| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| Do the British police need guns? |
| 2005-11-20 |
| (original opinion) It is ironic that not giving the police in Britain guns has probably saved many of their lives. A little-known stat in the US is that over 90% of policemen who are shot, are shot with their own weapon. (To include self-inflicted gunshots.) This statistic jumped in the 1960s, when police switched from "old-West" rules for guns to "SWAT" rules. That is, unless gunplay was imminent, the police used to leave their gun in its holster; instead of brandishing their weapon frequently and with little provocation, like they do today. As the expression goes: "Drawing a gun will not make a bad situation better, but it will make an good situation bad." The US irony is, that this statistical jump in the US was used to *justify* that police should use SWAT tactics. Advocates just showed how more and more police were being shot, and so needed to be more aggressive in defending themselves, without mentioning, or even knowing, that they were being shot with their own guns. Handgun masters are always very cautious about letting their gun get the better of them. It does not make you omnipotent, or render your opponent defenseless. It is common that you will miss your target. And it is very likely that even if you hit who you are aiming at, that they will not drop immediately, or die immediately, and may act with sufficient violence to kill you back first. Single knife and other bladed weapon wounds are four times more likely to kill as are single bullet wounds, for example. Many confrontations are with individuals under the influence of alcohol and drugs. They are often oblivious to a gun--they want to box and wrestle. They will charge an officer, who if his gun is out, stands a good chance to lose it. If a bad guy gets your gun, there is a high probability that he will turn it on you, without thought. Had it been in his holster, he might have been able to use a more effective tool such as pepper spray, taser, a nightstick or ton-fa. Even his fists and feet might have been more effective. So, do the police in Britain need guns? Well, yes, but only under certain circumstances. They lost a great deterrent to police killings when they abolished the death penalty for that crime. So the British police do need some weapon to match what the all-too-common gun-carrying criminal has in that harshly gun-control country. They would gain a lot if their officers were required to conceal their weapon. As has been shown in concealed-carry States in the US, the psychology of concealed carry is a great deterrent to crime. First of all, the criminal does not know who, in general, is armed. This makes what they are doing much harder. Second, a person who has a concealed weapon is psychologically much stronger, and projects that strength. Third, a lot of this advantage is *lost* when they brandish their weapon, so it is to their advantage to keep it hidden and try to use other means of persuasion. And fourth, if the criminal is armed with a gun, it does him little good if faced with more than one policeman who *may* be armed--he doesn't know who to aim at. Finally, as an epilogue to the story of a tool best left unused, there is the story of a rural Arizona sheriff who was the law in that county from the 1920s through the 1950s. He was known for having solved 70 or so homicides in his time, with no unsolved murders. Most of what he did was on horseback, and in his entire career he never drew his gun, working entirely with persuasion. On his retirement, a trophy cabinet was made to display highlights from his career in the Sheriff's office. Included was his gun and holster. It was decided to give it a good cleaning first, until it was discovered that it could not be removed from the holster. The gun was just an unusable hunk of rust that had long since fused with the leather. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #12 What's the suicide rate for other professions such as dentists, psychiatrists, medical students, lawyers, auto mechanics? The gun is but one way that people commit suicide. People also commit suicide by overdoses, suicide by cop, automobiles, hanging, leaping off bridges, etc. I would not want to see the police disarmed when they go home. Who knows whom they might have inadvertently pissed off during a traffic stop or during the course of their duty. Does anyone really think that having them check their weapons at the station is a good way to do things? Besides armed off-duty police are still police 24/7. They often stop crime when off-duty. I am in favor of citizens being armed. If they elect not to be armed, that is their business. As is said, an armed society is a civil society. Why should criminals be the only ones with firearms? Everyone has the right to protect themselves or the ones they love from armed criminals. |
| Posted by: John Q. Citizen 2005-11-20 22:55 |
| #11 Advocates just showed how more and more police were being shot, and so needed to be more aggressive in defending themselves, without mentioning, or even knowing, that they were being shot with their own guns. You may be right that having a gun handy makes suicide easier. It seems to me you've changed the entire thrust of your original point. All that I can say is that if what happens in France happens here, I'm glad that we are armed. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-11-20 19:23 |
| #10 2b: http://www.psf.org/media.htm "Having the means is extremely important," says (Dr. Andre Ivanoff, professor of social work at Columbia University, who specializes in suicidal behaviors)...Ivanoff, who notes that the suicide rate among British police officers who don't carry guns is much lower than in the United States. "And it's not just having the means. It's intimate familiarity and comfort with it. This is not something that happens by mistake." "A review of the nation's 10 largest police departments, various studies and dozens of interviews indicate that suicide is among the most serious problems facing law enforcement today." Please do not mistake what I have written for in any way advocating disarming police officers. I am all in favor of police having guns, as long as they use them to best advantage, and are not harmed by them as much as helped by them. The problem I have is with police exhibiting, brandishing, and threatening with guns when they don't have to. When police rely on their gun as a tool, it all too frequently becomes a crutch; and it also tends to incite idiots. The police I have known suffer from all sorts of "small" injuries. Broken knuckles, road rash, cuts, scrapes and bruises. Such things used to just be the hazards of the job, dealing with usually drunk offenders, but few incidents when they happened could have been solved by pulling a gun. This is no different than things were before SWAT tactics came around in the 1960s. The only difference today is that police have the taser, which is a godsend. By having police keep their issue weapon at the police department in no way disarms them. They are still free in the US to have all sorts of guns, but it might be a critical link in breaking issue weapon suicide. That is, I suspect that even if the suicidal officer owns other guns, he uses his service issue gun to kill himself. By keeping this weapon at the station, it may add an important extra step in the psychological link of his committing suicide--helping to prevent them. Suicide is often like that. A sigle extra "degree of difficulty" is just one too many, and gives the suicide second thoughts. So what I suggest is much the same for both British and US policemen. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-11-20 19:18 |
| #9 Additionally, your opinion implies that the policemen killed with their own gun would have simply walked away from the incident unharmed if they did not have a gun. Maybe - but maybe not. But if you are going to play that logic it seems like you might want to pick a day to make it when there is not an article posted on this same site about a police woman being murdered by gang members. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-11-20 18:30 |
| #8 your opinion implies that the policemen would not have killed themselves if they did not have a gun. It's an invalid proposition. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-11-20 18:23 |
| #7 SteveS: "I suspect that most cops who die of gunshot are suicides. Not what we are discussing here." No, that is an essential part of my argument, that police armed with guns often tend to commit suicide with their gun. http://tinyurl.com/cdgfd "94% of police suicides use gun." Suicide is the 9th leading cause of death in the US, annually, and there is general agreement that police have about twice the suicide rate of the population as a whole. About 31 per 100,000. While a percentage of those gun suicides occur "in the line of duty", the vast majority are done at home, while technically off-duty. This presents a problem, in that police relief and pension are often closely tied to duty status at time of death, and police departments are loath to strip a policeman's family of benefits because the officer was not on duty at the time of his death. The federal government most pointedly does *not* collect statistics on this, either. But these on-duty/off-duty suicides dominate the overall statistics in such a way that confusion is almost inevitable. http://tinyurl.com/ddana "Since 1978, an average of 79 police officers are murdered annually in the line of duty...The officer's own gun is used in about 12% of all murders." This 12% is still sky-high, and efforts have long been made to try to mitigate it, mostly through "personalized" weapons that can only be fired by an authorized user. So the bottom line for the British police is that by being armed, they have a better response with a gun. But that gun should not remain in their posession when off-duty, nor should it be brandished without intent to shoot-to-kill ("old-West" rules.) I could advocate much the same rules in the US. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-11-20 18:19 |
| #6 Original opinions that use statistics without quoting the source are like..um.. belly buttons... |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-11-20 18:09 |
| #5 More people get shot in the US This incident making big news in the UK shows how rare and serious it is compared with the US Guns kill and if those officers were armed they would probably have still been shot, and would have both been dead |
| Posted by: Clolutle Hupoluth5974 2005-11-20 17:55 |
| #4 The British Police Federation say "no thanks". |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2005-11-20 15:25 |
| #3 ...he never drew his gun. I assume this lawman had a gun in case he needed to draw one. If he did not carry a firearm, I would say he was not too bright. The question of "Do the British Police Need Guns?" is a silly question. Of course they do. British citizens should be re-armed as well. Guns were taken away from citizens some years ago in a knee-jerk reaction. |
| Posted by: John Q. Citizen 2005-11-20 15:05 |
| #2 90% - bullshit |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-11-20 14:42 |
| #1 I hate to be harsh, but the 'statistics' here are setting off alarm bells. A little-known stat in the US is that over 90% of policemen who are shot, are shot with their own weapon. (To include self-inflicted gunshots.) I suspect that most cops who die of gunshot are suicides. Not what we are discussing here. This statistic jumped in the 1960s American society changed a lot in the Sixties, not all for the better. Without more evidence, you are assuming cause and effect. Single knife and other bladed weapon wounds are four times more likely to kill as are single bullet wounds, This sounds like a hospital death statistic. Not exactly applicable to defending yourself on the street. As has been shown in concealed-carry States in the US, the psychology of concealed carry is a great deterrent to crime. Concealed carry refers to the civilian population, not the police. As someone (Heinlein?) said, an armed society is a polite society. He was known for having solved 70 or so homicides in his time, with no unsolved murders. Most of what he did was on horseback, and in his entire career he never drew his gun, Indeed a charming anecdote, but solving homicides is not the same as dealing with life or death people situations. Maybe the horse is the key here and British police should be on horseback like the Canadian Mounties? I really think the bottom line here is the point Fred made: in a civil society, with neither cops nor crooks armed, everyone is better off. But when the bad guys are armed and the police not, the police are at great disadvantage. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2005-11-20 14:28 |