It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should the British police be armed?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Winchester Ranger T
I assume you mean firing and not drawing


- from the same site the quote is

Shooting at a fleeing felon is unlawful under any circumstance.



it's certainly not legal in the US unless the fleeing felon poses an immediate danger to others.


- If you say so; that's one heck of a judgement call though, hmmmm?


I see nothing surreal about discussing the inadequacy of police equipment when rates of gun violence in the UK are rising and an officer has recently been killed.


- I see nothing surreal about that either, actually......as I'm sure you know full well.

My surreal comment was (I'd have thought quite obviously) in direct relation to your comment about the UK police themselves not wanting to be armed routinely.


The Genie is already out of the bottle, you need to deal with that fact. The flood of guns from impoverished eastern European nations continues unabated, you can expect continued increases in shootings - you read it here first.


- We'll deal with that if or when we come to it (and that hoary old "flood of guns from eastern Europe" is just a slight adjustment to the previous 'flood of guns from the collapsed old Soviet Union' we were all supposed to get so scared about 15yrs ago you know).


The first statement can be put down to a reasonable self analysis, the second is a factual observation.


- Har de har har.


On the contrary you are dealing with the analysis of a nation that has "been there" and "done that" when it comes to dealing with increasing levels of gun crime especially in inner cities.


- Which nation?

Japan certainly has no comparable recent history to the UK.


Japan is a directly relevant example of a country that has imposed a blanket ban on handgun ownership but still has the good sense to arm its police force, Australia is almost there, but I cannot think of any others that fit this representative profile.


- Japan has hugely unique attributes which render comparison difficult in the extreme.
A homogeneous and deeply deferential society for a start.


When you add the now obvious risk of a Muslim terrorist uprising in the UK, your position begins to look surreal.


- No, sorry but the idea of a "Muslem terrorist uprising" is just fantasy.

We have individuals who may be a problem but not an "uprising"; that is just the wildest of baseless speculation.


The mentality at work here is very simple.


- Well you said it matey.



You think that society as a whole is better served if it is unarmed, even if that means that a few women have to be raped, unarmed police officers shot, and old age pensioners murdered in their homes by way of the better good. I believe that society is better served if individuals have the means and legal right to take responsibility for their own protection and the protection of their families, even if that means that levels of gun related deaths rise because of the inevitable abuse that accompanies it.


- Yeah, I figured that long ago actually Winchester.

It's like a moral belief, right?

Who cares that the outcome is actually more maimed and dead people, you get what you prefer to see as a higher moral 'standard' acted out.

(......and the rate of assault and rape in the US is higher than in the UK, actually, check it out -
www.nationmaster.com... )


I believe that society as a whole is improved when you empower and encourage citizens to stop abhorrent behaviour in its tracks


- Except that isn't the whole story of what happens, is it?
You also get all the accompanying horrors that go with more guns in society too.


and not turn a blind eye or rely on a grossly apathetic judicial system.


- All judicial systems have their flaws - even America's - but excuse me if I prefer not to rely on the lawlessness of the 'law of the jungle' and the petty vendetta.


The bottom line is to take a long hard look at how the UK is sliding into the cess pool, and take a long hard look at why that is.


- Sorry but I don't see this at all.

(and our stats don't show it either)


Perhaps an armed citizenry isn't the way forward for you, perhaps you're right to be afraid of allowing citizens to feel empowered to fight crime as opposed to dialing 999 and waiting to die.


- Never let a chance pass by to give a silly 'either or' forced option or leap to a wild extreme to try and make a point, eh Winchester?

The fact remains the vast bilk of us will never have to suffer just having to sit "dialling 999 and waiting to die".


But you need to do something about your current situation, and fast, because taking cold comfort from lower levels of gun related homicides will not help you address the bigger issue of violent behaviour in your nation.


- Actually we do not have common-place violent crime; it is still unlikely to almost all (the stats show the exception being young men and mostly confined to within the inner cities).

Sorry matey, whilst it isn't perfect here and we certainly do have our problems the sky isn't falling in just yet.




posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 03:41 PM
link   
IMO without a doubt the police should be armed!!!

As much as we all would love to live in peace and harmony there are many out there (worldwide) that dont want to.

The problem in the U.K is this:
Society has changed, it has become more violent (this is a fact) the acts of violence have become more vicious.
Unfortunatly the Police have not been able to keep up with this they are not allowed to carry guns, what deterant is a truncheon to an armed robber who at the end of the day is willing to use this gun.
Not allowing the Police to use guns has done NOTHING for us up until now but as we still will continue to carry on debating about how if we allow the Police to carry guns then it would turn out worse? How much worse can it get? How many more innocent Policemen/women get killed before we say ''hold on this gun thing aint working''

If you were an armed robber/criminal you would in all honesty have no probs in doing a job because you know at worse you will have to deal with a few police and if youre really unlucky in about 30 mins the mets armed response unit will be on their way, giving you enough time to shoot and get away?

If we are not going to give these BRAVE MEN AND WOMEN the correct tools to do their job properly then why dont we take away that scary looking truncheon and the handcuffs, along with the radio and give them back their whistle and bicycles coz that worked didnt it??? yeah it did 50yrs ago when society was so bloody violent...


So please stop all this rubbish about not arming them, i think there are only about 2 countries in the world that dont arm their Police forces and the UK is one of them along with New Zeland?

They have a 'thankless' job stop making it harder for them to do this!



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Spymaster I have no doubt about your sincerity but the facts simply do not bear out your claims.

Despite being generally unarmed UK police are not being defeated by gangs of gun-toting criminals.

On the very rare occasion that a gun-toting criminal does injure or kill a cop here they are invariably caught and dealt with by the courts.
(The only exception I can think of being the killing of Yvonne Fletcher and that was because of the killer being shielded by being in a foreign countries' embassy).

It is not people like me making the job harder for the police by denying them guns, if you had read back though the thread you would have found links to show the UK police themselves do not want them.

How much worse can it get you ask?
(now there is a question from someone unwilling or unable to find out how fortunate they are to live in such a relatively crime-free country, hmmm?)

OK, go and look at the armed USA.
Three times the murder rate, over double the rape rate, a higher assault rate and depending on the year the stats have been compiled burglary either significantly higher or slightly lower than ours.
(there is also a link for comparing crime rates in the thread).

That's an idea of how much worse it could get.
There are many other examples of many other countries that have it far worse than us.



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 08:03 PM
link   
No the vast majority of the police do not want to be armed.Leave that to specially trained firearms units rather than giving every police officer a weapon.
As someone who takes a keen interest in these things i can see nothing that indicates a rapid change in firearms policy is required.Maybe an increase in the number of firearms units available could be required but not a blanket issueing of weapons.



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- If you say so; that's one heck of a judgement call though, hmmmm?


Kind of like shooting anyone though, hmmmmmm?


- I see nothing surreal about that either, actually......as I'm sure you know full well.


It's more than apparent that you do see the possession of firearms as somehow surreal, even for police officers. I have no doubt that deep down you abhor all forms of violence, even when used in self defence.


We'll deal with that if or when we come to it (and that hoary old "flood of guns from eastern Europe" is just a slight adjustment to the previous 'flood of guns from the collapsed old Soviet Union' we were all supposed to get so scared about 15yrs ago you know).


Examine the types of guns used in UK gun crimes and you will see that they are eminating from Eastern Europe. This seems a relatively minor and obvious point to have to belabour - but then I really shouldn't be too surprised.


- Which nation?


The USA of course, you know, the Great Satan and all that.


Japan has hugely unique attributes which render comparison difficult in the extreme.
A homogeneous and deeply deferential society for a start.


Rough translation - "damn, that doesn't fit with my view of how things work".


No, sorry but the idea of a "Muslem terrorist uprising" is just fantasy.


Perhaps the Guardian didn't cover recent events in detail. Apart from Muslims parading through London chanting death to Blair, new laws being passed to deport Muslim clerics who espouse violence against the West, the mass murder of London commuters by Muslims, the continuing involvement of the UK in the war on terror in 2 Muslim nations and the mass Muslim riots in France that threatened to spill into the UK, I totally agree that the prospect of a Muslim terrorist uprising in the UK is just plain old silly.


Yeah, I figured that long ago actually Winchester. It's like a moral belief, right?


Actually I see it as more of a moral right, and speaking from a nation that owes it's freedom from the tyranny of the UK to the personal ownership of firearms, that much at least should be obvious.


(......and the rate of assault and rape in the US is higher than in the UK, actually, check it out -
www.nationmaster.com... )


and I just got through reading a summary of UN study that showed the UK to be the most violent nation in the western world, which would confirm my own personal observations.


Except that isn't the whole story of what happens, is it?
You also get all the accompanying horrors that go with more guns in society too.


So you would rather have a sheep like, defenceless populace, an unarmed police force, and soft sentencing for murderers, and what ? just hope that the bad men won't hurt you.


All judicial systems have their flaws - even America's - but excuse me if I prefer not to rely on the lawlessness of the 'law of the jungle' and the petty vendetta.


If you equate the right to personal defence with "the law of the jungle" then your ivory tower is now so lofty that I am unable to call up to your window from the level of the real world.


- Sorry but I don't see this at all.


This and many other things I fear, but of course I knew that all along. Only one thing would intrude on your Titanic like beliefs in a tightly regulated, utterly safe, and slowly decaying society - and that would be a violent attack on yourself or your immediate family. I would rather you maintain your steadfast naivete, than have you learn by such means.



The fact remains the vast bilk of us will never have to suffer just having to sit "dialling 999 and waiting to die".


The old "the needs of the many........." speech huh, classic Socialist theory.


Actually we do not have common-place violent crime; it is still unlikely to almost all (the stats show the exception being young men and mostly confined to within the inner cities).


I really must remember that when I read my next copy of the Northwich Guardian - my old rural hometown newspaper. All those vandalised cars, mugged pensioners, broken windows, graffiti attacks, drunken assaults and burglaries are obviously a figment of my imagination. That must be why my relatives are now too embarassed to send it.

[edit on 2-12-2005 by Winchester Ranger T]



posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 04:37 AM
link   
Well have it your way Winchester but I stand by the stats I see (and which unlike yours I can post up for all to look at).

Without an armed population we have less actual serious crime compared to the US (which seems to be your preferred example......except when you choose the unique case of Japan).

Our police don't want arms generally made available to them either.

That's good enough for me.



posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Winchester..
your right parliment did pass a law on guns, but dont forget mate the criminals dont care about a law thats been passed..
your right again also when you say the vast majority of guns (captured) in the UK seem to come from the former eastern block.

Sminkey mate
i wish people who are debating gun crime /culture would automatically refer USA to UK , for Gods sake the UK is smaller than the state of Oregon one state out of 50 who can you compare this?

UK pop: 60,441,457 (July 2005 est.)
USA pop: 295,734,134 (July 2005 est.)
if we wish to compare like this then why dont we take a state look at the crime stats and then compare if think you would be suprised sminkey?
And sminkey mate i know you like stats so here is one for you?

The most total crimes per capita:
1)Dominica
2)New Zealand
3)Finland
4)Denmark
5)Chile
6)U.K.....(85.5517 per 1,000 people )
7)Monserrat
8)U.S.A......(80.0645 per 1,000 people)

PERSONALLY I dont think we live in a relativley crime-free country..FAR FROM IT!!
Sminkey you are right that the results from the last poll taken within the Police force that they didnt want to be armed, but i dont think that will be the same again.



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by spymaster
the UK is smaller than the state of Oregon one state out of 50 who can you compare this?


- We can certainly fairly compare entire countries on a proportionate basis.


if we wish to compare like this then why dont we take a state look at the crime stats and then compare if think you would be suprised sminkey?


- Well the problem is getting a like for like comparisom.

Generally speaking a proportionate overall basis is fairer because selective comparisons with individual states would be like trying to compare on the basis of individual counties here.
Are the county of Caithness, Anglesea or Cornwall's crime rates typical of the entire UK?
I think not. The idea is utterly wide open to unrepresentitive bias.


And sminkey mate i know you like stats so here is one for you?

The most total crimes per capita:


- That "total crimes" criteria is more than a tad broad, wouldn't you say?

The link I gave lets you compare on a proportionate basis the individual crimes; hence you can see the USA has - on a proportionate basis - a murder rate 3 times that of the UK's, a rape rate double ours and a rate of assaults significantly higher than ours.

What's the problem with that?


PERSONALLY I dont think we live in a relativley crime-free country..FAR FROM IT!!


- OK you feel how you feel.

But the fact remains; compared to the majority of people in the majority of countries in the world you are amongst the privileged few who live in a relatively peaceful and crime free country, if you reside in the UK.

Even within the UK crime stats show the bulk of crimes here are within the inner cities and involve young men.
If that 'isn't you' then you are even less likely to 'feature' in our crime stats.


Sminkey you are right that the results from the last poll taken within the Police force that they didnt want to be armed, but i dont think that will be the same again.


- OK, but any of us can just speculate and guess all we like.

I would simply point out that the 2003 result is apparantly much the same as the 1995 result.

Much of the actual Police comment since this latest outrage has been to call for more armed response units and not a routine and general arming of the Police generally.

Therefore I'd suggest it more reasonable to think that the attitude of the UK police is fairly constant and clear, they don't want to be routinely armed.

The numbers of Police Officers in the UK being shot and killed has not escalated and remains, thankfully, very low.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Here is civility U.S. style... You mess with me and you will see this.





posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by LostSailor
Here is civility U.S. style... You mess with me and you will see this.


And you can be assued, that the person messing with you also has one and probably has it pulled prior to messing with you.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium

And you can be assued, that the person messing with you also has one and probably has it pulled prior to messing with you.


No way man... I'm the fastest draw in the west!



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by LostSailor

Originally posted by Odium

And you can be assued, that the person messing with you also has one and probably has it pulled prior to messing with you.


No way man... I'm the fastest draw in the west!


And I tell all the ladies, I have the quickest fingers in the West.
Doesn't make it true.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Made a insomniac laugh really hard Odium.

Anyway, just been reading throughout the thread. How about introducing a trial with guns in one of the most crime-ridden areas? I'm not sure if it'd make a difference to be quite honest. But you don't know unless you try.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by LostSailor
Here is civility U.S. style... You mess with me and you will see this.

Fair enough, just wondering....you planining on being able to get that things barrel out of your holster before he's shot , robbed and ran away from you?



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by MacDonagh
Since the shooting of female police officer Pc Sharon Beshenivsky in Bradford, there have been calls for the arming of police officers. Is it a good idea that the British police should be armed?

That is a link to the story, if anybody is interested.

They already are...unless you dont call MP-5 submachine guns, 9mm glocks and varios other more higher power rifles armed?



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 09:27 AM
link   
I think the post meant the arming of the police in general as opposed to having armed response units.As ive said before best left in the hands of trained police officers rather than a knee jerk reaction to the sad and unfortunate death of a Police Officer.

[edit on 23-12-2005 by bmdefiant]



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by bmdefiant
I think the post meant the arming of the police in general as opposed to having armed response units.As ive said before best left in the hands of trained police officers rather than a knee jerk reaction to the sad and unfortunate death of a Police Officer.

[edit on 23-12-2005 by bmdefiant]

For a time we were allowed that, I mean it was up to the sergeant on duty if the man was "capable" of handling a firearm, there was a armed unit then but the gun laws where much more lax.



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Ah i see your point..not sure if police recruits are given any firearms training when they are at Tulliallan (Scottish PC Training) or Hendon (Others) doing their Initial Probationary Training Course.
Im sure things are much more formalised now than in the past.



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by bmdefiant
Ah i see your point..not sure if police recruits are given any firearms training when they are at Tulliallan (Scottish PC Training) or Hendon (Others) doing their Initial Probationary Training Course.
Im sure things are much more formalised now than in the past.

They are given none I believe, that tends to be why SO-19 and its equivilant branch in other police forces around the country are mostly Ex soldiers.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 04:51 PM
link   
im new here but feel quite strongly about this,

i personally would not like to think its come to the time where all officers have to be armed but sadly i think it has, i live in a very small town with thankfully very little or no gun crime, however if an armed officer is needed they would have to come from either brighton or gatwick (15 miles in either direction) in the past they used to have an officer in the town on every shift who was firearms trained and with permission from "ops 1" (the control room supervisor) he could return to the police station collect a firearm and attend where required, this has now apparently been done away with.

Trouble is that if there is an incident the officers are going to arrive and have to sit outside the address becuase they do not have the training or the firearms to effectively manage the situation, in all i think yes they should be armed as it is the way the country is going!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join