Should we arm the Police ? [Archive]

LMC

21st-November-2005, 01:21 PM

As a bleedin' 'eart liberal, it falls to me to post the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/0,2763,1647293,00.html)'s view.

... It was impossible to say if PC Beshenivsky's life would have been saved if she had had a gun.

Ms Beshenivsky and her colleague, Teresa Milburn, who was also shot but wounded, were alerted by an alarm call to a robbery at a travel agency last Friday, but appear to have had no indication that it was an armed robbery. A bullet from one of the gunmen penetrated her lightweight body armour. Many police officers find the heavier army-style ballistics vests too bulky and inflexible for everyday use...

...

Mr Fox (President of Association of Chief Police Officers) said: "If you look at police forces around the world, they have far higher casualty rates than we do. Often their officers who are armed are caught by surprise in similar circumstances, sometimes shot with their own weapons. So it is not a straightforward argument."
Surely there must be some way of resoving the body armour issue?

I don't know any answers, but I wonder whether knowing that all policement were armed would increase the likelihood of criminals being armed? Whatever the answer to that one, I strongly suspect that arming the police would mean that we'd end up with more dead people on both sides - as statistics from other countries indicate.

Dreadful Scathe

21st-November-2005, 04:15 PM

i think the "more guns = more dead people" argument is one that stands up pretty well, and the best reason not to go down that route.

Andy McGregor

21st-November-2005, 10:59 PM

For once I disagree with DS. I think we should arm the police. But I think we should ensure they are well trained in the use of their weapons to reduce the chances of abuse.

At the moment it's an uneven battle. The bad guys can use guns the good guys can't. Guess who dies? :tears:

Death results from abuse. In the USA it's legal for the public to own guns. In the UK it's illegal. That doesn't stop criminals from owning guns. It stops the police from carrying them. If I were a criminal and thought there was a chance that I'd be shot by an armed policeman I'd think twice before carrying a gun - or even committing the crime. I'd say the rusult of an equation where police carried guns would be dead murderers and live police.

Are there any countries we can use as an example where guns are illegal for the public but carried routinely by police?

David Bailey

22nd-November-2005, 09:52 AM

For once I disagree with DS. I think we should arm the police. But I think we should ensure they are well trained in the use of their weapons to reduce the chances of abuse.
We do arm the police, and they are (hopefully) well-trained.

So, there we go, debate over. :innocent:

Oh, you mean "routinely arm" the police? Well, sure, as long as you're not Irish and carrying a chair leg, or Brazilian and using the Tube, you should be safe enough.

And to hammer the point home, remember that these two cases were both from highly-trained specialist police units.

Letting firearms into the hands of a less-highly trained general police force will definitely:
- mean more "friendly fire" deaths
- mean the "bad guys" routinely go armed, and routinely use those arms
- reduce the ability of the police to gain the trust of the community - or putting it in other ways, even less chance to gain information about crimes and planned crimes
- reduce the approachability (and effectiveness) of the police in general.

More firepower = less friendly. That's why the UK military in Basra wore berets not helmets. And I'm guessing Basra is probably a bit more dangerous than Bradford.

Seriously, it's a non-issue - I mean, even the police don't want it.

ducasi

22nd-November-2005, 10:15 AM

... as long as you're not Irish and carrying a chair leg ... Or even Scottish, but been mistaken for Irish by some ignorant fool in a pub.

under par

22nd-November-2005, 10:24 AM

As a serving officer who has never ever held a gun in his hand I can categorically say that I never ever want to.

2 reasons.

1. I never ever want to be in a position where I may kill someone.. don't think I can cope with it.

2. I am aware of the human frailties in all walks of life and the police service is no different( we are after all only a cross section of the larger community) there are enough serving police officers I know who I worry about armed with a book of parking tickets:eek:

3 What sort of person would a fully armed police service attract? Would it be the mainly caring, sharing non intrusive police officers that are about today?
Or the Rambo type !!!!!

4.More guns will never mean less shootings.....and statistically more US officers are shot with their own guns.:really:

It is difficult to strike the right balance of armed response over community based styles of policing and the level of police deaths by shooting is not yet epedemic proportions by a long way. There have always been incidents of police deaths as there have been deaths caused by police.
The interaction of police and public in highly charged /highly emotional situations will on occasions lead to death or serious injury(on both sides!).

Police are trained to try and diffuse these situations and cause as little "collateral damage" (for want of a non militaristic expression) as possible. But in the real world that we exist in sometimes it goes wrong. If every officer had a gun it would go wrong fatally more often than now.IMHO

We have a great police service. :worthy:One the best in the world and highly respected.

It has its bad apples:sad: But so does every walk of life.

They say the public gets the police service it deserves. Our public have got a good one which is what the deserve because most of them are very very good.:worthy:

I think the balance is about right .

David Franklin

22nd-November-2005, 10:29 AM

As a serving officer who has never ever held a gun in his hand I can categorically say that I never ever want to.

2 reasons.

~snipped reasons 1,2,3 and 4~And I'm kind of concerned about arming people who have trouble counting up to four! :devil:

[Dirty Harry]
I know what you're thinking punk? Did he fire six shots, or only five? Well, what with the UK education system, I kind of lost count myself...
[/Dirty Harry]

Seriously - great to have the thoughts of someone with actual experience.

under par

22nd-November-2005, 10:33 AM

And I'm kind of concerned about arming people who have trouble counting up to four! :devil:

see what i mean:eek: would you want me with a gun??:whistle:

David Franklin

22nd-November-2005, 10:36 AM

see what i mean:eek: would you want me with a gun??:whistle:It would kind of get in the way when dancing, wouldn't it?

David Bailey

22nd-November-2005, 10:39 AM

Or even Scottish, but been mistaken for Irish by some ignorant fool in a pub.
Right - didn't know his nationality. Done a little digging, the guy's name was Harry Stanley, he was from Lanarkshire, and it happened in 1999. Six years later, Chief Inspector Neil Sharman and PC Kevin Fagan were finally arrested.

"Come to London: the police won't shoot you, as long as you don't have an accent, carry table legs in plastic bags, use the Tube, or look foreign" - how's that for a tourist campaign?

OK, OK, I know - this is an extreme example, 99% of the police are fine upstanding, etc. But if everyone in the police was armed, you just know this sort of incident would happen a lot more.

Dance Demon

22nd-November-2005, 10:46 AM

Great post UP...and nice to hear it from a policemans perspective. Like the point about the kind of person that the police force might attract. There would also be a large number of long serving policemen who might even leave the force because they are not happy with being armed. It is a huge responsibility to carry a weapon that could cause the death of another human being, possibly even by accident.

LMC

22nd-November-2005, 10:47 AM

What DD said.

Thanks UP.

stewart38

22nd-November-2005, 10:51 AM

Firstly as far as Im AWARE the police women didnt know they would were attending a Armed incident

If they did as unarmed officers I ASSUME they would have held back ?

The point being it wouldnt have made any difference to the out come apart from probably two women officer dead (the 2nd injured one would have tried to shoot back)

I can only go what i read but it mentions 80% of officers dont want to be armed

If they all did thay MAY be a different matter

David Bailey

22nd-November-2005, 10:56 AM

{ snip fantastic post }

I think the balance is about right .

:clap: :clap: :worthy: and oh, :yeah:

I'd rep you, but apparently I've done too much of that recently ( :eek: - who'd have thought it :rofl: )

stewart38

22nd-November-2005, 11:10 AM

It would kind of get in the way when dancing, wouldn't it?

I dont think having something long and hard in your trousers would disappoint all the ladies :whistle:

David Franklin

22nd-November-2005, 11:14 AM

I dont think having something long and hard in your trousers would disappoint all the ladies :whistle:I think it's the "long, hard, and sticking out of your pocket" that might be a problem...

Dreadful Scathe

22nd-November-2005, 02:57 PM

At the moment it's an uneven battle. The bad guys can use guns the good guys can't. Guess who dies? :tears:

Gun incidents are still rare - firearms units are there to counter them - the scales are balanced. Give all the police guns would not serve as much of a deterrent to desperate criminals, will encourage them to do their utmost to get their own guns and mean that us innocent people minding our own business now have to put up with civil servants armed with lethal weapons. More guns in the hands of anyone doesnt make me feel any safer. Eventually security guards will want them....its all downhill from there :(

That doesn't stop criminals from owning guns. It stops the police from carrying them. If I were a criminal and thought there was a chance that I'd be shot by an armed policeman I'd think twice before carrying a gun - or even committing the crime. I'd say the rusult of an equation where police carried guns would be dead murderers and live police.

As a criminal you HAVE to commit crime otherwise you have no valid claim to the title so the only issue is whether you would be armed or not. If you want to make sure no one gets in your way and you have complete control of the situation, then surely you would look at getting a gun ESPECIALLY if the police already have them (which of course they do in the form of response units).

Of course arming the police will ensure that more mentally unstable table leg carriers and people walking calmly to a tube in a suspicious manner can be shot without such a waste of manpower :)

Are there any countries we can use as an example where guns are illegal for the public but carried routinely by police?

It would be interesting if there are, but I have no idea.

Andy McGregor

26th-November-2005, 03:11 PM

see what i mean:eek: would you want me with a gun??:whistle:I think UP is hiding something. I've danced with him and I'm certain I felt a gun in his pocket:whistle:

El Salsero Gringo

26th-November-2005, 03:29 PM

Andy McGregor

26th-November-2005, 04:09 PM

If all police are routinely armed, then it won't take long before all criminals are routinely armed in response. Since there's no point in carrying a gun unless you're actually prepared to use it, inevitably more people are going to get shot. I've tried hard to think of a situation where this would be a positive outcome for anybody, but I just can't.

Secondly, giving guns to all police officers immediately makes them the prime target for any criminal who doesn't want to get shot him or herself...By this logic, sending the Army in without weapons means they won't be shot at - which is, of course, rubbish.

I'm all for combatting violent criminals with violence. To say that we have armed response police is also a weak argument. The criminals are not going to warn police they're carrying guns - we need the police to be able to mount and immediate armed response to armed criminals. Or are we expecting the armed criminals to wait for the armed police to arrive before they start shooting? I think not.

On this tread most of the arguments against arming the police talk about the police getting it wrong or making mistakes. We need to make sure they don't get it wrong or at least keep the mistakes to a minimum. At the moment the criminals have the upper hand as they've got the weapons we deny to most of our police. I say let's get our police better armed and better trained than violent criminals and we'll stand a chance of having a safer society.

And, while I'm on the subject. Let's bring back the death penalty for these violent criminals. If they thought they were risking their life each time they carried a gun they'd think twice before doing so. We're talking about stopping armed and violent crime and I can see that well trained armed police are more likely to stop armed criminals than police armed with a stick and a radio :tears:

azande

26th-November-2005, 04:12 PM

I don't really seee the problem in having the police carring guns routinely. In Italy every single policeman has a gun, and the frequency of shooting incidents does not seems higher than anywhere else in western Europe. (and before anyone asks, no, I don't have statistics)

I had to carry a gun during my military service in the Carabinieri and trust me, it gives you a different prospective on life and resonsability. I was personally responsible for the gun and for every single bullet I had.
A formal inquest is started every time a policeman uses a weapon, to ascertain wether the use is lawful or not. Even loosing one bullet, can get you in big trouble.

If a person is prepared to use a gun, he/she will do it whether the police is armed or not.

El Salsero Gringo

26th-November-2005, 04:20 PM

By this logic, sending the Army in without weapons means they won't be shot at - which is, of course, rubbish.It would be rubbish, if it *was* the same logic. But most criminals don't carry guns. So most police officers don't need to. Escalate one side, and the other is bound to follow. Net result: more shootings.
I'm all for combatting violent criminals with violence. To say that we have armed response police is also a weak argument. The criminals are not going to warn police they're carrying guns - we need the police to be able to mount and immediate armed response to armed criminals. Or are we expecting the armed criminals to wait for the armed police to arrive before they start shooting? I think not.Most of the time, we expect that armed criminals won't feel the need to shoot anyone at all. And most of the time, we're right.
On this tread most of the arguments against arming the police talk about the police getting it wrong or making mistakes. We need to make sure they don't get it wrong or at least keep the mistakes to a minimum. At the moment the criminals have the upper hand as they've got the weapons we deny to most of our police. I say let's get our police better armed and better trained than violent criminals and we'll stand a chance of having a safer society.There's not a human endeavour in existence that's error-free. That's a basic premise of system design. Pretending otherwise leads, inevitably, to disaster. So while we're wishing for the impossible, let's ask for better weather, and peace and goodwill to all men.
And, while I'm on the subject. Let's bring back the death penalty for these violent criminals. If they thought they were risking their life each time they carried a gun they'd think twice before doing so. We're talking about stopping armed and violent crime and I can see that well trained armed police are more likely to stop armed criminals than police armed with a stick and a radio :tears:Most criminals don't actually believe that they're going to get caught. If it was simply a matter being uwilling to risk their life, then they wouldn't carry a weapon and risk being shot by an armed response unit. So much for that argument.

Do you ever think about what you write?

Andy McGregor

26th-November-2005, 05:09 PM

It would be rubbish, if it *was* the same logic. But most criminals don't carry guns. So most police officers don't need to. But, on those occasions that crimals do carry guns police officers are killed with them :tears: Far better to arm the police against the eventuality that they will meet an armed criminal than not. What is there against this argument? Especially as it seems that most European goverments agree with me rather than ESG.

Escalate one side, and the other is bound to follow. I don't think there is any evidence for this being the case. Perhaps ESG forgot to put in his IMHO.

Most of the time, we expect that armed criminals won't feel the need to shoot anyone at all. And most of the time, we're right.While we're at it, why don't we just let criminals get away with their crimes? Criminals carry guns against the eventuality that they will be stopped in the commission crime. They will use their guns to defend themselves against the police or people attempting to stop them. ESG's argument seems to say that if you don't stop them and they won't need to carry guns - IMHO ESG lives in a world where criminals act reasonably. I live in one where criminals attempt to steal and kill and will shoot any person trying to stop them.

And most of the time, we're right.There's not a human endeavour in existence that's error-free. That's a basic premise of system design. Pretending otherwise leads, inevitably, to disaster. So while we're wishing for the impossible, let's ask for better weather, and peace and goodwill to all men.And every day we take a view. We consider the risk. And it's exactly the same with arming the police. Something that most governments do and something which ours will also do. If not tomorrow in 10 or 20 years time - I see it as inevitable.

Most criminals don't actually believe that they're going to get caught. If it was simply a matter being uwilling to risk their life, then they wouldn't carry a weapon and risk being shot by an armed response unit. So much for that argument. The evidence is that armed criminals are expecting that someone will try to stop them committing their chosen crime. That's why they're carrying the guns. I'm not suggesting that criminals wouldn't carry guns if the police did. I'm suggesting that the police would be better placed to deal with armed criminals if they were also armed.

Do you ever think about what you write?Very carefully when it's a serious issue. Have you ever wondered how asking such a question makes you look :wink:

El Salsero Gringo

26th-November-2005, 05:27 PM

But, on those occasions that crimals do carry guns police officers are killed with them :tears: Far better to arm the police against the eventuality that they will meet an armed criminal than not.You seem to be making an implicit assumption that carrying a gun stops you being shot. I believe the reverse is true. By carrying a gun you're more likely to get shot, because you're more of a threat to an armed criminal.
What is there against this argument? Especially as it seems that most European goverments agree with me rather than ESG.European governments are not starting from the same place we are. Their armed police, historically speaking, are descended from a local militia loyal to the government, barracked like soldiers, and used to control the peasant populace - rather than the UK's local constabulary that has always lived among and been drawn from, and worked with the support of a middle-class citizenry.
While we're at it, why don't we just let criminals get away with their crimes? Criminals carry guns against the eventuality that they will be stopped in the commission crime. They will use their guns to defend themselves against the police or people attempting to stop them.I don't think that's true. Most criminals don't go out with the intention to murder people. They carry guns as a method of frightening and controlling people into handing over whatever it is they want to steal. It doesn't help anyone to force them into a situation where they have not choice but to shoot or be shot.
I see it as inevitable.It will not be inevitable for as long as enough of us find it undesirable. Because *you* say it is inevtable is no reason for *me* not to say why I think it's a bad thing.
The evidence is that armed criminals are expecting that someone will try to stop them committing their chosen crime. That's why they're carrying the guns.This evidence whereof you speak is....?
I'm not suggesting that criminals wouldn't carry guns if the police did. Don't you think that *more* criminals would carry guns if all police officers did? And don't you think that would lead to more people getting shot?
Very carefully when it's a serious issue.Andy, I get worried when you go quiet on the Forum. For I know as long as you're spending time writing things here, you can't be out in society, doing harm...

David Bailey

26th-November-2005, 05:34 PM

By this logic, sending the Army in without weapons means they won't be shot at - which is, of course, rubbish.
Or, turning it around, your logic means that anyone dealing with the public who may conceivably be in danger from occasional violence - say, benefit officers - should also be armed. So that's benefit officers, nurses and paramedics all Rambo-ed up to the teeth - I feel much safer already.

And, strangely enough, there's a school of military thought which says that, yes, in some occasions you need to avoid using maximum force to achieve your objectives. Again, that's why the British Army units in Basra wore (still wear) berets rather than combat helmets.

Anyone who's spent time in N.I. knows that having a lot of guns around just makes things worse.

On this tread most of the arguments against arming the police talk about the police getting it wrong or making mistakes. We need to make sure they don't get it wrong or at least keep the mistakes to a minimum.
Well, I'm really hoping we try to do that now, but mistakes do still happen. What do you suggest we do to improve the effectiveness of the training, say, tenfold, to avoid multiplying mistakes tenfold, when your proposed tenfold increase in police firearms comes into effect?

At the moment the criminals have the upper hand as they've got the weapons we deny to most of our police. I say let's get our police better armed and better trained than violent criminals and we'll stand a chance of having a safer society.
I say you're wrong. As do the police, for that matter.

And, while I'm on the subject. Let's bring back the death penalty for these violent criminals.
Good plan, especially if they're Irish or foreign-looking. I'm sure we can depend on our system never to have miscarriages of justice, after all.

I don't really seee the problem in having the police carring guns routinely.
Putting it simply, that they'll, err, shoot people with them?

In Italy every single policeman has a gun, and the frequency of shooting incidents does not seems higher than anywhere else in western Europe. (and before anyone asks, no, I don't have statistics)
I don't care - this isn't Italy, it's the UK, and it's a totally different culture.

As for stats:

lets see Number of gun crime deaths per 100,000 population (sourse daily mail)

England and Wales 62
Germany 155
France 170
USA 11,802

Admittedly, this is the wishy-washy trendy lefty Daily Mail we're talking about, but what the hell, let's assume they're not too left-wing... In other words, we've got it about right now - occasional accidents and tragedies happen, but I prefer 62 to 11,000+ given a choice, so I'll assume the USA is not the way to go on this one.

I had to carry a gun during my military service in the Carabinieri
Emphasis mine - "military service", telling phrase that.

If a person is prepared to use a gun, he/she will do it whether the police is armed or not.
OK, so you're agreeing that we shouldn't arm the police?
In your words, it's not a deterrent to criminals - correct?

Ghost

26th-November-2005, 05:45 PM

Are there any countries we can use as an example where guns are illegal for the public but carried routinely by police?
It's a flawed example (on my part) but UK airports are probably the closest you're going to get to this situation. I'm a bit hazy about Israel.

As a second point there's a dark joke in the US where after an officer involved shooting, at the hearing he's asked why he fired his entire magazine at the suspect. The answer, "I ran out of bullets". My limited second-hand understanding is that it's not a case of you shoot someone and they die,
see "Lead Poisoning: by Chris Pfouts". Quite often they keep going even if they do eventually die.

The better solution, which I've noticed the police force gradually adopt, is better armour. It's not perfect, on account of armour-pirecing rounds, but if someone has a gun, you need a lot of edge on your side to take them down safely. Otherwise, retreat and call for reinforcements.

Of course sometimes it's just not something you can let stand, such as they're shooting at innocents. Then, well you do what you can until you can't.

Take care,
Christopher

Andy McGregor

26th-November-2005, 06:03 PM

You seem to be making an implicit assumption that carrying a gun stops you being shot. I believe the reverse is true. By carrying a gun you're more likely to get shot, because you're more of a threat to an armed criminal.Turning this argument around. Criminals carrying a gun are more likely to get shot - but only if the police have something to shoot with.

For some reason, ESG seems to think these violent criminals are logical, thinking beings. They are scum. They prey on the innocent, they kill our police, they deserve no mercy. They do not come to business meetings or seminars. They don't negotiate or come to agreements on levels of arms. They do what they think they can get away with. They prey on our areas of weakness. If our police carry sticks and radios that is a weakness compared to an armed and determined criminal who's prepared to shoot.

I think there is clear and tragic evidence that the failure to arm police results in dead police. There is clear evidence from countries that arm their police that doing so results in dead criminals.

And all we get from our forumites in defence of leaving our police weak and helpless against armed criminals is that the police might make mistakes and kill innocent people :mad: Yes they might, mistakes happen. But how many innocent people are killed by armed criminals on purpose?

El Salsero Gringo

26th-November-2005, 06:18 PM

Turning this argument around. Criminals carrying a gun are more likely to get shot - but only if the police have something to shoot with.

For some reason, ESG seems to think these violent criminals are logical, thinking beings. They are scum. They prey on the innocent, they kill our police, they deserve no mercy. They do not come to business meetings or seminars. They don't negotiate or come to agreements on levels of arms. They do what they think they can get away with. They prey on our areas of weakness. If our police carry sticks and radios that is a weakness compared to an armed and determined criminal who's prepared to shoot.Sorry Andy, but criminals are not a species from Mars. They are our neighbours, cousins, children, brothers, sisters, parents and friends. Someone who commits a crime does not instantly grow fangs, a dark cloak, and live in a coffin. Not everyone who commits a criminal act is suddenly scum, deserving no mercy. Each of us remains an idividual, no matter what we may have done. And we each have the right to be judged according to those deeds. Not according to a populist line you read in the Daily Mail. Your absolutism on this subject destroys your credibility.
I think there is clear and tragic evidence that the failure to arm police results in dead police.There is also no doubt that arming police results in *more* dead police.
There is clear evidence from countries that arm their police that doing so results in dead criminals.I didn't realise we were hoping to shoot criminals on the street. In my book, *anyone* shot dead at the scene of a crime is a failure. Our goal is a trial followed by conviction on the evidence, not a summary execution.
And all we get from our forumites in defence of leaving our police weak and helpless against armed criminals is that the police might make mistakes and kill innocent people :mad: Yes they might, mistakes happen. But how many innocent people are killed by armed criminals on purpose?Not very many. How many more would be killed if all police (and all criminals) carried guns?

Ghost

26th-November-2005, 06:18 PM

I think there is clear and tragic evidence that the failure to arm police results in dead police.

Respectfully, I believe it's failure to adequately protect police that results in their deaths. Guns are not defensive.

There is clear evidence from countries that arm their police that doing so results in dead criminals.

Indeed, but that's slightly different. I believe this also results in a higher number of dead officers.

And all we get from our forumites in defence of leaving our police weak and helpless against armed criminals
That's my point

is that the police might make mistakes and kill innocent people :mad: Yes they might, mistakes happen. But how many innocent people are killed by armed criminals on purpose?
Hopefully I've been a bit clearer in this post. I know people who've shot and killed and it ****s them up for life. US police officers are not supposed to risk their own lives in the call of duty. They're supposed to retreat and call for back up. I have great respect for those who don't.

Let me be clear. I do not want police officers put at risk. I do not want criminals shooting at anyone. But I honestly believe that arming the police will increase both of these.

I could of course be completely wrong.

Take care,
Christopher

David Bailey

26th-November-2005, 06:26 PM

You're not being used as a mouthpiece are you Andy? :whistle:

They are scum. They prey on the innocent, they kill our police, they deserve no mercy.
Taking your argument to its conclusion, anyone who (we think) has commited any act of violence, anywhere, should presumably be summarily executed?

They do what they think they can get away with. They prey on our areas of weakness.
You're assuming that violent criminals want to kill police officers; I don't believe you've substantiated that assumption.

Criminals aren't terrorists - they're aiming to commit crimes rather than kill people. Arming the police against terrorists is defensible. Arming them against burglars, car thieves, muggers - and for that matter traffic violators and benefit fraudsters - is not.

And if the police are armed, criminals will have greater incentive to be armed; guns will become essential tools of the trade for more and more types of criminals.

I think there is clear and tragic evidence that the failure to arm police results in dead police.
Then show me this evidence, if it's this clear. If it's not, then it's just your opinion.

And all we get from our forumites in defence of leaving our police weak and helpless against armed criminals
I don't really see our police as weak and helpless. In fact, neither do the police themselves.

the police might make mistakes and kill innocent people :mad: Yes they might, mistakes happen.
No - the argument from me is that they will kill many more innocent people - accidentally, of course, but that's no consolation when you're dead.

Here's my reasoning, feel free to point out the flaws:
- Approximately 10% of the police are armed at the moment
- Say, 1 person a year is killed by police in error at the moment
- Making the figure 100% means that this figure will become 10 people a year, approximately 1 person per month
- In fact, more, because not every police officer will be as well-trained or restrained as the current set of armed police are.

The figures are pretty much made-up of course, but that's my argument.

But how many innocent people are killed by armed criminals on purpose?
That's not relevant, as arming the police is clearly not going to be a deterrent - in fact I think it's the opposite.

And also, as the police aren't actually at the scene of a crime when it occurs, it won't help the public any. Unless you're also suggesting that every shopkeeper and member of the public is also allowed to bear arms? If so, I refer you again to the 11,000 USA gun deaths for a subtle hint as to how well that idea works.

Don't get me wrong - I don't want the police to be handicapped - and BTW, better body-armour seems like a damned good idea to me, I don't care how much it costs. But I also don't believe giving them guns will help anyone.

azande

26th-November-2005, 06:45 PM

We also need to keep in mind that policy regarding firearms are very different in the USA. Almost everybody is allowed to buy firearms, with no or little control. I think that statistical data from this country is not relevant to this debate.

Quote from http://www.secondamendmentcenter.org/debate5.asp:

Recent studies (see, e.g., Krug, Powell, and Dahlberg, 1998) reveal that the United States has a murder rate six times higher than the average economically developed, democratic nation (i.e., Western European nations, along with Australia, Canada, Japan, and New Zealand). Comparisons of murder-by-gun rates reveal an even more dramatic ratio: the U.S. rate of 7.07 per 100,000 people is more than twelve times higher than the 0.58 average rate of its peer nations. This huge disparity in the murder rate is accompanied by huge differences in gun prevalence. In the United States the percentage of households with any type of gun (about 36 percent) is two to three times greater than for our peer nations. For handguns, the differences are even more dramatic. In the United States, 22 percent of households have handguns, compared with 0.1 percent in the United Kingdom, 0.2 percent in the Netherlands, 2 percent in Australia, 2.5 percent in Spain, and 7 percent or less in Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, and Norway.

Andy McGregor

26th-November-2005, 06:51 PM

Sorry Andy, but criminals are not a species from Mars. They are our neighbours, cousins, children, brothers, sisters, parents and friends. Someone who commits a crime does not instantly grow fangs, a dark cloak, and live in a coffin. Not everyone who commits a criminal act is suddenly scum, deserving no mercy. Each of us remains an idividual, no matter what we may have done. And we each have the right to be judged according to those deeds. Not according to a populist line you read in the Daily Mail. Your absolutism on this subject destroys your credibility.There is also no doubt that arming police results in *more* dead police.I didn't realise we were hoping to shoot criminals on the street. In my book, *anyone* shot dead at the scene of a crime is a failure. Our goal is a trial followed by conviction on the evidence, not a summary execution.Not very many. How many more would be killed if all police (and all criminals) carried guns?
I am talking about armed criminals. Not any other kind of criminal. This particular species of criminal is, IMHO, scum. It doesn't matter if they live next to ESG or are even related to him. They've knowingly obtained a firearm and firearms kill. That's what they do and, it seems to me, that's the intent of any criminal carrying one.

It must be the objective of law enforcement to try criminals in court. However, it might not be possible if that criminal is trying to escape using a gun to shoot at the police - or die trying. It is a sad fact that there are completely amoral and criminalised individuals living next door to some people - but that is no defence for obtaining and carrying an armed weapon with criminal intent.

azande

26th-November-2005, 06:53 PM

El Salsero Gringo

26th-November-2005, 07:14 PM

I am talking about armed criminals. Not any other kind of criminal. This particular species of criminal is, IMHO, scum.We're aware of your attitude on the subject. After all, if they weren't scum, you wouldn't be advocating shooting them dead on the streets, would you? But you're still wrong. It's not the state's right to write people off like you do. Everyone deserves more than that, no matter what Mr. Andy McGregor thinks.
They've knowingly obtained a firearm and firearms kill. That's what they do and, it seems to me, that's the intent of any criminal carrying one....well, since firearms kill, your logic implies that must be the intent of every police officer in carrying one, too?

David Bailey

26th-November-2005, 07:31 PM

I am talking about armed criminals. Not any other kind of criminal. This particular species of criminal is, IMHO, scum. It doesn't matter if they live next to ESG or are even related to him. They've knowingly obtained a firearm and firearms kill. That's what they do and, it seems to me, that's the intent of any criminal carrying one.

It must be the objective of law enforcement to try criminals in court. However, it might not be possible if that criminal is trying to escape using a gun to shoot at the police - or die trying. It is a sad fact that there are completely amoral and criminalised individuals living next door to some people - but that is no defence for obtaining and carrying an armed weapon with criminal intent.
I actually agree with every word Andy's saying in that post. Some people are scum - there are nasty and vicious people everywhere.

But that doesn't impact on the question of arming the police routinely; there were scum 10, 20 and 2,000 years ago, and "more lethal weapons" is never the answer.

But having a gun in this country is already a criminal offence, with a tough mandatory criminal sentence attached - we have some of the toughest anti-firearm legislation in the world, and by and large, it works to prevent "minor criminals" carrying and using such weapons.

On the other hand, if a burglar knew there was a good chance he'd be shot if caught, he might well reconsider the risk-benefit equation and obtain a gun - ironically, using the very same "self-defense" argument Andy's employing from the police point-of-view. And if more criminals routinely went armed, that both escalates the problem and brings the general public much more into it.

TheTramp

26th-November-2005, 07:37 PM

I don't know. I'd have thought that the police are definitely better off with arms.

How else will their hands remain attached to their shoulders?? :whistle:

azande

26th-November-2005, 08:01 PM

Putting it simply, that they'll, err, shoot people with them?
Bull****!

I don't care - this isn't Italy, it's the UK, and it's a totally different culture.

That's fine, so let's avoid comparing the UK to any other country because is a different culture. But you do that only when is good for your opinion because:

As for stats:

Admittedly, this is the wishy-washy trendy lefty Daily Mail we're talking about, but what the hell, let's assume they're not too left-wing... In other words, we've got it about right now - occasional accidents and tragedies happen, but I prefer 62 to 11,000+ given a choice, so I'll assume the USA is not the way to go on this one.

Emphasis mine - "military service", telling phrase that.
No it's not telling, because doing the military service in the Carabinieri, which is a Police body in Italy, means being involved in everything the Police normally does.

OK, so you're agreeing that we shouldn't arm the police?
In your words, it's not a deterrent to criminals - correct?
My words? :confused: Not really, I said that some people are prepared to use guns whether the police have them or not, therefore I would give the policemen the opportunity to have guns in case they are confronted by them

Andy McGregor

26th-November-2005, 08:53 PM

We're aware of your attitude on the subject. After all, if they weren't scum, you wouldn't be advocating shooting them dead on the streets, would you? But you're still wrong. It's not the state's right to write people off like you do. Everyone deserves more than that, no matter what Mr. Andy McGregor thinks I'm not advocating shooting scum dead on the streets. Those are ESG's words. I'm advocating arming he police so that they can shoot back at armed criminals. Or even shoot first, if they believe that an armed criminal is about to shoot.

ESG is putting words into my mouth and make it sound like I'm advocating summary execution in place of justice. I'm not. I'm advocating arming the police so they can be at least equal in the arms race with criminals. What could be fairer than that?

Next thing we'll have ESG arguing against antiboitics and vaccines as they deprive innocent micro-orgnisms of a right to life. IMHO those armed criminals gave up their rights as soon as they picked up a gun.

David Bailey

26th-November-2005, 09:23 PM

That's fine, so let's avoid comparing the UK to any other country because is a different culture. But you do that only when is good for your opinion because:
What, you want me to be consistent now as well? :confused:

OK, it's a fair cop, I should have had a better comeback than that, and you're right, there is some basis for country-to-country comparison.

OK, here's a comparison then (from this site (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html)) between England / Wales and Italy (roughly comparable populations), in one year:

England/Wales:

Total homicide rate: 1.41%
Firearm Homicide rate: 0.11%
Total Suicide rate: 7.68%
Firearm Suicide rate: 0.33%

Italy:

Total homicide rate: 2.25%
Firearm Homicide rate: 1.66%
Total Suicide rate: 8.00%
Firearm Suicide rate: 1.11%

In other words, both countries are roughly as likely to want to kill each other / themselves, but the firearm homicide rate in Italy is 15 times that in the UK. That seems another indication that more guns = more gun deaths.

There are of course reams of statistics we can twist, but these were the first I came across, and they seem pretty clear.

My words? :confused: Not really, I said that some people are prepared to use guns whether the police have them or not, therefore I would give the policemen the opportunity to have guns in case they are confronted by them
To put in the way of the bullets? Or to shoot first and ask questions later?

Most criminals aren't routinely armed - the very fact that this debate is happening is proof of the shock value of this sort of incident. It's been 21 years since the last policewoman was shot dead in the line of duty.

If it were 21 days, then fine, I'd agree this was a real problem to society - and of course the ideal is "never" - but 21 years between female police fatalities by firearm? Could be a hell of a lot worse.

Your original quote was:

If a person is prepared to use a gun, he/she will do it whether the police is armed or not.
I took that to mean that "knowing that the police are armed is no deterrent to criminals being armed themselves whilst pursuing their profession" - so the "deterrence" argument (if the police are armed, less criminals will be) was basically wrong.

Ghost

26th-November-2005, 09:37 PM

I'm not advocating shooting scum dead on the streets. Those are ESG's words. I'm advocating arming he police so that they can shoot back at armed criminals. Or even shoot first, if they believe that an armed criminal is about to shoot.
There's a problem with this which is kind of tricky to express so I ask your patience while I try.

Imagine a police officer without a gun and someone starts to draw a gun or is already shooting. Their first reaction is probably along the lines of mentally swearing while running away / getting under cover.

Now imagine they're armed. Same situation. Their first response is more likely to shift to drawing their weapon and open fire. Maybe they'll do the duck and cover first, but it's more likely that they'll then want to shoot back.

There's several problems with this; the first is simply mindset. They've changed from a defensive to aggressive stance. This greatly increases the odds of their getting killed.

Secondly if you can shoot them, they can shoot you! You're also drawing fire towards your colleagues who may not yet be prepared and any other bystanders.

Bullets have to go somewhere when they're fired. This is what's so terrifying about airports. The police carry automatic weapons and there's very little that will slow down or stop a bullet. Look around, it's mainly pretty flimsy stuff. A bullet fired from point A will travel a long way and there's a lot of potential people to be hit. Semi-auto is worse. Two officers firing full auto is hell on earth. Lie down, stay very still and pray. Same deal elsewhere; any bullets that either the police or criminals fire have to go somewhere. And if you've got bystanders that's really bad.

I'm advocating arming the police so they can be at least equal in the arms race with criminals. What could be fairer than that?
I really understand your point. To be standing unarmed when someone who has deliberately armed themselves with the intent of killing you should you try and stop them is a terrifying thing. Been there, don't want to go back.

The problem is that the arms race itself is flawed. The police carry guns so the criminals start carrying automatic weapons. Escalation is a truly bad idea. Find someone experienced in violence and they'll tell you the only time escalation is a good idea is when it's you going straight from 0 to 10 and clobbering the other guy before he reacts. When you're both inching your way up the violence continuum it's very bad.

IMHO those armed criminals gave up their rights as soon as they picked up a gun.
To a very real extent they have. Armed crminals do not on the whole enjoy long lives - those that do tend to do so because they're in prison.

I really believe that arming police will simply get more police killed. If a criminal has a gun - run. If you can't run, you're probably dead. The fact that you might be able to take them with you is not particularly helpful. It's much better to go the route of armour + run and call in backup / specialists. Which is what our police force is doing.

But again, this is only my opinion.

Take care,
Christopher

azande

26th-November-2005, 09:42 PM

In other words, both countries are roughly as likely to want to kill each other / themselves, but the firearm homicide rate in Italy is 15 times that in the UK. That seems another indication that more guns = more gun deaths.
Yes, agree with this almost completely, the only problem with this statistics is that they do not take into consideration that IMO the numbers of the firearm homicide rate are skewed due to the unique situation in Italy with the Mafia and the other criminal associations of the same kind.

If you take a country that does not have the problems Italy has with organized criminality at that level, like Germany, with a population of 81,338,093 against a E/W population of 51,429,000, things start to look a lot closer.

England/Wales:

* Total homicide rate: 1.41%
* Firearm Homicide rate: 0.11%

Germany:

* Total homicide rate: 1.17%
* Firearm Homicide rate: 0.22%

David Bailey

26th-November-2005, 11:14 PM

Yes, agree with this almost completely, the only problem with this statistics is that they do not take into consideration that IMO the numbers of the firearm homicide rate are skewed due to the unique situation in Italy with the Mafia and the other criminal associations of the same kind.
What, you're saying that cultures are different now and can't be compared? :confused: You were the one who mentioned comparisons with Italy in the first place! :rofl:

If you take a country that does not have the problems Italy has with organized criminality at that level, like Germany, with a population of 81,338,093 against a E/W population of 51,429,000, things start to look a lot closer.
Errr, I dunno, where'd Germany come into it? I've no idea what the legislation is like in Germany re: gun control, so I can't comment beyond saying you seem to be shifting the goalposts, and I'm the only one allowed to do that (it's a rule, it doesn't need to make sense)

But anyway, if Germany's gun control system is similar to the UK's, I'd expect that their gun homicide rate would be low, yes. I know nothing about their legal system though...

I'm certainly not trying to contend that guns increase overall crime or murder rates - I think there are a lot of other cultural factors with as much or more influence - just that more gun ownership and usage correlates to more gun-related homicides.

Or, as a couple of people have said, more guns = more gun deaths.

There's a problem with this which is kind of tricky to express so I ask your patience while I try.
{ snip explanation }
Excellent argument - I think that's a fairly well-known phenomenon, yes?

I first encountered mention of it in a Robert A Heinlein sci-fi book, "Tunnel in the Sky". The hero is about to embark on an extreme survival test on another planet, and wants to take along "guns, lots of guns" for self-defense. His military-experienced sister then explains to the hero that this is a Really Dumb Idea, as he'll most likely then go looking for trouble and get shot; whereas with no weapons, he'll develop eyes in the back of his head, because his gut will know he's vulnerable, and he'll act with due caution.

This (written in 1955, by a famously militaristic libertarian at that), seems like a good argument to me.

Ghost

27th-November-2005, 12:18 AM

Excellent argument - I think that's a fairly well-known phenomenon, yes?

Strangely though it's not been named so I couldn't just go it's the "xyz effect". It's just something that experienced old timers tend to mutter to young bucks. Kinda like "There's a falling piano about to crash into you - please move". :wink:

Unfortunately it seems to be counter-intuitive. A lot of people assume that better armed = safer. Rather than better armed = big target painted on chest and aggressive attitude.:tears:

That's the other point I didn't really make. It's a bad idea to get into firefights. A policeman in armour huddled in the corner is more likely to survive if he's unarmed because the priority of most criminals is to get away. At this point he's not a threat. You're better of getting away. On the other hand if he can shoot you while you're trying to escape, that's a problem. If he's just wounded you or killed one of your 'friends' then 'trying to escape' can be clouded by a strong desire for revenge. This is also bad.

This (written in 1955, by a famously militaristic libertarian at that), seems like a good argument to me.
As you know, Terry Pratchet makes particularly good use of it with the character Rincewind.

Take care,
Christopher

Ghost

27th-November-2005, 12:32 AM

In Italy every single policeman has a gun,
<snip>
it gives you a different prospective on life and resonsability. I was personally responsible for the gun and for every single bullet I had.

Can I change the focus of this slightly. All the English police I've taked to who 'walked a beat' given the choice didn't want to carry a gun.

I never ever want to be in a position where I may kill someone.. don't think I can cope with it.

There's an expression - "Don't carry unless you're willing to use it. Don't use it unless you're willing to kill"

Frankly most English police don't seem to want that responsibility. Those that do can join the armed police squad etc.

Which loops back nicely to David's original point

Seriously, it's a non-issue - I mean, even the police don't want it.

Really all I'm doing is putting forward a perspective. It based on my experience, but it's also coloured by my beliefs.

Your original perspctive was

I don't really seee the problem in having the police carring guns routinely. In Italy every single policeman has a gun, and the frequency of shooting incidents does not seems higher than anywhere else in western Europe. (and before anyone asks, no, I don't have statistics) based on your experience and presumably coloured by your beliefs.

I respect that. Hopefully I've made position clear ~ if not I'm happy to try and express myself better. Otherwise, you've helped protect the public in the past. You contribute to the Forum in the present. I wish you a happy and violence free future.

Be Well,
Christopher

william_ceroc

27th-November-2005, 01:28 PM

Sorry but we already have armed police on our streets and even more since sept 11th

Ghost

27th-November-2005, 01:53 PM

Sorry but we already have armed police on our streets and even more since sept 11th

Fair enough. :cheers:

My interpretation was the question meant "should we arm all police" similar to the situtaion in the USA, but you're quite right it's implicit rather than explicit.

Take care,
Christopher

El Salsero Gringo

27th-November-2005, 02:20 PM

I'm not advocating shooting scum dead on the streets. Those are ESG's words. I'm advocating arming he police so that they can shoot back at armed criminals. Or even shoot first, if they believe that an armed criminal is about to shoot.You said, in the context of willing more guns on the police, "There is clear evidence from countries that arm their police that doing so results in dead criminals." You position that as a good thing. I think it's a bad thing.
ESG is putting words into my mouth and make it sound like I'm advocating summary execution in place of justice. I'm not. I'm advocating arming the police so they can be at least equal in the arms race with criminals. What could be fairer than that?Fair? FAIR??! This is not about FAIR! This is NOT about making the two sides equal so they can play some stupid game!!! This is about people being shot and killed - and your focus is on odds, and who's got the advantage? How blind can you possibly be???

Andy, *whatever* weapons you give the good guys - revolvers, machine guns, tanks or nuclear weapons - they are *always* going to be fighting with one tied hand behind their backs - because they *are* the good guys, and because we demand higher standards of behaviour from them than we ever expect from robbers and murderers. If you want FAIR, then change the the rules, so that the police can go round shooting at will anyone they think might be about to commit a crime. Only when it's a free-for-all on the streets for anyone with a gun, police included - only then will you have evened the odds. And what you will end up with as a result is exactly the kind of society and country you deserve. You - not I - because I will have left long before.

Sorry, Andy, but you have to accept that we ask the police to carry out their duties not from a position of strength, but from a position of weakness. We know it, and they know it. And it's necessary for the protection of what liberty and freedom we have, that that remains the case.

The sooner you come to terms with it the sooner you can get out of the "arms-race" mentality (how telling those words of yours are), and start turning that capable brain towards what *really* needs to be done to make us all safer and freer from crime.

Andy McGregor

27th-November-2005, 02:51 PM

Sorry, Andy, but you have to accept that we ask the police to carry out their duties not from a position of strength, but from a position of weakness. We know it, and they know it. And it's necessary for the protection of what liberty and freedom we have, that that remains the case. At last ESG says something that is correct. The police are weak in the battle with armed crime. However, I do not believe that it IS necessary for the police to be kept weak to protect our liberty and freedom. How would arming the police reduce our liberty and freedom? The only people I can envisage would have less liberty and freedom would be armed criminals. They would have less freedom to carry weapons and would no longer have their liberty as they would be dead or locked up. The result of which would mean more freedom and liberty for the law-abiding public.

The sooner you come to terms with it the sooner you can get out of the "arms-race" mentality (how telling those words of yours are), and start turning that capable brain towards what *really* needs to be done to make us all safer and freer from crime.What really needs to be done is to reduce the number of criminals. In the long term we need a society that does not produce criminals. But for now we need to catch those armed criminals and put them where they can not commit further crimes. We might even wean them off a life of crime - but if we can't I would like to seem them have a life of prison rather than release them to commit further violent crimes.

And how do we expect an unarmed police force to catch armed villans? Maybe ESG has the answer to this one :confused:

El Salsero Gringo

27th-November-2005, 03:09 PM

How would arming the police reduce our liberty and freedom?Since you really have to ask: because more people - guilty and innocent, would get shot. How much freedom has a dead body? How much liberty is left to a corpse? Let you be the one to explain the family of Harry Stanley (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4539693.stm)why he was shot - for carrying table-leg in a plastic bag - and to the dozens of others who will surely follow if you have your way. Meanwhile, I will - if not gladly - then more willingly - explain to the four-year old daughter of PC Sharon Beshenivsky why her mother died - and why giving her mother a gun would not have been the answer.

Ghost

27th-November-2005, 04:16 PM

At last ESG says something that is correct.
Now we're getting somewhere :cheers:

The police are weak in the battle with armed crime.
Ok I hope I'm not about to twist ESG's words. It's really not my intention and if I've misunderstood I unreservedly apologise.

I think this is a problem with English. It's like what does "a strong lead" actually mean - profound, forceful, clear?

By weak I take ESG to mean it more in and aikido / tai chi way. The police are effective. Our prisons are over-flowing despite the judiciary sytems occassional interesting interpretations of the law. But "who watches the watchman?" has to apply. The police have lines that they aren't supposed to cross. This is a "weakness". It is also a profound "strength".

How would arming the police reduce our liberty and freedom?
Ok this is now a different arguement so fair enough.

The only people I can envisage would have less liberty and freedom would be armed criminals. They would have less freedom to carry weapons and would no longer have their liberty as they would be dead or locked up.
I would suggest that we all agree for the majority of armed criminals the freedom to carry in the first place wouldn't be hindered by the police bearing arms, but I realise you're making a different point here.

The result of which would mean more freedom and liberty for the law-abiding public. :clap:

What really needs to be done is to reduce the number of criminals. In the long term we need a society that does not produce criminals. :clap:

But for now we need to catch those armed criminals and put them where they can not commit further crimes. We might even wean them off a life of crime - but if we can't I would like to seem them have a life of prison rather than release them to commit further violent crimes. :clap:

And how do we expect an unarmed police force to catch armed villans? Maybe ESG has the answer to this one :confused:
Ok this is seems to be the last sticking point and then we can all go and have a nice drink. :cheers:

Your point is that it's easier for a police force which is completely armed to catch armed villains than for one which is only partially armed? If I've misunderstood, my apologies.

I disagree with you. Catching armed criminals is largly going to be done after the fact. I believe this is the case in the USA. Public firefights are bad. Much better to track them down and take them unarmed and by surprise at 5am. For this we have forensics, databases, detectives, tv and newspaper appeals, hotlines etc. For those lunatics who start gunfights in public, it's better to call in the specialists.

The other problem with arming the police is training. I'm really annoyed at the change from the truncheon to the tonfa. :angry: Yes, in the hands of a highly trained individual the tonfa is miles better. Japanese police are insanely good with the things. In the hands of someone with hours of training, you're much better of with truncheon. It's easier to draw, the balance is simpler and you're less likely to drop the thing :tears: I seriously fear that if the police were routinely armed, they would get poor quality guns and poor training. Just look at the soldiers out in Irag at the moment :tears: They're buying their own kit !:angry:

The other point that's been made is that the countries where the police are armed all seem to allow the civilans to be armed. This means that growing up the officers were probably familiar with guns. They know how important cleaning them is. They know what to do if it jams, they can take the safety off without looking etc.

So I'd rather we had limited armed police who are well trained, willing to accept the responsibility and given the best kit available. Back them up with 'normal police work' to track down the villains, and obviously better armour for the normal police would be good too.

Take care,
Christopher

Andy McGregor

27th-November-2005, 04:31 PM

Since you really have to ask: because more people - guilty and innocent, would get shot. How much freedom has a dead body? How much liberty is left to a corpse? Let you be the one to explain the family of Harry Stanley (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4539693.stm)why he was shot - for carrying table-leg in a plastic bag - I think we'd all like to know the answer to that one. ESG is arguing from the particular to the general which is the resort of those whose argument is lost - at least in their own minds. We can all find individual situations to support our view. Because no solution is 100% correct we can always find individual examples of that solution failing.

What I'm saying is that we need a well trained and well armed police force to combat an increasingly well armed criminal element. What ESG has done is pick out a single example where arming the police has failed. One thing we need to consider is the deterrent of armed police. We've had well armed police in our airports for years. I wonder how many armed attacks this visible deterrent has avoided. I believe that having our police in the street armed would deter criminals from carrying and using guns in many cases. Consider the tought process of a criminal.

Q. Will I be shot by police if I carry a gun on my crime spree?
A. Probably not

If the answer was maybe or yes it strikes me that some criminals wouldn't take the risk of being shot.

Of course accidents happen. But training means that accidents are less likely.

David Bailey

27th-November-2005, 08:28 PM

I think we'd all like to know the answer to that one. ESG is arguing from the particular to the general which is the resort of those whose argument is lost - at least in their own minds. We can all find individual situations to support our view. Because no solution is 100% correct we can always find individual examples of that solution failing.
Indeed. But one of the poor things about this argument so far is the lack of any actual facts, except of course for my inspired contributions.

So, here's some resources:
- BBC article from 2000, "Should the police be armed" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/986379.stm) - plus comments
- UN firearms survey (http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm#data) (zip file)
- An article from the Times last (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1878913,00.html) week, "Rise in gun crime linked to gangs", with some interesting statistics.
- Another BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1741336.stm), "A country in the crosshairs", from 2002,

And from this lot, here's some actual information I've gleaned:
- In a survey (admittedly 10 years ago), almost 80% of PCs said they were not in favour of being routinely armed, and in the event of a decision to arm all officers, only 43% said they would be prepared to carry guns on duty all the time.
- Out of 700,000 crime incidents in West Yorkshire, only 1,000 needed firearms officers (approx. 0.14% by my maths) to be sent
- Gun fatalities in the UK, in the most recent year recorded, fell from 70 to 60, with the use of shotguns down by 13 per cent and the use of handguns down by 8 per cent.
- The amount of gun crime recorded by the British Crime Survey shows a decrease: "Taking into account recording changes, the real trend in violence against the person in 2001/02 is estimated to have been a reduction of around five percent." - Home Office PDF file source here (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb702.pdf).

So, based on an admittedly brief search, I can't find any actual reliable data to support a proposition that "gun crime is skyrocketing". If anything, it seems to be stable or even decreasing slightly. Which I think most people would be happy with.

Ghost

27th-November-2005, 08:42 PM

So, based on an admittedly brief search, I can't find any actual reliable data to support a proposition that "gun crime is skyrocketing". If anything, it seems to be stable or even decreasing slightly. Which I think most people would be happy with.

I could probably show however that news coverage of gun crime is, if not sky-rocketting, certainly going up.

But I distrust statistics beyond a certain point in a arguement and we passed that ages ago......

However I am heartened by the statement

Because no solution is 100% correct
In essence we're not going to find a perfect solution because there isn't one. There is more in this world than is dreamt of in my philosphy :wink:

It's always interesting seeing other perspectives. Azande's is definitely food for thought.

So will someone let me know when we get to the

After a good fight some martial artists embrace 2 guys, 2 girls, a guy and a girl its a very human thing.
bit. I heard SilverFox runs an interesting place where you can get a decent drink and some pleasant company :cheers:

Take care,
Christopher

David Bailey

27th-November-2005, 08:52 PM

I could probably show however that news coverage of gun crime is, if not sky-rocketting, certainly going up.
That's a natural correlation of increased communicatsion in general, IMO. Same with, for example, natural disasters - 50 years ago, no-one would have got steamed up about an earthquake in Kashmir, now instant communications make everything more personal.

I heard SilverFox runs an interesting place where you can get a decent drink and some pleasant company :cheers:
I'm tempted to post a witty one-liner about a certain Ceroc venue, but then my post might get moderated into oblivion so I won't.

But on the more light-hearted lines, can I just say :worthy: and :clap: to Andy McG for forcing ESG into using multiple quotes and use of bold and use of CAPS - all in one paragraph. :whistle:

Your next challenge, Andy, should you decide to accept it, is to get him using smileys.

El Salsero Gringo

28th-November-2005, 10:49 AM

I think we'd all like to know the answer to that one. ESG is arguing from the particular to the general which is the resort of those whose argument is lost - at least in their own minds. We can all find individual situations to support our view. Because no solution is 100% correct we can always find individual examples of that solution failing.What I'm trying to point out is that it's not going to be an individual occurence. There are individual instances on both sides of the equation, but they're not 'exceptions' - they're the real disasters we need to avoid. Having more armed police will lead to more armed criminals. More armed police and more armed criminals will will lead to more people getting shot. Some of those will be innocents; some will be criminals holding guns. Both are the worst possible outcomes. I know I've said that before, but the message is obviously too complicated to get through to some people without repetition....:whistle:
Q. Will I be shot by police if I carry a gun on my crime spree?
A. Probably not

If the answer was maybe or yes it strikes me that some criminals wouldn't take the risk of being shot.If the answer to your question was maybe, or yes, then gunfights between criminals and police would become common on the streets. Perhaps you'd enjoy that, or it would satisfy some kind of primitive blood-lust going on here. Personally, I hate the idea.
Of course accidents happen. But training means that accidents are less likely.No boss. Point - again - missed. Accidents are not likely - they are INEVITABLE. We already have crack trained police marksmen, personality assessed to bear weapons, and with the strictest rules about when they're allowed to open fire. Still people get shot by mistake. Multiply that a hundred-fold when every copper carries a side-arm.
Your point is that it's easier for a police force which is completely armed to catch armed villains than for one which is only partially armed? If I've misunderstood, my apologies.

I disagree with you. Catching armed criminals is largly going to be done after the fact. I believe this is the case in the USA. Public firefights are bad. Much better to track them down and take them unarmed and by surprise at 5am. For this we have forensics, databases, detectives, tv and newspaper appeals, hotlines etc. For those lunatics who start gunfights in public, it's better to call in the specialists.Well put.

under par

28th-November-2005, 02:22 PM

Indeed. But one of the poor things about this argument so far is the lack of any actual facts, except of course for my inspired contributions.

lots of research

So, based on an admittedly brief search, I can't find any actual reliable data to support a proposition that "gun crime is skyrocketing". If anything, it seems to be stable or even decreasing slightly. Which I think most people would be happy with.

There is no reliable data...that the media would be interested in using.

This is because we have a media based craze of hyping any newsworthy story until it is overdone.
<Rant on>
Until the cleaner's dog's opinion has been tracked down next to a shrine of flowers with upteen teddy bears and lots of sad messages for all to see 10 days after the real news item actually occurred.

<rant over>

When will real news journalism return to our television screen ?

Dreadful Scathe

1st-December-2005, 01:21 PM

Let's bring back the death penalty for these violent criminals. If they thought they were risking their life each time they carried a gun they'd think twice before doing so.

I remember being fascinated in history at school when I read about the fact that the death by hanging was the penalty for a lot of minor crimes, including pickpocketing. Where was the best place to pickpocket? At a public hanging of course. Needs must for some people and damn the consequences.

Q. Will I be shot by police if I carry a gun on my crime spree?
A. Probably not

If the answer was maybe or yes it strikes me that some criminals wouldn't take the risk of being shot.

It seems highly likely that you WILL be shot be police if you carry a gun on a crime spree - thats what the fast response firearms units are there for. You also said here...

For some reason, ESG seems to think these violent criminals are logical, thinking beings. They are scum.

..that violent criminals are not logical or thinking beings. If so, why do you proclaim to know what criminals would or wouldnt do as regards risk when commiting crimes :confused:

Of course accidents happen. But training means that accidents are less likely.

Training with guns means an accident is less likely - lack of guns means an accident is impossible. I remember the story of the policewoman in the US who 'accidently' shot someone who was already in the back of the police car. He was being unruly and she thought it was her tazer she was drawing. Accidents will happen though.

Barry Shnikov

2nd-February-2006, 04:39 PM

2. I am aware of the human frailties in all walks of life and the police service is no different( we are after all only a cross section of the larger community) there are enough serving police officers I know who I worry about armed with a book of parking tickets:eek:

I've posted about this before but I don't think on this forum...

My sister's first husband was a civilian worker at a North London nick. He successfully applied to become a PC, and was on his way to sergeant when they split up.

His one great ambition was to be appointed to whatever the squad was that would be armed when the occasion required.

The thought of a dickhead like him loose on the streets of any city made my blood run cold. I could easily see people like him being responsible for the death of the guy with the table leg and even the guy (several years ago) who was shot in a mini - Steven something-or-other, was a film editor mistaken for a villain who looked nothing like him and didn't drive a Mini.

The problem is that people like Under par, with respect, are the ones I would like to see carrying arms when it is necessary, but of course the ones who want to carry guns are the ones for whom the fascination lurks within...

Rhythm King

2nd-February-2006, 05:01 PM

I could easily see people like him being responsible for the death of the guy with the table leg and even the guy (several years ago) who was shot in a mini - Steven something-or-other, was a film editor mistaken for a villain who looked nothing like him and didn't drive a Mini.

Minor details Barry, but Stephen Waldorf wasn't shot dead, he was injured, and not only was he driving the mini of David Martin, the armed man that was subject to a massive manhunt at the time, but was wearing the guy's clothes and a wig to look like him, in order to provide an alibi for him. Martin's girlfriend was also in the car at the time. Hardly the behaviour of a totally innocent bystander, albeit not something to be shot for, I'd agree. He got £150k compensation.

David Martin, the man they were actually looking for was cornered in Hampstead a couple of days later and tried to make a run for it down a tube tunnel towards Belsize Park, where he was captured. He had been to meet his girlfriend and was dressed in drag at the time. He subsequently committed suicide.

I lived about 100 yards from where the shooting took place and was friends at the time with one of the officers involved.

Barry Shnikov

2nd-February-2006, 05:49 PM

Minor details Barry, but Stephen Waldorf wasn't shot dead

duh...appreciate the tip, RK, but if you read carefully you'll see that I wrote he was shot; I'm aware that he didn't die...:innocent:

(curses, hit the wrong key...)

...on a more serious note, I never heard all this about being disguised as Martin, etc., and I think I would have noted that if it was generally available information. Sounds to me like the same sort of 'disinformation' as we heard about Jean Charles de Menezes - " 'e was wearing a great thick coat in summer, 'e vaulted the ticket barrier and ran onto the train, 'e refused to stop when challenged..."

Do you have any reference for what you write?

Rhythm King

2nd-February-2006, 06:59 PM

duh...appreciate the tip, RK, but if you read carefully you'll see that I wrote he was shot; I'm aware that he didn't die...

I stand corrected :blush:

...on a more serious note, I never heard all this about being disguised as Martin, etc., and I think I would have noted that if it was generally available information. Sounds to me like the same sort of 'disinformation' as we heard about Jean Charles de Menezes - " 'e was wearing a great thick coat in summer, 'e vaulted the ticket barrier and ran onto the train, 'e refused to stop when challenged..."

Do you have any reference for what you write?

I met some of the people involved and they told me this. It was in the press/on tv at the time, but a lot the stuff one reads now seems to be based around what was in the tv drama, which was not completely unbiased, as I recall. One positive effect of the shooting was the introduction of stringent ACPO guidelines regarding arming police and issuing challenges.

This thread is wrongly titled - it should be "Should we routinely arm all police", given that there already armed police officers employed in various roles. If terrorists and criminals weren't routinely armed and callously using these weapons, the police wouldn't need them either.