makes me glad you live in Australia too.
Poll
Should the police carry firearms?
| They should carry firearms | 73% | 73% - 118 | ||||
| It depends on the district | 12% | 12% - 20 | ||||
| They should carry a baton or a taser, but no firearms | 12% | 12% - 20 | ||||
| Other | 1% | 1% - 3 | ||||
| Total: 161 | ||||||
True, but what I don't like about a regular Joe cop carrying a gun is that he hasn't received a training like the ones elite corps receive. He's a regular person like everyone else, with his problems and miseries. One day his wife kicked him out of the home and you are paying it with your life.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
A taser can kill you too. Particularly if you're small or have an undiagnosed heart condition. The nice thing about a firearm is that it is generally more dangerous, and a cop won't shoot you with it for driving 5MPH over the 65MPH limit. The police here think that just because they have a "less-lethal" device that they can use it whenever a whim hits.sergeriver wrote:
The problem with the firearm is once they shot you you are dead.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Ironically, police feel they have a huge license to use tasers whenever the hell they feel like it, just because they're "less-lethal." I'd feel safer if an officer had his hand on the hilt of his gun than I would if it was patting his taser with a lover's caress.
If someone puts themselves in a situation where they have a deadly weapon and show intent and ability to use deadly force,sergeriver wrote:
The problem with the firearm is once they shot you you are dead.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Ironically, police feel they have a huge license to use tasers whenever the hell they feel like it, just because they're "less-lethal." I'd feel safer if an officer had his hand on the hilt of his gun than I would if it was patting his taser with a lover's caress.paranoid101 wrote:
In the UK were I live I wouldn't want to see the average policeman armed, I just think that if our police were armed then its more likely for the criminals to arm themselves as well.
But arming them with Taser's wouldn't be a bad idea
they automaticly loose their rights as a citizen and the only way to combat dealy force is with deadly force.
If the dirtbag draws a gun and shows intent, then kill him. Thats the law in laymans terms.
Cavemen did not have guns, yet they managed to kill each other.sergeriver wrote:
I understand what you're saying. My point is people live in far lonely places all over the world, but not all of them have firearms. If, in the US, people had no guns, there would be no need for a cop to carry a gun.
every body has problems and miseries. the kind of person you are describing gets weeded out in the entrance process 99% of the time. Its not easy to be a cop in the states, especially the bigger cities. Put it this way, even with my military background and security clearence and combat experience and bad assness, Im still ineligble to be a cop for a number of reasons.sergeriver wrote:
True, but what I don't like about a regular Joe cop carrying a gun is that he hasn't received a training like the ones elite corps receive. He's a regular person like everyone else, with his problems and miseries. One day his wife kicked him out of the home and you are paying it with your life.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
A taser can kill you too. Particularly if you're small or have an undiagnosed heart condition. The nice thing about a firearm is that it is generally more dangerous, and a cop won't shoot you with it for driving 5MPH over the 65MPH limit. The police here think that just because they have a "less-lethal" device that they can use it whenever a whim hits.sergeriver wrote:
The problem with the firearm is once they shot you you are dead.
So do wild animals. What's your point?usmarine2005 wrote:
Cavemen did not have guns, yet they managed to kill each other.sergeriver wrote:
I understand what you're saying. My point is people live in far lonely places all over the world, but not all of them have firearms. If, in the US, people had no guns, there would be no need for a cop to carry a gun.
I'm not talking about US only, the thread refers to any country. In fact, given the conditions of the US today and the 2nd Amendment thing, it would be impossible for you guys to have cops without guns. But, we already had that debate.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
every body has problems and miseries. the kind of person you are describing gets weeded out in the entrance process 99% of the time. Its not easy to be a cop in the states, especially the bigger cities. Put it this way, even with my military background and security clearence and combat experience and bad assness, Im still ineligble to be a cop for a number of reasons.sergeriver wrote:
True, but what I don't like about a regular Joe cop carrying a gun is that he hasn't received a training like the ones elite corps receive. He's a regular person like everyone else, with his problems and miseries. One day his wife kicked him out of the home and you are paying it with your life.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
A taser can kill you too. Particularly if you're small or have an undiagnosed heart condition. The nice thing about a firearm is that it is generally more dangerous, and a cop won't shoot you with it for driving 5MPH over the 65MPH limit. The police here think that just because they have a "less-lethal" device that they can use it whenever a whim hits.
Last edited by sergeriver (2007-12-08 16:14:19)
ughsergeriver wrote:
So do wild animals. What's your point?usmarine2005 wrote:
Cavemen did not have guns, yet they managed to kill each other.sergeriver wrote:
I understand what you're saying. My point is people live in far lonely places all over the world, but not all of them have firearms. If, in the US, people had no guns, there would be no need for a cop to carry a gun.
you missed itsergeriver wrote:
So do wild animals. What's your point?usmarine2005 wrote:
Cavemen did not have guns, yet they managed to kill each other.sergeriver wrote:
I understand what you're saying. My point is people live in far lonely places all over the world, but not all of them have firearms. If, in the US, people had no guns, there would be no need for a cop to carry a gun.
No, I get it, I just don't share it.Masterstyle wrote:
you missed itsergeriver wrote:
So do wild animals. What's your point?usmarine2005 wrote:
Cavemen did not have guns, yet they managed to kill each other.
Of course police should carry firearms. WTF. Tasers only have a range of like 5 feet. They'd be totally fucked if they went up against someone with a gun.
*shakes head*sergeriver wrote:
True, but what I don't like about a regular Joe cop carrying a gun is that he hasn't received a training like the ones elite corps receive. He's a regular person like everyone else, with his problems and miseries. One day his wife kicked him out of the home and you are paying it with your life.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
A taser can kill you too. Particularly if you're small or have an undiagnosed heart condition. The nice thing about a firearm is that it is generally more dangerous, and a cop won't shoot you with it for driving 5MPH over the 65MPH limit. The police here think that just because they have a "less-lethal" device that they can use it whenever a whim hits.
You don't need a gun to take out your woes on a bystander. All you need to do is get in a lucky whack and keep pounding once they're down. Sometimes, one whack'll be all you need.
Besides which, a "regular Joe cop" is still a target.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-12-08 16:28:03)
As I said before.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
*shakes head*sergeriver wrote:
True, but what I don't like about a regular Joe cop carrying a gun is that he hasn't received a training like the ones elite corps receive. He's a regular person like everyone else, with his problems and miseries. One day his wife kicked him out of the home and you are paying it with your life.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
A taser can kill you too. Particularly if you're small or have an undiagnosed heart condition. The nice thing about a firearm is that it is generally more dangerous, and a cop won't shoot you with it for driving 5MPH over the 65MPH limit. The police here think that just because they have a "less-lethal" device that they can use it whenever a whim hits.
You don't need a gun to take out your woes on a bystander. All you need to do is get in a lucky whack and keep pounding once they're down. Sometimes, one whack'll be all you need.
Besides which, a "regular Joe cop" is still a target.
sergeriver wrote:
I'm not talking about US only, the thread refers to any country. In fact, given the conditions of the US today and the 2nd Amendment thing, it would be impossible for you guys to have cops without guns. But, we already had that debate.
Amended.sergeriver wrote:
As I said before.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
*shakes head*sergeriver wrote:
True, but what I don't like about a regular Joe cop carrying a gun is that he hasn't received a training like the ones elite corps receive. He's a regular person like everyone else, with his problems and miseries. One day his wife kicked him out of the home and you are paying it with your life.
You don't need a gun to take out your woes on a bystander in a fatal manner. All you need to do is get in a lucky whack and keep pounding once they're down. Sometimes, one whack'll be all you need.
Besides which, a "regular Joe cop" is still a target.
My post or the 2nd Amendment?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Amended.sergeriver wrote:
As I said before.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
*shakes head*
You don't need a gun to take out your woes on a bystander in a fatal manner. All you need to do is get in a lucky whack and keep pounding once they're down. Sometimes, one whack'll be all you need.
Besides which, a "regular Joe cop" is still a target.
Not really. I believe that is the protocol police follow because they rarely have to use their firearms because if they do, they shoot to kill. I recall hearing that after an officer uses a firearm, they have to undergo x amount of therapy or something. Still, people survive multiple gunshot wounds all the time.sergeriver wrote:
The problem with the firearm is once they shot you you are dead.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Ironically, police feel they have a huge license to use tasers whenever the hell they feel like it, just because they're "less-lethal." I'd feel safer if an officer had his hand on the hilt of his gun than I would if it was patting his taser with a lover's caress.paranoid101 wrote:
In the UK were I live I wouldn't want to see the average policeman armed, I just think that if our police were armed then its more likely for the criminals to arm themselves as well.
But arming them with Taser's wouldn't be a bad idea
Mine, underlined (visible on your above). Alteration of a previous comment.sergeriver wrote:
My post or the 2nd Amendment?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Amended.sergeriver wrote:
As I said before.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-12-08 16:37:03)
I see, the problem is they still are humans. And humans tend to commit mistakes. You don't know when a normal guy will lose it.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Mine, underlined (visible on your above). Alteration of a previous comment.sergeriver wrote:
My post or the 2nd Amendment?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Amended.
Correct, but the reason I used this town as an exapmle is because it is literaly 10 minutes from Hartford, Ct, which is one of the top 10 most dangerous cities in America, in accordance wit hper capita statistics.mikkel wrote:
In response to the topic, I'd say it's entirely dependent on where in the world you are. In the US, it'd be out of the question, while in the UK, it works just fine. Nothing's really cut and dried.It's probably the best statistical measure for these kinds of numbers, and is undeniably completely indicative of the prevalence of something on a national level.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Blah. Per Capita stats dont mean shit.That's not a flaw in the logic that more guns typically lead to more gun crime at all. You're pointing out a best case scenario, a best case that's very detached from the average reality. It's no surprise that these exist, as there's always going to be an example that goes against the common outcome.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Here is a town that is close to me (in the same county) where all of the police officers carry firearms. Oh and by the way the majority of the town is Republican, as well as registered gun owners. In 2005 it was the 3rd safest town in America. Hhhmmm. I understand it is not the norm for all cities in the U.S., I just wanted to point out that some of ya'lls logic is flawed.
It's like saying that roses grow perfectly fine on the South Pole if by some weird coincidence one single rose managed to grow out of it. That's a flawed logic.
All one has to do is look at national gun crime tendencies of countries with proliferation of firearms and compare them to the tendencies of countries with bans or insignificant proliferation to see that more firearms mean more gun crime.
Malloy must go
Agreed, but normal guys don't need weapons to kill. On the other hand, weapons (particularly long-range weapons) allow normal guys to hold abnormal guys at bay. A police officer tends to come in contact with those more than most other job descriptions specify, and I'm not about to picket my government to deprive them of this very effective defense.sergeriver wrote:
I see, the problem is they still are humans. And humans tend to commit mistakes. You don't know when a normal guy will lose it.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Mine, underlined (visible on your above). Alteration of a previous comment.sergeriver wrote:
My post or the 2nd Amendment?
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-12-08 20:53:43)
This may be a few years old, but I doubt it has changed much serge.
Firearm homicide rate
per 100,000 pop.
South Africa: 74.5748
Colombia: 51.7683
United States: 3.6000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_crime
So Serge, you should worry more about those other countries first.
Firearm homicide rate
per 100,000 pop.
South Africa: 74.5748
Colombia: 51.7683
United States: 3.6000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_crime
So Serge, you should worry more about those other countries first.
im not a huge fan of cops but yes they do deserve a gun for there line of duty now they dont need no 50 cal but thats just gettting dumb on my part but shit give em somthing that will stop obody armour
Why shouldn't they be able to have them? they went through all the training to carry them.
It's not like the head police quarters just give them the gun and say use if you need/want to.
It's not like the head police quarters just give them the gun and say use if you need/want to.
Last edited by NOGGIN (2007-12-09 00:05:28)
The bottom line is, the UK police dont have guns apart from the special units, and they get on just fine ok?1!?!?!
I do. In fact, take a moment and read the OP again. Nowhere it says "Should the police carry firearms in the US"? And I clearly wrote "Should the rest of the World copy the UK"?usmarine2005 wrote:
This may be a few years old, but I doubt it has changed much serge.
Firearm homicide rate
per 100,000 pop.
South Africa: 74.5748
Colombia: 51.7683
United States: 3.6000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_crime
So Serge, you should worry more about those other countries first.
Nevertheless, I think you should compare with countries with similar standards of living. Taking a look at your list we have SA, Colombia, Thailand, Guatemala, Paraguay, Zimbabwe, Mexico and US. The US 3.6 should be compared with Germany 0.46, Australia 0,3.