Banning guns would proabably make gun crime decrease, but as we've seen with terrorists, they will use different weapons. Knives and vehicles. I read about them wanting to do checks on people hiring vans. This won't solve anything however. It will simply lead to more people getting hurt with people's cars being hijacked etc. The USA is a massive, massive country and I think people to need to consider that before looking at the UK. The UK is an island, so it is harder to get illegal weapons in to. However, people in the UK need to start getting over their fear of guns; at the end of the day, it is the person behind them that makes the descion. I do however see no need why someone would need to own something to the likes of an M60 or fully automatic AK-47. I'm happy for people to have rights to bear arms, providing those people are vetted, and there are limits to the sorts of weapons a regular person can access. But I think things like school shootings do seem to be an American problem. Look at France, for example. Less restrictive gun laws than the UK, and they rarely have school shootings. The UK only had one, and it illegalized handguns. It just seems guns in the UK are not widely accepted unlike the US, where it is simply the culture. Police officers in the US have to respond with deadly force to some situations due to the situation with the guns; 300 million guns (and more), then chances are, the car you've stopped proabably has one. Look how many officers have been killed in the USA this year alone. The UK has lost two this year, one off duty, and one on duty, both as the result of terror attacks. Let's consider the circumstances of a country before we judge its police force. 

With open carry, it is actually makes life more difficult for cops in the states that have it because how are you supposed to know who is a civillian and who is a criminal? What if, a terrorist managed to overpower a person with it, and then used it. I think British cops do need to have guns, or at least arm some "regular officers". In the UK, our armed officers are incredibly skilled, they are basically the equivelant of U.S SWAT with their tactics and training. Now think about it. Armed officers in the UK go through 9 weeks of training. They are trained to use handguns, carbines, stun grenades, Tasers, baton guns, and are trained to do things like containing buildings and blowing up doors. Wouldn't it just be easier if we do a simplified training course which just teachers the officer how to use a pistol rather than hostage rescue, sniper etc. That is realistically  the only way we are going to get more cops with guns. It's not even just the terrorist threat, there are so many stabbings in the UK and so many of them end up with people killed, then arming officers is the only way to go about doing it. Plastic battons and cans of pepper spray aren't the way to deal with it in the 21st century. 

13 hours ago, qwertyK said:

Banning guns would proabably make gun crime decrease, but as we've seen with terrorists, they will use different weapons. Knives and vehicles. I read about them wanting to do checks on people hiring vans. This won't solve anything however. It will simply lead to more people getting hurt with people's cars being hijacked etc. The USA is a massive, massive country and I think people to need to consider that before looking at the UK. The UK is an island, so it is harder to get illegal weapons in to. However, people in the UK need to start getting over their fear of guns; at the end of the day, it is the person behind them that makes the descion. I do however see no need why someone would need to own something to the likes of an M60 or fully automatic AK-47. I'm happy for people to have rights to bear arms, providing those people are vetted, and there are limits to the sorts of weapons a regular person can access. But I think things like school shootings do seem to be an American problem. Look at France, for example. Less restrictive gun laws than the UK, and they rarely have school shootings. The UK only had one, and it illegalized handguns. It just seems guns in the UK are not widely accepted unlike the US, where it is simply the culture. Police officers in the US have to respond with deadly force to some situations due to the situation with the guns; 300 million guns (and more), then chances are, the car you've stopped proabably has one. Look how many officers have been killed in the USA this year alone. The UK has lost two this year, one off duty, and one on duty, both as the result of terror attacks. Let's consider the circumstances of a country before we judge its police force. 

With open carry, it is actually makes life more difficult for cops in the states that have it because how are you supposed to know who is a civillian and who is a criminal? What if, a terrorist managed to overpower a person with it, and then used it. I think British cops do need to have guns, or at least arm some "regular officers". In the UK, our armed officers are incredibly skilled, they are basically the equivelant of U.S SWAT with their tactics and training. Now think about it. Armed officers in the UK go through 9 weeks of training. They are trained to use handguns, carbines, stun grenades, Tasers, baton guns, and are trained to do things like containing buildings and blowing up doors. Wouldn't it just be easier if we do a simplified training course which just teachers the officer how to use a pistol rather than hostage rescue, sniper etc. That is realistically  the only way we are going to get more cops with guns. It's not even just the terrorist threat, there are so many stabbings in the UK and so many of them end up with people killed, then arming officers is the only way to go about doing it. Plastic battons and cans of pepper spray aren't the way to deal with it in the 21st century. 

I'd have to disagree that the regular arming of police is not going to solve knife crime, firstly because the knife crime isn't directed at cops, it's in most cases directed at gangs, and when you are going against someone with a knife, a gun becomes overkill. I happen to agree that violence through the use of knives is rising here in the United Kingdom, but addressing that via the arming of regular beat cops is not going to solve it.

In order to solve such a thing, we need to provide every single front-line officer with a taser, this is a non-lethal but effective combat to knife crime and terrorists armed with such weapons.

3 hours ago, Ben said:

I'd have to disagree that the regular arming of police is not going to solve knife crime, firstly because the knife crime isn't directed at cops, it's in most cases directed at gangs, and when you are going against someone with a knife, a gun becomes overkill. I happen to agree that violence through the use of knives is rising here in the United Kingdom, but addressing that via the arming of regular beat cops is not going to solve it.

In order to solve such a thing, we need to provide every single front-line officer with a taser, this is a non-lethal but effective combat to knife crime and terrorists armed with such weapons.

 

Exactly!  Tasers, non lethal weapons, are the answer here.  Are knives deadly weapons?  Yes, but guns are completely overkill for the situation.  As Ben said, the knife attacks are directed at others.  Cops aren't psychic, they can't be at a victim's location before it happens and use said gun on perp to prevent the attack.  Guns are situational, much like tasers and batons.  American police almost always resort to pulling out their guns, and look where that gets us.

45 minutes ago, Kallus Rourke said:

 

Exactly!  Tasers, non lethal weapons, are the answer here.  Are knives deadly weapons?  Yes, but guns are completely overkill for the situation.  As Ben said, the knife attacks are directed at others.  Cops aren't psychic, they can't be at a victim's location before it happens and use said gun on perp to prevent the attack.  Guns are situational, much like tasers and batons.  American police almost always resort to pulling out their guns, and look where that gets us.

Although this is soon to change, the Tasers that the UK police use are the old X26 models which only have a single shot mode. (They are however upgrading to the X2). They don't work for some people. There have been instances where the person simply does not react to have the Taser. Especially if they wear things like padded jackets and they are high  on drugs etc. Police officers in the UK have shot people with knives before and they have been justified in doing so. Often in the UK, because suspect's don't match the police's firepower, they surrender when they have a gun drawn on them. There would be no way they could have used Tasers on the London Bridge Attackers. Even if they hadn't been wearing fake suicide vests, I imagine they still would have been killed. Westminster Bridge, maybe a taser could have been used, but considering he had already stabbed an officer to death, then they obviously thought lethal force was justified. And it was. I think maybe regular officers should be taught how to use things like baton guns too. I don't know if they a re really used in the US, but out armed response units and riot police use them in the UK and while they can kill, they can be more effective than a taser.

2 hours ago, Kallus Rourke said:

 

Exactly!  Tasers, non lethal weapons, are the answer here.  Are knives deadly weapons?  Yes, but guns are completely overkill for the situation.  As Ben said, the knife attacks are directed at others.  Cops aren't psychic, they can't be at a victim's location before it happens and use said gun on perp to prevent the attack.  Guns are situational, much like tasers and batons.  American police almost always resort to pulling out their guns, and look where that gets us.

 

I actually remember an ex-US soldier interviewed by a TV channel during the events of Fergusson. He explicitly said that police was doing things wrong with their weapons as, in the army, you're taught to -not- escalate things and to point your weapon at someone only when you're ready to pull the trigger. While police just draw their guns for almost the slightest thing and thus just make things escalate quickly and dangerously. Here, at 9:54.

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 30, 20178 yr by Hystery

5 minutes ago, Hystery said:

 

I actually remember an ex-US soldier interviewed by a TV channel during the events of Fergusson. He explicitly said that police was doing things wrong with their weapons as, in the army, you're taught to -not- escalate things and to point your weapon at someone only when you're ready to pull the trigger. While police just draws their guns for almost the slightest thing and thus just make things escalate quickly and dangerously. Here, at 9:54.

 

  Hide contents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's the other problem with guns and passing them out like candy.  It doesn't matter how well you train your officers, training and the real deal are different things.  When you're in the moment, and you remember 'Hey, I have a gun! I can use it', training tends to go out the window and suddenly it's a power factor.  You know you're armed, so you whip it out like two guys fighting for dominance.  You got your gun, other person has their weapon, or in some cases, unarmed, and it becomes a fight of egos more than anything else.  "I have a gun, back off or I'll use it" instead of "I have a taser, I'm going to use this first and save lethal for last."

Edited August 30, 20178 yr by Kallus Rourke

9 hours ago, Kallus Rourke said:

 

Exactly!  Tasers, non lethal weapons, are the answer here.  Are knives deadly weapons?  Yes, but guns are completely overkill for the situation.  As Ben said, the knife attacks are directed at others.  Cops aren't psychic, they can't be at a victim's location before it happens and use said gun on perp to prevent the attack.  Guns are situational, much like tasers and batons.  American police almost always resort to pulling out their guns, and look where that gets us.

Well, when you have situations like this happening every day, you kinda do have to resort to pulling out your gun. These officers saved lives this day and no one was hurt but the perp because he decided to start shooting at random. Imagine if these officers all had tasers in their hands. An officer would have probably been shot before they were able to take him down. A growing majority of Americans approve of law enforcements current performance, and I can give you citations for that if you like. You and the others here share a very minority view in the US, and nothing will be changed because nothing needs to be changed and most Americans see that. There are problems with law enforcement, but pulling their guns on potentially violent individuals that cause high-speed chases isn't one of them. I will be sure to wear my Blue Lives Matter bracelet with extra pride today.

Or maybe this one?

7 hours ago, Hystery said:

 

I actually remember an ex-US soldier interviewed by a TV channel during the events of Fergusson. He explicitly said that police was doing things wrong with their weapons as, in the army, you're taught to -not- escalate things and to point your weapon at someone only when you're ready to pull the trigger. While police just draw their guns for almost the slightest thing and thus just make things escalate quickly and dangerously. Here, at 9:54.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

 

 

 

That ex-US soldier is a moron because law enforcement shouldn't necessarily be following the same procedures for dealing with weapons as we do in the armed forces. Statistically speaking, more police officers were killed in 2016 than US soldiers in Afghanistan AND Iraq. Police officers face the greater threat of being shot at and targeted than we do, granted they don't plant IED's in Chicago and Detroit. We lost about 140 officers in 2016. That's pretty much one 1 officer killed a week. That should speak for itself. There's a higher chance of danger as an officer here in the US than as a soldier over in ISIS and Taliban land. You can't necessarily apply the same fundamentals to police officers as you do American soldiers because they're put under completely different circumstances.

 

If you want citations, I can provide them. 

 

I encourage you to visit your nearest military installation and ask around about our current RoE. Our rules of engagement are completely ridiculous, and they've caused countless deaths. At one point, our guys couldn't even engage targets even if they were shot at first until they received approval from higher command. The public really doesn't know about our RoE. These websites and regulations out here on the internet are outdated.

6 hours ago, Kallus Rourke said:

 

That's the other problem with guns and passing them out like candy.  It doesn't matter how well you train your officers, training and the real deal are different things.  When you're in the moment, and you remember 'Hey, I have a gun! I can use it', training tends to go out the window and suddenly it's a power factor.  You know you're armed, so you whip it out like two guys fighting for dominance.  You got your gun, other person has their weapon, or in some cases, unarmed, and it becomes a fight of egos more than anything else.  "I have a gun, back off or I'll use it" instead of "I have a taser, I'm going to use this first and save lethal for last."

Or, "Hey, I'm not an idiot and I won't break the law, to begin with. And If I am an idiot and do decide to break the law, I'm not gonna run. And if I do run and get caught, I'm not going to put the police into a position to where they feel that they have to use their tools on me. And if they do use their tools on me, it's my fault because I'm an idiot."

Edited August 30, 20178 yr by TheDivineHustle

57 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

That ex-US soldier is a moron because law enforcement shouldn't necessarily be following the same procedures for dealing with weapons as we do in the armed forces. Statistically speaking, more police officers were killed in 2016 than US soldiers in Afghanistan AND Iraq. Police officers face the greater threat of being shot at and targeted than we do, granted they don't plant IED's in Chicago and Detroit. We lost about 140 officers in 2016. That's pretty much one 1 officer killed a week. That should speak for itself. There's a higher chance of danger as an officer here in the US than as a soldier over in ISIS and Taliban land. You can't necessarily apply the same fundamentals to police officers as you do American soldiers because they're put under completely different circumstances.

 

He's a moron for saying that police officers should work on de-escalating dangerous situations rather than resorting to draw their guns on almost every occasion, which dramatically escalate things into a possibly deadly outcome? He's a moron, for saying that the good outcome for a police officer would be for both him AND the suspect to be alive? I personally don't think he's a moron. Drawing your gun should be a last resort, drawing your gun should be only when you're ultimately sure you're going to shoot what you're going to aim at. Otherwise, a police officer should work through talking and dissuading whoever is in front of him to put his gun down/surrender. Like this police officer in this video:

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

Rather than drawing his gun, he's going to talk the person through, and eventually going to make him put his knife down. If that happened in the US, the guy with the knife would have been shot dead by 15 rounds in the chest.

 

Besides, for US soldiers to actually have a lower death rate than police officers speaks for itself. Either they're sent to very, very peaceful areas (because everyone knows Afghanistan is a walk to the park compared to Detroit and such), OR... or... they actually know how to deal with an armed threat.

Edited August 30, 20178 yr by Hystery

4 hours ago, Hystery said:

 

He's a moron for saying that police officers should work on de-escalating dangerous situations rather than resorting to draw their guns on almost every occasion, which dramatically escalate things into a possibly deadly outcome? He's a moron, for saying that the good outcome for a police officer would be for both him AND the suspect to be alive? I personally don't think he's a moron. Drawing your gun should be a last resort, drawing your gun should be only when you're ultimately sure you're going to shoot what you're going to aim at. Otherwise, a police officer should work through talking and dissuading whoever is in front of him to put his gun down/surrender. Like this police officer in this video:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2

I guess that'd be a matter of opinion then because I disagree. If you pose a threat to the public or the officer, you'll have a weapon pointed directly at you. 

Quote

Besides, for US soldiers to actually have a lower death rate than police officers speaks for itself. Either they're sent to very, very peaceful areas (because everyone knows Afghanistan is a walk to the park compared to Detroit and such), OR... or... they actually know how to deal with an armed threat.

1

Or there actually isn't anything happening in Afghanistan. My unit is being deployed to Afghanistan. The Taliban are at an all time low. Insider threats and IED's are the biggest danger to us right now. Have you ever been to Afghanistan and faced the Taliban? I can tell you that the armed threat of the Taliban versus the armed threat of some street thug isn't comparable. I encourage you to walk on to your nearest military installation and tell soldiers that have deployed that the situations are comparable.

Quote

Rather than drawing his gun, he's going to talk the person through, and eventually going to make him put his knife down. If that happened in the US, the guy with the knife would have been shot dead by 15 rounds in the chest.

I'd say it depends on the department and the circumstances behind the situation. Not all departments in the US are equipped with tasers, so what other tool do they have? You expect the police to use pepper spray and maybe a nightstick or baton against a knife? That's playing a dangerous game, not a game I'd play as an officer. Maybe if we arm the officer with a knife It'd be even? :)

 

Edited August 30, 20178 yr by TheDivineHustle

This is why Taser doesn't always work

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41098088

8 hours ago, TheDivineHustle said:

I guess that'd be a matter of opinion then because I disagree. If you pose a threat to the public or the officer, you'll have a weapon pointed directly at you. 

Or there actually isn't anything happening in Afghanistan. My unit is being deployed to Afghanistan. The Taliban are at an all time low. Insider threats and IED's are the biggest danger to us right now. Have you ever been to Afghanistan and faced the Taliban? I can tell you that the armed threat of the Taliban versus the armed threat of some street thug isn't comparable. I encourage you to walk on to your nearest military installation and tell soldiers that have deployed that the situations are comparable.

I'd say it depends on the department and the circumstances behind the situation. Not all departments in the US are equipped with tasers, so what other tool do they have? You expect the police to use pepper spray and maybe a nightstick or baton against a knife? That's playing a dangerous game, not a game I'd play as an officer. Maybe if we arm the officer with a knife It'd be even? :)

 

You'd think with guns they'd give them tasers. There needs to be regulations that state that every police department must have access to at least one officer with a taser, because its generally the small departments who don't have tasers. The average size of a PD is 4 officers after all, at least, so I've heard

1 hour ago, qwertyK said:

This is why Taser doesn't always work

 

Nothing always works, though.  There have been cases where someone is so tweaked out on drugs not even getting shot phases him.  Just because guns tend to have more stopping power doesn't mean they are 100% effective.

4 hours ago, Kallus Rourke said:

 

Nothing always works, though.  There have been cases where someone is so tweaked out on drugs not even getting shot phases him.  Just because guns tend to have more stopping power doesn't mean they are 100% effective.

Well, a gun will always be 100% effective in the literal sense. It won't phase him, but it will kill him. It may not always be the best choice, but it will always eliminate the threat at the very least. 

Edited August 31, 20178 yr by TheDivineHustle

1 minute ago, TheDivineHustle said:

Well, a gun will always be 100% effective in the literal sense. It may not always be the best choice, but it will always eliminate the threat at the very least. 

 

Yes, but not always as quickly as you want.  Again, a guy jacked up on PCP may be able to eat one or two bullets, which gives him time to shoot you, someone else, or do something else harmful.  So guns are effective, but they are not the problem solver by any stretch of the imagination.

21 minutes ago, Kallus Rourke said:

 

Yes, but not always as quickly as you want.  Again, a guy jacked up on PCP may be able to eat one or two bullets, which gives him time to shoot you, someone else, or do something else harmful.  So guns are effective, but they are not the problem solver by any stretch of the imagination.

I doubt it man. I'm sure he'd be down after the first hit, especially if some vital artery is pierced.

 

No one here is suggesting that guns will completely solve the problem. We're saying that a gun in certain situations can definitely create a safer and better outcome for the officer and any bystanders. The suspect isn't who we're worried about. 

 

Kind of like Trump said: When police officers put the suspect in a vehicle and they put their hand on the suspects head? Remove the hand. 

Edited August 31, 20178 yr by TheDivineHustle

10 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

I doubt it man. I'm sure he'd be down after the first hit, especially if some vital artery is pierced.

 

I'm not going to link it because there's video of the incident, but there was an incident where a guy on PCP was shot 45 times because he soaked up the bullets from officers while continuing to walk and shoot.

 

There was also this:  http://www.theblaze.com/news/2015/09/08/shock-video-man-high-on-pcp-tasered-twice-hit-with-a-baton-and-pepper-sprayed-and-police-say-it-had-no-effect/

 

PCP and some of those others are a helluva drug.  They can make you feel invincible to the point where bullets don't phase you.

 

Edited August 31, 20178 yr by Kallus Rourke

It also can happen that a gun jams. Although rare, that's what saved a police officer's life a couple years back when a suspect took it from him and tried to shoot him. Guns aren't 100% reliable.