That's the problem really isn't it. Whether you're a police officer or an ordinary bloke on the street, if you're unarmed and you see a guy with a gun, your first thought is going to be your wife, your kids, so on so forth.
If you're armed, it gives you the sense of empowerment that's necessary to actually take action.
The question is though if you are armed will you be more likely to see armed people? I think you will.Originally Posted by snootyjim
(\__/) All I wanted in the end was world domination and a whole lot of money to spend. - NMA
(='.*=)
(")_(*)
Indeed - it'll no-doubt cause escalation of what those pesky crims are likely carrying.
And then who comes of worst? Oh, the unarmed civilian being used as the human shield
Probably true, yes.
Without a massive crackdown on arms sales, arming more police officers would be a disaster.
And if there was a crackdown on arms sales, then some people might be tempted to steal firearms from police officers.
Either way it could become a very sticky situation.
No, you could meet your budget shortfall by cutting out bureaucracy.
You wouldn't believe the volume of cash the British government pisses away on paperwork.
People shouldn't think that if police had guns for this incident, that it is 100% certain there will be less deaths. There can be lots of possibilities that can occur (e.g. crossfire, etc).
It's obvious the facts of this case has nothing to do with guns.
The guy just lost it (mostly likely because of the job issue).
Adding firearms would vastly increase the bureaucracy and paperwork police forces have to deal with.
The cops could do nothing but watch this guy shoot up innocents. How is that not a gun issue?
No, you have bureaucracy because your politicians love wasting money, not because it's necessary.
The only related gun issue is the fact that he was carrying a gun shooting innocents.
It doesn't mean we should then say the law is now wrong because it didn't prevent this. I also don't think we can say with certainty that officers with more guns will mean this event would have ended quickly, which is being suggested in this thread.
I think more than anything the bureaucracy is a consequence of the civil court system, and the obsession with targets.
Once upon a time, if somebody got wronged by the police, they'd just let it go. Now they're going to contact the IPCC, sue the force, the officer, the chiefs, so on so forth - so everything has to be rigidly documented. And no doubt if it wasn't, somebody would end up in serious trouble.
And I agree that more guns would increase that. Can you imagine the length of the incident form?
You'd have form 2A, explaining why you got the gun out of its holster, form 2A (B) explaining why you pointed it at the assailant, form 2(A) (B) (A) (D) Pt. 3 explaining why you didn't shoot them.
And you'd still get sued by somebody for not doing what they thought you should've done.
Mind you, I'm fairly certain that the conservatives will try to cut most of it out. It would be unbelievably embarrassing for them if they failed.
I didn't say the law is wrong, I'm pointing out that saner policing policy could have prevented it.
Huh? Are you joking? Let's see which gets resolved sooner:
a) Police spot crazy guy going around shooting up the street, they're unarmed so they can't approach him, they just let him go around shooting people waiting for armed responce to show up, dude kills 9 innocent by-standers who aren't allowed to arm or defend themselves thanks to stupid nanny legislation before turning the gun on himself before armed response shows up thus evading the law. The police failed as guardians of the population they're suppose to protect.
b) Police spot crazy guy going around shooting up the street, they're armed, so the surround him and demand him to put down his weapon, he either i) complies, and is arrested (most likely, even for loopers), or ii) starts shooting at the cops and is shot himself, wheeled to a hospital where he'll either die or recover and will be prosecuted in a court of law. A few people were wounded in the incident.
I'm going to go with b) being the quicker resolved situation with less innocents harmed.
There's no downside to cops with sidearms.
You're never going to be able to stop the black market, all you can do is create an environment where they can't operate.
Bleh, ass covering can easily be dealt with simply by keeping a shorthand journal of the bobby's day. Getting rid of the brain damaged 'right to not be insulted', 'sue to success', and political correctness mentality would go a long way to reducing that.
You seem to be able to forecast the exact nature of how events could have turned out if the 3 unarmed officers had guns and so based on your facts, yes, they should have guns. But what about all the other situations that can occur?
It's not a 'forecast', it's a likely step of events according to causality.
And what other situations?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
