Arm the police?

I know this discussion will have been done before but with the recent shooting of 2 police officers as you all remember and the poor copper that got stabbed I think that its about time that the police got more protection. I know that there are strong arguments for and against this measure but if someone came at you with a knife you wouldn't have to tackle them you'd just shoot them dead, job done. And if someone was shooting you at least you could shoot back rather than waiting for armed response to turn up.

I think in the current climate police officers need something more to protect themselves becuase its only going to get worse

At risk of splitting horrible legalistic hairs, under the definitions to be found in the 1968 firearms act (as amended), the police are already armed with firearms, and section 5 firearms at that.

I am of course talking about CS/pepper spray...
The recent shooting of two police officers would probably occured even if the officers were armed. Unless SOPs are changed and all incidents are treated as worst possible cases, as they are in a lot of places in the US, by the time the scroat had done what he knew he was and the officers didn't, it would have been too late.

The main problem is that even though there are stiff sentences given to people who attack the poice they are a) still not long enough, and b) useless because time in prison is seen as much too cushy as it is. Until these basdic facts are sorted, armed or not, it'll happen again.
Arming the Police would require an enormous investment in ranges and training - to say nothing of the horrendous legal issues they'd soon be embroiled in. The average copper currently knows sweet foxtrot alpha about firearms - it would be the equivalent of putting Deepcut recruits on the streets with SA80. By the end of year one, you'd have crims shot 0; innocent civ pop shot c.100; police self-inflicted shot c.50. Studies in US have shown that, unless the policeman is prepared to shoot-to-kill without compunction, an armed felon (with nothing to lose) is very likely to come out top in a confrontation. Very hard to imagine that, if the two probationary girl PCs had been armed with token sidearms, the outcome would have been any different at all...

In all seriousness, the current rate of shot coppers (which is actually very, very small - in fact less than in the 1930s, acording to at least one report) is probably the brutal but acceptable price of not having all-out carnage on the streets a la USA - very much like the NI cost in shot soldiers was probably the acceptable price of not having a Balkans-type meltdown in the province.
When the issue of firearms comes up why do people always compare us to the US? The US is a seriously fuctup country when it comes to guns but what about all the other countries in the world that arm thier police forces (most of them). However I do agree with what you're saying it would cost a hell of a lot of money in actually purchasing the things then training all the officers in how to shoot, when to shoot and how to deal with shooting somone.

Im just trying to picture this country in 10 years time and from where im standing if this country strays any more to the left weve got problems...
Just look at the sh*te our soldiers suffer for shooting someone in an actual war zone - how on earth would the Police cope with Mr/Ms bobby gunning down civpop on a regular basis (especially when, looking at the armed crime statistics, they'd be gunning down members of certain ethnic minorities disproportionately often....)?
the police are already armed in NI and have been for quite a while now. Not balkans melt down in sight just yet
I used to live near the Met Police college in Colindale, and would regularly meet cadets wandering around during their free time.
I wouldn't trust most of them with a wet fish, let alone a firearm...
The cost would be in the redundancy payments for those police officers not considered suitable to carry a weapon. There would then be a massive shortage of police on the streets whilst the rcruiting plan kicked in. Also a complete change of attitude in policing would be required from the present "Politically Correct" method (not offending anyone) to actual policing (catching criminals).
Give Dibble "Real guns"? 88 me haven't they got enough with CS sprays, tazers, Big sticks. They’d only end up shooting each other, thick 88.
Reasons why I think your average “bobby” does not want to use a common tool of law enforcement—the firearm:

(1) They do not feel confident around firearms—living in a society where the very word “gun” is a taboo and where media hysteria generates ill-feelings towards firearms and those who use it generally has the end effect of meaning that people nowadays grow up without actually seeing a firearm, least of all using one. Unless, of course, a firearm happens to be waved about in your face by some criminal.

(2) They believe they do not need/require firearms to do their job—for some parts of the country, this is probably true.

(3) They believe that carrying a firearm would force more criminals to carry firearms—would make sense in theory, however evidence runs contrary to this opinion. Most police officers, “bobbies”, have bought into the hysteria, ignorance and miss-information as portrayed in #1; therefore, they believe, often with little—if any—fact, that by them carrying a gun they will increase crime somehow.

(4) Most police officers know of and understand the stigma in carrying and employing a firearm in the course of his/her duties. We have all heard of the IPCC ripping police officers a new one and being suspended, all because they did their jobs in opening fire against an armed and lethal suspect. Heck, in today’s society, a soldier faces possible murder charges just for using his rifle in warfare! With attitudes like that, it’s no wonder why many officers do not wish to carry a weapon.

(5) On the whole, the few times the Met CO19 has employed their firearms against people have resulted in either shooting the wrong person/innocent people, or shooting unarmed people.

Is it any wonder why most policemen don’t want to be armed? Personally, I view a gun as a tool, a tool that is just as necessary in their line of work as their flashlight, handcuffs, ASP and even their uniform.

Then again, Britain has a history of not acting for fear of ******* something up. This fear and apprehension has been amplified by years of pro-political correctness, molly-cuddling nanny states and a left-wing social/liberal party that is continuing to move even more to the left. A government that lacks the compulsion and balls to act, and instead creates short-term fixes that appeases the will of the public without actually addressing the problem (reference: UK Firearm laws; Anti-terror laws).

IMO of course. However, if I wanted to be a policeman, I would feel a lot safer and a lot better-able to do my job if I was properly equipped to do this. This means having a vest that offers true ballistic protection, this means carrying a firearm—a standard tool of law enforcement the world over (bar UK, of course), and this means being prepared and trained to use said tools to the maximum extent of the law.

Seeing as the above does not happen in UK policing, I would never feel safe being a copper.
These calls come about when an officer has been put down with a firearm. However, in the average daily death toll, deaths of police come a long way down the list of events. It seems we get pished off when it happens but not seriously enough to really do anything about it. Remember what happened when nutters killed school kids? Total loss of children was not dramatically high but anguish and horror was sufficient to see changes in gun laws. Same with Dangerous Dogs. Even a fully armed police force with officers well trained in usingtheir weapons will not prevent deaths - see what happens with assaults, neg disc and blue on blue deaths in USA.
Demands for arming police stem as much from our sense of fair play (crooks have them so police should have them as well) as from good reasoned thought.
So how would the Pro-police arnament reply to if both sides have guns the situation will just escalate?

Added to this if police carry pistols this will be no good as in a firearms situation you need to totally out-class the criminal to avoid deaths or bodging of the incident handling. PC plod packing a 9mm isnt going to do any good against Mr crazy drug dealer armed with sub machine guns or whatever. You need police properly armed and equipped and planning to go into the situation.

-Arent a couple of bobbies with a pistol and maybe a shotgun rushing into a situation and bodging it not going to do any good indeed they will most likely just escalate the situation and get more people hurt in my mind.

My opinion however remains that 50% of the police force should be trained in firearms not necessarily carrying 100% of the time meaning they can have the AR capability for a situation that needs it
Un-Friendly-Fire said:
So how would the Pro-police arnament reply to if both sides have guns the situation will just escalate?
As Manchester Rogue says, this theory is just not borne out by evidence. It's an old fallacy which gets re-aired on a regular basis, just like the "blood will run in the streets" fallacy about shall-issue CCW.

Criminals are inherently cowardly, and don't like the idea of a fight on equal terms. Imagine you're a crim: are you going to pull a gun on an armed man, or are you going to look to pull it on somebody who is not armed?

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads