Political Crossfire Forums

[thundertaker]

Di wrote:

There's more of course, but my point here is that no matter which country we live in, perhaps we should spend less time pointing fingers and more time gazing in the mirror. Guns or no guns, I don't think either the UK or the USA has a right to be particularly smug or self-righteous when it's clear that violent crime is a problem in both countries.

OK, so how is that relevent on whether or not the rozzers in this country should be bombed up like Bruce Willis?

[Di]

thundertaker wrote: Di wrote:

There's more of course, but my point here is that no matter which country we live in, perhaps we should spend less time pointing fingers and more time gazing in the mirror. Guns or no guns, I don't think either the UK or the USA has a right to be particularly smug or self-righteous when it's clear that violent crime is a problem in both countries.

OK, so how is that relevent on whether or not the rozzers in this country should be bombed up like Bruce Willis?

Translation, please.

[Lumina]

DSwain wrote: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2396260,00.html

It's really not a good time for British and Irish coppers on diplomatic duty - a Muslim officer is excused duty in London from outside the Israeli Embassy and the inquiry comes back on these two silly fellows who got boozed up in Dublin last year. These guys have a lot of service between them so it would be a shame for them to lose their jobs over this - but they should certainly be removed to less sensitive duties.

Yes, with so many years of service, this would be a shame. Keep me posted, will you?

At the risk of sounding politically correct and "trendy," I think they both need substance-abuse counseling. A little enforced "rest" and rehab might do them some serious good. Grown folks are supposed to have more sense than to drink on the job...especially cops.

[thundertaker]

Di wrote: thundertaker wrote: Di wrote:

There's more of course, but my point here is that no matter which country we live in, perhaps we should spend less time pointing fingers and more time gazing in the mirror. Guns or no guns, I don't think either the UK or the USA has a right to be particularly smug or self-righteous when it's clear that violent crime is a problem in both countries.

OK, so how is that relevent on whether or not the rozzers in this country should be bombed up like Bruce Willis?

Translation, please.

Whether the police should be armed?

[Di]

thundertaker wrote: Di wrote: thundertaker wrote: Di wrote:

There's more of course, but my point here is that no matter which country we live in, perhaps we should spend less time pointing fingers and more time gazing in the mirror. Guns or no guns, I don't think either the UK or the USA has a right to be particularly smug or self-righteous when it's clear that violent crime is a problem in both countries.

OK, so how is that relevent on whether or not the rozzers in this country should be bombed up like Bruce Willis?

Translation, please.

Whether the police should be armed?

I got the sense that some were arguing that there was less violent crime in the UK because their law enforcement do not carry firearms. That does not really seem to be the case, as the statistics prove. Also, the footnotes to those statistics indicated that gun-related crime in Britain has been rising steadily, the illegal firearms have been rising steadily, and that leads me to believe that the risk to an unarmed police force is also rising steadily.

It's never a good thing when the criminals are better armed than the police. Trust me.
[/code]

[Spider]

maxtsu wrote: wyldejackyl wrote: Arm the public too. It's a mistake to have to rely on someone else to come to your rescue instead of being able to defend your own life. I would never ever live in the UK for just that reason!
If you allow the public to be armed. You then allow any loony-tune to get his hands on some guns.
Well...we have seen the results in the news recently.

IMO keep guns out of the public domain. For use of security forces only.

In a perfect world I would agree. However, on occasion, the "security forces" are the very thing that the people need to be armed against.

[thundertaker]

Di wrote: thundertaker wrote: Di wrote: thundertaker wrote: Di wrote:

There's more of course, but my point here is that no matter which country we live in, perhaps we should spend less time pointing fingers and more time gazing in the mirror. Guns or no guns, I don't think either the UK or the USA has a right to be particularly smug or self-righteous when it's clear that violent crime is a problem in both countries.

OK, so how is that relevent on whether or not the rozzers in this country should be bombed up like Bruce Willis?

Translation, please.

Whether the police should be armed?

I got the sense that some were arguing that there was less violent crime in the UK because their law enforcement do not carry firearms. That does not really seem to be the case, as the statistics prove. Also, the footnotes to those statistics indicated that gun-related crime in Britain has been rising steadily, the illegal firearms have been rising steadily, and that leads me to believe that the risk to an unarmed police force is also rising steadily.

It's never a good thing when the criminals are better armed than the police. Trust me.
[/code]

We've only had two police officers murdered by firearms in the last 20 years in the whole UK (excluding Northern Ireland). Murdering a police officer is a sure way of having your ass hunted down with all the resources the county constabulary can muster, and most criminals understand this. I can't stress how rare gun crime is in this country compared to the US, guns by and large are not in the equation in this country, and that's how we would like to keep it. Restricted access to guns for the police or the public, and terrifyingly large sentences for criminals caught with one in their possession. Most criminals in this country have more sense than to carry a gun even if they do have one, because they know being caught with an illegal firearm is a 5 year minimum sentence before they've even looked at what they were up to......

[wyldejackyl]

maxtsu wrote:

IMO keep guns out of the public domain. For use of security forces only.

You really trust the security forces to do what's in your best interest? I'm not sure how that works really, but in the end, the only person I trust with my life..is MYSELF.

[DSwain]

Two in 20 years? Where is that from? Just doing a quick check at the Police Memorial Roll, I've come up to 11 in the last 20 years

http://www.policememorial.org.uk/Home.htm

I can remember two high profile shootings of police officers in the last three years -

November 2005 - PC Sharon Beshenivsky shot dead and PC Teresa Milburn seriously wounded while responding to a business robbery - both unarmed officers (1 death)

December 2003 - Pc Ian Broadhurst shot dead and PC Neil Roper wounded while carrying out a routine traffic check - both unarmed officers (1 death)

The issue is not solely one of protection of police officers, but also one of protection of the public. You must remember the incident just a few years ago involving Thames Valley force, in which a shooting occurred at a family home - the father being the shooter - and, as there was no Armed Response Vehicle in the whole county, police could not enter the scene for several hours.

Personally, I don't think universal arming of the police is necessary but in certain of our inner-cities - Nottingham, Manchester, Birmingham, parts of London - there should be a significant increase in the number of armed response vehicles available and more armed foot patrols (as has happened in Notts, in fact). You're right in one way, Thunder, that we abandon an unarmed police force at our peril and that it isn't necessary to go in tooled-up just to investigate an expired tax disc. I respect that your contact with police officers instructs your view in this somewhat, namely that there is no move among rank-and-file coppers for everyone to be armed, but this is a worrying statistic, taken from the Police Federation

"Despite the threat of terrorism and increase in gun and knife crime 43% of officers are not confident that armed support would be available should they need it."

Something has got to be done about that; when looking at 150,000 officers across the UK of whom just over 6200 are armed (this excluding NI), more armed officers appears to be a solution.

[thundertaker]

There have only been two shot dead since Yvvone Fletcher was murdered outside the Libyan Embassy in 1984, one was WPC Sharon Beshinivisky, and the other was PC Ian Broadhurst (shot by an American former US Marine on the run from Justice in the State of Florida).

Others have been murdered in otherways by being stabbed etc (I personally know one copper who was stabbed while he had his back turned arresting someone else, he managed to knock the other out and put the cuffs on the man who stabbed him before going to hospital). But for the purpose of this argument, I am refering to PCs who have been murdered with guns.
None of the police officers I have talked to want to be armed as a matter of routine (Even my instructor, who is ex-armed response and the guy previously mentioned who was stabbed). Firstly, because it is a terrible responsibility if they make a mistake, but another reason they have told me is because they fear being gunned down or otherwise murdered by criminals before they have chance to draw their gun if they are seen as a bigger threat by violent criminals.
I also agree with your point about more armed response units being available, but this should never, ever extend to routine arming of the police in my opinion. It would lead to an escalation in pre-emptive criminal violence and a signal of our surrender to a new reality of commonplace armed violence in the streets of Britain...........

[DSwain]

thundertaker wrote: There have only been two shot dead since Yvvone Fletcher was murdered outside the Libyan Embassy in 1984, one was WPC Sharon Beshinivisky, and the other was PC Ian Broadhurst (shot by an American former US Marine on the run from Justice in the State of Florida).

Others have been murdered in otherways by being stabbed etc (I personally know one copper who was stabbed while he had his back turned arresting someone else, he managed to knock the other out and put the cuffs on the man who stabbed him before going to hospital). But for the purpose of this argument, I am refering to PCs who have been murdered with guns.
None of the police officers I have talked to want to be armed as a matter of routine (Even my instructor, who is ex-armed response and the guy previously mentioned who was stabbed). Firstly, because it is a terrible responsibility if they make a mistake, but another reason they have told me is because they fear being gunned down or otherwise murdered by criminals before they have chance to draw their gun if they are seen as a bigger threat by violent criminals.
I also agree with your point about more armed response units being available, but this should never, ever extend to routine arming of the police in my opinion. It would lead to an escalation in pre-emptive criminal violence and a signal of our surrender to a new reality of commonplace armed violence in the streets of Britain...........

Thunder - reading this, which is a list of local police memorials, I count 7 officers shot dead (as recorded on local police memorials) since 1986 - not counting the two you've referred to.

http://www.policememorial.org.uk/Police_Memorial_Trust/PMT-Memorials.htm

[thundertaker]

DSwain wrote:

Thunder - reading this, which is a list of local police memorials, I count 7 officers shot dead (as recorded on local police memorials) since 1986 - not counting the two you've referred to.

http://www.policememorial.org.uk/Police_Memorial_Trust/PMT-Memorials.htm

You're right. I was basing what I read a newspaper report on the trial of the american man who shot dead PC Ian Broadhurst which stated that he was the first police officer to be shot dead since Yvonne Fletcher back in 1984. Guess these Newspapers don't check their facts properly...... :evil:

Still, 7 in 20 years is quite low compared with most countries. In the states.

According to this, WPC Beshinivsky was the 36th police officer to be murdered in the last 20 years:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4451852.stm

Which is less than the total number of police officers killed each year in the US:

http://www.nleomf.org/TheMemorial/Facts/year.htm

Which is the equivilent of 180 in 20 years for a population 5 times the size of the UK, or 9 per year compared to 1.8 here in the UK.......

[DSwain]

thundertaker wrote: DSwain wrote:

Thunder - reading this, which is a list of local police memorials, I count 7 officers shot dead (as recorded on local police memorials) since 1986 - not counting the two you've referred to.

http://www.policememorial.org.uk/Police_Memorial_Trust/PMT-Memorials.htm

You're right. I was basing what I read a newspaper report on the trial of the american man who shot dead PC Ian Broadhurst which stated that he was the first police officer to be shot dead since Yvonne Fletcher back in 1984. Guess these Newspapers don't check their facts properly...... :evil:

Still, 7 in 20 years is quite low compared with most countries. In the states.

According to this, WPC Beshinivsky was the 36th police officer to be murdered in the last 20 years:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4451852.stm

Which is less than the total number of police officers killed each year in the US:

http://www.nleomf.org/TheMemorial/Facts/year.htm

Which is the equivilent of 180 in 20 years for a population 5 times the size of the UK, or 9 per year compared to 1.8 here in the UK.......

Can't trust journos! I would agree though that the numbers are still thankfully low

[DSwain]

thundertaker wrote: DSwain wrote:

Thunder - reading this, which is a list of local police memorials, I count 7 officers shot dead (as recorded on local police memorials) since 1986 - not counting the two you've referred to.

http://www.policememorial.org.uk/Police_Memorial_Trust/PMT-Memorials.htm

You're right. I was basing what I read a newspaper report on the trial of the american man who shot dead PC Ian Broadhurst which stated that he was the first police officer to be shot dead since Yvonne Fletcher back in 1984. Guess these Newspapers don't check their facts properly...... :evil:

Still, 7 in 20 years is quite low compared with most countries. In the states.

According to this, WPC Beshinivsky was the 36th police officer to be murdered in the last 20 years:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4451852.stm

Which is less than the total number of police officers killed each year in the US:

http://www.nleomf.org/TheMemorial/Facts/year.htm

Which is the equivilent of 180 in 20 years for a population 5 times the size of the UK, or 9 per year compared to 1.8 here in the UK.......

Can't trust journos! I would agree though that the numbers are still thankfully low

[wyldejackyl]

thundertaker wrote:

Others have been murdered in otherways by being stabbed etc (I personally know one copper who was stabbed while he had his back turned arresting someone else, he managed to knock the other out and put the cuffs on the man who stabbed him before going to hospital). But for the purpose of this argument, I am refering to PCs who have been murdered with guns.

What's next..ban knives too? I think you guys forget that a criminal will use WHATEVER MEANS IS AVAILABLE to commit the crime they have in mind. One's ability to defeat an aggressor to me is more important than keeping guns out of the hands of individuals who have no reason not to have one.
I can kill someone with an axe but until I put it in my hands and split someone's head open with it..I'm not a murderer. The mere possession of a firearm DOES NOT indicate any intent to commit a crime, no more than saying you were standing next to some hot woman means you want to rape her, merely because you're male (and you are carrying a tool of your own, lol).
These kinds of regulations set a dangerous precident; what kind of society do you live in where merely being in possession of something that maybe, might, or could be used to harm another..means you're already guilty?!
Scary thoughts!

[DSwain]

wyldejackyl wrote: thundertaker wrote:

Others have been murdered in otherways by being stabbed etc (I personally know one copper who was stabbed while he had his back turned arresting someone else, he managed to knock the other out and put the cuffs on the man who stabbed him before going to hospital). But for the purpose of this argument, I am refering to PCs who have been murdered with guns.

What's next..ban knives too? I think you guys forget that a criminal will use WHATEVER MEANS IS AVAILABLE to commit the crime they have in mind. One's ability to defeat an aggressor to me is more important than keeping guns out of the hands of individuals who have no reason not to have one.
I can kill someone with an axe but until I put it in my hands and split someone's head open with it..I'm not a murderer. The mere possession of a firearm DOES NOT indicate any intent to commit a crime, no more than saying you were standing next to some hot woman means you want to rape her, merely because you're male (and you are carrying a tool of your own, lol).
These kinds of regulations set a dangerous precident; what kind of society do you live in where merely being in possession of something that maybe, might, or could be used to harm another..means you're already guilty?!
Scary thoughts!

We're discussing the arming of the police, not the right of the individual to possess weapons. As many Americans ring their hands and shake their heads about the British attitude to personal arsenals as do Brits when we hear of a school shooting, post office shooting, shopping centre shooting etc in Midtown USA. Your country and my country have diametrically opposing approaches to the right of the individual to own weapons. We do have less violent crime than you do - but our levels are high, just as yours are high, so there's no reason for us to be particulary proud. Our system of governance re weapons broadly works well for us. Your rolling your eyes at us poor 'subjugated' Brits won't change our way of doing things, wyldejackal; that's why I never express an opinion about your gun laws - it's your business, not mine.

[thundertaker]

wyldejackyl wrote:

What's next..ban knives too? I think you guys forget that a criminal will use WHATEVER MEANS IS AVAILABLE to commit the crime they have in mind. One's ability to defeat an aggressor to me is more important than keeping guns out of the hands of individuals who have no reason not to have one.
I can kill someone with an axe but until I put it in my hands and split someone's head open with it..I'm not a murderer. The mere possession of a firearm DOES NOT indicate any intent to commit a crime, no more than saying you were standing next to some hot woman means you want to rape her, merely because you're male (and you are carrying a tool of your own, lol).
These kinds of regulations set a dangerous precident; what kind of society do you live in where merely being in possession of something that maybe, might, or could be used to harm another..means you're already guilty?!
Scary thoughts!

People like you are always going on about the police being armed, and therefore you have to arm yourselves to to protect yourself from government tyranny. Here we have a situation were it is viable to have both the public and the police being restricted in their use of firearms. If the public had easier access to guns, the police would have to arm themselves in turn, and we would see a lot more tragedy by putting guns in the equation when they didn't need to be......

[thundertaker]

DSwain wrote:

We're discussing the arming of the police, not the right of the individual to possess weapons. As many Americans ring their hands and shake their heads about the British attitude to personal arsenals as do Brits when we hear of a school shooting, post office shooting, shopping centre shooting etc in Midtown USA. Your country and my country have diametrically opposing approaches to the right of the individual to own weapons. We do have less violent crime than you do - but our levels are high, just as yours are high, so there's no reason for us to be particulary proud. Our system of governance re weapons broadly works well for us. Your rolling your eyes at us poor 'subjugated' Brits won't change our way of doing things, wyldejackal; that's why I never express an opinion about your gun laws - it's your business, not mine.

:clap:

I've been saying this for ages DSwain. I have lived in both countries, which gives me perspective on both that most people on this board who criticise the other country's gun laws generally lack.
Critics from one side of the Atlantic generally do not understand the circumstances on the other side. Our gun laws would be lunacy in america, just as theirs would be over here........

[wyldejackyl]

thundertaker wrote:

People like you are always going on about the police being armed, and therefore you have to arm yourselves to to protect yourself from government tyranny. Here we have a situation were it is viable to have both the public and the police being restricted in their use of firearms. If the public had easier access to guns, the police would have to arm themselves in turn, and we would see a lot more tragedy by putting guns in the equation when they didn't need to be......

People like me will always respect any human's right to moral self-preservation through whatever means necessary- weapons included. That concept seems foreign to you guys over in the UK. I'll admit though, I've never been there so I can't make an accurate assumption based on it. I however cannot fathom a society which puts so much trust in its government..yet doesn't control it any more than we control ours!

If that works for you, great. I'm interested though in how your police combat those with illegally imported firearms. We have guns on the black market here too, and so do you. How do you keep illegal firearms from reaching the masses more efficiently, and if what you're doing really works..why don't we do that here? (meaning: Keep illegal arms off the streets, and let anyone else who's lawfully qualified, have what they want).

[thundertaker]

wyldejackyl wrote:

People like me will always respect any human's right to moral self-preservation through whatever means necessary- weapons included. That concept seems foreign to you guys over in the UK. I'll admit though, I've never been there so I can't make an accurate assumption based on it. I however cannot fathom a society which puts so much trust in its government..yet doesn't control it any more than we control ours!

It's not a question of trusting the government. If any government is able to successfully overturn the rule of law in order to impose some sort of stalinist dictatorship in this country, a few poxy guns in the hands of civilians aren't going to do much against the high-res hardware of an army prepared to use them against the citizenry.
However, it would take a MASSIVE shift in the political culture of this country to allow that to happen, just as it would in yours. The law courts and the voters are a far more reliable check on the abuse of government power than an armed band of citizens who would be immediately branded terrorists and swiftly crushed.

Quote: If that works for you, great. I'm interested though in how your police combat those with illegally imported firearms. We have guns on the black market here too, and so do you. How do you keep illegal firearms from reaching the masses more efficiently, and if what you're doing really works..why don't we do that here? (meaning: Keep illegal arms off the streets, and let anyone else who's lawfully qualified, have what they want).

We have far less guns on the black market than you do. Despite a few headline-grabbing incidents. Firearms are extremely rare as a factor in British crime. This is largely thanks to tight gun control and it being relatively difficult to smuggle weapons into the UK, making them expensive and hard to get hold of for your average mugger.
Most criminals are also very much aware of the harsh penalties that being caught with a gun on their person brings. That's the way we would like it to stay. If we had your type of gun laws, the murder rate would skyrocket. It's a lot easier to kill someone with a gun than it is with a knife or blunt object.......