Should all police carry guns?

Originally Posted by Spiderman

Well short of setting up my own political party what do you suggest i do?

The deposit for standing for election is very small (in relative terms): £500 in 2005. It is advertising that costs the big bucks. If you need to advertise heavily then your policies are not selling themselves - something the big parties seem to forget.

If you have the backing of millions of people, then you can get elected and start change for good. If you don't have this backing, then you will lose your deposit. If the electorate is so fickle that it believes the advertising of other parties, then you don't have the grass roots support you believe.

It gets my goat when people complain about something they can change - albeit in a small way. Democracy may not be perfect, but it is the best solution we have at the moment; the perfect system doesn't exist because of people - some are more equal than others.

And I also don't believe that political advertising should be centrally funding.

No, I wouldn't feel comfortable carrying one and imo (dunno if any one will agree) I could see more crims carrying / using guns if the police carried them.

[Sid Squid]

Originally Posted by Milky Bar Kid

Can I just remind everyone that cops do currently carry a firearm. CS Spray is a Section 5 Firearm...just wanted to remind you of that.

Is this a justification for carrying guns or not? I can't see what you're trying to say.

Well some very interesting responses, especially seeing as many of the police themselves are saying no to firearms as well, so you can't argue with that...it is their job. I guess it is very much born out of a culture thing in this country. Fortunately we don't have easy access to guns, and they are not a significant problem. I completely understand where people are coming from, and introducing them could create more problems.

But the flip side to that is that our police do get hurt or even killed.
http://www.lutontoday.co.uk/pcjonhen...der.2948894.jp
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle812410.ece

Originally Posted by Spiderman

What you forget is that if a crim gets the gun off cop the cops is a dead man. Why give the crim the option of having a gun he didnt have a minute ago?

But if a criminal really want a cop dead, surely an unarmed cop would be an easier target. A gun would not just happen to fall into the hands of a crim, and if the crim is going for the gun he is intending to kill. In which case, the current unarmed officers would be much easier targets on that assumption. Spray would not do anything against a man in a mask covering his nose/mouth and wearing some sort of eye protection. And as MBK stated, if you're within baton range, you are within knife range.

Also I do not think the Menezes case applies to this question, as the average police officer would be trained to shoot if they believed their life was in imminent danger and they have given plenty warnings - very different to watching and tracking a terror suspect, then pinning him down and shooting him repetitively in the head (obv the average armed policeman would not be given this power to deal with an unarmed man, terror suspect or not).

[Sid Squid]

Originally Posted by thulfi

But the flip side to that is that our police do get hurt or even killed.

True, but it's not like Police in countries where arms are regularly carried never get killed.

Sadly I can't find the relevant document, but some years ago a newspaper, (I forget which one), tallied up attacks on the Police themselves here and in the States and found that despite being armed US officers stand a greater risk of dying at work than do UK officers.

[Bri w]

Originally Posted by thulfi

Also I do not think the Menezes case applies to this question, as the average police officer would be trained to shoot if they believed their life was in imminent danger and they have given plenty warnings - very different to watching and tracking a terror suspect, then pinning him down and shooting him repetitively in the head (obv the average armed policeman would not be given this power to deal with an unarmed man, terror suspect or not).

I can see where you are coming from but I think you are now making an assumption.

Whatever "Rules of Engagement" are issued you can guarantee they will be crossed, and hindsight will be used to justify the accident - little use to the poor sod with the hole in their head.

[Mej]

i think the gun thing has positives and negatives but i would probably say its more hassle than its worth.

dogs are better than guns imo.

police with guns dont scare me half as much as police dogs, if it is chasing u, unless you kill it, u are fu*ked imo.

i just think the cops over here need to be a bit more like other countries police forces (im sure many would if they didnt think they would get sued or fired), they take no sh*t from no one. i would serioulsy think twice about bk talking a garda civil or US cop, u get mouthy with them they kick the sh*t out of you, men and women.

Originally Posted by Mej

i just think the cops over here need to be a bit more like other countries police forces (im sure many would if they didnt think they would get sued or fired), they take no sh*t from no one. i would serioulsy think twice about bk talking a garda civil or US cop, u get mouthy with them they kick the sh*t out of you, men and women.

I'm not sure promoting violence BY the police is actually the answer to anything...

[Mej]

no, but i know alot of people that dont have a lot of respect for them. they take a lot of cra* because people know they can get away with it, when sometimes all the person needs is a good slap to shut them up, instead of arresting for Section 5.

Originally Posted by Mej

no, but i know alot of people that dont have a lot of respect for them. they take a lot of cra* because people know they can get away with it, when sometimes all the person needs is a good slap to shut them up, instead of arresting for Section 5.

That is symptomatic of society, and not an excuse to allow the police to "teach them a lesson"