7 ms·

Beat cops don't need guns. The UK has proven that they can do their jobs without them. Taking them away would not only remove the possibility of inappropriate d

by _bxg1 6y ago

Beat cops don't need guns. The UK has proven that they can do their jobs without them. Taking them away would not only remove the possibility of inappropriate discharge, I'd bet it would reign in the subconscious power-tripping that so many officers succumb to. When you could shoot somebody and they can't shoot you I imagine you experience a sense of total dominance over them, rather than a working relationship as an officer of the peace.

pinfisher 6y ago
Beat cops are not going to want to go into some neighborhoods without protection.
- danharaj 6y ago
  Perhaps the CIA should supply them with crack so they can bargain for their lives.
- whateveracct 6y ago
  You managed to get my dog's ears to perk up through my phone. Congrats!
- pstuart 6y ago
  Understandably but that's often because of a feedback loop by their bad behavior. If those troubled neighborhoods collectively saw the cops as actually serving the community (rather than terrorizing it), they would likely be welcomed and safe.
  - alehul 6y ago
    Most of the resentment stems from how much crime is committed in these neighborhoods, which requires police presence, and how the penal system in the U.S. punishes rather than rehabilitating those found guilty. Also, the lack of cooperation in poorer neighborhoods is largely due to respect for, or fear of, the criminals. There's a lot more layers here - this 'shift' would require tons of slain officers, a lack of respect for the law, so on and so forth. While I agree officers should do their best to serve the community, disarming them in dangerous areas isn't necessary to accomplish it.
doublesCs 6y ago
I live in the UK and let me say that the US is not the UK. In the UK it's very difficult to get a gun. In the US it looks like guns are everywhere. I'm all for fewer guns in general, but is it really feasible that cops don't have guns when everyone else has them?
- c22 6y ago
  Does having a gun magically make you immune to bullets? Why is this the only possible counter to criminals with guns?
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    We also issue them bullet-resistant vests, so no, it's not the only possible counter, but is there another ranged weapon you find more appropriate? Crossbows and long bows seem fairly unwieldy in the field.
    - c22 6y ago
      I'm not much of a weapons connoisseur so I don't know really what's out there, but it's striking to me that the alternatives you mention are even older than the gun which as far as I know is pretty ancient. Are there any non-lethal long-range suppression technologies? Maybe smoke grenade launchers?
cosmodisk 6y ago
In most of Europe police carry guns,yet lethal encounters with members of public are rare( not saying they don't happen at all though). It's not just guns but the attitude of policemen. In Britain,police tend to talk to you for how long it takes until you come back to senses.If that doesn't help they do handle you.If they think you have guns, they'd send those who know how and will shoot if necessary. A stressed and confused guy in a hospital setting with no gun/knife is a low risk and should be talked to for beginners. They somewhat overreact there quite often.
- _bxg1 6y ago
  Exactly. I think the assumption that every encounter needs to have a gun present encourages needless escalation.
  - PeterisP 6y ago
    In Europe, even if the police have guns during an arrest, they will generally not be pulled out unless the detainee is armed (possibly with a knife) and resisting. An unarmed resisting person will generally be tackled and restrained without pointing a gun at them even if one is "present" - there are quite strict procedures against escalation that seem to be missing or ignored in USA.
- mythrwy 6y ago
  Meh that sounds like less fun. More fun is toss a flash grenade into the hospital room, rush in with shields and body armor after beating a hole through the wall with a battering ram, throw the guy on the floor and shout "Stop Resisting" while beating the heck out of him and shocking him with tasers, burn down 2 adjacent hospital rooms, terrify the staff, shoot the bing machine because it is causing you to fear for your life, then find out it was the other hospital on the other side of town and have a high speed chase over to that hospital running red lights and causing three fatal accidents along the way, repeat the whole process with no consequences whatsoever then high five each other and recount the salient details all the way back to the station.
  - 6y ago
alehul 6y ago
American here — we have more guns per capita than any other country in the world. In the UK, the criminals ~never have a gun (and less crime occurs), so it makes sense that the police wouldn't need guns either. In the US, normal citizens are often legally armed, and criminals are very often illegally armed. It would make no sense to tell an officer "you can't carry a gun" when both average citizens and the criminals have guns. While the UK undoubtedly has a fine model for itself, it can't be extrapolated to a country where gun ownership is so common.
- _bxg1 6y ago
  That's a fair point- such a change might have stricter gun control as a prerequisite (which for the record I think we also need). I was struck recently, when I saw The Gentlemen (a film about marijuana empires in the UK). Even the crime lords were very averse to carrying guns because it was so illegal. People here always counter with "but the criminals will find ways to get them anyway", but I don't think that's a valid argument.
  - deathgrips 6y ago
    I don't know what to tell you if your political beliefs are informed by movies.
    - _bxg1 6y ago
      Why would a detail like that be fictional? Anyway, it lines up with the statistics: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44053904 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44053904 > In England and Wales in 2016-17, there were 31 fatal shootings - or one for every 1.9 million people. > In the US, in contrast, there were 11,000 murders or manslaughters involving a firearm or one death for every 30,000 people.
      - radford-neal 6y ago
        That's a factor of 63 more fatal shootings in the US versus UK. I don't know whether it's correct or not, but it's certainly misleading. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention... the homicide rate per 100000 people is 5.3 in the US versus 1.2 in the UK, a factor of 4.4 difference. Yes, more, but not 63 times more. I think most people don't care whether they are going to be killed by a gun or by some other means.
phreenet 6y ago
I hear this a lot, but if I'm not mistaken other law enforcement organizations in other European nations with equally strict gun laws and a citizen culture of not wanting guns have armed police. While traveling into Germany, getting off the plane in Frankfurt I'm greeted by Polizei carrying full auto capable sub-machine guns (mostly HK MP5s, some HK G36Ks). Even in America it's rare to see police open carrying anything more than a pistol and I've never traveled through an airport and seen weapons like that either, including Airports at our nations capital (Dulles to be exact).
- _bxg1 6y ago
  There's a difference between SWAT or border patrol and regular cops on the street. They still have SWAT teams in the UK, they just acknowledge that the times you need to go in guns-blazing are the exception to the rule.
  - tialaramex 6y ago
    The UK doesn't really have SWAT. Ordinary people are most likely to see firearm officers with an MP5SF or similar, a black semi-automatic carbine, which a typical civilian probably mentally files as a "machine gun like in a movie" and its main purpose is to act as a visible deterrent and set them apart from "ordinary" unarmed police officers. Many officers armed with the expectation they might need to actually shoot somebody, not just act as a deterrent have Glocks, because a pistol is the right tool for this job, and they may have also been trained to use a military-style shotgun. But that's about as far as it goes. If the bad guys have a rocket launcher, in the UK the expectation is that this is now a problem for the Army, not some nutjob with a badge who thinks Judge Dredd is a role model rather than a satire.
jariel 6y ago
"Beat cops don't need guns." - in the UK! In the US, every second person has a gun, and think they 'have the right to shoot people' for a host of arbitrary reasons. Meaning the cops pretty much have to have guns in the US. Similarly, I think the issue of police aggression is 90% about culture and not about constitutional issues.

by _bxg1 6y ago

pinfisher 6y ago

Beat cops are not going to want to go into some neighborhoods without protection.

danharaj 6y ago
Perhaps the CIA should supply them with crack so they can bargain for their lives.
whateveracct 6y ago
You managed to get my dog's ears to perk up through my phone. Congrats!
pstuart 6y ago
Understandably but that's often because of a feedback loop by their bad behavior. If those troubled neighborhoods collectively saw the cops as actually serving the community (rather than terrorizing it), they would likely be welcomed and safe.
- alehul 6y ago
  Most of the resentment stems from how much crime is committed in these neighborhoods, which requires police presence, and how the penal system in the U.S. punishes rather than rehabilitating those found guilty. Also, the lack of cooperation in poorer neighborhoods is largely due to respect for, or fear of, the criminals. There's a lot more layers here - this 'shift' would require tons of slain officers, a lack of respect for the law, so on and so forth. While I agree officers should do their best to serve the community, disarming them in dangerous areas isn't necessary to accomplish it.

doublesCs 6y ago

I live in the UK and let me say that the US is not the UK. In the UK it's very difficult to get a gun. In the US it looks like guns are everywhere. I'm all for fewer guns in general, but is it really feasible that cops don't have guns when everyone else has them?

c22 6y ago
Does having a gun magically make you immune to bullets? Why is this the only possible counter to criminals with guns?
- sokoloff 6y ago
  We also issue them bullet-resistant vests, so no, it's not the only possible counter, but is there another ranged weapon you find more appropriate? Crossbows and long bows seem fairly unwieldy in the field.
  - c22 6y ago
    I'm not much of a weapons connoisseur so I don't know really what's out there, but it's striking to me that the alternatives you mention are even older than the gun which as far as I know is pretty ancient. Are there any non-lethal long-range suppression technologies? Maybe smoke grenade launchers?

cosmodisk 6y ago

In most of Europe police carry guns,yet lethal encounters with members of public are rare( not saying they don't happen at all though). It's not just guns but the attitude of policemen. In Britain,police tend to talk to you for how long it takes until you come back to senses.If that doesn't help they do handle you.If they think you have guns, they'd send those who know how and will shoot if necessary. A stressed and confused guy in a hospital setting with no gun/knife is a low risk and should be talked to for beginners. They somewhat overreact there quite often.

_bxg1 6y ago
Exactly. I think the assumption that every encounter needs to have a gun present encourages needless escalation.
- PeterisP 6y ago
  In Europe, even if the police have guns during an arrest, they will generally not be pulled out unless the detainee is armed (possibly with a knife) and resisting. An unarmed resisting person will generally be tackled and restrained without pointing a gun at them even if one is "present" - there are quite strict procedures against escalation that seem to be missing or ignored in USA.
mythrwy 6y ago
Meh that sounds like less fun. More fun is toss a flash grenade into the hospital room, rush in with shields and body armor after beating a hole through the wall with a battering ram, throw the guy on the floor and shout "Stop Resisting" while beating the heck out of him and shocking him with tasers, burn down 2 adjacent hospital rooms, terrify the staff, shoot the bing machine because it is causing you to fear for your life, then find out it was the other hospital on the other side of town and have a high speed chase over to that hospital running red lights and causing three fatal accidents along the way, repeat the whole process with no consequences whatsoever then high five each other and recount the salient details all the way back to the station.
- 6y ago

alehul 6y ago

American here — we have more guns per capita than any other country in the world. In the UK, the criminals ~never have a gun (and less crime occurs), so it makes sense that the police wouldn't need guns either. In the US, normal citizens are often legally armed, and criminals are very often illegally armed. It would make no sense to tell an officer "you can't carry a gun" when both average citizens and the criminals have guns. While the UK undoubtedly has a fine model for itself, it can't be extrapolated to a country where gun ownership is so common.

_bxg1 6y ago
That's a fair point- such a change might have stricter gun control as a prerequisite (which for the record I think we also need). I was struck recently, when I saw The Gentlemen (a film about marijuana empires in the UK). Even the crime lords were very averse to carrying guns because it was so illegal. People here always counter with "but the criminals will find ways to get them anyway", but I don't think that's a valid argument.
- deathgrips 6y ago
  I don't know what to tell you if your political beliefs are informed by movies.
  - _bxg1 6y ago
    Why would a detail like that be fictional? Anyway, it lines up with the statistics: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44053904 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44053904 > In England and Wales in 2016-17, there were 31 fatal shootings - or one for every 1.9 million people. > In the US, in contrast, there were 11,000 murders or manslaughters involving a firearm or one death for every 30,000 people.
    - radford-neal 6y ago
      That's a factor of 63 more fatal shootings in the US versus UK. I don't know whether it's correct or not, but it's certainly misleading. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention... the homicide rate per 100000 people is 5.3 in the US versus 1.2 in the UK, a factor of 4.4 difference. Yes, more, but not 63 times more. I think most people don't care whether they are going to be killed by a gun or by some other means.

phreenet 6y ago

I hear this a lot, but if I'm not mistaken other law enforcement organizations in other European nations with equally strict gun laws and a citizen culture of not wanting guns have armed police. While traveling into Germany, getting off the plane in Frankfurt I'm greeted by Polizei carrying full auto capable sub-machine guns (mostly HK MP5s, some HK G36Ks). Even in America it's rare to see police open carrying anything more than a pistol and I've never traveled through an airport and seen weapons like that either, including Airports at our nations capital (Dulles to be exact).

_bxg1 6y ago
There's a difference between SWAT or border patrol and regular cops on the street. They still have SWAT teams in the UK, they just acknowledge that the times you need to go in guns-blazing are the exception to the rule.
- tialaramex 6y ago
  The UK doesn't really have SWAT. Ordinary people are most likely to see firearm officers with an MP5SF or similar, a black semi-automatic carbine, which a typical civilian probably mentally files as a "machine gun like in a movie" and its main purpose is to act as a visible deterrent and set them apart from "ordinary" unarmed police officers. Many officers armed with the expectation they might need to actually shoot somebody, not just act as a deterrent have Glocks, because a pistol is the right tool for this job, and they may have also been trained to use a military-style shotgun. But that's about as far as it goes. If the bad guys have a rocket launcher, in the UK the expectation is that this is now a problem for the Army, not some nutjob with a badge who thinks Judge Dredd is a role model rather than a satire.

jariel 6y ago

"Beat cops don't need guns." - in the UK! In the US, every second person has a gun, and think they 'have the right to shoot people' for a host of arbitrary reasons. Meaning the cops pretty much have to have guns in the US. Similarly, I think the issue of police aggression is 90% about culture and not about constitutional issues.