US cops always worth a laugh

[Angantyr]

So if I criticize say Ukrainian riot police for heedlessly killing unarmed protestors I would be anti-Ukrainian? That's just preposterous.

If anything yanks should be the ones to take offense at the act (because they can help change policies).

[HarunYahya]

Fuck the haters
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Chosen1]

Not anti-american, as long as your cops are shooting each other and homeless americans then we love america!

Just keep doing what you're doing. 2nd Amendment 'n' all that. (ps. i'm with ya, i reckon you need MORE guns and less training, to guarantee maximum freedom).

What? The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with this.. I'm pretty sure in most decent first-world countries the police is armed.

[Switchtense]

What? The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with this.. I'm pretty sure in most decent first-world countries the police is armed.

In the UK they aren't as far as I know.

[Overdriven]

Yeah only certain units used very occasionally are armed in the UK.

[Moncho]

It's curious because my first impression when I came was like wow, those guys are quite armed, but that was at the airport.
In Spain most policemen carry a handgun, and some bodies more, but then in the airport there is none of this:

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Overdriven]

At the airports there are often armed police it's true and in certain other high risk areas. They frequently walk round with sniffer dogs as well at airports. Otherwise it's general only armed response units.

The vast majority of police don't carry a fire arm.

[Butan]

As much as some things are "US only", you should also take into account the actual criminality of the US: if you unarm policemen there, it will cause a higher demand for "special" armed units, since in some cases you do need guns. Its hard to arrest a man armed with a gun, if you dont have a gun yourself.

Both sides have pros/cons: to have wider authorized use of firearms imply more cases like the one in this thread will happen, but to restrict it will have other repercussions than the civilians dont always understand and want to live. But since its a democracy, we may have more and more people asking for stricter gun control/gun use regulation/law enforcement reform/even police disarmement, and the scenario of the OP is only a fuel to those arguments, but it doesnt take into account much of the problems related to the use of guns in the police force.

Basically, there is two extremes: we dont trust the police to handle itself and it must be reformed, disarmed or dismantled; we trust the police to handle itself and it must continue its duty within the boundaries of the law and practical considerations.

In between there is the question of how much police we want and how armed it is, and it directly influence everything. It goes from civilian police, street police, police, armed police, special police and army.
The fact that the criminals also adapt to the country police armament doesnt help decide what is best 


The UK example is interesting, but there is lots of points in this country situation which doesnt apply to the US and cant be used as a comparison-solution. Like the fact its an island and its border control regulation and armed border police deal with some of the problems at its doors. There is also cultural/historical differences but I'm not going to pretend I know exactly what it is 

[Overdriven]

Well I think the US is to far gone in terms of gun ownership to risk disarming the police.

As much as I would love for the US to be able to viable strip gun owners of their weapons and as a result disarm the police, doing so is simply not viable due to the number of people who will likely own a gun with no official record of it being kept.

The UK has an advantage in that gun ownership simply is not a thing bar a few criminals and in some cases for hunting. As such arming the police isn't really necessary in the day to day running of a police force.

[AntiBlitz]

just blame the british, they made us like this, its their fault.

[AntiBlitz]

We let you go when we realized you would never join our Rugby, Football and Cricket leagues like the rest of the Empire did, true story

lol i wouldnt want to look for bugs to play with in the grass anyways.

[Bittersteel]

every time heskey, why do you do this?

[AntiBlitz]

You could not be trained... so we began taxing you like crazy to see if you'd notice and declare independence - y'know, save us from disowning you and looking like a jerk.

Fun fact, the British Empire was created because Britain got tired of playing the Welsh teams at Football, Rugby and Cricket every single year. Trade was a hidden motive to educate and train India, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand to make badass sports teams and take part in our competitions.

i apologize, i do know of the cricket sport, i just wanted to continue my feeble troll remarks.  I unfortunately have no idea how to play it, its like golf and baseball mixed up.

[Smoothrich]

Well I think the US is to far gone in terms of gun ownership to risk disarming the police.

As much as I would love for the US to be able to viable strip gun owners of their weapons and as a result disarm the police, doing so is simply not viable due to the number of people who will likely own a gun with no official record of it being kept.

The UK has an advantage in that gun ownership simply is not a thing bar a few criminals and in some cases for hunting. As such arming the police isn't really necessary in the day to day running of a police force.

The most that a typical American progressive expects our society to be able to do in the near future with guns is pass very reasonable gun regulations, mostly enforcing and tightening up loopholes in laws which exist, and getting rid of mass murder accessories like extended magazines, automatic weapons (already banned to civilians, but many legal semi-automatics can be modifed to be automatic), creating more paper trails and background checks for second gun reselling, etc.

What's sad is that when some autistic madman shot up an elementary school a year or two ago, there was the most momentum yet to get some sort of reform passed. Our president, members of Congress who have recently survived assassinations (Gabrielle Giffords), and countless families who lost children or parents in senseless shootings, millions of Americans and a majority of popular support, all for some common-sense change. Considering Adam Lanza took a bunch of firearms from his mother's unlocked safe, before killing her and 20+ children, you'd think restrictions on safekeeping guns would be one of them. By the time it got to the Senate floor (the more prestigious and sane of our two houses of Congress), the bill was nothing but making sure background checks were in place at all times to precent children and mentally ill from buying guns. Most Republicans, and even some Democrats in gun-friendly states, filibustered it, so it couldn't even get out of Senate with a real vote. Our president raged on live TV immediately after, was funny. The following year, guns were exclusively deregulated on the federal level even more.

Tons of people were outraged, but the gun-nuts I know all have a philosophy that any single law passed regulating guns is a slippery slope to repealing the 2nd Amendment (which says "well-regulated" right in it lol) and banning all gun ownership, thus causing some insane outrage.

Really its fucking frustrating. Also I'm an anti-gun progressive and I'm wanting to buy a handgun myself because most American cities are so shitty and overrun with violence and crime, you start to feel like you need a gun just to protect yourself. I just don't want crazies or criminals with guns.. which leads to every local small town police force having AFV's, M4's, body armor, drones, broad wiretapping.. then you run the chance of being murdered by a gangbanger, methhead, or a cop who assumes you are one of those and opens fire.. ugh

[Tagora]

Guns go bang.  I like bang.