Did I hear it correctly Piers Morgan on Colbert said the British Cops did not carry guns?
If our US cops did not carry guns I would feel comfortable with *almost *any gun control legislation.
I see authorities with guns as a greater potential threat in the long run than civilians with guns.
BTW: I don’t have any functioning guns and don’t plan to get any. This thread states an oversimplified statement of my feelings about governmental authorities.
They do in Northern Ireland. Elsewhere, they generally don’t carry sidearms while on routine patrols. A few local constabularies have created armed patrols in response to local episodes of gun crime.
I don’t get it. If cops are armed, you think people should be armed… so people can shoot cops? 
Most don’t even carry tasers.
In fact to carry a taser as a UK policeman you have to be qualified to be an armed officer, which the majority aren’t (and even most of them are rarely armed).
The only places you will routinely see armed police are airports, nuclear power plants (but why are you in a nuclear power plant?) and a couple of estates that are indistinguisable from NWA videos.
Why is this a debate?
I still don’t get your point. Are you thinking you might need to shoot a cop?
“Not generally carrying guns while on duty” is not the same as “will not be issued guns pretty damn fast if the situation warrants it.”
Like this you mean? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSflRlHPay4 :eek:
Yeah I never understood the idea of having guns to defend yourself against representatives of your own government. You live in a democracy, the police and military are on your side. In fact, they work for you. If you lived in Somalia it would make more sense.
If the US society really is unsafe to the degree that you need a handgun to feel safe, I think THAT is a huge problem that should be a political question. I would NOT accept living in a society where I don’t feel safe, and I would NOT accept the idea that I need to arm myself in order to feel secure in my community. The police is there in order to make sure I don’t need a gun. If you need a gun to defend yourself against the police… well… then I think YOU might be the problem.
I don’t care that much about being allowed to own a gun, but I care a lot about not NEEDING to own one.
The UK police do not routinely carry guns, however in some places gun trained coppers do patrol in cars with guns in the car,locked in a gun locker and not easily accessible. They act as normal coppers but are on call should an armed situation arise,they don’t wave guns about unless guns are already in evidence on the baddie side. I live in a very low crime area in the UK few years ago someone threatened a copper with an apparent gun, it took half an hour to get an armed response unit out and shoot dead the fool who it turned out had an air gun…
Nice thought, but it doesn’t necessarily work that way in practice. This is a diverse society with a flawed democracy; it’s not that hard to end up with communities with very different ideas of exactly what ‘work’ they wish the police and military to undertake.
While the idea of protecting yourself from the government with firearms gets a lot of Americans ranting and raving, most want guns for personal protection from criminals, and for hunting, either as sport or for agricultural purposes. All the assault rifles you can buy doesn’t give you a snowball’s chance of holding off the government that is so much better armed than you are.
A good article on the subject.
One thing I think helps the policy a lot is the odds of the police actually facing someone with a gun in the UK are pretty slim. The UK never really had a gun culture so there was never much opposition to gun control and so it’s also been pretty easy to maintain an unarmed police force. I would imagine there are plenty of officers who have gone a whole career without encountering someone with a gun.
If the police are doing such a poor job of preserving the peace that they need to carry guns, then the citizenry should be allowed to follow their example. Beyond the guns, most places have stricter laws when a police officer is assaulted, killed, and in some cases just insulted, so if anything the police have less need of guns than those who are graced with such extra legal protection.
Extra legal protection has nothing to do with the practical fact that police are typically the ones rushing toward the danger, not away from it. I’m by no means a gun-grabber, but one simply has to acknowledge that there’s a huge practical difference between having a threat foisted upon someone, versus the danger to someone who is required to interject themselves in violent situations.
I miss the days when American Exceptionalism meant that America was *better *than other countries.
Wasn’t Brazil a democracy at the time of the military takeover in 1968?
Didn’t it take 21 years but the people,*** using guns***, got their democracy back?
Not using guns. The transition to civil power was achieved democratically.
The answer to most difficult issues in contemporary politics can be found in the question, “What has Brazil taught us?”
But the answer to that question tends to focus on the benefits of skimpy swimwear as opposed to the need for an armed insurrection.
Are you suggesting the US military leadership is planning a coup?