Yes, pretty much.ELITE-UK wrote:
The bottom line is, the UK police dont have guns apart from the special units, and they get on just fine ok?1!?!?!
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 |
Ok, since this is an American forum, why don't we try a different approach.
Let's focus on the US and I want all the Americans that voted yes, to think again. What if the 2nd Amendment said nothing about guns? What if the US had the same firearms ownership than let's say the UK? Would you still vote yes? Would you feel safer with regular policemen carrying firearms? Would that be necessary? Try to imagine a US without firearms.
Let's focus on the US and I want all the Americans that voted yes, to think again. What if the 2nd Amendment said nothing about guns? What if the US had the same firearms ownership than let's say the UK? Would you still vote yes? Would you feel safer with regular policemen carrying firearms? Would that be necessary? Try to imagine a US without firearms.
Last edited by sergeriver (2007-12-09 04:09:43)
Honestly, yes. My reason is because I think the enforcer should always have an edge over the constituant. There needs to be a consequence, and it needs to be severe. There is no possible way to abolish guns completely, just as in the UK and in Japan where citizens are not permitted to own a firearm. They still have them there, whether it is illegal or not. There was mention of specially trained police units in the UK that carry guns. If there is no problem at all then why do even some have them? There is either a need or not. Justified circumstances warrant extreme situations and in an extreme delicate situation where there is a weapon involved, it is a good chance human life is at stake. Unless you can prove to me that this special unit can respond and nuetralize a threat in less than 2.8 seconds, like an armed police officer, than I don't buy it.sergeriver wrote:
Ok, since this is an American forum, why don't we try a different approach.
Let's focus on the US and I want all the Americans that voted yes, to think again. What if the 2nd Amendment said nothing about guns? What if the US had the same firearms ownership than let's say the UK? Would you still vote yes? Would you feel safer with regular policemen carrying firearms? Would that be necessary? Try to imagine a US without firearms.
Malloy must go
I'm not saying all the police should be unarmed. I agree with having special units. The policeman who goes unarmed in the UK is the guy you see everyday in the corner of your home, not a detective or someone working in anti-terrorism.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Honestly, yes. My reason is because I think the enforcer should always have an edge over the constituant. There needs to be a consequence, and it needs to be severe. There is no possible way to abolish guns completely, just as in the UK and in Japan where citizens are not permitted to own a firearm. They still have them there, whether it is illegal or not. There was mention of specially trained police units in the UK that carry guns. If there is no problem at all then why do even some have them? There is either a need or not. Justified circumstances warrant extreme situations and in an extreme delicate situation where there is a weapon involved, it is a good chance human life is at stake. Unless you can prove to me that this special unit can respond and nuetralize a threat in less than 2.8 seconds, like an armed police officer, than I don't buy it.sergeriver wrote:
Ok, since this is an American forum, why don't we try a different approach.
Let's focus on the US and I want all the Americans that voted yes, to think again. What if the 2nd Amendment said nothing about guns? What if the US had the same firearms ownership than let's say the UK? Would you still vote yes? Would you feel safer with regular policemen carrying firearms? Would that be necessary? Try to imagine a US without firearms.
Detectives are unarmed in the UK, except for some specially trained ones in rare situations.sergeriver wrote:
I'm not saying all the police should be unarmed. I agree with having special units. The policeman who goes unarmed in the UK is the guy you see everyday in the corner of your home, not a detective or someone working in anti-terrorism.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Honestly, yes. My reason is because I think the enforcer should always have an edge over the constituant. There needs to be a consequence, and it needs to be severe. There is no possible way to abolish guns completely, just as in the UK and in Japan where citizens are not permitted to own a firearm. They still have them there, whether it is illegal or not. There was mention of specially trained police units in the UK that carry guns. If there is no problem at all then why do even some have them? There is either a need or not. Justified circumstances warrant extreme situations and in an extreme delicate situation where there is a weapon involved, it is a good chance human life is at stake. Unless you can prove to me that this special unit can respond and nuetralize a threat in less than 2.8 seconds, like an armed police officer, than I don't buy it.sergeriver wrote:
Ok, since this is an American forum, why don't we try a different approach.
Let's focus on the US and I want all the Americans that voted yes, to think again. What if the 2nd Amendment said nothing about guns? What if the US had the same firearms ownership than let's say the UK? Would you still vote yes? Would you feel safer with regular policemen carrying firearms? Would that be necessary? Try to imagine a US without firearms.
Also the response time for armed response teams is typically far less in metropolitan areas than for regular police, due to the lack of demand for them and the high demand for regular unarmed police. This sort of division makes response to reported dangerous situations more efficient than in a system where all police are armed. Of course with incidents where a policeman is on scene from the outset armed response times are greater than they would be if the officer on scene were armed - although I would imagine in the majority of situations that officer would wait for backup before doing much.
Well yes, they would most likely wait for backup. We also have teams specializing in extensive weaponry and tactics. They are called SWAT. My point is if your average patrol man is dispatched to a routine house call that turns into a dangerous environment, the officer has a known advantage. He has a weapon that offers an ultimatum to the aggressor without even having to present it. Plus, I have not heard anyone mention alternative weapons other than guns. If we rubbed the magic lamp and *poof* guns were no longer available to private citizens, then criminals would find another edge. Knives, bats, etc. The average prisoner in a cell under strict supervision can create a weapon that is deadly enough to kill a guard or other inmate. I dont think it is fair, nor practical, to send our officers into the streets and ask them to uphold the law unless they have the upper hand.Bertster7 wrote:
Detectives are unarmed in the UK, except for some specially trained ones in rare situations.sergeriver wrote:
I'm not saying all the police should be unarmed. I agree with having special units. The policeman who goes unarmed in the UK is the guy you see everyday in the corner of your home, not a detective or someone working in anti-terrorism.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Honestly, yes. My reason is because I think the enforcer should always have an edge over the constituant. There needs to be a consequence, and it needs to be severe. There is no possible way to abolish guns completely, just as in the UK and in Japan where citizens are not permitted to own a firearm. They still have them there, whether it is illegal or not. There was mention of specially trained police units in the UK that carry guns. If there is no problem at all then why do even some have them? There is either a need or not. Justified circumstances warrant extreme situations and in an extreme delicate situation where there is a weapon involved, it is a good chance human life is at stake. Unless you can prove to me that this special unit can respond and nuetralize a threat in less than 2.8 seconds, like an armed police officer, than I don't buy it.
Also the response time for armed response teams is typically far less in metropolitan areas than for regular police, due to the lack of demand for them and the high demand for regular unarmed police. This sort of division makes response to reported dangerous situations more efficient than in a system where all police are armed. Of course with incidents where a policeman is on scene from the outset armed response times are greater than they would be if the officer on scene were armed - although I would imagine in the majority of situations that officer would wait for backup before doing much.
Malloy must go
Thats the point. If guns are illegal there arent enough cases of that ever happening for it to be worth arming normal police men and women. An event with the police very rarely involves a gun, and in the UK people dont take on the police because if you do your pretty much gunna spend the rest of your life in jail.
Deez, you just totally ignore the fact that your comment about the criminal edge thing is bullshit. The whole of Europe proves you wrong.
Deez, you just totally ignore the fact that your comment about the criminal edge thing is bullshit. The whole of Europe proves you wrong.
Last edited by Vilham (2007-12-09 08:26:48)
Over here there is no way a single officer would be dispatched on such a call. The police always turn up in twos or threes and they do have things like batons and CS spray to deal with any problems. Also being a policeman in the UK is far less hazardous than in the US (police deaths in the line of duty are way lower over here), which demonstrates that within this system the police are better protected - not worse. As such they are at least as well equipped to uphold the law.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Well yes, they would most likely wait for backup. We also have teams specializing in extensive weaponry and tactics. They are called SWAT. My point is if your average patrol man is dispatched to a routine house call that turns into a dangerous environment, the officer has a known advantage. He has a weapon that offers an ultimatum to the aggressor without even having to present it. Plus, I have not heard anyone mention alternative weapons other than guns. If we rubbed the magic lamp and *poof* guns were no longer available to private citizens, then criminals would find another edge. Knives, bats, etc. The average prisoner in a cell under strict supervision can create a weapon that is deadly enough to kill a guard or other inmate. I dont think it is fair, nor practical, to send our officers into the streets and ask them to uphold the law unless they have the upper hand.Bertster7 wrote:
Detectives are unarmed in the UK, except for some specially trained ones in rare situations.sergeriver wrote:
I'm not saying all the police should be unarmed. I agree with having special units. The policeman who goes unarmed in the UK is the guy you see everyday in the corner of your home, not a detective or someone working in anti-terrorism.
Also the response time for armed response teams is typically far less in metropolitan areas than for regular police, due to the lack of demand for them and the high demand for regular unarmed police. This sort of division makes response to reported dangerous situations more efficient than in a system where all police are armed. Of course with incidents where a policeman is on scene from the outset armed response times are greater than they would be if the officer on scene were armed - although I would imagine in the majority of situations that officer would wait for backup before doing much.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-12-09 08:31:55)
That may be the case in the UK and those are optimal conditions for your officers. Over here there is a lot more ground to cover. The town I live in has around 12,500 - 13,000 residents in it........9 cops. We do have a very low crime rate so there is not a big demand for police, however, money is spent elsewhere like education and other public services rather than partnering up officers because they dont have guns.Bertster7 wrote:
Over here there is no way a single officer would be dispatched on such a call. The police always turn up in twos or threes and they do have things like batons and CS spray to deal with any problems. Also being a policeman in the UK is far less hazardous than in the US (police deaths in the line of duty are way lower over here), which demonstrates that within this system the police are better protected - not worse. As such they are at least as well equipped to uphold the law.
Malloy must go
Well, actually the UK spends more (as a percentage of GDP) on education and other public services as well as on the police. We just spend less on defence and have higher tax rates.deeznutz1245 wrote:
That may be the case in the UK and those are optimal conditions for your officers. Over here there is a lot more ground to cover. The town I live in has around 12,500 - 13,000 residents in it........9 cops. We do have a very low crime rate so there is not a big demand for police, however, money is spent elsewhere like education and other public services rather than partnering up officers because they dont have guns.Bertster7 wrote:
Over here there is no way a single officer would be dispatched on such a call. The police always turn up in twos or threes and they do have things like batons and CS spray to deal with any problems. Also being a policeman in the UK is far less hazardous than in the US (police deaths in the line of duty are way lower over here), which demonstrates that within this system the police are better protected - not worse. As such they are at least as well equipped to uphold the law.
Although there are no more police on the streets in the UK than in the US (the differences in numbers as a percentage of population are very low - both are around 0.25% of the population, or one police officer for every 400 people - your town having way below the national average in police per citizen). The differences, as you point out, probably stem from the differences in population density between the UK and US. Police over here spend less time in transit between calls.
This thread does seem a bit pointless, because to me it's a no brainer - if guns are legal and widely available the regular police force need to carry firearms, if they are not widely available then there is no need for the police to be armed. Both systems clearly work in their own way and whilst most of the evidence suggests that the homicide rate would drop drastically across the US were a gun ban to be successfully imposed, many Americans feel that to be a violation of of their personal freedoms - which is perfectly understandable too (not a view I share, but one I can easily empathise with).
That time in transit is the reason most Americans own firearms for protection. Realistically, the police will not get there in time to prevent a crime from occurring. In the majority of cases there is not time to call and notify the authorities and it's citizen vs criminal. If I did have enough time to call, I'd want the officer responding to be armed to give him equal or superior force.
Our police are not federal, they are either state or municipal. Our defense budget or federal taxes do not effect our police at all.Bertster7 wrote:
Well, actually the UK spends more (as a percentage of GDP) on education and other public services as well as on the police. We just spend less on defence and have higher tax rates.
Malloy must go
A valid point.Stingray24 wrote:
That time in transit is the reason most Americans own firearms for protection. Realistically, the police will not get there in time to prevent a crime from occurring. In the majority of cases there is not time to call and notify the authorities and it's citizen vs criminal. If I did have enough time to call, I'd want the officer responding to be armed to give him equal or superior force.
Though all the available evidence suggests that having a gun at home makes you more likely to be killed by an intruder than if you do not (surprisingly in the UK the figures are the opposite to that, due to the fact that police typically respond far quicker if you let them know there is an intruder in your house and you are a registered firearms owner and also because any guns in the house will be securely locked away with the ammo securely locked away somewhere else, so the chances of it being used for protection are pretty much nil). But then most peoples states of mind are not swayed by empirical evidence and peace of mind does count for a lot (even if it is somewhat misguided).
im sure police departments get some kind of federal funding.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Our police are not federal, they are either state or municipal. Our defense budget or federal taxes do not effect our police at all.Bertster7 wrote:
Well, actually the UK spends more (as a percentage of GDP) on education and other public services as well as on the police. We just spend less on defence and have higher tax rates.
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2007-12-09 10:19:01)
They do.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Our police are not federal, they are either state or municipal. Our defense budget or federal taxes do not effect our police at all.Bertster7 wrote:
Well, actually the UK spends more (as a percentage of GDP) on education and other public services as well as on the police. We just spend less on defence and have higher tax rates.
Not directly, you are right. But they do effect them.
I like the way I "have no balls" because my countries police force do not carry firearms. Some good logic there.
My final opinion is that the UK doesn't and the US does. Simple as.
My final opinion is that the UK doesn't and the US does. Simple as.
Stats about someone else don't mean much if I'm the one staring down an armed criminal tbh. Having a home protection weapon locked away and unloaded is usually ineffective, so gun safe technology has advanced to enable a homeowner to keep the weapon loaded. That way they can be armed in a matter of seconds. http://www.gunvault.com/Bertster7 wrote:
A valid point.Stingray24 wrote:
That time in transit is the reason most Americans own firearms for protection. Realistically, the police will not get there in time to prevent a crime from occurring. In the majority of cases there is not time to call and notify the authorities and it's citizen vs criminal. If I did have enough time to call, I'd want the officer responding to be armed to give him equal or superior force.
Though all the available evidence suggests that having a gun at home makes you more likely to be killed by an intruder than if you do not (surprisingly in the UK the figures are the opposite to that, due to the fact that police typically respond far quicker if you let them know there is an intruder in your house and you are a registered firearms owner and also because any guns in the house will be securely locked away with the ammo securely locked away somewhere else, so the chances of it being used for protection are pretty much nil). But then most peoples states of mind are not swayed by empirical evidence and peace of mind does count for a lot (even if it is somewhat misguided).
NYC, Washington, Miami, LA, Detroit, the PDs in those places must receive some kind of federal funding.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Nope, most cities receive funding but very few small town departments get federal funding. You have to qualify for it and it usually comes as a grant for equipment or programs. For instance, the "Click it or Ticket" campaign gets federal funding which is why multiple towns participate together at one checkpoint, but payroll, weapons inventory, budget, etc is established by a commission at the local level and federal money is not factored in. My father is actually on a police commission, he tells me all of the bullshit politics that go on in the departments too.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
im sure police departments get some kind of federal funding.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Our police are not federal, they are either state or municipal. Our defense budget or federal taxes do not effect our police at all.
Really? Why? Bigger cities mean more taxes to support the agencies. Sounds to me like you are just making an assumption.sergeriver wrote:
NYC, Washington, Miami, LA, Detroit, the PDs in those places must receive some kind of federal funding.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Nope, most cities receive funding but very few small town departments get federal funding. You have to qualify for it and it usually comes as a grant for equipment or programs. For instance, the "Click it or Ticket" campaign gets federal funding which is why multiple towns participate together at one checkpoint, but payroll, weapons inventory, budget, etc is established by a commission at the local level and federal money is not factored in. My father is actually on a police commission, he tells me all of the bullshit politics that go on in the departments too.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
im sure police departments get some kind of federal funding.
Ok, they do get SOME funding to pay for some federally mandated programs or upgrades, such as Homeland Security. But those are not always guaranteed, and usually go to the city, not dedicated to any law enforcement agency.
hell ya!maef wrote:
If you take the US as an example, I think it would be rather ridiculous if the general public were allowed to carry guns and the police weren't.
After all they're the ones who are supposed to enforce the abidance of law and order. You can't have them equipped worse than the average civilian.
The vast majority of federal spending on Law enforcemernt is for federal agencies (FBI/DEA), or for support of federally mandated programs (War on Drugs).Bertster7 wrote:
They do.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Our police are not federal, they are either state or municipal. Our defense budget or federal taxes do not effect our police at all.Bertster7 wrote:
Well, actually the UK spends more (as a percentage of GDP) on education and other public services as well as on the police. We just spend less on defence and have higher tax rates.
Not directly, you are right. But they do effect them.
And if you want to start talking about indirect effects of various activities on law enforcement spending, then you can link the UK subway bombings to increased spending in NYC, just because they may have paid for a study to find out vulnerable their system was. If you pull back far enough, everything is linked somehow.
Unfortunately it's in competition with the much cheaper and slightly less secure....Stingray24 wrote:
Stats about someone else don't mean much if I'm the one staring down an armed criminal tbh. Having a home protection weapon locked away and unloaded is usually ineffective, so gun safe technology has advanced to enable a homeowner to keep the weapon loaded. That way they can be armed in a matter of seconds. http://www.gunvault.com/Bertster7 wrote:
A valid point.Stingray24 wrote:
That time in transit is the reason most Americans own firearms for protection. Realistically, the police will not get there in time to prevent a crime from occurring. In the majority of cases there is not time to call and notify the authorities and it's citizen vs criminal. If I did have enough time to call, I'd want the officer responding to be armed to give him equal or superior force.
Though all the available evidence suggests that having a gun at home makes you more likely to be killed by an intruder than if you do not (surprisingly in the UK the figures are the opposite to that, due to the fact that police typically respond far quicker if you let them know there is an intruder in your house and you are a registered firearms owner and also because any guns in the house will be securely locked away with the ammo securely locked away somewhere else, so the chances of it being used for protection are pretty much nil). But then most peoples states of mind are not swayed by empirical evidence and peace of mind does count for a lot (even if it is somewhat misguided).
Because criminals would never think to look for stuff under the mattress.
Used to be the police didn't need guns in the UK because they got respect. Now a days the kids have no respect for anyone, so the cops should be able to shoot the wee bolloxes.
In fact I would go as far as making hoody wearing a shootable offence.
In fact I would go as far as making hoody wearing a shootable offence.
Good point. The lack of respect for the police has a lot to do. The police should be respected for being a cop not for carrying a gun.JahManRed wrote:
Used to be the police didn't need guns in the UK because they got respect. Now a days the kids have no respect for anyone, so the cops should be able to shoot the wee bolloxes.
In fact I would go as far as making hoody wearing a shootable offence.
The trouble is I don’t think you can blame the lack of respect of for police soley on hoodies. My mum’s not a hoody, nor has she ever been in trouble with the law but I wouldn’t say she likes Police in general, she used to but over the ears she started to dislike them. Ironically, given the discussion we’re having, I think the loss of respect in young people for our coppers has come from America and gangsta rap. Songs like “F*ck the Police” are cool to young people and they get influenced by it. Moreover I think the way our government has turned our police force away from solving real crimes and focussing heavily on issuing speeding tickets and giving them silly targets (so they actually look to arrest people) has caused a lot of people to lose faith in the Police force.sergeriver wrote:
Good point. The lack of respect for the police has a lot to do. The police should be respected for being a cop not for carrying a gun.JahManRed wrote:
Used to be the police didn't need guns in the UK because they got respect. Now a days the kids have no respect for anyone, so the cops should be able to shoot the wee bolloxes.
In fact I would go as far as making hoody wearing a shootable offence.