Arming Police in the UK

[Estanglia]

Because I believe in force when necessary. As in people paid to patrol & protect should be using force when necessary, in a safe & reasonable manner.

And British Police can do that. Without guns.

Exactly.

[Vassenor]

Given the increasingly unstable situation, yes.

In what way is the situation in this country "unstable"

[Dooom35796821595]

Given the increasingly unstable situation, yes.

In what way is the situation in this country "unstable"

It’s not, it’s strong and stable.

[Caracasus]

We have armed police. They are usually stationed at places such as airports and other high security areas or on call. I really have yet to see a compelling need for arming all or even most officers. Sounds to me more like a classic 'guns and cops will make everything seem safer!' security blanket worldview to me.

[Snowman]

Because I believe in force when necessary. As in people paid to patrol & protect should be using force when necessary, in a safe & reasonable manner.

Hint for you; when the chances of running across an armed criminal is so low, being armed is pointless at best and dangerous at worst.
And they already use the force that is needed for the situation through tasers and batons. Guns is overkill.

Why have these Authoriozed Officers? Are they like SWAT or are there members in every force. These police sound more like general fine givers. I guess I cede that not all should be armed, but personally I would never want someone holding a gun I thought could accidentally shoot me. Also, what are the range on tasers? (Googles) about 5-6 meters? Range of glock? I don't know, pulling numbers from 8-16 meters. More than a taser or baton.

[Estanglia]

Hint for you; when the chances of running across an armed criminal is so low, being armed is pointless at best and dangerous at worst.
And they already use the force that is needed for the situation through tasers and batons. Guns is overkill.

Why have these Authoriozed Officers? Are they like SWAT or are there members in every force. These police sound more like general fine givers. I guess I cede that not all should be armed, but personally I would never want someone holding a gun I thought could accidentally shoot me. Also, what are the range on tasers? (Googles) about 5-6 meters? Range of glock? I don't know, pulling numbers from 8-16 meters. More than a taser or baton.

We have them because sometimes, lethal force is needed, and it is a good thing to have trained officers for that scenario. And we don't like shooting people for minor crimes, hence the use of non-lethal weaponry on the daily beat.

[Minoa]

No, it would set the police too far apart from the community, who expect them to keep them safe and free from fear.

[Snowman]

Why have these Authoriozed Officers? Are they like SWAT or are there members in every force. These police sound more like general fine givers. I guess I cede that not all should be armed, but personally I would never want someone holding a gun I thought could accidentally shoot me. Also, what are the range on tasers? (Googles) about 5-6 meters? Range of glock? I don't know, pulling numbers from 8-16 meters. More than a taser or baton.

We have them because sometimes, lethal force is needed, and it is a good thing to have trained officers for that scenario. And we don't like shooting people for minor crimes, hence the use of non-lethal weaponry on the daily beat.

We have them (guns) because sometimes, lethal force is needed, and it is a good thing to have trained officers for that scenario. And we don't like shooting people for minor crimes, hence the use of non-lethal weaponry on the daily beat.

Dang, just described the armed cops around me if you change the subject meaning for them.

Well, from reading this thread, I now would advocate to make sure not all UK police are armed, at least for now. Its residents are too afraid of guns

[The New California Republic]

Well, from reading this thread, I now would advocate to make sure not all UK police are armed, at least for now. Its residents are too afraid of guns

You argument is collapsing so you resort to snark and sarcasm. Nice. And you clearly haven't understood any of the arguments on this thread if that is the conclusion you have arrived at.

[Estanglia]

Well, from reading this thread, I now would advocate to make sure not all UK police are armed, at least for now. Its residents are too afraid of guns

We're not afraid of guns, it's just that regular officers using them is pointless at best, and can reduce the police force further if the ones who fail AFO training are fired/not hired.

[Liriena]

Nah. I really like the policy in place of keeping arms for emergencies and for major locations.

[Snowman]

Well, from reading this thread, I now would advocate to make sure not all UK police are armed, at least for now. Its residents are too afraid of guns

You argument is collapsing so you resort to snark and sarcasm. Nice. And you clearly haven't understood any of the arguments on this thread if that is the conclusion you have arrived at.

Oof. I was being completely serious. My argument was collapsing because I have been educated on the different public opinions on armed police. I am serious on that I would not want someone who can not handle a weapon like millions of other people to be in charge of protecting me. Some arguments were fear that more guns would mean more death. I would say that is afraid of guns. I mean I have a respectful fear of guns too to a point. I am sorry if you interpreted my comments as less than thoughtful debate to reach a conclusion.

[The New California Republic]

You argument is collapsing so you resort to snark and sarcasm. Nice. And you clearly haven't understood any of the arguments on this thread if that is the conclusion you have arrived at.

Oof. I was being completely serious. My argument was collapsing because I have been educated on the different public opinions on armed police. I am serious on that I would not want someone who can not handle a weapon like millions of other people to be in charge of protecting me. Some arguments were fear that more guns would mean more death. I would say that is afraid of guns. I mean I have a respectful fear of guns too to a point. I am sorry if you interpreted my comments as less than thoughtful debate to reach a conclusion.

And yet you conveniently ignored my argument earlier, about there being no need for British police to be routinely armed.

[Torrocca]

Nah. Really, we should disarm all police forces everywhere. viva la revolucion

[Snowman]

Oof. I was being completely serious. My argument was collapsing because I have been educated on the different public opinions on armed police. I am serious on that I would not want someone who can not handle a weapon like millions of other people to be in charge of protecting me. Some arguments were fear that more guns would mean more death. I would say that is afraid of guns. I mean I have a respectful fear of guns too to a point. I am sorry if you interpreted my comments as less than thoughtful debate to reach a conclusion.

And yet you conveniently ignored my argument earlier, about there being no need for British police to be routinely armed.

Not conveniently. We just have different visions of safety. I like response quicker with the downside of more misuse of firearms, whereas your vision is the opposite

[Estanglia]

You argument is collapsing so you resort to snark and sarcasm. Nice. And you clearly haven't understood any of the arguments on this thread if that is the conclusion you have arrived at.

Oof. I was being completely serious. My argument was collapsing because I have been educated on the different public opinions on armed police. I am serious on that I would not want someone who can not handle a weapon like millions of other people to be in charge of protecting me.

Trained officers still make mistakes, that was the argument.

Some arguments were fear that more guns would mean more death.

it's less fear and more the observation that, in a scenario where guns are pointless at best, accidental deaths will typically be higher than justified deaths. Also that guns will be pointless.

[Estanglia]

And yet you conveniently ignored my argument earlier, about there being no need for British police to be routinely armed.

Not conveniently. We just have different visions of safety. I like response quicker with the downside of more misuse of firearms, whereas your vision is the opposite

officers without guns can still respond quick.

[The New California Republic]

And yet you conveniently ignored my argument earlier, about there being no need for British police to be routinely armed.

Not conveniently. We just have different visions of safety. I like response quicker with the downside of more misuse of firearms, whereas your vision is the opposite

Actually I was talking about the different situations in the USA and the UK, it had nothing to do with whatever you just talked about...? That just proves that you completely ignored what I was saying.

[Snowman]

Not conveniently. We just have different visions of safety. I like response quicker with the downside of more misuse of firearms, whereas your vision is the opposite

Actually I was talking about the different situations in the USA and the UK, it had nothing to do with whatever you just talked about...? That just proves that you completely ignored what I was saying.

Actually it does. Reread my post you quoted. I am not ignorant to what you said. Americans have a lot more guns & shoot a lot more often. Yes. However, as said, this does not change my belief, whether 1,000 baddies with a gun or 1

[Ifreann]

What does that mean?

I voted yes, but I don't know what it is like over there. Everyone saying batons & tasers, I thought everyone had those. I'm also not used to cities, so maybe gun standoffs are less often in them.

Very few people in the UK own guns, mostly countryside-folk and organised criminals. Not many people own batons and tasers; the police do carry them, however.

Primarily farmers, and farmers' mums.

---

It’s stupid they were disarmed in the first place.

They weren't disarmed, because they were never armed.

[Estanglia]

Actually I was talking about the different situations in the USA and the UK, it had nothing to do with whatever you just talked about...? That just proves that you completely ignored what I was saying.

Actually it does. Reread my post you quoted. I am not ignorant to what you said. Americans have a lot more guns & shoot a lot more often. Yes. However, as said, this does not change my belief, whether 1,000 baddies with a gun or 1

So, cops should have guns even when it is pointless at best?

[The New California Republic]

Americans have a lot more guns & shoot a lot more often. Yes. However, as said, this does not change my belief, whether 1,000 baddies with a gun or 1

It makes a great deal of difference whether the populace is routinely armed. When there are very few guns in private hands, it makes no sense to routinely arm police officers who are not going to be faced with criminals armed with guns. You are arming them for the sake of arming them.

[Snowman]

Americans have a lot more guns & shoot a lot more often. Yes. However, as said, this does not change my belief, whether 1,000 baddies with a gun or 1

It makes a great deal of difference whether the populace is routinely armed. When there are very few guns in private hands, it makes no sense to routinely arm police officers who are not going to be faced with criminals armed with guns. You are arming them for the sake of arming them.

May not. As said, my armed officers have never & must likely never face an armed combative person. I would ask where the line is in your mind, but will just read if responded. Thank you for returning to attacking content & not posters. Have a blessed rest of your day.

[The New California Republic]

It makes a great deal of difference whether the populace is routinely armed. When there are very few guns in private hands, it makes no sense to routinely arm police officers who are not going to be faced with criminals armed with guns. You are arming them for the sake of arming them.

May not. As said, my armed officers have never & must likely never face an armed combative person.

The risk of a normal non-AFO police officer coming across a criminal with a firearm is negligible. Routinely arming them when the populace does not carry firearms is disproportionate. Routinely arming them, when the situation thus far has worked fine for decades, is nonsensical.

Not only that, but there will be officers who will not pass the AFO training. Those officers are likely to get sacked. When police numbers are already decreasing, it would be idiotic to implement a new test that some officers will not pass.

Thank you for returning to attacking content & not posters. Have a blessed rest of your day.

I attacked the way that you were formulating your arguments, not you yourself. If I had attacked you as a person then I'd likely have a Mod breathing down my neck right about now.

[Luziyca]

Eh, I'm not really against it, but it always seems that any of the people who propose arming the police and such just want to see them wipe out minorities.

Pretty much this.

In an ideal world, I'd have armed police officers take yearly psychological tests to weed out the ones that will just be too trigger-happy: if they are too trigger-happy, I'd probably take away the gun, and keep a closer eye on them.

But realistically, the current system seems to be fine: I wouldn't object to having more armed officers there, but since I'm not a Brit, it's not my place to judge.