1. Post #41
    Former 101st AB Infantryman
    Dennab
    March 2012
    536 Posts
    Of course they should be fucking armed. Officers often have to arrest violent and sometimes ARMED criminals. Why would you have them do that with nothing but a nightstick?

    You can trust a man to detain another human being but you cant trust him to carry a firearm?

  2. Post #42
    Fight until death, shoot until empty.

    November 2009
    15,603 Posts
    They should be armed in relation of the gravity of the situation: the graver the better they have to be harmed. If it's a pacifical protest, well, just some very well hidden batoons in case that there is REALLY somebody dangerous among the normal people that is going to damage.
    During riots? Famas and Glocks 9mm armed with plastic capsules aimed to non-lethal spots to go.
    You just cant decide "oh, today I'm not going to be armed" its your either armed every shift or your not. The problem is that an officer has to face the unknown threats all day so they have to be prepared for them at all times.


    That riot analogy is terrible. Police are trained to shoot center mass. Less-lethal or not.

  3. Post #43
    RAPISTS ARE OPPRESSED
    mobrockers2's Avatar
    April 2011
    12,403 Posts
    Of course they should be fucking armed. Officers often have to arrest violent and sometimes ARMED criminals. Why would you have them do that with nothing but a nightstick?

    You can trust a man to detain another human being but you cant trust him to carry a firearm?
    Have you even read the OP, or any of the other posts in the thread? First of, we're talking about the UK here. Second, yes, I would trust a cop with detaining me, but not with carrying a firearm especially when they don't fucking want to carry. It is by choice that they don't carry.

  4. Post #44
    Gold Member
    Memobot's Avatar
    July 2006
    4,573 Posts
    Sure, a person can obtain a firearm in the UK.
    But it is very difficult. If officers all have guns it will be like a call to arms for criminals. Forget the 50 year gap between the Manchester killings and the last time this sort of incident occurred. It will happen a lot more frequently.
    Those officers that don't carry firearms are very well trained. The response times of armed officers needs to be addressed.
    It's not like they're not trained to attack either. There was a call to introduce the side handle baton, but they went instead with the extendable Asp baton because it's more offensive than defensive.

  5. Post #45
    Since I live in the us all officers are armed usually. But in other industrialized countries like the us, there is still violence, but not as much as the us in most cases. I think there are plenty of NON LETHAL options to choose from. Tear gas, batons, rubber bullets, etc
    You are not going to respond to a mugging and just peg tear gas at them, and you are not going to see a guy with a gun and try hitting him with a baton. Rubber bullets also do not do much to a target.

    Edited:

    They should be armed in relation of the gravity of the situation: the graver the better they have to be harmed. If it's a pacifical protest, well, just some very well hidden batoons in case that there is REALLY somebody dangerous among the normal people that is going to damage.
    During riots? Famas and Glocks 9mm armed with plastic capsules aimed to non-lethal spots to go.
    Tell me what a non lethal spot is. And why would they shoot them with plastic shots.

  6. Post #46
    Fight until death, shoot until empty.

    November 2009
    15,603 Posts
    You are not going to respond to a mugging and just peg tear gas at them, and you are not going to see a guy with a gun and try hitting him with a baton. Rubber bullets also do not do much to a target.
    I agree with your point completely. The rubber rounds are lethal at short range though and even if their out of the lethal range, they still sting like a motherfucker

  7. Post #47
    Bullets hurt too but there are plenty of instances of people continuing on after being shot, I doubt rubber bullets will put down dangerous targets.

  8. Post #48
    Robbi's Avatar
    March 2012
    1,001 Posts
    Bullets hurt too but there are plenty of instances of people continuing on after being shot, I doubt rubber bullets will put down dangerous targets.
    There are not "plenty of instances". If so, show us.

  9. Post #49
    MCCCXXXIII's Avatar
    September 2012
    289 Posts
    "The officer has the right to arrest
    And if you fight back they put a hole in your chest!
    The police them have a little gun
    So when I'm on the streets, I walk around with a bigger one"

    Here's a gun and a right to arrest. I feel totally safe.

    If they had no guns, that would be cool. Then some people wouldn't need them in self defense anymore. We don't need police officers with guns. We shouldn't resolve "crimes" with weapons. What kind of person are you then?

  10. Post #50
    Gold Member
    hexpunK's Avatar
    August 2008
    15,443 Posts
    Then some people wouldn't need them in self defense anymore.?
    If you need a gun for "self defence" against the police, move the fuck out of whatever shithole country you are in, or stop doing shady shit that gets you shot. The armed police are meant to be trained enough to not shoot you unless they have to. At least in the UK they tend to be quite good at not fucking everything up when they start shooting.

    Average patrols and disturbance checks shouldn't need any form of firearm in the UK, we don't have a gun culture, the most a police officer usually has to deal with is some nut with a knife. The moment dispatchers get wind of a firearm offence they don't just send unarmed units in, that's silly.

    The police don't need guns for day to day patrols. Especially if there is no gun culture. We very rarely get instances like the recent Manchester attack, let alone gun robberies. The people who currently have illegal guns tend to either be idiot "gangsters" who will probably shoot themselves anyway, or organised crime groups/ relatively organised thieves who get armed units to deal with. Arming the police would probably just lead to them wanting bigger, stronger weapons and causing more havoc, our police forces would be reluctant to up the ante and arm patrols because of how our society views guns.

  11. Post #51
    Gold Member
    Nikita's Avatar
    April 2005
    1,927 Posts
    Should every police officer be armed?

    Yup.

  12. Post #52
    Gold Member
    DaCommie1's Avatar
    June 2008
    7,142 Posts
    People in Britain argue that criminals will arm if police arm, but in Japan there are fewer gun offences than Britain, yet the average Japanese police officer carries a sidearm. I do believe the police should carry a sidearm, to be prepared in case there is a scenario like the one in Manchester. It is better to have and not need than to need and not have.

  13. Post #53
    RAPISTS ARE OPPRESSED
    mobrockers2's Avatar
    April 2011
    12,403 Posts
    People in Britain argue that criminals will arm if police arm, but in Japan there are fewer gun offences than Britain, yet the average Japanese police officer carries a sidearm. I do believe the police should carry a sidearm, to be prepared in case there is a scenario like the one in Manchester. It is better to have and not need than to need and not have.
    Different cultures bro. Handing guns to all UK police officers will not do any good.

  14. Post #54
    Gold Member
    Zally13's Avatar
    July 2008
    4,976 Posts
    Different cultures bro. Handing guns to all UK police officers will not do any good.
    Um, sure culture could have an effect, but could you please elaborate? He provided a pretty good argument, I would just like to see a better argument from your side. Otherwise, I just think that statistic would outweigh the claim of "different cultures".

  15. Post #55
    Gekkosan's Avatar
    October 2010
    5,668 Posts
    Sometimes not even a firearm is enough to protect a police officer.

  16. Post #56
    Gold Member
    DaCommie1's Avatar
    June 2008
    7,142 Posts
    Different cultures bro. Handing guns to all UK police officers will not do any good.
    You wouldn't just give them a gun and go "Off ya go, lads!" You'd of course give them training in the proper use of a firearm, as well as accuracy training. IIRC, the Japanese police were trained by police from the US, and that didn't cause the Japanese criminals to become like American gang-bangers to counteract it.

  17. Post #57
    RAPISTS ARE OPPRESSED
    mobrockers2's Avatar
    April 2011
    12,403 Posts
    Um, sure culture could have an effect, but could you please elaborate? He provided a pretty good argument, I would just like to see a better argument from your side. Otherwise, I just think that statistic would outweigh the claim of "different cultures".
    What statistics? And you can't apply statistics because of different cultures. If we were to apply statistics you'd see the US has far higher gun crime than the UK.

    Edited:

    You wouldn't just give them a gun and go "Off ya go, lads!" You'd of course give them training in the proper use of a firearm, as well as accuracy training. IIRC, the Japanese police were trained by police from the US, and that didn't cause the Japanese criminals to become like American gang-bangers to counteract it.
    UK police don't want guns, UK citizens don't want guns, UK citizens don't want the police to have guns. Why give them guns? There is no valid reason to give the police guns when no party involved wants them to be armed. There already are teams whom carry, to handle crimes where a cop would need to be armed, there is no need at all for normal police to carry a gun as it's obviously working in the UK without.

  18. Post #58
    Gold Member
    Zally13's Avatar
    July 2008
    4,976 Posts
    What statistics? And you can't apply statistics because of different cultures. If we were to apply statistics you'd see the US has far higher gun crime than the UK.

    Edited:



    UK police don't want guns, UK citizens don't want guns, UK citizens don't want the police to have guns. Why give them guns? There is no valid reason to give the police guns when no party involved wants them to be armed. There already are teams whom carry, to handle crimes where a cop would need to be armed, there is no need at all for normal police to carry a gun as it's obviously working in the UK without.
    What are you talking about? A statistic is just a presentation of data. I'm not asking you to apply statistics to compare cultures, I'm asking why Japan, the UK, and other countries are so different due to culture.

  19. Post #59
    RAPISTS ARE OPPRESSED
    mobrockers2's Avatar
    April 2011
    12,403 Posts
    What are you talking about? A statistic is just a presentation of data. I'm not asking you to apply statistics to compare cultures, I'm asking why Japan, the UK, and other countries are so different due to culture.
    are you questioning whether culture has an effect on a population and why? i can't possibly answer that, I'm not a sociologist.

    Edited:

    you can't compare the statistics because the test group isn't the same, and even if you do, you'll notice few firearm involved incidents in the uk and Japan, and many more in the us.

  20. Post #60
    There are not "plenty of instances". If so, show us.
    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f32_1...245&comments=1

    It really is not fucking hard to find, at all.

  21. Post #61
    Gold Member
    DaCommie1's Avatar
    June 2008
    7,142 Posts
    are you questioning whether culture has an effect on a population and why? i can't possibly answer that, I'm not a sociologist.

    Edited:

    you can't compare the statistics because the test group isn't the same, and even if you do, you'll notice few firearm involved incidents in the uk and Japan, and many more in the us.


    Just under ten thousand instances of crime involving firearms in the UK is far from "few incidents," and ironically it's actually gone up since the ban on handguns in the late '90s.

    I don't deny, however, that the US has more crime, but that's mostly due to the gang culture bred in the US, not the idea that the cops are armed so the criminals must be too, often American criminals are armed because other criminals are armed, and they need to protect themselves and their investments from opposing gangs.

    I mentioned, though, that Japan has strict gun control, yet all their average officers are armed, however their crime rates are nowhere near those of the US. The average Japanese police officer is prepared for the possibility of an armed conflict, as rare as it may be, they can contain the situation and protect themselves, then call in the SWAT team. In the UK, the average cop doesn't carry a gun (I've heard interesting historical anecdotes as to why, it's not due to the "lack" of gun crime), and therefor is unprepared for an armed confrontation, and unable to defend themself in the event of one. The situation is not controlled until a SWAT team arrives, which could take a while and cost lives in the process.

    Violent crime may not happen often, but it happens, and it's best that all officers are prepared to face a violent, armed criminal on equal ground, else the criminal will have the advantage in the situation, and that can, as has been shown with the deaths of those two officers, be fatally dangerous.

    Giving a cop a gun will not make them a trigger-happy nut, it will not make them any more oppressive than they are now, and it is an absolutely minuscule to the point of being completely negligible possibility that their gun will ever be taken from their holster in the line of duty. As long as they receive appropriate training in the handling of firearms and the use of force this won't lead to some sort of violent police oppression in the UK, nor will it somehow make it easier for criminals to get guns, at least, no easier than it already is (surprisingly easy, hundred pounds a gun, 5 a bullet). In order to be able to effectively combat something like that, an officer needs to be on at least equal ground, and that's accomplished with a handgun.

  22. Post #62
    RAPISTS ARE OPPRESSED
    mobrockers2's Avatar
    April 2011
    12,403 Posts


    Just under ten thousand instances of crime involving firearms in the UK is far from "few incidents," and ironically it's actually gone up since the ban on handguns in the late '90s.

    I don't deny, however, that the US has more crime, but that's mostly due to the gang culture bred in the US, not the idea that the cops are armed so the criminals must be too, often American criminals are armed because other criminals are armed, and they need to protect themselves and their investments from opposing gangs.

    I mentioned, though, that Japan has strict gun control, yet all their average officers are armed, however their crime rates are nowhere near those of the US. The average Japanese police officer is prepared for the possibility of an armed conflict, as rare as it may be, they can contain the situation and protect themselves, then call in the SWAT team. In the UK, the average cop doesn't carry a gun (I've heard interesting historical anecdotes as to why, it's not due to the "lack" of gun crime), and therefor is unprepared for an armed confrontation, and unable to defend themself in the event of one. The situation is not controlled until a SWAT team arrives, which could take a while and cost lives in the process.

    Violent crime may not happen often, but it happens, and it's best that all officers are prepared to face a violent, armed criminal on equal ground, else the criminal will have the advantage in the situation, and that can, as has been shown with the deaths of those two officers, be fatally dangerous.

    Giving a cop a gun will not make them a trigger-happy nut, it will not make them any more oppressive than they are now, and it is an absolutely minuscule to the point of being completely negligible possibility that their gun will ever be taken from their holster in the line of duty. As long as they receive appropriate training in the handling of firearms and the use of force this won't lead to some sort of violent police oppression in the UK, nor will it somehow make it easier for criminals to get guns, at least, no easier than it already is (surprisingly easy, hundred pounds a gun, 5 a bullet). In order to be able to effectively combat something like that, an officer needs to be on at least equal ground, and that's accomplished with a handgun.
    My point was that you can't compare the statistics and say 'yes they need guns!'.

    I don't think they need guns, for the sole reason that they don't want guns, and if they do want guns, they already can get one.

    Edited:

    They themselves are perfectly capable of assessing the situation, their job, and decide whether or not they want to carry a firearm. They massively decide not to, and thus I don't think you should force them to.

  23. Post #63
    Dennab
    August 2012
    1,022 Posts
    My brother is a detective and honestly I wouldn't feel safe having him go out on duty without a weapon. You guys can argue that if cops didn't have weapons, criminals wouldn't need them either and that's complete crap. Would there be less criminals carrying around weapons? I would say definitely but for the sake of those who risk their lives,to serve, protect and save the lives of innocent citizens, I think handguns are a necessity.

    These aren't people who apply for a license and walk out the door with machine guns, these are officers of the law who are thoroughly trained and investigated before being hired.

  24. Post #64
    Gold Member
    Nikita's Avatar
    April 2005
    1,927 Posts
    You should divide those numbers by population.

    More people = more incidents.

  25. Post #65
    Gold Member
    Memobot's Avatar
    July 2006
    4,573 Posts
    You should divide those numbers by population.

    More people = more incidents.
    Also, as carrying handguns is an offence, the figures would inevitably go up if behaviour doesn't change. The graph means nothing really.

  26. Post #66
    This probably isn't a good idea
    Camundongo's Avatar
    October 2007
    3,383 Posts
    Considering that we're currently at a 30 year low for crime in the UK, with gun crime down 16% and knife crime down 5% on the previous year, I would argue that we don't need routinely armed police. What happened in Manchester was a tragedy, yes, but seeing as it was two police officers called out to a routine burglary call who were then ambushed with grenades and firearms, I don't think them being armed would have a difference to the outcome.

  27. Post #67

    October 2012
    1 Posts
    dragon dildos will make them niggas run in fear.

    (User was banned for this post ("Not debating" - Megafan))

  28. Post #68
    Corewarp3's Avatar
    June 2008
    636 Posts
    I feel that it's up to the individual police officer to decide what types of 'tools/weapons' to walk around with where and when. c:

  29. Post #69
    Gold Member
    -n3o-'s Avatar
    November 2009
    5,692 Posts
    I think this certain situation here shows that police officers need to be armed to protect not just the community but themselves from people like this:


  30. Post #70
    RAPISTS ARE OPPRESSED
    mobrockers2's Avatar
    April 2011
    12,403 Posts
    I think this certain situation here shows that police officers need to be armed to protect not just the community but themselves from people like this:

    Err, I don't see anyone getting hurt in this video, they called in extra cops with riot gear and they arrested him (from what I can see). I don't see how shooting the guy would have been a better ending..

  31. Post #71
    Garb is the dry stuff in the corner of your eyes when you just wake up.
    Garb's Avatar
    May 2010
    1,947 Posts
    Err, I don't see anyone getting hurt in this video, they called in extra cops with riot gear and they arrested him (from what I can see). I don't see how shooting the guy would have been a better ending..
    There are many other possible ways this could have ended, they we're pretty lucky no-one got hurt.

  32. Post #72
    Gold Member
    matt.ant's Avatar
    September 2006
    4,582 Posts
    Err, I don't see anyone getting hurt in this video, they called in extra cops with riot gear and they arrested him (from what I can see). I don't see how shooting the guy would have been a better ending..
    You don't need to actually kill the person, just pointing a gun at someone is often enough for them to surrender as they know they can't win

  33. Post #73
    RAPISTS ARE OPPRESSED
    mobrockers2's Avatar
    April 2011
    12,403 Posts
    You don't need to actually kill the person, just pointing a gun at someone is often enough for them to surrender as they know they can't win
    Yes because people who go swinging machetes at cops in the middle of the street are usually very sane and reasonable.

  34. Post #74
    Rayjingstorm's Avatar
    June 2010
    1,536 Posts
    Err, I don't see anyone getting hurt in this video, they called in extra cops with riot gear and they arrested him (from what I can see). I don't see how shooting the guy would have been a better ending..
    Having a firearm does not necessitate it's use, it simply allows for it should the need arise. It seems rather odd to me, albeit I'm from the US, that one crazed individual brandishing a machete in the streets would necessitate twenty or so odd police officers. "Don't bring a batton (and or trash bin) to a machete fight." It seems one or two officers with hand guns could have assuaged the individual more quickly and with less risk to the lives of everyone involved, as apposed to a giant mass of glorified citizens with sticks and plexi-glass shields. I understand the premise, and respect anyone who would serve as a UK police officer, but in practice I find the strategy wanting.

  35. Post #75
    RAPISTS ARE OPPRESSED
    mobrockers2's Avatar
    April 2011
    12,403 Posts
    Having a firearm does not necessitate it's use, it simply allows for it should the need arise. It seems rather odd to me, albeit I'm from the US, that one crazed individual brandishing a machete in the streets would necessitate twenty or so odd police officers. "Don't bring a batton (and or trash bin) to a machete fight." It seems one or two officers with hand guns could have assuaged the individual more quickly and with less risk to the lives of everyone involved, as apposed to a giant mass of glorified citizens with sticks and plexi-glass shields. I understand the premise, and respect anyone who would serve as a UK police officer, but in practice I find the strategy wanting.
    Don't ye think that's rather pompous? I don't see US police officers with their little guns doing a better job at all.

  36. Post #76
    BorisJ's Avatar
    August 2012
    177 Posts
    Baton and stungun would be more than enough to keep me happy; if any weapon is even needed. That being said, I do live in one of the 'safest' cities in the UK.

  37. Post #77
    Rayjingstorm's Avatar
    June 2010
    1,536 Posts
    Don't ye think that's rather pompous? I don't see US police officers with their little guns doing a better job at all.
    I'll concede that was a rather hyperbolic statement, but I'm just trying to point out the inherent inefficiency of a system whereby the act of subduing one individual with only a knife necessitates more than one or two officers, let alone ten or twenty. I mean to say that I would prefer a smaller amount of more effective forces, as apposed to a large amount of under-equipped ones. Again, this is an opinion and I have nothing to substantiate my claims that it would have helped in this situation besides my own intuition.

  38. Post #78

    October 2012
    4 Posts
    In my opinion they should definitley be armed. Not neccesarily make use of it but someone would be less likely to attack an officer if he knew he was armed.

  39. Post #79
    RAPISTS ARE OPPRESSED
    mobrockers2's Avatar
    April 2011
    12,403 Posts
    I'll concede that was a rather hyperbolic statement, but I'm just trying to point out the inherent inefficiency of a system whereby the act of subduing one individual with only a knife necessitates more than one or two officers, let alone ten or twenty. I mean to say that I would prefer a smaller amount of more effective forces, as apposed to a large amount of under-equipped ones. Again, this is an opinion and I have nothing to substantiate my claims that it would have helped in this situation besides my own intuition.
    none of us know, that's why i choose to stand by the officers themselves whom all agree they do not need to carry a firearm. and it's not like they can't carry, they may choose to, they just don't.

  40. Post #80
    Rayjingstorm's Avatar
    June 2010
    1,536 Posts
    none of us know, that's why i choose to stand by the officers themselves whom all agree they do not need to carry a firearm. and it's not like they can't carry, they may choose to, they just don't.
    If it were true that they are more effective without a gun, I would support it. If I were paying more to support larger police forces of under-equipped men so that they could be less effective in protecting me and my family, I wouldn't give a damn as to what they prefer. Hypothetically speaking, of course.