BF2S Forums Should the police carry firearms?

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.

Last edited by sergeriver (2007-12-09 04:09:43)

deeznutz1245 wrote:

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.

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.

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.

Bertster7 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

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.

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.

Detectives are unarmed in the UK, except for some specially trained ones in rare situations.

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.

deeznutz1245 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

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.

Detectives are unarmed in the UK, except for some specially trained ones in rare situations.

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.

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.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-12-09 08:31:55)

deeznutz1245 wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

Our police are not federal, they are either state or municipal. Our defense budget or federal taxes do not effect our police at all.

deeznutz1245 wrote:

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.

Our police are not federal, they are either state or municipal. Our defense budget or federal taxes do not effect our police at all.

im sure police departments get some kind of federal funding.

Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2007-12-09 10:19:01)

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.

deeznutz1245 wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

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.

im sure police departments get some kind of federal funding.

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.

NYC, Washington, Miami, LA, Detroit, the PDs in those places must receive some kind of federal funding.

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.

hell ya!

Stingray24 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

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.

A valid point.

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).

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/

Unfortunately it's in competition with the much cheaper and slightly less secure....

Because criminals would never think to look for stuff under the mattress.

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.

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.