Is it time to arm the police?

[Corky34]

We already covered different definitions of crime. Ttaskmaster found an anti-gun blogger who researched the differences and came up with his very best possible estimate based on the same definition. He got quite upset when his own estimate proved him wrong.

You seem to be missing the point, the two times higher than Swan's four times is a statistical error made by Swan based on two different definitions of violent crime, in other words even if we use the two different definitions Swan miscounted them, the fact still remains that the two are not comparable.

As the second link Ttaskmaster posted says in its conclusion...

In the United States, you are 6.9x more likely to be the victim of aggravated assault resulting in serious injury than in the UK. You are 4.03x more likely to be murdered than in the UK. And more staggeringly (though not surprising) you are 35.2x more likely to be shot dead in the Unites States than in the UK.

Comparing different countries is not an apples to apples comparison but even when attempts are made to compare apples with oranges it still doesn't backup your claim.

[Ttaskmaster]

Should I pitch the same emotional argument, and demand that you tell the family members of the victims of the attack in Nice that their loved ones should just have dodged?

When we get to the stage of 330+ mass-victim vehicular ram-raids per year, then yeah, sure.

You brought up accidents, not me. Still far fewer than the number saved by defensive gun use.

Actually, you specifically brought up accidental shootings - I just questioned the responsibility of people in general, both within and without the ownership of firearms.
But you're again missing the point - Have gun, can shoot [magazine capacity] number of people. No gun, cannot shoot lots of people.

The analogy is perfect, but it really addresses the stupidity of the 'You must be afraid' argument. It's not fear of driving that leads people to choose to wear a seat belt. Just simple common sense.

Why is it common sense, then?
Because they FEAR the consequences.
Fear does not mean 'debilitating terror', you know...

So you're saying people use illegally bought guns to commit crimes? And you think the solution is more laws? How does that make any sense to you?

The problem is the lax-lawed people selling to others and thus facilitating such crime in the first place - If THEY were subject to the same laws, the problem would be greatly lessened.

He got quite upset when his own estimate proved him wrong.

Yes, his own estimate was proven far too high as well... and yet he published this, to illustrate the point of how a lack of understanding and adherence to very narrow-minded facts (like how Arizona's crime rate has fallen in the years after ConCarry came along) results in very incorrect conclusions.

[TeePee]

Magazine capacity restrictions are ridiculous. You should see me change a magazine... I ain't slow.. All that does is hurt lawful owners.

But that aside:

Ban Knives, No stabbings.
Ban Cannabis, No stoners.
Ban Alcohol, No speakeasies..

You can see why I call gun control supporters loons, with some of the comments in this thread and bleeding elsewhere. Throwing a tantrum when someone likes something you don't like is so childish.

[Corky34]

You seem to be confusing banning something with controlling something.

[wazzickle]

Throwing a tantrum when someone likes something you don't like is so childish.

You got me. I just haven't posted as much about my support for golf control, apple mac control, marriage control, automatic gearbox control, weak tea control, and so on, because they're not really hot topics. But I would definitely fight for them as hard as I have for gun control, if only someone would fight me.

[Ttaskmaster]

Magazine capacity restrictions are ridiculous. You should see me change a magazine... I ain't slow..

If one person's capability was the measure for all, we'd have road laws that read like racetrack instructions, on the basis that one person can hoon down the road at 230mph in complete control of their vehicle.

I know how fast a person can reload, under ideal circumstances and with no pressure... I also know how badly they can fumble it, allowing law enforcement to close them down and take control of the situation.

But if it were THAT much of an issue, you'd all have 250rnd belt-fed weapons...

You can see why I call gun control supporters loons, with some of the comments in this thread and bleeding elsewhere.

But can you also see why so many nations think Americans are clueless gun-toting maniacs?

Throwing a tantrum when someone likes something you don't like is so childish.

So why have you done this very thing?
We don't want to be a society that depends on being heavily armed just to go down the shops, that doesn't care if we're tens of times more likely to be shot than anywhere else, that accepts our children being murdered is just part of 'normal everyday life'... We have found that, contrary to the laws and statistical manipulation of a different land, banning guns actually works for us - And you don't like it?

[Corky34]

To be fair we haven't banned guns, at least i don't think we have, we just place really strict controls on them.

The whole banning thing seems to be the response of pro-gun lobbyists who don't like the idea that gun controls would result in less money in their pockets.

[Ttaskmaster]

To be fair we haven't banned guns, at least i don't think we have, we just place really strict controls on them.

We've banned most of the fun ones, I think. Enough that most people don't even bother.
I think 7.62 is still allowed, but it's a hassle and a half. Shotguns are just so *yawn*, though...!!

[peterb]

I have been watching this debate with interest - to go back to the original question - posed in the wake of the London Bridge attack, is it time to arm the police (presumably in the UK, where the incidence of violent crime is low.

The question really is what would it achieve? Listening to the reports of the police officer who attacked the terrorists with a baton, it is likely ( but not certain) that had he been armed with a handgun, he could have drawn it and possibly disabled the attackers without sustaining such severe injuries. I say possibly because it would have taken time to draw and cock the weapon, and then get into a position where he could obtain a clear shot without risk to bystanders. the effective range of a handgun is low so he would have had to get relatively close, and aim at a three rapidly moving targets, so the possession of a handgun might not have affected the outcome. had he been armed with a longer range weapon, he might have been better placed, but he would still have needed a clear shot or risk hitting bystanders, so the argument is not clear cut.

When armed police did arrive, they cleared the area and told people to get down/hide so they had a clearer field of fire with a more accurate stand-off weapon.

With regard to the general issue of routinely arming the police similar questions apply - to what purpose? As a self protection weapon, I would argue that a hand gun is of limited use. To be effective it needs to be in the hand, a round in the chamber and cocked - and that gives an apparently innocuous person time to get close and attack with their own weapon. People at risk rarely carry arms themselves, but have one or more close protection officers who establish a protection zone around the potential target. A hand gun may be useful say in entering a building were an armed fugitive may be hiding, but again the advantage lies with the fugitive who has the significant tactical advantage of surprise. A better strategy (and the one used) is to get backup armed with with longer range weapons, seal off the area and play a waiting game, or at least make a controlled and planned assault of the location. A hand gun might be useful if the officers themselves were besieged, but that is not a very credible scenario.

So if not a hand gun, then a rifle or similar semi automatic weapon - which is what armed police generally carry. Would that have affected the outcome of London Bridge? Possibly, although the considerations of getting a clear shot still apply, but these situations are rare, and carrying a weapon like that hampers the ability of a police officer to carry out other duties - he has to be protective of the weapon, its heavy, and he can't just abandon it to (say) give chase to a a potential offender, and would (IMHO) present a barrier between the general public and the police, fostering an 'us and them' mentality which is not conducive to community policing.

The majority of police officers in this country do not wish to be routinely armed, so the answer to he original question is probably 'NO".

Turning to the wider question of gun control. One assertion is that a handgun is a defensive weapon. Id argue that that is not true. It is useless as a defensive weapon until it is loaded, cocked and in the hand of someone - at which point it becomes an offensive weapon - used to project power and intimidate with the implicit threat that if you don't do or act as the weapon holder says, you will be subject the potentially lethal force. Worse, carrying a weapon may give the illusion of greater safety and lead the possessor into greater danger. The response to danger is fight or flight - and generally the better response is flight - get out of the danger zone as fast as possible.

Home defence is another off cited reason for gun ownership. That has some valid reasoning, but too often the mentality is shoot first and ask questions afterwards, leading to the death or injury of the innocent.

Outside military use, the use of weapons is to project power and instil fear in those that don't have them (ready) by those that do. The armed criminal (attacking a bank for example) wants to dominate the in the bank without necessarily intending to fire a shot - the threat is sufficient, unless they themselves feel threatened. I suggest few people in that situation would risk attempting to draw a weapon to fire back - the advantage almost always lies with the attacker.

But in general I suggest that imposing gun control and reducing the number of weapons in general circulation reduces that level of fear, and I suggest is one of the reasons that gun related crime is still relatively are in the UK.

Would having a generally armed public have affected the outcome of London Bridge? having lots of people, for whom this was probably their first exposure to this (or any) type of violent attack - with adrenaline kicking in waving and discharging hand guns at the perpetrators might have had a luck shot that disabled the perpetrators - I suggest a more likely outcome would have been more injuries/deaths from these people. Of course, that can never be proved, but seems intuitive.

Of course, all this assumes that you live in a country where the rule of law prevails and the police uphold law with the consent. In a lawless society, other considerations apply, but that is not a society I would wish to live in.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Its not going to change anything - look at all the countries which had similar terror related issues,many of them have armed police and soldiers on the street and the attacks still happened.

[Ttaskmaster]

I have been watching this debate with interest - to go back to the original question - posed in the wake of the London Bridge attack, is it time to arm the police (presumably in the UK, where the incidence of violent crime is low.

1/. No, it is not.
2/. Armed Police everywhere will just see a rise in armed criminals who resort to those arms more readily.
3/. The risk of collateral damage, ie people getting caught in crossfire, will increase too.

I say possibly because it would have taken time to draw and cock the weapon, and then get into a position where he could obtain a clear shot without risk to bystanders.

There have been a number of studies (some flawed, some debatable, but mostly agreeing) that show how easily a bladed opponent can charge and KSI an armed officer from as far as 21 feet away. This is typically against an officer whose weapon is in 'Condition 1: Cocked and Locked', ie Made Ready, or with a round chambered and hammer cocked.
Against a weapon that must also be chambered first, the chances for that officer go down even further.

Obviously, as every pro-gun type will point out, armed officers do sometimes get to win the incident... but not always and if people are prepared to go up against someone armed, it gets more dangerous for both sides.

The majority of police officers in this country do not wish to be routinely armed, so the answer to he original question is probably 'NO".

Which is pretty much the final word on the matter, when it comes down to it.

Home defence is another off cited reason for gun ownership. That has some valid reasoning, but too often the mentality is shoot first and ask questions afterwards, leading to the death or injury of the innocent.

Indeed - The amount of times someone in South Africa, especially in The Bad Old Days, shot a family member by accident after being woken by them going to the bathroom in the middle of the night, or a fleeing burglar's corpse had to be dragged back onto the homeowner's property (often by the cops themselves) so as to be ruled acceptable home defense... It's very ugly.

I suggest few people in that situation would risk attempting to draw a weapon to fire back - the advantage almost always lies with the attacker.

Because again, you have crossfire and other casualties.

But in general I suggest that imposing gun control and reducing the number of weapons in general circulation reduces that level of fear, and I suggest is one of the reasons that gun related crime is still relatively are in the UK.

That, combined with prohibiting the carry of such weapons, too.

Would having a generally armed public have affected the outcome of London Bridge?

If a 1.5-ton car is speeding along, intent on mowing people down, exactly how many rounds of what calibre over what space of time and placed exactly where would be sufficient to actually stop the vehicle? Can you guarantee that shooting the driver would stop the vehicle and arrest its momentum? Would being a crackshot sufficient to "just shoot out the tyres" bring the vehicle to a controlled stop and not send it careening off?

Of course, that can never be proved, but seems intuitive.

It's *possible*.... but the greater likelihoods all point to the greatly incresed risk of some very bad things happening...

[peterb]

@ Ttaskmaster - did you read my post or do you just have a strange way of showing agreement? I had already answered the questions I asked!

[Ttaskmaster]

@ Ttaskmaster - did you read my post or do you just have a strange way of showing agreement?

Rumour has it I can't read anyway, but in truth probably the latter!!

[peterb]

More guns - then none of the stories here http://www.cbsnews.com/news/road-rag...source=twitter
will happen!

However, the serious point is that if the victims had been armed, it wouldn't have saved their lives, whereas if the perpetrators hadn't had access to guns, the victims wouldn't have been killed.

[TeePee]

If one person's capability was the measure for all, we'd have road laws that read like racetrack instructions, on the basis that one person can hoon down the road at 230mph in complete control of their vehicle.

I know how fast a person can reload, under ideal circumstances and with no pressure... I also know how badly they can fumble it, allowing law enforcement to close them down and take control of the situation.

But if it were THAT much of an issue, you'd all have 250rnd belt-fed weapons...


But can you also see why so many nations think Americans are clueless gun-toting maniacs?


So why have you done this very thing?
We don't want to be a society that depends on being heavily armed just to go down the shops, that doesn't care if we're tens of times more likely to be shot than anywhere else, that accepts our children being murdered is just part of 'normal everyday life'... We have found that, contrary to the laws and statistical manipulation of a different land, banning guns actually works for us - And you don't like it?

The race track analogy just makes my point. Why limit magazine capacity because some people are capable of changing magazines speedily? Why rely on someone needing to use skill? The point of self defense is that even the less able have that right.

I've thrown no tantrum, merely attempted to educate, when you discover that the statistics don't support your argument. Banning guns hasn't worked for you, and terrorist atttacks like this are a part of everyday life. The particular tantrum I'm picking on was a complaint relating to linking to the NRA, which was particularly silly. I don't like many things about the UK, which is why I don't live there any more. That doesn't mean I can't encourage positive change.

[TeePee]

More guns - then none of the stories here http://www.cbsnews.com/news/road-rag...source=twitter
will happen!

However, the serious point is that if the victims had been armed, it wouldn't have saved their lives, whereas if the perpetrators hadn't had access to guns, the victims wouldn't have been killed.

Maybe they would have. Here's a story from the same day: http://fox17online.com/2017/06/30/pr...rage-shooting/