[Grammar] Is this sentence right?

[enydia]

Hi, teachers.

Is the following sentence right?

If police in the U.K. are able to go without guns and not have crime getting completely out of control then they have already set a fine example that other countries should follow.

It seems that the writer is saying 'police are able to not have crime getting completely out of control' .
Is it grammatical?

Thank you in advance.

Enydia

 

[tedtmc]

If police in the U.K. are able to go without guns and not have crime getting completely out of control then they have already set a fine example that other countries should follow.

I do not see anything wrong with the sentence.

The letters in bold could be replaced with 'keep crime from getting completely out of control'

not at teacher.

 

[enydia]

Is the expression 'police are able to not have crime getting completely out of control' grammatical?

 

[bds51]

Hello Enydia,
The original sentence is grammatical (have + object) and correct and used in negative statements and means 'to allow or to prevent'. Tedtmc's suggestion is good and you could also say 'without having crime getting /going completely out of control. An example of this construction would be " I can't have you shouting out the answers when everybody else is raising their hand."

Your last question 'police are able to not ...' is grammatically correct but rather odd in this context. Normally, you are able to do sth or not able to do sth.

To be able to not do sth is often used with behavioral problems. For example, you could say to a talkative type "Are you able to not talk so much"..

Are you able to eat without talking vs Are you able to not talk while eating? Which would be easier for a non native speaker to understand?

 

[enydia]

Hi, teachers.

I think I didn't make my question clear enough.

I saw the following sentence in a sample piece written by an English-speaking teacher:
If police in the U.K. are able to go without guns and not have crime getting completely out of control then they have already set a fine example that other countries should follow.

I think the if-clause is a short form of 'if police in the U.K. are able to go without guns and they are able to not have crime getting completely out of control at the same time'.
Is it?
Is the expression 'they are able to not have crime getting completely out of control' grammatical?

I think I'm dewelling too much on something unimportant, but I'm really confused.

Looking forward to your replies.

Thank you in advance.

Enydia

 

[tedtmc]

Hi Enydia,

Never mind if it sounds silly but is this sentence grammatical to you?

They are able to have crime getting completely out of control.

If it does, then it is also grammatical if you change it to the negative by adding 'not' after 'to'.
The other variation is to add 'not before 'to'.