Is it time to arm the police?

[Saracen]

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?)

I think you'll find it's more nuanced than that. Conventional armed police training is, as I understand it ....

- only fire to prevent serious threat of risk to life, and
- fire to neutralise the threat.

But, what "neutralises the threat" depends on the situation.

With a conventional firearms situation, centre-mass shots are pretty reliably going to put someone down. Neither head shots nor TV-style shooting in arms or legs can be certain to stop an armed suspect firing, and the chance of a miss is far greater. Ergo, aim at centre mass which should neutralise the threat. It is also quite likely to be fatal, but by no means certain to be.

With a suspected bomber, however, there are additional problems.

First, if they're carrying or wearing explosives, the kinetic shock of a bullet impact might detonate the explosives. In no small part, that depends on the explosive, with crude or home-made being far more volatile, and high-end military grade being far more powerful, and yet, far harder to trigger accidentally or kinetically.

But a cop can hardly ask a suspect for a chemical analysis of the (suspected) explosives.

Secondly, there's the risk that the final act of a suspected suicide bomber will, given the chance, be to self-detonate, and that could be via a trigger concesled anywhere. That's not a likely risk with, say, an armed robber or gang member.

So, givenvthe objective, "neutralise the risk to officers or third parties", a body shot on a suspected bomber might only achieve their own onjective for them, and if the explosives themselves constitute a risk to the officers or third parties, then the objective us to prevent the bomber triggering the device. Contrary to TV and movie perceptions, even fatal chest shots may well give sufficient time to trigger detonation. There is only really one way to becsure to prevent that, which explains what happened to Charles de Menezes.

It also explains, again as I uneerstand it, the difference between the training of regular firearms officers, and counter-terrorism firearms officers, for whom the training has more .... military .... components. Like, suppressive fields of fire preventing terrorists from getting to their intended victims.

There's an awful lot of extremely fast tactical assessment has to go on in decifing what to do, or not do, and then doing or not doing it.

As I undetstand it.

[Biscuit]

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.

I wasn't suggested there should be zero on-line surveillance, I was suggesting the focus on it is too high and we have created a system there is no clear path back from. I cant help but feel the "track everyone just incase" approach we seem to have landed in creates too much irrelevant noise to be of practical micro-use.

These people have supposedly been radicalised by videos on the internet... if the current system of recording everyone's browsing history couldn't determine these people should be put onto more comprehensive watch list that included physical surveillance or invasive technological tracking then, what would?
How far are they prepared to go before they realise the approach is flawed? An enforced internet white list?

[Saracen]

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...

There are no guarantees in this. Just the rapid tactical assessment, and then the best course of action available. Best may not be good enough.

The risk with tasers, and body shots, is that that alone might trigger detonation. Part of a tactical assessment is whether the target is holding anything that might be a trigger or dead man switch.

Time is also an element, meaning inaction could result in detonation. just as the wrong action could, if the device is on a backup timer.

Taking a shot might be wrong. Not taking it might be wrong. And either could kill the officer taking or not taking the shot.

I have nothing but admiration for those doing that job, because I sure as hell wouldn't. Whatever they're paid, double that isn't enough.

[eltel]

I want to thank those that have and are serving as armed officers. I worked at the local police HQ for nearly 15 years as a civilian contractor and got to meet quite a few of the ARV and diplomatic protection officers over the years and a finer bunch of people I don't think you could meet.
lots had come from the armed services so was a great transfer of useful skills that would be lost to civvie street. so I understand why the rank and file would not wish to be routinely armed, whether that will change after the recent events I don't know But there must be a way to protect the officers from recrimination after a shooting maybe body worn cameras with a recording facility and a live link back to command and control (silver/gold Commander)

[ik9000]

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.

But the media are quoting people saying they DID report these people, and the nut up in Manchester. The services failed to act on that intelligence. Simply increasing the volume of collected data without addressing those shortcomings is not going to help. One does not increase their chances of finding the needle by increasing the size of the haystack without overhauling the other parameters - number of workers, how information is processed, how leads are pursued etc. Quite aside from the privacy aspects auto surveillance as being mooted by some will not be the panacea that its supporters would have us believe.

Targetted surveillance and snooping on identified suspects however is fair game - it needs to be well implemented how this is undertaken though and not just blanket snooping on everyone. That is not a sensible thing to plump for. In fact it is just what the nutters want - state control and supression of free speech via opression, coercion and intimidation to toe-the-line. So a flexible system with checks and balances to prevent abuse, with a clear way of how gathered information is disposed of in the case of false positives.

[Lucio]

No way, it was bad enough attending a gaming event the other week and seeing two cops with MP5's guarding the queue.

Our police have the resources to call in armed response vehicles in all the major parts of the country quickly, and frankly, despite these shocking incidents that have occured lately, if we start escalating things, we're only giving into the terrorists.

Better a hundred people die than 66 million people surrender what makes our country a better place to live than say, the US

[Biscuit]

Better a hundred people die than 66 million people surrender what makes our country a better place to live than say, the US

See I really dont see it this way, despite not wishing any changes to the gun laws in the UK for either the public or the police forces, I dont think that specifically makes the UK better than the US.
Plenty of countries with reasonably flexible gun laws that dont have anywhere near the number of crimes/deaths involving firearms.

[TeePee]

No way, it was bad enough attending a gaming event the other week and seeing two cops with MP5's guarding the queue.

Our police have the resources to call in armed response vehicles in all the major parts of the country quickly, and frankly, despite these shocking incidents that have occured lately, if we start escalating things, we're only giving into the terrorists.

Better a hundred people die than 66 million people surrender what makes our country a better place to live than say, the US

How I know you've never lived in the US....

[Tabbykatze]

I would rather have firearms out of public reach (including mainstay police force) than the current arms laws in America. But if the UK adopted something akin to Switzerlands firearm laws wherein you have to go through mandatory training before you're allowed to retain the firearm in your personal possession then it could be balanced a bit.

We do not and have not ever needed our mainstay police force to be armed because the Police Force and mentality in the UK is punishment over "letting you move on". Yeah sure this makes some countries laugh at us, but I feel a damn sight safer in the UK with the current Police Force than i would in America. When I have visited America I actually feel concerned if an Officer is nearby because of the weapon he carries, it doesn't make me feel safe that one man has the power to on the spot be Judge, Jury and Executioner. Especially seeing as shooting someone with a Firearm is near enough the final chapter of someones life.

That and because the level of training and psychometric testing Officers receive in America, I would be concerned that there are some I would not feel comfortable being around even further.

That is why the UK is better than America in regards to policing my eyes.

[opel80uk]

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.

Were the Orlando nightclub & San Bernardino shootings not carried out using Semi-Automatic rifles? As a licensed gun owner myself, I understand the distiction but the statement above that the gun control debate has been effectively ended is a false narrative. That can only be determined by looking at the recent spate of truck attacks in the context of how many people are also killed by automatic weapons in non terror related incidents, paying specific attention to those killed needlessly (I.e, someone not committing a crime, acting in a threatening manner etc). If terror attacks are killing say 100 people in the UK per year, but there will be an increase in non-terror related killings if we allow more gun ownership (as virtually ALL independent studies show), then we're robbing Peter to pay Paul.

And here's the thing. I'd say half of all Americans I've met are, in my humble opinion, pretty stupid. Same for British people, same for Irish people. I have a pretty poor opinion of people in general. (by stupid, I don't mean of a different political opinion to me, I mean generally lacking in basic common sense or general intelligence). The idea that some are allowed to drive frightens me, never mind could own a gun easier than it is now, and anything that stops the UK ending up like US and their relationship with guns is a very good thing. The overwhelming majority of crime in the UK and Ireland is committed with no firearm, and the Police themselves tell us that arming them will almost certainly see an increase in criminals arming themselves, and make their job more dangerous, why would we not listen to them?

[Ttaskmaster]

But the media are quoting people saying they DID report these people, and the nut up in Manchester. The services failed to act on that intelligence.

Obviously we can't say for sure without seeing the data and the processes involved, but I'd think it quite likely there wasn't sufficient evidence to make a move on the guy. That, combined with all the other reports doesn't make for that easy a case.

No way, it was bad enough attending a gaming event the other week and seeing two cops with MP5's guarding the queue.

Having had to carry live rounds with a concealed weapon in public myself, I'd be far happier having openly armed officers than any of the other options.

But if the UK adopted something akin to Switzerlands firearm laws wherein you have to go through mandatory training before you're allowed to retain the firearm in your personal possession then it could be balanced a bit.

World of difference there, mate.
The Swiss have National Service, which means military training. That means defence of the nation in times of war, not urban policing and CRW.
Also, it's not so much 'allowed' as required to retain your service rifle and ammunition, again in the event that Switzerland needs to mobilise a military force. None of this is any use against domestic terrorism, especially since said weapons are typically locked away at home, rather than carried in the street.

I'd say half of all Americans I've met are, in my humble opinion, pretty stupid. Same for British people, same for Irish people. I have a pretty poor opinion of people in general. (by stupid, I don't mean of a different political opinion to me, I mean generally lacking in basic common sense or general intelligence). The idea that some are allowed to drive frightens me, never mind could own a gun easier than it is now, and anything that stops the UK ending up like US and their relationship with guns is a very good thing. The overwhelming majority of crime in the UK and Ireland is committed with no firearm, and the Police themselves tell us that arming them will almost certainly see an increase in criminals arming themselves, and make their job more dangerous, why would we not listen to them?

^ 100%.
We should let the Police decide if they want to be armed.... which we did and which they don't.

[TeePee]

Were the Orlando nightclub & San Bernardino shootings not carried out using Semi-Automatic rifles? As a licensed gun owner myself, I understand the distiction but the statement above that the gun control debate has been effectively ended is a false narrative. That can only be determined by looking at the recent spate of truck attacks in the context of how many people are also killed by automatic weapons in non terror related incidents, paying specific attention to those killed needlessly (I.e, someone not committing a crime, acting in a threatening manner etc). If terror attacks are killing say 100 people in the UK per year, but there will be an increase in non-terror related killings if we allow more gun ownership (as virtually ALL independent studies show), then we're robbing Peter to pay Paul.

And here's the thing. I'd say half of all Americans I've met are, in my humble opinion, pretty stupid. Same for British people, same for Irish people. I have a pretty poor opinion of people in general. (by stupid, I don't mean of a different political opinion to me, I mean generally lacking in basic common sense or general intelligence). The idea that some are allowed to drive frightens me, never mind could own a gun easier than it is now, and anything that stops the UK ending up like US and their relationship with guns is a very good thing. The overwhelming majority of crime in the UK and Ireland is committed with no firearm, and the Police themselves tell us that arming them will almost certainly see an increase in criminals arming themselves, and make their job more dangerous, why would we not listen to them?

Yes. Semi-Automatic. A very important distinction which the gun control loons don't understand or deliberately obfuscate. Crimes with automatic weapons in the US are incredibly rare. But crimes with semi-automatic rifles are very uncommon too! More people are killed with baseball bats that with rifles of any kind. But it's the semi-automatic rifles which the loons want to ban.

[Top_gun]

Yes. Semi-Automatic. A very important distinction which the gun control loons don't understand or deliberately obfuscate. Crimes with automatic weapons in the US are incredibly rare. But crimes with semi-automatic rifles are very uncommon too! More people are killed with baseball bats that with rifles of any kind. But it's the semi-automatic rifles which the loons want to ban.

Not sure where this debate is heading. Calling those who oppose guns as loons suggests you've made up your mind regardless of any rational arguments put forward. In any case, aren't automatic machine guns already have been banned from retail in the US? Hence why any crime associated figure is incredibly low.

As a Londoner, I wouldn't want to see every police armed and then given special dispensation when shooting a person. This risks giving us a Judge Dredd type police force.

I think to keep us safe is to ensure the intelligence service is funded to ensure thorough monitoring of suspects. The money isn't a problem as long as we don't give tax breaks to the rich. We already know, these recent terrorists were known by the intelligence service so at least the identification of suspects aspect works. Has the Tory government put money before our safety?

[Xlucine]

It's still possible to buy a machine gun legally in the US. You need to undergo a in-depth background check and prices are crazy high, but firearms collectors commonly get registered as firearms dealers (which you need to do to order a gun over mail order) so apparently if you've jumped through one set of hoops it's not too hard to get through a second set. It's also much easier to make a fully automatic firearm with basic machine tools than a semi automatic one (although while making a semi auto firearm in the US is totally legal, it's totally illegal to make a fully auto weapon)

[Top_gun]

It's still possible to buy a machine gun legally in the US. You need to undergo a in-depth background check and prices are crazy high, but firearms collectors commonly get registered as firearms dealers (which you need to do to order a gun over mail order) so apparently if you've jumped through one set of hoops it's not too hard to get through a second set.

I'm aware of this but I believe it only applies to vintage machine guns.

[TeePee]

A dealer or manufacturer aren't restricted to vintage guns. I've yet to see a rational argument for gun control, even one I disagree with.