Should the English Police be armed?

[Sledge]

I agree, simply put that if our UK Police Forces became armed, gun crime would increase dramatically. 

 

The requirement of an armed criminal to possess a real firearm would become a necessity and as a result airsoft replica's or indeed any imitation firearm would be redundant.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS? I keep hearing it said as gospel that, if police/civilians were aremed, criminals would carry guns to compensate and firefights would erupt everytime a householder interupted a break-in, or a copper arrested a mugger. Before I start handing out -1 rep to people, PLEASE state your evidence.

 

[cpaxton]

WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS? I keep hearing it said as gospel that, if police/civilians were aremed, criminals would carry guns to compensate and firefights would erupt everytime a householder interupted a break-in, or a copper arrested a mugger. Before I start handing out -1 rep to people, PLEASE state your evidence.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah, what links police having guns , to criminals also having them?

[xRAZERx]

The police have batons, cuffs and CS.... Crims don't feel the need to carry those either....

[Sledge]

Funny that. You never see crims carrying batons, flashing lights, sirens, or headgear that looks like a tit with a big metal nipple. Criminals prefer to ESCAPE capture. Shooting it out with the police is hardly a good way to do that.

 

[Duff Beer]

Well you could use the Balance of Power theory of Realist Politics but in a smaller scale.

Should I be breaking into a car and I get seen by a plod with a gun then I am going to be arrested, no question. I cannot attempt to get away, nor can I attack the officer and make a break that way. The only way that I could possibly have a chance of escape is havign equal or superior firepower.

[Sledge]

Theory. State some EVIDENCE for that.

 

[cpaxton]

Well you could use the Balance of Power theory of Realist Politics but in a smaller scale. 

Should I be breaking into a car and I get seen by a plod with a gun then I am going to be arrested, no question.  I cannot attempt to get away, nor can I attack the officer and make a break that way.  The only way that I could possibly have a chance of escape is havign equal or superior firepower.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Um that is not likely to happen, I am sure a criminal will be far happier to go down for car theft that killing a policeman. They are not going to think, ''I am gonna go jack a vectra but better bring my Uzi to shoot teh feds if they get near me.'

[Duff Beer]

Well obviously not for the car, but it was a hypothetical situation of a crime.

[cpaxton]

It's common sense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

what your lack of it?

 

/joke

 

EDIT: i see you edited

[Sledge]

BZZT. Wrong answer. Unless you can show it has happened, it is not acceptable as anything other than a hypothetical scenario. My point that criminals seek to escape, therefore wouldn't carry guns, is just as much common sense. Anyone with common sense does not become a criminal. Now, does anyone have any evidence to back up the idea that arming the police would increase the number of armed criminals?

 

[Duff Beer]

lol, I guess so. However, at the moment the state of play is fairly equal between the crims and the plod. When one changes the rules the other will react.

[Sledge]

BZZT. Wrong answer. You are hypothesising. Please state the evidence this hypothesis is based on.

 

[cpaxton]

lol, I guess so.  However, at the moment the state of play is fairly equal between the crims and the plod.  When one changes the rules the other will react.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

come on , criminals don't play by your 'rules' they will do anything they damn well like to achieve what they want. Cops having guns may intimidate them and stop spur of the moment crimes, like nicking a handbag.

[Duff Beer]

As the event has not occured yet then you cannot ask for evidence. Nor can you use other countries to show your point due to the difference in societies.

[xRAZERx]

come on , criminals don't play by your 'rules' they will do anything they damn well like to achieve what they want. Cops having guns may intimidate them and stop spur of the moment crimes, like nicking a handbag.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Why will it stop things like that? Just because the police are armed doesn't mean the amount of low level crime will get smaller. It'd only work if the police were there at the moment the crime was going to happen, and armed or not it probably wouldn't happen.

[cpaxton]

As the event has not occured yet then you cannot ask for evidence.  Nor can you use other countries to show your point due to the difference in societies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A criminal is a criminal no matter what society, they have an aim and go out to achieve it if they are Spanish, German, American or whatever.

[Chimpy]

Also can Sledge provide any evidence that supports his viewpoint as he is also using supposition.

 

 

My take, criminals can and do use weapons knives, clubs and even guns (to generalise). This is for their own protection, to threaten others and occasionally to be used in acts of violence.

 

If all Officers were armed that will not spike use of firearms by criminals to counter the armed Officers. As Sledge says most criminals would probably rather get away and only resort to violence as a means of doing so. But it might increase the likelyhood of an armed criminal having to do so (being threatened with lethal force).

[Sledge]

Precisely my point. And yet people are pronouncing "If the police are armed, criminals will follow," as if this is the most obvious thing in the world and can be easily proved. It can't, and therefore has no real place in this debate. I might as well say that if the police are armed, absenteeism will rise as police officers will shoot themselves in the foot to get time off. There's as much evidence for that.

 

Edit ~ Chimpy, please tell me, quoting from earlier posts, what my viewpoint is.

 

[cpaxton]

Why will it stop things like that? Just because the police are armed doesn't mean the amount of low level crime will get smaller. It'd only work if the police were there at the moment the crime was going to happen, and armed or not it probably wouldn't happen.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If they are worried about being shot in the back, I am sure it will act as a deterrent, especially for petty theft from teenage chavs.

 

 

I might as well say that if the police are armed, absenteeism will rise as police officers will shoot themselves in the foot to get time off. There's as much evidence for that.

[xRAZERx]

If they are worried about being shot in the back, I am sure it will act as a deterrent, especially for petty theft from teenage chavs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But the police ROE and requirments for the deployment of armed officer will never be: Shoot chavs in the back if they're doing crime...

[cpaxton]

But the police ROE and requirments for the deployment of armed officer will never be: Shoot chavs in the back if they're doing crime...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I never said they would, in fact I hopw that they wouldn't , but the worry of a gun will be in the back of the thiefs mind. And may help to prevent the crime actually taking place .

[Chimpy]

BZZT. Wrong answer. Unless you can show it has happened, it is not acceptable as anything other than a hypothetical scenario. My point that criminals seek to escape, therefore wouldn't carry guns, is just as much common sense. Anyone with common sense does not become a criminal. Now, does anyone have any evidence to back up the idea that arming the police would increase the number of armed criminals?

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This one does is nicely.

[Chimpy]

I never said they would, in fact I hopw that they wouldn't , but the worry of a gun will be in the back of the thiefs mind. And may help to prevent the crime actually taking place .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Doubtful, criminals tend to know their rights very, very well and as such would be unlikely to do anything to put an Officer into the position shooting them!

[Sledge]

My point there, Chimpy, is the statement I made is equally valid. Read the post. What I'm saying is, there is as much evidence for that point of view as there is for Duff's: none. It's extrapolation based on an understanding of human nature. Neither has actual proof. The difference is, I am putting my opinion forward as a possibility, not stating it as inalienable fact.

 

[xRAZERx]

I never said they would, in fact I hopw that they wouldn't , but the worry of a gun will be in the back of the thiefs mind. And may help to prevent the crime actually taking place .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So why isn't the fear of being Batoned, CS'd, Tazered or jap slapped enough...

 

Doubtful, criminals tend to know their rights very, very well and as such would be unlikely to do anything to put an Officer into the position shooting them!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Exactly, most hardcore crims know more about the law than some coppers....