I don't understand what point they are trying to make.
Yes, there would be less violent crime if there were more police officers on the streets, higher detection rates and much longer sentences for violent offenders. Oh yes, and if drugs were made legally available, suitably taxed and regulated, of course.
But why would the simple fact that more police officers are armed make the slightest difference to a criminal who is prepared to use a gun (or any other weapon, for that matter)? If there are no police officers in the area at the time, then criminals are not deterred from committing crimes, whether they involve weapons or not.
Wednesday, 26 December 2007
''Too few armed police, say Tories''
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
Criminals aren't generally in the business of attacking police officers*. They are generally in the business of attacking ordinary people. Now let me think, who should we arm first?
According to Robert Peel, the man who founded Britain's police, police were ordinary citizens who were simply employed to do what most people didn't have the time to do, with no special privileges or powers. So why, in 2007, does every bobby walk around with several pieces of kit that the rest of us are prohibited from acquiring, let alone the firearms officers?
*probably because A) Crimes against police officers are investigated properly and sentences for such are likely to be huigh and B) they're armed.
Post a Comment