"Saying that they have a better rep than US police officers because they don't carry guns, is ignorant and stupid."

"You're right, I was talking about you."

wat.

I don't know what you're saying "wat" to. Never called you stupid or ignorant.

If you're really this hurt by it, pm me. I'm done carrying this out in this thread.

Edited October 9, 201411 yr by Pavelow

Let me be an asshole here and say: yes. I think they should, because my patrols and other British patrols would be far more exciting   

 

On a more serious note, I think police should be armed with more publicity than guns. That's what they are more in need of at the moment.

Agreed. The Greater Manchester Police especially. Worst police service in the UK for domestic abuse. As well as them just being plain ignorant. (I know from experience)

This is actually the kind of attitude I dislike about the armed police forces in the world and those in favour of guns. (I'm very much anti-guns).

Why is it that only a firearm can protect you? Why can you not use your training to disarm the suspect, you have cs spray and a batton and a stab vest. Why must people insist that a gun is the only way to protect yourself?

I have a black belt in a self-defence martial arts (probably why I am so anti-guns/anti-fighting), if someone ran at me with a knife I'd attempt to either run away or render the guy incapable of moving. I'd probably get hurt but at least I get to live. I don't NEED a gun to shoot him in the face 12 times and shout "yeah bitch how d'ya like that?!" because fuck you all I have a gun. There is absolutely no need for a gun, they cause more problems than they solve.

 

And with that attitude comes the floodgate. "Well if the police need guns to protect themselves, we must need guns too" which leads to more deaths and more gun related crime.

 

And saints, please bare in mind I'm not criticising you directly. More so the attitude as a general concept.

It's very easy for foreigners that don't reside in the United States to say that they're against guns. A gun puts my grandmother on equal terms with a 250lbs 6 foot attacker, or a single mother living in a bad neighborhood. Millions of Americans own guns, and only a few incidents involving them happens daily. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Edited October 9, 201411 yr by CriminalKillaz

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

I seriously hate that expression. If we are to look at it in a literal way, it's the actual bullet that kills the person, not whom who pulls the trigger. Consider this, if one was to take away every fire-arm, how often do you think violent crimes would occur? How often do you think someone will beat another to death with their bare hands? The way I see it, a lot less violent crimes would occur if every fire-arm suddenly vanished.

 

Before you're quick to argue with me, I'm quite aware it's near impossible to remove every fire-arm on the planet. It was only a thought, nothing more.

I seriously hate that expression. If we are to look at it in a literal way, it's the actual bullet that kills the person, not whom who pulls the trigger. Consider this, if one was to take away every fire-arm, how often do you think violent crimes would occur? How often do you think someone will beat another to death with their bare hands? The way I see it, a lot less violent crimes would occur if every fire-arm suddenly vanished.

 

Before you're quick to argue with me, I'm quite aware it's near impossible to remove every fire-arm on the planet. It was only a thought, nothing more.

Reibu is right, it is the actual bullet that kills the person, me i just made a 100 on air rifle and gun safety because remeber, one wrong move or that muzzle isn't pointed upward i could accidently shoot someone in the eye and thats it that person is dead, i couldn't live with myself if i ever did that, which is why i'm glad i'am a expert on air rifle safety.

I seriously hate that expression. If we are to look at it in a literal way, it's the actual bullet that kills the person, not whom who pulls the trigger. Consider this, if one was to take away every fire-arm, how often do you think violent crimes would occur? How often do you think someone will beat another to death with their bare hands? The way I see it, a lot less violent crimes would occur if every fire-arm suddenly vanished.

 

Before you're quick to argue with me, I'm quite aware it's near impossible to remove every fire-arm on the planet. It was only a thought, nothing more.

It would be so cool if you were right. Unfortunately, my country again steps in. We have very strict gun laws (thought all the criminals can get a gun with no problem), and we have a high murder rate. Before I got transferred to the economy crimes department I did four months in the regular dept and saw no body with a firearm wound. Stabbed, hanged, beaten, strangled, poisoned, hit by car, burned, drowned, you name it. Sometimes people actually beat each over to death with bare hands. Ironically the most part of major shootings were done by cops who gone crazy. (I'm not saying nobody gets shot, it just very rare). So people kill, yes. 

I seriously hate that expression. If we are to look at it in a literal way, it's the actual bullet that kills the person, not whom who pulls the trigger. Consider this, if one was to take away every fire-arm, how often do you think violent crimes would occur? How often do you think someone will beat another to death with their bare hands? The way I see it, a lot less violent crimes would occur if every fire-arm suddenly vanished.

 

Before you're quick to argue with me, I'm quite aware it's near impossible to remove every fire-arm on the planet. It was only a thought, nothing more.

I've never talked to anyone in my entire life, that's hated the expression. The bullet can only kill the person if the attacker pulls the trigger, thus my previous statement. A gun doesn't just shoot and hit someone. Under that logic pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk, and spoons make people fat.  

 

I don't understand the argument in removing all guns from the planet. Of course there'd be less crime, because that's one less deadly weapon available when crime is committed. That's common sense in my eyes.

Reibu is right, it is the actual bullet that kills the person, me i just made a 100 on air rifle and gun safety because remeber, one wrong move or that muzzle isn't pointed upward i could accidently shoot someone in the eye and thats it that person is dead, i couldn't live with myself if i ever did that, which is why i'm glad i'am a expert on air rifle safety.

I dont understand why some people are using this thread to bash US Law Enforcement, especially if you dont even reside in this country. You shouldnt make assumptions based off of media reports and hearsay, they are notoriously unreliable. 

 

Furthermore comparing the UK to the US is not even relevant, the United States has always allowed guns thus our Law Enforcement must carry them.

 

To my knowledge UK police have never been given guns (except for Armed response, units of course) And you are not allowed to possess a gun in the country. 

 

So you have two totally different cultures here, therefore two different Policing strategies.

 

 

Now onto the topic at hand:

 

I don't believe that UK officers should have guns, for the following reasons.

 

They never have been standard issue so that would be a big undertaking for the agencies.

 

They don't have the need for them based off their level of violence and gun crime.

 

They have armed units ready to respond quickly if the need arises.

 

Now for the naysayers:

 

There is a saying in US Law Enforcement, you know that there will be alteast one gun everywhere you go and that is yours. Guns can escalate situations and that can be very dangerous especially in a country like the UK where guns are hard to come by.

 

So if UK officers were equipped with guns that could make them targets and they could be killed or injured just for their weapons. The weapons could also be stolen from their cars or houses which happens here in the US.

 

Now you say what a minute they need guns in case they encounter an armed suspect???? 

 

Well i do remember a case where two UK officers were ambushed and killed, i dont know the specifics but im sure that is a rare occurrence . Now keep in mind US officers are always armed and they killed a much higher rate so how does that make sense???

 

Law Enforcement no matter where is always going to  be at a disadvantage because you cant see whats coming no matter how armed you are. So the best defense is a great offense so be diligent and don't ever get complacent. 

 

I dont understand why some people are using this thread to bash US Law Enforcement, especially if you dont even reside in this country. You shouldnt make assumptions based off of media reports and hearsay, they are notoriously unreliable. 

 

Furthermore comparing the UK to the US is not even relevant, the United States has always allowed guns thus our Law Enforcement must carry them.

 

To my knowledge UK police have never been given guns (except for Armed response, units of course) And you are not allowed to possess a gun in the country. 

 

So you have two totally different cultures here, therefore two different Policing strategies.

 

 

Now onto the topic at hand:

 

I don't believe that UK officers should have guns, for the following reasons.

 

They never have been standard issue so that would be a big undertaking for the agencies.

 

They don't have the need for them based off their level of violence and gun crime.

 

They have armed units ready to respond quickly if the need arises.

 

Now for the naysayers:

 

There is a saying in US Law Enforcement, you know that there will be alteast one gun everywhere you go and that is yours. Guns can escalate situations and that can be very dangerous especially in a country like the UK where guns are hard to come by.

 

So if UK officers were equipped with guns that could make them targets and they could be killed or injured just for their weapons. The weapons could also be stolen from their cars or houses which happens here in the US.

 

Now you say what a minute they need guns in case they encounter an armed suspect???? 

 

Well i do remember a case where two UK officers were ambushed and killed, i dont know the specifics but im sure that is a rare occurrence . Now keep in mind US officers are always armed and they killed a much higher rate so how does that make sense???

 

Law Enforcement no matter where is always going to  be at a disadvantage because you cant see whats coming no matter how armed you are. So the best defense is a great offense so be diligent and don't ever get complacent. 

Couldn't have said it better myself.