Police Weapons Prove Vexing for a British Town

New York Times ^ | 6/02/02 | SARAH LYALL

[blackbart.223]

"In one instance a 29-year-old man brandishing a cigarette lighter shaped like a gun was shot and killed by the police.

A possible Darwin Award winner?

[Mike K]

Armed robbery in London nearly doubled from 2000 to 2001, and shootings between criminals are rising, too.

And some police brass don't want all police armed? Why not raise the hiring standards? Eventually, idiots at the top will be eliminated. On the other hand, maybe their police aren't qualified to carry!? Back to the hiring standards.

[sharkdiver]

It amazes me that more acts of terrorism haven't occured in Merry ole England. terrorists don't give a hoot about gun laws. are these people so stupid that they think arming police officers will cause criminals to start arming themselves. What fools.

[etcetera]

This is the stupidest thing I've ever read. The bad guys already have guns and these Brits don't want an armed police force. They deserve to be robbed at gunpoint. A once great country is doomed.

[Reagan is King]

Unbridled immigration has changed the culture in Britain. Now mainly the criminals have guns and the helpless citizens can only be victims. The only answer is, you guessed it, more guns. Right now the criminals have nothing to fear since they are the only ones with guns.

I wonder how long it will take liberal Britain to loosen their gun laws so a citizen can have one for self defense?

[spitz]

Actually, there have been a lot of terrorist activity in Britain over the last 30 years. That would be the IRA, so where have you been hiding? And don’t forget, the IRA was financed by American money, and successive American governments turned a blind eye. What fools for supporting terrorism.

[Sender]

Note to British Police: Your criminals already have machine guns and are not afraid to shoot. And no, they're not from US gun shows either. It's too late to worry about yer cozy 'Bobby' image. If the public is more alarmed that a cop carries a pistol than if a criminal does, then I don't quite know what to say. Have another pint, I guess, and hope for a safe walk home.

[David Hunter]

I wonder how long it will take liberal Britain to loosen their gun laws so a citizen can have one for self defense?

Check out the 'Republicans get the last laugh' thread to see why the British aren't citizens. Firearms will never be licensed for use as tools for self defence, since carrying any kind of weapon for personal defence has been illegal in Britain since the 1950s. Britons can also be prosecuted for defending themselves.

The British government slowly erodes the rights of its subjects since there is no written constitution. The laws on firearm ownership were first tightened shortly after the Russian revolution because the ruling classes were scared of a communist insurrection. It is obvious that the British aristocracy have never been comfortable with their subjects owning firearms and so they have used every incident as an opportunity to further erode that right.

Because the number of firearms held by criminals in Britain has actually increased by almost a third since all handguns were prohibited, then another massacres like that at Dunblane could occur. I don't think that encouraging Britons to carry firearms for personal defence would be a solution to our crime problem. But I do believe that the government has immorally seized on events over the years to destroy an activity they have always been uncomfortable with.

[Maquisard]

Lest we not forget, In WW2, England BEGGED the U.S. to send them small arms to defend the empire with, for they had been taken away from the 'subjects'.
So England was armed with small arms again, and after the threat of invasion from Germany had passed, the arms were once again taken away from the 'subjects' in the name of "Saftey". (Sound familiar?)
So now England ia once again under threat of invasion, But this time it is the armed criminal, not foreign powers doing the invading. So now the Bobbies have to be armed.
Remember your History lessons folks. I'm proud to be a 'citizen' and not a 'subject'.

[David Hunter]

I'm proud to be a 'citizen' and not a 'subject'.

Lucky you, some of us don't have any choice.

[capt. norm]

From a clipping from Scotland Yard back in the 60's an eye-witness was asked to describe the perpetrator. He could not judge the height or weight, nor could he remember eye or hair color.

What he could remember was that the herring-bone jacket the robber was wearing, clashed so badly with his plaid tie, that he could not remember anything else about him.

[capt. norm]

"Because the number of firearms held by criminals in Britain has actually increased by almost a third since all handguns were prohibited"

You're right, partially because everyone who didn't give up their gun(s), and I would be one of them, automatically became criminals by so doing.

[07055]

But Commander Alan Brown of the Metropolitan Police said the answer was not widespread arming but strategic deployment of trained armed officers. "If you asked some of our officers, they'd say that they'd like to be armed," Commander Brown said. "They'd be the last people I'd ever give a gun to."

And these are the officers supposedly defending law and order? The "last people" their boss would give a gun to? After the terrorists, I suppose.

[07055]

It is obvious that the British aristocracy have never been comfortable with their subjects owning firearms and so they have used every incident as an opportunity to further erode that right.

I don't disagree with you here---but they don't even want the police to have guns. Apparently, the only people they allow to be armed are gangsters and terrorists.

[Tuor]

I wonder how long it will take liberal Britain to loosen their gun laws so a citizen can have one for self defense?

Never. That will never happen. The government is willing to arm the police because the police are a part of government; the citizenry is not. No need to arm potentional enemies when you can keep them dependant on the state to solve all their problems.

Tuor

[David Hunter]

You're right, partially because everyone who didn't give up their gun(s), and I would be one of them, automatically became criminals by so doing.

If you had refused to give up your gun(s), you would have got a prison sentence. A lot of sports shooters sent their pistols abroad, so they could use them on holiday.

The number of crimes that are committed with a firearm have increased even though virtually all handguns were prohibited in 1996. Also a larger proportion of violent criminals are armed compared to pre-prohibition.

[RogueIsland]

"I think that violence promotes violence"

Guess you guys should have just rolled over and begged for mercy in WWII then. Your armed resistance only promoted more violence, after all.

[Shooter 2.5]

At one time in British history not too long ago, the average time between a murder and the killer hanging from the neck was 21 days. I don't know if they alway had the right person and I wish I could remember what year this was supposed to have occured.

Today, they have open immigration, the police aren't trusted, statistics of Northern Ireland are not included and anyone using force to defend themselves is jailed. The authorities are still wondering what they should do.