how we are able to commercially exploit our territorial waters, among other things, and I doubt this is going to end anytime soon.

I agree with you on the fatcat point though, that's just sheer greed.

 

[RH3INLAND.]

They're the god damn police. They should be armed. How can they be expected to uphold the law, if they don't have a way to enforce it. Having unarmed police, is the same as having just a bunch of normal people, wearing uniforms, with an unusual amount of legal knowledge.