Legal gun owner kills policeman

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

How many times do we go round and round this arguement.

Talk about two nations divided by a single language.

In the UK we have and need gun control. Gun crime is rare (but growing). Help me here. How can gun crime be growing if the law says you can't have guns??We have a culture of gun control. Very few people own guns. Very few criminals have guns. Then, again, how is gun crime, huh, to use your word, growing??Very few police have guns. (Before we brits get all smug remember our knife crime rate is worse.)

I've only visited the US occasionally but it seems that there are so many guns out there and the level of gun crime is so high that some people need the security of gun ownership. YOU'VE SEEN ALL THOSE GUNS???Seems reasonable. It also appears that with the sheer quantity of guns in the public domain any attempt at banning them would not remove them from criminal hands. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. It never got that bad in the UK before they were banned.

It's worth bearing in mind that Hungerford in the 80s and Dunblane in the 90s were both atrocities committed with legally held weapons. Both led to control (semi automatic and assault rifles and handguns respectively).

Oh, and that is how gun crime is, huh, growind??

I am so confused

Sorry to have confused you.

Gun crime in growing for a number of very complex reasons including having porous borders with no effective control and a rise in drug related crime. If you want to massively over simplify the discussion of UK crime to "Gun crime is growing so we should all be armed" you need to spend more time in the UK.

An small increase in a very small number of crimes is still a low figure.

Of course I haven't seem all the guns in the US. In the same way that you have a twisted view on the UK I am happy to admit I don't have all (or even most) of the facts about the US.

That was the point of my post. Americans cannot use their position to pass judgement on the position in the UK. Apples and Oranges.

Ok, I understand your point. I was being a little, no a lot, tongue in cheek here.

Every culture will make its own decisions as they should. I do believe however, disarming any population is dangerous. More dangerous than allowing them to keep weapons. (And I do not mean canons and grenades). Data from countries that have recently disarmed the people do not trend toward making me change my mind.

In any event, your reply to me was (even though I deserved less) was clear, thoughtful and respectful. Thank you

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[bexren76 0]

I don't know whether Americans are aware of this but in fact our police forces are regularly polled nationwide to find out whether officers WOULD LIKE to be armed and they always resoundingly say no. In addition, whenever the debate is being held in this country YOUR senior police officers specifically advise us to keep avoiding a fully armed police force so that we don't end up with your problems!!

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I don't know whether Americans are aware of this but in fact our police forces are regularly polled nationwide to find out whether officers WOULD LIKE to be armed and they always resoundingly say no. In addition, whenever the debate is being held in this country YOUR senior police officers specifically advise us to keep avoiding a fully armed police force so that we don't end up with your problems!!

Your post implies that there is necessarily a cause-and-effect between a country's police officers being armed, and the rate of gun crime being committed by that country's civilians. Can you substantiate this with data?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

So then, you believe that the gun is what makes people want to kill?

I always thought that the urge to murder came from the heart...

Take knives, for example.

(above is fragmented from the original)

I would say that the anti-gun attitude clearly makes the gun a 'weapon of death' rather than a 'tool' to those with that indoctrination. If we constantly worried and stressed over knives and taught our children that way, then eventually, the kiddies WOULD look at knives that way.

It's very clear, that the anti-gun paranoia is a self fulfilling prophecy.

So, of course, make guns illegal for anti-gun types. They obviously are NOT mature enough to own that kind of tool.

I'm not worried about people that grew up with guns and learned to handle them responsibly. I'm worried about the anti-gun nut who's flipped out and goes out and buys a gun - because he has only ever acknowledge one use for the thing.

The only issues here is:
1 - the desire of the anti-gun types to take away the right to own property in a free society.

2 - the desire of the anti-gun types to pick and choose which right accrue to a citizen of a free country

again, it has nothing to do with guns. it's property and rights - the basis of freedom

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

The way to stop criminals from maximizing their damage, is to confront them with force. Period. That's the only thing they respect.

As each situation is different, I'd temper this as the 'best' way to confront them is directly. Your best odds are not passive hiding under a desk as BV is arguing - that MIGHT work, but would reduce your odds.

Active or passive response to a need. One can pull dump their main, or, just hang out until their Cypres fires.....

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

If the gun crime is so low in the UK, why do you NEED the armed officers in the first place?

apparently to handle N. American tourists

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[MDMA 0]

Quote

Quote

If the gun crime is so low in the UK, why do you NEED the armed officers in the first place?

apparently to handle N. American tourists

No, we have Burger King keeping all you fat tourists in check

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

>And which option gives them the best odds against criminals: Armed, or Unarmed?

I'd say it depends on the situation. The best case would be to have both sorts available.

>Why don't you dare to take a chance and make a judgement
>about whether or not the greater good is served by armed
> policemen, or unarmed policemen.

The greatest good would be served by (in my opinion) a mix of both.

The only way to have both is to have armed cops. If a cop wears a sidearm, he doesn't have to pull it or use it, unless absolutely necessary. However, if he doesn't wear a sidearm, then he is helpless if he does need one. Therefore, the best compromise is to carry a gun.

"Walk softly and carry a big stick."

"Better to have it and not need it, then to need it and not have it."

[dorbie 0]

Quote

"Walk softly and carry a big stick."

"Better to have it and not need it, then to need it and not have it."

If a cop has a gun then every struggle with a suspect involves a firearm. That may also mean having to change tactics regarding hands on policing and apprehensions which the UK police are well trained in.

On top of this the character of policing in many situations might change. In the long term you may also attract a different type of police officer and that has far reaching ramifications for British society. It may surprise you John, but most UK police don't want firearms.

In the UK we have a high standard for those who carry firearms, all Police in the UK are screened for temperament before being recruited, when you get into the realms of carrying firearms the screening and training gets intense. Everyone likes it that way and I'm not convinced giving every police officer a gun would do anything to reduce police deaths, never mind civilian citizen deaths (those lives count too).

[AS1 0]

Statistics can be misleading but here one that might suprise our American friends

Even the armed response officers in the UK are not routinely armed. They patrol in an unarmed capacity with weapons locked in the car and arm if an incident warrants it. Levels of authority have to be sought before they arm unless there is an immediate threat to life.

How often are they armed?
7% of the time. So even officers with guns don't need them 93% of the time.
(Thames Valley Police statistics)

You REALLY can't compare the UK to the US.

[mnealtx 0]

A well-reasoned response...thanks!

What works for our culture in the the States isn't necessarily the best option for your culture in the UK (and vice versa, of course).

It's not the raw odds of something happening to me that prompted the decision to carry concealed - it's what's at stake. I'm NOT going to let my safety be at the sole discretion of someone that has already PROVEN by their actions that they have no respect for my well-being.

Come to think about it... that applies equally well to the politicians passing these (IMO) idiotic laws...

Quote

all Police in the UK are screened for temperament before being recruited

So how in the heck did y'all end up with Scoop?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[shropshire 0]

...except for the public relation armed cops at airports (and what's all that about?)

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[billvon 2,400]

>The only way to have both is to have armed cops.

The UK has both, and they rarely arm their police. Works for them.

>However, if he doesn't wear a sidearm, then he is helpless if he does need one.

It is a uniquely american perspective that people without guns are helpless. I imagine if you repeat that often enough, some might start to believe it - and start to believe things like "all cops must have guns" and "unarmed citizens are victims."

[Scoop 0]

Quote

Quote

all Police in the UK are screened for temperament before being recruited

So how in the heck did y'all end up with Scoop?

Fuck you!

Policing is something thats very specific to the community in which you serve, This goes for rural to urban environments, county to county and shockingly country to country. We got it how our public want it, within reason.

Interestig fact for you is that the last time an officer felt it neccesary to shoot an offender in our force was 25 years ago Do we all need to be routinely armed.... erm.. I think not. That stat speaks for itself.

[AS1 0]

Different department.
Armed Response is one thing, Static Protection another.

[shropshire 0]

Sure but I still think that they are only there for show, in real terms.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Scoop 0]

You're probably right. If there was someone with a weapon or ready to do mischief in Heathrow could they really respond in an adequete time? Probably not seeing as its the size of a small town and they are on foot. I still like seeing them though. Especially as some johnny foreigners think that British police don't have guns and are all soft as shite. Good for them to get off the plane and see a couple of guys dressed in black overalls carrying MP5s/G36s.

Its the same whenever theres a terrorist incident. Massive reaction AFTER the incident with armed police and dog handlers in every port, major train station and public landmark. That always makes me chuckle. Such an expense as well as most the officers will be on overtime due to last minute duty ammendments.

[mnealtx 0]

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[shropshire 0]

>... may be they should be on rollerskates.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Scoop 0]

The fantasies of a 'middle-aged' man.

Scary shit that will haunt me for the rest of my days

[shropshire 0]

Hey, dont you dis me boy

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

It is a uniquely american perspective that people without guns are helpless. I imagine if you repeat that often enough, some might start to believe it - and start to believe things like "all cops must have guns" and "unarmed citizens are victims."

funny, I've heard the gun fearing types say it quite often too. And how many times has Andy posed the question - what if he had a knife instead?

But - tell you what, Bill. We drop you off in the middle of Bagdad without a weapon and count the minutes (seconds).

[billvon 2,400]

>We drop you off in the middle of Bagdad without a weapon and
>count the minutes (seconds).

WHAT? Baghdad, that place that we've secured for the sake of freedom? I'm sure the troops in the "surge" have made that place safe for everyone as promised.

Let's see - as of today, 3378 US troops are dead. They were all armed. I think your little example has a problem!

[kelpdiver 2]

No, the question was are unarmed people helpless or not.

not if having a gun makes you immortal. Only the loons on the anti gun side believe that anything thinks this.

[billvon 2,400]

> No, the question was are unarmed people helpless or not.

That's an easy one - no.