Switch Theme:

Should the British Police be armed?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Big Fat Gospel of Menoth





The other side of the internet

 dæl wrote:
 Kaldor wrote:
IMO, it's vitally important for the police to be able to defend themselves with lethal force where it's warranted.


Why would you ever need to use lethal force to defend yourself? Surely temporarily incapacitating someone serves the same purpose without anyone actually dying. How can it ever be warranted? In this thread we have seen people claim it's warranted to inflict violence on a non violent protest because of some perceived threat.

In Britain we don't kill the worst criminals after due process, so why would anyone grant the police the right to do so without a shred of evidence that the person is even a criminal?


Because attaining incapacitation is not always possible. Someone coming at you with a gun, quick what less-than-lethal tool are you going to use? Tazer only incapacitates as long as the peson is being tazed and has a limited operating range. After that, they're virtually normal. Pepper spray as has been mentioned doesn't do crap against someone with the will to do something and again limited operating range. A baton is close range. Bean bag shotgun, less-than-lethal but a hit in the head is going to kill someone so I would take it you're against it.

How about this scenario: Officer was just clubbed in the head with a brick, losing consciousness. Temporary measures would be ineffective. Suspect has claimed an intent to kill. What is the officer to do?

Every person that has been against firearms so far has neglected that officers are still humans and citizens, not superman. The right to defend oneself from bodily harm still applies and as an officer they also have an obligation to every other citizen as well. It's not like they pull out their guns for traffic stops. Guns are used when suspects are using weapons with intent to kill. Sorry we can't drag the jury out along with the cop, but I honestly can't give a damn about the hundreds of people who invite lawful use of lethal force to be used against them. I'd rather they die than an officer.

(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

RAGE

Be sure to use logic! Avoid fallacies whenever possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies 
   
Made in us
Fate-Controlling Farseer





Fort Campbell

 dæl wrote:
 Kaldor wrote:
IMO, it's vitally important for the police to be able to defend themselves with lethal force where it's warranted.


Why would you ever need to use lethal force to defend yourself? Surely temporarily incapacitating someone serves the same purpose without anyone actually dying. How can it ever be warranted? In this thread we have seen people claim it's warranted to inflict violence on a non violent protest because of some perceived threat.

In Britain we don't kill the worst criminals after due process, so why would anyone grant the police the right to do so without a shred of evidence that the person is even a criminal?


When someone has opened fire on you, they should return fire with a taser? Walk up to within 10' of the guy and pepper spray him? If a perp is actively charging you with a knife, or other object that can inflict death, they should run away?

Or are you going to throw out the "shoot to wound" line, because that one is just as silly.

Deadly force is sometimes required.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/23 08:11:43


Full Frontal Nerdity 
   
Made in gb
Avatar of the Bloody-Handed God






Inside your mind, corrupting the pathways

The number of times police in the UK are fired upon every year is minute. Specialist armed response units with regular officers being unarmed is a perfectly viable method of operation for our police given how few guns are in circulation in the UK.

We lose very few officers in the line of duty to any causes; arming them will not change this.

   
Made in us
Fate-Controlling Farseer





Fort Campbell

 SilverMK2 wrote:
The number of times police in the UK are fired upon every year is minute. Specialist armed response units with regular officers being unarmed is a perfectly viable method of operation for our police given how few guns are in circulation in the UK.

We lose very few officers in the line of duty to any causes; arming them will not change this.


May not be a large number, but it is on the rise. Especially shooting related.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/53677/

Edit: Or was at the time of this article, I see now it was written in 08.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/23 08:33:01


Full Frontal Nerdity 
   
Made in gb
Avatar of the Bloody-Handed God






Inside your mind, corrupting the pathways

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Firearms_crime

Remember also that firearms statistics in the UK include numbers of crimes involving fake and air weapons.

Edit: Not particularly up to date, but showing the representative historical level of gun crime in the UK.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/23 08:37:40


   
Made in us
Fate-Controlling Farseer





Fort Campbell

 SilverMK2 wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Firearms_crime

Remember also that firearms statistics in the UK include numbers of crimes involving fake and air weapons.

Edit: Not particularly up to date, but showing the representative historical level of gun crime in the UK.


The issue isn't how many crimes are committed by fire arms. It's how many times deadly weapons are used against officers. Knifes, clubs, broken beer bottles, screw drivers, etc... they all can kill. I know our police officers are generally not trained to disarm someone with a knife, by hand. I'm pretty sure your's aren't either. I've been studying martial arts my whole life, and I wouldn't want to try to disarm a knife weilding perp.

Being armed with a fire arm gives police one more layer of protection between them and death. And when deaths and serious injuries sustained by officers are on the rise, then maybe a review of policies are warranted.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/23 08:40:34


Full Frontal Nerdity 
   
Made in gb
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran





As SilverMk2 said the number of times an officers life is actually threatened is minute. I would like to add that this number would pale in comparison with the number of times members of the publics lives would be threatened and, on occasion, taken if every officer was armed. The police in this country have repeatedly shown themselves to be corrupt, and have caused a number of very unfortunate incidents over recent years. I am failing to think of a single case where anyone has been brought to justice for crimes committed. Because of this there is very little faith in the police, even in law abiding communities, and until this is seen to change there will be very little support for granting the right to carry a lethal weapon to your everyday, untrained bobby.

The most telling figure from the wiki article posted
The overall homicide rates per 100,000 (regardless of weapon type) reported by the United Nations for 1999 were 4.55 for the U.S. and 1.45 in England and Wales.


I don't want a more violent society, and arming the police is an unnecessary escalation.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/23 09:03:54


 
   
Made in au
Devestating Grey Knight Dreadknight





Australia

 dæl wrote:
 Kaldor wrote:
IMO, it's vitally important for the police to be able to defend themselves with lethal force where it's warranted.


Why would you ever need to use lethal force to defend yourself? Surely temporarily incapacitating someone serves the same purpose without anyone actually dying. How can it ever be warranted? In this thread we have seen people claim it's warranted to inflict violence on a non violent protest because of some perceived threat.

In Britain we don't kill the worst criminals after due process, so why would anyone grant the police the right to do so without a shred of evidence that the person is even a criminal?


Wow, really?

First of all, a taser is not a replacement for a firearm. It fires one shot, is not effective on thick clothing, takes too long to reload, and is not guaranteed to be effective.

Second of all, why would they need to use lethal force? I dunno, maybe if they were attacked by someone attempting to kill or seriously injure them, or someone else?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 dæl wrote:

The most telling figure from the wiki article posted
The overall homicide rates per 100,000 (regardless of weapon type) reported by the United Nations for 1999 were 4.55 for the U.S. and 1.45 in England and Wales.


I don't want a more violent society, and arming the police is an unnecessary escalation.


Or how about we look at the flipside:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Australia (with armed police) has a rate of 1.0, while the UK has a rate of 1.2 with unarmed police.

How about you arm your police, and reduce your homicide rates?

Or perhaps we can abandon this nonsense notion that arming police will somehow create a more violent society, or drive the homicide rate up?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/23 10:09:08


"Did you ever notice how in the Bible, when ever God needed to punish someone, or make an example, or whenever God needed a killing, he sent an angel? Did you ever wonder what a creature like that must be like? A whole existence spent praising your God, but always with one wing dipped in blood. Would you ever really want to see an angel?" 
   
Made in us
Fate-Controlling Farseer





Fort Campbell

Well, his main argument was that police are too corrupt to be trusted with fire arms...

Full Frontal Nerdity 
   
Made in gb
Avatar of the Bloody-Handed God






Inside your mind, corrupting the pathways

You have to look at other factors that contribute to homicide rates; we have a much larger population, more densely packed with much larger wealth disparities.

The USA has fully armed police but a much higher homicide rate so guns does not automatically equal a peaceful society where everyone is blue and works for the greater good.

   
Made in gb
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran





 Kaldor wrote:


First of all, a taser is not a replacement for a firearm. It fires one shot, is not effective on thick clothing, takes too long to reload, and is not guaranteed to be effective.

Second of all, why would they need to use lethal force? I dunno, maybe if they were attacked by someone attempting to kill or seriously injure them, or someone else?

 dæl wrote:

The most telling figure from the wiki article posted
The overall homicide rates per 100,000 (regardless of weapon type) reported by the United Nations for 1999 were 4.55 for the U.S. and 1.45 in England and Wales.


I don't want a more violent society, and arming the police is an unnecessary escalation.


Or how about we look at the flipside:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Australia (with armed police) has a rate of 1.0, while the UK has a rate of 1.2 with unarmed police.

How about you arm your police, and reduce your homicide rates?

Or perhaps we can abandon this nonsense notion that arming police will somehow create a more violent society, or drive the homicide rate up?


Firstly, being attacked by someone does not give you the right to kill them. The fact you seem to think it does speaks wonders.
Secondly, the main concern in this debate is not protection for the police, it is protection for the public. This summer there was a shooting on 5th Avenue, police pursued the suspect which resulted in a firefight. 9 members of the public were shot in the crossfire by the police. This is what happens when firearms are given to people without the correct training and skillset (and you base an argument that police should have guns because an old chap was lax in his work?).
Thirdly, it will vastly increase the number of guns on the streets, as criminals will arm themselves, and people will take guns off the police. Are you aware that around one in ten of police shot in the US are shot with their own weapon?

On the homicide rates a comparison between different continents is probably not going to give a good idea so how about we look at two countries very close in culture. Norway, which doesn't arm its police has a rate of 0.6. Sweden arms it's police, it's rate is 1.0.

Of course arming the police creates a more violent society. It means criminals arm themselves and would vastly increase the number of people killed by the police. More people will die unnecessarily so that what? A copper can feel a bit safer? Thanks but I'd much rather the people feel safe.
   
Made in us
Fate-Controlling Farseer





Fort Campbell

What world do you live in where you think that the split second you have to make a decision when someone is attacking you, possibly trying to kill you, is enough time to formulate a plan to ensure that the person is stopped with minimal harm?

I recall a scenario were I was training for a deployment. The exercise was in escorting an insurgent that we've detained to a collection point. The "insurgent" attacked me, from 5 feet away he charged me. it took him literally the blink of an eye to get on me.

In that situation I had no time to think about what I was going to do. Had it been a real world situation I had one option and one option only to ensure I was going to see my family again, and that would be to put one in his chest. The only thing I could have assumed there was that his plan would be to kill me.

When you are dealing with a criminal element there is risk involved. There is danger. There are situations where deadly force is the only recourse. Where deadly force is the only safe option.

You are living in a fantasy world if you believe otherwise.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/09/23 10:39:22


Full Frontal Nerdity 
   
Made in gb
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran





So in that split second you should reach for a gun and hope you get a shot off before they are on you, because if you don't then there is a chance that they might get the weapon, which they can turn on you and then the public. If the weapon you have is non lethal then it reduces the risk to everyone.

I live in England, and the police here don't want guns, and the public don't want them to have them either.
   
Made in gb
Oberstleutnant





Back in the English morass

 Grey Templar wrote:
One incident proves nothing for your argument.


Its one highly visable incident becuase the victim died. They were undoubtably others. If anyone, irrespective of who it is, assaults me I will fight back.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 dæl wrote:

Firstly, being attacked by someone does not give you the right to kill them. The fact you seem to think it does speaks wonders.


It does actually, but only if your own or an others life is in iminent danger and lethal force is your only option. It sould always be a last resort though.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/09/23 10:53:16


RegalPhantom wrote:
If your fluff doesn't fit, change your fluff until it does
The prefect example of someone missing the point.
Do not underestimate the Squats. They survived for millenia cut off from the Imperium and assailed on all sides. Their determination and resilience is an example to us all.
-Leman Russ, Meditations on Imperial Command book XVI (AKA the RT era White Dwarf Commpendium).
Its just a shame that they couldn't fight off Andy Chambers.
Warzone Plog 
   
Made in us
Fate-Controlling Farseer





Fort Campbell

 dæl wrote:
So in that split second you should reach for a gun and hope you get a shot off before they are on you, because if you don't then there is a chance that they might get the weapon, which they can turn on you and then the public. If the weapon you have is non lethal then it reduces the risk to everyone.

I live in England, and the police here don't want guns, and the public don't want them to have them either.


And what if they weapon that they already have isn't? What then? The scenarios are countless, and they're encountered everyday by law enforcement and military personnel worldwide.

British Police don't want them. Good for them. But you are arguing that the use of deadly force can not be justified, and you are flat out wrong.

Full Frontal Nerdity 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Leerstetten, Germany

I am a big pro-gun guy, always have been.

But guns are not the magical safety button for police officers. Sometimes, the safer you think you are the more lax you can get.

When I was doing my EMS training we were given a very good quote by our instructor regarding hostile scenes and asking for police backup:

"Remember that just having a cop there doesn't mean your scene is safe. Every time a cop gets hurt or dies there was also a cop with a gun there to keep things safe. Always be aware and always have a backup plan."

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/23 10:59:34


 
   
Made in gb
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran





Palindrome wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
One incident proves nothing for your argument.


Its one highly visable incident becuase the victim died. They were undoubtably others. If anyone, irrespective of who it is, assaults me I will fight back.


 dæl wrote:

Firstly, being attacked by someone does not give you the right to kill them. The fact you seem to think it does speaks wonders.


It does actually, but only if your own or an others life is in iminent danger and lethal force is your only option. It sould always be a last resort though.


If you're referring to Ian Tomlinson, then remember the dodgy autopsy results and the lack of any punishment for the bloke that killed him. I don't want people who can effectively get away with murder having more efficient ways of murdering people who are walking along.

Reasonable force is a strange one, it's not really up to you to decide what is reasonable - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defence_in_English_law#Reasonable_force

djones520 wrote:
 dæl wrote:
So in that split second you should reach for a gun and hope you get a shot off before they are on you, because if you don't then there is a chance that they might get the weapon, which they can turn on you and then the public. If the weapon you have is non lethal then it reduces the risk to everyone.

I live in England, and the police here don't want guns, and the public don't want them to have them either.


And what if they weapon that they already have isn't? What then? The scenarios are countless, and they're encountered everyday by law enforcement and military personnel worldwide.

British Police don't want them. Good for them. But you are arguing that the use of deadly force can not be justified, and you are flat out wrong.


There is a very big difference between law enforcement and the military. Maybe its a culture clash and that's how its viewed over there, but I would hate for that to be the case this side of the pond. The majority of criminals are not armed here, so arming police will increase the number of guns on the street.

Deadly force, if the only available option to save lives, can be justified (but that is only due to the ineffectiveness of non lethal weaponry to incapacitate quickly). But is not the answer to someone running at you, as you claimed. If you give the police guns they will see it as an option at times when it is not necessary.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/09/23 11:33:46


 
   
Made in us
Imperial Admiral




 dæl wrote:

Why would you ever need to use lethal force to defend yourself? Surely temporarily incapacitating someone serves the same purpose without anyone actually dying. How can it ever be warranted? In this thread we have seen people claim it's warranted to inflict violence on a non violent protest because of some perceived threat.

How would you recommend "temporarily incapacitating" someone running at you with, say, a knife in their hand?

Taser? Sure, could do. What if you miss? You only get one shot. What if they're wearing an anorak?

Mace? Eh, you can work through it if you're properly motivated.

Melee combat? You just told us all how woefully inept and untrained the British cops are, so the chances that they're jujitsu masters is probably pretty slim.

The use of lethal force to defend yourself, incidentally, is warranted when someone else uses lethal force against you. Or threatens to. In the case above, how do you know if the guy running at you with the knife is going to stop stabbing you just short of killing you? You don't, of course. In your view, it seems as though an individual would not be authorized to protect themselves with a firearm until they'd been stabbed to a certain, arbitrary point where it became clear the guy was in fact trying to kill them.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Leerstetten, Germany

 Seaward wrote:
Taser? Sure, could do. What if you miss? You only get one shot.


The models our cops use can fire once with the darts, then they can be used like a regular stun gun.

So it's still an option after you miss, but not an ideal one.
   
Made in gb
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran





I will reiterate, it is not a good idea to endanger every member of society so that one copper in a particularly rare circumstance can incapacitate someone lethally rather than in the way they have been doing for years. With a gun you would probably only get one shot, if you missed you just gave a gun to some crazy who up till now only had a knife.

To answer your question, in that instance you could use a tazer, CS gas or an extendible baton. All things which are carried by the police here, and all would be at a distinct advantage against a knife, especially when you are wearing a stab-proof vest and have at least one other copper with you.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/23 12:44:06


 
   
Made in gb
Oberstleutnant





Back in the English morass

 dæl wrote:

Reasonable force is a strange one, it's not really up to you to decide what is reasonable - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defence_in_English_law#Reasonable_force


I am in the army so I get taught about the use of force every year (I have even had to teach it a few times) and I have always been told that reasonable force is proportionate force.

RegalPhantom wrote:
If your fluff doesn't fit, change your fluff until it does
The prefect example of someone missing the point.
Do not underestimate the Squats. They survived for millenia cut off from the Imperium and assailed on all sides. Their determination and resilience is an example to us all.
-Leman Russ, Meditations on Imperial Command book XVI (AKA the RT era White Dwarf Commpendium).
Its just a shame that they couldn't fight off Andy Chambers.
Warzone Plog 
   
Made in au
Devestating Grey Knight Dreadknight





Australia

 dæl wrote:
Firstly, being attacked by someone does not give you the right to kill them. The fact you seem to think it does speaks wonders.


Woah woah woah, if someone is attacking you with the intent to kill you or cause serious injury, it absolutely gives you the right to retaliate with lethal force. This isn't just my opinion, it's the legal basis (almost universally) for justifiable use of lethal force. There are other caveats, which I won't get into as it'll just sidetrack the conversation, but the end result is yes, if someone is attacking and trying to kill or seriously injure you, you are absolutely justified in responding with lethal force.

Secondly, the main concern in this debate is not protection for the police, it is protection for the public.


It's absolutely not. The purpose of the police is to ensure that the public can go about it's duties day to day without the fear of becoming a victim of crime. The purpose of arming police is to enable them to protect themselves first and foremost, and bystanders second. Now, I put it in that order purely because generally it is the police officer themselves who will be the target of such an attack, not because the lives of LEOs are more important than the public. Armed response units are called in to deal with siege situations, or to tackle hard targets. Those aren't jobs for beat coppers. The beat copper should have a gun, because sometimes people will try and kill them and sometimes they will need to shoot at someone to protect themselves. Or to protect others.

This summer there was a shooting on 5th Avenue, police pursued the suspect which resulted in a firefight. 9 members of the public were shot in the crossfire by the police. This is what happens when firearms are given to people without the correct training and skillset (and you base an argument that police should have guns because an old chap was lax in his work?).
Thirdly, it will vastly increase the number of guns on the streets, as criminals will arm themselves, and people will take guns off the police. Are you aware that around one in ten of police shot in the US are shot with their own weapon?


My point with that anecdote was not that police should be armed. IMO, that's a given. It was to illustrate that the necessity for using lethal force is a lot wider than some people appreciate.

The situation at the Empire State Building was a cluster feth, and no mistake. But that's no more a reason to disarm police than a mistaken dose of drugs at a hospital is a reason to ban pharmaceuticals.

On the homicide rates a comparison between different continents is probably not going to give a good idea so how about we look at two countries very close in culture. Norway, which doesn't arm its police has a rate of 0.6. Sweden arms it's police, it's rate is 1.0.


Oh for...

Really?

You want to push the envelope on this one?

Ok, let's see your peer reviewed studies indicating conclusively that societies with armed police forces have higher homicide rates, exclusively due to the armed police.

I double dare you.

Because all the evidence I have to hand indicates that maybe, and this is just a crazy thought, that homicide rates (and over all violence) have more to do with cultural, societal, educational and economic factors. Weird, huh?

 dæl wrote:
To answer your question, in that instance you could use a tazer, CS gas or an extendible baton. All things which are carried by the police here, and all would be at a distinct advantage against a knife, especially when you are wearing a stab-proof vest and have at least one other copper with you.


This is what I mean about the public being wildly uneducated about operational policing. You've literally got no idea what you're talking about here, and it shows.

"Did you ever notice how in the Bible, when ever God needed to punish someone, or make an example, or whenever God needed a killing, he sent an angel? Did you ever wonder what a creature like that must be like? A whole existence spent praising your God, but always with one wing dipped in blood. Would you ever really want to see an angel?" 
   
Made in gb
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran





 Kaldor wrote:
You've literally got no idea what you're talking about here, and it shows.


I can assure you I have a far greater knowledge of British culture and whether it would be a good idea for police officers to be walking the streets of this country armed, how this will affect peoples view of the police and whether the police will abuse this power, than someone from an entirely different culture.

The public's safety is far more important than whether in a very rare (although it would become less so if the police were armed) instance the police are threatened.

As to whether two people armed with weaponry of far greater range are in a better position than one with a knife, well it's kind of obvious.

If you wish to quote a piece of peer reviewed research then please do, I would be interested to read such. Every bit of sociological research I've seen has concluded that arming police, much like the death penalty, makes a society more violent.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/09/23 13:58:31


 
   
Made in gb
Avatar of the Bloody-Handed God






Inside your mind, corrupting the pathways

 Seaward wrote:
What if they're wearing an anorak?


What if they are wearing a bullet proof vest? What if they are DRIVING A TANK?!?!

Hypotheticals are hypothetical. The fact is that in the UK guns are not required by police, they are not desired by the majority of police officers and they are not wanted by the vast majority of the population.

It has already been pointed out how little gun crime there is in the UK and how few officers are killed in the line of duty. Having guns around would not really help increase the survival rate for police officers on the street, which seems to be the main suggestion as to why to arm the police in the first place. Combined with that are the downsides to arming everyone with a badge; cost, increased need for training and security, increased risks of accidents (including accidental shootings, unlawful shootings, etc) and so on.

As has also been pointed out, other countries where the police are not routinely armed and with similar gun control to the UK are not having to have mass police burials as their police force is routinely gunned down/stabbed/attacked, nor are their streets suffering from horrific levels of crime...

   
Made in gb
Oberstleutnant





Back in the English morass

I think the complete lack of debate about this in the UK tells you all you need to know about the desire of the British public to arm the police.

RegalPhantom wrote:
If your fluff doesn't fit, change your fluff until it does
The prefect example of someone missing the point.
Do not underestimate the Squats. They survived for millenia cut off from the Imperium and assailed on all sides. Their determination and resilience is an example to us all.
-Leman Russ, Meditations on Imperial Command book XVI (AKA the RT era White Dwarf Commpendium).
Its just a shame that they couldn't fight off Andy Chambers.
Warzone Plog 
   
Made in us
Imperial Admiral




 SilverMK2 wrote:
 Seaward wrote:
What if they're wearing an anorak?


What if they are wearing a bullet proof vest? What if they are DRIVING A TANK?!?!

The problem with that slippery slope right there is, I actually gave a pretty reasonable what-if - I'd assume you're not going to argue that parkas are uncommon?

Hypotheticals are hypothetical. The fact is that in the UK guns are not required by police, they are not desired by the majority of police officers and they are not wanted by the vast majority of the population.

Fantastic. Frankly, I couldn't care less what you guys do or do not do with regards to your police. My response was to the nutbagtastic assertion that you do not have a right to defend yourself with lethal force if someone is attempting to use lethal force against you. Thus, the scope of my arguments are pretty narrow.

As has also been pointed out, other countries where the police are not routinely armed and with similar gun control to the UK are not having to have mass police burials as their police force is routinely gunned down/stabbed/attacked, nor are their streets suffering from horrific levels of crime...

It's also been pointed out that other Commonwealth countries where the police are armed haven't seen a huge uptick in gun violence.

I'll admit, I find it adorably quaint that your police attempt to protect the public with whistles and polite requests, but again, ain't my country, y'all can do what you like.
   
Made in gb
Oberstleutnant





Back in the English morass

 Seaward wrote:

I'll admit, I find it adorably quaint that your police attempt to protect the public with whistles and polite requests, but again, ain't my country, y'all can do what you like.


If the murder rate comparison posted earlier in the thread is accurate the unarmed British police seem to be quite a lot more effective at protecting the public than the armed US police. I'm not sure what you think is quaint about that.

RegalPhantom wrote:
If your fluff doesn't fit, change your fluff until it does
The prefect example of someone missing the point.
Do not underestimate the Squats. They survived for millenia cut off from the Imperium and assailed on all sides. Their determination and resilience is an example to us all.
-Leman Russ, Meditations on Imperial Command book XVI (AKA the RT era White Dwarf Commpendium).
Its just a shame that they couldn't fight off Andy Chambers.
Warzone Plog 
   
Made in gb
Avatar of the Bloody-Handed God






Inside your mind, corrupting the pathways

 Seaward wrote:
The problem with that slippery slope right there is, I actually gave a pretty reasonable what-if - I'd assume you're not going to argue that parkas are uncommon?


We are far too stylish in the UK to wear such garments

But to be serious; the point I was trying to make is that you can always find specific examples to counter generalities.

Fantastic. Frankly, I couldn't care less what you guys do or do not do with regards to your police. My response was to the nutbagtastic assertion that you do not have a right to defend yourself with lethal force if someone is attempting to use lethal force against you. Thus, the scope of my arguments are pretty narrow.


In the UK you don't have that right; you have the right to use "reasonable force" in some specific circumstances. That may include lethal force, but that will be determined after the fact. There is no castle doctrine in the UK or anything else which specifically states you can take someone's life as far as I am aware.

It's also been pointed out that other Commonwealth countries where the police are armed haven't seen a huge uptick in gun violence.


So, unless either crime rate plummeted or police officer deaths plummeted, what exactly is the point of arming the police?

I'll admit, I find it adorably quaint that your police attempt to protect the public with whistles and polite requests, but again, ain't my country, y'all can do what you like.


I find it incredibly saddening that you think the rule of law cannot be established unless backed up with lethal force.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/23 14:17:56


   
Made in us
Shas'la with Pulse Carbine




Buffalo, NY

Has the pro-gun side in America really gotten to the point that it wants to start arming other countries now? And who are all these people with such high regards for cops? The vast majority of my experiences with them have been quite horrible really. Most everyone I know also feels the same. Even my friends and family in law enforcement.
   
Made in gb
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran





 Seaward wrote:
My response was to the nutbagtastic assertion that you do not have a right to defend yourself with lethal force if someone is attempting to use lethal force against you. Thus, the scope of my arguments are pretty narrow.


If someone is trying to kill you you have the right to stop them, if the only way of doing so means that you must take their life then that is an unfortunate consequence. You do not suddenly get carte blanche to kill someone because they tried to kill you. Go and read the wiki article on reasonable force I posted.
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: