Should British police be routinely armed?

[chuckskull]

After the tragic spree killings in Cumbria last week, the call for British police to be armed has risen once again. Especially after the revelation today that he went onto kill 9 more people after police originally spotted him, but were unable to stop him due to being armed only with some pepper and a hollow aluminium stick.

“Three unarmed police officers saw Derrick Bird during his shooting rampage in Whitehaven but were unable to stop him. The first police officers arrived within minutes, possibly seconds of the initial call” - Deputy Chief Constable Hyde

Honestly from a philosophical/moral point of view, I find myself kind of agreeing with the oft quoted statement that a nation where only the police are armed is a police state, but have to ask myself what is a nation where only the criminals are armed?

Most of our current gun law's for civilians and police were based on knee-jerk reactions because of media frenzy over previous incidents in my opinion. Leaving our current system of gun control and armed response tragically flawed.

So do you think the current system is the best it could be and should the British police be routinely armed like almost every other western state?

Beeb link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/10257836.stm

[aidanjt]

There's no reason why police shouldn't be armed by default. As long as they're properly trained, unlike the apes in the US. It's never been a problem for anyone in any respect in Northern Ireland, and it does give police the option of using force in an emergency.

[Terbinator]

I don't think this is the right example to maybe advocate police being armed at all times - it was a freak and tragic incident and see as the guy was driving round what is to say he couldn't of been foiled with some stingers, roadblocks etc. Add to this, the fact it wasn't long ago a copper here got shot off his colleagues during an enclosed training exercise, it doesn't put much faith in their aim in a civilian filled area.

Now tasers perhaps, while apparently as cumbersome as a lethal weapon itself are probably more appropriate for day to day policing than an MP5.

[kalniel]

There's no reason why police shouldn't be armed by default.

Guns don't know who pulls the trigger. Routinely armed police means criminals might adopt a shoot first attitude.

There you go, from no reason to two reasons, in 30 seconds.

[aidanjt]

As I said, as long as they're properly trained. The RUC/PSNI has been armed for decades with little incident of accidents/abuse regarding the revolvers they're issued with.

[chuckskull]

I don't think this is the right example to maybe advocate police being armed at all times - it was a freak and tragic incident and see as the guy was driving round what is to say he couldn't of been foiled with some stingers, roadblocks etc. Add to this, the fact it wasn't long ago a copper here got shot off his colleagues during an enclosed training exercise, it doesn't put much faith in their aim in a civilian filled area.

Now tasers perhaps, while apparently as cumbersome as a lethal weapon itself are probably more appropriate for day to day policing than an MP5.

I think it is actually. If the first officer on scene had even a pistol many lives could have been saved. Please remember the police did not stop this man the only reason the death toll stopped where it did was because he shot himself. Armed response was not able to arrive before this.

Roadblocks and stingers stop cars, not bullets. They could have stopped the vehicle then he would merely have been on foot with unarmed bobbies trying to face him down.

I agree automatic weapons would be overkill, for a default armament. I also completely agree on tasers, I've thought every copper should have one since I first saw them on COPS, god knows how long ago.

[aidanjt]

We only have to look at the US to see how much of a disaster tasers have been. It's not even suitable to call them non-lethal anymore, yet they're treated trivially by officers because it's marketed as 'non-leathal' by the companies selling them and the departments which use them, regardless.

[richy19]

I think the rules for weapons should be looked over
however the police barely have the power to fight crime as it is (just laying a finger on a criminal and all hell brakes loose) so taking away guns from the few that do have them will just make things worse
i think they should keep some kind of test to see what police can or cant handle weapons however i do think they should give weapons to more officers
or at least something better than pepper spray

[handscombmp]

Guns don't know who pulls the trigger. Routinely armed police means criminals might adopt a shoot first attitude.

There you go, from no reason to two reasons, in 30 seconds.

That's why.

It would mean more criminals would get guns as a way of fighting back.

It happens with the cars i've heard.
the police get faster cars so the crims do as well and so it goes on.


I know this incdent was upsetting but luckily they are far and few between so i don't think the police need guns.

[Terbinator]

I don't think anyone said about reducing the already small amount of fire arms officers carry around. My reasoning with the roadblocks wasn't that he'd think "Oh sod it, you guys of caught me" - more, okay we've trashed his car he can only know run around the lake district and have officers (armed) on stand by at the proverbial roadblock and/or in a police helicopter tracking him.

[mmh]

Guns don't know who pulls the trigger. Routinely armed police means criminals might adopt a shoot first attitude.

There you go, from no reason to two reasons, in 30 seconds.

this argument is flawed by the fact that if they might adopt that attitude whats to stop them on an unarmed person...
If they are unstable enough to be pointing a gun at anyone, why should someone not have a gun to point back.

[chuckskull]

I don't think anyone said about reducing the already small amount of fire arms officers carry around. My reasoning with the roadblocks wasn't that he'd think "Oh sod it, you guys of caught me" - more, okay we've trashed his car he can only know run around the lake district and have officers (armed) on stand by at the proverbial roadblock and/or in a police helicopter tracking him.

That's the problem there were no armed officers close enough to help with the roadblock, there's so few that apart from blinding good luck they're almost always going to be to far away. If his car is trashed, but he's not stopped, then his gun will get him any car he likes.

[kalniel]

this argument is flawed by the fact that if they might adopt that attitude whats to stop them on an unarmed person...

Cost and need.

[Terbinator]

That's the problem there were no armed officers close enough to help with the roadblock, there's so few that apart from blinding good luck they're almost always going to be to far away. If his car is trashed, but he's not stopped, then his gun will get him any car he likes.

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

[shadowmaster]

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

I was hearing on the news that last year Cumbria had 372 applications for a firearm licence and 370 got accepted

[aidanjt]

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

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.