Is it time to arm the police?

[Ttaskmaster]

Ah, I see. By saying things such as 'ALL' NHS initiatives under Labour failed (which incidentally is so easily disproved it is counterproductive to your argument) you are less interested in having an actual conversation or debate about topics, but rather prefer to just make a point about your opinion/bias. Cool, but that sort of conversation is not for me.

So easily disproved, you're not even going to try... Yeah, OK.
Meanwhile, the NHS may have appeared to be improving as the numbers were going down, but only because more people were going private, especially to ISTCs and so artificially reducing the NHS load as well as introducing a privatisation proof of concept to pave the way for the Coalition to finish the job.

As for the topic - We're talking about arming the Police.

[peterb]

As it happens, I'm in London at the moment, and lost my bearings. There were two policemen around and normally I would ask for directions - but they were armed and rather than feel reassured, I felt disturbed - not quite threatened, but uneasy. I didn't ask them for directions.

My reaction might be unusual, but having all police routinely armed runs the risk of distancing them from the public they are there to serve.

[big_hairy_rob]

No - keep things as they are with highly trained specialist gun police being available; assuming that current police protection is adequate to deal with most normal threats.

[TeePee]

Excess, meaning surplus, extra, in addition, over and above.


ALL of them.


And every key measurement steers things further away from actual care and instead focusses on statistical throughput. It's being run like a factory, rather than a care system. You cannot govern human health by statistics. It doesn't work like that.


You are not endearing me to your cause with that...


"Performance"?
Did they miss their delivery schedules? Did they fail their key performance indicators? Did they get a bit off-message?
I watched a nurse refuse to attend a patient who collapsed in the hallway, because the patient wasn't on her ward and the emergency medication and equipment required would have come out of her budget.


We were supposed to have two Staff nurses for every ward. We instead had one Staff nurse covering three, because we couldn't afford enough nurses... yet somehow we could afford a manager, whose salary would pay for most of those nurses and the part-time Consultant or SHO that used to cover all the managerial duties just fine before.


It's about how much good they did and whether that good was in the right place, compared to how much damage they did.
I don't care what other party wins, so long as Labour never get their hands on us again.


They do and we felt the damage of that history quite heavily.
For example, I have three pensions that are now all worthless, thanks to Labour.


They wanted to reinvest in other, more stable things. Good idea, especially given the reports of experts... But the way they bungled it and cost us over 3bn is the problem, as well as making us very unpopular around the world. Said experts subsequently reckoned we'd have been better off if Brown had not bothered in the first place.


Figure of speech, left open on purpose for effect...


Vince Cable was LibDem/Coalition and working off some very dodgy investment advisors, with "favoured investors" to consider. You may recall all three main parties slammed the decisions made.


They may have the right to be protected, which is pretty effective if no-one has guns...
But the argument of making guns so very cheap that everyone can so easily afford them just puts more guns in the hands of criminals.
Think on this - If guns were so stupidly expensive that the only route to procurement was the Black Market, pretty much any gun on the street is guaranteed illegal, which makes the cops' job so much easier. You could even argue that the sole purpose of those guns being present is to threaten cops' lives - Ergo gun present = threat present = Fire.

The right to bear arms can cover all manner of weapons, including non-lethal. You don't have to kill someone to successfully defend yourself... and it's a great deal harder to kill several people with non-lethal tools.


UK with very few guns - 2 school shootings in 30 years.
US with many guns - A good 25+ school shootings per year.
And you wish they could be prevented.........?

This is just school shootings, by the way. Reports suggest that as many as 355 (average) mass shootings per year occur, pretty much one per day - Mass being defined as four or more people KSI (killed or seriously injured) in one incident, and does not include the count of killing sprees where the killer(s) travelled between KSIs.


Well they don't seem very protected if they're getting shot up so often, now, do they?
You gonna tell your kid that, when they come home from school paralysed for life by a bullet through the spine, that it's just life in the US? Or when your kid comes home in a bag, you and your wife just gonna casually nip down K-Mart to get yourselves another?


So no restriction on bombs that I make for myself and plant on planes, for example, or the carriage of home-made knives with which I can hijack a plane and crash into a World Trade Centre, then?
OK, gotcha...

Seriously, there are restrictions on all manner of chemicals, because dangerous things can be done with them. The same should apply to guns, particularly since they so easy to damage people with.


Does it 'damage' you if the cops run your licence plates, or check your ID on a routine inspection point?
What about every time someone check your passport at the border?
A system to check that you're safe and legal to purchase a killing tool should not have the slightest adverse effect on your life, unless you're trying to make an illegal purchase.


I have no sound, but it looks like he was panic-shooting, surpressing at best (doesn't look like he has backup immediately on hand).
So what difference would having an extra seven rounds in his magazine have had? He just blatted off an entire mag and was then unable to reload. He could have had 20 spare mags, but was unable to reload.
Fire discipline. Better aimed shots. Being more mindful of his ammo expenditure.
From the looks of that vid, the cop's life continued because the shooter saw he was empty and took the opportunity to run. Had he conserved ammo, he'd have had a couple good shots on the criminal and downed his man.


Baseball bats are intended for primary purposes other than harm. The sole purpose of a weapon is to harm.
I'm sure more people are killed by baseball bats than high explosive artillery shells too, but would you be happy if people were walking around with howitzers?

There are plenty of people who own and use howitzers in the US, it's a large subculture. But since none have ever been used in a school shooting, they must be completely safe, right? Because you only care about school shootings, and not the thousands of other violent crimes. A guy drove a truck through a crowd in Nice and killed 86 people. That invalidated your entire argument.

[Ttaskmaster]

There are plenty of people who own and use howitzers in the US, it's a large subculture.

And how many carry those concealed?

But since none have ever been used in a school shooting, they must be completely safe, right?

Not according to Google...

Because you only care about school shootings, and not the thousands of other violent crimes.

Ah, so you didn't read the post properly.
Go back and re-read, specifically about the hundreds of mass shooting (NOT school) per year.

A guy drove a truck through a crowd in Nice and killed 86 people.

So people cannot be trusted with things NOT designed as a weapon, with all manner of safety features built in and laws governing their use, yet you demand the right to arm everyone with things intended for the sole purpose of killing... and then wish you could protect unarmed children from said armed folks??!!
Tell me again how my argument is invalid in the face of that...?

[TeePee]

And how many carry those concealed?


Not according to Google...


Ah, so you didn't read the post properly.
Go back and re-read, specifically about the hundreds of mass shooting (NOT school) per year.


So people cannot be trusted with things NOT designed as a weapon, with all manner of safety features built in and laws governing their use, yet you demand the right to arm everyone with things intended for the sole purpose of killing... and then wish you could protect unarmed children from said armed folks??!!
Tell me again how my argument is invalid in the face of that...?

How does a gun have the sole purpose of killing? I've never killed anyone with any of my guns. I've only used one of them to kill anything. Yet they are all tools that serve a purpose, either sport, display, history, etc, etc...

[ik9000]

How does a gun have the sole purpose of killing? I've never killed anyone with any of my guns. I've only used one of them to kill anything. Yet they are all tools that serve a purpose, either sport, display, history, etc, etc...

display and history. go for it. get them decommissioned and have as many as you like. Sport? do you mean hunting?

[TeePee]

display and history. go for it. get them decommissioned and have as many as you like. Sport? do you mean hunting?

History involves and includes the shooting experience.

But shooting is also an Olympic Sport.

Would not Archery be the same thing?

Then add all the field sports, Jevelin, Shot Put, Hammer throwing. All are assault weapons!

[Smudger]

As it happens, I'm in London at the moment, and lost my bearings. There were two policemen around and normally I would ask for directions - but they were armed and rather than feel reassured, I felt disturbed - not quite threatened, but uneasy. I didn't ask them for directions.

My reaction might be unusual, but having all police routinely armed runs the risk of distancing them from the public they are there to serve.

You need to turn right at the British Museum, then left at the Oval. If you hit the sea, you've gone too far.

[peterb]

Ah, hats where I went wrong, I turned left at South Kensington tube! No easy way to get to Mornington Cresent using the Jack Dee variation!

[Ttaskmaster]

History involves and includes the shooting experience.

To showcase one's ability with a weapon of death, yes...

But shooting is also an Olympic Sport.

So is boxing, the art of harming your opponent until they give up or fall unconscious.

Would not Archery be the same thing?

Yes and a bow is a dangerous weapon in the wrong hands. Part of the reason bowhunting is outlawed in the UK.

Then add all the field sports, Jevelin, Shot Put, Hammer throwing. All are assault weapons!

The chances of an errant projectile in those cases is quite slim and they're not really practical weapons for EDC outside of a battle against a Greek phalanx.

How does a gun have the sole purpose of killing?

Gun = weapon = "a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage".
End of.

I've never killed anyone with any of my guns. I've only used one of them to kill anything.

So you speak for everyone, do you?
Plenty of people have never killed with swords, shuriken, kubotans, nunchaku and all manner of other weapons... but they're still weapons and still dangerous in the hands of people who cannot be trusted.

[Flibb]

So you speak for everyone, do you?
Plenty of people have never killed with swords, shuriken, kubotans, nunchaku and all manner of other weapons... but they're still weapons and still dangerous in the hands of people who cannot be trusted.

So are cars, snooker cues, lumps of 4x2, etc. Under UK law an offensive weapon can include rolled up newspapers and cucumbers, its the use its put to. The bow hunting ban was largely down to nobody representing bow hunting when the wildlife and countryside act was written. If it was for safety it would be covered in the one of the laws governing weapons.

Shooting and archery are both internationally recognised sports, they are governed as such and the laws relating to the ownership of firearms specifically names sport as a reason.

[Ttaskmaster]

So are cars, snooker cues, lumps of 4x2, etc.

But the primary purpose for which they were designed is not causing harm.

Under UK law an offensive weapon can include rolled up newspapers and cucumbers, its the use its put to.

And because people can (and did) abuse perfectly innocent objects, we now have laws like this.
Doesn't mean it'sa good idea to let them have easy access to something designed as an easily portable form of VERY easily harming and killing a notable number of people, though.

The bow hunting ban was largely down to nobody representing bow hunting when the wildlife and countryside act was written.

I actually understood it was for reasons of preventing animal cruelty, due to the low likelihood of a clean kill outside of the most favourable circumstances.
And yet, I seriously doubt you can casually walk around town armed with a bow... Well, maybe. Let's see...

If it was for safety it would be covered in the one of the laws governing weapons.

Section 139, Criminal Justice Act, 1988
139. Offence of having article with blade or point in public place.

Arrows have points.
Also, if you're not going to/from a place of legitimate usage (archery club, or similar) then it's back to Offensive Weapon, especially if you're carrying them openly.

Shooting and archery are both internationally recognised sports, they are governed as such and the laws relating to the ownership of firearms specifically names sport as a reason.

But carrying them outside of that purpose is the criminal aspect and while they might procure such items legitimately, the consequences of abusing them are quite severe.

[hb904460]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40258353

will just leave that there....

[TeePee]

To showcase one's ability with a weapon of death, yes...


So is boxing, the art of harming your opponent until they give up or fall unconscious.


Yes and a bow is a dangerous weapon in the wrong hands. Part of the reason bowhunting is outlawed in the UK.


The chances of an errant projectile in those cases is quite slim and they're not really practical weapons for EDC outside of a battle against a Greek phalanx.


Gun = weapon = "a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage".
End of.


So you speak for everyone, do you?
Plenty of people have never killed with swords, shuriken, kubotans, nunchaku and all manner of other weapons... but they're still weapons and still dangerous in the hands of people who cannot be trusted.

So you support outlawing archery for the boy scouts? The end of field events at school sports day? We must stop training our children to be cold blooded killers with a Javelin...

[spacein_vader]

So you support outlawing archery for the boy scouts? The end of field events at school sports day? We must stop training our children to be cold blooded killers with a Javelin...

When was the last time someone deliberately killed someone with a javelin?