Another terrorist attack - London Bridge

[Darat]

You're well into loonytown with these "different classes of citizenship". We have different professions, which have different requirements, different obligations and therefore different rights. It has nothing to do with citizenship, that's Alex Jones level of argumentation.

McHrozni

You are confusing an office/position with a citizen's rights - the two are not the same, which is why it is illegal for me to carry a pistol but not for a police officer.

Like I said we are going to have to agree to disagree, you want one lot of citizens in the UK to have additional rights to apparently stop very, very rare attacks, I and most of the UK (including those very people you want to give this additional right to) don't. Given our relative lack of gun crime I think you are on a hiding to nothing to get the UK to grant additional rights so a small subsection of the citizenship have a right to carry a pistol at all time.

 

[McHrozni]

You are confusing an office/position with a citizen's rights - the two are not the same, which is why it is illegal for me to carry a pistol but not for a police officer.

No, I'm not. You're the one confusing a 24/7 office/position (such as that of a police officer) with citizens' rights.

Like I said we are going to have to agree to disagree, you want one lot of citizens in the UK to have additional rights to apparently stop very, very rare attacks, I and most of the UK (including those very people you want to give this additional right to) don't.

I'm just saying there are many countries who work that way.

It makes sense to do so whereas British position doesn't. I have grown accustomed to this for the past year for some reason.

McHrozni

 

[Darat]

No, I'm not. You're the one confusing a 24/7 office/position (such as that of a police officer) with citizens' rights.

I'm certainly not.

I'm just saying there are many countries who work that way.

Many, many countries do many, many stupid things (including of course the UK).

It makes sense to do so whereas British position doesn't. I have grown accustomed to this for the past year for some reason.

McHrozni

"it makes sense" isn't actually a reason...

 

[McHrozni]

I'm certainly not.

Really? You no longer think allowing an off-duty police officer to carry a gun to carry out policing if the circumstances require is a citizens' right issue?

Cool!

"it makes sense" isn't actually a reason...

Of course it isn't, the reason is and always was that police officers are one of those professions whose duties do not end the moment they leave their shift. If circumstances require they're supposed to mobilize themselves into duty immediately and help to the best of their ability, without being given an explicit order to do so. Other such professions are military, firefighters and medical doctors. This is what makes sense to most of us, but not you, apparently.

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Are you arguing that a normally unarmed policeman should be allowed to carry a gun when off duty? Or that an normally armed officer should be? Or that police officers should be armed as matter of course on and off duty? I think those are three different things. Not that I agree with any of them.

 

[McHrozni]

Are you arguing that a normally unarmed policeman should be allowed to carry a gun when off duty? Or that an normally armed officer should be? Or that police officers should be armed as matter of course on and off duty? I think those are three different things.

They are, yes. I'm arguing that a normally armed officer should be allowed to carry a gun when off-duty.

Not that I agree with any of them.

Why raise the point, then?

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

They are, yes. I'm arguing that a normally armed officer should be allowed to carry a gun when off-duty.



Why raise the point, then?

McHrozni

I raised it as a point of clarification. The one you have picked is the one that on the face of it makes the most sense but on balance I still don't agree with.

Given the small number of people it would involve do you think it would have any significant affect on the tiny number of incidents we see where it would have been a benefit?

 

[McHrozni]

Given the small number of people it would involve do you think it would have any significant affect on the tiny number of incidents we see where it would have been a benefit?

It's the principle of the thing, if your duty extends beyond your working hours (as it does for a police officer) and if your duty sometimes requires the use of a firearm, you should be permitted to carry your issued firearm with you when you aren't working.

Whether this would have any effect on the said small number of incidents or not is immaterial.

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

It's the principle of the thing, if your duty extends beyond your working hours (as it does for a police officer) and if your duty sometimes requires the use of a firearm, you should be permitted to carry your issued firearm with you when you aren't working.

Whether this would have any effect on the said small number of incidents or not is immaterial.

McHrozni

Well I think if you are arguing for a change in the law you should have some reason why you think that would be better and some expected benefit no?

Indeed principles are important though and that's why I believe it shouldn't be changed.

Soldiers don't get to carry automatic weapons round town and surgeons don't keep scalpels in their back pockets when popping down the shops either.

The fewer weapons on the streets the better.

 

[McHrozni]

Well I think if you are arguing for a change in the law you should have some reason why you think that would be better and some expected benefit no?

In the current example having two extra armed officer could reduce the number of dead and injured substantially though. That's expected benefit right there.

Soldiers don't get to carry automatic weapons round town and surgeons don't keep scalpels in their back pockets when popping down the shops either.

You will notice I didn't include soldiers in my list of professions. That said, if UK was under threat of imminent Sealion, I would expect UK soldiers to be armed at all times (and not get much off time to begin with).

A scalpel in the back pocket won't do you much good if you need emergency surgery. Short of a blockage in the windpipe, which can be cleared with a regular knife if needed be, I can't think of any.

The fewer weapons on the streets the better.

Rule of diminishing returns applies. If the number of officers that would qualify to carry firearms is low than the number of potential new weapons on the street is low too, low enough for the reduction of the weapons on the street this accomplishes brings benefits so tiny they're overwhelmed by the still small benefit I described above.

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

In the current example having two extra armed officer could reduce the number of dead and injured substantially though. That's expected benefit right there.



You will notice I didn't include soldiers in my list of professions. That said, if UK was under threat of imminent Sealion, I would expect UK soldiers to be armed at all times (and not get much off time to begin with).

A scalpel in the back pocket won't do you much good if you need emergency surgery. Short of a blockage in the windpipe, which can be cleared with a regular knife if needed be, I can't think of any.



Rule of diminishing returns applies. If the number of officers that would qualify to carry firearms is low than the number of potential new weapons on the street is low too, low enough for the reduction of the weapons on the street this accomplishes brings benefits so tiny they're overwhelmed by the still small benefit I described above.


McHrozni

I am not aware that the off duty officer involved in this recent case was an armed response officer but even if he was I'm not sure that one case is Sufficient to justify a change in the law.

the two examples I gave were counters to your specific argument that if your
uty sometimes involves using a tool and your duty extends beyond working hours that it justifies carrying the tool during off work hours. Incidentally while there may be an expectation that an off duty officer will offer reasonable assistance during a crime there is no expectation that they will endanger their own life or try to tackle an armed assailant. They may well choose to do so but so might any other civilian put in the same situation.

I'd certainly reconsider if it could be shown to likely have a positive impact on crime but I imagine the odds are greater that it would have a negative impact if any at all. Either someone would be wrongly shot by an off duty cop or a gun carried by one would be stolen and used against them or someone else or, most likely, it would merely encourage criminals to up the ante in their own choice of weapon if they suspected there was a chance of meeting such a person. And the suspicion would be likely disproportionate to the real likelihood.

 

[Pianoro]

In the UK we only have one type of citizens, not citizens with extra rights and powers (an office or job may grant someone additional responsibilities and legal powers) so when an off-duty police officer i.e. a citizen like me is off-duty he has no more rights or legal obligations than I do (excluding contractual employment matters).

No, in the UK police officers are constables with considerable additional legal powers (and duties) granted by the Crown through oath and warrant. They retain these powers at all times, whether they are on or off-duty.

Apart from that, citizens of the UK, like those of any other country, have a wide variety of rights. Some are connected to professional affiliation (e.g. police offers, notaries, etc.) but many are not (like the right to drive a vehicle on public roads). No country grants all citizens exactly the same rights. Giving a subset of the citizens additional rights does not require these to be granted to everybody, nor does it mean there are "different types" of citizens.

 

[baron]

No, in the UK police officers are constables with considerable additional legal powers (and duties) granted by the Crown through oath and warrant. They retain these powers at all times, whether they are on or off-duty.

Correct. An off-duty officer can be disciplined and / or sacked for not upholding the law in a situation that would mandate it had he been in uniform. They also retain their powers of arrest, search and almost everything else. What they don't retain is the ability to legally carry a weapon, even a baton or CS gas. What happens in practice, though, is that the off-duty cop will call for police assistance just like anybody else would.

 

[ohms]

No, in the UK police officers are constables with considerable additional legal powers (and duties) granted by the Crown through oath and warrant. They retain these powers at all times, whether they are on or off-duty.

I was under the impression that this was indeed the case in England and NI. Does it also apply to Scotland? I believe officers in NI still have the standing permission of their chief officer to carry their sidearms even when off duty.

 

[CosCos]

I suspect we are going to have to agree to disagree whether we should have different classes of citizenship with different rights, you are for that, I am not.

Edited by jsfisher: 

<snip> Edited for compliance with rules 0 and 12 of the Membership Agreement.

At no point did McHrozni indicate that he believes different citizens should have different rights. He has stated his position multiple times yet you continue to trot out this absurd strawman.

 

[Pianoro]

I was under the impression that this was indeed the case in England and NI. Does it also apply to Scotland? I believe officers in NI still have the standing permission of their chief officer to carry their sidearms even when off duty.

I don't know about Scotland, unfortunately, but my guess is that it would be similar.

The principle that police officers retain their extended rights and duties at all times applies in a few countries I am familiar with.

Whether off duty officers generally have the permission to carry (or keep in their residence) arms differs from country to country. For example, it is very liberally granted to officers in Germany but very rarely (I think, I could be wrong about this) in Canada.

 

[dudalb]

Or any less dangerous.

I agree, to a point.
With splintered groups, you have much less chance of some kind of unified national terror campaign,because the individual klans hate each others guts (pure rivalry and ego) but,yes, the individual groups are still capable of really viscous and deadly actions.

 

[William Parcher]

the individual groups are still capable of really viscous and deadly actions.

Having a thick, sticky consistency between solid and liquid; having a high viscosity. "Viscous lava".

 

[dudalb]

I suspect we are going to have to agree to disagree whether we should have different classes of citizenship with different rights, you are for that, I am not.

Nonsense.
Police officers do not have extra rights .but they DO have extra reponsiblities that most citizens do not have.
You really have no idea of how police operate..do you?

 

[dudalb]

I was under the impression that this was indeed the case in England and NI. Does it also apply to Scotland? I believe officers in NI still have the standing permission of their chief officer to carry their sidearms even when off duty.

I got a feeling that applies to almost every country with a organized police force.