• cynar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Years ago, the UK government announced they were going to arm the general police. The people with the biggest issue with it was the police union!

    The UK has a police by consent basis. The heaviest firepower they carry is a tazer. If there is a risk of guns being involved, the normal police pull back and call in the armed response officers. When they do, however, they call the whole cavalry!

    End result, criminals don’t feel they MUST have a gun to defend from the police. Conversely, going in armed will bring the whole, focused weight of the armed response down on you. (As in multiple helicopter level searches) Most don’t carry guns, and so the status quo keeps everyone safe.

    • Arcka@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      criminals don’t feel they MUST have a gun to defend from the police

      Criminals know that they won’t win a gunfight against the police. Instead they always flee, and if they’re caught often have their guns on them or in their vehicle.

      Most criminals in the US who carry guns do so to kill rival criminals. The police or law-abiding civilians being disarmed wouldn’t change that.

      • cynar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        I’m not saying the USA should just disarm its police. I was more pointing out how fucked up gun culture has made it. Most UK gangs don’t have guns. The risk reward balance doesn’t justify them. Any gang that does try to escalate with guns becomes the focus of a LOT of police attention.