Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
If a cop there responds to a call where normally a weapon is needed (tazer, gun, etc) what are they to do? Like if the suspect they are trying to apprehend is all coked up and out of control?
It wouldn't be the time to use a gun though...like Ush said, there are specilized units that armed and are dispatched when necessary. In all other cases, there is no need to use a gun.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
He wouldn't be armed by default. He'd call in back up if it was needed.
Originally posted by lil bitchinessI'm talking about spur of the moment. Cop tries to apprehend a criminal, crimnial pulls a gun. The cop hasn't had time to call for backup.
It wouldn't be the time to use a gun though...like Ush said, there are specilized units that armed and are dispatched when necessary. In all other cases, there is no need to use a gun.
Originally posted by inimalist
On "psychology career day" at my school a couple of years ago, the local police sent in a couple of "ambassadors" to explain how our degrees could be used in a career of crime fighting.These officers were not only armed, but dressed in full bullet proof gear. Regular patrol cop stuff, but sort of completely inappropriate for someone in a university. I asked him if he expected trouble, and said I was shocked he would come armed to something like this, but it has later been explained to me that, as an on duty police officer, he had to have that attire/weapon.
We had an armed cop at my highschool to stop kids from going to the stores across the street.
Well, what you are doing here is making up a ludicrous scenario that's really not very applicable. This sort of thing simply doesn't happen enough to be anything to worry about. People are exceptionally unwilling to shoot police, all the more so because they don't carry guns. A cop with a gun is more likely to provoke beinmg shot at by someone armed. Like I say... police just don't get shot here.
Literally, speaking, he'd back off and call for backup.
-
The odd thing about SC's answer is that people support it for that reason despite the fact it clearly doesn't work- the US still has enormous gun crime despite the widespread arming of police. As other places do not have that problem, it is simple logic that there must be a better answer.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I'm talking about spur of the moment. Cop tries to apprehend a criminal, crimnial pulls a gun. The cop hasn't had time to call for backup.
I understand that, however that would be really common in a place where guns are legal. Not so common where guns are not, though.
I'm sure in USA it is not an uncommon occurance for a criminal to pull out a gun at the police officer...which is what makes this question relative.
It is really really really rare that such happens.
Originally posted by lil bitchinessYup. That's why cops here are so on edge all the time. When they pull a car over, they have no idea what to expect. For all they know, they might end up staring down the barrel of a Kalishnikov.
I understand that, however that would be really common in a place where guns are legal. Not so common where guns are not, though.
I'm sure in USA it is not an uncommon occurance for a criminal to pull out a gun at the police officer...which is what makes this question relative.It is really really really rare that such happens.
Yeah, but why is that, RJ? You say if there was betetr gun control, people would still have the guns. Well, isn;t that true of the UK as well? There is nothing magic about the US black market.
Does it not occur to you that the cultural mentality that feels that cops need to be armed by default is the same mentality that causes your gun problem?
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, basically.. it simkply doesn't happen.
Because you're arguing this, you missed the point of the hypothetical.
There is nothing complex about my hypothetical. It is already in it's simplist terms.
However, I will rephrase:
If there existed a country that had immaculate gun control methods that resulted in guns being held by only military personnel, if a regular ordinary person DID get a gun such as an automatic with lots of ammo, they could create quite a bit of damage and kill lots of people, before being taken down. It would be an ugly situation.
Then there's reality: Despite your Gun Control, people still comit violent crimes and kill each other. On top of that, criminals STILL have guns.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
In a country with gun control, there aren't actually many crimes that routinely arming police would help with. Sure, you can relatively esasily get a black market weapon, but that simply never translates to people shotting police dead in the streets.
But, are police being shot dead really what she would be primarily concerned with? Or is it the citizens? (Rhetorical.)
In the end, the laws must be to the benefit of the people while maximizing freedom.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Illegal weaponry tends to be used in the following ways:1. Bank robberies (and the like). Unless armed police are there already,. arming them in general wouldn't actually make any difference to this
2. Gang warfare. Ditto.
In both cases, there is a specific unit of armed response officers in the UK that can be quickly dispatched as needed. And during periods of high tension, the Chief Constable for an area can make the decision to arm his officers.
Awesome.
That's not something I would be against.
In fact, if there is a case of some lunatic waiving around a gun, which happens quite often, dispatching that special unit for those situations is quite a good idea.
I do not disagree with that method of law enforcement. Truth be told, I'm more concerned about the officer's life. All to often, you read about stories of an officer being gunned down with his own gun. Newer technologies are being developed that will prevent this. They already exist and some municipalities use them. Problem solved.
But what about officers who use deadly force on an innocent? This is something that doesn't occur very often, but it DOES occur.
How do we solve that?
Maybe a specially trained unit that is armed and everyone else is armed with less-lethal weapons like tazers and night sticks.
What is your suggestion for solving the second problem?
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Dispatching armed officers when needed... basically covers 99% of the times when cops actually need to be armed. As for the other 1%, the advantages of NOT carrying guns outwieghs that.
I agree, sort of. NOT using the gun outweighs that. Make sense?
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Fact is, gun crime here is very low, gun deaths are extremely low, and police being shot is almost unheard of. So the whole idea of cops carrying guns by default seems a bit silly here.
Those are rather specific measurements. Too specific to be viable.
What HAS happened, though, is violent acts and violent deaths increased with OTHER items BECAUSE of the removal of guns. In fact, violent crimes have gone up, per captia, AFTER the removal of guns.
You have to correctly use the data to make logical comparisons.
What you did above is, superficially, very logical. However, a deeper inspection of the REAL problems with violence nets some rather simply deductions on the useful of such data.
Originally posted by inimalist
the only reason for gun control is the [b]prevention of violent gun crime? [/B]
If you want to go with accidental deaths or other items, great. That's not what we are talking about.
But, if the use of gun control DOESN'T prevent violent crimes, what need is there for it?
Originally posted by dadudemon
If there existed a country that had immaculate gun control methods that resulted in guns being held by only military personnel, if a regular ordinary person DID get a gun such as an automatic with lots of ammo, they could create quite a bit of damage and kill lots of people, before being taken down. It would be an ugly situation.
Japan is like that. Supposedly the police/military can pretty much shoot anyone holding a weapon on sight. Not much gun crime.
Originally posted by dadudemonIf there existed a country that had immaculate gun control methods that resulted in guns being held by only military personnel, if a regular ordinary person DID get a gun such as an automatic with lots of ammo, they could create quite a bit of damage and kill lots of people, before being taken down. It would be an ugly situation.
But those exact situations happen in the USA very often (sometimes involving kids) and they do so much damage before police can get there and take them down (or they take themselves down).
Lord no, your so-called deeper analysis is just sophisty. There is no such coresponding increase in other crime, and in any case the whole worry is about criems with guns in the first place. The justifcation is that cops with guns are needed to stop guns- but the direct evidence proves otherwise.
The first half of your post is just garbage, btw. Your hypothetical situation, as you isnsist on calling it despite it not making any difference to naything, is still exactly answered by everything I said.
Facts are as simple as this:
It is argued that cops need to be armed to stop innocents being shot and to stop themselves being shot. The experiences of the UK show, directly and unequivocably, that this is a lie. Paranoid worries about a person getting a gun and being 'god' un a gunless society similarly have no basis.
If there is a gun problem, the solution is not armed cops.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Yeah, but why is that, RJ? You say if there was betetr gun control, people would still have the guns. Well, isn;t that true of the UK as well? There is nothing magic about the US black market.Does it not occur to you that the cultural mentality that feels that cops need to be armed by default is the same mentality that causes your gun problem?
Well it does now.
How stiff is the punishment there for people who are caught carrying a gun?