Should British police be routinely armed?

[Terbinator]

That's due to the fact that you can't predict where someone is going to snap and go on a rampage. If every police officer was issued with at least a small calibre pistol, they can quickly group and tackle or at least contain nearly any lethal threats.

But now we've gone from dedicated fire arms officers to every bobby having a gun - bad times.

[chuckskull]

I would think thats more down to the location rather than a nationwide issue.

It was so close to a police station, officers inside heard the shots and as I understand he drove past the main entrance.

[aidanjt]

But now we've gone from dedicated fire arms officers to every bobby having a gun - bad times.

*shrug* I guess it must be a cultural thing. But I'm perfectly fine with the ole 'peelers' having sidearms. I honestly find it somewhat unsettling that the Gardí don't have sidearms.

[Terbinator]

Maybe your taking it too literal - Its not really a stretch of the imagination to know that gun crime isnt as rife 'up there' as opposed to the (inner) city and more populous areas where no doubt theyre are more, responsive, fire arms teams.

[aidanjt]

Maybe your taking it too literal - Its not really a stretch of the imagination to know that gun crime isnt as rife 'up there' as opposed to the (inner) city and more populous areas where no doubt theyre are more, responsive, fire arms teams.

Yeah, I'd go with that, but to me, any government which prohibits self-protection should make damn sure that government enforcement/protection agents should have the tools to do that job. Unarmed cops are useless in non-trivial situations.

[chuckskull]

Maybe your taking it too literal - Its not really a stretch of the imagination to know that gun crime isnt as rife 'up there' as opposed to the (inner) city and more populous areas where no doubt theyre are more, responsive, fire arms teams.

I'm sure there's a lot more gun crime in major cities yes, but if you're murdering people outside a police station and the police can do nothing but watch, then something is seriously, seriously wrong. The job of the police isn't the everyday, but the unexpected tragedies such as this. If they're not prepared then the law is failing them and us.

[Terbinator]

Who looks after the day-to-day stuff then? The PCSO's - don't make me urinate.

[chuckskull]

Who looks after the day-to-day stuff then? The PCSO's - don't make me urinate.

I think you misunderstood what I meant by day to day, I meant from the point of view of the public not from a police officer, if that makes sense.

The police are there to deal with theft, violence and the worst of society, so should be equipped to do so robustly and safely, was the point I was trying to make. I think PCSO's were a terrible idea myself, and the money could of been far better spent in other areas, but that's another thread.

[Fraz]

I personally find it pretty horrifying when I see armed police in the UK, although I certainly see your point about it being pretty FUBAR that a police station doesn't at least keep some emergency firearms handy when they see someone walk past killing people.

The time I most often see armed police is at Bristol Airport, where they're armed with Heckler & Koch MP5s. This seems like a very scary weapon for anyone to be carrying by default in a crowded airport where there has never been any gun crime. In London, yes maybe, but not in somewhere like Bristol Airport. What's to stop one of the policemen having a bad day and unleashing that on the crowd? The Cumbria story is very much a one-off. It could easily have been a policeman with a gun who went on the rampage.

So... the fewer easily available guns the better in my book. And when guns are needed by the police, it should require the authority of more than one person to gain access to them. I'm not in favour of them carrying guns by default all the time.

[jim]

I think there should be more trained armed officers.

In my opinion we should be in a situation where at any one point a county can call on 20 on-duty police officers to don the gear and get on the road inside 20 minutes.

They don't need to be permanent, just highly trained people who can respond to an incident.

The more officers there are with guns, the less highly trained they'll be - and I don't like the idea of that. But at the same time, it should never take more than 30-35 minutes to have firearms officers on the scene and ready to fire.

[kalniel]

But say you can put five officers on the beat for each one armed officer (though it could be something like 10 for all I know), don't you think those additional beat bobbies would be a better deterrent even in situations like this one?

[chuckskull]

Honestly I'd love to see more beat bobbies. At the moment the police is basically built around massively over stretched 'response' units, which only respond to 999 calls, who can actually be reprimanded for leaving their vehicle, to patrol at all, regardless of call load.

While of course, 999 response is crucial, I think there's huge value in good old fashioned bobbies waking a beat in an area they know and an area that knows them.

If you'd like a better insight into this and other issues with the police I found this blog http://inspectorgadget.wordpress.com/ very informative and entertaining, ranging from just good 'cop stories' to the politics behind the scenes. Written by a serving Inspector anonymously, without the permission of his force, so it's not just PR BS, he speaks his mind.

[aidanjt]

The two don't have to be mutually exclusive. 5 armed bobbies would be both a deterrent and actually useful in dangerous situations. That would leave armed response to specialise with more tactical situations involving hostages and the like.

[TheAnimus]

I think that 9 people in over a decade is hardly reason to change the law.

[Salazaar]

I think that 9 people in over a decade is hardly reason to change the law.

Exactly. The actual proportion of crime requiring an armed response is negligable, even despite the tragic events of last week, so routinely arming bobbies is only going to encourage more serious criminals to arm themselves in response. As well as putting a good deal more guns on our streets.

If there were a real need for armed police in this country then the police themselves would be the first to vocalise that. And speaking to the police officers that I know, not one of them is in favour of that.

And as far as training goes, the British Nuclear Police are routinely armed and an HSE contact told me he has to investigate roughly two accidental discharges per year. That's is one small patch with a very small number of BNP officers, imagine if that was scaled up to all the police in the country...

[kalniel]

The two don't have to be mutually exclusive. 5 armed bobbies would be both a deterrent and actually useful in dangerous situations. That would leave armed response to specialise with more tactical situations involving hostages and the like.

In the same budget they are mutually exclusive. Or are you suggesting that we should go about reducing the public deficit by vastly increasing police force spend?