Arming of Police.

Mountain Dewgong

Mountain Dewgong

See, I've just wrote a persuasive speech for an English assignment, about whether or not police should be armed (In New Zealand of course).
I live in a country, where almost all police officers do not have guns, with the exception of the arms offenders squad and upon extreme circumstances. A telescopic metal baton and pepper spray is largely used. Even the trials of tasers has gained criticism, even though it has proved useful in multiple cases.

It got me thinking, what do other countries think about this, or even their own laws regarding the arming of police? I understand that the two countries are pretty much pole opposites when it comes to gun laws, and this is probably the reason why our police have such light weapon, but still.
Discuss away. :)
 
When someone has a firearm, unless it's a zombie apocolypse, it is unwise to trust them. Turn your back on them and they might just kill you. Sometimes you don't even have to turn your back on them. It's not even always going to be deliberate - the guy might be aiming at someone else and he's just a crap shot. How would you feel if your life was ended by a crap shot (if you could feel anything, that is)?

Last time I checked, it was not the police's job to kill people.
 
In the US guns (legal or illegal) are extremely easy to buy. Not only are there your hunting rifles and your handguns, but fully automatic assault rifles aren't particularly hard to get your hands on either. I say this as I was legitimately offered an AK-47 a week ago, without having given any indication I might be interested in one or even roaming from a predominantly middle-class town.

In such an environment, it seems dangerously naive to deny the cops guns. The issue isn't purely about their ability to enforce the law; it's also about their ability to protect themselves. The police have a job to do, and it frequently involves dealing with violent, desperate people. These violent, desperate people will have guns, and its unfair to ask the police to deal with them without a firearm themselves. The results of having a difference in armament levels are shown pretty clearly in the "North Hollywood Shootout." Two bank robbers obtained fully automatic rifles (again, not particularly difficult), a bit of body armor, and were able to go on a rampage for more than half an hour, firing more than 3,000 rounds, before the SWAT team arrived and took them down.

I'm not saying that removing weapons from police officers is a bad idea in every country, I'm saying that it's a bad idea in the US. In order for police officers to be safe while not carrying guns, the availability of guns to the general public needs to be sharply curtailed first.
 
Yeah, I agree with Nate. In the US, an inner city cop without a gun is a dead cop. The arming of police in the United States is a must, both for protection of the officers themselves and, while much rarer, there are situations where a cop may need to kill someone to protect the community (although this is usually done by SWAT, but the point still generally stands).

However, this is arguably nation and community dependent. US police officers carry guns out of necessity and safety for themselves and others. For example, New Zealand doesn't have large inner-cities where violent crime runs rampant so the need for armed officers isn't as necessary (I can get into various reasons why based on population, distribution, economics etc; but it's not really relevant). The argument of whether police need to be armed is whether there is a need for it in the respective nations or community and in somewhere like New Zealand where violent crime isn't hugely common makes the arming of officers largely unneeded.

Objection said:
When someone has a firearm, unless it's a zombie apocolypse, it is unwise to trust them. Turn your back on them and they might just kill you. Sometimes you don't even have to turn your back on them. It's not even always going to be deliberate - the guy might be aiming at someone else and he's just a crap shot. How would you feel if your life was ended by a crap shot (if you could feel anything, that is)?

Last time I checked, it was not the police's job to kill people.
Click to expand...

It's incredibly rare that a US police officer (and more generally any police officer in a developed nation) kills an innocent person. Has it happened? Yes, but the overwhelming majority of officers in developed countries don't shoot innocent people.

Also, almost ever developed country (and even undeveloped in some cases) in the world forces any armed officers to go through training on how to fire guns. They are not just shooting widely, they are well trained. It's not the cops that hit an innocent by-stander by poor marksmanship, that's the gangs they are trying to stop.
 
Don't give the police guns (or tasers) imo - they're an awful bunch of cunts and don't give a crap about public safety/welfare (here they like 'kettling', which would be so much easier if they had guns to wave around).
 
Unfortunately, in the United States, having every single police officer be armed is one of many contributing factors to why guns are so widespread. It effectively ups the ante, especially when dealing with gang violence - the "other side" is armed from the high to the low, so why shouldn't we be?

In countries where the average police officer is unarmed, such as the UK and your lovely New Zealand, gun violence still exists - but it is not nearly so widespread. Crime stats reflect this; look at the percentage of muggings in the US that involve firearms, versus the UK, for example. Again, violent crime still exists - no weapon will ever stop that - but your average criminal is far more likely to be armed in countries where police are armed.

The problem is, as was mentioned in previous posts, guns are so widespread at this point that to de-arm your average police officer would be a disaster. But luckily, this was not a topic about the de-arming of police officers, but rather the arming of them - and so my vote is, if the system is working for you, don't do it!*



*Said vote is fairly uneducated, as all I know of New Zealand's cities and police force comes from a few friends who have lived there and a Wikipedia article. Take this with a grain of salt.
 
LazarusLong said:
Unfortunately, in the United States, having every single police officer be armed is one of many contributing factors to why guns are so widespread. It effectively ups the ante, especially when dealing with gang violence - the "other side" is armed from the high to the low, so why shouldn't we be?
Click to expand...

I think that's highly idealistic. This makes the assumption that gangs use weapons solely in response to police. Weapons have taken an entirely different persona in gang culture from the view of guns as being necessary to generate a certain type of image. It also ignores that gangs often "war" over territory (they are like mini-countries!); if a rival gang wants to expand their drug-control territory, they don't go to some gang-United Nations, they do it and shoot key members in the rival gangs.

Also, the rise of guns in gangs haven't shown any correlation between police improvements. The sole indicator and correlative of increased gun possession and violence among gangs is the rise in popularity of a new drug (e.g. Cocaine in the mid 80s, early 90s). This lends further credence to the concept that guns possession is largely just a response to gangs wanting further control over the drug market.

Also, in other nations drug cartels often are better armed than police (see: basically most South American countries), this obviously isn't a response to police weaponry. So, I don't see how your stance has any empirical justification.
 
Caelum said:
It's incredibly rare that a US police officer (and more generally any police officer in a developed nation) kills an innocent person. Has it happened? Yes, but the overwhelming majority of officers in developed countries don't shoot innocent people.
Click to expand...

I think that's a bit unfair - no one is implying that the "overwhelming majority of officers" shoot innocent people, and to force things into such a black and white statement is misleading.

The fact is, though, it DOES happen sometimes. And unfortunately, sometimes it's unavoidable. Furthermore, we have no clear numbers on how often it happens - the data is notoriously spotty. To quote from a New York Times article after an unarmed civilian was shot and killed by police officers in Cincinnati in 2001:

Fox Butterfield said:
Despite widespread public interest and a provision in the 1994 Crime Control Act requiring the Attorney General to collect the data and publish an annual report on them, statistics on police shootings and use of nondeadly force continue to be piecemeal products of spotty collection, and are dependent on the cooperation of local police departments. No comprehensive accounting for all of the nation's 17,000 police department exists...

...The major reasons for the vacuum, the experts agree, are twofold. The lack of information on police shootings is attributable to the failure of police departments in many cities to keep and report accurate figures that distinguish between what the police see as "justifiable" shootings — those in which the suspect posed a serious threat — and incidents where an officer may have unlawfully fired at an unarmed civilian.

The International Chiefs of Police, a police organization, tried in the 1980's to collect such information, but "the figures were very embarrassing to a lot of police departments," said James Fyfe, a professor of criminal justice at Temple University who is a former New York City police lieutenant. The results, he said, varied wildly. New Orleans had 10 times as many shootings per 100 officers as Newark. Long Beach had twice as many as neighboring Los Angeles, which in turn had three times more than New York.
Click to expand...
 
Caelum said:
I think that's highly idealistic. This makes the assumption that gangs use weapons solely in response to police.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't assuming that they use weapons solely in response to police. My exact words were "contributing factor." That's a big difference.

Also, in other nations drug cartels often are better armed than police (see: basically most South American countries), this obviously isn't a response to police weaponry. So, I don't see how your stance has any empirical justification.
Click to expand...

I intentionally didn't bring drug cartels into it, because in most instances they are an exception to the rule (for a lot of reasons - the organized factor, the amount of money involved, etc.). But again, let's look at the UK - the UK equivalent of a "beat" cop is not going to be walking down the street with a firearm, but they have specialized (and armed) units that specifically deal with issues like this. Again, we're splitting things up very black and white here - I'm not suggesting that no member of law enforcement should carry a weapon, I'm simply saying that I don't believe ALL of them should.
 
I believe that guns are a necessity to combat (certain) crime, but I also believe that not every single cop should carry a firearm of any kind. Note that I am only talking about Canada, not anywhere else. I believe that provincial police should have the right to a firearm, but anything lower than that is harder to monitor I would think. I also think that the provincial cops should be tested regarding mental health and be closely monitored to keep corruption/abuse to a minimum. I don't think tasers should be used but the baton is okay I guess.
 
Police should be armed to the extent necessary to protect the communities they serve. If you live in largely rural areas where the most popular crime is moonshining and grand-theft-livestock, there's not a justifiable need for every single officer to have a handgun, although the Rangers/State Officers and Feds should be packing armament of some kind.

The gun's most persuasive element is the threat of lethal force. The realization that a criminal can forfeit their life is generally a powerful incentive for them to stop what they're doing. Ideally you never draw the gun in the first place.

I wonder Objection, if you've ever handled a steak knife or a machete. Steak knives are in every single home of every developed nation, and yet we don't have epidemics of steak knife stabbings. That's probably because it requires an extremely low opinion of humanity (to the point of pananoia) to believe if you turn your back towards someone their killer instinct will kick in. A firearm is a tool. You train with it just like you train with any other tool.

Pass all the laws you want, make the general populace as defenseless as you want. Police will still be limited in number (and thus ability to respond), and criminals will still be defined as individuals who purposefully violate laws.
 
Deck Knight said:
I wonder Objection, if you've ever handled a steak knife or a machete. Steak knives are in every single home of every developed nation, and yet we don't have epidemics of steak knife stabbings. That's probably because it requires an extremely low opinion of humanity (to the point of pananoia) to believe if you turn your back towards someone their killer instinct will kick in. A firearm is a tool. You train with it just like you train with any other tool.
Click to expand...


I think this is a little unfair, because although lethal potential they have, these knives aren't made for killing, they have other uses and are manufactured to suit them, sure, other knives are meant for killing, but those are the ones you see in the newspapers, not steak knives, it just makes more sense to use a tool better suited for the job. A firearm, is ultimately that tool, something specifically made to threaten and kill, it's on a completely different level from your steak knives.
 
Except that Objection and Lazarus assume that the police are ruthless killers who only care about killing innocent people. Lets see, I know plenty of people who own a form of a firearm, and I can easily trust them. Some of them have them for hunting, others for self defense, and others have them for sport (like shooting targets). Now Objection, explain to me why these people will shoot me, feeling no emotion, and why it's unwise to trust them?

To Lazarus, you quote one incident of the police killing an innocent person, and that's supposed to prove how the police kill innocents so often and just for fun? Police shootings of innocent are far, far less than gang members and their shootings.
 
Polis4rule said:
To Lazarus, you quote one incident of the police killing an innocent person, and that's supposed to prove how the police kill innocents so often and just for fun? Police shootings of innocent are far, far less than gang members and their shootings.
Click to expand...

Wow, where the hell did you get that I'm trying to prove that police kill innocents often or for fun? Way to not even remotely read what I've written, hot shot.

First of all, I brought up the Cincinnati incident to put the article in context. Second of all, if you actually read what I wrote in that post, you'd see that the point is not that police are ruthless killers, but rather that there is a lack of objective data on the issue of police shootings.

Beyond that, my points have been, and remain to be:

1. An entirely armed police force is one contributing factor (of many) to the prevalence of guns being involved in violent crime in the United States.

2. In an ideal system, not all police officers would be armed. This isn't because police officers are ruthless bastards who can't control themselves. However, I do feel that introducing firearms into some situations only escalates them. Also, see point 1. For examples, take a look at the UK's crime statistics, and compare, for example, what percentage of muggings involve firearms versus the USA, or look at armed robbery per capita.

3. The corollary to #2 is that some members of law enforcement DO require being armed.

4. Because of how prevalent firearms are in the USA today, it would be a grave mistake to suddenly de-arm police officers today.

So yeah, perhaps take some lessons in reading comprehension before you sling mud.
 
Objection said:
Last time I checked, it was not the police's job to kill people.
Click to expand...

No, but if they're in a dangerous situation (as the job entails) and it comes down to a cop and a criminal pointing guns, you think the officer's gonna just get shot? That's fucking dumb.

edit: you're fucking dumb
 
b0b3rt said:
Lazarus, looking at the UK's violent crime rate, I see that it is now more then 4 times that of the US
Click to expand...

Actually, let's look at this said violent crime rate.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0708.pdf

Crime statistics in the UK from 2007/2008. Section 3.10, crimes involving weapons. While 24% of all violent crimes involved some sort of weapon, only 1% involved firearms.

Where is the US at? About 10% (9% two years ago and rising for 2008/2009, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics). That's a pretty significant statistical leap. And the scariest thing is that our gun crime is down significantly from the early 90s.

Sorry, but those blogs you posted use very selective, piecemeal data. For example, the US has over double the amount of homicide per capita as the UK. The majority of violent crime in the UK is aggravated assault. Your own pro-gun blog quotes the UK's 1.49/100,000 homicide rate, while failing to mention that the US's hasn't been below 5/100,000 since 1968.
 
Definitely can't disarm the cops. I don't really like them, but they make us all feel safe and their weaponry is one reason why. They can't fight criminals without some kind of lethal threat.
 
LMPL said:
It is a catch 22. The criminals have guns because the police/citizens have guns, but the police/citizens have guns because the criminals have guns.
Click to expand...


While escalation miht be attributed to this sort of situation, it isn't actually a catch 22. The cops have guns because the criminals have guns, but the criminals have guns so that they can rob shit.
 
LazarusLong said:
Crime statistics in the UK from 2007/2008. Section 3.10, crimes involving weapons. While 24% of all violent crimes involved some sort of weapon, only 1% involved firearms.

Where is the US at? About 10% (9% two years ago and rising for 2008/2009, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics). That's a pretty significant statistical leap. And the scariest thing is that our gun crime is down significantly from the early 90s.
Click to expand...

It would not surprise me if it was 7 times harder to get a gun in the UK.
 
Polis4rule said:
Except that Objection and Lazarus assume that the police are ruthless killers who only care about killing innocent people. Lets see, I know plenty of people who own a form of a firearm, and I can easily trust them. Some of them have them for hunting, others for self defense, and others have them for sport (like shooting targets). Now Objection, explain to me why these people will shoot me, feeling no emotion, and why it's unwise to trust them?
Click to expand...

I find it hard to believe you'd have a reason to trust these people without a firearm, let alone with one. Then again, you haven't told me how you know these "plenty of people".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top