Should police officers carry guns?

[DesAnges]

* 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.

Where you going to uni Horse?

[Zilistan]

My policy suggestion is simple - police officers should be armed, but only when the situation warrants it.

Have them keep their personal (I.e. sidearms) firearms in a lockbox in the console of their police car. If the 911 call that triggers the situation is a violent one, well, then they'll automatically be unlocked by the handler/dispatch as soon as a squadcar calls in. If not, they remain locked. You can do the same with rifles in the trunk. If I police officer comes on behavior that looks like it could become violent, he could then call in, explain, and have it unlocked. In the ulra-rare police coming under fire scenario he could obviously call in with a quick emergency code and have immediate access. This, happily, removes a large majority of events where a police officer acts unreasonably and kills and unarmed and/or unviolent individual.

It honestly doesn't cut down on safety to a great degree because the majority of police officers (in the US, in any case) who are killed die from the discharge of their own firearm. (Sometimes by friendly fire, but mainly when the gun is wrestled from their holster.

As for tasers and the like? Honestly I'm against them in many ways. A large number of people are actually killed by tasers, and pretending that they are a "safe" way to bring down a suspect only encourages that they are overused and cause more injury.

Anyways, thoughts on my lockbox concept?

[Ifreann]

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.

And that training takes time. Time officers won't be able to spend doing police work.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Britain doesn't have a widespread gun culture: There’s nothing really good about increasing the use of guns.

[Horsefish]

Where you going to uni Horse?

Manchester. I went up the other day, had to walk for 4 miles just to get to somewhere. 4 miles is a longer distance than me walking from one side of town to the other here, though there aren't any hills.

Just flee the country after.

Probally the most practical advice I've recieved.

[DesAnges]

Where you going to uni Horse?

Manchester. I went up the other day, had to walk for 4 miles just to get to somewhere. 4 miles is a longer distance than me walking from one side of town to the other here, though there aren't any hills.

Nice Uni, shit place to live.

[Fionnuala_Saoirse]

Probally the most practical advice I've recieved.

I think i'd be ok with a little bit of fraud if it benefitted me to the tune of £54k.

[Antoniland]

Ok after much thinking I have changed my opinion on the matter. I believe that perhaps we should follow the UK's model and have most officers not equipped with firearms but having a few patrol officers authorized to carry guns so that should a bad armed situation arise then armed officers can respond before SWAT arrives. And at the same times since most officers won't be carrying guns more criminals wouldn't feel as much as a need to use them.

[Spreewerke]

My policy suggestion is simple - police officers should be armed, but only when the situation warrants it.

Have them keep their personal (I.e. sidearms) firearms in a lockbox in the console of their police car. If the 911 call that triggers the situation is a violent one, well, then they'll automatically be unlocked by the handler/dispatch as soon as a squadcar calls in. If not, they remain locked. You can do the same with rifles in the trunk. If I police officer comes on behavior that looks like it could become violent, he could then call in, explain, and have it unlocked. In the ulra-rare police coming under fire scenario he could obviously call in with a quick emergency code and have immediate access. This, happily, removes a large majority of events where a police officer acts unreasonably and kills and unarmed and/or unviolent individual.

It honestly doesn't cut down on safety to a great degree because the majority of police officers (in the US, in any case) who are killed die from the discharge of their own firearm. (Sometimes by friendly fire, but mainly when the gun is wrestled from their holster.

As for tasers and the like? Honestly I'm against them in many ways. A large number of people are actually killed by tasers, and pretending that they are a "safe" way to bring down a suspect only encourages that they are overused and cause more injury.

Anyways, thoughts on my lockbox concept?

What about when an officer unknowingly drives up on (and pulls over) an armed robbery suspect that's currently fleeing from the police like my cousin did as a county deputy? He got the call on his radio as he was talking to the suspects. He then drew his firearm, ordered them out of the vehicle, and reported his position to the other squad cars in the area.

[Trollgaard]

Of course they should. The fact that people think they shouldn't is most vexing.

[Mexo]

Yes. I never thought this was such a big issue. Yes police should carry guns. It is impossible for them to enforce laws with dangerous individuals without a ranged weapon that allows officers to engage at a distance.

[Neo Arcad]

IIRC, in London it takes 5 minutes for an armed response unit to get anywhere in the capital.

It honestly depends on how armed the populace is. In Britain we don't need it unless in secure places (air ports, Whitehall, Catterick etc.) because we have very few guns. Most murders are committed with knives so it is easier to taser or baton them.

This thread needs an 'Other: Please define' option for the thing at the top.

In the United States, police are trained in what's called "escalation of force". That means they'll always be able to trump a criminal. If he tries to punch them, they can use nightsticks. If he pulls a knife, they can pull a gun (but not shoot them unless they attack). If he pulls a gun, they can automatically shoot him. You can see how that tends to prevent the conflict from getting out of hand, so long as the officer is properly trained. And I'm sure anyone can see how it doesn't work if your officers are only armed with little wooden clubs and those fake packs of gum that shock you when you pull on them. Tasers aren't the answer. Proper training is.

[Bafuria]

As for tasers and the like? Honestly I'm against them in many ways. A large number of people are actually killed by tasers, and pretending that they are a "safe" way to bring down a suspect only encourages that they are overused and cause more injury.

I don't know about you, but I'd much rather be tased than pepper sprayed or beaten with a nightstick.

[Neo Arcad]

As for tasers and the like? Honestly I'm against them in many ways. A large number of people are actually killed by tasers, and pretending that they are a "safe" way to bring down a suspect only encourages that they are overused and cause more injury.

I don't know about you, but I'd much rather be tased than pepper sprayed or beaten with a nightstick.

All three of those weapons are ineffective when fighting someone on PCP. I've heard stories of PCP-addled maniacs flipping police cars and shrugging off nightsticks like they were toothpicks.

Just something to note.

[Kouralia]

IIRC, in London it takes 5 minutes for an armed response unit to get anywhere in the capital.

It honestly depends on how armed the populace is. In Britain we don't need it unless in secure places (air ports, Whitehall, Catterick etc.) because we have very few guns. Most murders are committed with knives so it is easier to taser or baton them.

This thread needs an 'Other: Please define' option for the thing at the top.

In the United States, police are trained in what's called "escalation of force". That means they'll always be able to trump a criminal. If he tries to punch them, they can use nightsticks. If he pulls a knife, they can pull a gun (but not shoot them unless they attack). If he pulls a gun, they can automatically shoot him. You can see how that tends to prevent the conflict from getting out of hand, so long as the officer is properly trained. And I'm sure anyone can see how it doesn't work if your officers are only armed with little wooden clubs and those fake packs of gum that shock you when you pull on them. Tasers aren't the answer. Proper training is.

I never said Tasers were the answer. British police are well trained, but why bring a gun to a knife fight if you'll probably never need it?

[Neo Arcad]

In the United States, police are trained in what's called "escalation of force". That means they'll always be able to trump a criminal. If he tries to punch them, they can use nightsticks. If he pulls a knife, they can pull a gun (but not shoot them unless they attack). If he pulls a gun, they can automatically shoot him. You can see how that tends to prevent the conflict from getting out of hand, so long as the officer is properly trained. And I'm sure anyone can see how it doesn't work if your officers are only armed with little wooden clubs and those fake packs of gum that shock you when you pull on them. Tasers aren't the answer. Proper training is.

I never said Tasers were the answer. British police are well trained, but why bring a gun to a knife fight if you'll probably never need it?

That was probably the dumbest statement I've ever heard. Let me take a second, I need to sit back and facepalm here.

Ok, I'll try to explain this in a way that makes sense to you. If someone has a knife, and intends to stab you, which is better? A) If you try to fight him with a nightstick or disable him temporarily with a taser, possibly resulting in your injury or injuries to others; or B) point a gun at him, tell him to drop the knife and reach for the sky.

Here's a hint: it's the one that entirely avoids any kind of fighting or injury. You don't even have to tase him, bro.

[Spreewerke]

I don't know about you, but I'd much rather be tased than pepper sprayed or beaten with a nightstick.

I've heard stories of PCP-addled maniacs flipping police cars

Found my new comic book hero.

"Help, help! Timmy's stuck under the school bus and is bleeding internally and has AIDS!"
"SHUBADABLLE PUFFITY PAM GASIHGALSKGHAHSIG!!!"
*throws bus into oncoming traffic*
"Gee, thanks, PCP Man!"
"*screeches*"

[Bafuria]

I've heard stories of PCP-addled maniacs flipping police cars

Found my new comic book hero.

"Help, help! Timmy's stuck under the school bus and is bleeding internally and has AIDS!"
"SHUBADABLLE PUFFITY PAM GASIHGALSKGHAHSIG!!!"
*throws bus into oncoming traffic*
"Gee, thanks, PCP Man!"
"*screeches*"

[Neo Arcad]

I've heard stories of PCP-addled maniacs flipping police cars

Found my new comic book hero.

"Help, help! Timmy's stuck under the school bus and is bleeding internally and has AIDS!"
"SHUBADABLLE PUFFITY PAM GASIHGALSKGHAHSIG!!!"
*throws bus into oncoming traffic*
"Gee, thanks, PCP Man!"
"*screeches*"

Sigged. That made my day.

[The Emerald Dawn]

I remember The Troubles. I remember thinking that guns were bad.

I grew up, and realized that it wasn't the guns. It was most definitely not the guns that caused that.

Police need to be armed in certain societies, for the society's protection from itself. If those conditions don't exist, then they should do what is best for them.

[Kouralia]

I never said Tasers were the answer. British police are well trained, but why bring a gun to a knife fight if you'll probably never need it?

That was probably the dumbest statement I've ever heard. Let me take a second, I need to sit back and facepalm here.

Ok, I'll try to explain this in a way that makes sense to you. If someone has a knife, and intends to stab you, which is better? A) If you try to fight him with a nightstick or disable him temporarily with a taser, possibly resulting in your injury or injuries to others; or B) point a gun at him, tell him to drop the knife and reach for the sky.

Here's a hint: it's the one that entirely avoids any kind of fighting or injury. You don't even have to tase him, bro.

1) Why increase the number of firearms on the street by a great deal? Especially when those carrying them will be blindingly obviously carrying them since they are wearing uniforms denoting their carrying-ness. That makes it easy to smack one about the head and take it, especially in a country where red-tape and battalions, nay, brigades of bleeding hearts will cry for crucifixion whenever someone cuts themselves on the knife which bounced off the riot-shield. In Britain, quite frankly, I think many officers would be too scared/unsure to pull the trigger or draw on a suspect unless their life was in "OH GOD HE'S LUNGING!" danger, because otherwise they'll be accused of police brutality or some shit.
2) AFAIK I shoot you with a taser and keep the trigger down, you're no longer a knife-wielding crim, you're now a paralysed crim.
3) Hi, I'm just gonna be patronising and condescending for no fucking reason.
4) I don't have to tase him, but may send a 9mm by ??mm piece of metal hurtling and spiraling through his body to explode out of his back, taking bits of heart, lung and bone with it. Which is better? Since both provide a near-instantaneous end to hostilities, one is non-fatal and one just got the morgue a new participant for 'Autopsies gone wild', and one is much less likely to result in mass IPCC-bombing: which do you think'll be ebtter?

[Spreewerke]

That was probably the dumbest statement I've ever heard. Let me take a second, I need to sit back and facepalm here.

Ok, I'll try to explain this in a way that makes sense to you. If someone has a knife, and intends to stab you, which is better? A) If you try to fight him with a nightstick or disable him temporarily with a taser, possibly resulting in your injury or injuries to others; or B) point a gun at him, tell him to drop the knife and reach for the sky.

Here's a hint: it's the one that entirely avoids any kind of fighting or injury. You don't even have to tase him, bro.

1) Why increase the number of firearms on the street by a great deal? Especially when those carrying them will be blindingly obviously carrying them since they are wearing uniforms denoting their carrying-ness. That makes it easy to smack one about the head and take it, especially in a country where red-tape and battalions, nay, brigades of bleeding hearts will cry for crucifixion whenever someone cuts themselves on the knife which bounced off the riot-shield. In Britain, quite frankly, I think many officers would be too scared/unsure to pull the trigger or draw on a suspect unless their life was in "OH GOD HE'S LUNGING!" danger, because otherwise they'll be accused of police brutality or some shit.
2) AFAIK I shoot you with a taser and keep the trigger down, you're no longer a knife-wielding crim, you're now a paralysed crim.
3) Hi, I'm just gonna be patronising and condescending for no fucking reason.
4) I don't have to tase him, but may send a 9mm by 19mm piece of metal hurtling and spiraling through his body to explode out of his back, taking bits of heart, lung and bone with it. Which is better? Since both provide a near-instantaneous end to hostilities, one is non-fatal and one just got the morgue a new participant for 'Autopsies gone wild', and one is much less likely to result in mass IPCC-bombing: which do you think'll be ebtter?

The x19mm of 9x19mm refers to the casing's length and not the cartridges.

[Big Jim P]

Ok after much thinking I have changed my opinion on the matter. I believe that perhaps we should follow the UK's model and have most officers not equipped with firearms but having a few patrol officers authorized to carry guns so that should a bad armed situation arise then armed officers can respond before SWAT arrives. And at the same times since most officers won't be carrying guns more criminals wouldn't feel as much as a need to use them.

Indeed. Lets add one more layer between a criminal and proper, adequate response. Give the criminals another 5 minutes or more to up their body count.

[Kouralia]

1) Why increase the number of firearms on the street by a great deal? Especially when those carrying them will be blindingly obviously carrying them since they are wearing uniforms denoting their carrying-ness. That makes it easy to smack one about the head and take it, especially in a country where red-tape and battalions, nay, brigades of bleeding hearts will cry for crucifixion whenever someone cuts themselves on the knife which bounced off the riot-shield. In Britain, quite frankly, I think many officers would be too scared/unsure to pull the trigger or draw on a suspect unless their life was in "OH GOD HE'S LUNGING!" danger, because otherwise they'll be accused of police brutality or some shit.
2) AFAIK I shoot you with a taser and keep the trigger down, you're no longer a knife-wielding crim, you're now a paralysed crim.
3) Hi, I'm just gonna be patronising and condescending for no fucking reason.
4) I don't have to tase him, but may send a 9mm by 19mm piece of metal hurtling and spiraling through his body to explode out of his back, taking bits of heart, lung and bone with it. Which is better? Since both provide a near-instantaneous end to hostilities, one is non-fatal and one just got the morgue a new participant for 'Autopsies gone wild', and one is much less likely to result in mass IPCC-bombing: which do you think'll be ebtter?

The x19mm of 9x19mm refers to the casing's length and not the cartridges.

Damn. I thought it was the round... I bow to your wisdom, Spree, though I am surprised you didn't mention AKs in a post...

[Chernoslavia]

This actually an issue in some countries and it recenty came up in a conversation I had with my cousin. Personally I don't see the point of having unarmed police officers since they won't do any good against a maniac or thug with a gun. If a gun totting person broke into my house in the middle of the night I would rather have armed police coming in minutes instead of having to wait half an hour for SWAT to show up. But what do you think about the issue?

If a gun toting person broke into my house in the middle of the night I'd shoot him, when seconds count the cops are minutes away.