The debate "Ordinary policeman shouldn't carry guns" was started by
April 7, 2016, 2:15 am.
9 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 35 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
RyanWakefield posted 1 argument, Pugsly posted 1 argument, JakobBoghora posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
oscar90000 posted 1 argument, PsychDave posted 1 argument, NotoriousBishop posted 1 argument, Zuhayr posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
RyanWakefield, danielle, JakobBoghora, thereal and 5 visitors agree.
ototoxic, Pugsly, oscar90000, PsychDave, Freyja, Thomas_Jefferson, why, NotoriousBishop, jack_tim_45, SwaggerPoptart, John_Roel, Zuhayr, yabbster, charlieholmes, Delta_Force01 and 20 visitors disagree.
we shouldnt kill somebody just because he broke a small traffic law.
this happens in US but not in my country.
Of course police officers should carry guns with them cuz they are humans not super heroes that they can manage without guns. And moreover, its their benefit that when attackers will come to attack them they will be able fire at any time at them.
the idea is that it should be like Britain where no one is armed. cops don't need guns because the people they are dealing with don't have them either.
ur saying, cops should be like, "Sir can u please stop, I don't have a gun, but I said please"
I am getting tired of debating you because you blow everything out of proportion with your blatant idiocy! I never said everybody should own a gun and nor would everybody own one even if given the oppurtunity.
-People should be able to have guns if they want to defend themselves in their house. If they want to carry a gun on their side, they should have proper licensing and documented training. Can you get that? If criminals have guns, I want one too.
yes, everyone should have guns, so if something does happen, 30 guns should come out and 150 bullets should start flying.
cause ordinary citizens are known for their restraint and the wild west was known for its orderliness. lol
They most certainly should have guns. Police should not be disadvantaged. If criminals did not have guns, then yes that should be the case. The same goes with everybody else.
they should use lightsaber resistant stun batons and shields instead.
While I do understand the UK perspective, the prominence of guns in the US means that American police must carry guns. Tazers, batons and pepper spray are all viable close range methods of stopping someone, and they are quite effective on someone with a knife, but if someone has a gun they have substantially better range, meaning the police would not be able to get close enough to subdue them. Even Canada, with its much lower gun crime rates, arms its police. I would not expect police officers to enter situations unable to defend themselves, which makes guns a necessity in North America at least.
Have ever been outside of the United States?
In the UK, we still have some special policeman who have guns, but most of them don't. This actually makes them have more respect, as people see them as an important part of the community rather than someone who kills people. They still carry tasers, pepper spray, baton etc... but nothing that could kill you. Policemen shouldn't be using guns anyway, as that would be capital punishment without trial. There are also issues in the US created by policemen having guns, like black communities feeling like outcasts from society due to the amount of policeman killing black people with their shoot first ask questions later attitude. How are people supposed to respect police if the police don't respect them.
the police without gun? how should that police be able fill any function against criminality? how should they serve community without having a gun? how should they get at least some respect by criminals without even a gun? take away guns from the police is the dumbest thing I ever heard