Should British cops be armed?

Question

I'm not sure myself, other similar countries with lower crime rates arm their police (france spain) but i doubt they're as well policed as the UK so they don't get investigated every time they raise their weapons. Also, is it needed with such good armed responce units who use better guns and are better trained. personally, i think its better to have these guys around to deal with the situation but are they're enough of them with increased gun crime. also, places where you might need a gun - airports, Buckingham palace, Mcdonalds tend to have armed officers. my american mates think its amazing our police don't carry guns but they also say they have more respect for british police because of it. obviously though america is even more dangerous than newcastle on a friday night so they need guns.

Did a bit of reaserch and theres some interesting facs:
Death rate per 100,000 due to gun crime 04/05:
UK ~ 0.46 (northern ireland 2.3)
France ~ 6.35
Spain ~ 0.90
US ~ 16
rather puts my point about lower crime rates in the shade i was wrong. the figure for france is amazing. we came out rather well i think unless you live in belfast....

Answer 1

They have been for many years,,and until 1936 ALL London police had the choice to carry firearms,,,,,but as for today and in the street then NO WAY,,we do not live in a gun society whatever the papers say

All UK gun crimes number less than 300 incidents a year,,much less than the 10,000 gun deaths in the US every year

Answer 2

Good question(have a star), stand@btinternernet or Iian should have some anti-police opinion on this.

I am a serving police officer working in a busy city response unit(1st on scene).
I dont see the need for arming all police, and a lot of police will feel unhappy about being armed.
I am ex armed forces and would happily carry a sidearm. But I dont think your normal bobby on the beat should. Weapon use needs to be extended because response units around the Uk are the ones most likely to attend a situation where a gun is being used. Only when it has been confirmed that a weapon has been discharged will the armed response unit attend. If an attack alarm goes off at a bank then its response officers who attend, not the ARV.I think that Response officers should be allowed to carry a sidearm and I think that ALL police officers should carry a taser.
The real problem is that there are politicians siting in a cosy office saying we dont need them, they will never know unless they get off their backsides and take a ride with us sometimes.
I will give you a good example.........
2 months ago myself and another officer attended a domestic violence incident. The offender, a very muscular male, was high on drugs and suffers with Bi-polar. He was not armed and had beat his girlfreind up, but as soon as we attempted to escort him out of the address, he latched onto my collegue and attacked him. The offender started biting hard on his arm and my buddy could not break free from his grasp. I could not pull him away and after repeated warnings I started to hit him with my baton. The offender ended up with a broken shin bone and 2 broken ribs, he did not feel this at first(drugged up) and started to assault me then ran away...did not get far.
My point is that if I had a taser the incident would have been stopped instantly, myself and my collegue and the offender would not have ended up in hospital. The only chance of any injury would be when the offender fell to the floor as a result of being tasered.
I respect people opinions, when they are well informed, but people who state that in todays society we do not need any more forms of protection, then they should take a walk around the suburbs of our cities at night. Its not pretty.

The job is hard enough, but without the respect of politicians and the public alike, it feels like I put my life on the line for nothing.


*Edit*.....Ha ha ha ha, there we go, Thanks Iain, for your educated and honest opinion! You are a great example of why we need a police force in the first place. Without your untrained opinions this place would be boring! Im not even going to change my spelling mistake(you need something to have a pop at dont you).

Answer 3

I believe that we do not need to arm more officers with conventional firearms.

Each force within England and Wales have Firearms Departments, which operate to provide an adequate response to the criminal use of firearms. This is done by having patrolling ARV's (Armed Response Vehicles), available to respond to spontaneous incidents.

Armed officers also conduct pre-planned firearms operations to arrest individuals, following a risk assessment of the individual. Tactics used all depends on the nature of the risk.

At present the the numbers of firearms officers is adequate. Yes we hear of more shootings, however having more firearms officers on the streets will not negate this. A recent survey by th Police Federation showed that the vast majority of UK officers do not want to be armed.

Very rarelly do officers come face to face with armed criminals. We will all remember recent incidents where UK officers were shot and killed attending incidents. Having a firearm will not necessarily prevent this. On the occasions that I remember the officers were responding to incidents where no firearm was mentioned. On one occasion the officer was a fireams officer and was shot before he had time to react to the threat.

What we do need however is to stamp down hard on those that carry guns and those that use them without thinking of the consequences. Currently possession of a firearm attracts a five year sentence. Dismally this actually means just over half that sentence will be served.

My personal opinion, which is now coming to fruition is that response officers are armed with Taser. These are being trialled on non-firearms officers in 6 UK forces. The biggest threat to those officers is from edged weapons. Hopefully this will endeavour to give those officers the protection they need and the capability to deal with such subjects.

Edit - Thank you Joan!! I was tickled by Stand's comments about getting to know you better!! Don't go therel, he's a fool!! My 4 year old talks more sense than he does!!

Iain - have a thumbs down for talking utter rubbish again. My 4 year old also has more intellect than you too.... but then thats not hard... is it?

Answer 4

After being brought up on a military base and seeing some of the younger lads being given guns(usually sporting hangovers) whilst on guard I would definately say no to the general police officers being armed. I just dont trust them at all.

The right to carry arms should involve more than a few weeks basic training.

The armed response teams should be given more money for training and employing more officers if required.

Answer 5

no longer being waiting to respond to a a violent armed crime jointly as watching for the ARU sounds stable yet isn't. while your getting shot at, no longer basically having a gun pointed at you with various verbal replace like on television, you no longer having a weapon which will shop the undesirable guy from coming at you until help arrives is an incredible minus. I actual have used this in court as an occasion of ways long a "few seconds" is. look at your watch. i will start hitting you for merely 3 seconds. do you will desire to take care of your self merely ahead of the 1st hit or would desire to you wait the full 3 seconds, an extremely long term jointly as being hit. The Brits have the great factor approximately incredible small hands administration and custom for over one hundred years. there is far less danger of a foul guy utilising a handgun to harm somebody. the U. S. does not have that benefit. in fact our written shape encourages small hands interior the palms of the final public. A shape written consistent with oppression of colonials by way of a imperialistic British government.

Answer 6

No. If there is ever a requirement for any additional armed law enforcement we should bring the Army on board to do it in support of the police. The police have more than enough power as it is.

The police have proven themselves completely incompetent, in the matter of the Brazilian chap, when it comes to dealing with an armed response situation. It's a wonder they turned up at all really, but when they did they were being guided by commanders who changed their minds more than Britain changes its weather. If the Braz had been a Brit he'd have probably been alive today because the police wouldn't have turned up in the first place.

Answer 7

It is a matter of training, but not necessarily training in the use of firearms.

We already have armed officers to deal with the incidents where they are required. The weapons are safely locked away until consent has been given for their use.

In 30 years service, I learnt to talk to people - something that the police do not do today. I talked my way out of any trouble, usually single-handed. I was armed with a wooden baton. In 30 years, I drew it once and never used it.

For day to day policing, the need is not for arms, it is for officers who can communicate with people and understand them.

A friend who visited America was stopped by the police. As he started to open the car door, the door was kicked shut on his leg and a gun was drawn on him. He was told never to take his hands off the steering wheel again without permission.

By contrast, I once stopped a driver in the UK for a minor infringement and found that he was an American. I asked for his driving licence and he started to give me a commentary "I wish to put two fingers into the inside pocket of my jacket and I shall then pull out my wallet ...." I replied "We don't play that game over here. Just show me the licence".

I know which society I would prefer to live in.

Answer 8

Yes, absolutely. But with two MAJOR proviso's.

1) Police training should be as tough, strict and constant as the military, especially on firearm issues. This would negate the point of any 'community support' muppets and 'city security' useless bags of *****! Policemen should be REAL policemen, with the full training and powers that the badge offers.

2) They should be allowed to actually use them if and when necessary, without the fear of losing their career and going to jail if they shoot some little chav scrote on an asbo who decides to sue. They should be immune from such idiocy.

Answer 9

A better question would be: should people coming from the Caribbean and Africa to the UK be armed? Because the police say many of them are

Answer 10

not without better firearms training,to carry a firearm is one thing,to use it is another and at this moment in time through no fault of theirs the police are under too much pressure to produce results and mistakes are made,if needed ,police armed response units are available and to increase their numbers at this time without justification seems wrong,by arming all police officers the message sent out is that we cant cope and that is not the British way,never mind real guns,hand out the tazers to all