Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GTA Online

      1. The Diamond Casino Heist
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Frontier Pursuits
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    3. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
      2. Events
    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA 6

    3. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    5. GTA Chinatown Wars

    6. GTA Vice City Stories

    7. GTA Liberty City Stories

    8. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    9. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    10. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    11. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    3. Gangs

    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Sign in to follow this  
The Unvirginiser

British Police Officers

Recommended Posts

The Unvirginiser

Well? Should they?

I think they should.. I know Britain dosn't have relaxed gun laws like America, but guns are not the only thing they need to defend themselves against.

Knifes area major problem.. who knows what other dangerous siuations officers may find themselves in..

 

Gangs in Manchester and London are using more and more guns everyday. It seems like drivebys and gang murders are constantly on the news.. so.. is our police force fully equipeed to protect themselves before an armed response unit can arrive?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ronnyboy

I believe every police officer should be armed at all times. What have they got if they come up on a dangerous criminal with a gun? Club him? By the time he grabs the club, the suspect could have shot him, wounding him or killing him. He gets away, and the officer is left with a gun shot wound or is dead.

 

I feel that guns should only be legal to officer's of the law. Some people say that it is best to have there own personal gun to protect themselves, but then the mad man can get the gun just as well and kill the un-defended people who don't own the gun. Police offers should be armed for occurrences where a criminal has an illegal weapon, and if they point it and/or fire it at the officer, the officer can fire a warning shot or shoot the criminal to stop him (not killing him).

 

To answer your question, yes, every officer should be armed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GSXRSpeed

WOW! British police don't carry guns?

 

Yes I believe all police should carry a gun. What can they do against a criminal that has a gun? Even if you have gun laws forbidding them, criminals will find a way to get whatever they want and police should be prepared for anything. anuj_cop.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hart

Stun Guns yes, but I dont want our country going all gun-ho like America, thanks.

 

Also, just a note, in some places in Britain they carry a gun, but its not loaded. Just there to scare the criminal. confused.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Typhus

Guns would only worsen the current atmosphere. Crime is reaching new, dangerous levels. And a bit of firepower won't stop it, it's more complicated than that. By arming the cops you could just be encouraging the sickos to raise their game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Struff Bunstridge

British police officers use CS gas, which is like pepper spray but with a 10-12 foot range. I've seen it used, and I think I'd rather be shot. It's non-lethal, and almost entirely incapacitating; it reacts with moisture, and basically forces anyone hit with it to close their eyes in defense, as a muscle spasm. To quote good ol' Wikipedia, "Reported effects can include tears streaming from the eyes, running nose full of mucus, burning in the nose and throat areas, disorientation, dizziness and restricted breathing. In highly concentrated doses it can also induce severe coughing and vomiting. Almost all of the immediate effects wear off in a matter of minutes."

 

f*ck that, I'll come quietly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Unvirginiser
Guns would only worsen the current atmosphere. Crime is reaching new, dangerous levels. And a bit of firepower won't stop it, it's more complicated than that. By arming the cops you could just be encouraging the sickos to raise their game.

That's a good point, don't want to end up like this fella

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Machida

I'd have to agree with some that It would lead to escalation. There's also the matter of trust and can the police be trusted with guns. Unfortunately the past events of armed police in the UK says, no they can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Unvirginiser
I'd have to agree with some that It would lead to escalation. There's also the matter of trust and can the police be trusted with guns. Unfortunately the past events of armed police in the UK says, no they can't.

You can't generalize because of one dead Brazilian tounge.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Machida

 

I'd have to agree with some that It would lead to escalation. There's also the matter of trust and can the police be trusted with guns. Unfortunately the past events of armed police in the UK says, no they can't.

You can't generalize because of one dead Brazilian tounge.gif

I accept mistakes are going to happen, but Britain's a tiny island, those mistakes are going to stick for longer. To be honest I'm not confident the police are trained well enough to carry weapons. I think I'm right in saying they've been training closely with the SAS since 2005, but at present I wouldn't feel safe If they were carrying guns with the uniform.

 

At present I'm not sure armed police are needed. Protective goggles maybe, chav spit stings the eyeballs I hear! It's the Buckfast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rhoda
At present I'm not sure armed police are needed. Protective goggles maybe, chav spit stings the eyeballs I hear!

Hear hear.

 

I don't believe that British Police Officers should be armed unless they are stationed or patrolling in such public areas that warrant protection against serious threats. Terrorism and extremist behaviour spring to mind, and that's only because I had airports in mind. I was coming back from my holiday about a week ago and found that the police pressence there was heavily armed and I believe that's right. However, street police have no need to be armed to such a degree as the crime rate is just not as extreme enough (perhaps like that in the USA, but I'm only using that as an example) to call for arms. What's more, armed police in public areas may give off the wrong message to many children. People are far too easily influenced for this to do any good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Unvirginiser
At present I'm not sure armed police are needed. Protective goggles maybe, chav spit stings the eyeballs I hear!

Hear hear.

 

I don't believe that British Police Officers should be armed unless they are stationed or patrolling in such public areas that warrant protection against serious threats. Terrorism and extremist behaviour spring to mind, and that's only because I had airports in mind. I was coming back from my holiday about a week ago and found that the police pressence there was heavily armed and I believe that's right. However, street police have no need to be armed to such a degree as the crime rate is just not as extreme enough (perhaps like that in the USA, but I'm only using that as an example) to call for arms. What's more, armed police in public areas may give off the wrong message to many children. People are far too easily influenced for this to do any good.

Say a man attacks a police man with a machete? Some screaming shirtless maniac chopping people up left right and centre.. what can an officer do? How many will get hacked before armed responds?

 

Or a chase, when they finally catch a car, what if the guy decides to reverse and start mowing the officers? How could theys top the car then?

 

Not to mention the moss side and South London gangs who are strapped to the teeth!

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hart
At present I'm not sure armed police are needed. Protective goggles maybe, chav spit stings the eyeballs I hear!

Hear hear.

 

I don't believe that British Police Officers should be armed unless they are stationed or patrolling in such public areas that warrant protection against serious threats. Terrorism and extremist behaviour spring to mind, and that's only because I had airports in mind. I was coming back from my holiday about a week ago and found that the police pressence there was heavily armed and I believe that's right. However, street police have no need to be armed to such a degree as the crime rate is just not as extreme enough (perhaps like that in the USA, but I'm only using that as an example) to call for arms. What's more, armed police in public areas may give off the wrong message to many children. People are far too easily influenced for this to do any good.

Say a man attacks a police man with a machete? Some screaming shirtless maniac chopping people up left right and centre.. what can an officer do? How many will get hacked before armed responds?

 

Or a chase, when they finally catch a car, what if the guy decides to reverse and start mowing the officers? How could theys top the car then?

 

Not to mention the moss side and South London gangs who are strapped to the teeth!

Why does he have to be shirtless.

 

 

Although I agree with you. Maybe just carry a pistol, but only used if you are attacked. Simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rhoda

Valid points, but how have things been up to this point? Police have been under threat since the law was enforced, but the examples you've stated are only hypothetical. While they are possible, you're only thinking of the worst possible scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Unvirginiser

He just has to be shirtless!

 

Anyway Craig, yeah, worst case scenrios.. but even a large bar fight can be silenced with one warning shot. But your saying worst case scenarios.. as soon as something like this happens.. there will be an uproar as to why police were not prepared and didn't foresee such a possible situation.

 

The North Hollywood shooutout - Two sickos rob a bank with full body armour and automatic rifles.. police's 9mm pistols can't pierce it. Ten officers and seven civillians were shot before they could be taken down with help from a very lucky chain of events.

Police had been requesting rifles for their patrol cars in case such a situation would occur.. then when it happened they finally gave them the rifles, after seventeen people were shot.

 

See what I mean? Hopefully soon they will realise that our boys in blue need adaquate protection and a tragic incident will not be the catalyst that finally makes it sink in.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hart
He just has to be shirtless!

 

Anyway Craig, yeah, worst case scenrios.. but even a large bar fight can be silenced with one warning shot. But your saying worst case scenarios.. as soon as something like this happens.. there will be an uproar as to why police were not prepared and didn't foresee such a possible situation.

 

The North Hollywood shooutout - Two sickos rob a bank with full body armour and automatic rifles.. police's 9mm pistols can't pierce it. Ten officers and seven civillians were shot before they could be taken down with help from a very lucky chain of events.

Police had been requesting rifles for their patrol cars in case such a situation would occur.. then when it happened they finally gave them the rifles, after seventeen people were shot.

 

See what I mean? Hopefully soon they will realise that our boys in blue need adaquate protection and a tragic incident will not be the catalyst that finally makes it sink in.

Maybe bean bag guns? Ive heard the f*cking hurt like a bitch, ive seen some vids too. Or maybe rubber bullets? Both of these will stop anyone in their tracks. Also, you said about warning shots, you could use blanks so you dont put holes in the ceiling tounge.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thecommander

Isn't there an armed police unit? And when I see pictures they are all wearing bullet-proof vests. Does that work or are there too few armed units?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
neato9611

 

Stun Guns yes, but I dont want our country going all gun-ho like America, thanks.

 

Also, just a note, in some places in Britain they carry a gun, but its not loaded. Just there to scare the criminal.  confused.gif

Stop! Or I'll throw my Glock at you!

 

EDIT:

That's what the police officer says to the suspect not me saying it to you, looked a little hostile sry!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mark-2007

I don't think there's much need for every police officer to be armed. The police action should match the crime. For instance, if there's some guy shoplifting unarmed, then armed police aren't needed but for a knife/gun crime then maybe the armed police can be called out.

 

I had an idea that maybe they could make a gun without bullets that makes a gun noise, as I reckon it'd scare the sh*t out of some people. Rubber bullets or bean bags, as suggested before, would work too.

 

 

Say a man attacks a police man with a machete? Some screaming shirtless maniac chopping people up left right and centre.. what can an officer do? How many will get hacked before armed responds?

The CS gas that Struff mentioned would work in this case: Spray it at him, wait for him to tear up and then beat the sh*t out of the shirtless (!) maniac.

Edited by mark-2007

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seachmall
Stun Guns yes, but I dont want our country going all gun-ho like America, thanks.

Stun guns are a good idea but saying carrying guns would make the UK gun-ho like America is a bit inaccurate. Don't most other European countries have armed guards? The 2 murder capitals of Western Europe are both in non-armed countries (Limerick, Ireland and Glasgow, Scotland).

 

Also, just a note, in some places in Britain they carry a gun, but its not loaded. Just there to scare the criminal.  confused.gif
That seems even more dangerous to me, what happens if the cop gets jumped, his gun nicked and then the criminal just has to buy bullets? Or if the police draws his empty pistol, the criminal charges and the gun doesn't go off. Word will spread the cops don't have loaded guns and then even police with loaded guns will be getting jumped for them.

 

The CS gas is good too, American SWAT teams us them and they seem pretty effective tounge2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy

 

The North Hollywood shooutout - Two sickos rob a bank with full body armour and automatic rifles.. police's 9mm pistols can't pierce it. Ten officers and seven civillians were shot before they could be taken down with help from a very lucky chain of events.

Police had been requesting rifles for their patrol cars in case such a situation would occur.. then when it happened they finally gave them the rifles, after seventeen people were shot.

 

See what I mean? Hopefully soon they will realise that our boys in blue need adaquate protection and a tragic incident will not be the catalyst that finally makes it sink in.

I don't think you fully realize all of the circumstances of that event.

 

For one thing, SWAT was at the moment unavailable, which are the guys that would usually be called in to deal with that situation.

 

All of the officers were armed with pistols and shotguns, the robbers simply had higher powered weapons. This threw into effect a federal law requiring patrol officers to carry at lest one assault rifle in their police cruisers. However my question is this: The first time RPGs are used in a bank robbery, and we can't take them down with our assault rifles, are we going to mandate that officers must carry grenade launchers?

 

 

Engaging in a veritable arms war with criminals isn't going to help anything, because the sad fact is that some criminals have resources that are far less likely to be exhausted than police forces do. Claiming that police need to be heavier armed one day may be the truth, but it won't solve anything, because the criminal element will always re-arm itself as well.

 

 

Or a chase, when they finally catch a car, what if the guy decides to reverse and start mowing the officers? How could theys top the car then?

 

I think in the topic that I posted, I raised some pretty good questions about whether this is really even a safe strategy--rendering a heavy, fast moving vehicle completely uncontrollable. I even suggested other ways to disable the vehicle, but here's a short review...

 

 

•Box the vehicle in using heavier motor vehicles

•Launch tear-gas into the vehicle

•Disable the vehicles drive-train or engine

 

 

 

Say a man attacks a police man with a machete? Some screaming shirtless maniac chopping people up left right and centre.. what can an officer do? How many will get hacked before armed responds?

 

As others have obviously pointed out, the CS gas could be just as effective for this scenario. I fail to see how you've raised a circumstance where the current means and methods are not adequate. On top of this, I'm fairly sure that when needed, British Police can carry arms on a back-up call. At least that's how it was explained to me, and I think that's a much safer way of doing things than putting lethal arms into the hands of first-responders that may make a mistake with them.

 

 

Personally, I don't think American police should carry firearms anymore because of the amount of accidental shootings that have occurred, and like I argued in a previous topic, because I think the definitions of justifiable use of those weapons has changed to include situations that are far from "last resort", such as shooting a person dead to disable a moving vehicle, when they could just as easily box in that vehicle, or use non-lethal weapons to achieve the same ends. Do note I'm not talking about a situation where a vehicle is traveling upwards of 20 MPH at an officer, I'm talking about when a suspect is stuck in a mall or something, parked, throws it in reverse, and never makes it above 5 MPH before shot to death. Yes it happens, no it is not a last resort shooting.

 

The reason it happens is because officers are trained to use deadly force when they feel their life is in danger. When a cop sees the car moving toward them, their first thoughts probably won't be, "Can I jump over here in time?" or "Should I get out of the way and get my bean-bag shotgun?" Their first reactions, given the training they received, will be to apply lethal force and shoot.

 

 

In my opinion, I think that it comes down to the training officers are given more than the tools they are given. If British police are already trained to use CS gas as their primary weapons, then arming them with side-arms, is not likely to cause many accidental shootings or really even prompt much lethal force at all if the CS gas is as adequate as one would like to think. However, with American police, the side-arm is still used as the primary weapon even though many departments are turning to stun guns and non-lethal alternatives, and because of that, its use in the field becomes higher as a result. If officers were trained more with non-lethal forces, then there wouldn't be as many lethal cases of an officer accidentally feeling the need to defend themselves. For that matter, if the officer had every reason to defend themselves, wouldn't the situation ending on a non-lethal note be much more desirable?

 

In my opinion, a patrol car should have at least a rifle. If this is the case, when one officer approaches, the other officer could control the weapon. In this way, if the first officer sees the man make a move for the cell phone, thinking it's a gun, he simply uses his gas on him, instead of lethal bullets. However, on the other hand, if the suspect quickly exits the car with a knife, machete, or begins shooting, the other officer with the gun can take the lethal action required. Of course there are some flaws with this, but the basic strategy is to take the gun out of the first-responding scenario, to prevent unnecessary usage of it.

 

 

My views probably won't be popular among anyone because they tend to put the officer's lives more at risk. However, that is the officer's job, that's what they signed up for. Giving them all the protection they need should be a priority, but not at the expense of risking the lives of the public with poor training and policy. That's what I believe has happened with the American approach to police gun use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Tequeli

Correct if I'm wrong but part of the beauty of the British system (not that I agree with it at all) is that citizens don't have guns but neither do the police so that there isn't a huge power imbalance. If you're going to give all cops guns, then you'd have to allow the citizens weapons as well, otherwise you have an all powerful organization and a virtually powerless population.

 

 

But perhaps British people are unaware of libertarianism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mark-2007
Correct if I'm wrong but part of the beauty of the British system (not that I agree with it at all) is that citizens don't have guns but neither do the police so that there isn't a huge power imbalance. If you're going to give all cops guns, then you'd have to allow the citizens weapons as well, otherwise you have an all powerful organization and a virtually powerless population.

 

 

But perhaps British people are unaware of libertarianism.

Most people are against the use of guns by British police anyways on here, by the looks of things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy
Correct if I'm wrong but part of the beauty of the British system (not that I agree with it at all) is that citizens don't have guns but neither do the police so that there isn't a huge power imbalance. If you're going to give all cops guns, then you'd have to allow the citizens weapons as well, otherwise you have an all powerful organization and a virtually powerless population.

 

 

But perhaps British people are unaware of libertarianism.

Well, the question is how do you address the problem of illegal weapons? I mean, in the U.S. guns are legal, but all guns are supposed to be registered, and there are a number of "forensic" tricks you can do, and even more circumstancial matching on the caliber and things of that nature, so that of course creates a huge market for illegal weapons that can't be tracked like that to be used by the criminal element. I suppose the easiest argument to make, is that the law would not be addressing the "people", but rather the "criminals", because as far as I'm aware no one is even allowed to have a handgun or something like that in the city over there.

 

Once you conclude that, "Well, law abiding citizens shouldn't have guns, then this isn't really against the people at all," then it becomes pretty easy to justify their presence not only by convincing people that they will not be included in all of this, but that it is for their protection too. Libertarianism flies out of the window when people are scared about things, it seems.

 

 

When you look at the U.S.'s side of things, it looks a little more weird. We allow our citizens to have guns, and then we use the justification of illegal weapons to arm our cops even more. I've heard the argument a dozen times made by a police officer in the 90s, "We're going into war zones, these guys have AK-47s, all we have are .38s". Now days, the police generally have an M4 or a shotgun in their car, a bullet-proof vest, a 9mm with 15-20 round capacity, and a huge tactical array of things on their belt. There's kind of such an obvious shift of power now, that the citizens are starting to say, "Well, we need to shift the balance, the police are practically a military presence inflicted on us"... Anyway, I don't really have a conclusion on all of that, I just think that it's more of a vicious cycle trying to justify arming a police force against its citizens, and not a solution.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
darthYENIK

@Sag, I don't think American police carry assault rifles because of the weapons the N. Hollywood Shooters used, but because they had full body armor. So if someone comes at a squad car with a RPG, the use of a grenade launcher would make less sense, unless they are barricaded in a tank. They'll just shoot him with their side-arms or rifles. I think the escalation of weaponry based on the criminal's weaponry isn't an issue. I mean, look at the incident in the 90's when the guy stole a tank and went on a rampage in San Diego (and who can forget the Kill-dozer from a couple years ago). Police didn't start carrying bazookas. Mainly because it's a very rare occurrence for the police to be out gunned or out armored. It is easier than you think to get body armor, though, and that's why rifles are where the police stop trying to one up the criminals. One well trained rifleman, let alone a whole police force trained to fire a rifle, isn't going to have a problem with a man wielding an RPG.

 

And I really think it's a bad idea to take the guns away from American cops, considering anyone can quite easily get a gun. In a perfect world, yeah, cops (or anybody really) shouldn't have guns, and if they had guns, they would only use them in extreme circumstances. But it's not a perfect world, people DO shoot at cops first more often than cops accidentally shoot an unarmed assailant (or shoot a man in a car to stop it), and if their guns are taken away, we'll see a lot more dead cops. Not to mention the crime rate will go through the roof the moment criminals realize that most cops can't stop them.

 

Anyway, I do agree British police probably shouldn't have sidearms. They don't seem like they are doing so bad that they need guns. Unless I've missed something. Which is likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Tequeli
Correct if I'm wrong but part of the beauty of the British system (not that I agree with it at all) is that citizens don't have guns but neither do the police so that there isn't a huge power imbalance. If you're going to give all cops guns, then you'd have to allow the citizens weapons as well, otherwise you have an all powerful organization and a virtually powerless population.

 

 

But perhaps British people are unaware of libertarianism.

Well, the question is how do you address the problem of illegal weapons? I mean, in the U.S. guns are legal, but all guns are supposed to be registered, and there are a number of "forensic" tricks you can do, and even more circumstancial matching on the caliber and things of that nature, so that of course creates a huge market for illegal weapons that can't be tracked like that to be used by the criminal element. I suppose the easiest argument to make, is that the law would not be addressing the "people", but rather the "criminals", because as far as I'm aware no one is even allowed to have a handgun or something like that in the city over there.

 

Once you conclude that, "Well, law abiding citizens shouldn't have guns, then this isn't really against the people at all," then it becomes pretty easy to justify their presence not only by convincing people that they will not be included in all of this, but that it is for their protection too. Libertarianism flies out of the window when people are scared about things, it seems.

 

 

When you look at the U.S.'s side of things, it looks a little more weird. We allow our citizens to have guns, and then we use the justification of illegal weapons to arm our cops even more. I've heard the argument a dozen times made by a police officer in the 90s, "We're going into war zones, these guys have AK-47s, all we have are .38s". Now days, the police generally have an M4 or a shotgun in their car, a bullet-proof vest, a 9mm with 15-20 round capacity, and a huge tactical array of things on their belt. There's kind of such an obvious shift of power now, that the citizens are starting to say, "Well, we need to shift the balance, the police are practically a military presence inflicted on us"... Anyway, I don't really have a conclusion on all of that, I just think that it's more of a vicious cycle trying to justify arming a police force against its citizens, and not a solution.

Well that's where the 'perfect' system falters. British Politicians pretend illegal guns don't exist but all they have done is transferred guns from the hands of citizens into a black market. If anything this system has made criminals more powerful then the police because they are the only ones with guns, not citizens, not police.

 

The police still shouldn't be given guns because then the people who really get f*cked are the law abiding citizens. Between dangerous criminals and police officers packing heat, there isn't much to defend yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wanted Assailant

So what do British Police Officers have again?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mark-2007

 

So what do British Police Officers have again?

Truncheons. I'm not sure about stun guns, as I haven't had the misfortune of being apprehended by a police officer, but I've seen them on the news a few times, never understood whether they were implemented or not.

 

Also, some have fluorescent jackets, oh sh*t!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rhoda

Those jackets are an arse when somebody's headlights hits 'em. Seriously, I dropped all of my swag.

 

But seriously, I feel that Mike Tequili had it right when he said there's a balance when it comes to guns; they are illegal and that means that the numbers of criminals possessing them without detection is statistically infrequent. The police force do not carry weapons aside from special events and locations, which means there's some form of equilibrium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Unvirginiser
Those jackets are an arse when somebody's headlights hits 'em. Seriously, I dropped all of my swag.

 

But seriously, I feel that Mike Tequili had it right when he said there's a balance when it comes to guns; they are illegal and that means that the numbers of criminals possessing them without detection is statistically infrequent. The police force do not carry weapons aside from special events and locations, which means there's some form of equilibrium.

Guns are a larger element than you think in Britain, it's frightening really in some areas, how many people have guns.. especially in bad boy gang culture

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.