Discuss.
I don't think they should. If there is more violence on our streets then that is a symptom of a sick society. Perhaps improving our society is the solution? I'm all for tackling the root cause of a problem rather than trying to fix a symptom.
Arming the police will not alter the state of mind of those that are intent on carrying and using illegal firearms.
No, having seen the attitude of many of our police officers we do not want these power freaks carrying guns. I do believe however, that we should have more armed response officers.
Agreed.
My Feeling is that arming police officers as a matter of course will just escalate things. I know the shootings yesterday are tragic but a knee jerk reaction would be a very bad thing.
having watched Sky News for about half an hour last night i still have no idea when happened. I now know that she was a very nice person, liked by everyone, new into the job etc etc etc, but at no time did they actually tell you the basics. I know it was the big new iten but surely they could cover something else for 5 minutes instead on the presenters mumbling along now actually saying anything and stumbling over words cos they have no autocue.
Yesterday was traggic, but the problem was one of bad communication rather than the fact that most coppers don't carry firearms. They officers involved, for whatever reason, were not informed that an armed robbery was in progress. An ARU should have been dispached.
I, and most copper i know, firmly believe that they should not carry guns. There still is not reallly the need and criminals would just start using guns more in response. However, i can see it coming and maybe in 5-10 years we may well be arguing that they should. That said, something definatly needs to change in the procedures we have at the moment.
Yes they should.
They also shouldnt have to put up with teh amount of crap they get arresting drunks who then turn round n try n do the copper for assault, 2 of my m8s were coppers n both left due to the large amounts of paperwork, arrest 1 person 4hrs of paperwork when they should be doing more important things.
So the suspect should be shot to avoid paperwork? ARU policemen get taken off duty if they shoot someone until it is determined whether the killing was necessary, I hardly see how this is better than paperwork.Originally Posted by [GSV]Trig
Our police are trained to have a more collected approach to situations. I doubt you'd find many other countries which have police that'd talk calmly and consicely with people involved in a situation. I feel that arming them takes away the impartialness we generally associate with our police, and it also seems unncecassery. We have armed units in every country, and I feel to go any further than this would be unwarranted, and an infringement on our rights. Not only would we have a governing body which has overwhelming power over the populace, but the amount of people killed accidentally/unneccesrily would rise.
No one is doubting that the events which took place recently are tragic, but arming our police is not the answer.
New Sig on the Way...
wtf that so wasnt the point of my post
Doesn't appear to be bad communication from what I've seen. It was a panic alarm that was set off - that is more than likely to have been a hidden button that a member of staff activated secretly. The fact that the bad guys were still on site when the police arrived would make it unlikely that a staff member would have been able to inform the police by phone as to what was actually happening.
I can't see that their being armed would have made any difference in this case as it sounds like they were shot immediately on leaving their car. I disagree with the police being routinely armed but there is a definite argument for better protective clothing to be issued to frontline officers.
I was just going off what i heard on news 24, but surely a procedural malfuction if not a communication error. I really dont think they should have sent 2 inexperienced officers to such an event.
You have to look at it this way, even if it's a horrible way of thinking;
How many cops get shot per year on average?
And, how many cops and people whould get shot if the cops had guns, due to accidental discharges/panic shootings/cops being overpowered and having thier own guns turned on them/the criminals taking up arms even more?
I really think that the second one would see far more deaths. In other words, at this current time, having no guns is the lesser of two evils.
Firstly they should upgrade the body armour. The officer was shot in the chest and still died. Don't know what weapon was used but the armour should stop a handgun.
One thing doesn't appear to run through this thread. All very well saying arm the police but how many of the people who call for arming will hold a gun and then make the snap decision, and it is a snap decision, as to whether you should use it or not. After using it you then have to live with that fact. It's all very well saying "hey, double tap to the forehead, no problem. I could sort the bad guy out. I'm dead good at call of duty I am". I'm pretty sure this thought looms large in the minds of police officers.
If you hesitate, you can die. If you don't hesitate, you can kill an innocent person. I saw some footage of a standard traffic stop in the US. The young girl who had been stopped reached behind her to tuck her top into her dress (this was the camera view), the cop on the other side of her thought she was reaching for a weapon. He shot her immediately and she died there in the street. Rough penalty for speeding huh?
"You want loyalty? ......get a dog!"
The body armour I used to wear had a label inside saying I was only allowed to be shot with .22 calibre bullets.
No, the vest worked, and I was never shot at..
I vote no because when they have guns they kill innocent people (at times).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote