Should All UK Police Be Armed?

reply to post by kevinunknown


I am very familiar with the police recruitment process.

At no point did I say that 'any idiot can join up', I was making a sweeping generalisation about the academic intelligence of bog standard PC's. You only have to, and I quote, "demonstrate a reasonable level of education." ie pass your GCSE's.

Obviously you have to "demonstrate good character" throughout your training, but judging by much of my experience with bog standard PC's, that standard is a bit lower than I'd like.

To be clear, I wouldn't arm them all. I don't object to certain groups or even whole forces being armed if they operate in areas with serious gun problems. But for the most part I really really don't think it's a good idea - people would die unnecessarily, and I'm convinced more people would die in the long run via accidental discharges or plain negligence. That's just my opinion tho.

Any police care to chime in?


[edit on 11-7-2010 by eightfold]

reply to post by eightfold


If you had read the op correctly you would have seen we agree what i said was that i would like all police to be armed with the tazer weapon. But i would also like to see all police trained to use hand guns so that if police intelligence suggested that there was a gun threat on one area of the forces jurisdiction the Chief Constable could authorise beat Bobbies to be armed or if needs be all police officers.

reply to post by kevinunknown

If you had read the op correctly you would have seen we agree

I did read it properly and we clearly don't agree.... you suggested arming all police with 9mm hand guns, then you said at very least they should all be trained how to use one, then given the 'option' to use it at a higher ranking officers discretion.

Therefore perhaps for the sake of all round practicality hand guns would be more suitable coupled with tougher knife laws.

I am not talking about all police being armed to the teeth like the tactical firearms teams carrying G36C’s and MP5’s, just a 9mm hand gun. It could even be put into place that all officers are trained to use hand guns however it is at the discretion of the Chief Constable

I addressed your taser point by saying I wouldn't give them the non-lethals they already have.

May I suggest you re-read your own post?



[edit on 11-7-2010 by eightfold]

Originally posted by kevinunknown


I am not talking about all police being armed to the teeth like the tactical firearms teams carrying G36C’s and MP5’s, just a 9mm hand gun. It could even be put into place that all officers are trained to use hand guns however it is at the discretion of the Chief Constable when they should be used and where. So for example say there was police intelligence of guns being possessed by groups of people in the Govan (or another part of a city), police in that area have the option of being armed.



[edit on 10-7-2010 by kevinunknown]

yeah lets read all of that shall we?

Originally posted by kevinunknown

yeah lets read all of that shall we?

lol. My god man. I did read it all. That bit you quoted is you, clearly, unequivocally suggesting arming all police with a 9mm hand gun.

You then go on to suggest that it might be better to just train them all and give them the option to use them.....

....but you clearly, obviously, inarguably suggest arming them all with actual guns. It's even the title of the thread.

Please stop digging.

[edit on 11-7-2010 by eightfold]

I'm probably going to be completely alone in my arguement here...

But i'd much rather deal and feel safe around an unarmed* standard police force who have been disciplined in say five years of unarmed combat experience and martial arts than a police force who have say six months training with a gun.

Mainly because the unarmed training will give the police a certain level of discipline and confidence and would enable them to make sensible decisions as opposed to a panicking policeman armed with a deadly weapon.

* When i say unarmed i still believe all police should have truncheons and CS gas, and we should still have certain armed units - but i do not want the UK to go down the route of over-zealous American cops shooting and tazing people.

reply to post by mr-lizard


You're a genius.

That'd be brilliant.

Originally posted by mr-lizard
I'm probably going to be completely alone in my arguement here...

But i'd much rather deal and feel safe around an unarmed* standard police force who have been disciplined in say five years of unarmed combat experience and martial arts than a police force who have say six months training with a gun.

Mainly because the unarmed training will give the police a certain level of discipline and confidence and would enable them to make sensible decisions as opposed to a panicking policeman armed with a deadly weapon.

* When i say unarmed i still believe all police should have truncheons and CS gas, and we should still have certain armed units - but i do not want the UK to go down the route of over-zealous American cops shooting and tazing people.

A lifetime of specialized training regimes would be brilliant, but who's paying for it and doing the work while it's ongoing?

Perhaps the fundamental question is, as conjectured general intelligence and quality of education decreases and non reality based paradigms proliferate, with tribalization of various segments of society and differences in perception based on multiculturalism where the same event can be interpreted in radically different ways, how does one possibly apply maximal force when needs be without outraging at least somebody?
The real question is not whether one carries a howitzer on their person the real question is guaranteeing a universally appropriate application and target

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by kevinunknown

 

That I could agree with, have an armoury at the local nick and several trained local officers in the event something like this should occur, deployment would be much quicker.

Not the clubs though, I wouldn't tempt fate, hundreds of drunk yobs and a few officers with guns could get very messy given the right (wrong?) situation.

[edit on 10/7/10 by woogleuk]

I just watched a video and was shocked to see dog-sniffing-hounds helping the police in the UK.
At first I thought 'hmmm, what a peaceful way to sniff out bombs' but...that's not what they're using it for.
If interested, watch:


www.youtube.com...

Well here the police are armed anyway (Belfast) it's not uncommon to see them walking around with mp5's (I presume that's what they are from the look) and they always have a side arm of some sort.

I don't have a problem with that despite the fact they have hassled me on more than one occasion for nothing or just because they felt like it at the time.

To be honest I'd rather the cops carry around guns than tazers at least they will have to justify any use of them.
I say arm them for everyone's protection but make sure every single use of a weapon is really justified and if it isn't charge them with the same crime the public would be.

In other words give them guns but make them think really carefully before using them.

Originally posted by Teknikal

To be honest I'd rather the cops carry around guns than tazers at least they will have to justify any use of them.

That's convoluted logic.

I'm sure when a trigger-happy cop kills someone (or their dog) the grieving family will surely appreciate the official justification!
(Poor cop, he had to go out on paid-leave whilst the case was pending too)


Listen up.................GUNS are not the answer.
No one has the born-given right to kill anything/one.

We've come to believe we do through examples of survival (hunting), peace (war) and fear (protection).
So we 'arm' ourselves against 'them'.

There wouldn't be a 'them' if society were lived properly----without a pecking-order!
Instead of fixing the problem....we continue to justify it.

Fine. If that's how you think then, continue on! But you morally relinquish any right to complain about all the violence!


Peace~

[edit on 12-7-2010 by One Moment]

reply to post by eightfold



No, the title is asking if they should all be armed.

What I am saying is that I would support all police being trained to use a hand guy BUT it should be up to the Chief Constable when and where they should be used.

reply to post by mr-lizard


You are not alone.

As I said early I would not like to see bobbies routinely armed and yes 5 years of MA training certainly beats 6 months training with a weapon, but unless things have changed I don't think they get marshal arts training - but they should. I never got any self defence training other than a few pointers to taking someone down and cuffing them, and how to defend yourself with a truncheon and later PR45 (baton).

reply to post by PuterMan


Going back to a story i told in one of my earlier posts on this thread when i went along to the police training centre and got a demonstration on police protection. One of the other people on the “tour” if you like asked the a question about police marital arts training. The answer was that all police get some basic training, you know a few good moves and restraints stuff. The demister himself told us that he had been training in Krav Maga for years and allot of his fellow instructors used it as well and further to this allot of beet bobbies would do some form of martial arts. The point is however MA training isn’t much good when a guy pulls a gun on you, or if a group of people attack you

reply to post by mordant1


Well i'd start the first two years of martial arts training alongside say the academic side of training for uniformed services.

So before they even get into the police force they would have 2 years of unarmed combat experience - then i would make it so they have obligatory training for four hours a week and they get graded.

So no extra time needs to be given and martial arts training is infinitely cheaper than say shotgun training or the like.

As i say this would benefit the police in regards to confidence boosting and exerting/venting negative energies - making police less likely to beat up a random person.

Originally posted by One Moment
That's convoluted logic.

I'm sure when a trigger-happy cop kills someone (or their dog) the grieving family will surely appreciate the official justification!
(Poor cop, he had to go out on paid-leave whilst the case was pending too)

Listen up.................GUNS are not the answer.
No one has the born-given right to kill anything/one.

I still disagree Gun's may be needed by the police however a tazer in my opinion isn't and is really just a thinly masked compliance tool that can be abused and usually will be. Gun's aren't all that rare in the UK despite bans and the police should at least be equal in that respect as the fact is criminals do have them.

I also disagree about the killing statement everyone has a right to defend themselves and their family by all means necessary and if takes killing to do it I deem it justified of course it should be a last resort.

UK police should be able to defend themselves and have the ability on hand to do it again shooting should be a last resort but it should be an option.

These days it's harder to tell who's the police and who's the criminal.



Police officers 'smashed OAP driver's window and dragged him out of car' after he was stopped for not wearing seat belt.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

This is disgusting. I'm surprised the poor fella didn't have a heart attack. God knows what might of happened if these police officers had been armed.

[edit on 6-8-2010 by kindred]

A previous poster mentioned that all Northern Ireland Police Service officers are armed. I also believe this is the case for the Ministry of Defense Police, the UK Civil Nuclear Constabulary, Royal Military Police, Royal Navy Police, and the Royal Air Force Police.

Do HM Customs & Revenue officers carry firearms or have armed vessels? What about HM Prison Service officers? Are perimeter and tower guards armed as they normally are here in the US?

[edit on 6-8-2010 by ChrisF231]

reply to post by kindred



Always remember .... ACAB


[edit on 6-8-2010 by Thepreye]

reply to post by Thepreye


I wouldn't go that far, but what happened to the honorable police officer of old who would tap on your window and politely ask you to wind it down. Smashing both your side window & windscreen in for such a trivial offence is a bit extreme to say the least.

[edit on 6-8-2010 by kindred]