Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh
I'm always against using America as a argument for or against arming the police because the yanks have a constitution that gives everyone the right to have a gun ,i think it's been restricted a lot more these days but back in the day everyone carried a gun so it was natural to arm the police.Our history is a little different and we have no such right to own or carry a gun so it has never been required for the police to be routinely armed .
I think things are vastly different these days ,the ease in getting hold of deadly weapons like guns and grenades makes it almost inevitable that one day soon police will be armed routinely imo
|
Hello all, just to butt-in here; if the police (normal police) are going be armed so should the general public under lesser gun control laws just like USA it balances the two side unlike now with all the deadly item that the police carry at the moment. No good in just arming one side to abuse the the system + it people, the phrase is then " laws rules ruled by armed police" not "governmental laws" as it's now days. Remember there two side to each action, same in the case here - just as he (one holding the gun) knew after the mote killing by illegal unapproved shot gun rounds he be done over the same way -framed for his own murder like mote was.
Any how the police coming to the call was carrying tasers which even match to his hand gun, tasers in UK have killed more than guns in after side effects (unprinted evidence within UK media outlets). The real long term results one health goes unnoticed by the LEA in UK by design of the government. I say even match both sides, as we all know only one side wins in battle of wits.