rizzo Posted June 25, 2005 Report Share Posted June 25, 2005 I think that's something you have to come to grips with when you join the force. I fully intend to become a police officer, it's been a goal of mine for some time now. Having spoken to officers all over the country I know that having to use lethal force is something that may come up in the line of duty. I think the solution is to prepare cops for the responsibility of such an act rather than crippling them in a time of crisis. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Exactly, it also comes hand in hand with the acceptance that they could be killed whilst doing their job Link to post Share on other sites
cpaxton Posted June 25, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2005 My $.02 -A <{POST_SNAPBACK}> EDIT:: sorry just read it. IM DUMB! In fact an IDIOT! I gtg now. Keep us the discussion. Link to post Share on other sites
ColdZer0 Posted June 25, 2005 Report Share Posted June 25, 2005 I dont oppose it for reasons of police incompetence, in fact the police are one of the few public services i still have some respect for (excluding traffic police). My argument against police carrying guns is that criminals then arm themselves to the same standard and so it will just escalate until what would be a quiet situation might turn into a gunfight reminisent of something the army has to endure as we see with American SWAT teams and the situations theyre called in for <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think the criminal arms race is better tempered with strict enforcement of current anti-gun legislation and a crack down on sloppy gun dealers. I've read reports regarding illegal guns in the US and over 70% can be attributed to gun dealers who "look the other way". America is probably not the best example of responsible gun ownership you can find. Look @ Canada, they have far more guns per household and a fraction of the violence. Dunno if Mounties are armed though... Link to post Share on other sites
HaVoC Posted June 25, 2005 Report Share Posted June 25, 2005 Basically what HaVoC said, but I also think stun guns are a good idea but pretty useless over long distance. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Agreed. A stun gun can be tried if the situation requires it, but if you come across two men robbing a bank with an illegal AK47, you don't really have much choice, do you? If you have a Glock, the choice, in that situation, is fairly clear-cut. If you have a baton, like most officers do now, you're about as much use as a wet fish. Link to post Share on other sites
Marlowe Posted June 25, 2005 Report Share Posted June 25, 2005 For starters, there's a big difference between the police being incompetent, and the police being as human as the rest of us. My argument is based upon the latter. Give any group of people authority over others, and the ability to easily end a life, and, sooner or later, when the environment allows it (and it does, inevitably), that power will be abused. Whilst I have a great respect for the police force in any country, I view all such individuals as human beings, and subject to the same virtues and flaws as the rest of us. I wouldn't trust x stranger with a gun any more than I would y. Just because one has been trained in the correct usage, that's no guarantee that it will be used in that way. And from personal experience whilst I have a great amount of respect of American culture from living over in Vermont for a while (where hunting is probably second only to farming in local pastimes), the cultures are so incredibly different in America and Britain when it comes to firearms that it doesn't bear thinking about. We have no NRA, and very few parliamentary represantatives who are in the pocket of any pro-shooting organisation. The general popular consensus is that of anti-firearms, and that's why we have found ourselves, despite being legitimate sportpeople, in the position we are now with the VCR bill. Whilst guns are a very inherent part of most American culture (even in the calmer, more 'liberal' North East cities), the values surrounding them differ greatly. In America most individuals are raised with firearms and have a great deal of respect for them. Over here people get access to them via crime or via public service (Armed Forces, / Police A.R.U.), and whilst the latter groups are instilled with a great deal of respect for their weapon and no doubt understand the significance of pulling the trigger, the difference in cultures seems oddly different in a way I can't seem to put into words. So to put it bluntly: I don't trust all American police officers with guns, but I trust most of them. I wouldn't trust a European Police Officer with a gun any more I would my psychotic ex-girlfriend. Edit: For random grammatical problems. Link to post Share on other sites
ColdZer0 Posted June 25, 2005 Report Share Posted June 25, 2005 So to put it bluntly: I don't trust all American police officers with guns, but I trust most of them. I wouldn't trust a European Police Officer with a gun any more I would my psychotic ex-girlfriend. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Wow, I really have to say I'm facinated by the different view point you guys have on law enforcement and guns. It's honestly not at all what I would have expected. I would guess that most Americans would be MORE trusting of British Police being armed than they probably would their own local cops. Our view of you all tends to be that of stuffish civility (please no insult intended), while that of our own law enforcement bands from generalized respect to re-hashings of the Rodney King beatings. Everyone brings up excellent points pro and con. Thanks for the enlightening discussion! Link to post Share on other sites
HEaT Posted June 25, 2005 Report Share Posted June 25, 2005 Marlowe: Well you're right in saying the attitudes towards guns in the U.K and America are as different as they could ever be, but we're a similar nation to Spain, France etc and they carry guns so it shouldn't be impossible to arm our police but then this country is so backward it will probably never happen in my life time. Link to post Share on other sites
R22Master Posted June 25, 2005 Report Share Posted June 25, 2005 One argument I see a LOT is that Police Officers don't want to be armed. Sorry, but this is neither here nor there. It is an essential tool to do the job on an increasing basis. If a roofer didn't want to use a ladder, he wouldn't be able to do his job effectively! Not all Police Officers though are able, fit, or capable of using firearms safely and effectively though, and of course these individuals should not be allowed to. That's not to say they shouldn't be Police Officers though - they could be community liason officers, administrators, investigators, or custody officers. After all, you wouldn't be allowed to be an Army Infantry Officer if you were unsafe with a rifle. There are OFTEN periods where Armed Response Units are unable to attend incidents because they are already attending one. We don't have anywhere near enough ARUs to deal with the level of gun-crime we already have, and they are being swamped. I mean, 3 cars to patrol an area the size of the West Midlands is just not enough. I think that the Police should be routinely armed as long as officers who are not competent are not armed - competency can easily be measured by regular testing and evaluation. Link to post Share on other sites
HaVoC Posted June 25, 2005 Report Share Posted June 25, 2005 Well said, Will. I mean, the ones who are incompetent with guns could just be sent out to patrol the roads and catch speeding motorists, like the perfectly competent ones are now... Link to post Share on other sites
HEaT Posted June 25, 2005 Report Share Posted June 25, 2005 Don't forget pen pushing. Link to post Share on other sites
Marlowe Posted June 25, 2005 Report Share Posted June 25, 2005 Not a bad idea, R22 - you're suggesting something akin to the Advanced Driving courses they have to do, in order to specialise in that? I think both courses should have mandatory psychiatric testing carried out, though - I consider cars easily as dangerous as guns, and reckon neither high power patrol car nor firearms should be assigned to those who aren't of the correct 'disposition'. Link to post Share on other sites
Ubar Posted June 25, 2005 Report Share Posted June 25, 2005 we really dont need to arm police here. It's a nice town and they can do their job effictilvey without the need for raising the stakes. I would hate to see the sort fo occasionaly petty crime here turn into any sort of violent crime because a burglar thinks he needs to defend himself because the sheriff will burst in guns blazing Link to post Share on other sites
snowman Posted June 25, 2005 Report Share Posted June 25, 2005 sums up my point. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Of course, the fact that no-one turns up with guns means there's a VERY high chance that no shots are fired, no hostages are taken and no-passers bys or Police Officers are killed or wounded for a few bank notes that can easily be traced later on. Personally, I'm DEAD against arming all UK police officers and I suspect most of them are, too... It's true that most European police forces carry guns, but the UK is culturaly much closer to the US than Spain, Germany or France and I reckon we'd very quickly see an escalation in the use of guns and the attendant 'collateral damage' that that would result in. Cheers. Link to post Share on other sites
HEaT Posted June 25, 2005 Report Share Posted June 25, 2005 We really dont need to arm police here. It's a nice town and they can do their job effictilvey without the need for raising the stakes. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That's great for you, but fancy a trip to some areas near me called Moss Side and Longsight? Link to post Share on other sites
rizzo Posted June 25, 2005 Report Share Posted June 25, 2005 How are cars as dangerous as guns? I don't think just saying that there are many many more deaths because of cars than guns is enough to justify that, if that was going to be how you prove your point... A gun is made to kill/hurt, it's as simple as that. Cars are not. Although i do agree with you, that there should be courses similair to advanced driving tests for firearm-carrying officers. Link to post Share on other sites
Ubar Posted June 25, 2005 Report Share Posted June 25, 2005 That's great for you, but fancy a trip to some areas near me called Moss Side and Longsight? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> used to have a flat in mosside Link to post Share on other sites
Sledge Posted June 25, 2005 Report Share Posted June 25, 2005 Surely criminals don't WANT to shoot it out with the cops? Where is all this "If you arm the police/civilians, then criminals will carry guns to fight them," stuff coming from? Link to post Share on other sites
HEaT Posted June 25, 2005 Report Share Posted June 25, 2005 Fair enough Ubar. Link to post Share on other sites
R22Master Posted June 25, 2005 Report Share Posted June 25, 2005 How are cars as dangerous as guns? I don't think just saying that there are many many more deaths because of cars than guns is enough to justify that, if that was going to be how you prove your point... A gun is made to kill/hurt, it's as simple as that. Cars are not. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ummm, cars are more dangerous because... If you lose control over your gun, nothing happens. If you lose control over your car it could easily kill you, pedestrians, other road users, etc... A gun like a .44 Magnum in a normal person's hands could kill at most 3 or 4 people if the owner wanted to. A Ford Mondeo in a normal person's hands could kill 20 or 30 people if the owner wanted to. When a gun runs out of bullets, it is safe. When a car runs out of petrol, the power-steering locks, the brakes stop working, and other systems shut down. These are just a few reasons why cars ARE more dangerous than guns, whether in a killer's hands, or in the hands of a normal civilian. Link to post Share on other sites
Ubar Posted June 25, 2005 Report Share Posted June 25, 2005 Fair enough Ubar. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Just kidding haha (lived a way from there) Anyways, the original question was should all uk police be armed, and so i answered no, because i dont think all should be, but in certain areas like the moss and chapeltown (not that the police go there even if they are armed ) it can be a good idea Link to post Share on other sites
Ubar Posted June 25, 2005 Report Share Posted June 25, 2005 Ummm, cars are more dangerous because... If you lose control over your gun, nothing happens. If you lose control over your car it could easily kill you, pedestrians, other road users, etc... A gun like a .44 Magnum in a normal person's hands could kill at most 3 or 4 people if the owner wanted to. A Ford Mondeo in a normal person's hands could kill 20 or 30 people if the owner wanted to. When a gun runs out of bullets, it is safe. When a car runs out of petrol, the power-steering locks, the brakes stop working, and other systems shut down. These are just a few reasons why cars ARE more dangerous than guns, whether in a killer's hands, or in the hands of a normal civilian. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Those are mainly valid points, but I think if everyone who owned a car also owned a gun, the amount of gun crime would go up rather a lot Link to post Share on other sites
Vicks Posted June 25, 2005 Report Share Posted June 25, 2005 I was scared to *beep* the other day, i live is a sleepy boring as hell town where you don't get gun crime or anything, it's called haywards heath, if you heard of it or live there you know how deathly boring it is, anyway back on topic while i was working in the shop i work in at about 10 o'clock a police man walked in and he had a side arm, i was like WTF?!?!?!?! why the hell do you need a gun here, also when i go to london see them armed all the time around parliment and other places, i just think it's a no, sure it would help to combat some instances but there would be the trigger happy policemen/women who would end up shooting unarmed people, i.e. that guy who got shot for carring a wooden chairleg in a bag. I just feel unless theres a big change and we start having loads of guns in the hands of criminals we shouldn't have armed policemen patrolling, ssure there should be an armed division like there is now but standard policemen/women shouldn't be armed. Link to post Share on other sites
R22Master Posted June 25, 2005 Report Share Posted June 25, 2005 Those are mainly valid points, but I think if everyone who owned a car also owned a gun, the amount of gun crime would go up rather a lot <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Wordwide, there are FAR more guns than cars, yet cars still kill far more people every year than guns do. Link to post Share on other sites
rizzo Posted June 25, 2005 Report Share Posted June 25, 2005 Ummm, cars are more dangerous because... If you lose control over your gun, nothing happens. If you lose control over your car it could easily kill you, pedestrians, other road users, etc... A gun like a .44 Magnum in a normal person's hands could kill at most 3 or 4 people if the owner wanted to. A Ford Mondeo in a normal person's hands could kill 20 or 30 people if the owner wanted to. When a gun runs out of bullets, it is safe. When a car runs out of petrol, the power-steering locks, the brakes stop working, and other systems shut down. These are just a few reasons why cars ARE more dangerous than guns, whether in a killer's hands, or in the hands of a normal civilian. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ah yes, never thought about it like that. Then why are we not arguing about the use of cars my police? It could be argued that in todays society guns are as much a necessity for the police as transport :? Link to post Share on other sites
R22Master Posted June 25, 2005 Report Share Posted June 25, 2005 Because cars have a primary use that is considered socailly valuable. Guns don't. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.