Is it time to arm the police?

[Ttaskmaster]

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...

Are murderous boy scout archers a serious problem in your state, then?
Are track day jocks going nuts with javelins?
Are people concealed-carrying sporting equipment and murdering each other?
Then yes, you need to stop that.

[Flibb]

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

Not aware of blunts then?


In the uk they were widely used for hunting small game before the wildlife and countryside act.

[Ttaskmaster]

Not aware of blunts then?

I was.

In the uk they were widely used for hunting small game before the wildlife and countryside act.

So they're designed to cause harm to something... Offensive weapon, then, unless you can prove otherwise.

[Flibb]

I was.


So they're designed to cause harm to something... Offensive weapon, then, unless you can prove otherwise.

From the CPS.
The term 'offensive weapon' is defined as: "any article made or adapted for use to causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use".

Hence cucumber carried to whack somebody is an offensive weapon, cucumber carried for the love of cucumber totally legal.

[peterb]

From the CPS.
The term 'offensive weapon' is defined as: "any article made or adapted for use to causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use".

Hence cucumber carried to whack somebody is an offensive weapon, cucumber carried for the love of cucumber totally legal.

Except a cucumber isn't generally designed or used as a lethal weapon, whereas a gun is designed to propel a high speed projectile to inflict serous or lethal injury at a distance. And the reason was to give a tactical advantage to to the possessor.

[Top_gun]

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.

Yes, this reminds me of my own experience in 2007 when I walked across Vauxhall Bridge after lunch at a local cafe and trying to overtake a policeman holding his gun closed to his chest in a resting position but pointing in a very uncomfortable position.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

[TeePee]

Are murderous boy scout archers a serious problem in your state, then?
Are track day jocks going nuts with javelins?
Are people concealed-carrying sporting equipment and murdering each other?
Then yes, you need to stop that.

I think we've established that there are sporting uses for weapons by this point.

Is your objection to ownership of firearms, availability, public carry or the right to defend oneself? Because we've really covered all of these things.

[Ttaskmaster]

Is your objection to ownership of firearms, availability, public carry or the right to defend oneself? Because we've really covered all of these things.

The fact that so many people can and do so easily abuse any rights to the above that are afforded them, the massively high levels of damage that occur as a result, and the escalating issues that most responses to this problem end up creating.

So you eliminate the guns, you eliminate the source of the problem.

[peterb]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40275055

So does this come under the heading of target shooting or hunting? And why didn't the widespread gun ownership not prevent this from happeing? Had the victims been armed, would it have printed anyone from being injured?

[spacein_vader]

I think we've established that there are sporting uses for weapons by this point.

Is your objection to ownership of firearms, availability, public carry or the right to defend oneself? Because we've really covered all of these things.

1. You can defend yourself without a gun (especially if it is very unlikely the other person has a gun.)
2. Guns are not a defensive weapon, they are an offensive one. You cannot parry, block or shield yourself with a gun, you can only cause serious injury or death.

[sammyc]

I think we've established that there are sporting uses for weapons by this point.

Is your objection to ownership of firearms, availability, public carry or the right to defend oneself? Because we've really covered all of these things.

Pointless hairsplitting diversions into lethal cucumbers and 'sport' (ie violent or mock violent pursuits) aside - we are meant to be considering arming the police, no? Not you, me or the postman - the police. Right to carry is another debate entirely.

[ik9000]

Today there has been a horrific fire in a tower block and numbers of people have died. There will be an enquiry and laws will change/update to improve building regs and mandate improvements in fire supression and alarm systems in existing buildings, prevent spread of fire in cladding etc as a result in order to better protect people and help avoid this in the future. That is a right response to cases such as this, and similar events. Quite why such investigations and improvements to legislation are not enacted across the pond as a result of the mass shootings there baffles me.

We had one school shooting. Dunblane 1990s. Parliament took action and tightened gun control. We've not had one since. Just one dude with a machete and thanks to the bravery and self-sacrifice of the teacher he didn't get to harm very many people. Hero that girl. The means to take the action is there. It seems to me it is a shocking lack of willing that sees it carry on.

[Ttaskmaster]

So does this come under the heading of target shooting or hunting? And why didn't the widespread gun ownership not prevent this from happeing? Had the victims been armed, would it have printed anyone from being injured?

Oh, it was a sporting event, don't you know - Ball game, y'see.

See, this is the crux of the matter, like... The primary victim was (probably) holding a BASEBALL BAT which, as we now all know, kills more people than rifles of any kind. I mean, it's a mean weapon, as evidenced by this boasting remark from third-baser Mo Brooks - "The only weapon I had was a baseball bat and that's not the kind of fight you want to engage in"... or perhaps this more telling remark, "Baseball is America's game! You don't mess with baseball".
Wow, right?
Who indeed would want to take on a guy with a baseball bat...

Obviously the shooter felt threatened by the bat-wielding maniac and chose to pre-emptively defend himself against the heavily armed congressman, his legislative correspondent (because the pen is mightier than the sword) and the two cops.

Right to carry is another debate entirely.

Not quite...
There is actually a sensible debate around whether armed citizens alleviate some of the pressure that each officer of a fully armed police force is under. The basis is that the armed citizen has only the lives of himself and his immediate beloved to worry about, while a cop has that and a couple hundred others (per head) for which he must bear personal and professional responsibility.

Further to this is the John Lott idea of 'More Guns, Less Crime' which is also the title of his book... In the 'world without guns', only cops and bad guys would have guns, with the former often outnumbered. The theory is that an armed populace would be able to assist and turn the tables back severalfold.

However, this falls apart when considering other nations that allow weapon carry (and even those that kinda don't but also make little effort to resolve the matter), as it just means more guns in the hands of people who may end up being bad guys, sometimes over quite small offenses, as situations escalate.

Different attitudes and cultures also show many bad guys are more willing to kill first or even outright, rather than being convinced to give up when confronted by armed cops. This generally means more dead cops, more dead bad guys and a bunch of dead innocents getting caught in the middle. If everyone is now armed, yes some will decide it's not worth it... but others will go all out from the start and simply kill instead of robbing or whatever their original goal was.

So for example, having seen how far simple joyriders and car thieves sometimes go against unarmed cops, if they knew armed Police were chasing them, a good number would do far more damage.

[TeePee]

The fact that so many people can and do so easily abuse any rights to the above that are afforded them, the massively high levels of damage that occur as a result, and the escalating issues that most responses to this problem end up creating.

So you eliminate the guns, you eliminate the source of the problem.

If a right to self defense exists, then it exists for everyone, not just the rich, or the boxer mentioned previously. Restricting carry of firearms takes the right to self defense away from anyone less able. Restricting carry of firearms does not make anyone safer.

[Ttaskmaster]

We had one school shooting. Dunblane 1990s. Parliament took action and tightened gun control.

Two.
You're possibly too young to remember Michael Ryan in Hungerford, 1987?
That's the reason semi-auto rifles are banned and shotguns now have a restricted capacity.

However:

We've not had one since. Just one dude with a machete

Derek Bird, Cumbria, 2010?
Killed 12 people, injured about the same again.