Should law enforcement officers be stripped of lethal arms?

[closeupready]

In the UK:

>>The United Kingdom is made up of four constituent countries: England, Scotland, Wales (which make up Great Britain) and Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland, all police officers carry firearms. In the rest of the United Kingdom, police officers do not carry firearms, except in special circumstances. This originates from the formation of the Metropolitan Police Service in the 19th century, when police were not armed, partly to counter public fears and objections over armed enforcers as this had been previously seen due to the British Army maintaining order when needed. The arming of police in Great Britain is a perennial topic of debate.<<

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_Kingdom

Seems to work well there.

[closeupready]

1. Bump?

[closeupready]

2. Comments welcome.

[Egalitarian Thug]

3. I see what you mean. Sorry I missed this earlier. Maybe this kick will spark some interest?

& R

[Egalitarian Thug]

4. Dropped off the first page in only 20 minutes. n/t

[Egalitarian Thug]

5. 55 minutes and it's almost off the second page. n/t

[closeupready]

6. Yeah, this went well, huh? Guess it's not time to talk about gun control.

I thought, from what I read here, it was. Guess I was wrong.

[Bucky]

7. The lack of kicks to this thread should tell you something of its irrelevance to the debae

I mean, I'm happy for Britain and everything. But really, what does it have to do with an American problem?

[closeupready]

8. Yes, it tells me that it's not time to talk about gun control.

[Warren DeMontague]

12. So to your mind, Is it ever time?

Honest question.

[closeupready]

14. It was "now", yesterday. But nobody wanted to talk about it,

apparently, yesterday. I don't think the membership has changed since yesterday, so likely, nobody wants to talk about gun control even today. Or at least, not in the context of taking lethal weapons away from government agents.

[Warren DeMontague]

17. Because your "context" is a bs diversion to shut down the real discussion

IE the fact that no citizen in this fucking country needs to be able to buy one of these to "hunt" or for "self defense"

[Egalitarian Thug]

44. Where is this real discussion? All I've read from you are insults and inciting. n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

45. BAN THE GOD DAMN ASSAULT WEAPONS. NOW.

There's your "discussion". I'm so sorry if, with a CLASSROOM OF DEAD 6 YEAR OLDS, the fee fees of the "AH NEED MAH BIG FUGGIN GUN DERMIT" crowd are being hurt.

It's not about "Wurl we need to disurm teh police too cuz Alex Jones says teh new wurld order is curmin with ter black hurlucurpturs hurrr hurr durr"

BAN THE MOTHERFUCKING ASSAULT WEAPONS. BAN THEM. NOW. THAT IS THE DISCUSSION.

[Egalitarian Thug]

49. Thanks for making my point again.

Do you really think this shit makes any difference at all? You're the one that doesn't want any discussion, rave on little boy.

[Warren DeMontague]

50. I know, the fee fees of the gun people are all that's important.

Right, and I'm juvenile for being pissed about a classroom full of 1st graders being killed. Okay.

[Egalitarian Thug]

52. No, you're the screaming child upset because his ice cream cone fell on the street.

You're the short-sighted fool that wants to be entertained by posturing and ranting about one incident while completely ignoring the much larger ongoing problem.

You don't care that 47 people were killed Thursday and Saturday and Sunday and Monday and are being killed right now today. Because that isn't on your TV, and even if you did rant about them, nobody would be paying attention to you.

[Warren DeMontague]

53. Right.

So, do you support banning this sort of Assault Weapon, or not?

[Egalitarian Thug]

54. Like the point of the OP, I think it's well past time for us to lose it all.

Banning the gun porn you are so fond of posting will accomplish nothing, except republican majorities in 2014. So yes, but no.

That is discussion. I believe that we can rid ourselves of gun culture, but it has to be done well and thoroughly. All or nothing.

It feels good to "ban this"


But, that is exactly the same rifle as this


So what good does banning the top one do when you can still buy the lower one? And all that aside, the overwhelming number of gun deaths are from pistols, like over 95%.

If we're going to do this, it needs to be done right, and screaming, insulting, and making false analogies because it makes people feel good isn't going to get the win.

[Warren DeMontague]

57. Yeah, well, excuse me, but I'm a smidgen pissed off right now.

If theres no objective difference between a and b then yes, ban them both.

[Egalitarian Thug]

60. And what does that accomplish? That's my point. It's not the guns so much as it's the gun culture.

Police driving through neighborhoods they don't live in, behind glass to keep them separate from the residents that they hate, with their guns to remind those same residents that they have all the power, that they can literally kill them on a whim and there will be no consequences.

It's about the power. Be smart, fight that, not the people that should and can be your friends.

[Warren DeMontague]

61. I disagree. I think, when we're talking about this specific type of incident, it IS the guns.

Violent crime is down. However, the ability of one lone nut to acquire the sort of firepower that allows him to kill this many people in a short period of time? It's unacceptable.

[closeupready]

15. And I'll note that you haven't responded to my question, either,

substantively.

[Warren DeMontague]

18. STOP TALKING BOUT TAKING MY PRECIOUS!!!!!!

WE WANTS IT WE NNEDEDS IT YOU CANTS TAKES IT WE LOOOOOVES IT!!!!!

[closeupready]

24. Okay, putting the 22-year-old on ignore.

Bye!

[Warren DeMontague]

30. Yeah.

Hit a nerve, huh.

[rustydog]

9. No, because law enforcement may still need to use lethal force

a gang of people beating someonet to death. attacks with knife, trying to run over people/officers with a motor vehicle.....

[closeupready]

10. So would, for example, Kitty Genovese.

Do you think for one minute her attacker would have come back repeatedly, as he did, if he'd been shot in the leg?

[Egalitarian Thug]

35. All of those things take place in GB, and they do still maintain armed units for when it is

actually necessary, but with a near ban on firearms it isn't necessary nearly as often. Additionally the fact that the cops aren't universally capable of killing any at any time for any (or no) reason, forces them to be more of the people, rather than separated from them.

[Warren DeMontague]

11. Ah, another not-so-cleverly-disguised "DONT TAKE MY PRECIOUS!!!!" Thread.

PRECIOUS!!!!!!

[rrneck]

13. No. nt

[closeupready]

16. Does that mean, then, you oppose effective gun control?

The measure, as I point out, is effective in the UK.

Doesn't that mean we should adopt it here in the US?

[rrneck]

22. No, I don't oppose effective gun control.

I don't think we should disarm police officers in a country with three hundred million guns, crappy health care, and wealth disparity on a par with Mexico.

[closeupready]

23. I agree, though what does 'crappy health care' have to do with this?

Oh, you mean, in terms of mental illness?

[rrneck]

27. Yep. ntt

[WastedSaint]

19. Work on the NRA types first, then we'll talk about the police. nt

[closeupready]

20. That makes no sense.

Guns in the hands of police are as likely to be abused as when they are in the hands of civilians with gun training.

[jmg257]

21. Yep - there are as many asshole LE as there are in any other profession.

The extra training, the extra responsibility doesn't mean squat if the person is an ass...and there are plenty of asses to go around. Worked with quite a few myself.

After the ban on civilian semi-auto/repeating arms, LE comes next. At the least restrict to on duty use only.

[LP2K12]

29. Switzerland...

Training and duty matters...

[Morganfleeman]

25. I live in the UK

This is an apples to oranges question. In the UK, we have strict gun control here. Pretty much all firearms for private possession are banned with the exception of things like antique rifles etc. Even the Olympic shooting team needs to train outside of England, Wales and Scotland. Police are less at risk of being shot here than they are in the U.S. where there are 300 million guns in circulation.

[closeupready]

26. Ok, but then, if the argument is this,

that with 300 million guns, law enforcement officers need a means of defending themselves, why does that not apply to civilians? They also live in a country with 300 million guns, and also need to defend themselves.

If civilians have gun training, then seems like they are as qualified to handle them as law enforcement. Or you disagree?

[Glassunion]

31. Holy shit-biscuits

It took you forever to get the response you wanted so you could respond with that canned answer straw-man argument that's so far off the mark.

You start by asking if the LE agencies should be stripped of their lethal arms, by selecting a country that is
A) A different culture
B) A fucking island nation
C) Never had the volume of firearms that the US has
D) Has nowhere near the drug and gang issue we have in the US
E) Does not have the wealth disparities that we have in the US

Then someone responds pointing out the apples / oranges comparison statement that you made in the OP.

Then you start a reply with "if the argument is this" - you are setting up a straw man. That is not the poster's argument. That is yours.

How long did it take for someone to give you something close enough for you to make a feeble attempt at your point? 24 hours?

[closeupready]

33. Plonk.

[Glassunion]

36. I guess ignore is easier than standing up for his argument.

[jmg257]

40. Maybe part of the problem that needs to be adressed is the 300 Million+ guns? Why would we even

think to strip LE of their best protection (arms of SOME sort) without stripping the civilian population of theirs?

The 2 would have to go hand in hand, no? It IS a shame the best personal means of protection turns out to also be one of the greatest threats, but such as it is...

Anyway, I wouldn't expect either group of those inclined to go unarmed without reasonable belief that eveyone one else is too.

[closeupready]

41. Agreed.

I guess it's the same psychological principle that underlies the doctrine of mutually assured destruction.

[woo me with science]

28. Our police departments are becoming paramilitary forces.

There is no need for that garbage.

[Warren DeMontague]

32. It's pretty damn obvious what's being done here.

Ohifweevenbroachthesubjectofregulatingassaultweaponswehavetotakethegunsawayfromthecopstoo

andofcoursewehavetocensorvideogamesandmoviesfirst

andhowareweevengoingtogetalltheassaultweaponsthatareoutthere

anddidyouknowthatassaultweaponisamadeupterm

andthebushmaster223isreallybasicallyapeashooter

andbesidesthereisnowaytobanalltheweaponsnopejustcantbedone

sowemightaswellgiveupandnotdoanythingever

infactweshouldstoptalkingaboutit

reallyjuststop

[tk2kewl]

34. Ultimately that is the right answer

i do not think cops should be armed, but until we get control of our guns we unfortunately do not have a choice.

Let's work towards a society where it is unnecessary for the police to be carry deadly weapons.

[Egalitarian Thug]

39. Why not do it all at once, if you think it is possible to do it at all?

And if it isn't, then what the hell are we talking about?

30 people were butchered Friday and the nation is outraged. 47 other people were butchered Saturday and another 47 Sunday and another 47 yesterday and I haven't heard a single person on either side of this screaming match talk about them. Which makes the point that this isn't about people "finally getting serious about gun control", it's all about "this one incident makes me sad, so I'm going to need something to scream about until something else comes along to entertain/distract me".

[tk2kewl]

43. i wish we could

i really do

i can imagine a world without people killing each other, i just can't figure out how we get everyone else to see it

[Egalitarian Thug]

48. We just have to decide to do it. What I believe would happen though, should some sane solution

actually be proposed, is that the LEAs would shriek more loudly than the NRA.

This is one reason I'm so completely disgusted with most of my fellow Americans. They don't want solutions, they simply want to beat somebody over the head and feel self righteous while they're doing it. There are not many of us that want to explore real solutions and we are usually ignored.

[moondust]

37. Maybe when gun violence drops below a certain threshold?

(And stays there for a while.)

[WastedSaint]

47. +1 yes. nt

[Puzzledtraveller]

38. give em slingshots

[bobclark86]

42. Umm... no.

I'm good with cops with guns... even though many civilians have MORE training than many cops.

BTW, most cops fire their sidearms once a year. They run two magazines through it for qualifications, and that's it. The target is a stationary piece of paper vaguely in the shape of a person. No learning to use cover, no malfunction drills, no multiple targets, no hostage situations. That's about what the U.S. Army has for qualifications annually (about 50 rounds from a rifle at a target 25 yards away).

I wish cops had more training, but nobody will pay for it. We can buy $100 billion fighter programs to bomb guys in caves, but we can't teach a cop how to shoot more than a piece of paper.

[closeupready]

46. Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought they had firearms training?

I mean, something similar to what one would get if a private citizen paid for actual training, no?

[jmg257]

51. As I remember, NY cops had 440hrs of classroom training, including about 40hrs of firearms

training, including "hands-on" range time where we actually shot at targets (revolvers then) to show proficiency.
Hours required now appear to be 639 total, not sure about the arms portion.

Departments typically require annual re-qualification at the least. Good departments will expand this to be more training - use of shotguns, situations, clever courses, etc. Most cops love this - it is fun, and at the department's expense.

Of course this has squat to do with the PSYCHOLOGY of the officers and their state of mind, sanity, etc.

[kestrel91316]

55. Not until we have WAY better gun safety regulations here.

[closeupready]

56. I'm not sure I follow.

If our current gun safety regulations here are inadequate, then why have we put lethal firearms in the hands of secular law enforcement?

If anything, the view that current gun regulations are inadequate argues in favor of disarming law enforcement until AFTER we have better gun safety regulations, doesn't it?

[geomon666]

58. Yes n/t

[Mr.Turnip]

59. No, we are not the United Kingdom we have an entirely different set of problems.