Should The Police Routinely Carry Guns?

[highlandsflyer]

Seems that mission creep is occurring, and we are moving towards a fully armed force.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-h ... s-27374900

I am 100% against the casual use of arms, whether they be electronic devices or more traditional.
Airports and government buildings are a different matter, but wee towns in low crime areas?

 

[velomaniac]

Re: Should The Police Be Armed?

When abroad I find armed police intimidating looking which does not make me see them as reasuring guardians of society.
Our own Police force without guns has achieved in recent years an intimidating presence due to anti knife vests, utility belts and lots of black/dark blue kit. But I know they are not armed and thus still aproachable public servants even if by the way they talk to you they make you feel as if in their eyes your a wrong un. Arm them though and I think a lot of us will start seeing them as enforcers for the state and best avoided. Power and the ability to inflict that power on people can be corrupting, guns are ultimate inflicters of power, the threat of them alone causes fear no matter who carries them and how well they are trainned in their use or not.
In Britain the ability to call on an armed responce unit when needed has got to be better than having the weapons available at ground zero before any attempts to diffuse a situation have been explored.

 

[KDM]

Re:

Police, senior school teachers, A&E staff are all jobs I would never want to do. They tend to deal with some of the worst of society and we conveniently turn a blind eye to that part of the job because it's better to run those people down than praise them.

We have become a society where looking for a mistake that will get us off rather than putting our hands up and saying fair kop seems to be the norm, blaming teachers for our kids being shit, police for enforcing rules we have broken and a&e staff for how long it takes to get seen because too many use it like a doctors surgery.

I prefer what we have at the moment with specialized armed response teams but I have no issue with basic plod having tazers. Society is demanding how the police react and not the other way round. The police will not be armed to to bully us but most will be armed to protect themselves from societies scrotes, shitbags and the violent among us.

If you feel otherwise the I would politely suggest joining the special constabulary and see what the police have to deal with these days and how lacking the support from their superiors, politicians and some members of the public has given rise to their need of self protection.

We have isolated the police from society and not the other way around.

 

[DrJo]

Re: Should The Police Be Armed?

give em an inch and they'll take a mile, we already have tazers and drones....... tear gas, water cannons, truncheons, rubber bullets (everybody remember those) and the new sonic cannons. Whats a few more dead citizens, sorry I meant bullets, matter as long as our freedom is safe...

 

[highlandsflyer]

Re: Should The Police Be Armed?

The police have very little to deal with here in the Highlands, and that is the basis of my concern.

I totally disagree with the disbandment of the individual regional forces that has been imposed here, much against the wishes of the force itself.

As far as the isolation of the police from society. Well, they are still suffering from the Thatcher era. They took too much direct influence from the government of the day, and that has undermined their relationship with Joe Public from thereon in.

Winning back public trust is a tall task, and toting weapons willy-nilly is no way forward.

 

[KDM]

Re:

Blah blah blah Police state, blah blah blah it's all Thatchers fault.

I know we are a retro forum but the above ^^are as dependable for those lacking originality as they have ever been, quite boring.

 

[Alison]

Re: Should The Police Be Armed?

Well as to parties, from the Greens to the BNP, they are all, especially if in government, lying, cheating, statistic twisting gits and while in government, however may voted them in, they'll eventually piss off enough of the populous to eventually be voted out, that's British politics (bring in PR )

But no the general police officer should not be armed there should just be an armed response unit only to deal with very serious, life threatening situations, you arm the average bobby and then your average crimbo will feel the need to carry arms too.

Alison

 

[TGR]

Re: Should The Police Be Armed?

To answer the question posed - yes, they should all be armed.

I am in Norn Iron and they are all armed here. I do not travel much but I cannot remember being in another country except mainland UK where Police are not armed.

A scenario (fictional) to consider, a police officer attends at a small village in the Highlands where nothing ever happens but there has been an accident. The police officer investigates the accident and belives that one of the drivers is drunk and proceeds to process them. The driver pulls a shotgun from his car and shoots the police officer.

I am not saying that a firearm would save the officer but it might; it might also dissuade the driver from lifting the shot gun. Currently the officer, if they were lucky, could run and take cover and request assistance from an armed unit - in the meantime, they are under serious threat of bodily harm.

Without having first hand knowledge of the Raoul Moat case I cannot definitively say whether armed officers would have stopped him but the option was not there.

Consider going to your place of employment daily, with the worry of someone causing you serious harm - perhaps even death and you have to rely on your training, your ability to talk, a baton, spray (CS or PAVA) - these will work in the majority of cases, but on the one occasion that you need something more suitable - a firearm you do not have access to it. That one occasion is the one where you will suffer most.

This is a ongoing discussion and probably will continue, risk assessments may indicate the need for all officers being armed in future and that is probably when it will change. God help any officers who are injured or worse because of the lack of appropriate means to stop a threat because of managerial reluctance to firearms and the public perception that they must only be carried by very specialist units does not help it.

A final point - are all military personnel in the SAS or similar - answer NO. All front line military personnel are armed, why does the same not apply to police? I do not see a need for very specialist training to fire a gun in everyday circumstances. ARV's still have their specific role when required.

My 2p

Hope you all have a great weekend,

Richard

 

[Mike Muz]

Re: Should The Police Be Armed?

To answer the question posed - yes, they should all be armed.

I am in Norn Iron and they are all armed here. I do not travel much but I cannot remember being in another country except mainland UK where Police are not armed.

A scenario (fictional) to consider, a police officer attends at a small village in the Highlands where nothing ever happens but there has been an accident. The police officer investigates the accident and belives that one of the drivers is drunk and proceeds to process them. The driver pulls a shotgun from his car and shoots the police officer.

I am not saying that a firearm would save the officer but it might; it might also dissuade the driver from lifting the shot gun. Currently the officer, if they were lucky, could run and take cover and request assistance from an armed unit - in the meantime, they are under serious threat of bodily harm.

Without having first hand knowledge of the Raoul Moat case I cannot definitively say whether armed officers would have stopped him but the option was not there.

Consider goes to your place of employment daily, with the worry of someone causing you serious harm - perhaps even death and you have to rely on your training, your ability to talk, a baton, spray (CS or PAVA) - these will work in the majority of cases, but on the one occasion that you need something more suitable - a firearm you do not have access to it. That one occasion is the one where you will suffer most.

This is a ongoing discussion and probably will continue, risk assessments may indicate the need for all officers being armed in future and that is probably when it will change. God help any officers who are injured or worse because of the lack of appropriate means to stop a threat because of managerial reluctance to firearms and the public perception that they must only be carried by very specialist units does not help it.

A final point - are all military personnel in the SAS or similar - answer NO. All front line military personnel are armed, why does the same not apply to police? I do not see a need for very specialist training to fire a gun in everyday circumstances. ARV's still have their specific role when required.

My 2p

Hope you all have a great weekend,

Richard

Totally agree , it is a deterrent .
Best case scenario with arms = criminal thinks twice about committing a crime .
Worse case = police officer is shot as said criminal is carrying a gun .
I think the police have a bad enough public image due to a few bad 'uns . Would it be any worse if they were armed to protect us ?

Mike

 

[lumos2000]

Re: Should The Police Be Armed?

no, most of our police are bumbling idiots I wouldn't trust them with a gun. plus I think the wrong sort of people would want to join the force and it would put off the right people joining.