For all the Americans and Canadians out there

[Chromatix]

In Britain there are essentially four levels of the police force, in terms of arresting powers and techniques.

At the very bottom end are the PCSOs - Police Community Support Officers. They do not have arrest powers beyond those of a normal civilian. Their job is to provide a visible police presence, eyes and ears, and hopefully a rapport with people in a specific area.

Next is the ordinary police officer, of Constable rank or higher. They have arresting powers as you would expect, and carry truncheon and handcuffs. It is reasonably common for policemen to specialise in a particular area of crime, eg. forensics, dog handling, drugs or traffic, but they are expected to deal with incidents they come across or are called to regardless of their specialism.

The next level are officers who have been trained in the use of a Taser. They operate as part of the normal police force, including all those specialisms, and they carry their Taser at all times. The interesting thing about the Taser is that because it is intentionally nonlethal, you can aim it and arm it (which turns on a laser sight) merely to warn a potentially violent suspect to calm down - and it works. At least 90% of the time, the presence of the Taser helps to resolve a situation without it being fired. At the same time, the Taser is not used for a routine arrest where the suspect can be detained using normal restraining techniques.

Finally, there are the specialised Firearms Officers. They are called in, with their equipment, whenever a firearm is suspected or confirmed to be involved in an incident, and all other officers will tend to stay back until they arrive. But even they don't carry guns all the time - when a firearms incident is not actually underway, their weapons are locked away. Guns and gun crime are rare enough in Britain to make that feasible, and it is widely recognised that calling in the firearms squad is a pretty extreme measure for a pretty extreme situation.

Doubtless this is very different from how things are done in the US or even Canada. It's even different from here in Finland, where hunting weapons are quite common and most of the male population has had military training.

[Panacea]

Finally, there are the specialised Firearms Officers. They are called in, with their equipment, whenever a firearm is suspected or confirmed to be involved in an incident, and all other officers will tend to stay back until they arrive. But even they don't carry guns all the time - when a firearms incident is not actually underway, their weapons are locked away. Guns and gun crime are rare enough in Britain to make that feasible, and it is widely recognised that calling in the firearms squad is a pretty extreme measure for a pretty extreme situation.

Private gun ownership is more restricted in Britain, and it's harder for criminals to get guns (though they do have them), so they don't have quite the violence problem we have in the US with our patchwork laws that are very easy to skirt around. For example, if I want a handgun here in North Carolina, I have to get a permit from the sheriff of the county in which I reside, explaining why I need it (but not for long guns); if he decides I'm not a good risk I get denied and I'm SOL unless I move to another county.

Or, I can drive up to Virginia (about 2 hours away) and buy a handgun at a gun show with NO background check, NO waiting period, and can bring it back to NC perfectly legally. If I'd still had a handgun when I moved here from California, I would not have had to get permission to bring it in to the state; the law only keeps from from buying a handgun not from owning one.

With our gun culture here, guns are very prevalent.

Doubtless this is very different from how things are done in the US or even Canada. It's even different from here in Finland, where hunting weapons are quite common and most of the male population has had military training.

I don't think Finland has the crime rate that we do, your educational system is far, far better, and there are better social systems to help people when they're in trouble so crime isn't seen as an easier way to make a living.

[violiav]

Ha. This thread reminds be of this Facebook thing that was going around a couple weeks ago. It was linking to a video of this - Axe Gang. Implying that it wouldn't be an issues here because of conceal carry and such. But that's not true, the same gang here would have been armed to the teeth (my knowledge of motorcycle gangs comes from The A Team and Sons of Anarchy) and there would have been more destruction and for sure loss of life.

[KitterCat]

Private gun ownership is more restricted in Britain, and it's harder for criminals to get guns (though they do have them), so they don't have quite the violence problem we have in the US with our patchwork laws that are very easy to skirt around. For example, if I want a handgun here in North Carolina, I have to get a permit from the sheriff of the county in which I reside, explaining why I need it (but not for long guns); if he decides I'm not a good risk I get denied and I'm SOL unless I move to another county.

Or, I can drive up to Virginia (about 2 hours away) and buy a handgun at a gun show with NO background check, NO waiting period, and can bring it back to NC perfectly legally. If I'd still had a handgun when I moved here from California, I would not have had to get permission to bring it in to the state; the law only keeps from from buying a handgun not from owning one.

Not to nit pick, but you’re a little wrong on buying a handgun out of state. You can go to a gun show and buy an long gun (rifle, shotgun, assault rifle ect.) from out of state so long as you pass the background check. These checks can take anywhere from 5 minutes to days.

You cannot however buy a handgun because you are from out of state unless you have a FFL*. However even with the FFL, you will still have to go through a background check and a hold. Given that it’s a handgun, your most likely looking at having the gun paid, placed on hold and then having it sent to a dealer. Expect to pay a fee to the dealer for this privalege. It sucketh greatly and takes away any discount you might have gotten at the show. Remember, the vendor must be in compliance with both state and federal law in order to sell to you.

Now while VA and NC don’t have any problems with one owning different types of firearms, and pretty much most states don’t have a problem with one owning them and brining them in, the state of California does. They have very stringent laws when it comes to what types of weapons one can bring in state. One of the many reasons I never plan on moving to that state.


*Federal firearm licensee (FFL)

[wolfie]

You cannot however buy a handgun because you are from out of state unless you have a FFL*. However even with the FFL, you will still have to go through a background check and a hold. Given that it’s a handgun, your most likely looking at having the gun paid, placed on hold and then having it sent to a dealer. Expect to pay a fee to the dealer for this privalege. It sucketh greatly and takes away any discount you might have gotten at the show. Remember, the vendor must be in compliance with both state and federal law in order to sell to you.

Hence the difference between the SCOTUS ruling Chicago's handgun ban unconstitutional, and their doing the same for DC. Chicago residents could go to a gun store in rural Illinois, buy their pistol, and bring it home themselves (since it was an in-state sale). For DC residents, on the other hand, ALL purchases would have been from out of state - and from one news item I read, there was only ONE FFL holder (I believe they were an elected representative) in DC, so only one person through whom a pistol could legally be shipped to DC.

[Zod]

Ha. This thread reminds be of this Facebook thing that was going around a couple weeks ago. It was linking to a video of this - Axe Gang. Implying that it wouldn't be an issues here because of conceal carry and such. But that's not true, the same gang here would have been armed to the teeth (my knowledge of motorcycle gangs comes from The A Team and Sons of Anarchy) and there would have been more destruction and for sure loss of life.

Really strange comments in that article : "Banning guns doesn't work : these people had guns, but chose not to use them during their armed robbery out of a sense of fair play" seems to be the gist of it.

[Pixilated]

*snip*

EDIT: The truly frightening part to this story is that the guy's first response to being approached by a pair of kids casually asking if they've gone to the Stampede (the Calgary Stampede is THE big event in Southern Alberta so it's more often than not you will find people that are going than not) is to draw a gun. An individual with that level of paranoia has no place on a police force, certainly no place in Canada, and in my personal opinion, even owning a gun.

That was my first thought. The kids weren't harassing them by any definition of the word and yet his first reaction would be to reach for his gun? And he's a cop?? As my cousin would say, Lord have mercy ...

er, canadian police are armed. *snip*

That's what I thought, LOL. I used to do the police and court reports for a weekly newspaper in another life, and I don't remember ever seeing the officers without their guns. This was small-town Canada, though, and they rarely drew them, much less used them.