We all know about the police woman what was shot recently for doing her job. Gun crime is on the rise and our police service are sitting ducks. They say that we shouldn't arm the police because that might encourage crimnals to arm themselves too.... The thing is, criminals in the UK are already armed and our children and families are in danger. Do you think that our police should be armed? Is the UK too soft on crime? Is locking up scum for life really that expensive? Your thoughts?
hmm its a tough one, i just think that britain has an already excellent armed responce unit, and arming the police will just send criminal gun crime even higher. Its good that the uk has a non gun policy, police are there to set standards as well as to catch criminals and them carrying gun would just make it even more exceptable the shooting of the police offers was very tragic, however isolated, these things happen from time to time as shocking as they are, i just think police carrying guns would put us in the same situation as the american police, where police people are shot on a regular basis britain is proud of its tight arms polocy, let us never approach a time where we are a mirror of american gun ideals
The bad guys all seem to have guns - therefore the police should all have guns too. Criminals ( and criminals alone ) need to fear the police - it's the only way things will ever work.
hmm, the hardcore criminals have guns, but if the police carry guns as standard, then it promotes a gun culture in the petty criminal, something which i think is a very bad thing because then you have more public being shot, more violent crime, and more police being shot
Are you saying that the government shouldn't let the police carry guns as standand in case criminals decide to buy more guns??? Are you suggesting that the police should accept the level of gun crime and not provoke an increase by fighting back? By suggesting this, do you think that organised crime is above the law and the police has to learn to live with it instead of removing it completely?
umm nope, when did i say that?? nope im saying that britain has a gun problem yes, but it wont be solved by police carrying guns, it'll only get worse, as it will promote petty criminals to carry weapons as well as organised crime, therefore making shootings more common, meaning more public deaths, more police deaths and more petty criminal deaths...something on a level that we dont have at the moment and thus making the gun problem even worse the police have excepted the level of gun crime and are fighting back, we have amnestys for gun carriers, and every area has atleast one armed responce unit, which are always available to the police, and are highly trained inderviduals who respond in a professional manner to all sorts of gun related crimes. and no i dont think organised crime is above the law all im saying, if you read my posts is that if the regular police carry guns, then it promotes petty criminals (of which there are a damn sight more than organised criminals) to also carry guns and thus more people die, police public and otherwise so yeah, i think police carrying guns is a seriously bad idea, because it would just (pardon the pun) blow the situation out of all proportions, make it ten times worse than it already is. thats the official line, and i think its the right one
As an outsider, I can only say I admire the dedication and courage of your officers. I have always been marveled by the ability of the British authorities to largely keep civil matters under control without the use of handguns. I've also held a great admiration for the citizens that have allowed them to do so. The bitter truth has been stated for years -guns don't kill people, people do. A gun is just another tool - albeit probably the most effective - that can be used to get the job done. If the criminals are starting to procure more guns, then there will likely be more shootings, that can't be controlled to any perceptible degree. But giving the police guns could not and should not be idealized as a deterent to this outcome. The American reference is a perfect example. Besides the cops getting shot, we also have criminals and often innocent bystanders getting popped. If a perp shoots at a cop here, the cop has a right to kill him, even if the gun was accidently discharged, the perp had no intention of shooting the cop, or the person happens to be a kid playing with a toy gun the cop mistakes as the perp. Having an offensive arsenal is a good thing when you know the person you're fighting is out to kill you, but a great percentage of civil situations don't afford these clear-cut battleground situations. Nor for that matter should they be afforded, a well-formed society should be able to discern and control the actions of it's members without having to resort to barbaric or military tactics. The mark of a civilized society is the respect they have for authority. Unfortunately our young country appears to be forgetting, or at least foregoing that rather quickly. Giving police firepower won't solve the problem, it can only make it worse, as my country has shown. If anything should be changed, it should be more defensive measures, such as vamping up the response unit capabilities, intelligence, and personal protection. The very fabric of society should be constantly reinforced, encouraging everyone to do their part to preclude the start of criminal behavior. Fighting fire with fire may work with trees and forests, but it doesn't work with guns and society. One of our more famous police forces over here promotes the motto "To Serve and to Protect". In truth many of the members our Blue Line think it's their job to harrass, intimidate, and "keep order" by the power of the gun they carry. If they didn't have that gun, they might be a little more apt to acting like another human being sometimes instead of a character from a old B western. Sometimes you can almost see Al Capone in their face, "You can get more with a gun and a badge, than a badge alone". Giving police the power to protect themselves in a standoff may sound like a great idea, but remember, police officers are human too, just like the criminals.
i would say that we should not arm the police. one thing i like about this nation is that we do not have to arm all of our police. i think this is a emotional responce to the killing of that policelady. yes gun grime is a problem, but gun crime where the police are involved and need arms is not a problem, the police rarely get shot, and when guns are involved in police disputes, they bring in the armed police. i see this as being correct. unless we 100% trust the police and their decision making, then we shouldn't arm them all. peacex
I don't see that arming the police would help. The object should be to remove guns from the streets, not increase their proliferation. You only have to look to the arms race during the Cold War to see how arming one group will only lead to desires for other groups to arm as a response. Also, the police are human beings, like anyone else, and not necessarily safer with guns than others. Remember when a man was shot by armed police when they mistook a table leg in a plastic bag for a shotgun? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3981297.stm The police make mistakes, and they are surprisingly trigger happy. Look to the case of innocent Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes, shot 8 times whilst he was restrained, because he looked like a terror suspect. A bit harsh I feel. Also, many in the police are corrupt and racist. This has been exposed by the BBC documentary, 'The Secret Policeman' http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3212442.stm Would you want these people carrying guns?
I dont think the police want to be armed all the time, but they have asked for harder sentences , and I agree we should have longer sentences for violent crime . also de-criminalisation of drugs which would save a lot of police time , take away a great source of income for criminals, and decrease the people being shot over drug deals
I don`t think we should arm our police. Look what happened with that Brasilian guy a couple months back. Give a person a gun and they get trigger happy. Look at America and their gun crime averages. Mind you, ontheotherhand, you could look at Canada`s averages too, they don`t get half as much gun crime and their police are armed.
in switzerland everybody of military age has a fully automatic assault rifle which in most cases they keep in the house. but they have very low gun crime and generally when people do shoot people it isnt with this assault weapon . personally I think switzerland has a good idea when it comes to defence they concentrate on civil defence, and making it very silly for someone to try to invade them . you invade and you have nearly every swiss sniping at you, the swiss have lots of bunkers and food so it would take years to conquer the country. I dont think its guns that are the problem but attitudes to them we had millions of guns and bombs in the arms of the home guard during the war I dont know that any of those were used in crime .
I Think We Should All Be Making Hay, And Doing Beutyfull Things. Not Carrying Guns! __________________________________________Save The Trees Peace And Love
johnny2mad wow, interesting stuff about switzerland, i didn't realize any of this, i just always thought it was a neutral country, that's great about low gun crime, wish it were like that here in the usa (united snakes of america). there are so many gun deaths every day, month, year it's a crime
I Think We Should All Be Making Hay, And Doing Beutyfull Things. Not Carrying Guns! well that would be nice but I dont think its that easy to get everyone to stop carrying guns , some people just want to invade other countrys same as some people want to break into your house and steal your tv . yep hippiewise its nuetral but well armed, thats how the nazis didnt invade either hitler or one of the top german generals said to a top swiss, our army is twice the size of your population the swiss said we can all shoot twice. I dont see much sense in handguns, but having enough rifles to arm your entire population could be very handy to deter invasion. I think its attitudes to guns in america thats the problem also you have a situation like prohibition with lots of drugs and you can see that that causes violence it did the same when alcohol was illegal . in our armys you dont get that many people going crazy with military weapons and shooting up friends and family ,so its not being armed by itself thats that dangerous more how you view guns .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland some 2001 statistics[3], it is noted that there are about 420,000 assault rifles stored at private homes, mostly SIG 550 types. Additionally, there are some 320,000 assault rifles and military pistols exempted from military service in private possession, all selective-fire weapons having been converted to semi-automatic operation only. In addition, there are several hundred thousand other semi-automatic small arms classified as carbines. The total number of firearms in private homes is estimated minimally at 1.2 million; more liberal estimates put the number at 3 million.
The home guard used to store weapons in peoples houses in fact there were underground home gaurd units in somerset where I live that had weapons and explosives up to the 1980s in secret hides . at one time in the uk you were forced by law to train with a longbow so that the country would have enough longbowmen if there was a war .
