About time too...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Steve Smith said:
Quite likely. I have no idea about the statistics relating to guns (obviously from other countries) but it has been stated that if you carry a knife for self defence, you are more likely to have it used against you than use it yourself.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Doubt that applies to a trained police.

You hardly see a cop in handcuffs as jimmy housebreaker has managed to get them off the copper them apply them. Guns are great and it's great our police will have them.
 
New Zealand has adopted an armed response model similar to Britain, says the International Law Enforcement Forum. There was considerable debate there in 2010 when two officers were shot, and commissioner Peter Marshall wrote: "International experience shows that making firearms more accessible raises certain risks that are very difficult to control."

These considerations included:

• risk of police having weapons taken from them

• risk of greater use of weapons against the public and/or offenders

• and ambush can never be controlled, whether or not officers are armed
Click to expand...
 
ST4 said:
Lets just say I go down the Yoker line daily, and its not nice and there have been stabbings on this route. This is an appalling city with an appalling problem of drunken and/or drug fueled violence and robbery. Some one even tried to get my gear off me in Patrick station at 830pm (and Partick is a nice bit), you know the sort, sucked in face, pasty faced, tracksuit - rough looking. A ned.

Anyway, why is this thread about me. Its about the pro's and cons of our police being armed. I can see very few cons. Abroad police are armed. It works well.
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight, you think partick is a nice place yet you are scared to go on public transport after 9pm. I think you are living in some sort of parrallel universe and the internet connection has transplaced the two realities.
 
I think Glasgow is ace.
 
POAH said:
So let me get this straight, you think partick is a nice place yet you are scared to go on public transport after 9pm. I think you are living in some sort of parrallel universe and the internet connection has transplaced the two realities.
Click to expand...

compared to the rest of the city, its one of the better bits. Ive taken public transport elsewhere and found it fine, but in Glasgows train network the drunken rowdiness is something else.

Armed police are the solution.
 
ST4 said:
compared to the rest of the city, its one of the better bits. Ive taken public transport elsewhere and found it fine, but in Glasgows train network the drunken rowdiness is something else.

Armed police are the solution.
Click to expand...
better rules surrounding the supply of cheap alcohol is the solution.
 
ST4 said:
Bottle yeilding
Click to expand...
Since "yeilding" isn't the gerund form of any verb that I know, I'm going to work on the basis that you have transposed the 'e' and 'i' and meant yielding, from the verb to yield.

So they're yielding their weapons. Why does the police officer then need anything more than their truncheon to deal with them?
 
onomatopoeia said:
So they're yielding their weapons. Why does the police officer then need anything more than their truncheon to deal with them?
Click to expand...

A gun ensures the conflict is resolved more quickly and the victim complies at gun point rather than attacks the officer.

I am glad my spelling mistake amused you. You must feel very clever.
 
I think we should all cower in a darkened room until they make lots of laws to protect us from all the nasty stuff.
 
onomatopoeia said:
Since "yeilding" isn't the gerund form of any verb that I know, I'm going to work on the basis that you have transposed the 'e' and 'i' and meant yielding, from the verb to yield.

So they're yielding their weapons. Why does the police officer then need anything more than their truncheon to deal with them?
Click to expand...


I think he actually means wielding ;)
 
You know if we do get armed police as a matter of course they won't be allowed to go around popping homeless drug addicts in the face. You realise that don't you?
 
ST4 said:
Thats the thinking they (the government) did with the roads.
Click to expand...

Aah, they're still not to be trusted though.

Those skinny little yellow roads are psychopaths. I think that's how you say it :thinking:
 
ST4 said:
Unlikely, its hardly like handcuffs and batons going missing. Guns will be used to control and ensure clean compliant arrests and behaviour.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about 'going missing' I'm talking about having the gun taken from them when a crowd of drunken idiots with no fear and restraint grab the weapon ... what then?
 
ST4 said:
Yep.
Click to expand...

So people who have committed no crime other than to be the victim of addiction? You'd condone shooting them in the face? For the crime of sitting on a park bench and drinking cider from a bottle?
 
ST4 said:
Yep.
Click to expand...
Woah woah woah.

You would happily see a drug addict shot in the face. Not knowing their personal circumstances (technically taking, even possessing some, drugs isn't against any law). Yet heaven forbid a motorist be prosecuted for speeding or anyone own a dog that you consider dangerous.

You need to get your standards in line.
 
norters said:
You know if we do get armed police as a matter of course they won't be allowed to go around popping homeless drug addicts in the face. You realise that don't you?
Click to expand...

Are you absolutely sure about that? When Tasers were being rolled out, the public was assured that the weapon would only be deployed if the constable carrying considered that there was a direct and immediate threat to themselves or others in the immediate vicinity. It didn't take long for that to go by the boards. For my first witness, I call the poor blind bloke with a white stick that some dipstick in uniform with a taser took to be a samurai sword in disguise. There are plenty of others to choose from. So don't even think that it can't go pear shaped ... it can and it will.
 
Last edited:
neil_g said:
Woah woah woah.

You would happily see a drug addict shot in the face. Not knowing their personal circumstances (technically taking, even possessing some, drugs isn't against any law). Yet heaven forbid a motorist be prosecuted for speeding or anyone own a dog that you consider dangerous.

You need to get your standards in line.
Click to expand...

Drug addicts steal, cause misery and murder. Why wouldn't I want them shot?
 
ST4 said:
They are. Leeds, Newcastle, Glasgow I've sampled on Saturday nights. The rowdiness and drunkeness which trims violent is appalling. Armed police will set the tone and give people a second thought when they attack police officers arresting their mate. Can't wait to see more of this armed police
Click to expand...

I've lived in Leeds most of my life and although there are a lot of drunks about later in the evenng I feel much safer now than I have felt.

Cheers .
 
ST4 said:
Drug addicts steal, cause misery and murder. Why wouldn't I want them shot?
Click to expand...

That wouldn't be a massive sweeping statement would it? As that's not like you!

Addiction is a disease that should be treated. Not by shooting someone in the face.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top