Arming all are police yes or no?

[scimitar]

 

tbh i think you're slightly bonkers

And how much training will be required before these armed citizens are let loose.

[welsh1]

i wont be pondering over anything. i am able to see and feel, i dont need ******** statistics, i know what is out there, you stick to your stories of fiction, and good luck.

You are the one who started to spout" bull****" statistics with your 25000 murders since 1969,as for sticking to my stories of fiction.what story what fiction?

 

I gave you a statistic that has been compiled and collated,and within that the murders with guns could possibly be broken down again depending on if the weapon was the actual tool that did the murder, or if it was part of the murder.

 

All i asked was do you see what you describe all around you,i very much doubt it,i work around the country and meet some very strange and potentially violent people but it rarely goes to a situation you describe,people in this country on the whole are civilised and get on with it.

 

If i was you i would take a look around you because if it is as you describe you may well be lost and are actually in Lybia.

[Bagsy]

I'm still to see any convincing evidence to suggest all police should be armed. Isolated incidents are exactly that - isolated. How many murders involving firearms could have been prevented by armed police - I'm guessing very few if any.

 

Terrorism was quoted but again not a single killing would have been prevented.

 

The police themselves don't want to be armed. Why should we, what actual difference would it make? If anything there's a real risk gun crime would go up as criminals arm themselves in the knowledge the police would be armed.

 

Heck, most on here winge when joe public ring 'em because there's a cammo clad bloke in a field with a shotgun.

 

I'm far happier in the knowledge there a units specially trained for these events, though more may of course be needed.

[scimitar]

I'm still to see any convincing evidence to suggest all police should be armed. Isolated incidents are exactly that - isolated. How many murders involving firearms could have been prevented by armed police - I'm guessing very few if any.

 

Terrorism was quoted but again not a single killing would have been prevented.

 

The police themselves don't want to be armed. Why should we, what actual difference would it make? If anything there's a real risk gun crime would go up as criminals arm themselves in the knowledge the police would be armed.

 

Heck, most on here winge when joe public ring 'em because there's a cammo clad bloke in a field with a shotgun.

 

I'm far happier in the knowledge there a units specially trained for these events, though more may of course be needed.

Totally agree, forcing police to carry guns may cost the force some good officers. If more armed police are needed much better to have specialists.

[carlosdesilva]

but what is the best calibre?

[ordnance]

I'm still to see any convincing evidence to suggest all police should be armed. Isolated incidents are exactly that - isolated. How many murders involving firearms could have been prevented by armed police - I'm guessing very few if any.

 

 

Officers have being murdered without the equipment to defend themselves does that not count. Do you think that its OK to send officers into situations that firearms could be used against them without them being equipped to defend themselves. Do you think that it was OK that the two female police officers murdered in England had no way to defend themselves from someone shooting at them. It might not of made any difference but at least they might of had a chance.

 

The police themselves don't want to be armed

 

You say that like you know that all police don't want to be armed I doubt that is the case. If you don't want to be armed here then you don't apply.

 

If anything there's a real risk gun crime would go up as criminals arm themselves in the knowledge the police would be armed.

 

 

Is there any evidence of that being the case or is that just what you think.

 

I'm far happier in the knowledge there a units specially trained for these events, though more may of course be needed.

 

The problem with that is that its normally unarmed police that respond first. What should they do if someone is shooting at them or civilians. Ask them politely would they stop until armed police arrive.

 

but what is the best calibre

 

It depends what you mean by best calibre.

Edited May 25, 2013 by ordnance

[jasper3]

No NO NO NO NO .... i know this weeks events where very sad..but this is still the UK. it would have made no difference to the sad outcome.....

 

we have a armed response unit..thats enough........IF these events escalate..then a temporary measure could be put in place

[Bagsy]

Ordnance, you jump all over the place with your argument, do some research man.

[ordnance]

Ordnance, you jump all over the place with your argument, do some research man.

 

That response saves you responding to some of the points I made, easy get out. Point out were I am jumping all over the place. Its worth remembering that when we talk about arming a UK police force that one part of the UK police force is already armed without the all the dire consciences some are posting about.

 

we have a armed response unit..thats enough........IF these events escalate..then a temporary measure could be put in place

 

The problem is that has being shown not to be enough the clue is in the name respond usually to late.

Edited May 25, 2013 by ordnance

[Bagsy]

No it doesn't, it says I can't be bothered with it. The points you make provide no evidence at all, as I've already said. You disagree, I can live with that.

[Scully]

Statistics don't show the whole picture,murders are committed in all sorts of situations,in the house to in the street.

 

Ask yourself when was the last time you saw an armed criminal in the street,or witnessed a violent crime(not a pub brawl),the maiming and casual violence are not everywhere, it is just we live in society that can communicate a lot faster,so you know things in an instant.

 

I bet the statistics for crime including murder for the last 20 years is a lot better than any period in the 1700-1800's.

 

Some more statistics for you to ponder over.

 

Gun Murders in England, Scotland and Wales 2011/12

There were 640 Murders / Homicides in Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) in 2011/12 (10.43 per million population)

Of these 640 Murders / Homicides, 44 involved a gun or firearm as the main weapon. Gun murders in Britain in 2011/12 represent 6% of the murder cases, (0.72 gun homicides per million population).

 

What the statistics don't show(and never could) is how many of those 44 murders could have been prevented if the victim had access to a means of self-defence.By law we are deprived of this basic right of self preservation.

You mention the 1700-1800's.I have no idea what the statistics are for this period,but at least back then those who chose to arm themselves for the purposes of self-defence could do so.

[Scully]

If anything there's a real risk gun crime would go up as criminals arm themselves in the knowledge the police would be armed.

 

 

Criminals are already arming themselves,in the knowledge the Police and the general public are in the main,unarmed.

[Dr_Scholl]

Yes.

 

[welsh1]

What the statistics don't show(and never could) is how many of those 44 murders could have been prevented if the victim had access to a means of self-defence.By law we are deprived of this basic right of self preservation.

You mention the 1700-1800's.I have no idea what the statistics are for this period,but at least back then those who chose to arm themselves for the purposes of self-defence could do so.

By law you can use reasonable and proportionate force,so we are not deprived of a basic right of self preservation.

 

I have deleted the rest of my post as I cannot debate with people so blinkered,that they cannot see the flaws in their arguments.

Edited May 26, 2013 by welsh1

[ordnance]

Leave it to police officers who are trained,and volunteer to accept the heavy task placed upon them at times.Do you think the officer who shot the idiot running toward them will ever forget it,She(i believe) will be relived of duty straight away,i promise she will have a lot of sleepless nights ,and the police will be supplying her with the best councillors they have.Taking a life is not easy, and you will live with it forever

 

She did not take a life and if they are not up to the job they should not volunteer. I would say she would be relieved that she did her job and helped prevent other people being injured. Again you would wonder how they have managed in the United Kingdom police in N Ireland to be armed over the years without all the problems others are posting , no one seems able to answer that question.

Edited May 26, 2013 by ordnance

[demonwolf444]

i dont trust the police with firearms. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1294974/Bungling-armed-police-fired-guns-accidentally-110-TIMES-3-years.html

Edited May 26, 2013 by demonwolf444

[welsh1]

To tired to debate

Edited May 26, 2013 by welsh1

[Dekers]

i dont trust the police with firearms. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1294974/Bungling-armed-police-fired-guns-accidentally-110-TIMES-3-years.html

 

So, are you suggesting we should take their guns away?

[Scully]

By law you can use reasonable and proportionate force,so we are not deprived of a basic right of self preservation.

 

 

 

 

So tell me;what reasonable and proportionate force could the unfortunate soldier have deployed in Woolwich against his attackers?

No flaws in that argument then, eh!

[mossy835]

Yes.

 

a bit over the top.

[scimitar]

 

So tell me;what reasonable and proportionate force could the unfortunate soldier have deployed in Woolwich against his attackers?

No flaws in that argument then, eh!

None, but even a gun wouldn't have helped him.

[al4x]

 

So tell me;what reasonable and proportionate force could the unfortunate soldier have deployed in Woolwich against his attackers?

No flaws in that argument then, eh!

In that situation anything he had managed to do would have been legal, ok he didn't manage to do anything but your side arm won't help if someone runs you over first. And as a back up to this did it help the French guy in Paris yesterday?

The fundamental is it was an area with a high number of armed police who are top notch as they get the most use out of anywhere in the uk. Arming more won't help and as for arming squad dies that's a joke with how much they drink and like to fight.

Tazers are about the level most police are happy with and leave firearms incidents to special units as the moment

Edited May 26, 2013 by al4x

[Dekers]

All credit, this thread has lasted a lot longer than I expected, but it is going round in circles.

[Muddy Funker]

i dont trust the police with firearms. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1294974/Bungling-armed-police-fired-guns-accidentally-110-TIMES-3-years.html

 

This is just complete sensationalist rubbish, I'm not saying that this is acceptable but I think you'll find that the vast majority of these nd's would be during the arming/unarming procedure in the armouries at the nick. This article makes it sound like armed officers are sending bullets flying around in public by mistake frequently.

 

I'm no mathmatition but 24/7 all armed officers working will be loading weapons, patrolling and unloading. This process just in a small force is happening 20 - 30 times a day, assuming roughly 4-5 armed officers per shift loading and unloading at least 2 weapons, sidearm and carbine.

 

Multiply that across all forces and on a weekly basis you have this process happening hundreds if not thousands of times.

 

Yes we all know that an nd is the worst thing in the world and should never happen but unfortunately for as long as we continue to have holes in our rear ends mistakes will happen, it's not a perfect flawless world even for those that have had the very difficult training to become a firearms officer.

 

I'm certain if you took the number of nd's in those three years and compared it to the number of load/unload procedures that were carried out the number would be ridiculously small, even more so if you looked at nd's out in public, count on one hand I'd imagine?

 

Anyway I'd vote no to routine arming, a few more wouldn't go amiss though.

[millrace]

in northern ireland we have armed police and why you have to stand and wait on the mainland for the armed unit to arrive makes me laugh,,,the use of police firearms here is very very rare but at least they have them if needed and the criteria for dischsrge is very high the days of the trucnheod white shirt beat bobby is a thing of the past you s need to accept the crims out there know this and take full advantage of this full knowing that they wont be directly challanged untill armed unit arrives,,,,time for britain to grow a set and forget the criminals human rights and start to put our rights as law abideing citizens first..............

Edited May 26, 2013 by millrace