Should the police be armed

Should the police be armed?

  • Yes

    Votes: 43 32.6%

  • No

    Votes: 52 39.4%

  • In some situations I guess it'd be ok

    Votes: 34 25.8%

  • I already am

    Votes: 3 2.3%
  • Total voters
    132
ST4 said:
Violent criminals need stopped, and that may require the police to shoot them dead for the safety of themselves and the public. I don't see whats so hard to grasp.
Click to expand...

It must be wonderful living ST4's simplified, black and white world, where there are only the good guys and the bad guys. In ST4 world the bad guys are all evil criminals and deserve summary execution before they murder our families and eat children alive, and the good guys all wear white hats and never make mistakes, panic, or are just lazy or stupid or plain nasty.
 
Last edited:
PatrickO said:
It must be wonderful living ST4's simplified, black and white world, where there are only the good guys and the bad guys. In ST4 world the bad guys are all evil criminals and deserve summary execution before they murder our families and eat children alive, and the good guys all wear white hats and never make mistakes, panic, or are just lazy or stupid or plain nasty.
Click to expand...

Stop trolling. If someone threatens a police officer with a knife, why shouldn't they be shot? The police are at times ill equipped to deal with unrest and violent people. Guns give them that equipment. Its my belief no police should be killed in the line of duty, giving them guns may reach that goal.
 
ST4 said:
In the highlands of scotland, beet cops are getting guns.
Click to expand...

They have special police just for beets? They are hardly likely to pull themselves up out of the ground and go on a killing spree! And what about other vegetables? I've alway thought maize is a very supspicious looking plant - why do they need to be taller than all the other vegetables? Those maize definitely need to be kept an eye on.
 
PatrickO said:
They have special police just for beets? They are hardly likely to pull themselves up out of the ground and go on a killing spree! And what about other vegetables? I've alway thought maize is a very supspicious looking plant - why do they need to be taller than all the other vegetables? Those maize definitely need to be kept an eye on.
Click to expand...

Stop trolling.
 
PatrickO said:
They have special police just for beets? They are hardly likely to pull themselves up out of the ground and go on a killing spree! And what about other vegetables? I've alway thought maize is a very supspicious looking plant - why do they need to be taller than all the other vegetables? Those maize definitely need to be kept an eye on.
Click to expand...

dogs as well, don't forget those dangerous dogs they have to shoot.....but not speeding drivers. Thats OK.
 
Let's consider the facts, just for a moment, even if it goes against the grain for some...
1. In this country, most criminals don't carry guns, for whatever reason
2. Those who do, often/usually have sawn off shotguns, which although deadly at a distance of up to about 10 yards, are wildly innaccurate. The other 'popular' illegal firearm is a converted blank firing pistol or converted airgun, that can only fire 1 shot. Anyone caught in possession of a section 5 firearm illegally will go to prison for at least 5 years, which may the the principal reason why most criminals don't have them.
3. Those who do have them are very unlikely to be skilled in there use.

But, these armed criminals do exist, so we need to have armed police to deal with the threat, and although the number of gun crimes has gone down, the number of armed police officers has gone up. And whatever I may think of the standard of training, the fact remains that they do get training and they are also issued with extremely effective, modern weapons in good condition, which means that they can deal with armed criminals very effectively - or at least they can once they arrive.

But, inevitably, sometimes police officers shoot people who they shouldn't shoot. Whether this happens a little or a lot, it's obvious that if more police officers are armed, there will be more incidents of this type. And if the larger number of armed police results in a lower standard of training, then the number of incidents will increase out of proportion to the increase in numbers, that's obvious.

The fact that it is extremely rare for an armed police officer to be charged with criminal conduct as a result of shooting someone, and unknown for them to be convicted, is neither here nor there. If the numbers indicate anything at all, they indicate only that the police have always been found to have acted within the law, it doesn't indicate whether or not they were actually innocent. Police officers are human, they can make mistakes, they can behave irresponsibly, they can do things that are wrong when judged by any moral compass - but that doesn't mean that they necessarily acted unlawfully, so any justification for their actions based on the fact that they weren't found guilty is just nonsense.
 
boyfalldown said:
dogs as well, don't forget those dangerous dogs they have to shoot.....but not speeding drivers. Thats OK.
Click to expand...

Speeding drivers are dealt with under the law. Dangerous dogs deserve to be put down.
boyfalldown said:
Thankfully only in your world
Click to expand...

Have you never been to Spain, Italy, France, the cops have guns. Its good for unrest. Guns are great
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
Only in yours and those who haven't enjoyed guns would say that. Guns are great. It's a opinion.
Click to expand...


fixed that for you.

how do you know what I have and haven't done, out of interest?
 
ST4 said:
You get a feeling about people. Firing a gun is a great pleasure. It's like a fast car, a decent swiss watch, a decent camera body/lens.
Click to expand...
It's strange that you have experience of this, firearms certificates are usually revoked when people are convicted of serious offences such as driving at insane speeds.
 
ST4 said:
So if you've enjoyed guns why wouldn't you say they are great.
Click to expand...


I don't think they are. Shooting can be great fun. But that doesn't make guns themselves great.

Please feel free to live over there
 
I agree that shooting can be great fun - however a gun is a tool to treat with respect, its not a toy.
 
1. In this country, most criminals don't carry guns, for whatever reason
Click to expand...

About the only accurate thing you said.

2. Those who do, often/usually have sawn off shotguns, which although deadly at a distance of up to about 10 yards, are wildly innaccurate. The other 'popular' illegal firearm is a converted blank firing pistol or converted airgun, that can only fire 1 shot.
Click to expand...

Wrong!

In the year Apr 2012 to Mar 2013 there were 11,227 recorded offences involving firearms, broken down as follows.

By weapon type:
Long-barrelled shotgun = 288
Sawn-off shotgun = 165
Handgun = 2,256
Rifle = 43
Imitation firearm = 1,225
Unidentified firearm = 725
Other firearm = 456
Air weapons = 2,977

Shotguns are not the weapon of choice any more, and have not been for years.

Anyone caught in possession of a section 5 firearm illegally will go to prison for at least 5 years, which may the the principal reason why most criminals don't have them.
Click to expand...

Anyone using a firearm in crime generally does not worry about 5 years served consecutively to the longer sentence for substantive offences they are usually nicked for.

3. Those who do have them are very unlikely to be skilled in there use.
Click to expand...

They don't have to be, as the number of firearms deaths show.

But, inevitably, sometimes police officers shoot people who they shouldn't shoot. Whether this happens a little or a lot, it's obvious that if more police officers are armed, there will be more incidents of this type. And if the larger number of armed police results in a lower standard of training, then the number of incidents will increase out of proportion to the increase in numbers, that's obvious.
Click to expand...

Show us some evidence. This is pure uneducated guessing. To show thats the case, when the BAA policed Heathrow, unarmed, there were NO deaths due to Police use of firearms. Since the Met took over there have been...You guessed it, No deaths, in spite of more than 100 officers a day being armed, every day. The evidence does not does not support guessing.

On training, ah, guessing again. No evidence supports what you are saying.

The fact that it is extremely rare for an armed police officer to be charged with criminal conduct as a result of shooting someone, and unknown for them to be convicted, is neither here nor there. If the numbers indicate anything at all, they indicate only that the police have always been found to have acted within the law, it doesn't indicate whether or not they were actually innocent. Police officers are human, they can make mistakes, they can behave irresponsibly, they can do things that are wrong when judged by any moral compass - but that doesn't mean that they necessarily acted unlawfully, so any justification for their actions based on the fact that they weren't found guilty is just nonsense.
Click to expand...

Again, flawed logic. If you are acting within the law, you are innocent. 'Moral compass' isn't anything to do with it.
You may well want it to be but it isn't. In any case, who are you to judge guilt based on your theory of morals, based as you clearly show often no knowledge of any of the incidents you so often talk about? For example, your red mist theory, you were not there, have never met anyone involved and not looked at the facts. Yet you presume to pass judgment.

Lets be clear here Garry, you are a gun enthusiast, a member of a gun club. You are not, and never have been a member of the forces or Police. You know a little about the legislation on use of force and nothing about Police/Forces rules on the use of firearms. You have an issue for personal reasons against some police officers. In summary Garry, you are not qualified to make the comments that you do.
 
Garry Edwards said:
It's strange that you have experience of this, firearms certificates are usually revoked when people are convicted of serious offences such as driving at insane speeds.
Click to expand...

I was the member of a rifle club when I was a lot younger and army cadets. We got to shoot 7.62 target rifles, SA80, 0.22 target rifles. I really enjoyed it. I don't own a fire-arm nor have applied for a fire arm certificate.

BTW, this may help you. There is no offence such as driving at insane speeds and I don't see the relevance of my driving to a thread about the police and them using guns in their employ. Can you please explain why you brought it (my motoring offence) up?
 
Last edited:
" Recorded offences" may be crimes and undoubtably are, but they are not necessarily the sort of crimes that we are discussing here - crimes where a person engaged in criminal activity, e.g. a robbery, has an illegally held gun for the purpose of assisting in that crime.

Some of those offences with long barrelled shotguns and rifles may well be legitimate shooters who were guilty of armed trespass by virtue of accidentally straying from a piece of land where they had lawful authority to shoot onto another piece that they mistakenly thought belonged to owner of the piece they were authorised to be on.

And home office figures on the identification of guns used illegally are woefully incomplete and inadequate, as evidenced in the Home affairs select committee report - which I have read, cover to cover, as I produced evidence to that committee. "Unidentified firearm" usually means that a member of the public thought that they saw a firearm but didn't know what they had seen.

I don't need to be an ex member of a police force to have read their various "guidelines" to their employees, nor is that necessary for me to have read their internal memos etc. With the greatest possible respect, you are an ex front line officer (for which you truly do deserve respect) but I think it's very likely that my own knowledge is much more up to date, and my knowledge is also about the attitudes and conduct of some ACPO officers. I've had a lot of contact with them over the last 2 years, how often did you have a cup of coffee and a chat with your Chief Constable? And even if you did, were you able to stand your ground with him?
 
ST4 said:
The police do, and will do, treat their firearm with the respect it deserves. Have some faith.
Click to expand...

I'm sure they do and will - i was reffering to you "guns are great" comment
 
Sorry Garry, but your wrong again.

Police officers are crown servants. Not employees.

You see, when a Police officer gets something wrong, you accuse them of lying. When you get it wrong, which is often, its a mistake, the Home Offices fault, or we are suddenly talking about something else. Or perhaps its as I said, you are talking rubbish.

You said, that the majority of firearms offences concern shotguns. The evidence is that this is not correct, in fact it's a very small percentage. Plain and simple. I don't need excuses for people shooting on the wrong bit of land, I am interested in what concerns armed Police. On that, you were not just a little bit wrong, not just a bit wide, not just missing by a country, you were so wide the hubble telescope couldn't see it. Yet you spouted it as fact.

The last time I met my Commissioner, we don't have CC's in the Met, I told him we had 2 things in common, a surname and that neither us were going any further in the Job. He laughed and I walked off, muttering a word I can't use. I had less inclination to have any further conversation with him than I have with you, but someone has to correct you. I only wish it wasn't so often.

The conduct of ACPO, I doubt you know half of, but thats a different subject and not one that you would learn about over a nice cup of tea, and your knowledge of policing processes are very wide of the mark. Not usually, always. So you fooled Vaz & Co. Big deal that happens daily.

As always Garry, you twist and turn like a twisty turney thing. Next time try saying its opinion, not evidence you are spouting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Bernie174 said:
Sorry Garry, but your wrong again.

Police officers are crown servants. Not employees.

.
Click to expand...

Well strictly speaking anyone who is a crown servant, is an officer of the HM government, and is employed by the crown (as opposed to a civil servant who is employed by a government dpeartment or agency).

But they ARE employees.
 
Viv
You can strictly speak as much as you like, Police are not employees, and have none of the protections that employees have as a result. They are Crown Servants being appointed as Independent Officers under the Crown.
The reason for that is to keep the Legislature and Policing separate, so for example a Government Minister cannot order a Police Officer to say arrest someone.
While Governments have eroded that over the years as much as they can, it remains a fact a Police Officer is not an employee.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Bernie174 said:
Viv
You can strictly speak as much as you like, Police are not employees, and have none of the protections that employees have as a result. They are Crown Servants being appointed as Independent Officers under the Crown.
The reason for that is to keep the Legislature and Policing separate, so for example a Government Minister cannot order a Police Officer to say arrest someone.
While Governments have eroded that over the years as much as they can, it remains a fact a Police Officer is not an employee.
Click to expand...

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/cnr/faq1.htm
 
viv1969 said:
Well strictly speaking anyone who is a crown servant, is an officer of the HM government, and is employed by the crown (as opposed to a civil servant who is employed by a government dpeartment or agency).

But they ARE employees.
Click to expand...

with in some reduced employment rights like being unable to resign whilst facing disciplinary hearings...
 
Bernie174 said:
Sorry Garry, but your wrong again.

Police officers are crown servants. Not employees.

You see, when a Police officer gets something wrong, you accuse them of lying. When you get it wrong, which is often, its a mistake, the Home Offices fault, or we are suddenly talking about something else. Or perhaps its as I said, you are talking rubbish.

You said, that the majority of firearms offences concern shotguns. The evidence is that this is not correct, in fact it's a very small percentage. Plain and simple. I don't need excuses for people shooting on the wrong bit of land, I am interested in what concerns armed Police. On that, you were not just a little bit wrong, not just a bit wide, not just missing by a country, you were so wide the hubble telescope couldn't see it. Yet you spouted it as fact.

The last time I met my Commissioner, we don't have CC's in the Met, I told him we had 2 things in common, a surname and that neither us were going any further in the Job. He laughed and I walked off, muttering a word I can't use. I had less inclination to have any further conversation with him than I have with you, but someone has to correct you. I only wish it wasn't so often.

The conduct of ACPO, I doubt you know half of, but thats a different subject and not one that you would learn about over a nice cup of tea, and your knowledge of policing processes are very wide of the mark. Not usually, always. So you fooled Vaz & Co. Big deal that happens daily.

As always Garry, you twist and turn like a twisty turney thing. Next time try saying its opinion, not evidence you are spouting.
Click to expand...
OK, got that - I'm not an ex police officer, so I know nothing about anything :)

By all means disagree with me, but why do you have to be so rude and offensive towards me, and towards everyone else who disagrees with your views?

I think it would be better if I just ignore anything else that you say.
 
ST4 said:
with in some reduced employment rights like being unable to resign whilst facing disciplinary hearings...
Click to expand...

Absolutely, but employed nonetheless.
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
Google again, huh
Click to expand...

Yes. Clearly from now on it should be called "The Moose Effect". (y)

*Edit*....and in fact I just posted a link, not a cut and paste job without credit. OK Tiger? :-)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top