Why do many police forces around the world not carry guns?

P

primalclaws1974

Well-Known Member
I am American, so I am used to seeing anyone with a badge carrying a piece. I know they say the USA is a military state (so to speak), but it's not as bad as many third-world countries. But there are other countries where patrol officers do not carry lethal force at all. I believe England, Australia, and New Zealand are among them. I know they have special forces that do carry weapons, but that is for special circumstances. My question is, how can the general public be controlled when they know the police only have basic weapons?
 
Excellent question, and my answer is I have no idea. I know all of those places still have criminals that can find a way to get their hands on firearms. I don't know how they control people without having a method of lethal force available to them.
 
It may be to not scare the average citizen. It doesn't make sense for police officers to not carry guns since most criminals will be armed. Different cultures for different folks.
 
I know Australia did have a force with weapons during that terror situation. So, I don't think they are completely without lethal means. I think they would have to call it in as back up. I can't imagine being a police officer walking into a situation where the criminal has a gun or a knife. It is possible to disarm a person, but you have to be in close range and that doesn't happen a lot. I honestly don't know if it would be scarier being a police officer in a military state or a gun free state.
 
Gun ownership is strictly controlled in the UK and you cannot open carry. I would therefore say that police in the UK do not carry guns as there is little risk of being shot. I don't envy US cops at all - shooting seems to be an everyday occupational hazard and it is no surprise that they are armed themselves.
 
To say that the average person cannot carry legally does not mean that they are not carrying. I don't care if I was in a place that SEEMED to have tight control over guns, it does not mean that is really the case. What happens--and I am sure it does--when an armed person gets in the face of an unarmed police person? I would imagine that an officer would be at quite a disadvantage. People say US officers need to be armed, and it's a dangerous job, but violent people are not limited to the USA, and it makes less sense to be a well-known UNARMED officer, and everyone know you are nearly defenseless against someone carrying a firearm.
 
I think some of it might be cultural. In the UK, the idea of anyone carrying guns was so incredibly alien that even when criminals armed themselves, the public were outraged by the idea of the police walking the streets with guns. The whole gun debate is a big one in the US, but clearly in a country where everyone essentially has the right to bear arms, the police are bound to be armed themselves.
 
I guess people get scared when they see people carrying around dangerous weapons, I can see why they think that. The police here in the UK usually carry tasers and batons, which aren't too bad. But when you go to important places such as Downing Street, etc. You usually see a policeman with an MP5 behind the gates.
 
Stun guns..? Those are not lethal but still can have a great impact on the one its being used.
Maybe it will be a brilliant idea to not let the public know who has a gun and who doesn't. They will always be under the impression that any cop who is patrolling will have a gun,but in reality he needn't.

Apologies if that was a bad idea,but it just cropped up.
 
I do believe that having a good protection for yourself is quite important when you are a police officer. Actually, this is the firts time I believe that I have heard of police carrying gun. As far as I know, I believe that ost of them carry the required gun with them.
 
I think that carrying a gun really gives off a sense of fear(not that the officer is scared, but that they want people to be afraid of them) even though that may not be the case exactly. The officers are there to protect and serve, not protect, serve, and intimidate. I mean, I'm an American too, but if I had to guess a main reason then I would go with that.
 
Policemen are trained machinery that can bring a suspect down without the use of a Gun. The police in my region carry AK 47 when they go on rounds. Some have been attacked and the guns stolen by thugs. I guess that a well trained policeman does not have to have a gun at all times.
 
In the UK, the nation wide ban on most firearms extends to law enforcement, which significantly reduces the amount of violent gun deaths.
 
timelord731 said:
In the UK, the nation wide ban on most firearms extends to law enforcement, which significantly reduces the amount of violent gun deaths.
Click to expand...

The strict gun control regulations in the UK mean that guns are pretty hard to get hold of and nobody carries them in public. So the risk of being shot in the line of duty is small. If open carrying was permitted here, I'm sure we'd start to see more armed police too.
 
The attitude of American police has changed over the last 70 years, before they used to be peace officers, now they are law enforcement officials. If a person has a weapon it might escalate the situation. In the 1920s machineguns where legal in USA, most police officers only carried a 38 revolver so for all intents and purposes they where unarmed. The seemed to be a lot less police brutality incidents back then.

In Britain, there rarely are news reports about police brutality. Criminals will always be able to get better guns then the police, so there are some benefits to the British system.
 
Mostly because they don't need too as the criminals they are dealing with are not as hostile as in the US. Or because they are afraid that using guns would be a bad idea because they could be taken away from them in certain situations and then the attacker would turn around and use it on the police officer.
 
In most of those countries where the police force do not carry firearms, the gun is outlawed in the first place.
When a country has the civilian ownership of firearm outlawed, there would be really rare case of gun crimes. When the criminals do not have guns, there is also no need for the cops to carry guns except for extreme cases where they are assigned to arrest dangerous criminals. When cops carry guns, they also take the risk of having their weapons being stolen. It wasn't that long ago when a man grabbed an assault rifle from a cop at a Taiwanese airport and shot at the crowd. It wouldn't have happened if the cops there weren't armed with guns in the first place. When there is no gun crime around, there is no need to carry guns for the law enforcement.

In the countries such as US is a totally different story. When half the civilians have guns, it would be silly for law enforcement do not carry firearms.
 
I am not entirely sure, but I would guess that in countries where the police doesn't carry firearms, the street-police function as observers that have the authority to call in the 'big guns' (shitty pun, I am sorry). The difference in response is often very low, and situations are probably less likely to escalade when street officers do not carry weapons. I am not an authority on the subject, but I am concerned about law enforcement, and it seems to me (atleast the media has made it out to be as such), that many of the confrontations from which death has ensued recently has been due to the street-police making faulty judgment calls
 
primalclaws1974 said:
I am American, so I am used to seeing anyone with a badge carrying a piece. I know they say the USA is a military state (so to speak), but it's not as bad as many third-world countries. But there are other countries where patrol officers do not carry lethal force at all. I believe England, Australia, and New Zealand are among them. I know they have special forces that do carry weapons, but that is for special circumstances. My question is, how can the general public be controlled when they know the police only have basic weapons?
Click to expand...
That is what I thought about too. You cannot get an armed crook to comply without a reliable weapon. You are just asking for a bullet to the head.
 
ally79 said:
Excellent question, and my answer is I have no idea. I know all of those places still have criminals that can find a way to get their hands on firearms. I don't know how they control people without having a method of lethal force available to them.
Click to expand...

It is called proper negotiation skills, something which a lot of modern police lack. Instead of escalating the situation, calm the situation down. Now days with video cameras, even if the culprit kills the cop, he isn't going to get away with it. Most modern cops have a tendency to shoot first ask questions later.

Until 1920, Britian did not have gun control, and you could buy a gun in any shop. Policemen in Britain where never armed during this period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top