The Student Room Group

Should all police officer's be armed?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20
Avatar for pjm600
pjm600
18
Original post by ehiamour
No. We would have much more Mark Duggan type situations.


Original post by ThatPerson
No. The police already aren't trusted, and the British Police works on a principal of policing by consent. If all police officers carried guns that wouldn't send a good message, especially as guns are strictly regulated and controlled in the UK, so the general population can't own them easily.

It will also lead to more accidental shootings. I think in situations like the 2011 Riots, all officers should be armed with rubber bullets/tasers, etc, but for normal policing no.


Original post by james1211
Absolutely not. That would cause criminals to arm up with guns themselves.

Posted from TSR Mobile


To all those saying no, how would you expect the police to deal with an armed (even if just a knife) criminal?
Original post by ehiamour
lol.




This is actually a good suggestion. I'm assuming rubber bullets don't kill though.


Why take the risk? You need to take out the threat, rubber bullets carry too much of a risk that criminal could recover and shoot back.

Original post by james1211
Maybe in London but not elsewhere.


There are plenty of guns around Manchester and Nottingham.
Lol no. Airport police are so intimidating, imagine them walking round the street with those beasts. I'd be so scared even if I wasn't a baddie!
Original post by pjm600
To all those saying no, how would you expect the police to deal with an armed (even if just a knife) criminal?


I'm answering this with the view that the person has not been proven guilty of anything. They should by all means, use a rubber bullet or a taser. But with a gun it seems way too easy to do serious damage to someone who may not deserve it.
Original post by Yi-Ge-Ningderen
Why take the risk? You need to take out the threat, rubber bullets carry too much of a risk that criminal could recover and shoot back.



There are plenty of guns around Manchester and Nottingham.


I like the fact you used the word 'threat'. It suggests that something is likely to happen, but not necessarily going to. So they should be able to respond in a way that is likely to hurt and stop the person, not kill them. Again, they may not have actually done anything wrong, and trying to prove whether they did or they didn't after the person is dead or seriously injured is messy.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by UniMastermindBOSS
Yeah that makes sense. Police (who specifically fight people breaking the law) shouldn't have guns because law abiding citizens don't have them...


Well, the rate of gun homicide in the UK is pretty low. This could have something to do with the total taboo against them. There are good uses for guns, such as war, self defence, defence of property and arrest of known-to-be-armed suspects. I support every police officer having a taser though (but still think they should be used only as a last resort).
I don't think every officer needs them - I think the system as it stands is perfectly fine, with the local/regional firearms squads to respond to the few incidents that crop up. Rates of incidents where a gun would be handy aren't really high enough to justify the extra risk and intimidation that arming all our officers would bring.
Reply 27
Avatar for Ornlu
Ornlu
4
Original post by pjm600
To all those saying no, how would you expect the police to deal with an armed (even if just a knife) criminal?


The procedure is to wait for armoured back-up; they have stab vests, pepper spray and a truncheon if they need to defend themselfs.
No I don't think all police officers should be armed.
OP why do you think they should be?
Reply 29
Avatar for AnJuM218
AnJuM218
9
This year the number of times a taser was used doubled last year's figures. I don't think guns would be a great idea.
Original post by ehiamour
I like the fact you used the word 'threat'. It suggests that something is likely to happen, but not necessarily going to. So they should be able to respond in a way that is likely to hurt and stop the person, not kill them. Again, they may not have actually done anything wrong, and trying to prove whether they did or they didn't after the person is dead or seriously injured is messy.


The police are almost always right to shoot, when they shoot, they should shoot to kill.
Yes... But they scare me... I remember once when I saw one in Holborn/Chancery Lane I got scared...
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Yi-Ge-Ningderen
The police are almost always right to shoot, when they shoot, they should shoot to kill.


I like how you used the word 'almost'. This is fun :smile:

When you can confidently say 'always', I'll change my answer.
Yes and so should teachers and school children.

Original post by ThatPerson
No. The police already aren't trusted, and the British Police works on a principal of policing by consent. If all police officers carried guns that wouldn't send a good message, especially as guns are strictly regulated and controlled in the UK, so the general population can't own them easily.

It will also lead to more accidental shootings. I think in situations like the 2011 Riots, all officers should be armed with rubber bullets/tasers, etc, but for normal policing no.


This, especially the first part. Anyway, I don't even see why there's a need for all police officers to be armed. The police are doing fine as it is and if any specialist equipment (e.g. guns) are needed, they can just be called.
No. There is nothing wrong with what they are armed with now. We already have specialist units if guns are needed. Having unarmed police means they are better at dealing with situations without serious risk of death or injury to a party that is either innocent or guilty of petty charges. Just look at America - their polices policy of shoot first ask later means there are new cases of questionable police caused death every week.
Original post by ehiamour
I like how you used the word 'almost'. This is fun :smile:

When you can confidently say 'always', I'll change my answer.

So by your logic nobody on the side of the law should have a weapon.
Reply 37
Avatar for gumtrees
gumtrees
14
Definitely not. We're doing fine without them.
Nooo. Even the majority of police don't want to carry firearms.
No even those who are specially trained to use firearms aren't competent enough, imagine if they gave every tom, dick and harry one.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-20763324 Pathetic

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you