2 Police Officers shot and killed in Manchester

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Russ

You seem to have missed (or avoided) the point. None of the other professions in that list face the type of risks that police experience on a day to day basis. I'm not saying the risks are greater or less, but Police risk intentional attacks or death each day.

That's very different from those other vocations, the majority of which I'd suggest would be down to accidents.

Fair enough, but if you are pro: arm the beat cop.

what do you say to the rest of my post?

They certainly made a difference to the 8 people that have been shot since 2005 that didn't have a weapon on them.

By the way that's 40% of the peopl shot by police in the last 7 years did not have a weapon on them.

Considering that they were shot by specially trained armed response units.

It doesn't take a massive leap to extrapolate that if you give a gun to every beat cop that that percentage would increase or at the very least stay the same.

One thing for sure though is the number of people shot would go up.

40% isn't a good enough pass rate.

???

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Fair enough, but if you are pro: arm the beat cop.

what do you say to the rest of my post?

I'm not pro 'arm the police'. The point I'm making is comparing risks that the police face each day to that of other jobs just based on deaths alone is redundant. No other profession faces the same kind of dangers.

If the police are to be armed then the decision and indeed the research needs to come from frontline officers, not those sitting behind a desk whose biggest health risk is dropping the stapler on their foot.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Pierre

.They certainly made a difference to the 8 people that have been shot since 2005 that didn't have a weapon on them.

And in all of those there were extenuating circumstances, the cops didn't just decide to execute some randoms in the street.

Which again totally avoids the point that if the two cops were armed they might not be dead now. At least one managed to draw a taser, if she had a glock then she might have been able to safe herself and knowing the accused was too cowardly to face the Police and handed himself in that just may have changed his mind about ambushing and murdering two officers.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Russ

The point I'm making is comparing risks that the police face each day to that of other jobs just based on deaths alone is redundant. No other profession faces the same kind of dangers.
.

For sake of argument, it isn't redundant.

If you look at the list, aircraft pilots don't face the same risks as farmers and roofers don't face the same risks as refuse collectors.

That list was posted in reply to the statement that he wanted to go home to his family in one piece.

and regardless of all the differences of risks if a policeman and trawlerman leave their families in the morning the policeman is more likely to return home than the trawlerman.

That's the point I was making and it is valid.

P.S. I have a very big stapler.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Pierre

That list was posted in reply to the statement that he wanted to go home to his family in one piece.

And that's because he faces different risks to anyone else. Not greater or lesser risks, just different. And those risks are what this thread is about. Arming the Police would make those risk more or less. Applying the same logic to a refuse collector (for example) doesn't make sense. The risks they face aren't usually based on someone intentionally trying to hurt or kill them.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Derek

And in all of those there were extenuating circumstances, the cops didn't just decide to execute some randoms in the street.

Of course not.

Police are as human as anyone, and anyone can make a mistake.

Which is exactly the point I am making. Those mistakes were made by a handful of highly trained armed response police.

If you give every beat cop a gun, I would argue that instances of mistakes would rise, or at the least stay the same but the number of shootings would rise.

Which again totally avoids the point that if the two cops were armed they might not be dead now. At least one managed to draw a taser, if she had a glock then she might have been able to safe herself and knowing the accused was too cowardly to face the Police and handed himself in that just may have changed his mind about ambushing and murdering two officers.

Valid points, but this exceptional circumstance, in my opinion, does not throw enough weight to arm "all" of the police.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Russ

And that's because he faces different risks to anyone else. Not greater or lesser risks, just different. And those risks are what this thread is about. Arming the Police would make those risk more or less. Applying the same logic to a refuse collector (for example) doesn't make sense. The risks they face aren't usually based on someone intentionally trying to hurt or kill them.

It was purely an illustrative example. If you can't accept it, then don't, and move on.

[Russ]

It was more an irrelevant example. That's why I can't accept it.

[Itshim]

Statistics prove nothing on there own. Your simply show the number of deaths in totally different circumstances. If you wish to compere fishermen than do that across that industry. North sea against Alaskan would be a point in case.
I have no idea what the out come would be in the case of police. Perhaps you might care to to try French , South African, Australian, USA & British With Northern Ireland as a sub total - but if its stats you want it perhaps should included ( Or would that mess with the figures you want to produce !)

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by Russ

If the police are to be armed then the decision and indeed the research needs to come from frontline officers <snip>.

I agree that research should involve front line officers, however I don't believe it should be as straightforward as letting them decide if they should be armed with guns.

I recall a famous example from the Vietnam conflict regarding FAC (forward air controllers) aka "bird dog" aircraft. Its often asked why didn't the FAC spotter aircraft carry weapons? The pilots wanted weapons. It was found in the early days of the war, that when equipped with guns/rockets the aircraft were getting shot down in high numbers because they were putting themselves in positions they wouldn't have had they not been "armed".

This trend has been noted in policing too, and in various countries:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012...?utm_hp_ref=uk
From the above link:

What's the difference between Norway and Sweden?

The two Scandinavian countries are both affluent, with a commitment to liberal democracy and the welfare state. But there's one crucial difference; in Norway, police are not armed as a matter of course. But in Sweden, they regularly carry guns.

The result? According to a 2010 study by Johannes Knutsson and Jon Strype, there are fewer injuries and deaths among Norwegian citizens.


Police lay flowers at the scene where two female officers were killed in Britain

Dr Peter Squires, an expert on gun crime at the University of Brighton, says the study is not unusual.

"Just the fact of arming the police means that they approach incidents more aggressively, there are more armed incidents, more people get shot," he tells The Huffington Post UK.

That's one of the reasons why the UK, like Ireland, Norway and New Zealand, doesn't routinely arm its police - in contrast to the rest of the European world and north America.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Sparkle

This trend has been noted in policing too, and in various countries:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012...?utm_hp_ref=uk
From the above link:

It was my understanding that Norwegian Police do carry arms, but they normally keep them locked down in their patrol cars (which would/could make them less aggressive in their style of policing).

[Russ]

Sky News is reporting a 15 year old male has been arrested in connection with this.

15?!

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Russ

Sky News is reporting a 15 year old male has been arrested in connection with this.

15?!

10+5 or 45-30
I don't find it unusual.

[toonlight]

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.

Wow!

Just "wow!"....