Is it time to arm the police?

[TeePee]

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.

Ban people from living in apartments. It's for the children.

[TeePee]

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:

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

The baseball bat example is used because the kind of incidents the news loves to promote, like school shootings and today's attack are so rare and make up a statistically insignificant part of crime. That's why the knee jerk reaction to a mass shooting is such a worthless argument.

[sammyc]

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.

Just making the point that the thread poses a distinct question, rather than being worded in terms that would invite discussion of the wider/related considerations you describe.

[ik9000]

Ban people from living in apartments. It's for the children.

No that's not equivalent. The equivalent would be to ban children from school because they're vulnerable to being shot there rather than ban the guns used to shoot them. Try a bit harder in your reasoning.

[TeePee]

No that's not equivalent. The equivalent would be to ban children from school because they're vulnerable to being shot there rather than ban the guns used to shoot them. Try a bit harder in your reasoning.

It's exactly equivalent. If you cared about the children it would be obvious. Why don't you care about the children?

[Ttaskmaster]

If a right to self defense exists, then it exists for everyone, not just the rich, or the boxer mentioned previously.

Oh, you have that right... but the right to defend does not equal ability to defend.

You have the right to many things, but no guarantee of them...

You have the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness... apparently, anyway.
What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific, though?
If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'?

Restricting carry of firearms takes the right to self defense away from anyone less able.

I see...
So my friend in Saskatchewan with muscular dystrophy, who cannot form a good grip to pull the trigger, or lift a half-kilo pistol... How is she supposed to defend herself, hmm?
What good is the right to defend herself there?

Restricting carry of firearms does not make anyone safer.

But restricting access to them in the first place does!!
How ya gonna flip out an' shoot someone if ya don't got a gun?

https://qz.com/688447/my-boyfriend-i...e-in-the-face/
"People tell me I’m lucky because I survived. But the shooting had nothing to do with chance. I’m merely a product of the lethal coincidence of domestic violence and firearms in a household. I could have been a statistic–one of the 8,700 women who were shot to death by their partners between 2000 and 2013".
Yeah, carry of firearms makes everyone so much safer...

[Ttaskmaster]

the kind of incidents the news loves to promote, like school shootings and today's attack are so rare and make up a statistically insignificant part of crime.

What, over 300 a year is "rare", is it?

You look up School Shootings on Wiki, it gives a breakdown by continent.... but the US has so many, it needs it's own separate webpage for them, where it breaks down by flippin' decade!!
Apparently the list is incomplete as well.

Yeah, such a rare thing... if you think that is a statistically insignificant part of crime, then you have a SERIOUS crime problem in general.

So yeah, until things get as bad as the US, I really don't think we need to be arming our cops.

[TeePee]

Oh, you have that right... but the right to defend does not equal ability to defend.

You have the right to many things, but no guarantee of them...

You have the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness... apparently, anyway.
What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific, though?
If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'?


I see...
So my friend in Saskatchewan with muscular dystrophy, who cannot form a good grip to pull the trigger, or lift a half-kilo pistol... How is she supposed to defend herself, hmm?
What good is the right to defend herself there?


But restricting access to them in the first place does!!
How ya gonna flip out an' shoot someone if ya don't got a gun?

https://qz.com/688447/my-boyfriend-i...e-in-the-face/
"People tell me I’m lucky because I survived. But the shooting had nothing to do with chance. I’m merely a product of the lethal coincidence of domestic violence and firearms in a household. I could have been a statistic–one of the 8,700 women who were shot to death by their partners between 2000 and 2013".
Yeah, carry of firearms makes everyone so much safer...

Rights are things protected from government restriction.

The real way to stop mass killings would be to stop the media from glorifying the killers. In fact, stop them from reporting on them at all.

Of course, that's a restriction on civil liberties that even the Tory's wouldn't go for. OK maybe...

Point is, which other rights would you give up for a perception of safety?

[Ttaskmaster]

Rights are things protected from government restriction.

Ah, so the RIGHT to bear arms.... granted by the second amendment....
Amendment... as in the 18th Amendment banning booze... or the 21st Amendment amending the 18th Amendment...
So your government cannot (in theory) restrict your rights, but it can amend them and repeal them...

The real way to stop mass killings would be to stop the media from glorifying the killers. In fact, stop them from reporting on them at all.

That's like saying don't report on terrorism. Do you really think people would let something like 9/11 go unmentioned, on the basis of denying terrorists their statement?
Nope.
Same for mass shooters - They'll just kill more until either they die, or they get the headline.

Point is, which other rights would you give up for a perception of safety?

None.
Actual safety, though? Well, having given up my own guns, I can be 99.8% certain that any random individual I care to select from the street right now or any other given moment will NOT be carrying a gun on them.... and I've neither given up any rights, nor armed my cops.

[TeePee]

Ah, so the RIGHT to bear arms.... granted by the second amendment....
Amendment... as in the 18th Amendment banning booze... or the 21st Amendment amending the 18th Amendment...
So your government cannot (in theory) restrict your rights, but it can amend them and repeal them...


That's like saying don't report on terrorism. Do you really think people would let something like 9/11 go unmentioned, on the basis of denying terrorists their statement?
Nope.
Same for mass shooters - They'll just kill more until either they die, or they get the headline.


None.
Actual safety, though? Well, having given up my own guns, I can be 99.8% certain that any random individual I care to select from the street right now or any other given moment will NOT be carrying a gun on them.... and I've neither given up any rights, nor armed my cops.

The Constitution doesn't grant rights. It creates a legal framework for them to be protected. The right to Free Speech is a human right, just like self defense. Government can't take it away, even if it would make people safer. The 18th and 21st Amendments aren't part of The Bill of Rights.

You have more to worry about from knives in London. Of course, no one is allowed to carry one, but laws are for people who follow them. Maybe that's why the violent crime rate in London is higher than the US.

[Corky34]

You have more to worry about from knives in London. Of course, no one is allowed to carry one, but laws are for people who follow them. Maybe that's why the violent crime rate in London is higher than the US.

Isn't that a bit of a false equivalence? London being a city and America being a country, also the definitions of crimes in each country are significantly different.

[Splash]

You have more to worry about from knives in London. Of course, no one is allowed to carry one, but laws are for people who follow them. Maybe that's why the violent crime rate in London is higher than the US.

Maybe everyone should carry their own personal nuke, that way nobody would ever be able to disagree with anyone ever again?

[ik9000]

Maybe everyone should carry their own personal nuke, that way nobody would ever be able to disagree with anyone ever again?

Nah, I'd use mine in the first week I reckon.

[peterb]

The original question was about arming the police (with the assumption that it referred to the UK) but seems to have gone into yet another discussion about gun control.

This story http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40275055 which I commented on earlier in the thread, raises questions, in that a gunman armed with a rifle mounted a longish distance attack on a group of politicians. He was subsequently shot by armed police after mounting the attack.

The conclusion I draw is that a hand gun would have been a useless defence by the targets as they were outraged, but armed and trained police were able to prevent further injury.

But the situation is different in the UK, where strict gun control is in force and random gun attack she are less likely as a result, so the requirement to have all police officers routinely armed is less compelling.

[Ttaskmaster]

The right to Free Speech is a human right, just like self defense. Government can't take it away, even if it would make people safer.

It is NOT a human right. In fact, the Human Rights Council have specifically said there is no such thing.
If it were your right, you wouldn't ever have to justify your use of force in court...
If it were a right, you wouldn't need a gun licence, CCW permit, or anything.
If it were a right, your courts wouldn't instead call it a priviledge.

And if you REALLY think your government couldn't take away that right, you're living in cuckoo-land... just as if you think the American population could take up all their arms, unite together, and somehow still pose any serious kind of threat to the Government and US military, in the event that they do oppress you, the main purpose for which you have the right to bear arms in the first place.

You have more to worry about from knives in London.

Well yes, because we disarmed gun-wielding maniacs.
Now we only need worry about the same illegally owned weapons as any other country.

Of course, no one is allowed to carry one, but laws are for people who follow them.

You may carry a non-locking, folding blade under 3" quite legally, actually...

Maybe that's why the violent crime rate in London is higher than the US.

Maybe you should read up on statistics and how they actually work, instead of relying on Ben Swann to do your thinking for you...
http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com...t-than-the-us/

https://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com/

The conclusion I draw is that a hand gun would have been a useless defence by the targets as they were outraged, but armed and trained police were able to prevent further injury.

I would suggest that the attacker actually chose a rifle primarily for the increased range advantages against pistol-armed Police, anyway.

But the situation is different in the UK, where strict gun control is in force and random gun attack she are less likely as a result, so the requirement to have all police officers routinely armed is less compelling.

Even with unarmed crims, situations like the recent car-assaults are not reliably preventable with armed Police. There have been plenty of cases (such as Lee Clegg's trial) where well-armed personnel in static guard points have opened fire on vehicular assaults and still failed to prevent or even contain the threat.

[Corky34]

The conclusion I draw is that a hand gun would have been a useless defence by the targets as they were outraged, but armed and trained police were able to prevent further injury.

To be fair I'd be pretty upset if someone started shooting at me also.

I'll get my coat.