UK Police to carry guns soon?

reply to post by vesta




Well there are conflicting reports at the moment and I'm not saying they were wrong, nobody wants to be shot at.
What I've heard ranges from.... there was one cop in a taxi.... right up to there were 3 cops, two in one car and one in a commandeered taxi...

So if there were two cars, I can't see how Derek Bird can drive and evade two cars and shoot and all that jazz...

You're right, we should wait for the facts.... but I would expect the police to go all out and stop this guy, even risking their own lives.
They witnessed two (possibly more) people being shot.... and they just gave up the chase?

Hmmmm...

We'll see what comes out I guess.

The public do not want the police to be routinely armed.

This is a none story and raises its head every time (on the rare occasion) there is a serious crime caused by firearms. The call is often led by a couple of tabloids.

After the London suicide bombings in 2005 I was passing through York. The two poor policemen with their guns (acting as a terrorist deterrent) spent most of their time having their photos taken because armed policemen are so rare.

Anyway, there are armed police when necessary. I fear the day when the police get weapons routinely and I will object if it becomes a serious proposition. I also wonder if police want weapons - I doubt it.

Regards

reply to post by blupblup


I agree ...........we need to wait and see....

Such a sad thing to happen

With police in Cumbria not having the allocation of officers on the beat with guns, arming them now would be pretty pointless, the chances of something like this happening again are very remote, especially in the same region. As since the 9/11 in NY and 07 bombings in London armed officers are very much only centered around high profile tourist attractions, airports and other travel methods, there is no real need for them too. Again agreeing with a earlier ATS poster most officers do not want to be trained in firearms;

''you mess up, your own employers dont back you up''.
Look up the tube shooting of the Mexican rucksack.

Living in london myself, im used to traveling 'to and fro' with many police checkpoints with officers carrying weapons, especially around my underground tube stations. As an Avid football/Soccer fan i am more than happy to have them about, as i know what can happen if the detterent isnt there.

On a whole though, i dont agree with arming a high % of 'old bill' as its not cost effective, gang violence with guns is mainly only centered in urban city areas. With the current economic forecasts worsening by the day, public pressure should just be ignored.

I had no idea you guys had unarmed police. I can respect that you don't have a gun culture but please respect that we do and most of us would like. to keep it that way.

Good. All police should be armed and anyone should have the right to a firearm. Sorry thats just my opinion.

Originally posted by spewn
I find it unusual even being a Canuck that your police arent armed.
I think it would be a good idea to arm them.

I agree. It would be hard to imagine them not being fully armed. All of ours are completely armed with bullet proof vests, guns, tasers, and those little bats. Over here we only have 34 million people, and when they pull you over just in a traffic stop, one stays way back with his hand on his/her gun, like they are expecting trouble. Just to be safe. In little tiny towns even. And Canada isn't considered a gun toting country at all. Cops here do get a little taser happy, I would like them to get rid of those things.

Originally posted by jonny2410
Good. All police should be armed and anyone should have the right to a firearm. Sorry thats just my opinion.

But the thing is, the Police themselves don't want to be armed. This question came up at a Police Federation meeting a couple of years ago, after a female PC was shot at an armed robbery. They voted overwhelmingly to reject any calls to be routinely armed.

if everyone has guns, then even minor crimes can become fatal if people are toting guns and the police are too. Most crimes (well over 90%) in the UK can be resolved without the need for an armed response.

Our police also don't have the same mentality as the Fuzz in the US, for example. Over there, it's all about Law Enforcement, here it's about Keeping the Peace. An important distinction and allows the PC to have some leeway in dealing with offenders, for the common good.


Oh, to add, we do have the right to own firearms, that's enshrined in our Bill of Rights.

I always wondered why with unarmed cops and this "yob" culture there haven't been any attempts to organize or partner with say a drug runner or other mid level criminal figure to just take a town over.

If a boatload of drugs can make it into the country surely a boatload of weapons can and likely already has on more than one occasion.

Would the UK send the military through the streets to stop such an incident?

For example, what would happen there if something along the lines of what is currently happening in Jamaica erupted in the UK?

I imagine there must be a very high number of SWAT type British cops to make up for the fact that so many beat cops are not armed. I wonder how that number compares to the number of US SWAT type cops with almost 100% armed beat cops.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

How about giving the police officers themselves more available training to give them the opion whether they wish to be armed or not, instead of having just specialised units.

I lean more towards arming the police but there have been some good points about not having them armed, but with the increase in knife and gun culture how long will it be before more guns get on the streets. Maybe a big review in the justice sytem needs to be done. Living here in the UK it really annoys me when criminals get life and come out after 20 years or something silly. I just think the courts are too soft and the police do not have sufficent power and funds given to them to do a proper job

Originally posted by ThePeaceMaker
but with the increase in knife and gun culture how long will it be before more guns get on the streets.

That's the thing though, there has been no increase! In fact, gun and knife crime are on the decrease, it's just the perception thanks to the 24hr media outlets and newpapers trying to get that killer headline.

I lived in a rough inner city area for 10 years up until 2007 and I was mugged 3 times, but never saw a knife and the actual amount of people killed from kife crime is relatively small, another eason why when one happens they make a big song and dance about it.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
I always wondered why with unarmed cops and this "yob" culture there haven't been any attempts to organize or partner with say a drug runner or other mid level criminal figure to just take a town over.

Because they'd be crushed in an instant! In answer to your question would the Uk send the Army in if a gang tried to take over a town - Yes, they would. In fact, look to Northern ireland for an example of how such a situation would be dealt with.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
If a boatload of drugs can make it into the country surely a boatload of weapons can and likely already has on more than one occasion.

Probably has, certainly in the past as the IRA had to get their guns from somewhere. But it never seems to have an impact on average crime. Such guns are usually the reserve of organised gangs, not the little street punks with a sawnoff shotgun or 19th century pistol.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
For example, what would happen there if something along the lines of what is currently happening in Jamaica erupted in the UK?

See N.I.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
I imagine there must be a very high number of SWAT type British cops to make up for the fact that so many beat cops are not armed. I wonder how that number compares to the number of US SWAT type cops with almost 100% armed beat cops.

Not really. Each force will have a small number of ARV's, but in comparison to the total number of fuzz on the streets, armed fuzz make up about 5% of the total number.

Here is an interesting article on why we don't want more armed fuzz:

The two SAS officers, who have left active service, claim the police they trained had not been subjected to adequate psychological and physical tests to establish whether or not they were suitable to use firearms. The police officers were often “gung ho” and unfit

One of the soldiers said: “When the tension starts to rise and the adrenaline is flowing, the ‘red mist’ seems to descend on armed police officers who become very trigger-happy. This has been shown time and again in training exercises.”

The second soldier said: “We thought that police firearms officers were far more concerned with their personal image, dressing in body armour and looking ‘gung ho’, rather than their professional capabilities. I’m not surprised at the number of mistakes over the years.

The statement also describes a police training exercise run by the SAS in which an armed terrorist group was threatening to kill a hostage. The police team were to rescue the hostage using minimum force.

“I was playing the leader of the armed group and instructed the other members of my group to surrender peacefully once the final assault was initiated. Therefore there was no need for the police to open fire.

“But as the police assault group entered the room they began firing at everything. No one had moved; we were all stood with our hands on our heads.

“The response would have resulted in the unnecessary deaths of all the make- believe terrorists and the hostage alike. So much for the rule of minimum force.”

Times Online