Arming the police?
Discussion
I watched the news tonight in which there was discussion about the police being armed (because of the incident in Braford). Once again Yvonne Fletcher, shot outside the Libyan embassy, was cited as a good reason to arm police. My question is this: As I recall, someone inside the embassy simply quietly opened a window and pulled the trigger. If she was armed, would this have changed the outcome? I suspect not. Equally, this dear lady who was killed in Bradford attended the scene not knowing it was an armed robbery. Had she been armed would she be holding a gun? Again, I suspect not. On the other and, if criminals know that coppers are going to be armed, are they likely to be more tooled up than the coppers?
It is not to be outdone.
The criminal bastards are gonna shoot anyway.
Are we gonna let them kill our officers?
Here in Norway, its just as in Great old 'tannia.
Should we make our police wear guns is the question here to.
My brother is a special response policeman, so I have an interest in this
matter by more than usual!
>> Edited by spool on Sunday 20th November 01:28
The criminal bastards are gonna shoot anyway.
Are we gonna let them kill our officers?
Here in Norway, its just as in Great old 'tannia.
Should we make our police wear guns is the question here to.
My brother is a special response policeman, so I have an interest in this
matter by more than usual!
>> Edited by spool on Sunday 20th November 01:28
I'm not convinced either way at the moment .... but IIRC when the Police first started using heavily armed and well trained response units to armed robbery in the mid 80's .... the number of armed robberies dropped dramatically ( according to a documentary I saw a while back)
(Prior to the mid 80's armed Bank jobs were pretty low risk as far as the criminals were concerned as they would never encounter armed Police)
There was a robbery somewhere in the South East at around this time (mid 80's) where the cops had been tipped off (?) - basically the robbers tried to vainly shoot their way out and all got plugged ( dead IIRC )by the Police - who were basically much better trained.
Bank robbers and their ilk then realised that the personal risks of armed robbery were *considerably* higher as they could well be out gunned by a well-trained response unit - resulting in a big drop in armed robbery.
I'm not sure if the trend has since reversed or not ......... but given the huge availabilty and criminal use of weapons from East Europe I don't see how arming the Police would make things worse ... criminals are *already* armed with submachine guns and are willing to use them against UNARMED Police - arming the Police could well act as a deterrant (?)
(Prior to the mid 80's armed Bank jobs were pretty low risk as far as the criminals were concerned as they would never encounter armed Police)
There was a robbery somewhere in the South East at around this time (mid 80's) where the cops had been tipped off (?) - basically the robbers tried to vainly shoot their way out and all got plugged ( dead IIRC )by the Police - who were basically much better trained.
Bank robbers and their ilk then realised that the personal risks of armed robbery were *considerably* higher as they could well be out gunned by a well-trained response unit - resulting in a big drop in armed robbery.
I'm not sure if the trend has since reversed or not ......... but given the huge availabilty and criminal use of weapons from East Europe I don't see how arming the Police would make things worse ... criminals are *already* armed with submachine guns and are willing to use them against UNARMED Police - arming the Police could well act as a deterrant (?)
andy mac said:
no... the criminal bastards will not shoot anyway.
Well the criminal cowards "shot anyway" yesterday - despite there being no armed threat to them whatsoever from the 2 WPC's - many/most robbers are ALREADY armed ( Burglary is different though) - arming more Police could act as a deterrant.
But thats the problem.
The GOOD well trained armed police are already a very effective force when required, and put enough fear into criminals to not really use guns in places where they may be called into action.
However, give those police officers who were shot in Bradford guns, and who is to say that they can use them effectively if at all?
Were they to know the criminals were armed? Would this mean police approach all suspects with guns ready and aimed at any suspect?
What would have happened at best? Just the same no doubt as the police won't have been ready or have the bloodlust to just shoot straight away to kill.
Giving police guns and having them ready to kill "just like that" under threat is pretty scary. I'd prefer not to be pulled over for a producer at gunpoint etc, just incase I'm a mad gun wielding criminal!
Just as police drivers go crashing more cars due to poor training recently among the non TrafPol types (ie, specialised to drive fast), will just giving guns to all police just dilute the idea of police with guns being an effective deterrent?
Armed response are trained to use guns and deadly force, and do it effectively, much like good old TrafPol are usually very effective on the roads.
Just as letting any old Plod turn on the blues and two's and tear arse around in cars with minimal training has not been a win win situation, will the same be true of guns?
Oh well, no doubt Tony will spin some stats and ignore what the experts say and arm them all with guns to protect us from terrorists and violent criminals!
Dave
The GOOD well trained armed police are already a very effective force when required, and put enough fear into criminals to not really use guns in places where they may be called into action.
However, give those police officers who were shot in Bradford guns, and who is to say that they can use them effectively if at all?
Were they to know the criminals were armed? Would this mean police approach all suspects with guns ready and aimed at any suspect?
What would have happened at best? Just the same no doubt as the police won't have been ready or have the bloodlust to just shoot straight away to kill.
Giving police guns and having them ready to kill "just like that" under threat is pretty scary. I'd prefer not to be pulled over for a producer at gunpoint etc, just incase I'm a mad gun wielding criminal!
Just as police drivers go crashing more cars due to poor training recently among the non TrafPol types (ie, specialised to drive fast), will just giving guns to all police just dilute the idea of police with guns being an effective deterrent?
Armed response are trained to use guns and deadly force, and do it effectively, much like good old TrafPol are usually very effective on the roads.
Just as letting any old Plod turn on the blues and two's and tear arse around in cars with minimal training has not been a win win situation, will the same be true of guns?
Oh well, no doubt Tony will spin some stats and ignore what the experts say and arm them all with guns to protect us from terrorists and violent criminals!
Dave
alfaman said:
no... the criminal bastards will not shoot anyway.
Well the criminal cowards "shot anyway" yesterday - despite there being no armed threat to them whatsoever from the 2 WPC's - many/most robbers are ALREADY armed ( Burglary is different though) - arming more Police could act as a deterrant.
That is the exception, not the rule. If you arm the coppers, then you may well see dead police officers as the rule, rather than the exception... If it was a problem, we'd have coppers dying in far greater numbers than they are now.
I watched one of those cop chase programmes once on the TV, one of them was a U.S. one. A car was crawling at walking pace down the road, it had gone through several traffic lights at red (still crawling) The Officers (from at least 6 cars) were ALL too scared to go anywhere near it. Eventually, they gathered courage, guns drawn, approached the car, opened the door, dragged the driver out, 5 or 6 of them jumped upon the driver on the ground and handcuffed him........
Outcome?...........He was a diabetic who was slipping into a coma!
the car was (of course) an autobox and had simply continued to crawl along....
Now, at present, what do you suppose the British Policeman would have done?................Yep! You guessed it!...Walked up, reached in, and turned off the Ign switch.........
Do we really have to follow the goddam "American" way?...:shakes-head:
Outcome?...........He was a diabetic who was slipping into a coma!
the car was (of course) an autobox and had simply continued to crawl along.... Now, at present, what do you suppose the British Policeman would have done?................Yep! You guessed it!...Walked up, reached in, and turned off the Ign switch.........
Do we really have to follow the goddam "American" way?...:shakes-head:
andy mac said:
The American way is essential over there, as things have escalated to such a degree that they never know if the chap in the car is a loonster with a gun. As such, they treat everyone as such. We do not have that problem, as guns are reletively rare in everyday life.
I agree .... America is VERY different to here ... but we really should look at other European countries , where gun ownership laws are similar to here , crime leveles are similar AFAIK ....but far more Police ARE armed than here.
Basically what is SO different about the UK from the rest of Europe that would justify our policy on armed Police being so different ?
andy mac said:
The American way is essential over there, as things have escalated to such a degree that they never know if the chap in the car is a loonster with a gun. As such, they treat everyone as such. We do not have that problem, as guns are reletively rare in everyday life.
Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?
The escalation of crime over there is probably a complex matter, but pushing for all police to have guns and training surely puts the emphasis then on if you want to be any kind of criminal and get away with it, you'll either have to be good, or carry a gun if you are confronted.
That imho is escalation.
But either way, I don't see the need really. If a criminal has a gun, let them go, chances are it's THEIR deterrent to police. Let them meet up with the armed response units fully trained to work with guns effectively and efficiently.
Why go wasting more police lives, and possibly innocent people's lives at the hands of poorly trained police, both getting in over their heads with armed criminals, or shooting out of fear at harmless innocent people!
I'd prefer guns to be kept in safe hands and used by called upon police to specific locations, not just carried round "just in case" by every police officer.
Wonder how many innocent or non-deadly (ie, not carrying a deadly weapon etc) people get shot a year in the USA relative in the most appropriate manner to us in the UK.
Dave
In 100 years time, there are secrets about the "Dunblane" incident which will become free of the "official secrets" act and become public knowledge, after, of course, we are all dead...
Letters were written it seems to ministers before the event...? by the gunman...
"Official Secrets"????......(secret society's?) ...WTF!
That's just one incident of course...........Yes!...(Specials are one thing).....but General arming......a definate "NO" in my book.
Letters were written it seems to ministers before the event...? by the gunman...
"Official Secrets"????......(secret society's?) ...WTF!
That's just one incident of course...........Yes!...(Specials are one thing).....but General arming......a definate "NO" in my book.
Coincidently i picked up a WPC (off duty)in my cab tonight,she rings me when she wants a cab and the subject was obviously covered,her view is "She didnt join up to carry a gun",her words.
My view is we need to make all firearms a "Hot potato" so the majority of crims would sh1t themselves at the very thought of getting caught with one,you will never discourage the absolute outright nutter,but then you must also hit the importers very hard aswell to cut down the traffic of firearms.
I wonder if an amnesty was announced that after the deadline there would be a 10 year sentence with NO remisson,how many carriers would give them up,quite a few i think.
Arson with intent carries a life sentence(12 years),surely if you carry a gun you intend to harm someone,why cant that be a "lifer"?
My view is we need to make all firearms a "Hot potato" so the majority of crims would sh1t themselves at the very thought of getting caught with one,you will never discourage the absolute outright nutter,but then you must also hit the importers very hard aswell to cut down the traffic of firearms.
I wonder if an amnesty was announced that after the deadline there would be a 10 year sentence with NO remisson,how many carriers would give them up,quite a few i think.
Arson with intent carries a life sentence(12 years),surely if you carry a gun you intend to harm someone,why cant that be a "lifer"?
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff