The argument that guns are hard to obtain, is null and void. It's like drugs. Just because they're illegal and hard to obtain, doesn't mean they're not prominent. It'l super easy to buy them, if you know what you're doing. If a thug wants to carry a gun, believe me, he'll get one. 

 

Saying that they have a better rep than US police officers because they don't carry guns, is ignorant and stupid. The problems in the US aren't caused because they have guns, it's psychological (maturity, power trip, racism, etc.). I don't see any reason why they shouldn't. Especially with the way the world is going. 

 

It's funny how ironic that was. That how in a proper, polite debate where I am simply stating an opinion, you call me "ignorant and stupid". Look who's talking.

 

And don't even try and argue you weren't talking to me. Both parts was directly aimed at my response. 

 

"You oughta learn some Respect" - M_Y_COP_HISPANIC

Edited October 9, 201411 yr by Mr.Quiggles

< snip >

Edited June 23, 20242 yr by tobeymaguire

Here's my opinion, I think they should be allowed to carry guns in the trunk of their car you know like the standard pistol or something, but other than that there's really no need for them to carry guns due to the low amount of gun violence.

Gun is a great responsibility. Here, in Russia, police is taught to target legs, hands, to fire warning shots, and though they are allowed to carry guns they use them extremely rare. But, for example, in the US cops are trained to aim at the center of mass (I'm not an expert but I suppose it's deadly). So, basically, having a gun is a right to kill. That's a terrible responsibility, really. 

 

Does anyone remember a high-speed pursuit of Corvette in LA, when one officer fired a beanbag at unarmed suspect but others misunderstood it and shot the guy down? Of course it was justified, you resist - you get got, and all that. But still, the guy is dead.

 

So I think no. UK police managed to last till today without guns, so I guess they'll manage to keep peace there for another couple of ages. 

Edited October 9, 201411 yr by Hastings

No need for the police to carry guns here, they do just fine without them, they've done a fine job keeping us all safe without firearms so I see no reason why we should give every officer a gun, it should stay restricted to firearms units.

Not with UK's current gun laws.

You also have to keep in mind, you don't see that much in the news here about police officers getting shot at and thats because people know that shooting a cop isn't going to go well for them. If you shoot a cop here they'll do everything in their power to prove that you did it whilst trying to stop your gangs illegal activities. They now how to efficiently deal with situations like this meaning they don't need a gun.

Keep in mind, too, that the UK didn't always have its current gun laws, but it never had routinely armed cops. Unarmed police are not an effect of guns being generally illegal, because they predate that by quite a bit. If I had to guess, I'd guess that the reason they were unarmed is that it was easier to get people to accept the idea of a police force if they were unarmed -- like the blue uniforms, it makes them very different from the military.

UK Police don't carry guns for a multitude of reasons. The UK law bans all guns, as a result we don't have any need for the police to be armed. Our armed response units are very quick to respond. The people saying 2 minutes is a long time need to take into account that 2 minutes to fully arm, brief and mobilize a team, dispatch them THROUGH LONDON to an incident is actually stupidly efficient, most people in London can't get anywhere in 2 minutes. (I guess flashing blue lights help though)

 

There is also the fact that we can solve issues without the need to shoot someone in the face instantly, then ask questions, even when someone is waving a gun around.

Not all officers carry a tazer standard issue either, we don't need them 99% of the time. UK police carry a batton, and CS spray as safety and that is it. Most powerful weapon we have is a badge and the ability to take all kinds of abuse.

 

 

In reality a shots fired call would result in a Trojan unit (armed response) or another form of armed response depending on the size of the situation. When police officers get shot in the UK it is typically because the suspect has a concealed weapon and this wasn't initially known. For example if a neighbor reports a domestic disturbance they may not state or know that the suspect has a gun and that's why most units dispatched to these calls have tasers and sprays as their expecting the worst case scenario and only one suspect.

 

I live in A rough part of my city and it's rare that officers are killed as the sprays and tasers prove to be effective.

Like I've already said, I'm very ignorant on how the UK handles their problems. What would happen if an officer in the UK was ambushed by someone who just happened to have a firearm? Or if an officer walked up to a car he pulled over, and the person started shooting? Wouldn't that officer be defenseless since he'd only have a taser or baton? I'm not trying to be a douche, I just really don't know.

I have to fall on the no side of this, for a few different reasons.

 

First of all, I am guessing when you refer to the UK you just mean England, Scotland and Wales, because here, Northern Ireland, every officer carry's a side arm and has a Shotgun and Assault Rifle in their vehicles. Because, you know, we're special.

 

But, as I said, I would say no because the Police being armed, in my opinion just makes people more 'afraid' of them. "The best Police Force is one which interacts with the Public and works with them, for them." - Said someone important that I forget the name of.

 

Also, as previously mentioned, the UK has one of, if not the lowest Gun Crime rates in the world, so there is no apparent need for officers to carry weapons.

 

Here, the Crime rates are twice, and in some cases thrice, the rates of mainland Britain. Therefore, in my opinion it is right for Police Officers to be armed here. Also, Paramedics and Fire Fighters are able to apply for a permit to carry a side arm during their work hours, unlike mainland Britain.

 

So, that's random knowledge and opinions spilled out, but my overall opinion is no firearms is better.

 

After all, never try to fix what isn't broken....

Like I've already said, I'm very ignorant on how the UK handles their problems. What would happen if an officer in the UK was ambushed by someone who just happened to have a firearm? Or if an officer walked up to a car he pulled over, and the person started shooting? Wouldn't that officer be defenseless since he'd only have a taser or baton? I'm not trying to be a douche, I just really don't know.

The chance that someone "happens to pull out a gun" is virtually zero. A person cannot legally acquire a gun and then carry it around in such a way that it happens in the states or other countries.

As a result there is no need for us to equip firearms for safety.

If a gun is spotted in the UK by a member of the public armed response units typically deal with it instantly.

Gun is a great responsibility. Here, in Russia, police is taught to target legs, hands, to fire warning shots, and though they are allowed to carry guns they use them extremely rare. But, for example, in the US cops are trained to aim at the center of mass (I'm not an expert but I suppose it's deadly). So, basically, having a gun is a right to kill. That's a terrible responsibility, really. 

They must spend months and months training Russian police to be the best marksmen if they are shooting arms and legs with a pistol.

 

I'm not sure how many people have shot pistols here but they are the most difficult weapons to fire accurately. I have shot probably well over 5,000 rounds from pistols and about 2,000 of that was through my personally owned Glock 23 that I used in the police academy. It was much more challenging for me to qualify with my Glock in the police academy than it was for me to qualify with my M16 in the Army and the furthest distance I shot from in the police academy was only a little over 20 meters compared to the Army where I shot at targets up to 300 meters. So when people say that the police should try and aim for arms or legs I just laugh and know that they have probably never fired a pistol (or any firearm for that matter) because if they had they would know how difficult that is.

 

But you are correct, police in the US shoot for center mass. That doesn't necessarily mean they shoot for the chest, it is whatever the largest target that is exposed. So if the suspect's head is the only thing sticking up then you aim for the head, if his entire body is exposed then you shoot for the chest, etc. What they taught me in the police academy is that you are not shooting to kill, you are shooting to stop the threat.

They must spend months and months training Russian police to be the best marksmen if they are shooting arms and legs with a pistol.

 

I'm not sure how many people have shot pistols here but they are the most difficult weapons to fire accurately. I have shot probably well over 5,000 rounds from pistols and about 2,000 of that was through my personally owned Glock 23 that I used in the police academy. It was much more challenging for me to qualify with my Glock in the police academy than it was for me to qualify with my M16 in the Army and the furthest distance I shot from in the police academy was only a little over 20 meters compared to the Army where I shot at targets up to 300 meters. So when people say that the police should try and aim for arms or legs I just laugh and know that they have probably never fired a pistol (or any firearm for that matter) because if they had they would know how difficult that is.

 

But you are correct, police in the US shoot for center mass. That doesn't necessarily mean they shoot for the chest, it is whatever the largest target that is exposed. So if the suspect's head is the only thing sticking up then you aim for the head, if his entire body is exposed then you shoot for the chest, etc. What they taught me in the police academy is that you are not shooting to kill, you are shooting to stop the threat.

I'm sensing a trace of sarcasm in your response... Well, first things first, it's really really hard to shoot straight with Makarov pistol, the only service weapon except AK our patrol police uses. As an army lieutenant I spent some time at the shooting range and only got qualified by luck. (Fired 8 shots from 20 meters, hit 3, and pretended two overs were mine)

 

As far as police training goes, I know for certain they don't spend too much time practicing except special units. But yeah, they do shoot legs and arms. Usually that happens when perp tries to touch the weapon, so it's a very close distance. I know couple cases when they aimed at the body, but the suspect usually survived. 

 

Road patrol shoots tires from a moving patrol car using same pistol - you could check it on Youtube. 

I personally never heard that a police officer in our city used AK to fire at people, it usually just a warning shot, so no chance to test accuracy here.

 

And, finally, regarding that part of your post:

 when people say that the police should try and aim for arms or legs I just laugh and know that they have probably never fired a pistol

I don't tell what they should do, I only tell how they usually do it here. The place I work, we never carry guns, so they don't train us to use them, and I know no police training programs. Just telling my observation.

 

 

What they taught me in the police academy is that you are not shooting to kill, you are shooting to stop the threat.

I guess you still have to cope with the feeling you just ended another life. That was actually the whole point of my post :)

Edited October 9, 201411 yr by Hastings

I'm sensing a trace of sarcasm in your response... Well, first things first, it's really really hard to shoot straight with Makarov pistol, the only service weapon except AK our patrol police uses. As an army lieutenant I spent some time at the shooting range and only got qualified by luck. (Fired 8 shots from 20 meters, hit 3, and pretended two overs were mine)

 

As far as police training goes, I know for certain they don't spend too much time practicing except special units. But yeah, they do shoot legs and arms. Usually that happens when perp tries to touch the weapon, so it's a very close distance. I know couple cases when they aimed at the body, but the suspect usually survived. 

 

Road patrol shoots tires from a moving patrol car using same pistol - you could check it on Youtube. 

I personally never heard that a police officer in our city used AK to fire at people, it usually just a warning shot, so no chance to test accuracy here.

 

And, finally, regarding that part of your post:

 when people say that the police should try and aim for arms or legs I just laugh and know that they have probably never fired a pistol

I don't tell what they should do, I only tell how they usually do it here. The place I work, we never carry guns, so they don't train us to use them, and I know no police training programs. Just telling my observation.

I guess you still have to cope with the feeling you just ended another life. That was actually the whole point of my post :)

No, I was not trying to be sarcastic in my post. I apologize if anything I said seemed sarcastic, that was not the intent of my post. And I didn't mean that you specifically were trying to tell police what they should do, I was referencing what many people say in the US. That part was a little more of a general rant on my part than a response to what you said. You are correct that when a police officer shoots someone they have to deal with what happened and that can be an issue for some officers and that is why most (if not all) agencies require their officers to talk to a psychiatrist after a shooting even if it didn't kill the suspect just to make sure the officer isn't having trouble coping with the situation.

You also have to keep in mind, you don't see that much in the news here about police officers getting shot at and thats because people know that shooting a cop isn't going to go well for them. If you shoot a cop here they'll do everything in their power to prove that you did it whilst trying to stop your gangs illegal activities. They now how to efficiently deal with situations like this meaning they don't need a gun.

They do get stabbed more often. Atleast in your area, Ben :)

 

Police officers in Sweden have sidearms at pretty much any time, and heavier weapons in the trunk in the more violent areas (>my area, for example). Sweden might just have more crime than the UK, and I see no problem that our Officers are armed, but I do not see any problem that the UK officers aren't. 

The reason why is because handguns are illegal in the UK (not sure about the US) and rifles are only legal if used for hunting. I think officers should but should only use em under correct circumstances (like if they are under fire by criminals)

&amp

I think two minutes is pretty good time.

Unless someone is sprinting at you with a knife....

I'm on the fence here. There are genuine reasons for some local forces (such as N. Ireland) to carry guns, but one of the biggest reasons UK bobbies don't carry is the notion of 'Policing by Consent' - I.E. Police should be able to deal with any threat peacefully before it necessitates the use of force,and they require the public's trust in order to fulfill their duties, which by and large they do here. Carrying guns is seen as a threatening action and thus they would lose that trust. If, however, there is a real danger to an officer's life in areas where gang crime and violent crime is higher, such as inner-city Manchester or Glasgow, then I think there should be a safe fallback such as carrying a Rubber bullet gun on their belt, or a shotgun in the back of their patrol cars which can only be used when authorized. There have been situations in the past such as the Manchester shooting, or a situation recently where a man in a traffic stop pulled an illegal revolver and shot an officer in the hand (and he was still disarmed and arrested without the use of guns) when the issue of standard-issue guns were debated in Parliament, but these have never got anywhere as most officers said they didn't want them.

Unless someone is sprinting at you with a knife....

If someone is sprinting at you with a knife you're gonna get stabbed regardless of how quickly the police show up. I mean, you can't exactly say "please wait a moment while I phone the police before you stab me, thanks"

I'm pretty sure that if they would need it, they'd issue cops with guns. As long as they don't need them, why bother? It's only going to cost you quite a lot of money.

 

For good measures, I'll let everyone know what it's like over here, as most people seem to do so.

Over here, cops do have guns on them, it's some 9mm gun but I can't remember what it is. Still, they rarely ever use them, because gun crime isn't that high here, especially against cops. It mainly a precaution in case batons or pepper spray doesn't work.

And if the cops don't have another choice but to shoot someone, they do actually aim for the legs or sometimes arms. It's been ages since someone actually got killed by cops, but they did shoot someone in the leg quite recently.