Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think our police should be armed?

93 replies

sickofscumbags · 10/08/2011 18:53

This is a genuine question and not intended to be inflamatory(although i appreciate that people may not agree).
How do others feel about this?Do you think that this would have affected what has happened in any way at all?I'm not saying i think they should be armed and appreciate that this could cause more problems but i can't help thinking that if police were able to use more force then it may have put off some people.
Let's face it all the news reports are saying that these people will be brought to justice when we all know that this isnt the case,so where is the deterent?
what are your thoughts?

OP posts:
CurlyBoy · 10/08/2011 20:24

Mare I am suggesting that rioters should be shot. It was an absolute miracle that no one was killed in the fires that were set and that half of London didn't go up in flames. When you're dealing with the lack of public order on that scale drastic measures are needed.

CamperFan · 10/08/2011 20:25

curly, you seem to be suggesting that the US has lower crime rates than countries where the police are not armed? I really do not think this is the case.

OP, I believe an armed police force = more criminals with guns = more innocent people get shot. As in the US.

CurrySpice · 10/08/2011 20:25

And, I kniow this may get me flamed, it's because I'm not sure I trust the police enough to see them armed

WilsonFrickett · 10/08/2011 20:25

YABU.

The police govern by consent, not force, thankfully.

Not necessarily saying that the police response to the riots was correct (but then again I was one of the first to decry more agressive techniques like kettling during the recent demonstrations) but I don't think police shooting looters would have been the answer. Because that's what you are talking about. If people have guns, they use them - try phrasing the OP 'AIBU to think the police should have shot fifty or so looters in the back of the head'.

CamperFan · 10/08/2011 20:26

You'd shoot kids?

Tsil · 10/08/2011 20:27

Curry I agree the police are just people and have errors in judgement just like anyone else, even trained to the hilt I think there will be more people dead because of this like Jean Charles de menezes

CurlyBoy · 10/08/2011 20:28

AgentZigzag- Looting DOES take place from time to time, like in New Orleans after the hurricane and many of them were killed by the police. If someone is desperate or stupid enough to riot and loot then they accept the consequences. If an 11 year old looter was shot it would be a tragedy and it wouldn't sit too well with me but that child (or his parents) made a choice to be in that situation.

CurrySpice · 10/08/2011 20:28

His was the name that sprang straight into my mind Tsil - but there are others :(

Mare11bp · 10/08/2011 20:29

I don't see curly how rioting justifies being shot either.

Your argument falls flat due to the other measures that the police have available to them.

When a police officer is confronted by 50 rioters who does s/he shoot first? How does that officer distinguish between the troublemakers and those caught up in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Your argument is fraught with difficulties.

CurlyBoy · 10/08/2011 20:30

CamperFan - I am not suggesting that the US has lower crime rates at all! The difference there is that the public are in most cases better armed than the police so don't see them as much of a deterrent. That's why I think armed police would be so effective here.

CurrySpice · 10/08/2011 20:31

As opposed CurlyBoy, to escalating gun ownership amongst the population?

CurlyBoy · 10/08/2011 20:32

Mare - I would hope that if the police were armed that the rioters would have enough sense to disperse when they were told to! If they didn't I'd suspect the officer would shoot the one he/she was most threatened by, like the one holding the petrol bomb perhaps.

Tsil · 10/08/2011 20:33

Curly seriously you think most of the uk carry weapons?

CurrySpice · 10/08/2011 20:34

CurlyBoy - your 20:32 post is so full of holes I don't know where to start Shock

CurlyBoy · 10/08/2011 20:34

Since guns are pretty much totally illegal here I don't think it's possible for private gun ownership to escalate Curry, except among the criminals.

Mare11bp · 10/08/2011 20:35

But curly what about the other weapons our police have available to them?

I think your approach to firearms, in the US, is entirely different to ours.

AgentZigzag · 10/08/2011 20:36

I'm surprised you feel kettling is an aggressive technique Wilson, beating the shit out of them would have been aggressive, but penning them in, while not nice, is a 'passive' way of controlling a crowd.

I suppose you could see it as a bit evil if someone desperately needs the bog and the police stand there making running water noises and drinking bottles of water Grin

MyNameIsInigoMontoya · 10/08/2011 20:37

I'm absolutely against. The police don't want it, and we have already had enough cases of people being shot by police who shouldn't have been (including the one which led to the start of the riots...).

And if the police had gone armed to the riots chances are it would have been 11 year old tag-alongs helping themselves to some trainers, or some of those stupid bystanders grinning and taking photos, who got hit rather than the ones who started the fires.

That said I think the idea of giving them paintball guns that someone mentioned in the other thread is genius Grin Then round up all the rainbow-coloured people afterwards!

Meglet · 10/08/2011 20:38

Yabu.

Armed police = armed criminals.

No thank you! Knife crime is bad but I'd rate my chances against a knife a lot higher than against a gun.

CamperFan · 10/08/2011 20:38

But curly, there are a lot more crimes committed than looting! this is a pretty rare situation tbh. If the police had guns, more of the population would have guns, as you have clearly pointed out, and that would be A Very Bad Thing.

AgentZigzag · 10/08/2011 20:39

Curly, although just over the age of criminal responsibility in UK at 11, I would doubt very much whether an 11 YOs thought processes could be relied on for making a very adult decision to commit a criminal act.

MrsDmitriTippensKrushnic · 10/08/2011 20:39

We have armed criminals as it is. If the police routinely carried firearms then I'm pretty sure the first response from organised criminals would be to carry even more. It's a vicious circle. Personally I'm happy with just having the specialist Armed Response Units, a happy medium.

With regards to shooting the looters. Well they're a bunch of mindless twunts but I don't think they deserve maiming or shooting, and given the amount of spectators and reporters hanging around whilst all this has been going on, having the police armed and shooting seems to be just asking for trouble.

Pedicuri · 10/08/2011 20:41

I lived in US for six years and I have never felt as safe. In my neighbourhood, home invasions/ burglaries were extremely low (3/4 a month in a huge area). Bearing in mind that there was a huge mix in social class or status across the area, I couldn't understand why, when I first arrived. I later discovered that it was because thieves knew householders were armed, or at least, presumed to be armed, even when they weren't.
Yes, there is crime in places where people were armed - it will never be eradicated, but my god, I felt an awful lot safer where the police were stricter, feared, armed to protect me, and if an intruder did break in at night when my husband was away - I would be able to pick up a gun to protect my children. Legally.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but until you have seen police authority work, and people successfully defend their family, I am not sure if you can understand how reassuring it is.
It really changed my point of view - previously I would have said no to arming police - now I say yes.

WilsonFrickett · 10/08/2011 20:44

Agent I felt it was agressive in some of the circumstances it was used in during the various protests in the Spring, yes, but I was surprised it didn't seem to be used to control the riots - don't know if the crowd was moving too fast, or if there needs to be a critical mass of police numbers.

What I really meant but probably didn't express very well was the police can't win...

(And I'm very suggestible so now need a wazz Grin)

CurlyBoy · 10/08/2011 20:46

I guess it's simply how I was raised. I grew up around guns and learned to shoot when I was 5. I was always taught to respect them as they are extremely dangerous. I found it very comforting that the police had them to protect the public. I'd never expect unarmed police to face down a rabid crowd of rioters! I personally would feel far safer if I knew that the police protecting my life and property were armed. If a rioter is trying to take MY life by torching a building then I have no qualms whatsoever for a trained policeman stopping him by taking his.

Swipe left for the next trending thread