Should police officers carry guns?

[Vestr-Norig]

I know they are not allowed to do it if not in special cases here in Norway. But I do think they should be allowed to carry it, at least in their car, as they might get in dangerous situations where criminals have weapons.

[The Matthew Islands]

Wow, it must be real posh where you live.

In my town, if you know the right people, you could have a weapon delivered to your door like a delivery service in 30 minutes.

Once in of the amnesty bins they have here for people to anonymously drop weapons in, someone dropped an RPG launcher in.

I am down south, we genrally only shoot clay discs or poor people. The fact I live in a small market town probally helps.

I think it's the small market town bit since I live down south as well.

Well, South-East, but I suppose south all the same.

[DesAnges]

How about this scenario. A person called 911 (or it's equivalent in your country) because they heard a disturbance next door. The dispatcher thinks it is just a minor domestic disturbance where no weapons are needed. An unarmed police officer comes and it turns out that it is a hostage situation with 2 armed gun men holding a family hostage for whatever reason. The unarmed police officer won't be good for anything except target practice for the gun men. If I was in that situation the family was facing I would want armed officers storming in as soon as possible. As long as there are armed and dangerous criminals out there then police officers need to be armed and prepared for whatever danger they may have to face in the line of duty. In Iceland the police are carrying guns now in their patrol cars so they will be prepared if they came across a criminal with a gun (yes Iceland does have a very low crime rate but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen).

Because the last thing the gunmen will do if compromised is shoot the hostages.

[Antoniland]

How about this scenario. A person called 911 (or it's equivalent in your country) because they heard a disturbance next door. The dispatcher thinks it is just a minor domestic disturbance where no weapons are needed. An unarmed police officer comes and it turns out that it is a hostage situation with 2 armed gun men holding a family hostage for whatever reason. The unarmed police officer won't be good for anything except target practice for the gun men. If I was in that situation the family was facing I would want armed officers storming in as soon as possible. As long as there are armed and dangerous criminals out there then police officers need to be armed and prepared for whatever danger they may have to face in the line of duty. In Iceland the police are carrying guns now in their patrol cars so they will be prepared if they came across a criminal with a gun (yes Iceland does have a very low crime rate but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen).

Because the last thing the gunmen will do if compromised is shoot the hostages.

Not all criminals think like that. And if you ask me for the source then that just shows you never watch the news.

[TheClean]

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

[DesAnges]

Because the last thing the gunmen will do if compromised is shoot the hostages.

Not all criminals think like that. And if you ask me for the source then that just shows you never watch the news.

Of course not all criminals think like that. As an aside, you rarely get criminals who randomly take hostages in their own home and stay there. Even if it is a robbery, they'll incapacitate the occupants and make off with the nicked gear ASAP.

The point is, some do. And you can never tell what you are dealing with if you charge in gung ho every time. 9 times out of 10, you'll get away with it; the 10th time, you'll have a dead family on your hands.

Every officer should have some basic negotiating skills, enough to hold up whomever is committing this crime until armed back-up can get there.

That's for the UK, of course. Like I have said before, police in a country where arms are readily available and there are rabid dogs have to be armed. It's ridiculously stupid otherwise.

[Ifreann]

How about this scenario. A person called 911 (or it's equivalent in your country) because they heard a disturbance next door. The dispatcher thinks it is just a minor domestic disturbance where no weapons are needed. An unarmed police officer comes and it turns out that it is a hostage situation with 2 armed gun men holding a family hostage for whatever reason. The unarmed police officer won't be good for anything except target practice for the gun men. If I was in that situation the family was facing I would want armed officers storming in as soon as possible. As long as there are armed and dangerous criminals out there then police officers need to be armed and prepared for whatever danger they may have to face in the line of duty.

What do you think armed police would do if they happened upon that situation? Draw their weapon and start shooting? Course not. They'll back off, call for a negotiator, and hang around, trying to keep the hostage takers from leaving. Should all police, therefore, also be expert negotiators? Should all police be trained for high speed pursuits? And riot control? And riding a motorcycle? And a horse?

If you want them to be prepared for everything, you'll find that they're spending so much time in training that they can't do any policing.

[Johz]

Bet they regret banning fox hunts now, foolish unwashed hippies.

Speaking of posh people, I was in Bristol Museum earlier and a girl with the most Etonian accent possible described a model of an Angler Fish as 'sick'. The cringe was so large that it reverberated back in time and produced the meaning of the word, causing several small fish to become temporaly stuck in the Middle Ages.

The grammar school I have just left* was in (admittedly a relatively nice) inner-city area, but a number of people came from the local town of Solihull, which is a cesspit of posh people who can't afford to move to Just Outside London. It was great fun watching them deal with the violent gangland that is Kings Heath High Street.

And like I say, this was a relatively nice bit of Birmingham.

* Give me a cheer for university education! Give me a cheer for a stale jobs market when we get out! Give me a cheer for a thirty-six grand debt to pay off!

[DesAnges]

How about this scenario. A person called 911 (or it's equivalent in your country) because they heard a disturbance next door. The dispatcher thinks it is just a minor domestic disturbance where no weapons are needed. An unarmed police officer comes and it turns out that it is a hostage situation with 2 armed gun men holding a family hostage for whatever reason. The unarmed police officer won't be good for anything except target practice for the gun men. If I was in that situation the family was facing I would want armed officers storming in as soon as possible. As long as there are armed and dangerous criminals out there then police officers need to be armed and prepared for whatever danger they may have to face in the line of duty.

What do you think armed police would do if they happened upon that situation? Draw their weapon and start shooting? Course not. They'll back off, call for a negotiator, and hang around, trying to keep the hostage takers from leaving. Should all police, therefore, also be expert negotiators? Should all police be trained for high speed pursuits? And riot control? And riding a motorcycle? And a horse?

If you want them to be prepared for everything, you'll find that they're spending so much time in training that they can't do any policing.

Also this.

Can I employ you to speak my mind in such a way that it isn't garbled nonsense?

[Antoniland]

How about this scenario. A person called 911 (or it's equivalent in your country) because they heard a disturbance next door. The dispatcher thinks it is just a minor domestic disturbance where no weapons are needed. An unarmed police officer comes and it turns out that it is a hostage situation with 2 armed gun men holding a family hostage for whatever reason. The unarmed police officer won't be good for anything except target practice for the gun men. If I was in that situation the family was facing I would want armed officers storming in as soon as possible. As long as there are armed and dangerous criminals out there then police officers need to be armed and prepared for whatever danger they may have to face in the line of duty.

What do you think armed police would do if they happened upon that situation? Draw their weapon and start shooting? Course not. They'll back off, call for a negotiator, and hang around, trying to keep the hostage takers from leaving. Should all police, therefore, also be expert negotiators? Should all police be trained for high speed pursuits? And riot control? And riding a motorcycle? And a horse?

If you want them to be prepared for everything, you'll find that they're spending so much time in training that they can't do any policing.

The police WILL use their guns if they feel that the criminals are seriously about to hurt others. It would take like 20 or 30 minutes for a negotiator to arrive and not all criminals can be reasoned with. If an unarmed cop shows up and does negotiating skills and fails then they might just shoot him and kill the witness's (like the family since it escalated to murder) and then get the hell out. At least if an armed cop shows up the family stands a better chance. Many criminals will act very unreasonable when under pressure.

[DesAnges]

What do you think armed police would do if they happened upon that situation? Draw their weapon and start shooting? Course not. They'll back off, call for a negotiator, and hang around, trying to keep the hostage takers from leaving. Should all police, therefore, also be expert negotiators? Should all police be trained for high speed pursuits? And riot control? And riding a motorcycle? And a horse?

If you want them to be prepared for everything, you'll find that they're spending so much time in training that they can't do any policing.

The police WILL use their guns if they feel that the criminals are seriously about to hurt others. It would take like 20 or 30 minutes for a negotiator to arrive and not all criminals can be reasoned with. If an unarmed cop shows up and does negotiating skills and fails then they might just shoot him and kill the witness's (like the family since it escalated to murder) and then get the hell out. At least if an armed cop shows up the family stands a better chance. Many criminals will act very unreasonable when under pressure.

You seem to be flip-flopping a bit here. First you say not all criminals would take out a family; now suddenly they are killing an unarmed officer in cold blood for no reason then butchering a family to clear up witnesses when they are already committing a crime that carries a high sentence.

And surely an unarmed officer carries with him less pressure than an armed one?

[Antoniland]

The police WILL use their guns if they feel that the criminals are seriously about to hurt others. It would take like 20 or 30 minutes for a negotiator to arrive and not all criminals can be reasoned with. If an unarmed cop shows up and does negotiating skills and fails then they might just shoot him and kill the witness's (like the family since it escalated to murder) and then get the hell out. At least if an armed cop shows up the family stands a better chance. Many criminals will act very unreasonable when under pressure.

You seem to be flip-flopping a bit here. First you say not all criminals would take out a family; now suddenly they are killing an unarmed officer in cold blood for no reason then butchering a family to clear up witnesses when they are already committing a crime that carries a high sentence.

And surely an unarmed officer carries with him less pressure than an armed one?

Flip flopping is right. Because criminals are unpredictable. They don't all act the same. And if the criminals are stupid or psychotic enough to kill an officer which some are then it is the unarmed officer that should be scared more since all they can do is retreat. At least the armed cop has a means of defending him/herself and taking out the armed assailant if needed.

[Johz]

What do you think armed police would do if they happened upon that situation? Draw their weapon and start shooting? Course not. They'll back off, call for a negotiator, and hang around, trying to keep the hostage takers from leaving. Should all police, therefore, also be expert negotiators? Should all police be trained for high speed pursuits? And riot control? And riding a motorcycle? And a horse?

If you want them to be prepared for everything, you'll find that they're spending so much time in training that they can't do any policing.

The police WILL use their guns if they feel that the criminals are seriously about to hurt others. It would take like 20 or 30 minutes for a negotiator to arrive and not all criminals can be reasoned with. If an unarmed cop shows up and does negotiating skills and fails then they might just shoot him and kill the witness's (like the family since it escalated to murder) and then get the hell out. At least if an armed cop shows up the family stands a better chance. Many criminals will act very unreasonable when under pressure.

Your criminal has taken hostages. While we cannot rule out the chance that he or she is utterly barmy, I think it is fairly safe to assume that some negotiation may be possible.

Regardless, your point still does not stand. A shootout is not going to automatically save the family. Five cops have a significantly higher chance, though, so your lone cop might as well wait for backup from them, and thus never needed to carry a gun in the first place.

Of course, five armed policemen and a negotiator better than that by far, but I imagine we'd be able to get a negotiator on the phone fairly rapidly, and one of the backup team would have basic training in the subject. Enough, at least, to act as the go-between.

[Yewhohohopia]

Not unless they really, really have to.

[DesAnges]

You seem to be flip-flopping a bit here. First you say not all criminals would take out a family; now suddenly they are killing an unarmed officer in cold blood for no reason then butchering a family to clear up witnesses when they are already committing a crime that carries a high sentence.

And surely an unarmed officer carries with him less pressure than an armed one?

Flip flopping is right. Because criminals are unpredictable. They don't all act the same. And if the criminals are stupid or psychotic enough to kill an officer which some are then it is the unarmed officer that should be scared more since all they can do is retreat. At least the armed cop has a means of defending him/herself and taking out the armed assailant if needed.

Goalposts moving all over the place here.

See Johz's post above. That, combined with my 2 posts and Ifreann's, is a complete argument and refutation of everything you have said.

[Antoniland]

The police WILL use their guns if they feel that the criminals are seriously about to hurt others. It would take like 20 or 30 minutes for a negotiator to arrive and not all criminals can be reasoned with. If an unarmed cop shows up and does negotiating skills and fails then they might just shoot him and kill the witness's (like the family since it escalated to murder) and then get the hell out. At least if an armed cop shows up the family stands a better chance. Many criminals will act very unreasonable when under pressure.

Your criminal has taken hostages. While we cannot rule out the chance that he or she is utterly barmy, I think it is fairly safe to assume that some negotiation may be possible.

Regardless, your point still does not stand. A shootout is not going to automatically save the family. Five cops have a significantly higher chance, though, so your lone cop might as well wait for backup from them, and thus never needed to carry a gun in the first place.

Of course, five armed policemen and a negotiator better than that by far, but I imagine we'd be able to get a negotiator on the phone fairly rapidly, and one of the backup team would have basic training in the subject. Enough, at least, to act as the go-between.

A hostage situation is only one of many many armed gun men situations. There are murders, mass murders, terrorist acts, school/work place shootings, armed robberies, and the like where an armed officer would be 10 times better than an unarmed cop.

[Fionnuala_Saoirse]

Definitely not routinely.

[Ifreann]

What do you think armed police would do if they happened upon that situation? Draw their weapon and start shooting? Course not. They'll back off, call for a negotiator, and hang around, trying to keep the hostage takers from leaving. Should all police, therefore, also be expert negotiators? Should all police be trained for high speed pursuits? And riot control? And riding a motorcycle? And a horse?

If you want them to be prepared for everything, you'll find that they're spending so much time in training that they can't do any policing.

The police WILL use their guns if they feel that the criminals are seriously about to hurt others.

Especially when the criminals are threatening to kill people if the officer goes for their gun.

It would take like 20 or 30 minutes for a negotiator to arrive and not all criminals can be reasoned with. If an unarmed cop shows up and does negotiating skills and fails then they might just shoot him and kill the witness's (like the family since it escalated to murder) and then get the hell out. At least if an armed cop shows up the family stands a better chance.

They also stand a better chance of getting shot.

[Natapoc]

No. Police officers can not be trusted to have or carry guns.

[Ifreann]

Your criminal has taken hostages. While we cannot rule out the chance that he or she is utterly barmy, I think it is fairly safe to assume that some negotiation may be possible.

Regardless, your point still does not stand. A shootout is not going to automatically save the family. Five cops have a significantly higher chance, though, so your lone cop might as well wait for backup from them, and thus never needed to carry a gun in the first place.

Of course, five armed policemen and a negotiator better than that by far, but I imagine we'd be able to get a negotiator on the phone fairly rapidly, and one of the backup team would have basic training in the subject. Enough, at least, to act as the go-between.

A hostage situation is only one of many many armed gun men situations. There are murders, mass murders, terrorist acts, school/work place shootings, armed robberies, and the like where an armed officer would be 10 times better than an unarmed cop.

Like in New York, where the police were much better at shooting random passers-by than the criminal they were after.

[Antoniland]

A hostage situation is only one of many many armed gun men situations. There are murders, mass murders, terrorist acts, school/work place shootings, armed robberies, and the like where an armed officer would be 10 times better than an unarmed cop.

Like in New York, where the police were much better at shooting random passers-by than the criminal they were after.

If you go back a few posts you will see that one of my posts said that some police officers need to be more well trained and disciplined in the use of firearms.

[DesAnges]

Your criminal has taken hostages. While we cannot rule out the chance that he or she is utterly barmy, I think it is fairly safe to assume that some negotiation may be possible.

Regardless, your point still does not stand. A shootout is not going to automatically save the family. Five cops have a significantly higher chance, though, so your lone cop might as well wait for backup from them, and thus never needed to carry a gun in the first place.

Of course, five armed policemen and a negotiator better than that by far, but I imagine we'd be able to get a negotiator on the phone fairly rapidly, and one of the backup team would have basic training in the subject. Enough, at least, to act as the go-between.

A hostage situation is only one of many many armed gun men situations. There are murders, mass murders, terrorist acts, school/work place shootings, armed robberies, and the like where an armed officer would be 10 times better than an unarmed cop.

OK.

Murders - usually you investigate the murder after it has happened, as trying to pre-emptively interfere in murders is a bit Minority Report.

Mass Murders - Armed police squads are scrambled quick as fuck, one bloke on his own (with a gun he probably hasn't fired in a while) is not going to be much use.

Terroist acts - again, a bit Minority Report to predict and stop.

School/work place shootings - again, Minority Report.

Armed Robberies - again, Minority Report.

You presuppose that an officer is going to be in the vicinity to stop every act of criminality, and we all know that simply isn't the case. That's what CID and places exist. People don't wait for the police to be around so they can get caught.

[San-Silvacian]

Just because an area does not often see crime does not mean an officer should not be prepared.
Take the shooting at the Empire State building yesterday.
Crime rate was low in that area of the city.
Yet a shooting happened and officers killed the man when he opened fire on the officers.
Yes officers should carry guns.
It took 30 to 50 secs for officers to show up on scene.

Unless you live in Reykjavik, where the homicide rate is 0.7 per 100.000 and police officers have never been killed by armed criminals.

Like, ever.

The police there even have firearms.

[Horsefish]

* Give me a cheer for university education! Give me a cheer for a stale jobs market when we get out! Give me a cheer for a thirty-six grand debt to pay off!

36? I'm looking £54 grand I think

I think it's the small market town bit since I live down south as well.

Well, South-East, but I suppose south all the same.

I always assumed you lived up North for some reason. You are also closer to London, I imagine that probally doesn't help.

[Fionnuala_Saoirse]

* Give me a cheer for university education! Give me a cheer for a stale jobs market when we get out! Give me a cheer for a thirty-six grand debt to pay off!

36? I'm looking £54 grand I think

Just flee the country after.