NationStates

With violent crime rising in London and the nationwide terrorist threat level placed at severe, this begs the question; should the Police be armed?

In my view, i would arm the Police with a standard handgun of some sort and issue assault rifles or sub-machine guns to Police Officers posted at more important locations or patrolling in major cities. I would also end the whole "diversity and multiculturalism" initiative of seemingly every police force in the UK, but thats a debate for another time.

So would you agree with Police being armed, and if not, why?

Britain-Nationalist wrote:With violent crime rising in London and the nationwide terrorist threat level placed at severe, this begs the question; should the Police be armed?

Nah.

Ifreann wrote:

Britain-Nationalist wrote:With violent crime rising in London and the nationwide terrorist threat level placed at severe, this begs the question; should the Police be armed?

Nah.

Ok...?

I don't think you've quite considered the logistics of this. What do you do with the officers who fail to pass AFO screening?

And this is before we get to the whole thing about the Police Federation not wanting this.

Also what does "diversity and multiculturalism" have to do with arming everyone?

Britain-Nationalist wrote:With violent crime rising in London and the nationwide terrorist threat level placed at severe, this begs the question; should the Police be armed?

In my view, i would arm the Police with a standard handgun of some sort and issue assault rifles or sub-machine guns to Police Officers posted at more important locations or patrolling in major cities. I would also end the whole "diversity and multiculturalism" initiative of seemingly every police force in the UK, but thats a debate for another time.

So would you agree with Police being armed, and if not, why?

Nope. The police don't need to be routinely armed, as there is already a sizable contingent of specially trained armed officers in most local police forces. An exception is rural areas. I would like to see rural officers routinely armed, due to the distance from specially trained armed officers in comparison to urban areas, and the time it would take them to get there.

Vassenor wrote:Also what does "diversity and multiculturalism" have to do with arming everyone?

It doesn't. It is probably a cheap sideways shot at the fact that the police actually have to treat everyone with some modicum of respect, regardless of their ethnicity/sexuality etc.

What, British police aren't armed? Why???????

The New California Republic wrote:

Vassenor wrote:Also what does "diversity and multiculturalism" have to do with arming everyone?

It doesn't. It is probably a cheap sideways shot at the fact that the police actually have to treat everyone with some modicum of respect, regardless of their ethnicity/sexuality etc.

I really meant male officers prancing around in drag, wearing high heels or painting their nails to "support gays".

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.

Britain-Nationalist wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:It doesn't. It is probably a cheap sideways shot at the fact that the police actually have to treat everyone with some modicum of respect, regardless of their ethnicity/sexuality etc.

I really meant male officers prancing around in drag, wearing high heels or painting their nails to "support gays".

For real? Source?

Kubumba Tribe wrote:What, British police aren't armed? Why???????

Some of them are, just not routinely. You will always see armed police around major transport hubs, airports, and other areas deemed at risk.

Sovaal wrote: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.

I say this as a Muslim African-American: arm the police!

Kubumba Tribe wrote:What, British police aren't armed? Why???????

Eh, they're some cops I wouldn't want armed.

The New California Republic wrote:

Kubumba Tribe wrote:What, British police aren't armed? Why???????

Some of them are, just not routinely. You will always see armed police around major transport hubs, airports, and other areas deemed at risk.

But it's not like US officers? Because American police always have a gun in them.

Britain-Nationalist wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:It doesn't. It is probably a cheap sideways shot at the fact that the police actually have to treat everyone with some modicum of respect, regardless of their ethnicity/sexuality etc.

I really meant male officers prancing around in drag, wearing high heels or painting their nails to "support gays".

And? If they want to take part in Gay Pride then that's their choice.

But that is a discussion for another time, it doesn't relate to the current question.

Sovaal wrote:

Kubumba Tribe wrote:What, British police aren't armed? Why???????

Eh, they're some cops I wouldn't want armed.

That's why people get tested and screened.

Kubumba Tribe wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Some of them are, just not routinely. You will always see armed police around major transport hubs, airports, and other areas deemed at risk.

But it's not like US officers? Because American police always have a gun in them.

Yeah and alot of them don't have the trigger discipline required.

Kubumba Tribe wrote:

Sovaal wrote:Eh, they're some cops I wouldn't want armed.

That's why people get tested and screened.

Which is why I restate my question: What would you do with those officers who fail to pass AFO screening in this scenario?

Kubumba Tribe wrote:

Sovaal wrote:Eh, they're some cops I wouldn't want armed.

That's why people get tested and screened.

You can have screening or you have have routine arming.
Pick one.

Kubumba Tribe wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Some of them are, just not routinely. You will always see armed police around major transport hubs, airports, and other areas deemed at risk.

But it's not like US officers? Because American police always have a gun in them.

No, it isn't. Many police in the UK do have tasers though, and they are armed with batons of course.

Britain-Nationalist wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:It doesn't. It is probably a cheap sideways shot at the fact that the police actually have to treat everyone with some modicum of respect, regardless of their ethnicity/sexuality etc.

I really meant male officers prancing around in drag, wearing high heels or painting their nails to "support gays".

So you want to ban individual choice you mean?

Genivaria wrote:

Kubumba Tribe wrote:But it's not like US officers? Because American police always have a gun in them.

Yeah and alot of them don't have the trigger discipline required.

Like seriously. Iirc there was a shootout in NYC where several bystanders where shot, and it was found out that everyone of them was shot by the cops. Have also heard some horror stories about their weapon maintenance.

Vassenor wrote:

Kubumba Tribe wrote:That's why people get tested and screened.

Which is why I restate my question: What would you do with those officers who fail to pass AFO screening in this scenario?

Mind explaining the AFO?

Sovaal wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
Which is why I restate my question: What would you do with those officers who fail to pass AFO screening in this scenario?

Mind explaining the AFO?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorise ... ms_officer

AFO: Authorized Firearms Officer.

Fuck no. I would rather have more cameras and facial recognition.