Right, move along, sir, or make my day!

I have been meaning to return to a post written a few days ago by 'Inspector Gadget' but the fact is that I can't quite make up my mind about it.  This, as regular readers will know, is a rarity for a man of my instinctive (and treasured) prejudices.  What 'Insp. Gadget' is proposing strikes me instantly as good commonsense but it is only after about 3.5 nanoseconds of reflection that the doubts begin.

He has been moved by 'the slaughter of the innocents' perpetrated in Belgium by a lone gunman but praises not just the quick re-action of the Belgian police but even more so their ability to be able to re-act because they are always armed.  He suggests that the time is long overdue that British police were routinely armed and points at the incident in Cumbria when Derek Bird shot nine people dead after the (unarmed) police first arrived because they were helpless to intervene and were forced to wait until a fire-arms squad arrived.

Seems obvious, doesn't it?  Well it does but only up to the point where you think of your average British copper toting a gun!  Already, a more or less constant stream of stories describing police blunders from shooting the wrong man in a tube train to standing idly by while hooligans ransack a High Street is enough to make one doubt their ability to handle a gun with intelligence.

But on the other hand, he does have a point about . . . and so the argument goes round and round in my mind.  To date I have come to no definite conclusion - and I'm not happy about it, I mean, it's just not me, is it?

 

Comments

[dearieme]

At some point it'll be decided that the police should be armed. At the same time I think gun laws should be changed so that it's easier for me to be armed and, in particular, for my wife to be armed. Realistically, that means licensing small-calibre pistols, which means probably licensing large-calibre pistols too. It's a pity: the previous state of a country where arms were lawful but few people, most criminals included, bothered with them, and the police were unarmed was obviously preferable, but there we are - a further triumph for the philistines.

[Furor Teutonicus]

XX standing idly by while hooligans ransack a High Street is enough to make one doubt their ability to handle a gun with intelligence. XX

No plaussible link, unless you are suggesting that armed police should have shot the looters.

Which, if you are, has greatly increased my respect for you.

[Pat]

Even if the police were armed, the chances of there being a copper present when needed- rather than five minutes later- are remote.
We simply need to remember that the vast majority of people are decent (if that were not so, where would we be), and abandon our present structure where the law abiding are disarmed, but the lawless are armed.
It worked fine until the aftermath of the first world war, and it would work fine now- as it does in the States, and indeed in Switzerland.

[Whyaxye]

Interesting points.

I think (probably like Gadget!) that violent criminals have no respect for others because they know that even if the police apprehend them, their sentence will be risible. If they knew there was a chance of meeting an armed officer, they would modify their behaviour. Gadget writes very tellingly of the spectacle of violent nutters running amok with Samurai swords, only to become as meek as a lamb when the red laser dot of the taser appears on them. This is not to argue for summary justice on the streets, but it makes you think, doesn't it?

On the other hand, your point about who we would be issuing the weapons to is even more telling. Consider this pillock

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8602637/Police-dog-handler-threw-himself-from-car-after-dogs-died-in-hot-vehicle.html

for example, and the many others like him. At least if he had been given a gun he could have shot himself and done the job properly.

All in all, I'm just very glad that I don't have to make the decision.

[David Duff]

I have posted here before on the efficacy of allowing people to own personal handguns. In the States it seems to have had quite a profound effect on criminality.

Part of the problem between us, the law-abiding, and the police is our gradual realisation that it is us they are after, not the scallywags. After all, we are more pliable. I know that doesn't apply to all policemen everywhere but it seems to apply with increasing accuracy to their leadership, most of whom should be locked up!

[JK]

Lawdy David, y'all's depriving y'allselves of much fun. Good family friendly fun.

(A'course it's funner reading 'bout such stuff in a newspaper.)

http://www.areawidenews.com/story/1795175.html

[Andra]

I was very uneasy about police carrying guns here, in Australia, when it was introduced, let's say something like 20 years ago.
However, I was also uneasy about the obvious fact that the police seemed to be coming off second-best when the criminals all had guns and the police didn't.
Now, it is just a matter of fact and it doesn't worry me in the least.
The police still cause a big stir every time they shoot somebody, or even taser some loony or drugged up maniac, but then they have a small quiet enquiry among themselves held and the "unfortunate incident" is moved to the lost property department and quiely forgotten.
Personally, I don't think the police shoot enough people but I may be in the minority there.
I am quite getting used to the idea of guns. In fact, I want one, (just a small one, please. And not silver, I don't wear silver. Do they come in gold?)
I know, I know, I could move to Arkansas and have a dozen automatically. But it snows there!
Anyway, give the police people some guns. It might actually make them better at doing their jobs and just might make some of the criminals think before they act.

[JK]

Yes Andra, apparently there are guns which come in gold.

Slight drawback perhaps, depends on whether one would wish to visit Libya.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8839334/Gaddafi-the-man-with-the-golden-guns.html

[Andra]

No, JK, I don't like the look of that one at all. I think it's very unattractive and rather vulgar.
I will now take up designing guns for discerning women.
Watch this space.

[David Duff]

At least family disputes are settled swiftly 'over there', JK. And by the by, I see you slipped my name into the blog of that silly lad who believes that even sillier film 'Anonymous' but I couldn't be bothered to set him right!

We all look forward to your new gun design, Andra, but, er, nothing too phallic, there's a good girl!

[JK]

Not the lad David, the lass.

Figured I was doing the both of you a favor. Her post in contention being on the subject of Shakespeare. She'd disputed the man. Even inserted a likeness of Anne Boleyn then made Anne out to be Elizabeth I.

Figgered she could use some proper edukashun, and you (should she ever comment on this here esteemly reputeable blog-thingy) would finally have an eager student/reader.

Besides, she might possibly click one of your adverts then you'd be finally underway on your effort at fortune without - say that again Sir - without ever again worrying 'bout falling back in with that second-hand car selling lot.

[David Duff]

A lass, not a lad! Oh dear, I was so gobsmacked by the silliness of it I never looked properly.