Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
As you know perfectly well, British police do not carry guns, except for our armed response units.

Are you really making the argument that British Police do not carry firearms, except for those ones who do?

Why do some British police feel a need to go about with loaded guns that don't have a safety catch?

 Henry wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2015/10/9/sheriffs-tips-empty-chambers/
https://www.concealedcarry.com/safety/carrying-with-a-round-in-the-chamber-to-do-or-not-to-do/

Sorry Dreadclaw, but those are certainly not definitive on the matter. Especially not when I read something like...

And they have heard stories about people who have accidentally shot themselves. Well, let me let you in on a little secret ... those are not accidents. They are nearly always a case of negligence

As soon as I read something as ignorant as that I know the person is not to be trusted in relation to gun safety.

Here is the rest of the point being made; "They are nearly always a case of negligence—that is, someone fooling with the pistol and causing the trigger to be depressed when they didn't intend for it to be."

It is a perfectly reasonable distinction. If a firearm discharges because of a mechanical fault with the firearm then that is an accident as it is unexpected and unintended. If a firearm discharges because someone pulled the trigger on a loaded gun without ensuring that the weapon was clear then that is negligence. In short was the consequence of the action foreseeable.

This is however an interesting sidebar in that most departments Officers will not be instructed to carry on a loaded chamber as it greatly reduces the utility of their sidearm. Attempting to rack a slide to chamber a round when confronted with danger is a distraction at best. When you factor in other circumstances (rapidly advancing assailant, adrenaline dump, non-dominant hand being used for something else like shining a flashlight, etc.) the pistol has done from a valuable self defense tool to a paperweight

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Here is the rest of the point being made; "They are nearly always a case of negligence—that is, someone fooling with the pistol and causing the trigger to be depressed when they didn't intend for it to be."

I read that. It remains ignorant. I reduced the quote for brevity, rather than that this extra bit alleviated the foolishness of the sentiment.

Your point about department policy on carrying a round loaded was something I did consider earlier, though I confess to being completely ignorant about myself. Is it common, or even a procedure used by the majority?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes, it supports my point. American police feel a need to go about with loaded guns that don't have a safety catch.

Why?

The lack of a traditional safety selector is an intended feature and does not diminish the safety of the firearm. Like many modern pistols, Glocks have a actuator in the trigger that must be depressed before the trigger can be engaged, and this serves the same purpose. Glocks are not less safe than other firearms, and in fact with an internal drop safety are safer than older firearms without this feature.

So far as "why do American police carry loaded guns", it's because America has a awful lot of firearms and police need to presuppose that criminals have a very good chance of having a gun as well.

 Ouze wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes, it supports my point. American police feel a need to go about with loaded guns that don't have a safety catch.

Why?

The lack of a traditional safety selector is an intended feature and does not diminish the safety of the firearm. Like many modern pistols, Glocks have a actuator in the trigger that must be depressed before the trigger can be engaged, and this serves the same purpose. Glocks are not less safe than other firearms, and in fact with an internal drop safety are safer than older firearms without this feature.

So far as "why do American police carry loaded guns", it's because America has a awful lot of firearms and police need to presuppose that criminals have a very good chance of having a gun as well.

My XD-9 doesn't have a traditional safety switch. You know what does? My service M-9. When wearing it, it's maybe a 50/50 if the safety is accidentally knocked to fire because I brush up against something. That's impossible to do with my XD-9.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes, it supports my point. American police feel a need to go about with loaded guns that don't have a safety catch.

Why?

Because we are a country that has a major organized crime problem. Groups like Black Lives Matter who have popular chants about killing police officers. A major gang culture that is present in just about any urban environment which trains it's members in criminal pursuits, including violent confrontation with cops. etc...

Groups like BLM eh? In a paragraph referencing organized crime and gangs?

This will end well. I hope somebody just got a bingo.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes, it supports my point. American police feel a need to go about with loaded guns that don't have a safety catch.

Why?

Because we are a country that has a major organized crime problem. Groups like Black Lives Matter who have popular chants about killing police officers. A major gang culture that is present in just about any urban environment which trains it's members in criminal pursuits, including violent confrontation with cops. etc...

you spend way to much time watching fox news, the originators of fake news. I know the chant you're talking about and it was edited.

when it comes to BLM you have to ask, do they have a valid point? They sure do. There's nothing scarier to a paranoid police force than a unarmed black man.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
As you know perfectly well, British police do not carry guns, except for our armed response units.

Are you really making the argument that British Police do not carry firearms, except for those ones who do?

Why do some British police feel a need to go about with loaded guns that don't have a safety catch?

Armed Response Units are not ordinary officers. They're not the police patrolling the streets and responding to calls. They're called when something is escalated. So the situation of a trigger happy rookie in a dark alleyway shooting a woman in her pajamas doesn't happen.

Canadian,German and French officers carry firearms. This is becoming anti American trolling.

 Frazzled wrote:
Canadian,German and French officers carry firearms. This is becoming anti American trolling.

When a copper from one of those countries shoots and kills an unarmed Aussie in her pjs then I'm sure those countries will become more involved in this thread. However, until they do, I'd say it isn't so much anti-American trolling as a continued disbelief as to how that happens in a country and how a large chunk of the population in it can still jam their fingers in their ears and scream "nah nah mate it's all good".

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes, it supports my point. American police feel a need to go about with loaded guns that don't have a safety catch.

Why?

Probably because an unloaded gun isn't good for much. Others have explained to you why a 1911-style external safety is not the necessity that people unfamiliar with firearms believe it to be.

 Henry wrote:
Is that the current politically correct euphemism for being unsafe?
"No sir, I wasn't being unsafe. I was removing the need for safety manipulation."

No, it's the plain-speaking way of referring to toggling the safety.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
As you know perfectly well, British police do not carry guns, except for our armed response units.

Are you really making the argument that British Police do not carry firearms, except for those ones who do?

Why do some British police feel a need to go about with loaded guns that don't have a safety catch?...

I am making that argument.

As you will see from the government statistics on police in the UK armed police are a small proportion of the total number. They are the special units required for duties such as anti-terrorism or protection of VIPs.

It is completely different to the USA, where apparently it's routine for all police to go around armed on patrol.

To argue about whether the pistol has one type of safety mechanism or another, is as pointless as to argue about whether it was 9mm or 10mm calibre, or a 12 round or 15 round magazine. Those technical details are irrelevant to the question of why US police feel a need to be so ready with their weapons.

(he fixed it)

The problem aren't the specific guns used by american cops, the absence of safety catch is irrelevant. Many other police forces around the world use the same weapons but don't gun down random people with the same american rate.

The fact that a cop can walk free even if the threat was not real is absolutely scary. If a cop make a mistake like this one that's manslaughter or even murder.

If you are in doubt you MUST NOT shoot. The american police thinks about the opposite which is wrong if not abhorrent.

Being a cop is a dangerous workthat implies putting your life at risk for the safety of the community, you have to accept that if you want to pursue that career. Shooting towards people is a big deal, you must be certain of the threat, you can't shoot towards the unknown because you heard a suspicious sound or you have seen a shadow.

Allowing cops to kill innocent people without the presence of real threats is not part of the american culture, or at least I hope it's not. This is an issue that must be fixed not something that must be upheld, and addressing that it's certainly more pro america rather than anti america. Because a country in which people are not killed for no reason it's a better country.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:

 AdeptSister wrote:
So the Minneapolis Police Chief just resigned, using this as the reason. This is going to get interesting.

Yes, there was pressure from the Minneapolis city council and the mayor asked her to resign. The chief decided to tender her resignation and it was accepted by the mayor.

What it's really interested is knowing if she was forced to resign because another innocent citizen was murdered by the police or because she criticized that cop using uncommon harsh words against him without listening his version yet.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Groups like BLM eh? In a paragraph referencing organized crime and gangs?

This will end well. I hope somebody just got a bingo.

Seriously. Just look up what the more hardcore members of Black Lives Matter say at their rallies. Not all of them, but a worrying chunk.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Thanks for clarifying a little. I thought you were calling me out for bringing up this guy's origin. I didn't, and tried to make it clear I made an opinion before knowing his origin, thus it was not relevant.

I'll be honest I can't remember if I realised at the time that you weren't the original commentator, that might have played a part, but I'm not sure. Anyhow, my intent wasn't to call you or Xenomancers racist, but just to point out the assumption that his Somali origin meant he was new to the country and that played some role in this event was mistaken.

As for IQ tests, they are basically nonsense anyway, and only partially able to predict intelligence.

They're very good at testing your ability to take IQ tests, but not much else. But even with the problems of the tests ignored, obviously low scores by people in Somalia will come largely from the low standard of education in Somalia, something that wouldn't affect someone who's grown up in the US from an early age. Which that other poster ignored for, you know, reasons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:
In italy if a cop believes that he was in danger and kills someone but he actually had mistaken the situation, he goes to jail. He walks away only if the threat was real.

Are you absolutely certain of that? I don't know of any jurisdiction where there isn't some kind of reasonable person test for the threat perception. Courts are normally uncomfortable with punishing people who took reasonable actions that most people would take, that just happened to be wrong. There typically needs to be some demonstration that the officer's assessment was faulty or negligent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
An accidental discharge is possible, certainly, however it would require the policeman to have his gun loaded and cocked, safety off, and either in his hand or pulled quickly from the holster.

Why did he feel the need to have his gun ready like that?

If the officer felt there was a dangerous situation, why hadn't he got out of the car? Strolling down the road locked and loaded seems amazingly blase.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Groups like BLM eh? In a paragraph referencing organized crime and gangs?

This will end well. I hope somebody just got a bingo.

Seriously. Just look up what the more hardcore members of Black Lives Matter say at their rallies. Not all of them, but a worrying chunk.

What they say? So, not what they actually do then?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Groups like BLM eh? In a paragraph referencing organized crime and gangs?

This will end well. I hope somebody just got a bingo.

Seriously. Just look up what the more hardcore members of Black Lives Matter say at their rallies. Not all of them, but a worrying chunk.

What they say? So, not what they actually do then?

Oh, and there were actually a few cops who got shot too. Those 2 in New York who a guy shot in retaliation for police misconduct across the country.

Seriously. BLM is a whacked out group that really shouldn't get any support from the mainstream just because of their racist behavior and calls(which have been heeded) for killing cops.

Pretending BLM is some sort of violent gang set on murdering people is a favorite past time of people who don't have any real arguments.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Groups like BLM eh? In a paragraph referencing organized crime and gangs?

This will end well. I hope somebody just got a bingo.

Seriously. Just look up what the more hardcore members of Black Lives Matter say at their rallies. Not all of them, but a worrying chunk.

What they say? So, not what they actually do then?

Oh, and there were actually a few cops who got shot too. Those 2 in New York who a guy shot in retaliation for police misconduct across the country.

Seriously. BLM is a whacked out group that really shouldn't get any support from the mainstream just because of their racist behavior and calls(which have been heeded) for killing cops.

Evidence that the man who shot the cops did it because of what some people in the very loose BLM movement said rather than anger unrelated to anything said by them? It is, after all, possible to be aware of police misconduct across the USA and being angry about it without needing to listen to BLM spokespeople. Most of those in this thread, for example.

Edit:

Why bother. The same stupid argument gets made every time, gets rebutted every time, and then just gets repeated the next time it comes in handy.

 d-usa wrote:
Pretending BLM is some sort of violent gang set on murdering people is a favorite past time of people who don't have any real arguments.

Pretending that BLM is not a group of racist and violence inciting people is equally indicative of not having a real argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Oh, and there were actually a few cops who got shot too. Those 2 in New York who a guy shot in retaliation for police misconduct across the country.

I'm sure you will have no problem providing plenty of proof of BLM organizing and calling for police murders.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fPGPTl0ipo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-dr_IhQu-I

I'm sure you are capable of looking up more. BLM is not just words. They've got plenty of actions that backed up their hateful and racist words.

 Henry wrote:
That's not a great response - our cops don't carry guns except for the ones that do?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Are you really making the argument that British Police do not carry firearms, except for those ones who do?

You're both being deliberately obtuse, in the exact same way. That says something about something.

Anyhow, there is a big difference between police officers approaching all situations with a round in the chamber as a matter of course, and a police force where only in high risk situations will officers deploy with firearms.

I'm not making any comment on whether it is better or worse that British cops don't carry. I live in a country where all cops carry pistols, like most countries. And none of the countries with armed cops seems to have the issue with police shootings that the US seems to. So it probably isn't as simple as just being about cops carrying.

But I've gotta comment when you both make an argument so obviously weak. I mean seriously, what's going on? Did you really just not consider at all the difference between routine carry and specific incident carry? Or were you looking to score points, and making an argument you thought you could get away with?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Because we are a country that has a major organized crime problem. Groups like Black Lives Matter who have popular chants about killing police officers. A major gang culture that is present in just about any urban environment which trains it's members in criminal pursuits, including violent confrontation with cops. etc...

I have explained to you, directly, probably a half dozen times now, that organised crime is not a primary cause of murder or violence in the US. I have linked to the same FBI information every single time. But you just keep coming back, repeating the same thing.

tt's almost as if you like your opinion so much you just don't give a gak that it's completely false.

 sebster wrote:

But I've gotta comment when you make an argument that can only be from bad faith, because seriously, an effort to try and describe the difference between cops carrying guns routinely and cops carrying only in high risk responses as 'except for the ones that do' is just not good enough.

This. Firearms officers in the UK police force face very strict training criteria. To become an Authorised Firearms Officer in the UK you need to first gain approval from your superiors before you can even apply. You then have to complete multiple interviews, psychological and physical fitness tests, medical examinations and assessment days before you get permission to even begin the firearms training.

Then, if they manage to complete the training, they will be routinely retested and undergo refresher training in order to retain their authorisation to handle firearms.

Source: Uncle in the Force who has been a firearms officer, firearms instructor and is currently performing close protection duties.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Groups like BLM eh? In a paragraph referencing organized crime and gangs?

This will end well. I hope somebody just got a bingo.

Seriously. Just look up what the more hardcore members of Black Lives Matter say at their rallies. Not all of them, but a worrying chunk.

No. You provide those links for us. I know what members of the group say and do, if you have evidence or information that I don't have, please provide us with those sources.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Pretending BLM is some sort of violent gang set on murdering people is a favorite past time of people who don't have any real arguments.

Pretending that BLM is not a group of racist and violence inciting people is equally indicative of not having a real argument.

Pretending that it is anything beyond a short-hand label used by conservatives and the media for "people who protest the deaths/mistreatment of black people at the hands of the police", which pretty much means that there is no way one person or persons really speaks for them, is ridiculous.

 d-usa wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Oh, and there were actually a few cops who got shot too. Those 2 in New York who a guy shot in retaliation for police misconduct across the country.

I'm sure you will have no problem providing plenty of proof of BLM organizing and calling for police murders.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fPGPTl0ipo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-dr_IhQu-I

I'm sure you are capable of looking up more. BLM is not just words. They've got plenty of actions that backed up their hateful and racist words.

They're also not actually a single, organized group so your argument is basically bunk.

White people are racists, I've seen them speak on YouTube.

Republicans are also a racist organized group:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKW-79sSglA

Edit: Other than pointing out the stupidity of using YouTube as some sort of proof that a large group of people is X, that will be the last reply on the BLM argument that gets made very single time by the same people.

 sebster wrote:
You're both being deliberately obtuse,

But I've gotta comment when you make an argument that can only be from bad faith,

Sebster, I've got to call you out on this because you are normally such a well considered poster. You're talking bollocks.

Killkrazy specifically identified not having a safety catch as being a problem. Nobody argued about whether or not British police should be armed. Certainly neither myself nor Dreadclaw made reference to routine carrying of weapons. And the point of the guns being loaded has been dealt with separately.

It was Killkrazy's specific point about US police having pistols that don't have safety catches that was targeted by the comments you quoted by myself and Dreadclaw. When it was pointed out by Frazzled that this is the same for British police, the argument became that apart from certain units, British police aren't routinely armed, as though this somehow made Frazzled's accurate point invalid. That's a bogus argument that only attempts to shift the goalposts.
The point is that of those British police that are armed, they too do not have pistols with safety catches, thus Killcrazy's argument specifically targeting US police for not having safety catches is shown to be a bad argument.

And I really have no idea how you can conclude that that logical chain can be the result of bad faith. You really are talking bollocks.


Edit, to answer Killkrazy below without adding more posts: Honest enquiry is great. But if the questions are honest and the answers are honest, then we also have to be honest about the reception of those answers. You asked about US cops going around with loaded guns without safety catches. Both points have been addressed. The point on safety catches was shown to be wrong. If you follow the chain of discussion between me and Dreadclaw you can see the basic difference of opinion regarding having weapons made ready at all times.

If you are going to make general points then people may agree or disagree with those generalities. When you make specific points, which you did, they are going to be addressed specifically. That is not bad faith - it is precisely the opposite. It is honest answers to honest questions. You have to be honest enough to accept those answers or argue against them.

My point (because it isn't an argument) all along has been to ask why US police find it necessary to go around all over the place ready to shoot people.

The fact that I don't know what type of safety catch is on a Glock or a Sig does not invalidate that basic point.

It seems to me that anyone resident in the USA has an interest in not being shot by the police, like this unfortunate lady who was simply reporting her knowledge of a possible violent crime to officers of the law.

Is it not a topic that people would want to approach in a spirit of sincere enquiry?

Its been answered. The US has a major organized crime and gang problem. That's why we need to have armed police, and why they are, justifiably, jumpy.

This exact situation is likely one of police negligence. But most others are ones with more grey area. We will have to see what the exact situation with this was and why he had his gun out. But the problem is with this specific officer, not the fact he had a gun.