It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UK Police to carry guns soon?

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   
They are making a very big deal on UK news today of the fact that 3 unarmed police officers saw Bird early on during his killing spree but could do nothing about it.
When trying to give chase he waved his shotgun at them, causing them to take cover and loose track of him.
I thought the whole thing was going to be used as an excuse to remove the few weapons some people are entitled to have, but now I feel it is more likely to be used as a reason to arm the police. If they were more responsible this would not be a bad thing...... If..

Sky News Link

news.bbc.co.uk...

I haven't seen anything saying yet that the police should be armed, just an emphasis on the fact that the unarmed officers were present early on in the rampage. Strongly suggesting that it could have been prevented if they were armed..
I think they are presenting this information in this way so that people will start begging for the police to be armed to 'prevent this kind of tragedy' in the future.

What do you think?

[edit on 7-6-2010 by AgentSmith]




posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Nope, never gonna happen. Most people don't want all police armed and over 80% of Police themselves don't wish to be routinely armed.

This is all media hype around a very isolated and rare incident. It is tragic it happened, yes, but in the grand scheme of things it isn't worth having a knee jerk reaction over. The PM has already said that there will not be any new legislation because at the end of the day, you cannot legislate someones thoughts.

If the Police start to tool up, then the criminals will as well. Yes, some carry guns and what have you now but in all honesty, that is rare. If they expect to be confronted by armed Police, they are more likely to be armed themselves.

Even when guns were 100% legal, the Police didn't like using them and the Public didn't like carrying them. We've never had a big gun culture and it's always been the domain of the rural folk so they can shoot foxes, pigeons and pikies.

[edit on 7/6/10 by stumason]



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   
I agree.

There was no mention of the fact that even if the police officers had a gun they could have taken bird out. They would have to have been very good marksmen or they could have shot a bystander.

Also if they had shot him in whitehaven whilst he was driving a gun he would no doubt loose control of his car and may have ploughed into bystanders causing more loss of life.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Well said, Stumason


2nd...


CX

posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   
I've written....then deleted this post about 5 times lol.

First i wrote that i would welcome the police carrying firearms, maybe in Cumbria they would have made a difference.

It is usualy the unarmed copper here that will be the first on the scene of an incident, by then it is often too late to radio for armed response.

I served all of my military police postings carrying firearms, except for my last one in Aldershot where obviously we didn't carry. I felt naked and very vunerable without a handgun by my side.

I remember one of the first incidents i was tasked to was someone firing a rifle from the top of a multi-storey in the town centre, but without a weapon i felt about as much use as a chocolate teapot.

How could i look after the public properly if i was not equipped to confront a gunman?

IMO the police should be armed in order to patrol some of the areas of Britain these days, they are not getting any better.

Yet there is still something niggling me, something like a feeling of pride that we haven't had to arm every officer yet.

I'm very much on the fence with this issue so it's a hard one to comment on. Thanks for posting it though, it will be an interesting one to keep an eye on.


Maybe every officer should carry a form of non-lethal weapon, not a Tazer btw, but something that would drop a person immediately. That kind of comprimise could work...maybe.

CX.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by keldas
 



I have not long finished watching Panarama tonight and the Chief Superintendent of that area was saying "How could an unarmed Policeman stop him!................."

www.newsandstar.co.uk.../news-round-up-1.50 001

Reckon times will be a changing.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by CX
 


I recognise there are some very good arguments to arm the Police, but there is alot to be said that in a country of 60 Million people where we only have around 150k Police and only a fraction of them are armed, that our crime rates are still a damned site lower than other countries with fully armed Police everywhere.

Alot of noise is made about gun and knife crime, but the actual stats don't really back up any noticeable increase, just an increase in reporting on the News due to 24hr channels. This has increased the public perception of violent crime, while it has actually been falling.

When all is said and done, the UK with it's disarmed Police and populace is a very safe place to live, despite whet the Mail or the Sun want you to be afraid of!



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   
No matter where you live in the world, police cannot protect everyone from harm...Even if they have guns...

which means, people should always be able to protect themselves and carry guns themselves...

In the good ole USA if I see some naked freak chasing 2 little kids in the park, I shoot the bast@rd, that's my policy...


No police needed...



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by AgentSmith
 


There are police that are armed in England, it is just sad that they are few and far between. I am stationed at base in England and the MPD around the local area carry MP7s



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienreality
In the good ole USA if I see some naked freak chasing 2 little kids in the park, I shoot the bast@rd, that's my policy...



Is that something that happens often then?

I knew it wouldn't be long before we got into the whole "Gun ownership" thing between the US and UK.

Thing is, Guns ARE legal in the UK, you just have to jump through a couple of hoops to get them. Even when assault rifles and handguns were legal (pre 1990's), ownership was very low and even the criminals rarely used them.

Please, for the sake of all that is holy, just accept that the UK has never had a gun culture and we don't wish to be armed to the teeth living in fear like you Yanks seem to be all the time.

I would hate to live in a place knowing that people were walking around with guns and I would hate it even more if they felt self-righteous enough to gun down people they "suspected" of nefarious activity without any chance for that person to explain their actions, as you seem quite willing to do.

Over here, we have a Justice system which presumes innocence over guilt until proven, your method does the exact opposite.


CX

posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by CX
 


I recognise there are some very good arguments to arm the Police, but there is alot to be said that in a country of 60 Million people where we only have around 150k Police and only a fraction of them are armed, that our crime rates are still a damned site lower than other countries with fully armed Police everywhere.



Yeah i know, i think that's what keeps me from being fully behind arming the police here.

I think we've done well up to now, i think if they really wanted to fully arm the police force they'd have done it before now. They haven't even bothered when unarmed police officers have been shot dead.

CX.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 04:54 PM
link   
The issue is a slippery slope.

Guns are rare in this country.... for both criminals and police.
If you arm all the police officers, nationwide... then the criminals will arm themselves too.... and eventually the public will be left with no choice to arm themselves.

And then you have a situation like the USA.... where everyone is walking round strapped.... and we do not want that here.


I think stumason's initial post summed it up perfectly.

[edit on 7/6/10 by blupblup]



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   
I guess from now on any joyriders with the extra charges of "using a car as a weapon" can be dismissed, as these officers clearly didn't seem to think they could have taken Bird out from behind using the chase-car.

He would have had to be superman to be battling a rolling car, and firing shots towards the trailing police ramming him off the road.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by AgentSmith
 


I think the media is just trying to get a fresh angle on the story as there isn't really anything other than "taxi-driver goes postal" to report.
With the advent of rolling news, we live in a Britain of constant opinion and bias paid for by the DBs who run the country. However its gotten sooooo bad now that everyone can see-through the constant stream of propaganda they spew....



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   
I find it unusual even being a Canuck that your police arent armed.
I think it would be a good idea to arm them.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ROBL240
 




I know.... I do find it rather pathetic that no attempt was even made to ram the car or tackle him.
Yes he was armed but there must have been something they could have done.

I can't see how Derek Bird could have driven his car and shot at 1-2 police cars and still evade being taken out, had they continued the chase.

I suppose it was their call and they didn't fancy getting shot... but I still think they could/should have done more.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ROBL240
 


They are saying, there were only 2 cars chasing him and they both lost his trail

Unable to ram someone of the road if you loose them,,,



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   
I heard that earlier, conflicting to the other report that the 2 officers were following Bird, significantly so that they were able to give reports about his whereabout without "intervening" to risk their own lives. So much for the 12 members of the public who got shot then.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ROBL240
 



Exactly.... they didn't just "lose his trail".... they pulled over after being shot at and he got away... there's a difference.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 


Makes sense .............thought the CS of the police was a bit unsure and nervous whilst being interviewed, he kept saying "lets what for the facts".




top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join