Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
France and England thinking about arming their police
#1
Hard to believe but...

The female police officer that was gunned down by the Charlie Hebdo terrorists was unarmed, her partner was also unarmed and could do nothing to respond to the attack on her, the first officer to respond to the shooting had only a side arm.

French law enforcement are meeting with officials to consider having better weapons for their police force.

Of course we are brought quickly back to reality with this statement from the French "We don't necessarily want the arms that American police have, we need weapons that can respond"

Not sure what respond means or how that qualifies what type of weapon they want. I guess they want weapons that go bang, but not bang-bang-bang-bang?
Reply
#2
I hear they are also going to change some of their terminology.

Instead of stop please , it's now STOP POLICE!!!
Reply
#3
The terrorist acts aimed at Charlie Hebdo are the not first time France and England have been to the terrorist rodeo. Europe has a LONG history of armed terrorist acts and ineffectual crackdowns/responses by law enforcement.

England endured more that 30 years of terrorist acts associated with Northern Ireland. It responded with more police, armed troops in the street, curtailment of civil rights, etc. Tanks in Belfast or putting Irishmen in jails did not seem terribly effective. Remember Bobby Sands -- arrested as an IRA member, dressed in blankets rather than wear the prison uniform, elected to Parliament, died in prison during a hunger strike, now a Republican martyr in Ireland. Now Sinn Fein is part of the Irish government. If you believe Wikipedia, 3,500 people died and 47,000 were injured in the terrorism associated with the "troubles."

France has endured armed terrorism from Algerian groups for several decades. My first visit to France was during the metro bombings in the mid 1990s where Algerian groups bombed the subway system. I saw cops with machine guns everywhere. It did not stop the bombings.

The worst terrorist acts in recent European history included the bus bombings in London in 2005 that killed 50+ and injured 700, the fundamentalist in Norway who killed 77 in 2011, terrorists who killed 200 and injured more than 1,800 in 2004 in the Spanish train bombing. Where were government security forces then?
Reply
#4
Obviously these 2 countries have had their troubles in the past , which makes it all the more puzzling to me that they would have any percentage of their police force unarmed.
Actually I can't believe they get applicants to join the force knowing they will be virtual sitting ducks.

My father had a good friend who was a conservation officer in Indiana back in the 1970s , at some point the head of the Dept. of Natural resources decided the the officers didn't need to carry guns any more.

That was untill over 80% percent threatened to resign if such a measure took place.

The indiana conservation officers carry weapons to this day.
Reply
#5
In the 1970s, when I was a cop, the firearms training officer told me "Mark, most policemen who are shot are shot with their own guns. Don't carry anything that you would mind be shot with." That piece of advice, while funny at the time, turned out to be true as most of my friends who were shot over the years where shot with their own guns either accidentally or intentionally.

Historically, the cries to arm police or provide them with better weapons to crack down on terrorists or criminals is usually accompanied by restrictions that focus on law abiding citizens, not criminals or terrorists. Both the UK and France (and Australia) confiscated guns from the public in the last 20 years in response to fears that the public will engage in criminal/terrorist acts if they own guns. Even Israel has draconian gun laws where the police are very well armed and police checkpoints are a way of life, but Israel is in the news almost daily for some sort of terrorist act -- the latest being a knife attack on a bus that injured 11.

Arming police with bigger, badder guns and taking guns away from the law abiding public does not work.

The sad reality is that armed cops don't typically prevent crime/terror. They just take the report after the event and maybe capture the perpetrator. If just one or two of the guys at Charlie Hebdo or the Super Marche in Vincennes had their grandpa's war-souvenir 1911 or P-38, the result could have been much different.

Just like the UK, France and Australia, the events in Newtown, Aurora and Columbine resulted in efforts to restrict law abiding citizens' gun ownership on the legislative theory that folks will eventually use their guns and turn into mass murderers or serial killers. The government view is the public just can't be trusted with weapons, government needs to vet citizens who own guns, and the public needs to be disarmed to provide for "officer safety." Only government employees -- as this government view goes -- can be trusted with weapons.

IMHO, the wars on terror and drugs resulted in warrantless searches and monitoring of the public is because government is afraid of the public and believes that unless they are searched/monitored they will inevitably commit a crime. We have allowed a trade off of our rights for the illusion of security. That needs to stop or else we will inevitably turn into France.
Reply
#6
Sorry but the bit about officers being more likely to be shot with their own weapon just isn't true.
Just looked up the FBI stats and when they started tracking this in the 1970s , about 20% of officers shot were shot with their own weapon.
Today that number has dropped to 5% , the FBI atributes this to better holsters and better training.

I can appreciate your zellousness for the 2nd amendment but lets stick to the facts.
Reply
#7
(01-22-2015, 11:12 AM)MarkS Wrote: In the 1970s, when I was a cop, the firearms training officer told me "Mark, most policemen who are shot are shot with their own guns. Don't carry anything that you would mind be shot with." That piece of advice, while funny at the time, turned out to be true as most of my friends who were shot over the years where shot with their own guns either accidentally or intentionally.

Cops, Glocks, accidental Discharges.

They go together like peanut butter and jelly.



Reply
#8
(01-22-2015, 05:33 PM)mfinley919 Wrote: Cops, Glocks, accidental Discharges.

They go together like peanut butter and jelly.




Man this video never gets old. Popcorn2

Stats aside. My personal experience is that a good percentage of law enforcement are not very proficient when it comes to firearms. Being LE doesn't mean they are a "gun" person. I would bet money that most of us could out gun 80% of officers. This is especially true of USPSA, 3 gun and IDPA shooters.

I have also witnessed horrible firearms handling by police officers. I would expect them to be more safe than the general public but it seems to be the exact opposite in most cases.
Where can you carry? Check the editable COGO Carry Map
When in doubt. JFC.

Reply
#9
Sadly, the general (and also ignorant) public believes that LEOs are highly trained (including the FBI, which is often the object of ridicule even with the LEO community itself). When for most LEOs, guns just go with the uniform and that's about it.

Consequently, said general public -- unaware of actual statistics re: marksmanship and collateral damages involved when comparing cop shootings vs. armed citizen shooting incidents -- believes that citizens with guns are in need of AT LEAST the same level of "professional training" as LEOs get...when in actuality, it's the LEOS who need the (more) training!
Reply
#10
I guess I should have been born in Missouri because I need someone to SHOW ME proof before I believe something.
I have belonged to gun clubs both here and in Indiana for most of my life and there are several members of private society that I will refuse to shoot with due to their lack of safe gun handling.

I am sure there are many members of law enforcement which would fit in this group as well.

But as for cops on the beat with no weapon , well in my opinion they are a waste of taxpayers money and convey a false sense of security, being that they are helpless when SHTF.

And as for me if I were in a bad spot in a public place and I need the help of someone with a firearm I would pick the trained police officer over the random citizen every time.
For the same reason I would pick a veteran mechanic to fix my car over a shade tree variety .
They have been in the situation many times versus the Idpa member (or insert you sanctioning body here) who have only shot at targets that obviously don't shoot back.
Reply
#11
(01-23-2015, 02:50 PM)bufordtjustice Wrote: I have belonged to gun clubs both here and in Indiana for most of my life and there are several members of private society that I will refuse to shoot with due to their lack of safe gun handling.

I am sure there are many members of law enforcement which would fit in this group as well.

But as for cops on the beat with no weapon , well in my opinion they are a waste of taxpayers money and convey a false sense of security, being that they are helpless when SHTF.

And as for me if I were in a bad spot in a public place and I need the help of someone with a firearm I would pick the trained police officer over the random citizen every time.
For the same reason I would pick a veteran mechanic to fix my car over a shade tree variety .
They have been in the situation many times versus the Idpa member (or insert you sanctioning body here) who have only shot at targets that obviously don't shoot back.

I agree there are some terrible safety skills out there by LE and non-LE. I also agree that police are pretty much useless unless armed.

I disagree with your last assessment though. I am not aware of any LE training where they are receiving live fire. As far as I know they train by shooting at targets that do not shoot back just like everyone else. You're assuming that your average police officer goes through some type of super training that makes them better equipped to handle a firearm than anyone else. While some departments may have better training programs than others a lot of them qualify by standing in a fixed position and shooting a stationary target. For many this is the only time they use their firearm.

Now compare that to an IDPA or USPSA shooter or whatever. These people practice regularly. When they compete they are running, ducking, shooting around obstacles, shooting at moving targets, identifying targets that are shoot/no shoot ect.. This is done under pressure.

Even the person that doesn't compete but carries a gun everyday probably does more target practice than your average LEO. I guess if you need help by someone with a firearm it would be a 50/50 split on who would be the most help.
Where can you carry? Check the editable COGO Carry Map
When in doubt. JFC.

Reply
#12
No matter how strenous the training there is one element missing , and that is interacting with the bad
guy in real life.

When you go to a match you don't expect any suprizes, no one is going to jump up from behind a target and rush you, no drunk is going to take a swing at you and this not just being able to hit a target this is being able to think on your feet while the situation unfolds, these are things that happen on the job, ( the ultimate form of training).

And as for being under pressure, when did anyone going to a match wonder if they were likely to be shot at while they were there.
Reply
#13
"And as for me if I were in a bad spot in a public place and I need the help of someone with a firearm I would pick the trained police officer over the random citizen every time." -- BTJ


I would too...but that's comparing apples and oranges, and not what we were talking about. "Random citizen" is likely the average clueless, unarmed, gun-ignorant people and anti-gun liberals out there. Meaning MOST people one sees while out & about. As a carrier, why would I ask THEM for any help?

Now, if you said, "And as for me if I were in a bad spot in a public place and I need the help of someone with a firearm I would pick an armed citizen over the trained police officer every time" THEN we are comparing apples to apples. And IF you HAD said that, I'd agree.

Besides...the officer "helping you" would still think he was superior to you, and be giving YOU the orders. No thanks, I'd rather "work with" another armed citizen. Even criminals would rather face armed cops than armed citizens...they'll say so every time.

As for unarmed EU cops...what a disgrace. And any ridicule/derision of that policy is completely justified.

Regards...
Reply
#14
Even criminals would rather face armed cops than armed citizens...they'll say so every time.( cloudcroft quote).

Again opinion instead of fact.
Reply
#15
No...they SAY so. Repeatedly.

Please get out more...

[If you think more deeply about this, you'd probably see WHY they say that]
Reply
#16
Maybe training has gotten better since the Stone Age when I was a cop ... My firearms training consisted of being required to qualify 4 times a year with a 70% score (you could do it all at once) with paper targets within 10 yards at an indoor range. There was no stress training, no presentation training, no safety training, no training on long guns, no standards for off-duty carry.

My anecdotal recollections of the cops I know who got shot (all Colorado experiences, BTW)

1. I trained a cop. Told him "Always wear your vest.{ (we had to buy our own vests in those days). He was shot and killed by a mental patient stopping to buy coffee. The first bullet hit him in the shoulder in the vest and turned him 45 degrees so that the 2nd bullet passed under his arm pit where there was no vest coverage.

2. My neighbor -- a sergeant -- killed his wife, shot his dogs and killed himself after calling 911.

3. A sergeant shot himself in the butt while making out with his girlfriend on the couch.

4. A friend shot himself in the foot removing his 1911 from under the front seat of his VW.

5. My training officer shot himself and committed suicide.

6. Cop stationed at courthouse to provide security shot himself in the leg (fooling around).

7. Sergeant committed suicide.

8. Friend running across the street to break up a water balloon fight. Colt Python -- which he carried because he did not like the S&Ws we were issued -- fell out of the holster and discharged hitting him in the leg. (I'm pretty sure everyone will tell me that's impossible, but ...)

9. Cop confronts bad guy in a car (escaped prisoner from Florida), tries to run away and is shot in the back and killed by a rifle.

I can't even begin to count the number of negligent discharges.

From my perspective, the most dangerous part of LE is not getting shot by a bad guy, but failing to deal with the stress of the job. Suicides don't make the wall of remembrance or get a street named after them, but they are just as much a risk of the job.

In my experience, cops rarely used their weapons to prevent a crime. Maybe to make an arrest, but by and large, the action is over by the time cops arrive on the scene.
Reply
#17
And I'd add to that the stress of being a cop doesn't help in keeping a marriage together. :-(
Reply
#18
(01-24-2015, 01:56 PM)cloudcroft Wrote: No...they SAY so. Repeatedly.

Please get out more...

[If you think more deeply about this, you'd probably see WHY they say that]

Sure sign that someone has no facts or stats( they start to insult you).

When I get a little more free time so I can " get out more", where can I go to hang with these criminals/ excriminals that give you your information?

have a nice day friend.
Reply
#19
If you're a young guy, give it time...you'll probably meet the right people eventually. If you're an old guy, you already should know this stuff.

But really, I have neither the time nor inclination to spoon-feed some hick, Keystone Kop Southern Sheriff who couldn't even catch The Bandit.

TIA for your understanding,

-- Bo Darville
Reply
#20
The mentality of why some police in England aren't armed"

Quote:In Britain, this tradition stretches back to the 19th century. When the Metropolitan Police force was formed, people feared the military and wanted to avoid a police force that was oppressive, according to the BBC.

If police officers don't have guns, then they can't use firearms against citizens. Moreover, police can't have their own guns used against them.

Quote:By only allowing some officers to be armed — like a firearms unit in every police force in Britain and cops who patrol security-sensitive places like airports, for example — the logic goes, there's less of a risk of gun violence overall.

Quote:A New Zealand police commissioner wrote in an editorial in 2009:

I have no doubt that carrying handguns would compromise officers' ability to do their regular work, because when you carry a weapon, your primary concern is to protect that weapon. If this was balanced by a clearly demonstrable increase in personal protection, it would be a price to consider paying. But the protection offered by a firearm — particularly a pistol — is more illusory than real.A New Zealand police commissioner wrote in an editorial in 2009:

Quote:THE shooting of Michael Brown, an 18-year-old African-American, by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, is a reminder that civilians—innocent or guilty—are far more likely to be shot by police in America than in any other rich country. In 2012, according to data compiled by the FBI, 410 Americans were “justifiably” killed by police—409 with guns.

Quote:Last year, in total, British police officers actually fired their weapons three times. The number of people fatally shot was zero. In 2012 the figure was just one. Even after adjusting for the smaller size of Britain’s population, British citizens are around 100 times less likely to be shot by a police officer than Americans. Between 2010 and 2014 the police force of one small American city, Albuquerque in New Mexico, shot and killed 23 civilians; seven times more than the number of Brits killed by all of England and Wales’s 43 forces during the same period.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)