Rioting in London

[Deepcrush]

There's a difference between liking the "not being around firearms" vs crying that another country provides them for officers. Though we are also guilty of providing firefighters with water and foam... And EMTs with blood and bandages. Luckily, seafort will no doubt be back to point out that England has no need for firefighters or EMTs either.

[Graham Kennedy]

I'm glad that we don't have cops routinely armed - there's really no need for it, and I like what it says about the people. I also like that gun ownership is so scarce - I see people now and again acting as if the British government "disarmed the people", which has an element of truth to it in that the government did put far more restrictive laws on gun ownership a ways back. But that was done because something like 90% of the people demanded it, and gun ownership was not especially widespread anyway - I have a vague memory that something like 40,000 people owned guns in the UK at the time of the Hungerford massacre, less than one in a thousand. I like that most people here don't want to own a gun, and don't want guns to be commonplace. All good stuff.

But no, it doesn't give us any moral superiority over those countries like America that do have a gun culture, and more than their right to gun ownership gives them any moral superiority over us. Cultures are complicated things, and to think you can take something that works in one culture and just stick it into another and have it work there is absurd.

[Captain Seafort]

How is having a police force that is armed making a country a shithole?

In and of itself, it doesn't. It's the fact that they need to be armed.

The respective view is that some countries may like to provide more equipment to their officers then a penis hat, poking stick and wishful thinking. You know, just in case there was a riot or something...

We do. We just keep it packed away safely until it's needed.

[Mikey]

Careful, Seafort - your bias is showing. At least when Joe Strummer made a song about the subject, his tongue was in his cheek. Of course you're more comfortable with what's familiar, as am I. To that end, if I were a bystander in a gun crime I'd definitely rather the responding cop be able to do more than say, "Stop... or I'll say 'stop' again!"

[Captain Seafort]

To that end, if I were a bystander in a gun crime I'd definitely rather the responding cop be able to do more than say, "Stop... or I'll say 'stop' again!"

I'd be too busy running to be bothered about what the plods were doing, and the other 99.99% of the time I'd rather not live in a country whose police announce every second they're on duty "we expect to be shot at". Because that's what carrying a firearm routinely means.

[Mikey]

Rather, that's the meaning that's convenient to your viewpoint. What it means in actuality is "If and when we come upon armed criminals who mean harm to us, we are prepared to do more than run away."

[Captain Seafort]

What it means in actuality is "If and when we come upon armed criminals who mean harm to us, we are prepared to do more than run away."

You can do that with batons and light body armour, both of which are standard equipment. Carrying a firearm means you expect said criminals to have firearms themselves, and to be prepared to use them.

[Reliant121]

Rather, that's the meaning that's convenient to your viewpoint. What it means in actuality is "If and when we come upon armed criminals who mean harm to us, we are prepared to do more than run away."

I think the point is that coming across someone who is armed with a firearm here is so mindbogglingly unusual. Batons and knife-proof vests, standard equipment, are adequate to deal with typical offensive weapons which are knives and bats. Gun crime is VERY rare in the UK.

[Mikey]

To my mind, this isn't a question of what's likely - it's a question of what's possible, if not plausible. The cops need to be prepared for any eventuality, not just the most likely one.

[Captain Seafort]

To my mind, this isn't a question of what's likely - it's a question of what's possible, if not plausible. The cops need to be prepared for any eventuality, not just the most likely one.

They are - every force has firearms-trained officers available in the event of an incident. In the larger cities they patrol in vehicles to improve response times.

[Deepcrush]

As GK pointed to, it comes to culture. Americans generally prefer to be prepared for anything they come across. To me Brits tend to see this as over working a situation since most officers will never need their firearms anyways.

[Mikey]

To my mind, this isn't a question of what's likely - it's a question of what's possible, if not plausible. The cops need to be prepared for any eventuality, not just the most likely one.

They are - every force has firearms-trained officers available in the event of an incident. In the larger cities they patrol in vehicles to improve response times.

Having to have your responding officers wait for the properly-equipped and trained officers isn't preparedness.

[Captain Seafort]

Having to have your responding officers wait for the properly-equipped and trained officers isn't preparedness.

Yes it is. Otherwise you could equally call US police forces unprepared because they don't all have bomb-disposal training in case they come across another car bomb in Times Square, don't have SAMs in the boot of their vehicles to take action against 9/11 Mk2, and don't drive around in Abrams in case someone goes joyriding in a tank.

[Mikey]

I see. Then when there is a crime involving a firearm - and no matter how less often it happens over there, it does and will again - do the police just wait until some of the fraction of the force which is properly equipped and trained show? How does a professional law enforcement official justify not going to help people in trouble?

[Deepcrush]

US officers have explosive kits in their vehicles, IFVs and MBTs are not effective patrol and traffic enforcement options, air defense is the job of the Air Force. None of those apply to the topic.