Is it now time that our police are all armed?

SPG · 5 Jun 2017 at 08:47

No.

Granted emotions are high now. However when little poor johnny chav gets shot for being a general douche it will be public outcry and we will be in USA style "these cops shot my innocent son" (even though he was a chav scumbag) etc and it will make the police even more inapproachable.

This is ENGLAND ffs, get a grip.

Efour · 5 Jun 2017 at 08:49

Nope.

Rroff · 5 Jun 2017 at 08:50

SPG said:
No.

Granted emotions are high now. However when little poor johnny chav gets shot for being a general douche it will be public outcry and we will be in USA style "these cops shot my innocent son" (even though he was a chav scumbag) etc and it will make the police even more inapproachable.

This is ENGLAND ffs, get a grip.

That is actually as good an advocacy for regularly arming police as any

dr_volki · 5 Jun 2017 at 08:50

why is everyone thinking if the police were armed, the UK would turn into the USA? what about other european countries? :confused:

Rroff · 5 Jun 2017 at 08:53

dr_volki said:
why is everyone thinking if the police were armed, the UK would turn into the USA? what about other european countries?

Yeah, I'm relatively pro-gun but the US has some of the most insane gun laws/lack of regulation ever with the result of making police incredibly jumpy (combined with very mixed levels of training, etc.) it isn't really a good reflection of what the UK would be like.

Felon · 5 Jun 2017 at 08:57

I don't think arming more police is the answer,

If you look at the attack at London Bridge, the armed police turned up and blew away the terrorists in 8 minutes - which is pretty amazing really.

The problem as I see it, is that it's one thing to build a highly effective armed force that can be on scene in 5 minutes - but the problem is that such a force can only ever be reactive, even if it can teleport to the scene in less than 10 seconds - that's still enough time for scores of people to be blown up/shot/run over/whatever.

For me, the key is a very large, very strong system of community policing - police on the beat engaging with communities, being a very visible part of society - which is something that has very much diminished over the years.

It's one thing to spend a fortune on counter terrorism, special measures, investigatory powers, Mi5, GCHQ etc, etc, but if you don't get the basics right from the ground up, if you don't have strong foundations in community policing, than the fancy stuff on top will never be as good as it can be, and unfortunately will mostly end up being of use in a reactive sense.

Arthur Hucksake · 5 Jun 2017 at 09:02

I think it's a 50/50. Not ALL officers carrying, but certainly more capable of doing so.

Here in Nottingham years ago, they mixed in armed officers with the routine bobby beats in some areas and it made a huge difference. It basically put an end to a horrible feud.

Was strange seeing them catching the bus to work, but got use to it.

They should do the same in London especially. It may have shaved that 8 minutes down to 4 and saved lives.

Greebo · 5 Jun 2017 at 09:07

Greebo · 5 Jun 2017 at 09:09

Arthur Hucksake said:
I think it's a 50/50. Not ALL officers carrying, but certainly more capable of doing so.

Here in Nottingham years ago, they mixed in armed officers with the routine bobby beats in some areas and it made a huge difference. It basically put an end to a horrible feud.

Was strange seeing them catching the bus to work, but got use to it.

They should do the same in London especially. It may have shaved that 8 minutes down to 4 and saved lives.

Thing is the number of armed Police has been cut since 2010 cause according to the Govt "We cant afford them". Ill pay a few more percent in tax if need be but perhaps they shouldnt have cut corporation tax or gave more tax breaks to the wealthy and kept the numbers up then the incredible response time at the weekend might have been even shorter.

Freefaller · 5 Jun 2017 at 09:10

If you look in America the number of killings by police averages out to over 500 a year... Ok it's a bigger country by 5x, but is that acceptable number of fatal shootings? I'm not sure what the collateral damage of that is, but I can't imagine it being insignificant. Look at the DeMenzes shooting in London - is that acceptable? I'm not sure it is.

SPG · 5 Jun 2017 at 09:14

Rroff said:
That is actually as good an advocacy for regularly arming police as any

Fair point, but it's just not cricket.

malachi · 5 Jun 2017 at 09:16

Working a in police for myself, as police staff. I can tell you many officers here would not carry a gun if given the option for personal reasons.

do_ron_ron · 5 Jun 2017 at 09:18

No. There are more than enough armed police already. Armed police will only increase the likelihood of some innocent being killed by some officer who over reacted to a situation. This being the UK it will be the innocents fault that they were shot.

RDM · 5 Jun 2017 at 09:19

Greebo said:
Ill pay a few more percent in tax if need be but perhaps they shouldnt have cut corporation tax

Despite cutting corporation tax there was a 20% increase in tax revenue from it. Increasing corporation tax might not have the impact you expect it to.

Greebo · 5 Jun 2017 at 09:24

RDM said:
Despite cutting corporation tax there was a 20% increase in tax revenue from it. Increasing corporation tax might not have the impact you expect it to.

Although that is true you cannot equally say that cutting it lead to a 20% increase in revenue either. Who is to say that there might not have been a 22% increase in revenue if it hadnt been cut?

Take the company I work for. In that period of cutting we have gone from paying almost zero corporation tax to hundreds of thousands. is that because the rate was cut? No. Would we have paid even more if the rate hadnt been cut? Yes.

Orionaut · 5 Jun 2017 at 09:26

RDM said:
Despite cutting corporation tax there was a 20% increase in tax revenue from it. Increasing corporation tax might not have the impact you expect it to.

That's what I always call the "Thatcher Lesson"

You get more revenue from the higher tax bands by cutting the rate than you do by raising it.

(With reference to the Tax changes made after the first Thatcher victory in 1979 reducing the punitive rates of higher tax imposed by the previous Labour administrations which resulted in a significant increase in the revenue generated by the top bands after the rates were cut)

Freakbro · 5 Jun 2017 at 09:27

RDM said:
Despite cutting corporation tax there was a 20% increase in tax revenue from it. Increasing corporation tax might not have the impact you expect it to.

As I pointed out in another thread, correlation doesn't necessary mean causation.

There are plenty of other reasons why receipts went up.

"Higher average net profits, less investment, crackdown on profit shifting, banks becoming profitable again as they've used up their financial crash losses ....All reasons why the tax take has risen that have nothing to do with a cut in the rate"

Freakbro · 5 Jun 2017 at 09:31

Orionaut said:
That's what I always call the "Thatcher Lesson"

You get more revenue from the higher tax bands by cutting the rate than you do by raising it.

(With reference to the Tax changes made after the first Thatcher victory in 1979 reducing the punitive rates of higher tax imposed by the previous Labour administrations which resulted in a significant increase in the revenue generated by the top bands after the rates were cut)

Again, to repeat what I said in another thread it's just not that simplistic :-

"At the end of the day it's a balancing act, you can't just say reducing tax rates increases the tax take. Let's take that to the ludicrous end conclusion and just have 0%, bumper receipts no? Or how about 0.1%?

There is obviously points where the rate can be set too high, and business do anything to avoid paying it, legally and illegally and conversely where rates are too low that any further reduction is not any further stimulus to business to try and avoid it.

It's also not a single point, but a range, and where Corp Tax rates are around the 20-30% mark I don't see as a big issue"

Vonhelmet · 5 Jun 2017 at 09:31

Orionaut said:
That's what I always call the "Thatcher Lesson"

You get more revenue from the higher tax bands by cutting the rate than you do by raising it.

(With reference to the Tax changes made after the first Thatcher victory in 1979 reducing the punitive rates of higher tax imposed by the previous Labour administrations which resulted in a significant increase in the revenue generated by the top bands after the rates were cut)

You don't need to call it the "thatcher lesson", as it already has a name - it's the laffer curve.

Nasher · 5 Jun 2017 at 09:34

What about tranquilizer guns?

We could manufacture some kind of semi-auto one.

But anyway, so far none of these attackers have had guns. Only knives. So what we need is training in how to deal with someone holding a knife.