Police officers should not carry guns?

I watch all these Youtube videos of police shooting unarmed people.
My friend really believes that cops should NOT carry guns.
I can see his side of the story, but What do you expect them to do if an offender had a gun and started shooting people in the area? how would the police get close to them
knowing they have basically nothing to protect themselves from a gun shot.
if the police were on their feet chasing a criminal holding a gun what do you expect them to do?
chase them with a baton? hold their pepper spray out and hope it reaches their eyes?
or chase them hold out a taser?
first of all none of these weapons would even reach the offender. and second even if it does what are the chances that the offender would just turn around and shoot them to protect themselves.if the person u loved most in this world was shot by an offender and died you would two agree that police should carry guns.
I would say the same thing to him though what if his unarmed mother got shot and killed?
Or his unarmed kid shot by a cop...?
I am on the fence.
This Norway shooting has had us thinking.

Originally posted by hillynilly
I watch all these Youtube videos of police shooting unarmed people.
My friend really believes that cops should NOT carry guns.

Jesus man, you make it sound like police shoot innocent people daily. Just how many videos have you seen and how many police are there who have never fired a shot in the line of duty?

I think the ratio would speak for itself.

Maybe this should be a question if/when police shootings are close to being equal with non-police shootings?

A very long ways to go yet!

its ridiculous to suggest cops cannot carry guns.. when guns are legal and a significant percentage of the population have one.. including much of the criminal underground..

if you ban guns.. then your friend has a valid argument.. until then it doesnt make sense..

reply to post by snowen20


The use of common sense is not allowed on ATS. You are using reasoning to come to that conclusion and that is just wrong.



I would like to say more to the OP about the idea but I think you post covers it pretty well.


Raist

Originally posted by peck420
Maybe this should be a question if/when police shootings are close to being equal with non-police shootings?

A very long ways to go yet!

what are you talking about?

Originally posted by Misterlondon
its ridiculous to suggest cops cannot carry guns.. when guns are legal and a significant percentage of the population have one.. including much of the criminal underground..

if you ban guns.. then your friend has a valid argument.. until then it doesnt make sense..

BAN GUNS>?

Now you sound a bit ridiculous..

Banning guns wouldn't make them any safer.

I hope this doesn't get me in too much trouble for saying but a Cop without a Gun is like a Doctor without his instruments. He's got the credentials...but they just don't seem to mean as much without the tools to get the job done.

I'll be the first to agree that American cops in particular have become to tightly married to their gun and taser to prevent getting a sprain or heaven forbid..a few bruises in manhandling down someone who really isn't a legitimate threat to anyone anyway (Wheelchair suspects...retarded children...we've seen some wild and sickening videos in the last year or two).

The other extreme is what we just witnesses in tragedy and heartbreak in Norway. Whether they even give voice to the question or not, does anyone really think their lack of firearms among the police didn't contribute to a somewhat lackluster effort to get over to where the killing was happening? I mean, they were just additional targets with nothing but harsh language to use until he ran out of ammunition. It's just an aspect that bugged me in 'what if' questions.

Let's find a happy medium somewhere between the combat troops with a badge we see in America, carrying enough firepower to hold their own in any pitched battle in Sandland. vs. the totally ineffective meter maids and hall monitors that laughingly refer to themselves as Peace Officers across most of Europe.

I don't mean to bash anyone over there...and perhaps this is just a product of living my life in a rather violent society, but I can't imagine cops being unarmed when we've seen school children here with enough firepower to level a police station. (guns don't even need to be mentioned...Columbine had FAR more weaponry in the form of home made explosives and propane bombs than anything they could ever have accomplished with guns...thankfully they weren't too bright about making anything work)

Originally posted by Raist

The use of common sense is not allowed

God damn that is exactly how I felt while active duty in the military.

Swear BS exists no matter where one is, it is just a factor of life. In order for people to make a difference, they have to put aside BS, and be logical.

The "Vulcan" were right, humans are illogical, but that don't mean we cant learn from our mistakes.

History only repeats if we let it...

Cops need their guns. That said, they should be held to a high standard, like don't use them unless absolutely necessary.

Canada's cops carry everything - guns, tazers, club/flashlight, bullet proof vests, etc......

We've also had cops shot and killed, now and then. There would be many more shot and killed if they didn't carry guns.
And we're a fairly peaceful non-violent country

Major problem with that is..Citizens will/can have guns but police can't? How do you expect a police officer to stop someone who is attacking someone and has a gun? Or in a hostage situation? There's plenty of scenarios but I think everyone gets the point. Mase vs Gun's is no contest.

Originally posted by snowspirit
Cops need their guns. That said, they should be held to a high standard, like don't use them unless absolutely necessary.

Canada's cops carry everything - guns, tazers, club/flashlight, bullet proof vests, etc......

We've also had cops shot and killed, now and then. There would be many more shot and killed if they didn't carry guns.
And we're a fairly peaceful non-violent country

Yes but if cops did not have guns NO unarmed people
would have ever been shot..

I can't stop wrapping my brain around it.


Yes

I disagree strongly. If they take away the cop's guns, that means they'll be unarmed against people like me, and then they'll take away my guns (or try).

Yes but if cops did not have guns NO unarmed people would have ever been shot.. I can't stop wrapping my brain around it. Yes

That's why the cops should be held to a very high standard, and every cop who ever has to shoot anyone, for any reason, including self defense - there should always be an investigation.

In some areas, I'm not sure about all areas, they aren't allowed to continue a vehicle chase. This was put into law somewhere in Vancouver after they chased a car through a park in the afternoon. It was decided very fast that wasn't worth people getting hurt, so they now have to let the other car go.

I know in Canada, even though a peaceful friendly country, we have enough violent crime, guns are needed. The cops would be useless without them.

see if cops didnt use tasers as correctional devices then there wouldnt be any problems, and if they didnt use guns for what tasers are supposed to be used for, then there wouldnt be problems, and since cops are a bunch of #ing pussies these days, they either dont go after or swarm the # out of real criminals with like 100 squad cars, i #ing hate american cops.

reply to post by hillynilly

I think it's important here to keep perspective as to why Police need their firearms. This is nowhere near a chicken/egg question for which bad led into the other. Bad guys with evil intent have always demanded equally resolute men willing to do violence on our behalf to keep that separation in place between polite society and warlord rule.

No one need guess what happens if civil order breaks down. There are a few nations in the world showing in vivid color, 24/7 what that looks like. Despite the abuses, occasional corruption and general reduction in hiring standards and 'physical prowess' of our police, they are still the only thing between the quiet tree lines streets we live on today and NEEDING to have a personal weapon loaded and ready at every doorway and always on our persons when leaving the house......of course in many places, I suppose life already works that way.

they shouldn't...

However we are far away from being back to where we were and it's simply not an option in most countries.

Special units should have weapons though. Even in hostage situations I think first people on the scene should be unarmed unless shots have been fired aimed at people.

reply to post by Misterlondon


I am saying that the question as to wether or not police should have guns is irrelevant at this time due to the very small percentage of gun deaths that occur at the hands of police in comparison to the general population.

When (or if) the number of police shooting causalties becomes equal to (or greater) than that of the general population, then it would be time to question.

There is a very long ways to go before that will be even remotely equal. Death by police is a very, very tiny percentage of homicide in the US. Death by police, due to firearms, is even smaller.

Does that clarify?

Cops definitely need guns, especially as has been mentioned, when guns are legal and easy to obtain.

Take a look at the UK. Not many cops get shot and killed, but the differences between UK and USA I see when attempting to arrest someone are huge. British cops shout at someone from a distance to stop, but if the criminal does run, how is that cop going to stop him, especially if he's not as fit and agile.

I think the police would be taken much more seriously by criminals if it was routine to carry guns. Too often I see thugs spitting, swearing and shouting at the police. There have been plenty of examples of teenagers physically attacking them. How likely would that be if said cop was pointing a gun at them?

Not to mention that criminals find it extremely easy to purchase a gun and they are not afraid to use them. They already have a huge advantage over normal cops.

I mean no offense at all, as I admire the Bill of Rights, but the USA has a huge amount of guns that are off the radar. If the worst did happen and a blanket ban was enforced, how many would still be out there? Cops need guns to protect the public and themselves against criminals with guns.

Guns are the great equilizer. I believe that the police should be able to carry but so should every one else who wishes to do so.

Most of the Police officers would be a lot more considerate if there was the slightest chance that the other party was packing heat.