Is it time to arm the police?

[opel80uk]

Every other country in the world does.

No, every other country in the word does not.

[Ttaskmaster]

No, but all of these events were eventually ended by armed police. In at least these two attacks, arming all police may have ended them sooner. Armed citizens reduce crime too, but that will never happen in the UK.

We don't need guns... This is the land where we go up to burning terrorists and headbutt them in the face. What do we want guns for?

However, I'm also certain that we'll see an increase in accidental police shootings.

Headline: "Cops Kill Kids". That, more than anything else, will deter Police from taking the armed route. Already it feels like they get lamb-basted and dragged through the public mud, just for stepping outside their station in the morning... How much more sensationalist tabloid press do they need?
Leave them alone to do their job, thanks.

[directhex]

We don't need guns... This is the land where we go up to burning terrorists and headbutt them in the face. What do we want guns for?

[Biscuit]

The police themselves, in the most part, don't want to be armed. I trust their judgement on the matter.

My vote would go towards better research into none/less-lethal and alternative defence systems.

I really dont see how armed police would have made a jot of difference in any of the recent UK attacks.

[Top_gun]

No to arming every police officer and no to knee jerkism.

Although the police reacted quickly in eight minutes, nobody called them until nine minutes after the attack had started. I would also have the question why there weren't any armed police at London Bridge station. It's one of London's busiest stations and literally next door to London Bridge and Borough market.

Jaw jaw is the only way to win the war on terror and I'm not convince the Tories have the right mentality to do so. The Tories and the Extremists both believe in divisive policies and stuck in their own entrenchment thinking. They're are so alike. The only difference is one prays to Allah and the other kiss pound notes.

[cheesemp]

No.

Law of unintended consequences => arming officers would likely involve many more armed criminals (as distinct from terrorists) with the distinct possibility not only of lots more cops getting shot, but lots more civilians getting caught in crossfire.

Besides, as I understand it, the budget has been there for increased firearms officers for a couple of years, but police are having great trouble actually recriiting those that are both willing and suitable. Do we want to arm all police if that involves significant drops on both training and psychomettic assessment / testing?

At least part of the reason it's hard to recruit is that these cops go out on duty every day knowing they MIGHT have to use their weapons and if they do, very possibly kill someone, as per yesterday, and they are going to have to face the rest of their lives knowing they took someone's live and no matter how good the reason and justified the shoot, that is a weight to bear.

And on top of that, if the discharge their weapon, let alone kill someone, they're going to face a year or two of potenyually career-ending enquiries, their lives and by implication their families lives are going to face upheaval, and they'll likely be a risk of a court trial and a manslaughter or efen murder conviction because they tried to do their jobs and some liberally-minded second-guessers that have never faced that situation are going to stand in judgement, after the fact.

We can't go without that post-shoot enquiry or we risk a bunch of extra-judicial killings, but if we have it, even the best officers get 2 years of upheaval for doing their jobs exactly and precisely as instructed.

Never mind recruiting more, I'm surprised we can get as many as we already have, given how they get treated.

One more thing. A couple of officers of my acquaintance have told me they'd leave the police entirely rather than face that every day, if they were required to be armed.

The immefiate aftermath of an incident(s) like this is not, IMHO, the time to be making policy changes or we risk a knee-jerk reaction we will regret later.

I don't often agree with you Saracen but you are spot on with this. Knee-jerk reactions are dangerous - the police don't want arming so why arm them? Overreacting is just what terrorists want - They want you to feel unsafe and scared. Truth is you are more likely to be killed in a car accident due to some bad driving - are we going to fit all cars with speed limiters?

[Saracen]

I don't often agree with you Saracen but you are spot on with this. Knee-jerk reactions are dangerous - the police don't want arming so why arm them? Overreacting is just what terrorists want - They want you to feel unsafe and scared. Truth is you are more likely to be killed in a car accident due to some bad driving - are we going to fit all cars with speed limiters?

Mine's already fitted with a limiter .... at 155mph. Take that off it's it's more like 190mph.

Other than :-

1) Track use, or
2) Use when abroad

... it's hard to see a justification for a car being able to do 150+ when the legal limit is 70. I mean, a bit over, say 80-85 .... MAYBE. But more than double?


Anyway, rant over. But I take the comparison.

[peterb]

The police already have armed response units - armed patrols on the street would, I suspect, make police less approachable and distance themselves even more from the community. Policing is by consent and the everyday policeman should not be seen as some form of elite group.

The training load to train every policeman in the safe use of firearms would be immense, as would the continuation training, and horrific though these attacks are - they represent a small number of incidents in the overall picture of lawbreaking. Far more important is the use of intelligence gathering to prevent these attacks taking place at all, which may mean more surveillance - but preventing the attacks in the first place is a more effective solution than reacting to attacks that take place.

[wazzickle]

Mine's already fitted with a limiter .... at 155mph. Take that off it's it's more like 190mph.

Other than :-

1) Track use, or
2) Use when abroad

... it's hard to see a justification for a car being able to do 150+ when the legal limit is 70. I mean, a bit over, say 80-85 .... MAYBE. But more than double?


Anyway, rant over. But I take the comparison.

Haha what if police officers had a legal limit of the number of people they could shoot and kill per month

[jim]

My understanding is that armed police arrived within 8 minutes. I don't think that arming every officer would have made that situation dramatically different.

Additionally, if every officer was armed with tasers, then that would achieve a similar end result. If we are going to arm every officer, I'm not sure why we're immediately leaping to the solution of guns rather than tasers.

[peterb]

My understanding is that armed police arrived within 8 minutes. I don't think that arming every officer would have made that situation dramatically different.

Additionally, if every officer was armed with tasers, then that would achieve a similar end result. If we are going to arm every officer, I'm not sure why we're immediately leaping to the solution of guns rather than tasers.

The problem with a taser is that the tasered suspect could possibly trigger an explosive device - whereas a well aimed shot to the head is supposed to make that less likely.

[cheesemp]

The problem with a taser is that the tasered suspect could possibly trigger an explosive device - whereas a well aimed shot to the head is supposed to make that less likely.

I could be wrong here but I thought armed officers where trained to shot at the body not the head. Less chance of missing. Of course I could be wrong but they aren't using sniper rifles at long range. I seriously doubt you'd stop a suicide bomber with a gun before they set themselves off... (most go for surprise anyway don't they?)

[Ttaskmaster]

The problem with a taser is that the tasered suspect could possibly trigger an explosive device - whereas a well aimed shot to the head is supposed to make that less likely.

Making that shot to the head sufficiently well-aimed is even less likely, along with the remaining possibility of nervous contraction triggering the device as the target is being shot, all possibilities of which are completely negated by a Dead Mans Trigger anyway...

[Biscuit]

The police already have armed response units - armed patrols on the street would, I suspect, make police less approachable and distance themselves even more from the community. Policing is by consent and the everyday policeman should not be seen as some form of elite group.

The training load to train every policeman in the safe use of firearms would be immense, as would the continuation training, and horrific though these attacks are - they represent a small number of incidents in the overall picture of lawbreaking. Far more important is the use of intelligence gathering to prevent these attacks taking place at all, which may mean more surveillance - but preventing the attacks in the first place is a more effective solution than reacting to attacks that take place.

I agree, although I think the approach to surveillance is entirely wrong ATM. IMO they are putting far too much onus on the idea of mass on-line surveillance as an effective solution instead of good old fashioned police work.
There has been a number of articles about concerned citizens reporting some of the recent attackers to the police due to their actions in the local community. You have to ask, why have these been ignored, is it because they receive so many that they end up in a metaphorical "junk folder"?
Do we trust this digital collection method that has so far, within a number of weeks, failed twice?
What happens if this method continues to fail (which it will, as intelligence services will be constantly chasing the newest encryption technology), do we get our privacy and on-the-street police officers back?

I keep seeing technologically illiterate MPs bringing up the ridiculous concept of banning encryption and/or requirement for government back-doors as a method of tracking and preventing terrorism and child abuse. I should hope we on this forum are all intelligent enough to know something so outrageous would result in the entire population placed into the hands of on-line criminal enterprises. This is a whole different kind of beast that I presume hasnt happened still because the intelligence agencies have highlighted how foolish an approach it would be, causing it to be little more than topical political talking point.

[TeePee]

If the UK had the same gun laws as in the US though, those same losers would likely have attacked with automatic weapons rather than knives and the end result would have been way more carnage and death.

And yet no terrorist in the US has ever used an automatic weapon.... The gun control debate has been effectively ended by the recent spate of truck attacks.

The problem with Tasers is that it is possible that the Taser itself might set off explosives.

[peterb]

I could be wrong here but I thought armed officers where trained to shot at the body not the head. Less chance of missing. Of course I could be wrong but they aren't using sniper rifles at long range. I seriously doubt you'd stop a suicide bomber with a gun before they set themselves off... (most go for surprise anyway don't they?)

It was stated at the inquest of Jean Charles de Menezes that officers were trained to shoot at the head in case a body shot triggered an explosive device. Idont know if that is still the case.

I agree, although I think the approach to surveillance is entirely wrong ATM. IMO they are putting far too much onus on the idea of mass on-line surveillance as an effective solution instead of good old fashioned police work.

Except of course that those engaged in lawbreaking are making use of the internet, and good old fashioned policing also included surveillance, so the internet should not be exempt from surveillance. After all it is just another communication medium.

While digital collection methods might have failed twice, what we don't know with any accuracy is how often they have succeeded in foiling attacks of this sort.

Making that shot to the head sufficiently well-aimed is even less likely, along with the remaining possibility of nervous contraction triggering the device as the target is being shot, all possibilities of which are completely negated by a Dead Mans Trigger anyway...

Very true - which highlights one of the problems faced by the police - and one which would not necessarily be overcome by universal arming go of the police.