armed police

[RobStubbs]

You can have the job of telling some kid somewhere that Daddy is not coming home tonight, or ever again because he was shot by mistake.

Don't try and personalise it because that's irrelevant. People die all the time and that's a sad fact of life. I could make exactly the same counter argument about who's gonna tell some policemans wife and kids that daddy was killed 'cos he wasn't armed.

 

Rob.

[snakey1]

I held a firearms certificate for 9 years until i surrendered it after the 1996 firearms ammendment act, an act which incidently was meant to reduce the amount of armed crime by the banning of legally held handguns, Yet the crime rate involving handguns has escalated dramatically.

This act was brought in after the dunblane massacre in march 1996 a massacre which may have been prevented had the police done their job correctly in the first place in that after numerous warnings that thomas hamilton had threatened various people with his firearms instead of choosing to investigate into this, suspend or revoke his firearms certificate and confiscate his weapons they chose not to and instead allowed him to renew his certificate and hold onto his firearms. This decision ultimately allowed thomas hamilton to carry out the aforementioned massacre.If the police could not make the correct decision after haveing plenty of time to think about it and act why would anyone think that they will make the correct decision when using a firearm when they may only have a split second to make that decision.At least with tasers and other non-lethal weapons if they make an incorrect call it is not going to cost an innocent person his life and these weapons will disable an armed attacker in some cases safer and more efficiently than a firearm will.

Had the police been armed in the case of thomas hamilton it would have made no difference to the outcome only dealing with the cause would have. persecuting legitimate firearms holders has done nothing to lower the armed crime rate in this country. making the innocent pay for the actions of the guilty is an easy way to appease certain papers and their selfrighteous editors and is a copout ,criminals commit crimes with such impunity because they know the general public will not stop them for fear of being prosecuted for infringing their human rights.You are not allowed to defend yourself or your property and criminals know this they also know that if you do call the police for something like a burglary chances are they probably wont even turn up for 24 hours armed or not and they also know that in the remote chance that they do get caught that a clever lawyer will get them off by saying they came from abroken home and even if found guilty they will spend a couple of years at most in a comfortable cell with most of the luxuries of home (TV's videos etc). There are more armed police in this country than ever, less legally held firearms than ever and yet a higher armed crime rate than ever.Punishments for breaking the law need to be made harsher and also to have an effect upon the criminals not on the legitimate law abiding person.If you catch someone breaking into your house and you give them a good hiding you should not then have to fear being arrested for infringing the criminals rights, in my opinion as soon as they infringe yours by breaking into your property they lose any rights they may have.The attitude of this country that its always somebody elses fault needs to be addressed, people need to be made to take responsiblity for their actions and not given get out clauses.Arming all police as i've said before will not reduce armed crime, taking those guilty of these crimes off the streets for a very long time and making them spend that long time doing hard labour will.Make the punishment suit the crime and make sure it is the guilty ones who pay it not the innocent.Sorry for the diatribe but it is something i fell very strongly about.

Edited October 24, 2006 by snakey1

[corydoras]

Don't try and personalise it because that's irrelevant. People die all the time and that's a sad fact of life. I could make exactly the same counter argument about who's gonna tell some policemans wife and kids that daddy was killed 'cos he wasn't armed.

 

Rob.

As far as I am concerned if they want to be routinely armed, so be it. At the moment the majority don't want to be and I am happy with that.

Someone being shot in error may ve irrellevant to you Rob, but others will feel differently, especially the family of the deceased.

[underwaterimage]

I was going to mention the handgun ban. Its still a sore point down the range. I use a high power airsoft glock to try and keep the sport going. I wont cover old ground but banning legally and responsibly held handguns had no effect on gun crime whatsoever.

[RobStubbs]

I was going to mention the handgun ban. Its still a sore point down the range. I use a high power airsoft glock to try and keep the sport going. I wont cover old ground but banning legally and responsibly held handguns had no effect on gun crime whatsoever.

 

It was never meant to affect gun crime. It was a purely political act to appease the public and win more votes - it probably did that.

 

There is more than one way to skin a cat. See my avatar for example,perfectly legal to shoot in the UK and it's .22LR. There are also plenty of competitions being shot with airguns all over the country - replicating all those shot with 22's, 32's etc. Not the same I know but better than nothing, and without it we wouldn't have won all the shooting medals at the commonwealths.

 

Rob.

[RobStubbs]

As far as I am concerned if they want to be routinely armed, so be it. At the moment the majority don't want to be and I am happy with that.

Someone being shot in error may ve irrellevant to you Rob, but others will feel differently, especially the family of the deceased.

 

You still miss the point. Of course death is a massive issue and families affected will rightly feel aggrieved. The whole point of this topic is to look at ways to reduce gun crime. You must agree that reducing gun crime is a good thing ? If one person is accidently shot by the police as opposed to 10 people shot by armed criminals then that is surely a positive outcome ?

 

Rob.

[corydoras]

You still miss the point. Of course death is a massive issue and families affected will rightly feel aggrieved. The whole point of this topic is to look at ways to reduce gun crime. You must agree that reducing gun crime is a good thing ? If one person is accidently shot by the police as opposed to 10 people shot by armed criminals then that is surely a positive outcome ?

 

Rob.

If your saying that by routinely arming the police we will have less gun crime, then I don't necessarily agree with your point of view.

[snakey1]

It was never meant to affect gun crime. It was a purely political act to appease the public and win more votes - it probably did that.

 

 

Rob.

I have to disagree with you on this point Yes it was a political decision falling in an election year and it almost certainly did win the votes of the easily lead ,however it was pushed through as a law on the grounds that it would effectively reduce handgun crime. it did not do this and at the time lord cullen who headed the inquiry into dunblane acknowledged that it wouldn't and recommended that there shouldn't be a ban on handguns yet the government went forth and ignored their own experts advice.

As for one accidental death being better than 10 murders thats not the case if your that one accidental shooting. With the technology available today in the non-lethal weapons market there is no reason to arm all police with firearms. Restrict it to a select highly trained few (less than there are now)to be used as a last resort and issue all other officers with non-lethal technology and the best body armour money can buy not cheap run of the mill crap. Ensure that the police are correctly trained in the use of these devices and then allow them to do their job correctly.Then make prison sentences longer and much harsher give the criminal element a reason to stop carrying firearms (a mandatory 15 years in prison for possession of an illegal firearm with no chance of parole including hard labour may be a start).Then bring back discipline into schools, make all the children wear uniforms no trendy gear or street wear and a return of corporal punishment.Also if a celebrity commits a crime the punishment should be twice that of your average joe bloggs because they are in the public eye and should lead by example(plus most of them are rich enough that they shouldn't have to break the law but they do because they think they're above it because of their wealth and fame)

Finally the return of 2 years national service for all under the age of 25 including students, and the rich and famous no get out on the grounds of religion and also make it compulsary for anyone wishing to emmigrate to this country(If you are not willing to defend this country then you shouldnt be living in it).

These changes would be a lot more effective than arming all police.

God i'm beginning to sound like a party political broadcast

Edited October 24, 2006 by snakey1

[Newt]

I wont cover old ground but banning legally and responsibly held handguns had no effect on gun crime whatsoever.

It did in the States. The number of crimes involving shootings dropped dramatically as the numer of ordinary citizens who held handgun carry permits (including concealed carry permits) went up.

 

States that issue handgun carry permits to any citizen requesting one provided that person has no felony conviction and no hospitalizations for mental illness have all seen significant reductions in crime-related shootings. They still happen of course but the overall numbers certainly drop while criminals shooting each other remains pretty constant.

 

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=18 has more details.

[corydoras]

Newt, is it an offence to carry a gun if you are drunk? Just a question I'm not on the troll