Welcome to Librarium Online!
Right, just something I was thinking about last night as I was watching Training Day. (great movie). Do people think police forces need to be armed to do their job correctly. Or is it a case of the cops having guns, so that in turn causes the "perps" to get guns, and it turns out to be a kind of arms war.
Or is it because as in the case in America your legal right to own a firearm over a certain age? I don't know the age, I am sure some of our american members will let us know. That because people have access to firearms that cops have to have access to fire arms.
The police force in my country don't carry guns and I must admit any time I travel to countries that do I get a shock when I see cops wearing guns. In my whole life I have only seen one gun up close and that was a huge and anicent shotgun, my grandfather used to keep for killing crows.
So do people whose police forces carry guns, do you think that by having them does it prevent violent crime or increase it.
I dont think its great idea, as officers could tend to use it as a weapon of first, rather than last, resort. Its a bad thing since if an officer in a hostile situation draws his weapon, he's suddenly got very few choices and they're all the wrong ones.
"It fits like clothes made out of wasps!"
I think that there are diferent settings around the world for law enforcement, here are a few examples.
The US saw a rising problem in the 80s, the armed gangs. Early on in the american history gangs formed up as a survival mecanism to newly arrived refugees. They were mildly violent, starting off as riots, fist fights and so on. The problem intensified over the years, and the mass access to firearms in the mid 70s and 80s made it very tense for Policemen to arm themselves further, improve thier equipment (bullet proof vests, tasers, etc).
Now imagine a situation where an officer would arrest should criminals, wich nowadyas then to be evenly matched in weapons of choice (knives, pistols), and many convicts are taller, broader and stronger than the average officer. The only thing that keeps most of the suspects in check is the knowledge that the officer making the arrest as a firearm, and as the right to use it in self defence.
Otherwise, many policemen would be unable to enforce the law in a society where the muders per year exceed 10,000.
But in a place like Canada, lawmen firearms are rarely used to a deadly intent, wich would raise the question for the need of such leathal weapons.
Violent crime is going to happen regardless of the types of weapons available.Originally Posted by chemicalcaveman
Explosives are outlawed for public use in just about every country in the world and yet somehow the bombings in Bali, London, Spain, and Oklahoma City happened anyway.
If you want to ask a question about guns, the one you should ask is whether or not the invention of the firearm is responsible for an increase in violence. And I might still say no. Even if you magically 'uninvent' the firearm criminals will just use something else.
Because it isn't the weapons fault for the way in which it is used. It's the humans fault for using it to kill other humans.
@Phobos..When an officer draws his gun it is more likely to take control of a situation that has already become deadly, in which case he does it to protect lives (his or surrounding innocents).
How is it that armed police have gotten such a bad rap? Their motto here in America is, "Protect and Serve" and for the most part (99.5% of the time) they are doing their job in just that way.
Last edited by Joker; October 7th, 2005 at 15:47.
I think they should use stun guns and animal tranqs personally, but I'm sure some of you remember my bizarre thread about giving soldiers lethal injection guns instead of bullets
There are chemical poisons around now, and even things like pepper spray, that NO human, no matter how buff, can shrug off. No reason for guns for law enforcement anymore IMO.
EDIT: Oh crap, I hope I'm not about to get into another disagreement with Joker, man that was exhausting! That guy is hard core.
Last edited by Kahoolin; October 7th, 2005 at 15:59.
Peace! :w00t:Originally Posted by robotnik
Sparring with an intellectual such as yourself has drained me as well. I'm looking forward to going home and taking a nap!
But back on topic:
I agree with you almost totally Robotnik! Except about the 'no need for guns in law enforcement' quote(surprise!!) it's just that the technology is new and still being introduced. Non lethal weapons have been incrementally working their way into the police for years.
Bean-bag shotguns and non-lethal bullets and stun guns and net launchers are getting better and are more readily available.
As far as tranquilizer guns there's no way that can happen here in America because of the litigious nature of the people. It's amazing how fast people become 'lawyers' here once they get arrested.
Plus the unsafe nature of drug interactions, and their use on the elderly, and young raise all kinds of ethical questions. <edit> please don't mistake this for me advocating the use of firearms on the young and elderly though!
Last edited by Joker; October 7th, 2005 at 16:25.
There really is no form of "non-leathal" bullet currently out there. Rubber bullets and tail-stabilized bean bags can still be lethal depending on where they hit (head, upper central torso by the lungs/heart). Less-lethal ammo is currently populating law enforcement though. I was reading an article about sonic emitters that cause debilitating pain (about on the same level as tazer guns) as well as 2-part chemicals that basically made a glue gun being developed for crowd/riot control.
While less lethal weaponry is a great idea, I still think that in countries where firearms are either available to the public (like the US) or easily obtainable via the black market, then law enforcement should have those same firearms. Criminals really don't care about the advancements in less-lethal tech.
Gyauayuayuayua! Ja! Ve vill crush da little girly men in deir little girl men awrmor! Ve vill see owur enemies driven befowur us, und hear da lahmentaytions of deir wemen. Und from owur home planet, de stayte uf Califowurnia, ve vill lawunch owur mighty offensive. Even if you kill us, ve'll be bach!! Gyauayauyauyauyau!
-Arnoldunit Schwarzenecronegger; when questioned about the impending doom he would rain down upon the heads of his doomed enemies.
@onlainari: I don't know if the Oz police force is armed, but I do know that the Irish one is not. I feel like they are able to do their job without fire arms. As far as I am aware only the "Special Branch" is armed here.
I think that it is fairly obvious, that each country is unique on how it handles the armed/non-armed issue. And the goverment of the country makes its decision based on numerous factors. In Ireland we have/had one of the most active terrorist groups in the world and the Irish goverment still did not feel the need to arm our police forces. I wonder in other countries what the reason for arming theirs was?