Poll: Should UK police be given guns as standard issue?

[Korolev]

No - absolutely not. Right now, the police don't need guns to defend themselves. They shouldn't use guns on these rioters. By all means, arrest the rioters, but it's not right to just massacre them.

Plus, arming the police with guns will give more incentive for criminal gangs to arm themselves with guns and carry guns around. Also, the more guns in the UK, the bigger the black market for firearms. Police officers might "lose" their guns or have them stolen!

At the moment, guns are not needed for everyday policing activity. It's quite a different situation in the USA, where everyone and his dog has a gun, but in the UK, it's not quite the same. Give the police more guns, and I'll guarantee you you'll see more shooting incidents within the UK.

 

[Akihiko]

Real guns, definitely not, would create more damn problems than it would solve. Riot guns, maybe.

 

[orangeban]

But even if the police had guns they wouldn't be allowed to use them, otherwise we would of brought in Armed Response already.

 

[Dragunai]

They should stop being corrupt and the upper class should stop being such ass-hats.

And I suppose that feeling like that makes it alright to go about ruining people's lives and assaulting them?

The riots in London started because a cop shot an innocent man and killed him.

You don't know that, so why do you assume it? It's an extremely unlikely scenario.

Hahaha, because it was in the news?
You seem to be the only one who doesn't know what happened.

Dude got shot (apparently the guy was a Drug dealer waving a gun around but he got shot so thats that) subsequently there was protests about it because the bleeding hearts think that a drug dealer carrying an illegal fire arm in a country that forbids firearms in the possession of civilians is in the right and should be exempt from the law as they always do and the protests turned into riots.

Try to keep up bro.

 

[UbarElite]

It's kind of a tricky question, and more or less comes down to priorities. I have seen a thread earlier with a video where it took 20+ police officers in good ol' GB to have one guy with a knife or something restrained, because they lacked superior firepower, but it would be foolish to think that this is the majority of experiences when it comes to law enforcement. I suppose to anyone actually across the Atlantic, is this really a true problem there? I imagine not, simply by the current posts.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Let's tally your post.

Murder in Britain? NONE last night. America? 81: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/04/21/weekinreview/20070422_MARSH_GRAPHIC.html

Let's remember for a second that the population in Britain is FAR lower than that of the USA, try taking a single state for example, for a better test, or find a way to make these statistics into percentages rather than raw numbers that don't give an accurate view to anything.

OK, 2004 : US : 30,000 deaths to firearms. 292 Million people. Chance of death by firearm : Roughly 1 in 10,000

UK: 49 deaths to firearms: 61 million people: Chance of death by firearms: Less than one in a million.

 

[orangeban]

What the fuck. I mean im usually 'against' the people having guns. But Brittian is the only country where the police doesnt have guns and crimes there seem to be sky-high.

But the kind of crimes where guns should be used (i.e. gun crimes and hostage siutations) are extremely low. Most crimes are generally knife-related and usually they can be dealt with by unarmed officers.

 

[Ris]

No. This whole thing started because a Police Officer shot a man dead in confusing circumstances. The IPCC still haven't found out if it was justified; meanwhile the riots continue. You want that to happen 20 times over?

I would support the Police bringing in water cannons at this stage, but I will never support them carrying guns as standard issue, and I'm willing to bet that neither will the vast majority of the British public.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

my solution; mass-taser the rioters after the water canons have made them more conductive

 

[orangeban]

It's kind of a tricky question, and more or less comes down to priorities. I have seen a thread earlier with a video where it took 20+ police officers in good ol' GB to have one guy with a knife or something restrained, because they lacked superior firepower, but it would be foolish to think that this is the majority of experiences when it comes to law enforcement. I suppose to anyone actually across the Atlantic, is this really a true problem there? I imagine not, simply by the current posts.

Even if the police had guns in that situation with the man with the machete, they shouldn't of used them. Guns should only be used in situations where a cop or civilian is about to get hurt, and they had that man surrounded, he wasn't in danger of hurting anyone.

 

[Idsertian]

I have huge respect for my country's police force. My uncle is/was a uniformed officer and through the myriad of TV shows like Road Wars etc, and actually being around on one or two occasions where the local fuzz have had to nick some chav scumbag, I've gotten an appreciation of the day to day shit they have to put up with. Hell, if it weren't for the fact that thousands of police jobs are being cut by the government (and a couple of other contributing factors), I might actually have considered getting in shape a bit better and joining. But as a result of all that, my answer to the poll is a resounding:

Fuck no. We have coppers armed with MP5's in our major airports now courtesy of 9/11 and that shit is scary enough as it is thanks. I do not want to see my local beat cops patrolling with a bloody 9mm strapped to their waist. Tasers are the limit I personally think. A copper with a gun is not an approachable copper.

CAPTCHA: impatt logically

 

[Savryc]

You're either incredibly sheltered or not from the UK, either way you're wrong. It's a bad idea and you should feel bad for thinking of it.

 

[KaizokuouHasu]

I have to disagree on the gun front. The last thing I want is rioteers with stolen or illegal firearms who now think they have the right to use them. That said; once arrested, line them up and shoot them. Any people who think that complete disregard for human safety and the property and livelihood is cool and right do not deserve a place in law-abiding society. ¬_¬

One of reasons why the riots started was due to the police shooting someone in the head.More guns would make this even worse

Kind of, yes. That was only an instigator. The riot was started by opportunists who saw this as a chance to wreak havoc on their own streets for gain and glory.

The death of the deceased only lead to a peaceful protest, but no violence what so ever.
That said; may I say that the person who got shot does not strike me as a man of peace and lawfulness. I don't think he was shot for no reason. He is even a renowned gangster.

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

How about this...

Train people in the use of their brains before training them in the use of firearms. Oh, and another thing...

SKIP TO 2:00 FOR INSIGHT

 

[RagTagBand]

Actually he wasn't returning fire. It's now known that he shot twice at the man who did have a gun but never shot it.

Citation needed, I can't find any news story saying that it's known he didn't fire, only one or two are reporting on "Reports" he didn't fire, but thats as good as hearsay in journalist-speak.

Found plenty, as recent as a few hours ago, that say the inquest confirmed a police radio that had been shot and had a bullet lodged in it (which is what the police claimed a few days ago). So someone fired at the officers.

OT : No, No, No, No and NO. Every time there's a crime in England some fool on this website goes "SHOULD WE GIVE ALL POLICE OFFICERS DEADLY WEAPONS?". How is that going to help anything? Have I wandered into an alternate dimension where America has enjoyed nothing but peace for the past 200+ years?

I'm pretty sure the death toll, so far, has been incredibly low...maybe two or three people and NONE of them could of been saved by Gunfire. However, plenty more could be dead if you give 15,000+ people guns and send them into a riot.

We HAVE a specially trained section of the police force who are armed and that's the best way for it. They can be called when they're needed, they have huge amounts of experience with firearms, and they're specifically trained to deal with firearms. Your average Bobby on the street does not have, nor really needs, that extra training or experience.

 

[Handbag1992]

One of reasons why the riots started was due to the police shooting someone in the head.More guns would make this even worse

Please remember that the officer only returned fire. He was just a better shot than the punk with the gun.

OT: Nope, get out the water cannons or something but we do not need more guns.

Actually he wasn't returning fire. It's now known that he shot twice at the man who did have a gun but never shot it.

Ah yes, I apologise. Just found the news article that says that all bullets fired were from police weaponry.

 

[Esotera]

No, this is such a stupid idea. Even if the police are armed they're not going to be able to use those weapons on rioters, and it's going to lead to more shootings like the one that triggered all this violence in the first place.

The only people who should ever be allowed guns are members of the armed forces and farmers.

 

[Wicky_42]

Thank you, forum! I was getting worried after seeing gun advocates in the newspaper comments sections, but it's good to see that there's at least one demographic with their heads screwed on!

I find it especially ironic that we've spend the last few months bombing another country because their government started to shoot its citizens, and yet some retards would start talking about doing the same thing here!

 

[Loner Jo Jo]

Let's tally the scores

Britain: Guns: None. Rioting, check. Looting, Check. Property destruction, check. Assault, battery, and murder, check.

America: Guns: Lots. Rioting, none. Looting, also none. Property destruction, none again. Assault, battery, and murder, not even close to the same scale.

Um... you're being ironic right? Because, there are so many things wrong that statement.

Still, my immediate reaction to learning that guns don't come standard issue was, "What? They don't have guns? How can anyone take them seriously?"

Maybe I'm just a stupid American, but I find it a bit ridiculous that they don't have guns. Sure, not all of them needs guns and guns certainly shouldn't be used in the riots currently going on, but still. An unarmed police officer to me sounds more like a fussy old woman nagging everyone than a legitimate source of authority. But like I said, I'm a stupid American, so what do I know?

Honestly, I don't know much about gun control in the UK to begin with. In America, it's fairly easy to get your hands on a gun, so it only makes sense that our police officers are armed. They have to have a means to defend themselves, and to bastardize the phrase "Don't bring a billy club to a gun fight." If gun crime is low in the UK, then it might be a different story.