MilitantDogOwner Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 I do think that anyone who actually thinks the police are there to do good really wouldn't want the police to be armed. The sections that of the Police that are armed, are armed for specific purposes, to re-act to specific threats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruger Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 [ Sorry to refer to a DM article but, http://www.dailymail...ES-3-years.html . This is very, very poor. Farmers, sporting, and recreational shooters go through tens, if not hundreds of thousands of rounds in the year without this happening at all regularly, and they are not professionally trained, so what’s going on with the police?. farmers etc tend to use shot guns and small bore 22 rifles, they don't tend to shoot anything that has the capacity to shoot back or put them in danger so they are not really under any pressure or stress when shooting. . also IF you happen to be hit with a stray shotgun blast from a reasonable distance you are not likely to end up with slife threatening injury. a 22 bullet would do more damage but would probably need to hit somewhere important to actually kill anyone. the police use larger bore guns, maybe 9mm, and these bullets do a lot more damage than a 22, they are also only deployed in high risk and stressfull situations so the circumstances are tense. if police had weopons as a matter of course they would become routine for officers so the stress and tension levels would be less and the actual weopon handling would be better perhaps due to familiarity. i think if the two officers had been armed then the scrote would be dead instead. I agree regarding the difference in atmospheres for the shooter, i was going to mention it but decided that stress isn’t an excuse for a large portion of these ND's, and the control room worker who was shot dead by an officer in a "firearms awareness session". A police officer accidentally shot his own hand while cleaning the weapon at Wiltshire Police HQ in Devizes in July 2008. A diplomatic protection officer shot himself in the leg getting into a car by mistake in September 2007. A Northern Irish police officer accidentally blasted a hole in a hot water tank at a private address in County Down in April 2007. I can't find the articles now but a year or so back it came to light how an ex member of the SAS was disturbed with the attitudes that his class of police firearms officers had toward guns in a training session. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 I do think that anyone who actually thinks the police are there to do good really wouldn't want the police to be armed. The sections that of the Police that are armed, are armed for specific purposes, to re-act to specific threats. Oh yeah, I understand that, although I am not sure they are warranted in particular places and in particular circumstances. But in the airport, they don't give off a good image of the police. I do wonder what would happen were all police to be armed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Well, well, no apologies for the touch of smugness here, but just noticing the recent stream of posts relating to the political matter of whether the police should be armed and whether the situation would have been different if they had. Maybe we need to draw a distinction between in Memorium threads and News threads about sad events. This began as news event - and it's naturally continued to draw comments around issues thrown up by the case. (As the Brevik thread did). Later on it emerged there was a local connection and people wanted to express sadness at the loss of someone they knew. One thread is therefore serving two purposes, there are two seperate conversations going on. That's going to make some posts seem insensitive. I have a suggestion that might help alleviate this problem in future, but I want to do this in a considered way, so I'll post up tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruger Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Well, well, no apologies for the touch of smugness here, but just noticing the recent stream of posts relating to the political matter of whether the police should be armed and whether the situation would have been different if they had. And I am told this thread is for passing on sincere condolences. I know that if someone was murdered and I was offering my condolesnces I wouldn't then engage in discussion over how they could have lived. Inspiring anger at a time of grief is not really best, So let's lose the wailing about my inappropriateness in particular and thinking this is all in thought of the family. I've think these comments have trumped mine. Were having a constructive talk regarding the subject of armed police - that being something that if it worked differently to the way it does now, may not have resulted in the deaths of these two innocent young people. Unlike you we are not making disrespectful, insulting and offensive comments about the friends of the two officers killed within their police force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 I do think that anyone who actually thinks the police are there to do good really wouldn't want the police to be armed. The sections that of the Police that are armed, are armed for specific purposes, to re-act to specific threats. Oh yeah, I understand that, although I am not sure they are warranted in particular places and in particular circumstances. But in the airport, they don't give off a good image of the police. I do wonder what would happen were all police to be armed. Airports are choice targets for terrorist attacks, given the high volumes of people in an enclosed space. Also considering that airports can be a bit of a maze to begin with, it is easy for confusion to rapidly take hold in the event of an attack (a common tactic is to booby trap escape exits to maximise casualties). The armed police at airports are more of a visual deterent then a physical one. A busy airport would be a tactical nightmare if a contact was to ever take place, and the chances of armed police stopping an armed incident are on the slim side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruger Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 I do think that anyone who actually thinks the police are there to do good really wouldn't want the police to be armed. The sections that of the Police that are armed, are armed for specific purposes, to re-act to specific threats. Oh yeah, I understand that, although I am not sure they are warranted in particular places and in particular circumstances. But in the airport, they don't give off a good image of the police. I do wonder what would happen were all police to be armed. Perhaps at times or heightened concern for our public security, you would prefer it if, say religious extremists, could walk into our airports with a AK-47's and carry out un-resisted massacres?. Would that show a better image of our police?. If you knew anything about firearms and security, you’d know they work largely as a means of prevention rather than even for responding. Terrorists, and criminals in general know that they are unlikely to be successful in the face of armed resistance - fact. If not why do we never see mass shootings carried out on gun ranges, rather they all occur in America’s “gun free zones” like schools and cinema’s, and areas of strict firearms control such as the quiet towns in the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Unlike you we are not making disrespectful, insulting and offensive comments about the friends of the two officers killed within their police force. No, and I have no regrets.. But shame on you for talking about something potentially more damaging and upsetting for a family member who might read the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Perhaps at times or heightened concern for our public security, you would prefer it if, say religious extremists, could walk into our airports with a AK-47's and carry out un-resisted massacres?. Would that show a better image of our police?. If you knew anything about firearms and security, you’d know they work largely as a means of prevention rather than even for responding. Terrorists, and criminals in general know that they are unlikely to be successful in the face of armed resistance - fact. If not why do we never see mass shootings carried out on gun ranges, rather they all occur in America’s “gun free zones” like schools and cinema’s, and areas of strict firearms control such as the quiet towns in the UK. I hate your stupidity. It does anger me. I have made it clear that I am not talking about whether something is warranted or not. Only referring to the image. If weapons are absolutely necessary at airports but create a bad image and distance the person from the officer then what happens when all officers have them. Is it worth it when the police these days are desperate to make friends with the community? Even though it might offer better protection, but not be absolutely necessary, does it make sense to arm police or would it damage relations with the community. Do you understand now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruger Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Perhaps at times or heightened concern for our public security, you would prefer it if, say religious extremists, could walk into our airports with a AK-47's and carry out un-resisted massacres?. Would that show a better image of our police?. If you knew anything about firearms and security, you’d know they work largely as a means of prevention rather than even for responding. Terrorists, and criminals in general know that they are unlikely to be successful in the face of armed resistance - fact. If not why do we never see mass shootings carried out on gun ranges, rather they all occur in America’s “gun free zones” like schools and cinema’s, and areas of strict firearms control such as the quiet towns in the UK. I hate your stupidity. It does anger me. I have made it clear that I am not talking about whether something is warranted or not. Only referring to the image. If weapons are absolutely necessary at airports but create a bad image and distance the person from the officer then what happens when all officers have them. Is it worth it when the police these days are desperate to make friends with the community? Even though it might offer better protection, but not be absolutely necessary, does it make sense to arm police or would it damage relations with the community. Do you understand now? 'No’. Because I'm sorry, but it didn't occur to me that someone would ask such a worthless question, and funnily enough only a dense, short sighted person would find the image of armed police in an airport as "bad" or "distancing". Anyways, I'm not hear to answer that question, as I don't personally understand the issue that you and your imaginary friends seem to have. Maybe its just that you are to wrapped up in sensationalist journalism about guns, and can only see a threatening side to the presence of them?. I’m not, so maybe that’s why, I think that's the real issue with your concern, peoples own biased perception. I'm more interested in discussing the more significant issue of keeping good people safe, without introducing a new threat to public safety, such as the potential for poorly disciplined individuals carrying something on their belt that requires a great level of responsibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruger Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 But shame on you for talking about something potentially more damaging and upsetting for a family member who might read the thread. As only you seem to think so, I shall remain quite at ease. I'd be happy to see people talking constructively about what could be done to reduce the chances of this happening again, rather than to see an individual such as yourself demonstrating a profound lack of respect and consideration towards the victims colleagues like you did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 This is an incredibly sad and shocking event. Tragedies come in all sorts of unexpected forms. Whatever form these take it is awful for the families. Two young women going to deal with a telephone call is now one of them. One can only hope that the families and loved ones can, over time, find some comfort in the feelings of sympathy and support people feel for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 This is going to have a major knock on effect (ignoring the arming issue for a moment) on Police moral. Every single copper is going to be thinking "is this a routine break in call.....or am I being lured into a death trap...." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempus Fugit Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 The Isle of Man is I think one place in Britain where handguns can be legally owned privately. UK owners holding legal pistols and revolvers had to hand their guns in and were compensated at valuation less 10% following the shooting at Dunblane...There are a lot of handguns in the Isle of Man! not 'a lot' any more as there's no longer a national pistol league to compete in and various pistol clubs closed down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruger Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 The Isle of Man is I think one place in Britain where handguns can be legally owned privately. UK owners holding legal pistols and revolvers had to hand their guns in and were compensated at valuation less 10% following the shooting at Dunblane...There are a lot of handguns in the Isle of Man! not 'a lot' any more as there's no longer a national pistol league to compete in and various pistol clubs closed down Yes but importantly, these are separate things entirely, there is a world of difference between licensed firearms of which the authority to acquire has only been issued to strictly vetted and heavily regulated individuals, and illegally acquired firearms such as was used in this incident. Not to mention the grenade, the police wont authorize you to buy grenades!. But, by their nature criminals don’t obey the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.