IG-Calibre wrote:
Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
IG-Calibre wrote:
eh?.. police in NI have always been armed & have been responsible for 363 deaths including 75 children since 1969.. Taser guns if anything are for replacing Rubber/plastic bullets which have claimed the lives of 14 people including 7 children since their introduction for dealing with civil disturbances..
And by children do you mean anyone under 18?
it's not me who is defining them as children, so what the exact definition criteria is i'm not sure tbh. If we're talking strictly about death by rubber bullets? i would consider the following children : Francis Rowntree Aged 11yrs, Stephen Geddis Age 10 yrs, Brian Stewart Age 13 yrs, Carol Ann Kelly Age 12 yrs, Stephen McConomy Age 11 yrs, Seamus Duffy Age 15 yrs.
Why the fuck would anyone need to use supposedly non-lethal force on children anyway? Is is it because of their idiot parents that bring them along to riots? At the 2004 Bush inauguration, I was watching the news and I saw this one idiot bring his baby daughter with him to a riot area around the front of the area and the police were using pepper spray on the crowd.
andy12 wrote:
usmarine2005 wrote:
Jepeto87 wrote:
They've always been armed in the north, the souths police aren't but have special units when a situation deteriorates to that point.
Didn't know that. So I guess I will change my OP. But do you think this will lead to guns for police in all of the UK?
Nope, I think we're fine with our armed police and separate police thing we have going on...
At one time I would think this to be the most retarded idea ever, but it actually works quite well.
It probably saves the government millions if not billions because they don't have to equip every individual officer with an expensive handgun or even a shotgun for some of the cars (not that shotguns even fit in gay hatchbacks anyway, lol). I'm not entirely sure whether or not the U.K. trains all officers in the use of firearms but if they do not, then this could also have the benefit of speeding up training as well, if only a little bit.
Gun ownership is very tightly restricted in Britain, everybody that owns one is one is on record, and I imagine there's not a whole lot of people there anyway that do have one. This means that the likelihood of encountering someone with a gun is much much lower than it would be in other places. So cops with non-lethal deterrents are for the most part quite effective, and if, in that rare situation, someone is encountered with a gun, there is always the armed police.
The only thing missing in my opinion from the U.K. police force is possibly armored patrol cars and maybe some lightweight form of body armor for the aforementioned situation. Maybe they already have that, I don't know. They only problem I could see from not being armed is that there might not be enough intimidation inflicted on an unarmed suspect, and therefore it would be harder to deal with things in a timely fashion.
Just my boredom inspired two cents.