Should British police be routinely armed?

[chuckskull]

Just something that's been irking me a bit the last few posts. Derrick Bird killed 12 people, not 9.

He killed 9 after the police first made contact.

[aidanjt]

Just something that's been irking me a bit the last few posts. Derrick Bird killed 12 people, not 9.

He killed 9 after the police first made contact.

Sorry, my bad.

[usxhe190]

It's not a 'forecast', it's a likely step of events according to causality.

And what other situations?

Hard to define "likely" step of events when you have a guy that no person would have thought would do such a thing. This is such a tail event, I really don't know how I could come up with a likely scenario.

There could be a whole bunch of scenarios that could occur. In fact, I am sure I am make up some fact scenario that leads to people arguing that we are lucky those unarmed officers didn't have guns in the first place.

On another note, the armed response guys came quite quickly to the area I believe.

It's a tragedy nonetheless.

[aidanjt]

That still doesn't answer my question. If a scenario is possible where cops with sidearms is a bad thing, I'd like to hear it as an valid argument.

[SeriousSam]

I didn't say the law is wrong, I'm pointing out that saner policing policy could have prevented it.


Huh? Are you joking? Let's see which gets resolved sooner:
a) Police spot crazy guy going around shooting up the street, they're unarmed so they can't approach him, they just let him go around shooting people waiting for armed responce to show up, dude kills 9 innocent by-standers who aren't allowed to arm or defend themselves thanks to stupid nanny legislation before turning the gun on himself before armed response shows up thus evading the law. The police failed as guardians of the population they're suppose to protect.
b) Police spot crazy guy going around shooting up the street, they're armed, so the surround him and demand him to put down his weapon, he either i) complies, and is arrested (most likely, even for loopers), or ii) starts shooting at the cops and is shot himself, wheeled to a hospital where he'll either die or recover and will be prosecuted in a court of law. A few people were wounded in the incident.

I'm going to go with b) being the quicker resolved situation with less innocents harmed.

There's no downside to cops with sidearms.

The simple flaw in your logic is assuming that a UK with armed police would have the same number of gun incidents per year as one without, when statistical probability tells us otherwise. Now we have no way of knowing how much it would increase the number of incidents because we are dealing with something entirely irrational, i.e. human beings. So the number of deaths could be more or could be less. However, one thing is patently clear and that is handing the power of life and death to more people is never a good thing, irrespective of training.

[aidanjt]

Sure I can. Gun related incidents in Northern Ireland not involving paramilitarism is very very rare.

[usxhe190]

That still doesn't answer my question. If a scenario is possible where cops with sidearms is a bad thing, I'd like to hear it as an valid argument.

There has been previous cases where innocent people died because of crossfire (in such situations, some argued the police shouldn't have used their firearms even though the police might argue it was appropriate to use it) and such cases again focused on "gun policy", right or wrong.

I understand it is natural to react and response to whether there is a "saner policing policy" in relation to guns but we can't react each time by increasing (or and decreasing) guns due to things such as this.

[aidanjt]

There has been previous cases where innocent people died because of crossfire (in such situations, some argued the police shouldn't have used their firearms even though the police might argue it was appropriate to use it) and such cases again focused on "gun policy", right or wrong.

Not in Northern Ireland.

That's just a by-product of poor training. Just as US troops shooting up Iraqi civilians is a by-product of inadequate training.

I understand it is natural to react and response to whether there is a "saner policing policy" in relation to guns but we can't react each time by increasing (or and decreasing) guns due to things such as this.

I've always supported officers being armed as a generic policing policy. It's not an issue of moral panic on my part. But I can't speak for others.

[Disturbedguy]

I personally believe police officers should be armed, especially those in rougher areas of Great Britain, I mean why the hell not? There are gangster/ wanna be gangsters and the like out there carrying knives and guns around daily, yet our officers are expected to roam the street with a baton and some pepper spray for protection?

I'd much rather see our officers patroling armed, even if its officers going round in two's with one being armed with a hand gun and the other being armed with an SMG, there is nothing saying they both have to be armed to the teeth, but they have to have addiquate means of defending themselves and a baton and pepper spray isn't addiquate in my opinion.

[oolon]

I'd much rather see our officers patroling armed, even if its officers going round in two's with one being armed with a hand gun and the other being armed with an SMG, there is nothing saying they both have to be armed to the teeth, but they have to have addiquate means of defending themselves and a baton and pepper spray isn't addiquate in my opinion.

They do patrol armed when required, I use to work on a nuclear site, that had armed police everywhere, they patrol armed at the airport. Do we want routine arming of all officers? I do not. Is there scope of more special case officers with firearms? Perhaps Yes. For me we need to look at armed officer response time, could we have flown them in by Helicoper etc? Could we have use the army? etc ... I hope this is the route any investigation will include.

[aidanjt]

Not every armed cop needs an SMG and a flack jacket though. A sidearm and kevlar is perfectly adequate for most situations.

But uh, I'd definitely not make the use of soldiers a matter of routine policing, it was a bad idea in Northern Ireland, it is a bad idea in Afghanistan and Iraq, and it's a worse idea during peace time.

[Terbinator]

Lets petition for the Gestapo while we are at it.

[jim]

You're never going to be able to stop the black market, all you can do is create an environment where they can't operate.

No, of course it would never stop. I just don't like the idea of a fairly prevalent black market for guns and armed police officers - as people have said, it just encourages everyone to stock up on weapons.

Bleh, ass covering can easily be dealt with simply by keeping a shorthand journal of the bobby's day. Getting rid of the brain damaged 'right to not be insulted', 'sue to success', and political correctness mentality would go a long way to reducing that.

Yup. I doubt that will happen though. The number of people that seem to think they're "entitled" to something every time something goes slightly awry...

[oolon]

But uh, I'd definitely not make the use of soldiers a matter of routine policing, it was a bad idea in Northern Ireland, it is a bad idea in Afghanistan and Iraq, and it's a worse idea during peace time.

If they are the only people who guns to hand, then why not use them? Clearly I would prefer they were not the only people on hand, however we used them when the firemen were on strike and did not let people burn with there buildings. Why not use them if there is a mass killer on the rampage and they are the only ones to had, helicopter with a gun on it on an open bit of road would have been very effective.

[aidanjt]

Lets petition for the Gestapo while we are at it.

Yeah, that's partially my concern. But also, the training objectives of the police and army are two completely different goals. Soldiers are trained to shoot to kill, and to shoot when a threat is perceived. Police have to demonstrate more restraint, and only shoot to incapacitate as a measure of last resort. Soldiers are issued weapons and ammo which penetrates the target. Police are issued with weapons and ammo which flattens when it hits the target. Police are duty and legally bound to follow the law. Soldiers are duty bound to follow orders.

You wouldn't put a bobby on a brutal battlefield filled with dead and wounded, likewise you wouldn't put a trooper on the beat.

[aidanjt]

If they are the only people who guns to hand, then why not use them? Clearly I would prefer they were not the only people on hand, however we used them when the firemen were on strike and did not let people burn with there buildings. Why not use them if there is a mass killer on the rampage and they are the only ones to had, helicopter with a gun on it on an open bit of road would have been very effective.

Certainly in very very special cases, a highly trained anti-terrorism unit like the SAS is useful in certain cases, like the Iranian embassy siege, or like you say, some heavily armed nut going around shooting up everyone in sight.

But generally speaking, they should only be deployed over seas or in cases of national disaster/invasion.