Soldiers vs Armed Police
Discussion
TurboHatchback said:
In the UK we have probably the best relationship between the public and the police of anywhere I've been or heard about, I suspect this is in no small part due to the lack of firearms. Armed officers must deal with suspects in a much more stand-off fashion to avoid their weapons being taken
Mmm, Im not sure that being armed or not has anything to do with police-public relations. I think Brits just have an uncomfortable relationship with guns along the lines of "oh there's a gun somehow it's going to go wrong and it's gonna kill everybody". I have a bit of trouble with the notion that police-public relations are bad in small, innocuous, low crime countries like Denmark, just because Danish police are armed. I mean does anyone think of Denmark and say "armed police; nutters"I personally don't think we should have the police or the army strolling around the streets with firearms. It makes me feel very uneasy when seeing/being around them, certainly don't feel any safer especially as we all know it's for show because is in reality there's nothing they can do when dealing with the reasons they've specifically been deployed for on this occasion.
It's a knee jerk reaction and is very uneccessary. Seeing a lot less of them now the sun has gone in a bit
It's a knee jerk reaction and is very uneccessary. Seeing a lot less of them now the sun has gone in a bit
TurboHatchback said:
I see a problem with it. As soon as officers carry weapons every single interaction with a suspect becomes a life or death situation and consequently people get shot when they needn't (look at the US). Also whilst our firearms officers are generally fit, well trained and seem competent to carry the weapons they bear could you honestly say the same for every police officer you've ever met or seen? How we work now is better.
How about we look at some of the European countries instead? Most are routinely armed and you don't hear stories of everyone getting shot on stop checks. The US is different, every man and woman can be armed and a lot of them do carry, whether it's overtly or concealed carry. The US police never know whether the person they are about to stop, is carrying a firearm, whether it's a legal or illegal one. Thankfully, we don't have that issue here, it's only the criminals who will carry, not the law abiding public. I would be ok to routinely carry a firearm at work, it's just another tool for me to decide whether I use it. Since Taser was introduced, I haven't felt the need to shoot anyone with it and I assess every situation I get into, that wouldn't change of I carried a firearm.
FurryExocet said:
How about we look at some of the European countries instead? Most are routinely armed and you don't hear stories of everyone getting shot on stop checks. The US is different, every man and woman can be armed and a lot of them do carry, whether it's overtly or concealed carry. The US police never know whether the person they are about to stop, is carrying a firearm, whether it's a legal or illegal one. Thankfully, we don't have that issue here, it's only the criminals who will carry, not the law abiding public.
I would be ok to routinely carry a firearm at work, it's just another tool for me to decide whether I use it. Since Taser was introduced, I haven't felt the need to shoot anyone with it and I assess every situation I get into, that wouldn't change of I carried a firearm.
im not happy for em to all be armed you appear to be level levelheaded without the need to test the new toy for no reason .but iv met a few cops i would not trust with a pea shooter let alone a loaded glock 17. and im shaw if you tell the truth there be a few on you shift you would want to hand a loaded gun too. Out of curiosity when you carry do they allow you to carry em chambered or un chambered ?I would be ok to routinely carry a firearm at work, it's just another tool for me to decide whether I use it. Since Taser was introduced, I haven't felt the need to shoot anyone with it and I assess every situation I get into, that wouldn't change of I carried a firearm.
Edited by optimate on Thursday 1st June 12:10
Cbull said:
I personally don't think we should have the police or the army strolling around the streets with firearms. It makes me feel very uneasy when seeing/being around them, certainly don't feel any safer especially as we all know it's for show because is in reality there's nothing they can do when dealing with the reasons they've specifically been deployed for on this occasion.
It's a knee jerk reaction and is very uneccessary. Seeing a lot less of them now the sun has gone in a bit
Well, the Officer with a gun stopped a terrorist attack in London recently. The Officer without one died It's a knee jerk reaction and is very uneccessary. Seeing a lot less of them now the sun has gone in a bit
TurboHatchback said:
I see a problem with it. As soon as officers carry weapons every single interaction with a suspect becomes a life or death situation and consequently people get shot when they needn't (look at the US). Also whilst our firearms officers are generally fit, well trained and seem competent to carry the weapons they bear could you honestly say the same for every police officer you've ever met or seen? How we work now is better.
You do realise there's millions of interaction in the US between Police and the public that don't involve firearms. I know US Officers with 20+yrs service who have never drawn their guncreampuff said:
As a side note, I don't see a problem with having all police armed with a pistol all of the time, but in terms of the purpose of stopping terrorists with one of the millions of black market rifles available in Europe and the Balkans.... having routinely armed police likely makes little difference to having specialist armed police. If a terrorist is running around with an AK-47 and you only have a pistol, you are f
ked.
Give them a .44 Mag Desert Eagle. Now that's a fun pistol!ked. Elroy Blue said:
Well, the Officer with a gun stopped a terrorist attack in London recently. The Officer without one died
You may need more than 1 example to pursued me otherwise. At the same time, I believe it's fine to have them a set placements protecting certain people/buildings but I just don't think they should be strolling the streets with them. They will cause more hassle than its worth, not to mention cost.Cbull said:
You may need more than 1 example to pursued me otherwise. At the same time, I believe it's fine to have them a set placements protecting certain people/buildings but I just don't think they should be strolling the streets with them. They will cause more hassle than its worth, not to mention cost.
i agree with you there's no way i want a load of plod walking around with a chambered glock 17 that have not been handling guns for years or have the proper mentality over nightreality check
Out of the total 150,000 officers in the 39 territorial police forces in England, 6,500 are trained in the use of firearms. 2,500 of them are in service with the Metropolitan Police.[15]
Before a police officer can apply to join the firearms unit, they are required to have completed their two-year probationary period. After being screened for security clearance and undergoing various interviews, they are invited to attend the National Police Firearms Training Centre at Gravesend, Kent. At the centre, the potential AFOs undergo one week of intensive training on the Glock 17 pistol, Heckler & Koch MP5 semi automatic carbine, Heckler & Koch L104A1 baton gun and the X26
the glock 17 is a double action striker fire semi auto it has no manual safety it prity safe if you drop it
carrying an unchamberd gun is near useless if you need to draw it quick they are normally carried chambered
to fire you have to have you finger in both safety trigger and main trigger
you always draw and holster with you finger out of trigger guard
now add a really stress situation where you need to draw
how much training would the the 140,000 that have never held a gun get
I would not be happy to let some walk around with a chambered glock that only had a weeks training
on top of that many that apply to join firearms don't finish even start as they don't have the right mind set what you do with them ?
the glock is not the best pistol to hand em there's way to many accidental glock discharges world wide you need to be a robot for em to be safe 100 percent and humans are not look of the number of accidental police glock discharges in us
Out of the total 150,000 officers in the 39 territorial police forces in England, 6,500 are trained in the use of firearms. 2,500 of them are in service with the Metropolitan Police.[15]
Before a police officer can apply to join the firearms unit, they are required to have completed their two-year probationary period. After being screened for security clearance and undergoing various interviews, they are invited to attend the National Police Firearms Training Centre at Gravesend, Kent. At the centre, the potential AFOs undergo one week of intensive training on the Glock 17 pistol, Heckler & Koch MP5 semi automatic carbine, Heckler & Koch L104A1 baton gun and the X26
the glock 17 is a double action striker fire semi auto it has no manual safety it prity safe if you drop it
carrying an unchamberd gun is near useless if you need to draw it quick they are normally carried chambered
to fire you have to have you finger in both safety trigger and main trigger
you always draw and holster with you finger out of trigger guard
now add a really stress situation where you need to draw
how much training would the the 140,000 that have never held a gun get
I would not be happy to let some walk around with a chambered glock that only had a weeks training
on top of that many that apply to join firearms don't finish even start as they don't have the right mind set what you do with them ?
the glock is not the best pistol to hand em there's way to many accidental glock discharges world wide you need to be a robot for em to be safe 100 percent and humans are not look of the number of accidental police glock discharges in us
Edited by optimate on Thursday 1st June 14:00
FurryExocet said:
TurboHatchback said:
I see a problem with it. As soon as officers carry weapons every single interaction with a suspect becomes a life or death situation and consequently people get shot when they needn't (look at the US). Also whilst our firearms officers are generally fit, well trained and seem competent to carry the weapons they bear could you honestly say the same for every police officer you've ever met or seen? How we work now is better.
How about we look at some of the European countries instead? Most are routinely armed and you don't hear stories of everyone getting shot on stop checks. The US is different, every man and woman can be armed and a lot of them do carry, whether it's overtly or concealed carry. The US police never know whether the person they are about to stop, is carrying a firearm, whether it's a legal or illegal one. Thankfully, we don't have that issue here, it's only the criminals who will carry, not the law abiding public. I would be ok to routinely carry a firearm at work, it's just another tool for me to decide whether I use it. Since Taser was introduced, I haven't felt the need to shoot anyone with it and I assess every situation I get into, that wouldn't change of I carried a firearm.
Can you not see that carrying firearms fundamentally changes how you must operate and the relationship between the police and public? On a Friday night, manhandling drunk tossers in a town centre, a firearm just adds a risk that some drunk knobber will get hold of it and create a situation. Also given the pathetic number of officers we now have and the single crewing/patrolling that now seems commonplace, if a lowlife decides that they'd quite like a Glock 17 too then it would put officers in danger of being attacked just for their weapon.
I'm afraid the 'because terrorists' argument just doesn't wash with me. Yes the unarmed officer outside parliament died but there is no guarantee a firearm would have saved him, in a situation where officers are within touching distance of crowds of the public a firearm is as much a danger to the officer and the public as any potential surprise aggressor. Changing a national culture and way of life in an innapropriate kneejerk reaction to terrorist attacks would be letting them win.
Cbull said:
I personally don't think we should have the police or the army strolling around the streets with firearms. It makes me feel very uneasy when seeing/being around them, certainly don't feel any safer especially as we all know it's for show because is in reality there's nothing they can do when dealing with the reasons they've specifically been deployed for on this occasion.
It's a knee jerk reaction and is very uneccessary. Seeing a lot less of them now the sun has gone in a bit
I don't think you should have the army doing the job of the police. But you can blame the cutbacks on police budgets for that happening. Or maybe you can attribute the government wanting to appear strong in the days before a general election. It's a knee jerk reaction and is very uneccessary. Seeing a lot less of them now the sun has gone in a bit
However, why do you think armed police or soldiers would be useless in the event of a terrorist attack? Terrorist attacks generally end when either the terrorist blows themselves up, or they are shot dead. Armed police may or may not help against a suicide bomber, however what about an armed (be it with a gun, knife, club or truck) terrorist. Are you suggesting that armed police aren't helpful. Are you suggesting that everybody wait around 5+ minutes while armed police do turn up. There is a saying: "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away"
optimate said:
look of the number of accidental police glock discharges in us
You do have a point there:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YqcvuRRggM
Cbull said:
You may need more than 1 example to pursued me otherwise. At the same time, I believe it's fine to have them a set placements protecting certain people/buildings but I just don't think they should be strolling the streets with them. They will cause more hassle than its worth, not to mention cost.
I actually agree that there shouldn't be universal arming. So do the vast majority of Police Officers. I spent years as an AFO. I certainly wouldn't do it now. I won't even carry a Taser, preferring to take my chances with a little stick and a can of pepper. When you look how Officers are treated that use firearms and Tasers, it's just not worth the stress of the subsequent witch hunt.
creampuff said:
You do have a point there:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YqcvuRRggM
the scary thing about that video is the fool was still trying to show another firearm while hes limping and leaking from where hes just shot himself, what the hell was he thinking thenhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YqcvuRRggM
not only did that tool catch both triggers
he did not clear it properly he could have easily shot one of the kids
personally if concealed carry was legal in uk
id rather carry a Springfield xdm with a grip safety or similar
watch this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0_qdJ4IDI8
Edited by optimate on Thursday 1st June 18:07
Blundering gun cops have shot themselves in the leg, fired rounds into car boots and blasted a bullet into a table in a string of worrying firearms accidents.
Armed officers have been involved in a series of bungles where rounds have been unintentionally let loose.
Campaigners called for more training as police forces phase in an extra 1,500 armed cops to tackle the “severe” terrorist threat.
So-called “negligent discharges” (NDs) occur when a weapon is fired unintentionally.
A total of 66 mishaps were reported over the last four years, according to the 39 UK police forces which responded to freedom of information requests.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/blundering-a...
problem is in other country like us people grow up with guns from a young age
does anyone seriously think there wont be carnage if all cops were issued handguns every day
the above is just the ones they owned up to then add the knee knocking itchi trigger finger and its a recipe for a disaster
Armed officers have been involved in a series of bungles where rounds have been unintentionally let loose.
Campaigners called for more training as police forces phase in an extra 1,500 armed cops to tackle the “severe” terrorist threat.
So-called “negligent discharges” (NDs) occur when a weapon is fired unintentionally.
A total of 66 mishaps were reported over the last four years, according to the 39 UK police forces which responded to freedom of information requests.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/blundering-a...
problem is in other country like us people grow up with guns from a young age
does anyone seriously think there wont be carnage if all cops were issued handguns every day
the above is just the ones they owned up to then add the knee knocking itchi trigger finger and its a recipe for a disaster
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff