4 ms·

I think part of the reason for UK police not wanting guns is primarily what the UK police see as their mission: It is community policing, where UK police try to

I think part of the reason for UK police not wanting guns is primarily what the UK police see as their mission: It is community policing, where UK police try to work within and with the permission of the community because they feel they're most effective that way (also called "policing by consent"). http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/policeNine.php http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/policeNine.php Police carrying guns makes them "scary" to the general public, and as such damages their primary mission (see above). It is also hugely damaging to the police's reputation when someone gets shot (even righteously) and would be catastrophic if someone was illegitimately killed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Meneze...). The US police is VERY militarized in Urban areas. They also seem to have an "us Vs. them" attitude about the general public, and are less interested in earning respect but rather taking it by force or coercion ("thin blue line," "respect my authority," "quit resisting," etc).

rayiner 13y ago
> The US police is VERY militarized in Urban areas. U.S. urban areas are very militarized. London, a city of 8 million people, had 100 murders last year. Over the last 20 years, the number broke 200 only once, in 2003. Chicago, a city of only 2.7 million people, had 532 last year. And this is way down from the peak. Murders in U.S. cities peaked in the early 1990's. L.A. county had 2,589 murders at its peak in 1993. New York peaked at 2,245 murders in 1990.
- mitchty 13y ago
  This is true but a lot of these murders are gang related so it isn't quite a great comparison not? I know the topics of guns in america is a hot topic in general but even for the usa the general trend is downward.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Gang-related murders are the result of gang activity, and gang-activity is very scary for a community. First, lots of teenagers and young people are gang members, and gangs have major presences in inner-city schools, so even a "gang-related murder" isn't like some mobster getting killed, but something that hits really close to home in the community. Second, this activity is very geographically segregated, which makes particular neighborhoods seem more like war zones. Third, even a few innocent bystanders getting caught in the cross-fire can have a chilling effect on the community. In Chicago this year, a kid who sang at Obama's inauguration was gunned down in gang-related cross-fire. Just one kid in a city of 2.7 million people, but it still had a tremendous effect on the community. The trend in America is definitely downward--murder counts in LA county and NYC are about a fifth of what they were in the early 1990's, but they are still 4x higher than London's (greater London is roughly similar in population to LA county and NYC). And the militarization of the U.S. police didn't happen overnight. It happened in the 1970's-1990's when crime rates in U.S. cities skyrocketed. That apparatus hasn't demobilized in response to decreased crime rates.
    - king_jester 13y ago
      > Gang-related murders are the result of gang activity, and gang-activity is very scary for a community. First, lots of teenagers and young people are gang members, and gangs have major presences in inner-city schools, so even a "gang-related murder" isn't like some mobster getting killed, but something that hits really close to home in the community. Second, this activity is very geographically segregated, which makes particular neighborhoods seem more like war zones. Third, even a few innocent bystanders getting caught in the cross-fire can have a chilling effect on the community. In Chicago this year, a kid who sang at Obama's inauguration was gunned down in gang-related cross-fire. Just one kid in a city of 2.7 million people, but it still had a tremendous effect on the community. Of course, the solution for this is not policing but rather to address the fundamental social inequalities that make gangs thrive. > And the militarization of the U.S. police didn't happen overnight. It happened in the 1970's-1990's when crime rates in U.S. cities skyrocketed. Violent crime rates in cities have been on a declining trend since the late 70s/early 80s. The militarization isn't caused by violent crime, because we would expect as rates fall that there would be no call to increase police power at any given time. You are definitely right, the policing issue is really institutional in nature, but as a systemic kind of effect it isn't necessarily tied to any factual reality about crime.
      - rayiner 13y ago
        > The militarization isn't caused by violent crime, because we would expect as rates fall that there would be no call to increase police power at any given time. The militarization can have been caused by violent crime without being perpetuated by it.
      - gizmo686 13y ago
        >Of course, the solution for this is not policing but rather to address the fundamental social inequalities that make gangs thrive. I disagree that the fundamental reason for gangs is social inequality. The feature that general makes gangs distinct from clubs is their use of force. They use force for the same reason society at large uses force, to protect property /enforce contracts/ensure fair play. Society at large has conceeded this force to the government (specifically the police department), however when the police fail to protect a certain group of people, then those people may be forced to take enforcement into their own hands, which is exactly what gangs do. This problem stems largly from the war on drugs. There is a huge economic force pushing for drug sales, so capitalism tells us that drugs will be sold. However, the people engaging in the drug trade cannot rely on the legal system for the protections any other business has, so they have to do it themselves.
  - vacri 13y ago
    I've never understood the argument that somehow gang crime isn't crime that should make it to the statistics books.
    - mitchty 13y ago
      And that wasn't my point at all. My point being gang on gang violence perpetuated by societal issues (say for Chicago black gang members) isn't a great comparison of 2.7 million people in Chicago and N deaths/murders versus N million people in $western_country with N/4 murders isn't really describing the issues. It alludes the issues as being related to things which are fundamentally different and not directly or easily statistically comparable.
      - rayiner 13y ago
        I used to live in Chicago. The fact that almost all murders in Chicago happen to blacks and Hispanics, many of them in gangs, doesn't reduce people's incentive to support stronger police presence. Indeed, it makes it easier. You fear the gangs taking the red line up to the north side, but don't care so much about more aggressive policing because those cops aren't kicking down doors in your neighborhood.
  - joseph_cooney 13y ago
    And there are no gangs in London?
- Silhouette 13y ago
  A common argument from police officers I know in the UK is that they don't want to carry things like firearms and heavy protection gear routinely precisely because it promotes escalation, as well as the kind of them-and-us culture mentioned elsewhere in this thread because most of us here aren't legally allowed to carry firearms. As a counterpoint, for all the early mockery that Police Community Support Officers took, the idea seems to have worked out pretty well. If you call to report a relatively minor problem today, it's a good bet that you'll get one or two PCSOs and maybe a PC turning up. I think the fact that "real people" come to deal with the situation and maybe have a quiet word with someone who's a little out of line probably goes a long way to avoiding unnecessary confrontation. I'm pretty sure I would be far less comfortable if a small paramilitary team knocked on my door and asked to come in, even if they just wanted to ask if I'd seen anything relevant to a break-in at a neighbour's house or something.
kefka 13y ago
In a sick and twisted way, this whole US militarization of the police reminds me of Judge Dredd. And due to the laws in which police are not subject to, they many time ARE the judge, jury, and executioner. I would much prefer the UK style police, where they work with the citizens (cause, who wants a rundown shack of a drughouse next door). But I believe that is untenable, due to the prevalent amount of guns in our country. It sounds like a lose-lose, where We the People lose.
- gizmo686 13y ago
  I don't think the guns make it untenable. If the police approached people in a professional, friendly manner (even with a gun around their waste), then most people even if they own a gun, or even are carring one, would not think to use it. The problem comes when the police start a situation as a confrontation, their is no good way out of it. The bigger barrier to solving this issue isn't the guns, but the fact that the police have a big reputation that they would need to overcome.
maurits 13y ago
The notion that the UK police force "doesn't have or wants fire arms" gives a somewhat wrong impression. They have special fire arms squads and in major cities they either patrol amongst the regular units or are on standby. I believe there is a much more pragmatic side to it. One could see fire arms as a specialisation which needs to be handled by a specially trained squad, much like riding a police horse or doing mountain rescue. In a country with relatively very little gun violence that makes perfect sense. You train but a little group, which also gains in experience from the incidents that occur, instead of (under) training every single police officer for a shooting incident that will most likely never take place in their whole career.
mabhatter 13y ago
Here was an article a while ago about making safer beer mugs so barfights didn't turn into dangerous weapons. The UK police were backing rolling them out. American police just shoot fuckers instead of getting in a minor tussle.

rayiner 13y ago

> The US police is VERY militarized in Urban areas. U.S. urban areas are very militarized. London, a city of 8 million people, had 100 murders last year. Over the last 20 years, the number broke 200 only once, in 2003. Chicago, a city of only 2.7 million people, had 532 last year. And this is way down from the peak. Murders in U.S. cities peaked in the early 1990's. L.A. county had 2,589 murders at its peak in 1993. New York peaked at 2,245 murders in 1990.

mitchty 13y ago
This is true but a lot of these murders are gang related so it isn't quite a great comparison not? I know the topics of guns in america is a hot topic in general but even for the usa the general trend is downward.
- rayiner 13y ago
  Gang-related murders are the result of gang activity, and gang-activity is very scary for a community. First, lots of teenagers and young people are gang members, and gangs have major presences in inner-city schools, so even a "gang-related murder" isn't like some mobster getting killed, but something that hits really close to home in the community. Second, this activity is very geographically segregated, which makes particular neighborhoods seem more like war zones. Third, even a few innocent bystanders getting caught in the cross-fire can have a chilling effect on the community. In Chicago this year, a kid who sang at Obama's inauguration was gunned down in gang-related cross-fire. Just one kid in a city of 2.7 million people, but it still had a tremendous effect on the community. The trend in America is definitely downward--murder counts in LA county and NYC are about a fifth of what they were in the early 1990's, but they are still 4x higher than London's (greater London is roughly similar in population to LA county and NYC). And the militarization of the U.S. police didn't happen overnight. It happened in the 1970's-1990's when crime rates in U.S. cities skyrocketed. That apparatus hasn't demobilized in response to decreased crime rates.
  - king_jester 13y ago
    > Gang-related murders are the result of gang activity, and gang-activity is very scary for a community. First, lots of teenagers and young people are gang members, and gangs have major presences in inner-city schools, so even a "gang-related murder" isn't like some mobster getting killed, but something that hits really close to home in the community. Second, this activity is very geographically segregated, which makes particular neighborhoods seem more like war zones. Third, even a few innocent bystanders getting caught in the cross-fire can have a chilling effect on the community. In Chicago this year, a kid who sang at Obama's inauguration was gunned down in gang-related cross-fire. Just one kid in a city of 2.7 million people, but it still had a tremendous effect on the community. Of course, the solution for this is not policing but rather to address the fundamental social inequalities that make gangs thrive. > And the militarization of the U.S. police didn't happen overnight. It happened in the 1970's-1990's when crime rates in U.S. cities skyrocketed. Violent crime rates in cities have been on a declining trend since the late 70s/early 80s. The militarization isn't caused by violent crime, because we would expect as rates fall that there would be no call to increase police power at any given time. You are definitely right, the policing issue is really institutional in nature, but as a systemic kind of effect it isn't necessarily tied to any factual reality about crime.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      > The militarization isn't caused by violent crime, because we would expect as rates fall that there would be no call to increase police power at any given time. The militarization can have been caused by violent crime without being perpetuated by it.
    - gizmo686 13y ago
      >Of course, the solution for this is not policing but rather to address the fundamental social inequalities that make gangs thrive. I disagree that the fundamental reason for gangs is social inequality. The feature that general makes gangs distinct from clubs is their use of force. They use force for the same reason society at large uses force, to protect property /enforce contracts/ensure fair play. Society at large has conceeded this force to the government (specifically the police department), however when the police fail to protect a certain group of people, then those people may be forced to take enforcement into their own hands, which is exactly what gangs do. This problem stems largly from the war on drugs. There is a huge economic force pushing for drug sales, so capitalism tells us that drugs will be sold. However, the people engaging in the drug trade cannot rely on the legal system for the protections any other business has, so they have to do it themselves.
- vacri 13y ago
  I've never understood the argument that somehow gang crime isn't crime that should make it to the statistics books.
  - mitchty 13y ago
    And that wasn't my point at all. My point being gang on gang violence perpetuated by societal issues (say for Chicago black gang members) isn't a great comparison of 2.7 million people in Chicago and N deaths/murders versus N million people in $western_country with N/4 murders isn't really describing the issues. It alludes the issues as being related to things which are fundamentally different and not directly or easily statistically comparable.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      I used to live in Chicago. The fact that almost all murders in Chicago happen to blacks and Hispanics, many of them in gangs, doesn't reduce people's incentive to support stronger police presence. Indeed, it makes it easier. You fear the gangs taking the red line up to the north side, but don't care so much about more aggressive policing because those cops aren't kicking down doors in your neighborhood.
- joseph_cooney 13y ago
  And there are no gangs in London?
Silhouette 13y ago
A common argument from police officers I know in the UK is that they don't want to carry things like firearms and heavy protection gear routinely precisely because it promotes escalation, as well as the kind of them-and-us culture mentioned elsewhere in this thread because most of us here aren't legally allowed to carry firearms. As a counterpoint, for all the early mockery that Police Community Support Officers took, the idea seems to have worked out pretty well. If you call to report a relatively minor problem today, it's a good bet that you'll get one or two PCSOs and maybe a PC turning up. I think the fact that "real people" come to deal with the situation and maybe have a quiet word with someone who's a little out of line probably goes a long way to avoiding unnecessary confrontation. I'm pretty sure I would be far less comfortable if a small paramilitary team knocked on my door and asked to come in, even if they just wanted to ask if I'd seen anything relevant to a break-in at a neighbour's house or something.

kefka 13y ago

In a sick and twisted way, this whole US militarization of the police reminds me of Judge Dredd. And due to the laws in which police are not subject to, they many time ARE the judge, jury, and executioner. I would much prefer the UK style police, where they work with the citizens (cause, who wants a rundown shack of a drughouse next door). But I believe that is untenable, due to the prevalent amount of guns in our country. It sounds like a lose-lose, where We the People lose.

gizmo686 13y ago
I don't think the guns make it untenable. If the police approached people in a professional, friendly manner (even with a gun around their waste), then most people even if they own a gun, or even are carring one, would not think to use it. The problem comes when the police start a situation as a confrontation, their is no good way out of it. The bigger barrier to solving this issue isn't the guns, but the fact that the police have a big reputation that they would need to overcome.

maurits 13y ago

The notion that the UK police force "doesn't have or wants fire arms" gives a somewhat wrong impression. They have special fire arms squads and in major cities they either patrol amongst the regular units or are on standby. I believe there is a much more pragmatic side to it. One could see fire arms as a specialisation which needs to be handled by a specially trained squad, much like riding a police horse or doing mountain rescue. In a country with relatively very little gun violence that makes perfect sense. You train but a little group, which also gains in experience from the incidents that occur, instead of (under) training every single police officer for a shooting incident that will most likely never take place in their whole career.

mabhatter 13y ago

Here was an article a while ago about making safer beer mugs so barfights didn't turn into dangerous weapons. The UK police were backing rolling them out. American police just shoot fuckers instead of getting in a minor tussle.