Saturday, September 22, 2012

What's it about British Police and Guns?

People who come to the UK notice that the police aren't armed--it's one of the most obvious things about British Culture. Unlike the US, where the society is on a war footing and lunatics can seriously tool up to kill masses of people with the blessing of the gun lobby and other idiots.

Anyway, British Police don't carry guns. The situation in Great Britain is unique for a heavily urbanised country of its population size. There are always those who question why Britain is out of step with most of the rest of the world, with the exceptions of the Republic of Ireland, New Zealand, Norway and a handful of other nations.

Not that some people in the UK wouldn't like to see armed police, especially since two police officers, Nicola Hughes and Fiona Bone, were slain this past week. On the other hand, there are other considerations that just officers being shot. UK Gun crime is fairly low and incidents where officers are shot are extremely rare.

New Zealand Police commissioner Peter Marshall wrote: "International experience shows that making firearms more accessible raises certain risks that are very difficult to control."

These considerations included:
• risk of police having weapons taken from them
• risk of greater use of weapons against the public and/or offenders
• and ambush can never be controlled, whether or not officers are armed

New Zealand has an armed officer similar to Britain, but it also has more sheep than people.

Another thing, officers, chief constables and politicians alike are wary of upsetting an equilibrium that has been maintained throughout Britain's 183-year policing history.  There's a general recognition that if the police are walking around with guns it changes things," says Richard Garside, director of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies.

Opponents say that arming the Police force would undermine the principle of policing by consent - the notion that the force owes its primary duty to the public, rather than to the state, as in other countries.  This concept owes much to the historical foundations of British criminal justice, says Peter Waddington, professor of social policy at the University of Wolverhampton.

"A great deal of what we take as normal about policing was set out in the early 19th Century," he says. "When Robert Peel formed the Metropolitan Police there was a very strong fear of the military - the masses feared the new force would be oppressive." A force that did not routinely carry firearms - and wore blue rather than red, which was associated with the infantry - was part of this effort to distinguish the early "Peelers" from the Army, Waddington says.

One police officer serving in Southern England said:
"I have been in the police for 12 years, before that I was in the Army. I would happily carry a gun if the decision was made but it won't ever happen.
"I don't think practically it could work because of the training. Officers in this country are highly trained and this would extend to firearms training, too. But, at the moment, with all the cuts, we can't put enough officers in the cars, let alone give them firearms training.
"Also, the police in this country are always under so much scrutiny. Look at the issue of Tasers, the civil liberty groups think they are one of the most inhumane things going.
"I was previously injured badly in an assault. My colleague and I feared for our lives - thankfully other officers came to our aid. I don't think a gun - or a Taser for that matter - would have helped us in that situation. Communication is one of the best tools, and to be honest, having a gun could make an officer feel over-confident."
West Baton Rouge Sheriff's Office, Colonel Richie Johnson pointed out that:
"Our citizens are armed - even the bad ones. The criminal element here is better armed than the police departments most of the times, due to budget constraints.
"It would be impossible for us to do our job if we weren't armed. I'd have to quit. I worked narcotics for 20 years and definitely in that field, how would you do that job without being armed? Even as a patrolman, you're reactive. The other guy knows what he's going to do. It definitely has to be armed when you have to be reactive.
"The public expects us to be armed - when they call in the cavalry that's exactly what they want. The general public, because of television, they believe that we're a lot better armed than we really are. You respond to a call and they say 'Where's your machine gun?'"
 The United States is a war zone, which isn't going to change anytime soon: no matter how high the body count.

On the other hand, other parts of the world are quite happy to live in peace, under the rule of law, and aren't too willing to change anytime soon either.

But as the BBC's Mark Easton pointed out,  "If the consequence of Tuesday's double murder is a display of militaristic toughness, the troubled inner-city estates may become even more difficult to police."

References:

33 comments:

  1. Mark Easton was correct.
    I just wrote a piece on the violence that is occurring on the pretext of outrage over the stupid Innocence of Muslims video. People who are not otherwise already really angry don't do those things.
    Looking at the worst ten riots in the U.S., on a news site, riots occurred in areas with poverty and hunger, riots occurred where there was already enormous inequality and oppression here too. Police violence was a trigger in most of them.
    I recall that police violence in the UK was the trigger for that same kind of rioting. Police 'reacting' can be a huge catalyst where things are already tense and difficult.

    The reason people behave that way is never ONLY the trigger incident, and usually not even MOSTLY that catalyst that is the focus for it. People who are living comfortably rarely riot or protest violently.

    Whatever the proximate cause given for those violent events is so often an insult of some kind on top of substantial prior or present injury.

    Good post Laci. It is stupid to think that the correct response is more people shooting more people. It only results in more people shooting more people in a vicious cycle - and of course, more sales for gun manufacturers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "People who are living comfortably rarely riot or protest violently."

      I agree completely. And those very same people rarely commit violent crimes -- with or without firearms.

      If you really want to put a huge dent in all violent crime -- not just violent crimes where the criminals use firearms -- eliminate poverty, hunger, and inequality for as many people as possible.

      Delete
  2. Pooch, if you want to disarm the majority of American police officers, I won't object too much. But America isn't going to be Britain. Remember that whole revolution thing? We have a different national character from the British.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "The United States is a war zone ..."

    Except it isn't. The violent crime rate in the United Kingdom is 5 times higher than in the U.S. The violent crime rate in Canada is 2 times higher than the U.S.

    If "loose" gun laws and easy access to firearms are the cause of violence, then tell us why the Czech Republic -- which is a "shall issue" concealed carry country with no legislated gun free zones -- has such a low violent crime rate?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're wild statements are base on faulty statistics. The intentional homicide rate, let's call the the mother of all violent crimes, is 4 times lower in the UK.

      "If "loose" gun laws and easy access to firearms are the cause of violence, " except we don't say they CAUSE anything. This make you a lying bullshitter trying to base your argument on something we DON'T SAY.

      Delete
    2. If guns aren't the cause, then getting rid of them won't be the solution. You are correct to say that four times one is four, but the difference in homicide rates between the U.K. and the U.S. isn't all that great, especially in comparison with South Africa, for example.

      Delete
    3. Mike, you can't pick and choose which crimes to report on. Only focusing on "intentional homicide" is inherently dishonest.

      Delete
    4. Inherently dishonest, my ass. Purse snatching and stalking are violent crimes but murder is the mother of all of them. Which would you want to talk about? I know, the ones whose stats support your sick ideas about guns.

      Delete
    5. And Mikeb, you want to exaggerate the differences between the U.K. and the U.S. Yes, our homicide rate is four times theirs. That's because four times one is four. Both numbers are very low, especially when compared to many other countries.

      Delete
    6. Mikeb, purse snatching and stalking are not violent crimes.

      The main categories of violent crime are assault, rape, armed robbery, and murder. A purse snatching isn't a violent crime unless the attacker clobbers the woman or threatens to clobber the woman with a weapon.

      You say that a lower murder rate is more important. I say that a lower violent crime rate is more important. Why is your opinion more significant than mine?

      Delete
  4. The concept of establishing a civilized society dictates that the state actors charged with enforcing the legal codes and maintaining order in the society, are reasonably capable of doing so. When a group of individuals forms a civilized society, those individuals forgo individual protection of their own life, liberty, and property, in favor of collective protection which manifests itself in the form of a professional police force. For a society to function without frequent disorder (crime, riots, and civil war) the mere citizen must not be endowed with coercive power, in the form of small arms, unless said citizen is acting under a function of the state. Also the professionals who are endowed with coercive powers must be appropriately equipped (better armed than the citizen) for the purpose of maintaining public order, enforcing the legal codes and customs, ensuring the continuity of government against potential insurrection (armed or hopefully unarmed). A civilized society manifestly requires both the armament of the state as well as the (complete) disarmament of the mere citizen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And that is why the United States remains a quasi-civilized cultural war-zone, its people languishing in a perpetual state of incessant violence. Until we value collective sovereignty and protection over the backward concept of negative liberties, ("right" to posses, procure, and proliferate small arms by non state-actors, among other "rights") there will no true peacetime.

      Delete
    2. And that, E.N., is why you're an idiot. You trust the government to do the right thing, and you wish to deny the rights of citizens. Fortunately, most Americans don't agree with you.

      Delete
    3. Greg Camp: "Americans don't agree with you."

      There is a reason that UK or Cambodian or Japanese or Libyan or Formosan citizens do not object to the rather stringent regulation of small arms in their country, a large majority do not have to consider the regulations and other legal situations which may arise as the result of firearms possession, largely due to the fact that (largely) due to the regulations in question they do not have any arms which their government may find a need to regulate. If there are no (or very few) people concerned about the legality of arms (do to the lack of ownership) then by default most people would agree with me. Problem Solved.


      The reaction at the polls may affect a third of the electorate (and only in a few states), at most.

      Delete
    4. E.N.,

      1. Formosa is now known as Taiwan. Are you perhaps an agent of the PRC? Your attitude about the relationship of citizens to the state certainly fits with the Chinese Communists.

      2. Do you take the same position regarding a national healthcare system in America? We don't have one, so shouldn't we not be concerned about it? You also sound a lot like the Party members in 1984.

      3. Fortunately for Americans, we have a lot more guns in private hands than any of those nations did. That's not going to change. You "solved" the problem with a wave of your hand, but it really is insurmountable.

      Delete
    5. E.N. said, "When a group of individuals forms a civilized society, those individuals forgo individual protection of their own life, liberty, and property, in favor of collective protection which manifests itself in the form of a professional police force."

      Individuals do not forgo anything here in the United States. Rather, armed citizens stop crimes in progress all the time. Armed citizens have even rescued police officers from dangerous situations.

      Delete
    6. E.N. said, "... the United States remains a quasi-civilized cultural war-zone, its people languishing in a perpetual state of incessant violence."

      You obviously do not live in the United States. The vast majority of violent crime happens in low-income, large inner-city areas. And over 85% of violent crime is involved with illegal drug activity. Outside of those "islands" of violent crime, the U.S. is quite civilized.

      More importantly, violent crime happens because "bad" people choose to do bad things. Individual rights or availability of firearms have no bearing on bad people choosing to do bad things.

      Delete
  5. The Brits can't afford guns for the cops, they spend all their money on cameras.
    orlin sellers

    ReplyDelete
  6. FDR's concern for safety net programs acknowledged that a starving America was a security risk. It was in the nations interest to pay for programs that would curtail poverty and lesson the risk of riots and other national instability, and Americas agreed.
    The founding fathers would not disagree with individual Americans owing guns, but that was not the aim of their second amendment. If they could see the violent results of that policy, I wonder if they would change their minds, or fight to revoke their own amendment. I believe it's indisputable that the 2nd amendment led to our culture of gun violence. There are always good and bad effects of any law.
    What would today's situation be, if we had no safety net programs? People will kill for food and life sustaining necessities. Guns just make killing much easier. I worry more about a starving America, than a gun filled America.
    There is a blood thirsty, group think trait to Americans (humans). Two people viewing a hanging might be subdued, quiet, look down; but get 100 people at a hanging and you will hear the calls, "Hang the MF"er, or worse. Put guns in the hands of that group and you have a real problem.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are some 100,000,000 gun owners in this country, and more than 300,000,000 guns. The annual number of injuries and deaths amounts to one tenth of one percent of gun owners. Steve, can't you see that you're conflating two things that aren't connected?

      Delete
    2. Greg, you've gotta stop claiming kinship with the entire population of gun owners. Most of them think you're a maniac and agree with the gun control side.

      Delete
  7. If the 15 million or more unemployed had no access to meager basics, you might find that rare incident become not so rare.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. A country can have a social safety net and good social services, while also acknowledging the rights of its citizens to own and carry guns.

      Delete
    2. Point is Republicans want to eliminate the social safety net. A dangerous step.

      Delete
    3. Steve, get the Democrats to support gun rights, and they might win over a lot more working class voters.

      Delete
    4. The anti-firearm cult is probably the most unpopular (and one of the most repugnant for the purpose of individual freedom) which as leeched onto the already troubled socio-political philosophy of liberalism. The Democratic leadership would do good to realize that, you can, in fact, walk and chew gum.

      Delete
    5. I-A-N, "the anti-firearm cult" understands that you gun maniacs are a menace to yourselves and those about you. You're in the news every day fucking up with your guns even though you claim to be responsible and beneficial to society.

      You gun owners need to be held to a higher standard. Then individual freedom will be better served.

      Delete
  8. Gun rights are not in danger of being repealed, safety net programs are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rights are always at risk from meddling governments; bureaucracies rarely face danger.

      Delete
  9. Not so rare since the Romney/Ryan plan calls for the elimination of Medicare and Social Security. The Republicans already have a multi-million dollar cut in food stamps in the latest Farm bill. It's a reality, and a danger.

    ReplyDelete
  10. When the Romney/Ryan austerity plan is put in law, there will be riots here just as in Europe. Then the guns will come out. A great way to create a dangerous situation.

    ReplyDelete