but these days, and we know this is true, officers are being fired upon before they can say hello let alone "stop, or I'll say stop again" crims are happier to shoot than ever before and so there should be a reliable armed back up to subdue crims who have got trigger happy. It isn't necessary to open fire and armed officers don't do that unless they have to, Just confronting most crims with overwealming force is enough to stop the most of them, talking them round though is less and less often working.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Should we arm the police
last reply
82 replies
3.8k views
0 watchers
0 likes
Quote by adamciara
but these days, and we know this is true, officers are being fired upon before they can say hello let alone "stop, or I'll say stop again" crims are happier to shoot than ever before and so there should be a reliable armed back up to subdue crims who have got trigger happy. It isn't necessary to open fire and armed officers don't do that unless they have to, Just confronting most crims with overwealming force is enough to stop the most of them, talking them round though is less and less often working.
The lack of time to say 'Stop' is sorta the point. If someone has got a gun out and is going to kill an officer them being armed will make no difference. I'll explain why I think this:
If the Police knew bad person was armed, it would be an armed unit sent in so they would have weapons so no case there.
If they didn't know, they would not even have time to unbuckle the holster before bad personage could put 12 + rounds at them. So gun rather useless, except to the criminal who now has a nice new fully loaded weapon...
Quote by duncanlondon
From the boys in blue themselves, who had applied for enlisting to the armed services.
you know 'licensed to kill' , one big thing to achieve for some people.
You are talking out of your arse.........to put it bluntly
You are obviously not talking from experience.......Hmm let me put it this way.
You have to have some life experience and pass a number of intense tests to pass the Police exam and......................the avearege age is 21 +.
The forces consist of mainly fit young men and women willing to fight for their country and the natural progression is for them to go on and join the Police. The Police Service is a disciplined service such as the forces and so many ex service personnel find it easy to transgress.
To date I have not heard of a Police officer on 22 grand plus opting to join the forces and in doing so taking a pay cut.
Give em the best military hardware possible..arm them to the teeth ..let them use guns without being restrained..
just wait till the xxxxxxxxxxxx ..etc etc get here..
they have more fucking guns than you can shake a stick at..
ARM EVERY PLOD
YOU KNOW IT MAKES SENSE
mods edit of a racist remark
just wait till the xxxxxxxxxxxx ..etc etc get here..
they have more fucking guns than you can shake a stick at..
ARM EVERY PLOD
YOU KNOW IT MAKES SENSE
mods edit of a racist remark
Quote by de_sade
Give em the best military hardware possible..arm them to the teeth ..let them use guns without being restrained..
just wait till the xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ..etc etc get here..
they have more fucking guns than you can shake a stick at..
ARM EVERY PLOD
YOU KNOW IT MAKES SENSE
:shock:
It is good to see such a moderate point of view posted on here.
It'll soon be Christmas
:smackbottom: :smackbottom: :smackbottom: :smackbottom: You said the 'C' word, de_sade!!
Quote by da69ve
care to explain why?
you first..... thats one of the most sweeping statements ive ever heard and at first blush i was gonna call it absoulut crap.... i settled for codswallop. thats the sort of thing they write in the daily mail or in a police force application prospectus.
even if i was to conceede that there was some truth in what you say......
t b h it matters not what others abroad think..... its what those who are policed by (and pay for) it think..........
and even if those who respect the police and those who dont is split at 50/50 ( as alot of threads tend to be split even on here, if you can call that a representative poportion of the population) .... that sort of percentage is outrageous..... and nothing to be proud of.
Quote by da69ve
oh and i fucking hate it when i only get part quoted! :roll:
i know this is gonna sound harsh. but maybe thats because a proportion of what you sometimes put is codswallop .........
that sweeping statement as you put it......is my opinion and i'll stand by it!
to be honest i don't really care if you think i write codswallop ....i won't be loosing any sleep over what you think :roll:
im not meaning to be argumentative and it is feasable that you could be right....i would happily withdraw my label ofit being a "sweeping statement" or "codswallop" ....... if you could explain what you mean by it and give it some substance............ im all ears......
:shock:
ok....a Police Officer comes up against an armed man....and all he has is his truchon and pepper spray(if he's lucky)....well these won't help against someone waving a gun in your face....the only real weapon this officer has is his training in negotiation....all he can do is talk to this armed person to stand down....he knows that anything he might say could anger the armed man....but he has been trained to put the lifes of innocent people before his my opinion this takes balls.....if this was an armed officer would it have been left to a stand off until someone pulled the trigger....probably....but because he wasn't armed i believe he has the advantage of the incident ending without injury or death....thats why in my opinion we have the best Police Officers in the world....i doubt there is a police force in the world that would be happy to let their officers onto the streets without their weapons....ours do it everyday,putting their lives on the line thats what make them unique.
yep..... nice analogy....... it is a pretty unique analogy and i agree that they do put their lives on the line.. and some die in the line of duty.....
but i think that this doesnt make them the most respected police force in the world.........
the police are there to uphold the law............. we see areas where they dont.....
the police are there to deal with members of the public with respect and decency........ do they? they are accused of the contrary continually.
they are meant to be uncorrupt........ why set up the IPC?..........
crime figures are not decreasing................ crimewatch uk hasnt stopped people committing crime.
need i go on.............no- point. you want to go to sleep................
i should hazard a guess that a country where the police dont fuck about, take care of their business properly and people trust is more deserving of the title..........
im not anti-police.... just trying to put the service in perspective..........
Quote by DeeCee
care to explain why?
you first..... thats one of the most sweeping statements ive ever heard and at first blush i was gonna call it absoulut crap.... i settled for codswallop. thats the sort of thing they write in the daily mail or in a police force application prospectus.
even if i was to conceede that there was some truth in what you say......
t b h it matters not what others abroad think..... its what those who are policed by (and pay for) it think..........
and even if those who respect the police and those who dont is split at 50/50 ( as alot of threads tend to be split even on here, if you can call that a representative poportion of the population) .... that sort of percentage is outrageous..... and nothing to be proud of.
Quote by da69ve
oh and i fucking hate it when i only get part quoted! :roll:
i know this is gonna sound harsh. but maybe thats because a proportion of what you sometimes put is codswallop .........
that sweeping statement as you put it......is my opinion and i'll stand by it!
to be honest i don't really care if you think i write codswallop ....i won't be loosing any sleep over what you think :roll:
im not meaning to be argumentative and it is feasable that you could be right....i would happily withdraw my label ofit being a "sweeping statement" or "codswallop" ....... if you could explain what you mean by it and give it some substance............ im all ears......
:shock:
ok....a Police Officer comes up against an armed man....and all he has is his truchon and pepper spray(if he's lucky)....well these won't help against someone waving a gun in your face....the only real weapon this officer has is his training in negotiation....all he can do is talk to this armed person to stand down....he knows that anything he might say could anger the armed man....but he has been trained to put the lifes of innocent people before his my opinion this takes balls.....if this was an armed officer would it have been left to a stand off until someone pulled the trigger....probably....but because he wasn't armed i believe he has the advantage of the incident ending without injury or death....thats why in my opinion we have the best Police Officers in the world....i doubt there is a police force in the world that would be happy to let their officers onto the streets without their weapons....ours do it everyday,putting their lives on the line thats what make them unique.
yep..... nice analogy....... it is a pretty unique analogy and i agree that they do put their lives on the line.. and some die in the line of duty.....
but i think that this doesnt make them the most respected police force in the world.........
the police are there to uphold the law............. we see areas where they dont.....
the police are there to deal with members of the public with respect and decency........ do they? they are accused of the contrary continually.
they are meant to be uncorrupt........ why set up the IPC?..........
crime figures are not decreasing................ crimewatch uk hasnt stopped people committing crime.
need i go on.............no- point. you want to go to sleep................
i should hazard a guess that a country where the police dont fuck about, take care of their business properly and people trust is more deserving of the title..........
im not anti-police.... just trying to put the service in perspective..........
you just can't help it an you :roll:
there will always be a small minority that will let the side down,crime figures not dropping....that cannot be blamed solely on the police....the goverment,the courts can also take a hand in that....
did you have a country in mind then?
Sex God
Quote by PoloLady
I voted NO for one simple reason....
the majority of Police Officers don't want to carry a gun as standard issue - so why give them guns if they don't want them?
A very good reason for not give them guns.
Quote by da69ve
care to explain why?
you first..... thats one of the most sweeping statements ive ever heard and at first blush i was gonna call it absoulut crap.... i settled for codswallop. thats the sort of thing they write in the daily mail or in a police force application prospectus.
even if i was to conceede that there was some truth in what you say......
t b h it matters not what others abroad think..... its what those who are policed by (and pay for) it think..........
and even if those who respect the police and those who dont is split at 50/50 ( as alot of threads tend to be split even on here, if you can call that a representative poportion of the population) .... that sort of percentage is outrageous..... and nothing to be proud of.
Quote by da69ve
oh and i fucking hate it when i only get part quoted! :roll:
i know this is gonna sound harsh. but maybe thats because a proportion of what you sometimes put is codswallop .........
that sweeping statement as you put it......is my opinion and i'll stand by it!
to be honest i don't really care if you think i write codswallop ....i won't be loosing any sleep over what you think :roll:
im not meaning to be argumentative and it is feasable that you could be right....i would happily withdraw my label ofit being a "sweeping statement" or "codswallop" ....... if you could explain what you mean by it and give it some substance............ im all ears......
:shock:
ok....a Police Officer comes up against an armed man....and all he has is his truchon and pepper spray(if he's lucky)....well these won't help against someone waving a gun in your face....the only real weapon this officer has is his training in negotiation....all he can do is talk to this armed person to stand down....he knows that anything he might say could anger the armed man....but he has been trained to put the lifes of innocent people before his my opinion this takes balls.....if this was an armed officer would it have been left to a stand off until someone pulled the trigger....probably....but because he wasn't armed i believe he has the advantage of the incident ending without injury or death....thats why in my opinion we have the best Police Officers in the world....i doubt there is a police force in the world that would be happy to let their officers onto the streets without their weapons....ours do it everyday,putting their lives on the line thats what make them unique.
yep..... nice analogy....... it is a pretty unique analogy and i agree that they do put their lives on the line.. and some die in the line of duty.....
but i think that this doesnt make them the most respected police force in the world.........
the police are there to uphold the law............. we see areas where they dont.....
the police are there to deal with members of the public with respect and decency........ do they? they are accused of the contrary continually.
they are meant to be uncorrupt........ why set up the IPC?..........
crime figures are not decreasing................ crimewatch uk hasnt stopped people committing crime.
need i go on.............no- point. you want to go to sleep................
i should hazard a guess that a country where the police dont fuck about, take care of their business properly and people trust is more deserving of the title..........
im not anti-police.... just trying to put the service in perspective..........
you just can't help it an you :roll:
there will always be a small minority that will let the side down,crime figures not dropping....that cannot be blamed solely on the police....the goverment,the courts can also take a hand in that....
did you have a country in mind then?
cant help what?
Iused to live in Zambia and other parts of Southern Africa, and the Police are armed with all types of semi automatic guns - Its was like living in a western film set with police opening fire in the middle of the steet - and the crooks firing back with the same type of firearm to what the police had - so it made no difference - " bring back the catapult I say" --- lol
Sexpert
An interesting thread, and one that I have seen on other forums, and one that degenerates into a slanging match quite quickly. I am impressed how long this one has lasted 
I am happy with where we are at the mo, with certain elements of the police being armed, and others not. There that’s my opinion. :P
I don't think the issue is really about should they be armed, cos we know those that are will remain that way (Can't un-invent the wheel so to speak) but how should the armed element be controlled and used? As a para military force? House entry with a lethal capability? As a deterrent? Some or all the above? The issue is so huge a simple question of "should they be armed" is a bit like asking should they have cars? Some should, some shouldn't.
My problem is the control of the country's forces is not governed by an over-riding doctrine. In the Military, doctrine is tested, and then disseminated downwards to the ranks. One set of drills. Load, unload, make-safe, all the same drills. There is an over-arcing publication that teaches the drills and the doctrine. Everyone is taught to the same skill set. I know the police differ in this respect. I have been on the range with 3 different police forces that all have different drills with one weapon. I have spoken to police marksmen who have been amazed by the sniper training the military get, and facilities on offer, who admitted that they would give their eye teeth for the training the boys in Green have. I have great respect for any police officer who finds themselves behind a firearm, but I feel they are let down by the Home Office who will not invest in "real" firearms training. Because if you expect a man to pull a trigger and take a life, he should have the best training facilities available. Someone earlier mentioned that the Police train the army in MOE (method of entry); the world leaders in MOE are the British Army. The police are developing doctrine that follows on from Army expertise. This is where I think the crux of the debate really lies. Do we want a police para-military force? A team of armed specialists who work for the police in criminal matters with the training and equipment developed by Military expertise? Do we want a police force where the Home Office allows the use of automatic weapons?
You are talking out of your arse.........to put it bluntly
You are obviously not talking from experience.......Hmm let me put it this way.
You have to have some life experience and pass a number of intense tests to pass the Police exam and......................the avearege age is 21 +.
The forces consist of mainly fit young men and women willing to fight for their country and the natural progression is for them to go on and join the Police. The Police Service is a disciplined service such as the forces and so many ex service personnel find it easy to transgress.
To date I have not heard of a Police officer on 22 grand plus opting to join the forces and in doing so taking a pay cut.
:D
I picked up on the above, not because have don't agree with the thought process, only the closing line. A fair few soldiers who get out the army do join the police. Why? Well, they are institutionalised for a start. They enjoy the regimented way of working, structured and ordered. They are pre-disposed to want to serve society. But also because they are still young enough to be employed by the police. I do not profess to know how the police pay works, but I would guess that a copper on 22k plus has served a few years in the force, and has joined after 21, meaning he is unlikely to be young enough to join the army.
Of course the big difference between the two when talking firearms is that the Police are trained to do everything possible to prevent pulling the trigger. The soldier has 22 years of being taught "Target up. Target falls when hit".
I am happy with where we are at the mo, with certain elements of the police being armed, and others not. There that’s my opinion. :P
I don't think the issue is really about should they be armed, cos we know those that are will remain that way (Can't un-invent the wheel so to speak) but how should the armed element be controlled and used? As a para military force? House entry with a lethal capability? As a deterrent? Some or all the above? The issue is so huge a simple question of "should they be armed" is a bit like asking should they have cars? Some should, some shouldn't.
My problem is the control of the country's forces is not governed by an over-riding doctrine. In the Military, doctrine is tested, and then disseminated downwards to the ranks. One set of drills. Load, unload, make-safe, all the same drills. There is an over-arcing publication that teaches the drills and the doctrine. Everyone is taught to the same skill set. I know the police differ in this respect. I have been on the range with 3 different police forces that all have different drills with one weapon. I have spoken to police marksmen who have been amazed by the sniper training the military get, and facilities on offer, who admitted that they would give their eye teeth for the training the boys in Green have. I have great respect for any police officer who finds themselves behind a firearm, but I feel they are let down by the Home Office who will not invest in "real" firearms training. Because if you expect a man to pull a trigger and take a life, he should have the best training facilities available. Someone earlier mentioned that the Police train the army in MOE (method of entry); the world leaders in MOE are the British Army. The police are developing doctrine that follows on from Army expertise. This is where I think the crux of the debate really lies. Do we want a police para-military force? A team of armed specialists who work for the police in criminal matters with the training and equipment developed by Military expertise? Do we want a police force where the Home Office allows the use of automatic weapons?
Quote by MrFC
From the boys in blue themselves, who had applied for enlisting to the armed services.
you know 'licensed to kill' , one big thing to achieve for some people.
You are talking out of your arse.........to put it bluntly
You are obviously not talking from experience.......Hmm let me put it this way.
You have to have some life experience and pass a number of intense tests to pass the Police exam and......................the avearege age is 21 +.
The forces consist of mainly fit young men and women willing to fight for their country and the natural progression is for them to go on and join the Police. The Police Service is a disciplined service such as the forces and so many ex service personnel find it easy to transgress.
To date I have not heard of a Police officer on 22 grand plus opting to join the forces and in doing so taking a pay cut.
:D
I picked up on the above, not because have don't agree with the thought process, only the closing line. A fair few soldiers who get out the army do join the police. Why? Well, they are institutionalised for a start. They enjoy the regimented way of working, structured and ordered. They are pre-disposed to want to serve society. But also because they are still young enough to be employed by the police. I do not profess to know how the police pay works, but I would guess that a copper on 22k plus has served a few years in the force, and has joined after 21, meaning he is unlikely to be young enough to join the army.
Of course the big difference between the two when talking firearms is that the Police are trained to do everything possible to prevent pulling the trigger. The soldier has 22 years of being taught "Target up. Target falls when hit".
Sex God
Quote by Suffolk-cpl
This is where I think the crux of the debate really lies. Do we want a police para-military force? A team of armed specialists who work for the police in criminal matters with the training and equipment developed by Military expertise?
I reckon you may just have answered your question below...
Quote by Suffolk-cpl
Of course the big difference between the two when talking firearms is that the Police are trained to do everything possible to prevent pulling the trigger. The soldier has 22 years of being taught "Target up. Target falls when hit".
