Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Chris [BEANS], 16 May 2006.
I personally feel more Police should be armed mainly for 3 reasons:
1) There doesn't seem too much respect for Police anymore
2) At the moment at least there doesn't seem to be a week that goes by without reading/hearing in the news that a Police officer has been killed.
3) More criminals seem to be better arming themselves.
Whether arming police would be a good or bad thing well I don't know but Police need more/tougher powers to tackle crime.
Just my opinion of course.
I think they should be yes.
The old arguement that says that if police were armed the criminals would get guns too is getting old now... the criminals ARE armed in many many cities now. Not all of course but the ones most likely to attack and kill an officer will be.
This WILL happen eventually its just a matter of time.. and personally i would feel fine with armed officers on the steets. After the manchester bomb there were lots about and local people appeared to welcome them.
Sadly the tools for the job are no longer just a truncheon and a loud voice... hardened criminals need to know that if they decide to do an armed robbery than the LOCAL plod who turn up will more than likely be shooting at them. And that they wont get 20minutes grace untill an armed response unit can arrive.
To be honest lately in manchester i see more and more armed police in the city centre and in vans driving about and noone seems to complain. Id like to know that the police force i reply on for my safely is able to effectively deal with any situation and i wouldnt be left waiting for a "special unit" to drive to an incident from god knows where.
I totally agree. Armed police would be better. so long as noone does anything stupid like allowing normal civilians to have guns it should still be fine. I would feel more secure with armed police, and the hardeneed criminals would still have their guns but hesitate to bring them in to use, and the weeker criminals will think twice before doing what they would do if a cop could point a gun at them.
Yes I think that all police should be armed. There will be a few more shootings but it is likely that only scrotes and people who deserve it.
(and don't start on the Menezes case - that was different)
Does it not worry you that it will only encvourage criminals t arm themselves even more than they do now?
I'd be interested to see how many crimes in this country currently involve guns, as opposed to somewhere like the US - i have a suspicion (without much evidence, admittedly), that gun crime is given a disproportionate amount of publicity, fuelling a notion that we're under seige from gun-toting criminals.
I think there should be more, but no means all. Some of my friends are in the police and some i would trust with guns and the thought of others having it is very scary. I think if they screened and used the top people (as they do now) then i would be happy they were all capable to be firing weapons in public. Or maybe recruitment of those finishing military service and are already trained in weapon use could be an option.
Arming all police is far too drastic IMO. Lets be honest in any job you get people who can perform tasks better than others and carrying a gun and having the make the call of whethering to fire or not should be reserved for only those who are the most capable in that situation.
Personally I think it's something for the police to decide rather than the general public and their inevitably flawed perception based on a diet of fear-happy media hype, IIRC there was a study done fairly recently on the opinions of officers themselves about being armed and the vast majority were aginst the routine arming.
That for me is enough really, if the police themselves who have to face these situations and be 'in the line of fire' so to speak don't want to be armed then don't arm them.
I think they also mentioned though that they'd support there being more armed response officers available if need be, I think that makes much more sense than giving all officers a gun.
Really? It still seems a very rare occurrence to me. The Special who was killed recently was not on duty and was not killed because she was a police officer, and had the police been routinely armed, she would not have had a gun at that time due to being off duty.
Absolutely. The quote about anybody who wants to be in a position of power should automatically be exempt applies to the police too. To a lesser degree of course, because obviously we have to have police, but it's a safe bet that some people join the police simply to abuse the power that they have, and I also know one person who matches your description above.
He says the spanish police are great because, in his words, "you can whack whoever you like with no come back from anybody". Hmmm...
I'm not worried at all as I doubt it will make any difference to the criminals that carry guns anyway. I think the main difference will be the low level crimes when the police are confronted with violent offender.
PC Beshenivsky, PC Blakelock, DC Oake and the 33 other officers killed in the line of duty over the past two decades would probably still be alive if they were armed.
A few years ago in the St Pauls/Easton area of Bristol there were major problems with turf wars between rival drug gangs. It got so bad the police had no choice but to use machine gun armed patrols 24 hours a day. This went on for a month, the crime level dropped to virtually zero. At the end of the clampdown the law abiding people of those areas wanted the armed police to return as they kept order and improved their lives. A little story that demonstrates the power of the gun when used properly.
I've known a couple of coppers like that - one was my mate years ago, and another was the boyfriend of a girl I knew. They absolutely loved the power they had, and made sure people knew they were a policeman even when they were off duty. The former was kicked out of the job in the end.
Yes, it is.
Oh, AJUK has just posted "33 other officers killed in the line of duty over the past two decades".
So that's less than two per year. From an economic point of view alone, I can think of better ways to spend money saving lives than giving every policeman a gun.
Unless that officer is your father, husband, wife or daughter?
That's a very good point. Arming all police officers would probably give those bad eggs a means to be even worse and I don't especially like the idea of someone with a superiority complex wielding a firearm.
Although saying that, what happens if we begin arming police officers and this does turn out to be the catalyst which we don't want? We may find the gun culture (which I partly blame on Americanism) rise much faster, if it is indefinate or not at the moment is not actually known. I can tell the gun culture is on the rise, but it is relatively low but police officers have the right to defend themselves doing their job. If some officers have firearms and others don't, those that don't will be in trouble with future incidents. Criminals are not going to distingish between officers who are armed and those who are not.
I think the best thing would be to have some form of psychological screening for each officer before they are trained and armed in the use of firearms. At least this way, a high percentage of officers will be armed and the few bad eggs will hopefully be identified early.
Another option is the tazer guns, which I probably agree with most. These things can render a person temporarely paralysed and are non fatal, which firearms are. So in comparison - mistakes can be made, although we may find police being much more trigger happy with them. For example, we may find an officer using them on an angry drunk who wont go home, which you can argue isn't really needed.
In conclusion, yes I think the police should be armed. I want to see the respect for the law and those who uphold it return. It is disgusting that some people want to live in our society but fail to uphold to our values and think they can do what they want. It's become all too casual to shout "Bacon" or "Pigs" etc at police now, which in short can be seen as a little friendly banter from some but from others it shows an extreme lack of respect for people who do a very important service. Gun culture is rising in this country, or at least appears to from what the media are suggesting and I want the police to be able to go about their job knowing they can at least defend themselves should the need arise.
You'd think they'd have the common sense to keep quiet about their power-trip desires wouldn't you? Particularly the guy I know who seems to think I'm actually impressed by his various comments. His wife seems so nice too, so I can't believe she doesn't have a problem with his attitude, unless of course she does but she's just too afraid to say anything.
I think there is more than economics involved. There is an extreme lack of respect for the police nowadays and this has meant a rise in crime. Surely, the money spent would be wisely invested because it would give the police their respect once more, and hopefully reduce crime rates. The reduction in crime would easily produce enough profit to pay for the said arming of the police force. I find your point irrelevant and ill thought.
The same goes for any death though. No death is a good thing obviously, but from a practical point of view, we have to look at the numbers killed and spending a fortune arming police to prevent two deaths per year is wrong if the same money can be used to save many more people in other ways - i.e. more police on the beat, more road safety measures etc. etc.
Like Community Support Officers and speed cameras. They are clueless, I would like to see the old fashioned methods like a big, hard copper with a gun.
I didn't say there wasn't. I was just making a particular point about economics - not excluding all other factors.
Is there? Or rather is there any more than there has always been?
Separate names with a comma.