NationStates Jolt Archive

First, what we in the US call "suicide by cop". Just wave what appears to be a weapon, and fail to obey instructions to put it down, and it's over.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/12/nkent112.xml

So, for the first one, it looks like UK cops may be changing their policies, and shooting to kill when the threat appears very lethal to them (even if it's a BB gun replica gun - here in the US, most BB gun owners know that the police will shoot you, so it's best to drop it when you hear the demand).

And for the second incident:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/12/nstab112.xml

Here's what happens when you wrestle someone who has a knife and is willing to use it. Poor cop - he should have had a gun.

When the police get tired of dying on the street, they'll demand more guns.

First, what we in the US call "suicide by cop". Just wave what appears to be a weapon, and fail to obey instructions to put it down, and it's over.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/12/nkent112.xml

So, for the first one, it looks like UK cops may be changing their policies, and shooting to kill when the threat appears very lethal to them (even if it's a BB gun replica gun - here in the US, most BB gun owners know that the police will shoot you, so it's best to drop it when you hear the demand).

And for the second incident:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/12/nstab112.xml

Here's what happens when you wrestle someone who has a knife and is willing to use it. Poor cop - he should have had a gun.

When the police get tired of dying on the street, they'll demand more guns.

No, he should have had a taser, like the policeman in the article who managed to arrest the man without sustaining serious injury.

Unlike their US counterparts I'm pretty sure there is a stong cultural background to the Policeforce that means most officers do not join up to be part of a paramilitary organisation.

No, he should have had a taser, like the policeman in the article who managed to arrest the man without sustaining serious injury.

Maybe against a knife.

But not against a person with a gun. You have to defnitely be within Taser range (which is ridiculously short - a person with a gun can easily prevent you from closing range).

It appears that UK police have steadily increased their use of guns, despite the fact that guns are now legally unavailable to the public.

Two attempts to turn two entirely different stories turning on two different sets of facts into one really stupid point.

No, he should have had a taser, like the policeman in the article who managed to arrest the man without sustaining serious injury.

He should hve had both.

1. Tazers are not effective agaisnt people who, say, wear heavy clothing or are drunk.

2. Tazers are totally useless if more then 1 person is attacking you.

No, he should have had a taser, like the policeman in the article who managed to arrest the man without sustaining serious injury.
A Taser would do a heck of a lot of good against a firearm, wouldn't it? Yep, that'd be my first choice...

Unlike their US counterparts I'm pretty sure there is a stong cultural background to the Policeforce that means most officers did not join to be part of a paramilitary organisation.
And the headline of the second link says that 4000 policemen have been killed in the line of duty. Unless that's since the beginning of time, it's a pretty large number for a smallish and peaceful area like London.

4000 in 8 years, that's a pretty stiff toll. I'll bet that a lot of the survivors of those dead policemen wish they were equipped a little more like a paramilitary force.

A Taser would do a heck of a lot of good against a firearm, wouldn't it? Yep, that'd be my first choice...

It was a knife. There are special armed units to deal with firearms related callouts

It was a knife. There are special armed units to deal with firearms related callouts

Wow, if a criminal has a gun, and the police have to wait for a special firearms unit to show up, you get the same kind of result you had at Virginia Tech.

The criminal could shoot people until he runs out of ammunition in the time it takes a firearms unit to show up.

It was a knife. There are special armed units to deal with firearms related callouts
So what does a policeman do when he is forced to confront a criminal with a firearm? Do they both take tea, while waiting for the special armed unit to arrive? I doubt it. He probably joins the ranks of the fallen 4000.

Policemen should be armed well enough to deal with any threat that they may reasonably expect to encounter. No, they don't need nukes, but hide-bound traditionalists shouldn't force them to defend the population with nightsticks, either.

And the headline of the second link says that 4000 policemen have been killed in the line of duty. Unless that's since the beginning of time, it's a pretty large number for a smallish and peaceful area like London.

4000 in 8 years, that's a pretty stiff toll. I'll bet that a lot of the survivors of those dead policemen wish they were equipped a little more like a paramilitary force.

8 years? Where did that come from?

I think the figure you're looking for is about 175 years.

So what does a policeman do when he is forced to confront a criminal with a firearm? Do they both take tea, while waiting for the special armed unit to arrive? I doubt it. He probably joins the ranks of the fallen 4000.

Policemen should be armed well enough to deal with any threat that they may reasonably expect to encounter. No, they don't need nukes, but hide-bound traditionalists shouldn't force them to defend the population with nightsticks, either.

Gun crime amounts to less than 0.01% of crime (British Crime Survey), 1 in 10,000 isn't what I call a reasonable expectation of encountering it, and that figure includes crimes with non-lethal guns (replicas/air guns etc) are used. So I think tazers are sufficient.

And the headline of the second link says that 4000 policemen have been killed in the line of duty. Unless that's since the beginning of time, it's a pretty large number for a smallish and peaceful area like London.

4000 in 8 years, that's a pretty stiff toll. I'll bet that a lot of the survivors of those dead policemen wish they were equipped a little more like a paramilitary force.
It's since the beginning of the police force, like Philosopy said around 175 years; 8 in the last four years. And that's not just from being attacked etc. That includes being in car crashes etc.

Two attempts to turn two entirely different stories turning on two different sets of facts into one really stupid point.

Yet another poster who doesn't get anything. :rolleyes:

Wow, if a criminal has a gun, and the police have to wait for a special firearms unit to show up, you get the same kind of result you had at Virginia Tech.

The criminal could shoot people until he runs out of ammunition in the time it takes a firearms unit to show up.

And when the police arrive they have to wait for verbal permission from a Superintendent to draw their sidearm and written permission to remove their mp5 from the vehicle.

Gun crime amounts to less than 0.01% of crime (British Crime Survey), 1 in 10,000 isn't what I call a reasonable expectation of encountering it,

So what you're saying is that the rest of the world saw 50 years' worth of British Gun Crimes in the course of 15 minutes during Hot Fuzz?

And the headline of the second link says that 4000 policemen have been killed in the line of duty. Unless that's since the beginning of time, it's a pretty large number for a smallish and peaceful area like London.

4000 in 8 years, that's a pretty stiff toll. I'll bet that a lot of the survivors of those dead policemen wish they were equipped a little more like a paramilitary force.

LMAO!!!

Why don't you read the article again and try to avoid being blinded by your preconceptions:

"As many as 4,000 British police officers are thought to have died in the line of duty since the force was set up, including at least eight in the past four years."

It's not 4000 over 8 years, it's 8 over four years.

It appears that UK police have steadily increased their use of guns, despite the fact that guns are now legally unavailable to the public.

This is not absolutely true.
Actually, the banning of handguns had a fairly minor effect on the number of firearms licences issued. There are still various shotguns and rifles...

And the headline of the second link says that 4000 policemen have been killed in the line of duty. Unless that's since the beginning of time, it's a pretty large number for a smallish and peaceful area like London.

4000 in 8 years, that's a pretty stiff toll. I'll bet that a lot of the survivors of those dead policemen wish they were equipped a little more like a paramilitary force.8 years? Where did that come from?

I think the figure you're looking for is about 175 years.Indeed, if anything such figures would suggest that working for the UK policeforce is considerably safer than in many parts of the forces history.

Even the widow of the PC who is mentioned in second article doesn't think that his carrying of a gun would have made any difference.

8 years? Where did that come from?

I think the figure you're looking for is about 175 years.

Oops, my mistake.

Now that we've had a good laugh, let's figure out what a policeman, armed only with a nightstick and Taser, should do when confronting a criminal armed with a firearm. Maybe he should cower in an alley and call for help? No, he is the help, isn't he. I guess the answer is to arm him properly.

This is not absolutely true.
Actually, the banning of handguns had a fairly minor effect on the number of firearms licences issued. There are still various shotguns and rifles...

Yes, but by the time the pistol bans were introduced in 1997 (you can still get a pistol on a Section 5 I believe) there were already almost no guns in civilian hands, and you could not own a gun for self-defense outside Northern Ireland (where pistols are still legal for these purposes).

Im pretty sure if it had been 4000 in 8 years then there'd reason to arm all officers. As it is it really isn't and "in the line of duty" can mean a number of things such as shootings and stabbings as pointed out but also car accidents, falling off a building, explosions...many things, not just guns.

Yes, but by the time the pistol bans were introduced in 1997 (you can still get a pistol on a Section 5 I believe) there were already almost no guns in civilian hands, and you could not own a gun for self-defense outside Northern Ireland (where pistols are still legal for these purposes).

What's a "Section 5"?

The British cop was wearing bulletproof armour in a knife fight? Great tactic.

The British cop was wearing bulletproof armour in a knife fight? Great tactic.

Where'd you get that from?

Where'd you get that from?

The second article said he was wearing a protective vest. Unless Scotland Yard is handing out plate mail, it'd be kevlar.

The second article said he was wearing a protective vest. Unless Scotland Yard is handing out plate mail, it'd be kevlar.

Actually the police in the UK issue 'stab vests', designed to defend against knife attacks.

It was a knife. There are special armed units to deal with firearms related callouts

Yeah and that poor bobby probably had nothing but a stab-proof vest which didnt work...

The second article said he was wearing a protective vest. Unless Scotland Yard is handing out plate mail, it'd be kevlar.

They wear anti-stab vests that indeed do have a metal plate in them, but are largely kevlar.

What's a "Section 5"?


As far as I understand UK firearms law, and I'm not British, the different types of guns are licensed according to several 'sections', a 'shotgun license' section and 5 more sections for various 'more dangerous firearms', the bigger the number, the harder the license.

Section 5 is called 'prohibited firearms', but you STILL can in theory get one.

IIRC there are like 4 people in the UK that can still have handguns. I mean apart from the Army and police and such.

The British cop was wearing bulletproof armour in a knife fight? Great tactic.The second article said he was wearing a protective vest. Unless Scotland Yard is handing out plate mail, it'd be kevlar.The article has not given the full infomation. Such vests are more descriptivly refered to as 'stab-proof vests'. Such vests are normally made from Kevlar.

For those calling for the UK police to be armed, I would wonder why you insist on routinely arming those who do not wish to be routinely armed. There was an internal police survey around 10 years ago that found that 8 out of 10 police officers did not wish to be routinely armed.

Actually the police in the UK issue 'stab vests', designed to defend against knife attacks.

That's sounds about right. In a country where the police have no way to defend themselves, you might as well go at them with a stapler.

For those calling for the UK police to be armed, I would wonder why you insist on routinely arming those who do not wish to be routinely armed. There was an internal police survey around 10 years ago that found that 8 out of 10 police officers did not wish to be routinely armed.

Well, TOO BAD. It's for their own damn good. Sorry, but it's the same with kids and vaccinations. 10/10 kids don't want to get their shots, but they get them anyway!

That's sounds about right. In a country where the police have no way to defend themselves, you might as well go at them with a stapler.

More to do with the kind of attack they're most likely to face actually. Knives are more common than guns and ballistic vests aren't to brilliant at stopping knives.

[snip]
Section 5 is called 'prohibited firearms', but you STILL can in theory get one.
[snip]

Ah, gotcha. I've never looked at the law in that much detail.

Well, TOO BAD. It's for their own damn good. Sorry, but it's the same with kids and vaccinations. 10/10 kids don't want to get their shots, but they get them anyway!So you're in favour of recinding an adult's right to self-determination? Why not just make it the law for all adults to carry a firearm at all times then?

So you're in favour of recinding an adult's right to self-determination? Why not just make it the law for all adults to carry a firearm at all times then?

That is Remote Observer's job...

A Taser would do a heck of a lot of good against a firearm, wouldn't it? Yep, that'd be my first choice...

You discount a heck of a lot of factors. At close range, a taser may be more effective since a hit anywhere would incapacitate the firearm user, based on how it's supposed to work.

A gunshot wound may, or may not put down someone if you hit them in a non-lethal place, and depending on trauma resistance, they might still shoot you.

At longer ranges, the firearms user has better chances.

Body armor typically reduces the advantage of either one.

What is it with you people and "Guns solve everything" mentality?

Rioters? Gun them down.

Thieves? Shoot them dead.

Litterbugs? Perforate them.

Feels like you guys walked out of a Western or something.

You discount a heck of a lot of factors. At close range, a taser may be more effective since a hit anywhere would incapacitate the firearm user, based on how it's supposed to work.

A gunshot wound may, or may not put down someone if you hit them in a non-lethal place, and depending on trauma resistance, they might still shoot you.

At longer ranges, the firearms user has better chances.

Body armor typically reduces the advantage of either one.

What is it with you people and "Guns solve everything" mentality?

Rioters? Gun them down.

Thieves? Shoot them dead.

Litterbugs? Perforate them.

Feels like you guys walked out of a Western or something.
Why not give the cop both and let him decide which is a better tactical choice? I guess that would fly in the face of the "We know best" attitude that so many gun-fearing folks have adopted.

Why not give the cop both and let him decide which is a better tactical choice? I guess that would fly in the face of the "We know best" attitude that so many gun-fearing folks have adopted.

They don't want guns, as has already been mentioned.
We don't want them all to have them, either.
Hardly any of our criminals have guns.

So, why change?

They don't want guns, as has already been mentioned.
We don't want them all to have them, either.
Hardly any of our criminals have guns.

So, why change?
I guess it just goes back to the conclusion of the original post,
"When the police get tired of dying on the street[sic], they'll demand more guns."

They don't want guns, as has already been mentioned.
We don't want them all to have them, either.
Hardly any of our criminals have guns.

So, why change?

Guns for all!


Even if they don't want them.


Or need them.




...


...guns for all...

I guess it just goes back to the conclusion of the original post,
"When the police get tired of dying on the street[sic], they'll demand more guns."

What was it, eight fatalities in four years?

The US population is five times ours... Have more than 40 US police officers died in the last four years? 'Cos they have guns coming out of their ears, so they should be perfectly safe. Tell you what, I'll look it up...

...According to the "Officer Down Memorial Page (http://www.odmp.org/year.php)" this year you've already had 83 "line of duty" deaths. And it's only June. Hmm.

I guess it just goes back to the conclusion of the original post,
"When the police get tired of dying on the street[sic], they'll demand more guns."

However only eight have died in the last four years.

I guess it just goes back to the conclusion of the original post,
"When the police get tired of dying on the street[sic], they'll demand more guns."

Yes, dying at a rate of two per year, most of whom wouldn't have been saved by firearms.

Hey, stop thinking black and white. Not all criminals are beasts, but not all police officers are completely perfect!

Police officers are in the first place human, and so are criminals. So if you give any kind of weapon, even a taser or pepper-spray to a police officer, it has been handed out to a civilian. Yes, police officers are human, so they might as well be criminals!

The armed forces of the police are trained and screened properly, and they won't allow them to engage in anything illegal or something. And you know what? There will still be accidents among these highly trained officers, be it hurting civilians or gunning down harmless criminals. You suggest giving every single police officer a handgun, which is, to be honest, more dangerous for society. If there's 100 people in a street, of which one is an armed police officer, and two others are having a fight. Imagine the police officer trying to stop the fight, but getting hit himself. He could pull his gun and TRY to shoot the one fighting with him. Now this officer can kill the fighter, he can kill a civilians, or hurt either of them or even himself, the fighter can steal his gun,... Anything can happen.

If the officer doesn't have a gun, well at least the chances of a shooting taking place is diminished quite a lot.

The US is in my humble opinion a good example of how to keep alive the ol' western stuff. Basicly anyone has a gun, and when anyone gets really pissed well hey they can always choose for the gun. You don't even have to be a criminal to make this mistake.

So what you're saying is that the rest of the world saw 50 years' worth of British Gun Crimes in the course of 15 minutes during Hot Fuzz?

:D

I guess it just goes back to the conclusion of the original post,
"When the police get tired of dying on the street[sic], they'll demand more guns."

Yep. Entirely correct.

So when the police actually feel they need guns they'll ask for them. Right now they don't. So leave them to it?