I'd say no, but maybe in some of the high risk areas could have guns loaded with "non-letal" (Or less lethal) rounds, such as bean-bag rounds or rubber bullets at most.
Poll: Should UK police be given guns as standard issue?
- Thread starter miketehmage
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Honestly - are the people saying "I don't understand why people take the police in England seriously" saying that every time they see a policeman and act on their best behaviour is because they're afraid of getting shot? Of course not.
In the UK, it's much harder to get a gun that it is in, say, America. As a result, the police don't need guns - arming them at this point would only make instances like this riot more common as a result of the type of trigger-happy moron that's bound to stain the police-force's name. Once that happens, more riots will occur, more police will be armed, and we'll all have to start sitting down sucking our thumps and hoping to stay out of trouble.
No, non-lethal weapons are fine. Rather than arm the police, train the divisions that deal with riots better, give them better non-lethal weapons to use, and more water-cannons and other large incentives not to stand toe-to-toe with the law. Shooting people in the face because they throw a brick at a window is ridiculous.
In the UK, it's much harder to get a gun that it is in, say, America. As a result, the police don't need guns - arming them at this point would only make instances like this riot more common as a result of the type of trigger-happy moron that's bound to stain the police-force's name. Once that happens, more riots will occur, more police will be armed, and we'll all have to start sitting down sucking our thumps and hoping to stay out of trouble.
No, non-lethal weapons are fine. Rather than arm the police, train the divisions that deal with riots better, give them better non-lethal weapons to use, and more water-cannons and other large incentives not to stand toe-to-toe with the law. Shooting people in the face because they throw a brick at a window is ridiculous.
yes they should so people take them more seriously and they can have better control on extreme situations.
and for anyone saying that the criminals would get bigger guns, think about this....why would they not have already? because british criminals dont have access to guns like the ones in america do since the UK is pretty much water locked. (among other variables)
and for anyone saying that the criminals would get bigger guns, think about this....why would they not have already? because british criminals dont have access to guns like the ones in america do since the UK is pretty much water locked. (among other variables)
At the very most, allow riot shotguns firing plastic or rubber bullets, designed to bruise but not seriously injure.
Gun crime is practically non-existent here. Even in the middle of Wales, where almost every farmer owns a shotgun, people generally don't shoot each other.Loner Jo Jo said:
This thread is useless cause -
A) This is the second time i've seen this and guess what didn't change anything. Maybe instead of taking time to do this you can sign an petition saying you think they should and show it to your government.
B) Your argument is that of none. People who know the police have guns also know they wont shoot them for riots. So your argument of them double thinking over to burn the building of Joe the innocent civilian who isn't in the riot is null and void and you don't even take into account the fact that we have guns and still people burn shit in the USA.
C) You last point on when do the special police with guns show up is also a fail argument. Why is it that all of a sudden the police getting gunned down out of the blue? I'm not sure about this but i'm almost lets say 99% sure that your police are not getting dropped in massive numbers and that when a shooting does happen it is a pretty big deal cause it doesn't happen too often.
My closing statement is this - It isn't a matter of giving out guns to police to defend themselves it is how do you justify it under the current conditions and currently your only arguments are that it could happen and not that it does happen. This means you want to spend millions of dollars [pounds i guess since it is the UK] to potentially prevent some events that do not happen in mass enough to require a mass armament of UK police forces at the moment.
A) This is the second time i've seen this and guess what didn't change anything. Maybe instead of taking time to do this you can sign an petition saying you think they should and show it to your government.
B) Your argument is that of none. People who know the police have guns also know they wont shoot them for riots. So your argument of them double thinking over to burn the building of Joe the innocent civilian who isn't in the riot is null and void and you don't even take into account the fact that we have guns and still people burn shit in the USA.
C) You last point on when do the special police with guns show up is also a fail argument. Why is it that all of a sudden the police getting gunned down out of the blue? I'm not sure about this but i'm almost lets say 99% sure that your police are not getting dropped in massive numbers and that when a shooting does happen it is a pretty big deal cause it doesn't happen too often.
My closing statement is this - It isn't a matter of giving out guns to police to defend themselves it is how do you justify it under the current conditions and currently your only arguments are that it could happen and not that it does happen. This means you want to spend millions of dollars [pounds i guess since it is the UK] to potentially prevent some events that do not happen in mass enough to require a mass armament of UK police forces at the moment.
YES! police should be armed. That way we can shoot all the bad men... Because all crimes are entirely the fault of the perpetrators and not due to failing social circumstances. We should also bring back capital punishment nothing beats a good public hanging. fuck it lets re open the tower of london and start torturing people for treason. Oh wait i am not an egotistic seven year old!
The british police force is actually one of the best trained and effective in the world (recent government cuts and lay offs have kinda fucked that though) and they've managed that with the minimal amount of gunning people down. Arming police would never reduce crime. might increase the number of people getting shot but thats two very different sets of figures. When fire arms are called for they have a division for that. It is true that the number of criminal gangs using illegal fire arms has increased dramatically in London over recent years. But turning into a country which accepts fire arms as the norm is not in anyway a good thing. As people have said before there is absolutely no way in which gun toting bobbies would have prevented or controlled these riots.
and for me personally guns have always been objects of fear.Never security
The british police force is actually one of the best trained and effective in the world (recent government cuts and lay offs have kinda fucked that though) and they've managed that with the minimal amount of gunning people down. Arming police would never reduce crime. might increase the number of people getting shot but thats two very different sets of figures. When fire arms are called for they have a division for that. It is true that the number of criminal gangs using illegal fire arms has increased dramatically in London over recent years. But turning into a country which accepts fire arms as the norm is not in anyway a good thing. As people have said before there is absolutely no way in which gun toting bobbies would have prevented or controlled these riots.
and for me personally guns have always been objects of fear.Never security
Tazers at the most. No other overt government agency should need to use lethal weapons save for the military.
No. It only takes one police officer with a gun to get fed up with the riots to cause a a yet greater shitstorm to kick off. They're only human themselves - adding lethal weaponry to an already stressful situation is never a good idea.
Nope.
And I hardly think putting more guns out there in a riot is going to help matters. At the moment I'd be more then happy to let them use tear gas and the like to get people to stop what they're doing. But guns are a no.
The reason US police carry guns is because they're now stuck with a huge number of guns in circulation in the public. They're fucked in that regard and forever will be.
And I hardly think putting more guns out there in a riot is going to help matters. At the moment I'd be more then happy to let them use tear gas and the like to get people to stop what they're doing. But guns are a no.
The reason US police carry guns is because they're now stuck with a huge number of guns in circulation in the public. They're fucked in that regard and forever will be.
if the the law enforcement isn't using a firearm the only people owning them will be criminals (you would be surprised how easy it is to get a gun on the black market).
but it still should be a last resort (make sure the culprit is armed and doesn't stop after pepper spraying them).
but it still should be a last resort (make sure the culprit is armed and doesn't stop after pepper spraying them).
Giving Police live ammunition in a situation such as this I think is perfectly reasonable.
Riot situation, revolution, invasion are all conditions which police should be given the option of using live ammunition.
If people are destroying entire communities, destroying lives, killing people in the same way that an invading army would do so, why CAN'T you use live ammunition?
They are attacking the capital of a global superpower! Attack back!
Riot situation, revolution, invasion are all conditions which police should be given the option of using live ammunition.
If people are destroying entire communities, destroying lives, killing people in the same way that an invading army would do so, why CAN'T you use live ammunition?
They are attacking the capital of a global superpower! Attack back!
I cannot think of a single situation where more guns is going to improve it.
Given that this whole mess started when someone was shot by the police, giving all police guns is a patently bad idea.
British police forces do have specially train armed divisions, but giving all police officers guns?
No, no, a thousand times no.
Given that this whole mess started when someone was shot by the police, giving all police guns is a patently bad idea.
British police forces do have specially train armed divisions, but giving all police officers guns?
No, no, a thousand times no.
Sorry for snipping a lot of your post but I wanted to comment on that part.Idsertian said:
I don't like talking to cops. I don't like guns in the streets and all cops are armed here. I get nervous around guns. So I get nervous around cops. And that's not even counting all the people who mysteriously die in their custody. I live in Denmark and I'm greatly wishing that our cops would ditch the guns. Besides, they mostly use them to shoot mentally sick people who fail to follow orders. Not really the best use for them.
It should be noted that I'm not nervous of guns as such. I'm a fairly decent shot and can still strip a G3 blindfolded. I just prefer guns to be in highly controlled environments and not on the streets.
Blablahb said:
Previously on The Escapist
Dragunai said:
haha
Me:
The riots in London started because a cop shot an innocent man and killed him.
You:
You don't know that, so why do you assume it? It's an extremely unlikely scenario.
The bit you missed which actually happened before you came along, hotshot:
Me:Dragunai said:
apparently the guy was a Drug dealer waving a gun around but he got shot so that's that
You:
So, care to come again on your version of 'police shot innocent man'?
So what you need to do now is explain why you added the last sentence of your post when I clearly stated the guy was a dealer in my rebuttal.
I updated my info when I replied to you, having been updated myself but you didn't pay attention to that. probably too focused on being smart to actually BE smart.
*sssscchhh* Yeah, pretty sure I asked for Pecan sandys.
Um..."a shot that wasn't meant to kill"? What's that based on?Blablahb said:
You don't try to slightly injure people in the hope they will stop firing at police officers, you put a bullet in the sweet spot of their head to immediately incapacitate them(if you are adaquately trained) or centre of mass and hope for incapacitation before they kill someone (if you are not). Even at the best of times, the disable but not really harm shot isn't practical, and if the suspect is firing a weapon, they have to be put down right now.
heh That's pretty funny.thelonewolf266 said:
Guns stop more crimes than most people are aware of. Sure, gun related incidents are less likely to happen in a country with tight gun controls much in the way banana related crimes are less likely to occur in countries without bananas. That doesn't mean crime is any less. It just means guns are not being used. Other weapons are. A criminal is more likely to rob a person if they know that person doesn't have a gun. A thug is more likely to rape a woman if they know that woman doesn't have a gun. A house is more likely to get broken in to if the criminal doesn't have to worry about a gun owner living there.
Criminals get guns no matter what the laws.
The vast majority of gun owners do not commit crimes.
A person intent on harming another will find a way. I'm almost certain attacks with knives, bats, and other weapons or straight up beatings are more common in England than the United States.
I've been shooting since I was five years old and I can legally carry a concealed handgun and I've never once killed or shot anyone. The way some of you guys are talking about guns makes me laugh.
Oh yeah, the last massive riot in the US happened in 1992.
