They did not even do TWO years before they were whisked off to Brands Hatch (Bramshill), coming back with 2 pips. My last boss had a degree in er..................HISTORY ! Knew who Robert Peel was but was clueless in man management.
armed police
- Thread starter brin
- Start date
Help Support Clay, Trap, Skeet Shooting Forum:
El Spavo
Well-known member
Isn't it consistently said on here, it's the person behind the trigger that's what counts?
And agree with you about the justice system... when you can be given 5 years for certain crimes and then another 3-5 for having a weapon such as a gun when you commit that crime, and the two sentences run concurrently, what is the incentive for a criminal NOT to be tooled up?! They won't receive more jail time on top of what they'd get already so why not carry? Ridiculous.
(and Westward, it's RTC nowadays: Accident has been changed to Collision so as not to apportion blame. I don't make the rules!
)
Rash generalisation ? You can’t be serious, everyone would have known exactly what I was talking about, without even getting into the ridiculous numbers of innocent people killed by your police never mind the criminals. Yours is the absolute perfect example why guns don’t a healthy society make. Ours is not perfect but we don’t want guns adding to the problem.
I had a freshly commissioned gentleman officer with a degree in some sort of ology or other in my patrol, technically in charge as he out ranked me but told by the CO to shut up watch and learn. First I had to teach him the correct way to lace up boots without them coming constantly undone. When making a brew he carefully ripped open a tea bag and poured the contents into his mug.
Six months later he resigned to become a Policeman. I often thought about him becoming a Chief Constable after being fast tracked by his Military experience, skill at arms and man management experience.
No idea of the relevance to arming Police just my take on degrees, fast tracking and common sense.
Last edited by a moderator:
El Spavo
Well-known member
Devil's advocate, there is potentially an understandable place for fast tracking/head hunting your ~ology types for the top roles though: in the fire service, there are more chief officers who have never stepped foot on a fireground before taking the job, but they just have to do all the political stuff and deflect issues they would already know how to do... everything on the coalface would be delegated down to, spans of control and all that, they just have to take advice and consider the best approach from people who hopefully HAVE been the grunts and know what to do.
Not that I know, I'll only ever be on the big red nee-naws!
Not that I know, I'll only ever be on the big red nee-naws!
And that's exactly the sort of thing I meant by PC nonsense. It probably took a 3 month study by half a dozen deputy assistant Chief Constables with a team of marketing consultants contracted in to recommend a meaningless change!(and Westward, it's RTC nowadays: Accident has been changed to Collision so as not to apportion blame. I don't make the rules!
No, it is simply highlighting the fact that there is no such thing as a Traffic ACCIDENT !And that's exactly the sort of thing I meant by PC nonsense. It probably took a 3 month study by half a dozen deputy assistant Chief Constables with a team of marketing consultants contracted in to recommend a meaningless change!
IF they worked their way up through the ranks, and plenty do (most of whom were excellent bosses), then it is NOT really 'Fast track'. Fast Track usually means that INSIDE five years you are a minimum rank of Inspector.
Wonko the Sane
Well-known member
Exactly why I have no trust in them
BUT
I find it impossible to get excited about gun related deaths of any kind.
In 2018, an estimated 40,000 people lost their lives to car crashes – a 1% decline from 2017 (40,231 deaths) and 2016 (40,327 deaths). About 4.5 million people were seriously injured in crashes last year – also a 1% decrease over 2017.
In 2016, 42,249 drug overdose deaths involved opioids. ... 17,087 overdose deaths involved prescription opioids. ... This page was last updated May 2018 ...
Jan 7, 2019 - Last month, the CDC reported that 39,773 people in the United States died from gunshot wounds in 2017, the most single-year gun deaths in half a century. The increase was driven by suicides. GVA recorded 28,159 firearm injuries in 2018, a 10 percent decrease over 2017.
According to Injury Facts 2017, choking is the fourth leading cause of unintentional injury death. Of the 5,051 people who died from choking in 2015, 2,848 were older than 74. Food is often responsible for choking incidents in the elderly.
May 3, 2016 - Analyzing medical death rate data over an eight-year period, Johns Hopkins patient safety experts have calculated that more than 250,000 deaths per year are due to medical error in the U.S. Their figure, published May 3 in The BMJ, surpasses the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) third leading ...
and in a population of 350 000 000 no one gets excited about anything but the gun deaths?
I understand that the prohibition of narwhal tusks in the UK is on the horizon
Last edited by a moderator:
You are NOT wrong about choking being the 4th biggest cause of death. I have come VERY close to it, choking having read some of the posts on here ! 
Lloyd
Well-known member
I wonder how many people have been killed by guns since its invention? I suspect it’s very low number. Maybe 100? Possibly 1,000? Could be 10,000.
Guns I suspect kill people very infrequently. On the other hand, humans have killed many millions of people, using knives, bare hands, gas, drowning, axe, meat cleaver, blunt excrements, choking and even on occasion guns.
However, Mr and Mrs Average who read the Daily Gripe will have their views and opinions shaped for them and nicely packaged in some propaganda so they can get off the fence and stand on the side that they feel will make them more popular among their peers.
With knife crime being on the rise such as it is, I suspect the banning of Mary Berry’s cake knife is very much imminent. Jamie Oliver will be redundant (thank the Lord). While your average Boy Scout will have to cut his string with the back edge of a telegraph pole for safety.
Still, I do believe that we of the shooting fraternity would be better positioned if we took a proactive problem solving approach rather than the usual whinging about the possibility of our toys being taken away from us.
The expert criminologists would argue that arming the police would see an escalation of gun crime as more criminals arm themselves to protect themselves from those pesky boys and girls in blue.
Gun laws in my mind are there to guide the law abiding and protect the innocent from the occasional off piste member of the law abiding public who may have momentary lost the plot. On the other hand, criminals break the law. I don’t see a criminal applying for a SGC and duly purchasing a gun from a RFD then politely asking the nearest bank clerk as he points his newly acquired Purdey in their general direction, “I say old bean, would one mind filling ones swag bag with some of that lovely cash you have in your delightful vault , there’s a good chap!”
I grew up in a rough area of the north west and whilst not the roughest and keeping myself to myself as I did, it was common knowledge among some locals that a pistol could be had for around £50. I recall my service Browning was valued at considerably around the same period.
So, for me, I think in the UK we have a good balance that has mostly been modified over the years reactively to some unfortunate incidents. I’m happy with the law as it is but should a law be passed that requires me to keep my gun only at a grounds, then I’d be fine with that as that’s what I do anyhow and if it improves public safety a smidgen more, then I feel it’s a small sacrifice to make for the greater good of jo public and helps keep shooting from the demise that some are lobbying for
Last edited by a moderator:
arming police is not the answer. as mentioned above it will only encourage more criminals to arm themselves. I live in a pretty small coastal town and I know of several drug dealers locally that have been caught with weapons they have acquired purely to cause harm (including firearms) and I know of several more that haven't been caught yet.
These people don't arm themselves to defend from the police. They arm themselves to defend against other drug dealers muscling in on "their turf" and good law abiding people including the police get caught up in this issue. its the same story country wide not just in my area.
As controversial as it may sound, I think we desperately need to change the drug laws in this country as does the rest of the world. legalisation of all drug including class A's and then regulation of those drugs will take them out of the hands of criminal gangs and massively boost the economy through taxation, generating funds to tackle drug misuse and treat it as a health problem and not a criminal one (much like they have in Portugal). Criminals will then have less need to carry weapons and the vicious circle is broken.
most stabbings and shootings are drug related. if that element is taken out of their hands then the problem will be massively reduced. I'm not suggesting for one second its a magic bullet (pun intended) but it will go a long way towards helping the situation, of that i'm sure.
These people don't arm themselves to defend from the police. They arm themselves to defend against other drug dealers muscling in on "their turf" and good law abiding people including the police get caught up in this issue. its the same story country wide not just in my area.
As controversial as it may sound, I think we desperately need to change the drug laws in this country as does the rest of the world. legalisation of all drug including class A's and then regulation of those drugs will take them out of the hands of criminal gangs and massively boost the economy through taxation, generating funds to tackle drug misuse and treat it as a health problem and not a criminal one (much like they have in Portugal). Criminals will then have less need to carry weapons and the vicious circle is broken.
most stabbings and shootings are drug related. if that element is taken out of their hands then the problem will be massively reduced. I'm not suggesting for one second its a magic bullet (pun intended) but it will go a long way towards helping the situation, of that i'm sure.
Last edited by a moderator:
Wonko the Sane
Well-known member
A widely recognized view tho not one widely endorsed. Law enforcement is particularly anti since a substantial portion of their budgets would be lost. Some small chips in that have been seen in the US with marijuana laws being radically changed in many states tho federal policy remains unchanged (again the enforcement folks in action). AFA the rest of the drugs go I'm sure it ain't gonna happen in my lifetime - just toooo lucrative for both sides of the action to relinquish. And of course there is the objection related to the opiod od'ing self-darwinators but their actions could be plus in disguise further reducing the consumer base
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't doubt what you are saying as far as budget cuts go in the US but the reality is the police would have far more and better spent time dealing with other crimes and the increased income from taxation would actually reduce the need for budget cuts in the public sectors including the police budget.
There is a common misconception that all drug users are addicts and its just not true. Most heroin users for example aren't addicted. they use it sensibly for recreation or self medicating purposes at the weekend and then go to work and hold down a 9 till 5 job. its the same with alcohol most people who drink alcohol aren't addicted to it and that goes across the board with all drugs.
The bigger offenders are actually prescription or over the counter drugs. People seem to assume that because the doctor has prescribed it its considerably less harmful and are more likely to get addicted as a result. Opioid painkillers are a perfect example of this. people who self medicate with "illegal drugs" are probably far less likely to become addicted to the drug they are self medicating with. it all comes down to a lack of education
Last edited by a moderator:
Nimbusgb
Well-known member
Show us the supporting figures ( not newspaper headlines )
Sharp rise?
If you have 1 incident in a year and then 5 in the next year .... it's gone up 500%. In a population of 70 million, 6400 is barely statistically significant.
Does anyone here ( in the UK ) honestly fear being held up by (fire)armed scrotes on an hourly basis? I had it happen 3 times in South Africa and the list of friends and family who have experienced the same ( or worse ) is long.
Yes we have a challenge on our hands but lets not blow it out of all proportion and bow to sensationalist media headlines.
Lloyd
Well-known member
Having seen first hand both types of Heroin user, the well educated professional (a solicitor, a lecturer a nurse and a doctor) using at the weekend and the less educated addicts one of whom died of an overdose, another who has been in sobriety for the past 30 year and one who recently came out of rehabilitation for the fifth time and has tortured themselves and their family for the past 36 years.
For sure education plays a very important part in the sociology and economics but it’s not a cure all either. Other measures need to be in place, laws and policing being one of them.
Legalising can reduce crime, there is evidence of this in other countries, however there is also evidence to suggest that it will not eliminate crime.
Smoking is legal, yet in a town adjacent to where I grew up an accountant was murdered in connection with a cigarettes shipping fraud.
Criminality is a fact if life and violence a part of that. We can only hope to limit the activities of criminals, but relaxing laws, education and escalation of armed police doesn’t look like a solution, only a Band-Aid
Sadly, it’s the law abiding that feel the increased restrictions. The small upside being it may protect a small number hovering on the borderline.
Just my opinion of course. I’m not expert in these matters in anyway shape or form
I too have seen both types of drug user....one of my best friends dad was a heroin addict and he missed much of his child's time growing up as a result of multiple prison sentences. he came out of prison just as addicted to heroin as when in went into prison purely because its just as easy if not easier to get in prison thus proving that treating addiction as a criminal issue doesn't work and only sets to alienate addicts from society when society and inclusion in it is the one thing they need...
it was a massive shame because he was actually a really nice bloke but as with most heroin addicts he died young not even making his 50th birthday.
but all of my friends including myself and my friend who's dad was an addict have used a multitude of drugs. some still do and occasionally I will still have a quick go on a joint if I'm out with them. probably not something I should admit on a shooting forum but the point is none of us ever stole or robbed to pay for the drugs we used. All of us held down decent jobs and still do. most of us have kids and all of us are productive members of society and one of them is a full time police officer.
I like to think I'm not naive and I too am no expert on such matters I can only speak from my experiences in life and I do agree that legalisation would not stop criminality it is of course a fact of life because human greed is not going away any time soon but I am a believer that it would go a long way to reducing violent crime and better education and treatment of how we look at drugs stands to benefit us all whether you're a user, addict, or a teetotaller
Wonko the Sane
Well-known member
and a difference of less than 1K/year is even less significant. Regardless of how many stabbings there are the central issue of the topic to me would be who is stabbing whom (or who is shooting whom for that matter) and does anyone actually GAF about the actions within that group? (presuming that there is a particular group)Show us the supporting figures ( not newspaper headlines )
Sharp rise?
If you have 1 incident in a year and then 5 in the next year .... it's gone up 500%. In a population of 70 million, 6400 is barely statistically significant.
Does anyone here ( in the UK ) honestly fear being held up by (fire)armed scrotes on an hourly basis? I had it happen 3 times in South Africa and the list of friends and family who have experienced the same ( or worse ) is long.
Yes we have a challenge on our hands but lets not blow it out of all proportion and bow to sensationalist media headlines.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Police and the Fire Service are the only people in the entire cosmos who would (a) see any merit in making such a pointlessly trivial change of terminology and (b) still getting it wrong. Everyone, everywhere outside of those 2 services uses the word "accident". Quite correctly so as that's exactly what it is, an accident, simply because no normal person deliberately causes a collision. Ergo: it happened accidentally.
Bebo
Well-known member
It's mostly drug / youth gang related in London. Harsh on their immediate families but no great loss to society. There are occassional nutters and robberies gone wrong, but arming more police won't change that.
