Should The Police Routinely Carry Guns?

[highlandsflyer]

Re: Should The Police Be Armed?

Thing is that crime rates are on the downward trend.

We just don't need a militarised enforcement agency, not as a blanket provision anyway.

I am not totally against weapon carrying.

Serving armed forces members ought to be able to concealed carry, I think that makes sense. Inner city police as well, and of course officers involved in airports, nuclear installations and such should retain their weapons.

There must be a line drawn, and a reflection of the real nature of policing in wee hamlets and rural areas.

 

[Chopper the ex Copper]

Re: Should The Police Be Armed?

This is true, though an officer shot by a villain in a wee rural hamlet is likely to be just as dead as one shot in London.

As an interesting and related aside Mr Flyer, did you the thin in the news recently linking declining crime levels around the world with the decrease of lead in the environment?

 

[xerxes]

Re:

Interesting: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ish-export

Hadn't heard that one before I googled it.

Also, I've heard it mentioned on the radio that violent crime, burglaries, muggings, bank jobs, car theft etc., basically physical crimes, maybe down, but cons and scams are up. It's less risky and potentially more profitable for criminals, the sentences are lighter and the income from scams and on-line fraud etc. is greater, than holding up the local post office with a sawn off.

Lets face it, the international banking system has pretty much defrauded millions of people out of billions of dollars and very few of them ended up behind bars, far from it, many still got their bonuses. :?

Also, I remember hearing this on QI, the guy that developed leaded petrol, also developed CFCs as a refrigerant and aerosol propellant. He may unwittingly have been solely responsible for more environmental damage than anyone else: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley,_Jr.

 

[TGR]

Re: Should The Police Be Armed?

I have to think that you may have missed a point here - 'bobbies on the beat'? Do you still have that? In these fiscally tight times, bobbies on the beat is unusual, save for circumstances to provide reassurance to communities when an incident has occurred.

Firearms have been issued to Police in Norn Iron for a long period of time - I GUESS since 1970 or before. The presence of a firearm does not make any difference to how policing is acheived. ARV units and other provide very specialist tactical firearms options and these units have their place, but what difference would a firearm make to a bobby on the beat - it is just another bit of kit attached to an already heavy belt kit.

It is very easy to make sweeping statements about this, but most people fail to remember that the firearm is a tool to be used to protect the officer and the public - in particular life threatening circumstance.

Highlands flyer - you make reasonable points but crime figures would not factor in whether armed officers are required or make a difference. Here, in Norn Iron, all police are armed - so the figures here do not change because of this. (not sure if i have explained that well)

Re guns at home - you make a fair point but the topic is about police and not the public

It is actually possible to friendly and armed! Perhaps the only English/Scottish experience of armed officers relates to specialist units who do have 'an attitude' but this relates to their role and in normal day-to-day policing these type of officers would not be visible.

From memory, one police officer was killed in England recently when she was stabbed and her colleague was also injured. No one could ever say if they had been armed they would have survived, but it would, at least, have given them another option to protect themselves.

Finally I will recount a story which i tell from time to time. On holiday in Scotland a number of years ago, we drove past a bus stop where a uniformed soldier was waiting for a bus. I thought that he looked odd but could not put a finger on why. Some time later that day I realised what it was - he was unarmed. Being used to armed soldiers and police my mind eventually picked up that he wasn't. So, I found it odd that he was not armed where, it seems, that mainland people find the fact that they are armed as being odd. It is all in the mind!

Richard

 

[highlandsflyer]

Re: Should The Police Be Armed?

From memory, one police officer was killed in England recently when she was stabbed and her colleague was also injured. No one could ever say if they had been armed they would have survived, but it would, at least, have given them another option to protect themselves.

One of her colleagues at least is insistent being armed would have made no difference. That would be my sister-in-law, who is totally against arming the police as the norm.

 

[TGR]

Re: Should The Police Be Armed?

Well, I stated that 'no one could say' but your sister in law seems to know a lot about it. I would still argue my point 'no one can say' - as, until the brown stuff hits the revolving desk top item' you do not know how you will react or whether your reactions will be quick enough. I really do not want to argue over this point, as it is in bad taste and relates to a very sad occurrence.

Why is your sis in law so resistent to arming?

I am sure i read recently about an English Police Service who, it seemed, were arming police regularly and this was being taken by the media as 'stealth arming'.

Honestly, and you may have guessed, I can see no reason for police officers not to be armed regularly armed - it happens here and in most of the world, so why should English 'bobbies' be singled out - it only takes you to examine the changes in uniform to see these officers are not the same as the 'bobbies' from the 1960's in Z-Cars etc - would you even notice a gun on their belt? The downside is for slimmer officers who will have to expand to allow room on their utility belts for a firearm!

Richard

 

[Chopper the ex Copper]

Re: Should The Police Be Armed?

If firearms have little if saving you or protecting the public from a gun toting villain, then why are soldiers given such weapons to face a gun toting enemy?

 

[legrandefromage]

Re: Should The Police Be Armed?

Arms are always good, it gives the hands somewhere to hang from.

 

[Chopper the ex Copper]

Re: Should The Police Be Armed?

I'm still intrigued by this "shoot to kill" rubbish, promulgated by an ignorant press and a gullible public. If someone presents such an immediate danger to life that they require shooting, then for what other reason would an officer or soldier shoot them if it wasn't to kill them?

 

[highlandsflyer]

Re:

When I encounter the expression 'shoot to kill' I normally think of making no attempt to capture. Whereas opting for a kill shot specifically sounds like 'deadly force'.

If a mentally ill teenager takes a replica pistol out into the road and a police sniper opts to subdue him with a shot to the thigh or such rather than take him out with a heart shot I would say that was a viable option.

Up close and personal, for example in the corridor of a student halls of residence, the average basically trained officer would unholster before encountering said youth and on first contact would likely use deadly force.

There is just one reason I don't like the idea of every officer having a gun amongst their options.