Should The Police Routinely Carry Guns?

Re: Should The Police Be Armed?

lumos2000":26n29tz0 said:
I think the wrong sort of people would want to join the force and it would put off the right people joining.
You've got to be a wrong 'un to want to join the Police full stop.

As to arming them, I couldn't give a toss either way. Get the Scottish Sovereign guy onto it- he'll have an answer.
 
Re: Should The Police Be Armed?

Please explain 'shoot to kill policy'.

Richard
 
Re: Should The Police Be Armed?

Chopper1192":xkemrkdf said:
For what reason would you shoot someone if you weren't intending to kill them?

Yay - you back.

Wondered where you'd been.

Not seen Stevo post in a while, either.
 
Re:

Welcome back Chopper.

I wonder how many police officers want to be armed. Whilst there are obviously some that want to be, those that apply to be part of the armed response teams, or whatever they're called, there are surely those that don't relish the responsibility that goes with being armed.
 
Re: Should The Police Be Armed?

I'm ambivalent, not really fussed either way.

Personally I can't see firearms or TASER use widening due to the vast cost of equipment and horrific cost of.training at a time of austerity. Chief Constables have the authority to authorise PCSOs to carry incapacitating sprays, but because of the cowt only one force has done it. The filthy lucre rules, especially now PCCs are spending any spare money on themselves.
 
Re:

One of our friends is a retired member of the armed response, and a number of our friends are serving officers. It is a subject that has come up on a number of occasions.

Those who think having gun toting police knocking about in little villages that see very little crime, certainly of the nature where armed officers might need to put arms to use, could look at the statistics that suggest having unarmed police actually decreases armed crime.

Having a gun to hand makes you no safer in your own home, as the chances of it being used against you remove any perceived advantage.

I think it has been one of the great benefits of our society, having the bobby on the beat and friendly local constabulary.

Putting more distance between them and us really is the wrong way to go.
 
Re: Re:

highlandsflyer":12vpaaoj said:
One of our friends is a retired member of the armed response, and a number of our friends are serving officers. It is a subject that has come up on a number of occasions.

Those who think having gun toting police knocking about in little villages that see very little crime, certainly of the nature where armed officers might need to put arms to use, could look at the statistics that suggest having unarmed police actually decreases armed crime.

Having a gun to hand makes you no safer in your own home, as the chances of it being used against you remove any perceived advantage.

I think it has been one of the great benefits of our society, having the bobby on the beat and friendly local constabulary.

Putting more distance between them and us really is the wrong way to go.
I'd agree I think times were better, when bobbies on the beat were more likely to be seen as friendly faces, and there was more familiarity, common sense, and some degree of pro-activeness.

But then society has evolved a certain way, and any distance between normal Joe Public and the police at large is probably as much symptomatic of other aspects to how society has changed.

Problem is, I don't see that the genie wants to go back in the lamp. Whilst my finger-in-the-air guess is that the police won't suddenly start carrying firearms, or be replaced, wholesale, with ED-209s, I can't help but think there's a certain degree of inevitability to it - even if it's a ways off, yet.

That's not the same as saying that's what I think should happen, or would like to see, though.
 
Back
Top