The UK Police, what's your opinion?

[Liquid]

No, if anything we need two threads; What do you think of the UK Police? & Should the UK Police be armed? The two overlap, but we're drowning out our experiences with the police and how they deal with crime, petty crime and non-crime in our respective areas with talk of how the Raoul Moat situation could have been handled.

As it happens, I'm definitely pro-taser. Stun them and have a better chance of keeping them alive. There's always major backlash when someone dies during police duty. I have been skeptical of coppers having guns only because I'm not used to guns nor have I been around guns. My opinion can change with education of firearms, of course.

But can we change the subject a little bit and talk about something that does actually happen; police paperwork. The stereotype is, is that the police spend more time filling out forms and having to play it by the book to not get sacked, instead of being on the streets y'know... policing like they should be.

Your on the beat copper, or lack of it seems, has no respect from the public because the police are either ridiculed for doing their job or ridiculed for not doing their job. Compare:

Some chav gets away with stealing a car or a robbery because the police weren't allowed to pursue him. ZOMG! Police are so feeble and let people get away with everything.

or

Some chav gets a bruise while being arrested for stealing a car or robbery because he struggled and resisted arrest. ZOMG! Police are so brutal.

They can't win.

 

[Famine]

The only difference being the time delay on which it takes the armed units to mobilize.

I'd say that qualifies as a change.

Are those two situations and outcomes really that different that in his state of mind, you would seriously think twice about going on a rampage with armed PCs?? Not in my opinion.

Moat grew up in a country with no guns and with no armed police. He got hold of a gun and, because he and everyone else was unused to firearms this made him more powerful - in his head - that anyone including the police. The fact that we don't have guns at all will have contributed to his fractured mind.

Power is an aphrodisiac.

It would have ended the same way.

I see no reason to draw that conclusion given that the situation might not have even arisen had we and our protectors not been disarmed.


Quick quiz - how many firearms related deaths do you think there were before we started to ban guns? How do you think it compares to since then?

 

[Pagey279]

"Rang again and told them they're gonna pay for what they've done to me and Sam."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10519166

As I have said before he was hell bent on getting 'revenge' as he saw it, he blamed the police for ruining his life. So as I see it, he was in a mind set where nothing was going to dissuade him from doing what he planned. Even if he had been brought up in a country where guns were something you saw every day.

But as Mazdaprice has said we have departed from the purpose of the thread, so I shall say no more.


Paperwork is a very big issue, for example when they confiscate something, let's say a BB gun the have to put it into DPR (detained property room) they have to fill out a label that is attached to the item, they also have to log onto the computer and fill out a form on there, all of which takes 20 minutes. Just to log one confiscated item.

The room itself at any one time has around 50 items in it waiting to be sent off to be destroyed, that's a lot of time.

 

[Famine]

"Rang again and told them they're gonna pay for what they've done to me and Sam."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10519166

As I have said before he was hell bent on getting 'revenge' as he saw it, he blamed the police for ruining his life. So as I see it, he was in a mind set where nothing was going to dissuade him from doing what he planned. Even if he had been brought up in a country where guns were something you saw every day.

If you're brought up in a predominantly Islamic country, you're probably going to be a Muslim. If you're brought up in a predominantly Christian country, you're probably going to be a Christian.

You're trying to determine that the mindset of someone brought up in a completely unarmed country getting hold of a gun would be the same as the mindset of someone brought up in a country where guns are normal. That's a dangerous assumption - the mindset of society is a powerful influence on how you are brought up and how you are conditioned to think. Of course I can't determine that it would have changed anything - but then I'm not.

But as Mazdaprice has said we have departed from the purpose of the thread, so I shall say no more.

I'd say it's directly related - the Raoul Moat situation brought some attitudes about the police to the fore. Moat's attitude you can assume, but the comments on Facebook supporting Moat, taunting the police and insulting Rathband. That idiot woman who went to Moat's funeral because "it was great how he gave the police the run around for so long" is certainly suitable for this thread.

 

[Moglet]

That idiot woman who went to Moat's funeral because "it was great how he gave the police the run around for so long" is certainly suitable for this thread sterilisation.

Fixed that for the truth. 👍

 

[Pagey279]

If you're brought up in a predominantly Islamic country, you're probably going to be a Muslim. If you're brought up in a predominantly Christian country, you're probably going to be a Christian.

You're trying to determine that the mindset of someone brought up in a completely unarmed country getting hold of a gun would be the same as the mindset of someone brought up in a country where guns are normal. That's a dangerous assumption - the mindset of society is a powerful influence on how you are brought up and how you are conditioned to think. Of course I can't determine that it would have changed anything - but then I'm not.

Your applying a general idea to a very specific situation. As it says in the link i provided to you, twice, he wanted revenge. He thought the police had ruined his life. Would the police possessing guns have changed that? No

It may have changed the way he went about things, but what better revenge is there than taking someone's life? I don't think the police being armed would have changed his mind, his thoughts of revenge were evidently deeply embedded in his thought process, his actions show this. It shows how strongly he felt about it, which is why im reluctant to believe the police being armed would mean he would go about it in a different way.

 

[Famine]

Your applying a general idea to a very specific situation. As it says in the link i provided to you, twice, he wanted revenge. He thought the police had ruined his life. Would the police possessing guns have changed that? No

It may have changed the way he went about things, but what better revenge is there than taking someone's life? I don't think the police being armed would have changed his mind, his thoughts of revenge were evidently deeply embedded in his thought process, his actions show this. It shows how strongly he felt about it, which is why im reluctant to believe the police being armed would mean he would go about it in a different way.

But again, being brought up in that society creates that way of thinking. Change how society thinks and you change how the people think. We're not talking about changing how Moat was thinking in the days and weeks leading up to the incident, but his entire personality from birth!

One of the most dangerous things about guns is power - the feeling of power they give you. In a society where there are no guns and we're not trained with or familiar with them (beyond film), they give you a tremendous feeling of power because no-one else has one. If you're a nutter too, that's magnified a trillionfold. In a society where there are guns and people are trained with and familiar with them, they give no feeling of power because they're normal.

The "may" is the important part. The question was "HOW" the Moat situation would have been different with an armed police force. We cannot - either of us, nor anyone else - say if it would have been.

Also, here's the nutter woman. Her opinion on the police is worth discussion...


Did you find out how many gun-related deaths there were before we started banning them? I think you'll be surprised.

 

[Omnis]

I had no idea UK police officers didn't carry a gun.

This is what you'll see here in Portugal, a country I consider very peaceful and where civilians simply aren't allowed to own guns:

At least they dress very nicely.

 

[Pagey279]

Change how society thinks and you change how the people think.

In the long term yes

One of the most dangerous things about guns is power - the feeling of power they give you. In a society where there are no guns and we're not trained with or familiar with them (beyond film), they give you a tremendous feeling of power because no-one else has one. If you're a nutter too, that's magnified a trillionfold. In a society where there are guns and people are trained with and familiar with them, they give no feeling of power because they're normal.

The UK has roughly 6 000 000 guns, thats 1 gun for every 10 people, couple that with the constant media reports of the amount of guns, and that it's a massive problem then that would decrease the sense of power wouldn't it?

I disagree that it would give them no sense of power, if you hold a gun you always feel a certain level of power as you can take someones life just by pulling the trigger. This is a constant no matter how many guns there are, or whether they are legal.

Also where did Moat say he felt like the most powerful man in the Country because of the reasons you have stated?
He may have at some point but i haven't seen it anywhere.

Did you find out how many gun-related deaths there were before we started banning them? I think you'll be surprised.

I haven't yet

Edit: I have just had a look and gun crime has increased since handguns were banned in 1996

However i can't find anything on how many deaths there have been since they were banned, or any statistics later than the ones above

 

[NicoLoeb]

I got stopped by "Community Support Officers" recently as I was walking to school, in my school uniform. They took my name in the book and told me to get to school. School starts at 8:20 and this was at 8:10 about 5 minutes away from school. It's things like this that means it's hard to take the police seriously. They fail to do anything about arson, robbery and assault but anything petty they're all over for it.

The amount of abuse they get is pretty appalling at times but the police are hardly angels. Very sad news about Rathband though, R.I.P.

👍 Nobody fears the police because they won't/can't do anything and instead harass the public. Don't really blame the police for this, but rather the powers that decide this is a good way to run the force, lots of paperwork, huge respect for criminals and their rights, tiny "crimes" targeted. Look at the riots, could've been much less severe I think with harsher policing.

Slightly off topic but did anyone see this 👎

FYI a PCSO has no right to stop you in the street unless you are breaking the law. They also have no right to take your name, address or any other information. They have in fact, no more right to do so than a supermarket security guard. So if you're stopped again, take note of their shoulder number and report it. Being employed to help uphold the law most certainly does.not.entitle these overblown traffic wardens to break it.

 

[Famine]

In the long term yes

Which is exactly what I've been talking about!

The UK has roughly 6 000 000 guns, thats 1 gun for every 10 people

If averaged out. However, 4 million of those are air weapons. Of the remainder, 435k are rifles - held by 134k licence holders - and 1.3 million are shotguns - held by 575k people. At best you have 1.75m weapons in the hands of 700k people - making it 2.5 guns for every licence holder and one licence holder for every 88 people. Many of those licence holders will overlap so that ratio will increase - but I can't say by how much.

Guns are rare.

I disagree that it would give them no sense of power, if you hold a gun you possess the power to take someones life just by pulling the trigger. This is a constant no matter how many guns there are, or whether they are legal.

Then I would contend you've never held or fired a legal firearm. I have and there is no sense of power - just danger and respect. And fun - we were target shooting and that's a fun thing to do.

Give a nutter a gun when no-one else has one and you give him a sense of power.

Also where did Moat say he felt like the most powerful man in the Country because of the reasons you have stated?
He may have at some point but i haven't seen it anywhere.

At no point did I attribute any quotes to Moat.

I haven't yet

I'd suggest doing so. It's instructive.

I have just had a look and gun crime has increased since handguns were banned in 1996

Ah, no. The problem with that is that gun crime goes up when owning one becomes a crime. Gun-related deaths are what you're after.

You'll find the stats very surprising.

FYI a PCSO has no right to stop you in the street unless you are breaking the law. They also have no right to take your name, address or any other information.

On the second point, neither do the police. You are not obliged to give any information to a police officer at all. Of course they may choose to arrest you and detain you until such a point as they can confirm your identity (or they have to let you go after a set amount of time) - they could even charge you with Obstructing - but you don't have to give any information at all to the police.

It's more helpful if they spend time investigating the people they're actually after than trying to find out who you are, of course.

 

[Pagey279]

If averaged out. However, 4 million of those are air weapons. Of the remainder, 435k are rifles - held by 134k licence holders - and 1.3 million are shotguns - held by 575k people. At best you have 1.75m weapons in the hands of 700k people - making it 2.5 guns for every licence holder and one licence holder for every 88 people. Many of those licence holders will overlap so that ratio will increase - but I can't say by how much.

Guns are rare.

I doubt Moat would have had these statistics to hand, i was talking about the general impression created by the media, and what a large proportion of the public are led to believe.

Then I would contend you've never held or fired a legal firearm. I have and there is no sense of power - just danger and respect. And fun - we were target shooting and that's a fun thing to do.

Give a nutter a gun when no-one else has one and you give him a sense of power.

No i haven't, I've only held and shot an air rifle, and my 12 year old mind (the age at which i fired it) disagrees with yours, i did feel powerful.
But if you didn't have that sense of power does that automatically mean everyone else would be the same? No

At no point did I attribute any quotes to Moat.

Then how can you assume he would have felt the same?

I'd suggest doing so. It's instructive.

I tried, the statistics i posted were all i could find in amongst the usual flotsam.

 

[Famine]

I doubt Moat would have had these statistics to hand

What on Earth does that have to do with anything?

i was talking about the general impression created by the media, and what a large proportion of the public are led to believe.

Which is that guns are dangerous and we must be prevented from ever being near them.

No i haven't, I've only held and shot an air rifle, and my 12 year old mind (the age at which i fired it) disagrees with yours, i did feel powerful.

That'll be because you were twelve.

But if you didn't have that sense of power does that automatically mean everyone else would be the same? No

Then how can you assume he would have felt the same?

You seem to have missed the point by a very wide margin.

Where guns are not unusual, where police are armed and someone gets hold of a gun, it does not feel out of the ordinary.
Where guns are unusual, where police are unarmed and someone gets hold of a gun, it feels out of the ordinary.

Your twelve year old self confirms that, wielding an air rifle in a country where gun ownership is close to 1%, you felt powerful (despite the fact you were wielding an air rifle). That's what happens when an immature mind gets hold of something dangerous in an environment where that item is rare. Would you have felt so powerful if you'd been brought up with proper guns or the people around you all had 40 cals slapping against their belts? I doubt it. Would Raoul Moat have felt so powerful with his shotgun if the people around him all had MP5s? I doubt it.

I had an M1911, a Colt 45 revolver and a 40 cal. I wasn't even the best armed person on the range, never mind in the building. Raoul Moat was the best armed person in Northumbria - moreso because all the licensed weapon holders wouldn't be allowed to shoot him, but he could shoot them with impugnity...

I tried, the statistics i posted were all i could find in amongst the usual flotsam.

That's part of what's interesting about the statistics. They are very hard to find, very poorly recorded and, often, there aren't any... Yet they're banned because they're dangerous.

There are literally no statistics of any kind of firearm deaths prior to 1987 (Hungerford) and it's just about impossible to find any from before 1998 (the first full year after the 1997 Act that effectively banned guns). However, there have been between 50 and 100 firearm deaths every year since 1998 and firearm injuries have doubled since 1998...


More Teresa Bystram:

​

 

[Pagey279]

What on Earth does that have to do with anything?



Which is that guns are dangerous and we must be prevented from ever being near them.

My point was the media tells us gun crime is on the increase, and that illegal gun ownership is high as well. Which in fact it is, illegal guns outnumber legal by 2:1. In turn Moat may have read these and been under the impression guns are not rare.

You seem to have missed the point by a very wide margin.

Where guns are not unusual, where police are armed and someone gets hold of a gun, it does not feel out of the ordinary.
Where guns are unusual, where police are unarmed and someone gets hold of a gun, it feels out of the ordinary.

Your twelve year old self confirms that, wielding an air rifle in a country where gun ownership is close to 1%, you felt powerful (despite the fact you were wielding an air rifle). That's what happens when an immature mind gets hold of something dangerous in an environment where that item is rare. Would you have felt so powerful if you'd been brought up with proper guns or the people around you all had 40 cals slapping against their belts? I doubt it. Would Raoul Moat have felt so powerful with his shotgun if the people around him all had MP5s? I doubt it.

You are assuming he did feel powerful, yet by your own admissions he didn't say anything of the sort.

I was going on personal experiences, i live in the country, my Sister's fiance legally owns 3 shotguns, his Dad owns some too, and his two other Brothers have legal access to shotguns.
My Uncle has numerous legally owned Air Rifles.
My Dad used to own one.
I have, to an extent, grown up around firearms.

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

You might be surprised to know there are around 6 000 000 firearms in the UK. With around 2 million licensed, and 4 million illegal (rough figures). Of course no body knows exactly how many there are though.

Not surprised at all. Going by the highest, roughest figures, 10% of the U.K population own a gun. 6 million out of over 60 million people, to me that's not a huge amount. Add to this that the distribution of guns between that 10% is far from even, and as the figures for a country where you can still buy guns, that number is very low.

You've clearly never fired a gun before.

You also know what has an amazing potential to kill someone, and is even easier to get?

A car.

You are woefully naive if you think the UK gun ban has done much to detour violent crime, for the reasons I've mentioned, and the fact it isn't particularly difficult to get a gun in the UK anyhow.

Firstly, I grew up around guns, went shooting regularly throughout my childhood, and up until a few years ago I still went shooting a couple of times a month. I've fired a gun more than a few times. I apologise for whatever I said to mislead your thinking.

Secondly, a gun is designed to shoot a projectile intended solely to injure and kill, which is why they are so effective at doing just that. A car is a mode of transport, that could potentially double as a killing machine.

I'm fairly certain that a gunman could kill more people in a given period of time than somebody driving a car into pedestrians, simply because the U.K has a lot more traffic cops to stop the driver than armed police to stop the gunman. The gunman presents a greater risk to anyone (including armed police) who is near him than the driver does.

A big part in deciding what is a threat and what is not is if you have the skills and resources to deal with it, with a homicidal driver being a lot easier for U.K police to deal with because we have more resources to use against them.

I'm aware that the most recent bans have actually increased gun crime, violent crime, and most importantly, gun-related deaths, and as such am opposed to quite a few aspects of them. With the kind of gang culture that is growing here, I doubt those increases are solely caused by the banning of the majority of firearms, but it would be naive to say that they had no bearing at all on the increases.

I'm also well aware of how easy it is to legally get hold of a shotgun (everything else is a lot more difficult to get hold of) as I am currently preparing to apply for a shotgun license.

I would be less opposed to regular officers carrying guns if and only if the general public were educated about guns and why officers would be carrying them. I highly doubt that this would happen, even if it was decided that regular police would be armed.

All of this is for elsewhere, as it's not strictly on topic.

 

[Famine]

My point was the media tells us gun crime is on the increase, and that illegal gun ownership is high as well. Which in fact it is, illegal guns outnumber legal by 2:1. In turn Moat may have read these and been under the impression guns are not rare.

Moat didn't strike me as the reading type...

Much more likely, Moat knew that the police were not armed, making him more powerful than them.

You are assuming he did feel powerful, yet by your own admissions he didn't say anything of the sort.

Umm... no. He may have said that, he may not - I merely said I hadn't attributed any quotes to him. The fact is that he was the most powerful man in Northumbria at the time - he was the only one with a gun and the ability to shoot anyone he wanted.

I fear you've totally missed the gist of everything I've been saying to this point - a gunman in a totally disarmed society is in a position of power.

I was going on personal experiences, i live in the country, my Sister's fiance legally owns 3 shotguns, his Dad owns some too, and his two other Brothers have legal access to shotguns.
My Uncle has numerous legally owned Air Rifles.
My Dad used to own one.
I have, to an extent, grown up around firearms.

Then we'll put the feeling of power you had at wielding an air rifle down to juvenile bravado - anyone who's been brought up with firearms should respect them more than that.

Secondly, a gun is designed to shoot a projectile intended solely to injure and kill, which is why they are so effective at doing just that.

Minor point of correction - they're designed to shoot a projectile. The injuring and killing is an option and, though you didn't say it, an option that doesn't necessarily include "people" as the target. I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of firearms in private hands worldwide have never been used to kill anything - merely target shooting - and those that have will have been used to kill vermin and game, in that order.

 

[Sphinx]

The UK police do a good job although it irks me when I see a lot of resources directed at traffic duty. I would much rather see more PC plod's on the streets instead of them driving around all day and night trying to catch someone with a blown tail light, or doing 35 in a 30 zone, for example.

Over in the UK though, I kind of feel you guys have little privacy or personal rights, and so the cops have much more power than they should.

If I'm ever stopped on the street by a police officer I am under no obligation to give my name and address or any other information that they may request. I don't have to carry an ID card or even my driving licence or any other documentation if I'm driving. When stopped I can even get out of my car when I want without a policeman pulling a gun on me. You should try that some time.

Yep, they have too many powers.

UK police don't carry guns? Here's a policeman carrying a gun (it looks like a gun) whilst stopping an idiot (in more ways than one) for riding his bicycle without lights. I like the way they ignore the car behind them parked on double yellows (language warning):



This is when I feel sorry for the police, when they have to deal with people like this guy. Feel free to exercise your rights but you don't havr to act like a complete plank whilst doing so.





If you got some nutter with a gun that takes a policeman by surprise it doesn't matter if he's armed or not:

 

[Famine]

The UK police do a good job although it irks me when I see a lot of resources directed at traffic duty. I would much rather see more PC plod's on the streets instead of them driving around all day and night trying to catch someone with a blown tail light, or doing 35 in a 30 zone, for example.

Oddly, I'd like to see more Trafpol and fewer (or no) speed cameras. Trafpol exercise discretion and intelligence, whereas cameras are just an absolute - you committed an offence and we don't care why!

Big fan of Trafpol. After all, a speed camera didn't catch Peter Sutcliffe...

 

[Liquid]

Big fan of Trafpol. After all, a speed camera didn't catch Peter Sutcliffe...

Points conferred to Famine. And TrafPol.

 

[DK]

More Teresa Bystram:

​

Her lack of brains disturbs me.

 

[Liquid]

There aren't enough facepalms in the world to describe that bint.

 

[Azuremen]

If I'm ever stopped on the street by a police officer I am under no obligation to give my name and address or any other information that they may request. I don't have to carry an ID card or even my driving licence or any other documentation if I'm driving. When stopped I can even get out of my car when I want without a policeman pulling a gun on me. You should try that some time.

Yep, they have too many powers.

I've done that many, many times, so I fail to see your point.

At all.

And congrats, you found a video with a cop with a gun. Famine has already explained how many officers do not carry fire arms in the UK force, and the repressions for those that do if they fire them.

I do love the description in that Youtube video, where the guy that posted it is making a big deal out of a cop having a gun.

And yes, it doesn't help if a nutter ambushes someone carrying a gun. It does however help if a nutter starts up a stand off situation and the first officers on scene have actual guns to respond with.

Honestly, I don't see much point in your post, besides pointing out a bunch of anecdotal evidence.

 

[Pagey279]

I fear you've totally missed the gist of everything I've been saying to this point - a gunman in a totally disarmed society is in a position of power.

Society isn't totally 'disarmed' (odd choice of words, to be disarmed you have to be armed in the first place, they were not) there are roughly 2million legal guns. And yes a gunman in a LARGELY unarmed society is in a position of power. I never doubted that did I?

Moat was insane, would being raised in a country where guns were legal have changed that? I don't think so.
He got out of prison, he wanted revenge. This would not have changed.
That is my opinion. End of.

 

[Famine]

Society isn't totally 'disarmed' (odd choice of words, to be disarmed you have to be armed in the first place, they were not)

There were almost no gun controls until 1902. There were almost no gun controls besides licensing until 1987. After 1997 almost all types of firearm were completely banned. We were disarmed.

there are roughly 2million legal guns.

Held by a maximum of 710,000 people - 1 in 88. We've done these stats.

As firearms licence holders they would not have been permitted to use their firearms to defend themselves from Raoul Moat, thus they were also disarmed.

Moat was insane, would being raised in a country where guns were legal have changed that? I don't think so.
He got out of prison, he wanted revenge. This would not have changed.

Except the part where he was in a position of power - he would not have been the only man in Northumbria able to wander round with a firearm and shoot whomever he pleased as any police officer could have shot him and, with an armed society, any citizen could have defended themselves and shot him.

Surely you can't disagree that a man with a shotgun holds more power over a disarmed society and a disarmed police force than he does over an armed police force or an armed society? Surely?


Remove the position of power and you remove the feeling of power - even from a nutter.

 

[Pagey279]

There were almost no gun controls until 1902. There were almost no gun controls besides licensing until 1987. After 1997 almost all types of firearm were completely banned. We were disarmed.

Held by a maximum of 710,000 people - 1 in 88. We've done these stats.

As firearms licence holders they would not have been permitted to use their firearms to defend themselves from Raoul Moat, thus they were also disarmed.

I thought that was coming. To be disarmed you have to own a gun in the first place.
They were disarmed from the possibility of having a gun, meaning they are unarmed.

And the licence holders weren't disarmed, they were bound by laws yes but that's not going to stop their gun from working.

Except the part where he was in a position of power - he would not have been the only man in Northumbria able to wander round with a firearm and shoot whomever he pleased as any police officer could have shot him and, with an armed society, any citizen could have defended themselves and shot him.

Surely you can't disagree that a man with a shotgun holds more power over a disarmed society and a disarmed police force than he does over an armed police force or an armed society? Surely?

Remove the position of power and you remove the feeling of power - even from a nutter.

Yes I agree BUT your quite hung up on this power thing, you take the power away from madman and you've got an even worse situation.

Your argument is based on guesswork, where I'm trying to use the facts:
I will say one last time, moat was a mad man. It wasnt the power that drove him, it was revenge, as I have already said 10 times before. This is a fact, there is no denying it. Would a madman care if other people had guns? Well he's insane, so I think not.

If he were brought up in a society with armed police, he would still have gone into prison, he would still have come out wanting revenge. And would possibly have gone to even more extreme lengths to get it.

 

[Famine]

I thought that was coming. To be disarmed you have to own a gun in the first place.
They were disarmed from the possibility of having a gun, meaning they are unarmed.

Society was disarmed! I just told you this. Previously society could have guns. Then licences were introduced, then guns were banned (in stages). We're now at a point where a society that had guns 120 years ago has just 1% of its citizens with guns. Society has been disarmed - we are a disarmed society.

And the licence holders weren't disarmed, they were bound by laws yes but that's not going to stop their gun from working.

It absolutely prevents them from defending themselves with them. Hey, what do you call a situation where someone who has a weapon can no longer use it to defend themselves? Are they... disarmed?

Yes I agree BUT your quite hung up on this power thing, when you have absolutely no idea whether he felt powerful. So how can you keep assuming as such?

I've only held and shot an air rifle, and my 12 year old mind (the age at which i fired it) disagrees with yours, i did feel powerful.

It's not being "hung up" when I'm simply having to restate the same points over and over again while you disagree and agree in equal measure.

Your argument is based on guesswork

Yes. For the nth time, the question was HOW the Moat situation could have turned out differently with an armed society or police force. Guesswork is all we have, though it can be guided by data and reasoning.

where I'm trying to use the facts:

You haven't yet responded to the fact that Raoul Moat, in wielding a firearm in amongst a disarmed society (99% of the population with no access to guns and 100% of the population unable to defend themselves with them, compared to 0% of both 120 years ago) and a disarmed police force (6000 police in the entire country allowed to use weapons from 136,000 police - 4% - and deadly force authorisation required from chief constables [57 of 136,000 police - 0.04%], or a Chief Inspector or higher in an emergency) unable to defend itself with them, was the most powerful man in Northumbria at the time. He could kill anyone he chose and no-one could kill him. There's "the facts".

If you want to believe that a nutter with that kind of power didn't feel powerful, that's your call, but you're not exactly using "the facts" when you assert that your 12 year old self (about the same intelligence level as Moat) felt powerful holding an air rifle.

If you want to believe that it would have been no different with that power taken away - a populace with firearms and the ability to use them to defend themselves and/or or police force with firearms and the ability to use them to defend themselves, meaning Moat no longer had the power to kill anyone he chose and everyone could kill him - that's also your call, but again not exactly using "the facts".

The facts are that a guy with a gun unopposed has more power than a guy with a gun surrounded by more guys with more guns. If he didn't, Moat would still be alive - once outnumbered and outgunned, it became a stand-off and, though the guys with guns would only be allowed to use them in response to Moat using his, Moat was powerless and had lost. In an armed society, that would have happened much, much sooner. Is that a change from how things turned out? Yes. Does that answer the question "HOW" would the Moat situation have turned out differently. Yes. Why are you still arguing this?

I will say one last time, moat was a mad man. It wasnt the power that drove him, it was revenge, as I have already said 10 times before.

Had he been driven by revenge and armed with a potato peeler, how far do you think he'd have got?

Revenge was the catalyst. The power of wielding the finger of death unopposed was the mechanism that allowed it to continue. Add opposition and you remove that mechanism.

This is a fact, there is no denying it.

If you say so.

Would a madman care if other people had guns? Well he's insane, so I think not.

You've missed the point again. You've also stated, as a counter-argument, something I already stated...

If he were brought up in a society with armed police, he would still have gone into prison, he would still have come out wanting revenge. And would possibly have gone to even more extreme lengths to get it.

Hey, would that last sentence class as a change from how things turned out? Why yes it is. Would that be an answer to the question of "HOW" the Moat incident would have turned out differently with an armed populace/police force? Why yes it is.

Since you agree with me that there are ways the situation could have turned out differently with armed citizens or police, why are you still arguing?

 

[Pagey279]

It absolutely prevents them from defending themselves with them. Hey, what do you call a situation where someone who has a weapon can no longer use it to defend themselves? Are they... disarmed?

Are they rendered physically incapable of picking up their gun and firing it? Why no they aren't.

Had he been driven by revenge and armed with a potato peeler, how far do you think he'd have got?

Really? Under what circustances is a potato gun more extreme than shooting someone in the face with a shotgun??
I was thinking in terms of ways to kill officers not involving a gun, that would create a greater impact. Dang it he could have even taken over the world.

Hey, would that last sentence class as a change from how things turned out? Why yes it is. Would that be an answer to the question of "HOW" the Moat incident would have turned out differently with an armed populace/police force? Why yes it is.

Since you agree with me that there are ways the situation could have turned out differently with armed citizens or police, why are you still arguing?

Was i disputing HOW? Why no i wasn't. You asked that question, you then preceded to answer it, i was in disagreement because realistically in my opinion it would not have changed the outcome.

Am i going to make a cup of tea because im bored of this? Why yes i am.

 

[homeforsummer]

Are they rendered physically incapable of picking up their gun and firing it? Why no they aren't.

No, but the last person who shot an intruder on their property to defend themselves (farmer Tony Martin) was sent to prison. And then got sued by the burglar who survived. That's a fair incentive against defending your property, when there should be no barrier to defending your property. Gun or otherwise.

 

[Pagey279]

No, but the last person who shot an intruder on their property to defend themselves (farmer Tony Martin) was sent to prison. And then got sued by the burglar who survived. That's a fair incentive against defending your property, when there should be no barrier to defending your property. Gun or otherwise.

A petty thief is very different to an armed murderer who has promised to kill as many officers as he could.

 

[berty1979]

Tony Martin should have been given a medal, the guy in Manchester who stabbed and killed an intruder recently had no charges brought against him because the law of home defense has been changed.
UK officers do not all need to be armed, guns are still rare in the UK and out of those that possess them illegally most cannot maintain them or find ammunition easily. I doubt most of them could hit anything unless it was a few yards away either.