Should the UK routinely arm police?

[Earfetish]

The George Zimmerman Acquitted thread got somewhat derailed with a conversation about whether the UK police should be routinely armed, and clearly some people from the US have very strong opinions about what the UK should do with its police.

So should the UK routinely arm its police? I can tell you that the UK police don't want to be routinely armed, politicians sometimes float the idea after a police officer dies in the line of duty, but it doesn't really have any public support. One of the concerns the UK public has is that it would create an 'arms race' between police and criminals.

But really it's not like there is more crime than there would otherwise be with armed police, and we arrest offenders at a pretty good rate, and cops die in the line of duty basically never. Also there are armed police in every district and they can be deployed at a moment's notice.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

yes but only Senior officers who patrol and ones who show they are competent and dependable and take the necessary TRAINING. reason being it took 20 minutes for the woolwich incident (too deploy and traffic) while if there are armed senior officers nearby they can easily respond cutting down weight time even if it is one officer they could try to talk down the incident or at least hold them off till your Armed Response Unit (UK equivalent to the US SWAT sometimes) responds on scene.

it is totally reasonable.

[Korriken]

If the cops want to be at the mercy of armed criminals, then, hey, who am I to complain?

Apparently the people in the UK have had the concept of being prepared trained right out of them in exchange for a false sense of security.

[Camarohusky]

Depends. Do UK police officers NEED to be armed?

[Earfetish]

At 7/17/13 11:05 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Depends. Do UK police officers NEED to be armed?

I have yet to be convinced that they have to, as have the UK public and the police force itself. So I would say the answer is conclusively 'no'. But some BBS posters seem to be suggesting that they do 'need' to be armed, because one guy was killed in Woolwich, and it took 20 minutes for armed police to respond, and if the police were routinely armed, then.... one guy would've been killed in Woolwich and it would've taken 20 minutes for the police to respond.

Less state control is a good thing, right Americans?

[Thecrazyman]

At 7/17/13 11:05 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Depends. Do UK police officers NEED to be armed?

I think the real question here is, why can't even police officers from the United Kingdom be armed with guns and other weapons in the first place? Apparently whoever is in charge is perhaps one of the stupidest lawmakers I've ever heard not to mention such lawmakers should of gave into the idea of people having the right to protect oneself and the right to protect others in moments of need.

Ironically enough a similar case did happen in Alaska back in 2004 according to this article through that alone is a rather different story as the Village Elders should of realized that what their doing violates 2nd amendment rights as Alaska is also part of the United States and further more, police also have the right to protect themselves whenever the moment of need ever arises for such.

The point is, everyone has the right to protect oneself and protect others should the moments of need ever arise, the unfortunate thing in life is that some people abuse the idea of using weaponry as such people aren't mature enough to handle weapons such as firearms and whatnot.

What dose all this have to do with "should the United Kingdom routinely arm police?" Yes they should be armed with firearms and whatnot to protect oneself and to protect others when the moment of need ever arises and whoever thought of the idea that they shouldn't be armed in the first place is perhaps one of the most stupidest idea ever considered, even so it's a problem the United Kingdom has to deal with on it's own and ONLY on it's own.

[Ceratisa]

I have yet to be convinced that they have to, as have the UK public and the police force itself. So I would say the answer is conclusively 'no'. But some BBS posters seem to be suggesting that they do 'need' to be armed, because one guy was killed in Woolwich, and it took 20 minutes for armed police to respond, and if the police were routinely armed, then.... one guy would've been killed in Woolwich and it would've taken 20 minutes for the police to respond.

You seem to misunderstand something important here. Murderers don't always stop at one guy, how many people can you kill in 20 minutes. How many can you indiscriminately murder if you aren't making it a giant spectacle.

This is the kind of situation that ALLOWS mass murders to be possible. And it doesn't matter if there haven't been or they aren't common, that doesn't mean they don't happen in the future.

The Norway shooter took 69 lives his firearms alone. Mass murderers usually give up in some way or another once they are met with force equal to or greater than theirs.

Why do you feel the police should not be armed?

[Camarohusky]

At 7/17/13 08:34 PM, Ceratisa wrote: You seem to misunderstand something important here. Murderers don't always stop at one guy, how many people can you kill in 20 minutes. How many can you indiscriminately murder if you aren't making it a giant spectacle.

Holmes killed 12.
Laughner killed 6.
Klebold nd Harris killed 13.

All of these occurred with VERY well armed police forces and in all three cases (as with the vast majority of such acts in the US) the shooter was either ded by suicide, or has finished well before the police ever saw them. You very much overestimate the ability of an armed police force to actually stop mass shooters.

The need question I asked is more based on the following question: How often do UK police officers come into contact with civilians who have guns? There is no need to arm a police force with firearms if they rarely (read: almost never) encounter them in the field.

[Ceratisa]

At 7/17/13 10:49 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 7/17/13 08:34 PM, Ceratisa wrote: You seem to misunderstand something important here. Murderers don't always stop at one guy, how many people can you kill in 20 minutes. How many can you indiscriminately murder if you aren't making it a giant spectacle.

Holmes killed 12.
Laughner killed 6.
Klebold nd Harris killed 13.

You take 3 incidents and think that actually proves anything? I can cherry pick events too, but it doesn't make my statement less true, outliers exist.

[Fim]

I think this debate gets a little misunderstood by some American participants so I'll just clarify a few key things.

For starters, some police in the UK are actually deployed with firearms. If you walk around Heathrow you'll see armed police, any high ranking politician will have armed police protection, and if any situation arises that actually requires heavy response like a homicide, terrorist attack, hostage taking, bank robbery, anything, there will be police deployed with an adequate arsenal. Each police force has its own firearms unit.

As I have already mentioned in extremely long winded and draining debates on gun control beforehand, in a country where guns are illegal, very very few criminals are actually armed. So the risk of having to defend yourself against an armed opponent is low. In whole of 2012 there was only 3 British police officers who were shot by criminals.

Lastly, I feel as though the police loose their standing and approachability in the UK if they were to suddenly start walking around with guns. There's a mood here that the police should serve the public more than the state, and I think that's a much more beneficial way to operate. I certainly don't want the police turning into the trigger happy shoot-first-think-later culture that seems to be the norm in certain parts of the US, we've already had cases like the Jean Charles de Menezes incident which proves that even with the pretty timid gun policies that are in place in the UK the police still make mistakes.

[Camarohusky]

At 7/17/13 11:12 PM, Ceratisa wrote: You take 3 incidents and think that actually proves anything? I can cherry pick events too, but it doesn't make my statement less true, outliers exist.

I chose these three not for cherry picking, but because they were committed with guns and people here would recognize them. If you look at the other mass shooting profiles, the story is the same. When the cops arrive (with their firearms) the shooter is either dead or done.

[Camarohusky]

At 7/18/13 07:10 AM, Fim wrote: Lastly, I feel as though the police loose their standing and approachability in the UK if they were to suddenly start walking around with guns.

Good point. People in the US often fall into the lazy thought of believing that the police only stop crime after the fact. Whereas, in reality, the police are meant to prevent crime as well. Not just by being threatening to any would be criminals, but by building relationships with a community and hopefully being a good role model amongst hordes of bad ones.

[BumFodder]

At 7/17/13 11:05 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Depends. Do UK police officers NEED to be armed?

I dont see why they would need to be. Its extremely rare for criminals to have guns and the police all have stab vests and work in groups.

[Ceratisa]

Okay, I'm not saying they are used often, but just to make sure, we all know the ease of making a zip gun right?

[Ceratisa]

And additionally bolt action rifles of ANY caliber and semi automatic .22 rimfire rifles are allowed right? and If I'm not mistaken a mass shooting still happened in 2010, so they can obviously still occur.

Violent crime is decreasing in many countries regardless of gun regulations. Do you also feel that fewer officers will have a positive effect on crime rate?

[Ononymous]

I believe more of our police should be armed because criminals can still get hold of guns even in countries where they are banned. If you really want a gun it isn't impossible to get one. In order to completely ban guns you've got to ban steel manufacturing plants and welding tools, which are impossible to ban without seriously damaging our economy.

[Camarohusky]

At 7/21/13 10:17 PM, Ononymous wrote: I believe more of our police should be armed because criminals can still get hold of guns even in countries where they are banned. If you really want a gun it isn't impossible to get one. In order to completely ban guns you've got to ban steel manufacturing plants and welding tools, which are impossible to ban without seriously damaging our economy.

So you're saying an entire police dorce should be armed to cover the several thousand times a year that a gun shows up in a country of 85 million?

[JainRabbit]

Britain is becoming more like the third world by the day. So likely that will mean more guns. There are also a lot of criminal organizations in Britain. All kinds of mafias and ethnic mafias especially. Britain has human trade and illegal immigration as well.

[laughatyourfuneral]

you should genetically modify them to supersize and superstrength, dress them in kevlar-suits and put spikes in their batons, that would be cool.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 7/17/13 11:08 AM, Earfetish wrote:

At 7/17/13 11:05 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Depends. Do UK police officers NEED to be armed?

I have yet to be convinced that they have to, as have the UK public and the police force itself. So I would say the answer is conclusively 'no'. But some BBS posters seem to be suggesting that they do 'need' to be armed, because one guy was killed in Woolwich, and it took 20 minutes for armed police to respond, and if the police were routinely armed, then.... one guy would've been killed in Woolwich and it would've taken 20 minutes for the police to respond.

Less state control is a good thing, right Americans?

One would hope that a tradition of unarmed police is more a reflection of a less violent society than an actual method to deterring crime. Though it could also be a reflection of the fact that native Britons have more respect for police officers than Americans.

If the Police are actually being used as an enforcement mechanism of the UK Government, and the people of the UK don't have the general respect for figures of authority which I imagine, then having unarmed police might be a 'check' on Government power, but in any other situation you might as well arm the cops, and I suspect it is the case that whether or not cops are armed or not has nothing to do with the actual limitations on government power. Developed countries do not rely on force for compliance to government edicts. Remember that people *pay their own taxes*, a thing that people in past times would have thought crazy.

More seriously, the question of whether or not to arm the police depends on how the UK Government, and by extension, the police that obey said government, weighs the value of it's citizens with that of criminals. UK Politicians seem extremely frightened to condemn any kind of violent or criminal behavior that is of a certain "ethnic" character. If the Government of the UK takes the issue of rising violent crime seriously, then by all means arm the police.

But if they are more interested in preserving an illusion of tolerance and peace in a multicultural Britain, they are more likely to use those guns to subdue bitter natives than use them to subdue actual criminal behavior.

[brutalexcess]

At 7/24/13 06:00 PM, JainRabbit wrote: Britain is becoming more like the third world by the day. So likely that will mean more guns. There are also a lot of criminal organizations in Britain. All kinds of mafias and ethnic mafias especially. Britain has human trade and illegal immigration as well.

Are you out of your mind? If you were talking about the slave trade that would make sense, but seriously? You really think that's happening to us? Let me clarify that if such a thing happened, Britain would be in a far worse state than it is now, and I am honestly glad that there is no such thing as the "Right to Bare Arms" because all that does is increase gun violence, not reduce it. There's a reason I hate American government so much, and the main reason is because their laws more often than not allow this stupid movement they have going across the country. And there is a reason why most states in America buying alcohol is at 21, not 18, and that's because 99% of crimes involve alcohol in some way, shape or form, particularly gun-related crime.

And this is why you don't drink alcohol, kids... Just saying.

[BumFodder]

At 8/4/13 10:50 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: If the Government of the UK takes the issue of rising violent crime seriously, then by all means arm the police.

But if they are more interested in preserving an illusion of tolerance and peace in a multicultural Britain, they are more likely to use those guns to subdue bitter natives than use them to subdue actual criminal behavior.

What? Violent crime has been falling rapidly for like 20 years and it wasnt even high in the first place. stop making shit up please lol

[Entice]

No. The UK is not the US. Even though guns do show up in the UK every once in a while it doesn't seem like a big enough problem to justify arming police more than they already are.

In other words, there's no point in changing the entire system to save a handful of people in a country of millions.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 8/29/13 05:59 AM, BumFodder wrote:

At 8/4/13 10:50 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: If the Government of the UK takes the issue of rising violent crime seriously, then by all means arm the police.

But if they are more interested in preserving an illusion of tolerance and peace in a multicultural Britain, they are more likely to use those guns to subdue bitter natives than use them to subdue actual criminal behavior.

What? Violent crime has been falling rapidly for like 20 years and it wasnt even high in the first place. stop making shit up please lol

Ten years. My understanding was also that UK's violent crime was worse than the US at it's peak. Although I get different figures depending on who is doing the measuring and where. For example.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6438601/Gun-crime-doubles-in-a-decade.html

[BumFodder]

At 8/29/13 06:54 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Ten years. My understanding was also that UK's violent crime was worse than the US at it's peak. Although I get different figures depending on who is doing the measuring and where. For example.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6438601/Gun-crime-doubles-in-a-decade.html

You should be distrustful of anything that says 'gun crime' and specifies nothing else, because it includes confiscations of guns and fines , which happened far more after new stricter gun legislation was introduced. Newspapers usually use the term 'gun crime' so they can include things like fines and confiscations and make it seem crime went up afterwards.

Standard newspaper tactic of lying with statistics and its also one used in america to try and justify not banning guns when it clearly doesnt prove anything other than the police are doing their job.

[BumFodder]

At 8/30/13 07:00 AM, BumFodder wrote:

At 8/29/13 06:54 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Ten years. My understanding was also that UK's violent crime was worse than the US at it's peak. Although I get different figures depending on who is doing the measuring and where. For example.

'firearm offences' is also another term used which pretty much means the same thing as 'gun crime'

[AxTekk]

At 8/30/13 07:02 AM, BumFodder wrote: 'firearm offences' is also another term used which pretty much means the same thing as 'gun crime'

Actually no. Firearm offences also covers things like mace, which is often carried by people unaware that it is illegal and by gang members too sometimes. Just shows the figures are even more artificially inflated by the papers than your previous post made out...

[BumFodder]

At 8/30/13 08:25 PM, AxTekk wrote: Actually no. Firearm offences also covers things like mace, which is often carried by people unaware that it is illegal and by gang members too sometimes. Just shows the figures are even more artificially inflated by the papers than your previous post made out...

Im guessing it counts airsoft too lol, since that counts as a firearm

[Iron-Hampster]

It should be just as hard for a police officer to get a gun as it is for a civilian.

[Sentio]

Lets throw some links at this:

Police officer deaths UK since 2000

Between 2000 and 2010 a sum total of 15 officers were killed by violent criminals in the line of duty. That is an average of a little over 1 a year. And I highly doubt all of those were committed with firearms.

UK deaths in custody

The number of criminals killed in custody (including during road pursuit etc.) has steadily declined over the last decade, to just 15 or so a year. Compare that to over 2000 in three years in the US (sorry, I couldn't find up to date statistics).

So that suggests that officers are far less likely to be killed in the UK, without firearms, than their US counterparts. The public (criminal or otherwise as this is before any judicial process) are also far less likely to be killed by police officers in the UK, without firearms.

And as a citizen, I am much more comfortable talking with and being around police officers knowing that they are not armed than I would be if they were. Growing up somewhere where firearms are exceptionally rare (I can hardly remember ever seeing one), I'm really quite intimidated by officers who carry weapons when I am abroad, and I actually feel less safe as a consequence.

I wouldn't want UK officers to be armed. The rest of the public don't want it, the police themselves don't want it, and there is absolutely no reason to want it based on the very very rare cases of officers being killed in action.