BBC Home

Explore the BBC


17th June 2019
Accessibility help
Text only

BBC Homepage

Channel Islands
Guernsey
Jersey


Contact Us


Like this page?
Send it to a friend!

 

or register to join or start a new discussion.


Discussion:

Should all police be armed?

Messages  41 - 60 of 90

 
 

Message 41 - posted by --x--robyn--x--, Feb 17, 2007

why shouldnt we expect them to do this? its their job when they joined teh force they knew what they were getting paid for...
Complain about a message      

Message 42 - posted by Vendee856, Feb 17, 2007

How I agree with you. As a retired Pc who was on firerms the general public cannot understand the training,.A lot think it is a quick 2 week course then bingo a .38 on their hip!!!
I think it is a bad idea to arm all police officers.

As a trained marksman, I know how long it takes to train to utilise firearms safely and efficiently without endangering civilians.
The time-span is a matter of years, rather than weeks or months.

Can we seriously afford to train all of the police officers in this manner?

The simple answer is no, we do not have the money or the time to allow this.

There are tactical armed units, they should be called on when they are required.


It is really not a good idea to give such difficult decisions to officers that regularly go on the beat.
You have less than a second to assess the situation and decide whether the possible target should be shot or not and whether it is to merely debilitate or to actually neutralise the target.
This requires a cool head and clear mind - something that the selection process for appropriate armed units personnel deals with.

Quoted from this message

Complain about a message      

Message 43 - posted by U3220267, Feb 17, 2007

Then they all walk around like John Wayne.


.38 on their hip!!!

Quoted from this message

Complain about a message      

Message 44 - posted by U7209542 - alt id 7 (all banned), Feb 17, 2007

I still have visions of high powered pick up trucks filled with a dozen or more young bullish trigger happy testosterone filled youg officers screaching to a halt at junctions on black estates firing off in all directions with pump action shot guns. Just a variation on a theme from the Stockwell tube nightmare.
Complain about a message      

Message 45 - posted by greatgonzous, Feb 18, 2007

One of the reasons it takes wo long to train someone in Britian is, you people grow up learning the mantra, "all guns are bad". It takes a lot longer to unteach that nonsense before they can ever accept proper arms training.

Many police officers in the States grew up with guns around them and so learned a lot of basic stuff and safety right there mainly from family members before their first day as police.

From a former senior weapons instructor, U.S. Army, of almost ten years.

Then there is the level of training we are talking about. To get someone to SWAT or specialist level is an on-going training cycle since there is always somethign new to learn or practice. To the level of a competent street cop? It takes a few weeks to get the basics but months for it to become reflex. After that professonal peace officers tell me its a matter of 'street smarts'.
Complain about a message      

Message 46 - posted by judypatudy, Feb 25, 2007

Ok I am American and what I say doesn't matter..
BUT I believe yes the police in England should be trained to carry guns,,
IF the police don't carry guns, then only the bad guys will have the guns..
But I live in Texas and have never known or heard of any police that does not carry guns..
Most Americans, or should I say Texans carry guns.. MOST of us have concealed weapons license.
I would be lost without mine and I am a female..

Judy
Complain about a message      

Message 47 - posted by judypatudy, Feb 25, 2007

They will need extensive training and the bullet proof vest that our police wear over here..
But I think it can work over the pond..
Complain about a message      

Message 48 - posted by U4357578, Feb 25, 2007

Judy

I would hate for it to become the norm for anyone and everyone in the UK to carry hidden weapons. Imagine road rage incidents? There'd be carnage.
Complain about a message      

Message 49 - posted by U5275788, Feb 26, 2007

Arming the Police will simply result in more casualties and deaths. The money should be spent towards changes in the prison system.
Complain about a message      

Message 50 - posted by greatgonzous, Feb 27, 2007

jonah, your claim about increased gun deaths, do you have any repudable source for that? Over here we've suffered the same sort of dire predictions, none have to date come to pass.

Not in all the years since Florida started issueing carry permits.

But I have this, in one of the most heavily gun control and largest states here, California, we have two counties. One is Los Angeles and the other Modoc, L.A. is extremely gun controled and Modoc is not. L.A. has a gun crime/murder rate that rivals most war zones.

Modoc? The murder rate is zero. Yes, zero, 0, nada, none, zip, ziltch, one less than one. In a large country where open carry is common and police issue permits to the law abideing.

Do you have a community or district in Britain that can say the same as Modoc?

As for "the norm for anyone and everyone in the UK to carry hidden weapons" not everyone does. But criminals are afriad to guess which is which so to eat they have to get honest work.
Complain about a message      

Message 51 - posted by greatgonzous, Feb 27, 2007

"Arming the Police will simply result in more casualties and deaths"

Do you have a source for that and if so, what is it?
Complain about a message      

Message 52 - posted by judypatudy, Feb 28, 2007

Jonah we do not have that much road rage..
And people think twice before attacking and robbing other people. Because we are a concealed weapon state, you never know who has one..
And in America you have the right to protect your property or family..
There are rules for being able to carry..
Training is very important..
Complain about a message      

Message 53 - posted by U5275788, Feb 28, 2007

greatgonzous. Heres how I reason. Weapons = Death; Weapons = Casualities; Weapons in irresponsible hands = tragedy. We have had many problems in the police force i.e racism, so why arm the police.

Responsibility first and foremost.

Complain about a message      

Message 54 - posted by greatgonzous, Feb 28, 2007

Two Edged Sword??

You logic that weapons are evil and call yourself by a fierce hand weapon? Odd when one considers what makes a weapon in fact a weapon. Only the intent of the user. To ban all weapons is to ban all inanimate objects, and several animate ones.

As for what weapons equal, have you ever beent he victim of a violent crime? I have. Once as a helpless boy who could do nothing more than suffer and hope to survive. Later as a grown man I was armed and ready to fight back, and lived, my self and my dignity intact. Later still I stood between an innocent person and death with only my weapon to assist me(where were you when you were needed?). She and I survived. The armed attackers? Who cares, as a former soldier their fate was not worth my notice.

While you enjoy your opinion, I prefer mine. And since technologies like weapons are here to stay, I will continue to prefer mine.

No weapons=no Britain, beyond an island property of France.
Complain about a message      

Message 55 - posted by U5275788, Feb 28, 2007

greatgonzous. With all your respect you are mistaken. I am not against the use of weapons, I am against giving weapons to a Police Force who have the wrong beliefs i.e racism.

I know people in th Police Force who are way simply too irresponsible to be trusted.

Weapons should only be given if the police start acting more responsibly and they could sytart by sifting out the racists, getting them to be more concerned with the well being of our country and acknowledging a weapon as a last resort.
Complain about a message      

Message 56 - posted by greatgonzous, Feb 28, 2007

Sword,

Thank you for the reply, it cleared things up.

Unfortunately many criminals are armed, to ask police to go after them unarmed is giving the criminals an unfair advantage. The police deserve, bigot or not, to be able to at least defend themselves. Or when the last able, deserving, selfless officer is dead who will fill the rapidly empting job slots?

Training? Yes, and better screening to weed the obviously less qualified from getting the job in the first place. From what I understand being a police officer is a constant education.

Are the police REQUIRED, by law, to provide protect to the average British citizen? Just wondering.
Complain about a message      

Message 57 - posted by U4357578, Feb 28, 2007



But I have this, in one of the most heavily gun control and largest states here, California, we have two counties. One is Los Angeles and the other Modoc, L.A. is extremely gun controled and Modoc is not. L.A. has a gun crime/murder rate that rivals most war zones.

Modoc? The murder rate is zero. Yes, zero, 0, nada, none, zip, ziltch, one less than one. In a large country where open carry is common and police issue permits to the law abideing.

Do you have a community or district in Britain that can say the same as Modoc?


Quoted from this message

Interesting claim. I did a bit of research. California has the strictest gun control in the USA yes? Maine has the least strict. By your reckoning there should be very low gun crime. Here are the links. The BBC don't allow PDF files so you'll have to look through the sites yourself. Maine certainly doesn't fit your Modoc model.

muskie.usm.maine.edu...

www.soros.org/initia...
Complain about a message      

Message 58 - posted by greatgonzous, Mar 1, 2007

Sorry Jonah, I hit the wrong key, not enough coffee onboard yet.

The logic you were refering to is not one I've ever held or I've ever heard from any gun owner. But only from anti-gun people trying to make an extremist and false claim what they say other people think. My logic runs along a different line not associated with the impossible.

And I actually do know what I'm talking about in reference to guns having made my pay a few times from firearms. And using them since my first U.S. Marine marksmanship class when I was sixteen years old. I am now 58, I've been shooting that long.

If the first post did not make it. You may want to try other source beside a Soros one. He is a well known international anti-gunist who has given millions of dollars to anti-gun groups, founded several and funded more. If HE paid for a study it will find guns the root of all evil, never fear.

In fact on all these studies my first question is, who paid for it? Often that will tell you what it found prior to reading any of it.
Complain about a message      

Message 59 - posted by U4357578, Mar 1, 2007

I believe that there is such a problem with road rage in this country (witnessed all too often on our congested roads) that incidents like: -

www.news-journalonli...

www.orlandosentinel....

www.criminaldefensel...

will happen.

Maybe it already has.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/...
Complain about a message      

Message 60 - posted by greatgonzous, Mar 1, 2007

Jonah, you lost me. The first two links were about the same single event. What does repeateing the same story over again advance? Or that next one about an event last year? That in a nation of 300 million people SOME, in these two cases two, are going to die?

As for Britain, are you telling me no has ever died from a violent crime there but that one time? This 'road rage' yes it seems to be a bad thing, but hardly about to entirely depopulate both countries. The odds seem greater dying from a terrorist attack or a road accident than 'road rage'.
Complain about a message      

This discussion is tagged with:
- Manchester
- crime
- police
- guns
- armed police
- firearms

getting involved How to reply to messagespopup icon
complain  Alert us about a messagepopup icon
online safety Are you being safe online?popup icon

Messages  41 - 60 of 90

 


About the BBC | Help | Terms of Use | Privacy & Cookies Policy