Is It Time to give All UK street Bobbys Hand guns

[macc]

I reckon eventually every officer will be authorised to carry firearms it the UK, and in the near future, whether they like it or not. But at this moment in time most incidents  attend by police officers are resolved without harm to anybody, unlike other armed forces, as the weapon they use most frequently and effectively rests just below their noses – negotiation and persuasion are powerful weapons, and also an animal or 2. And it would appear from the x coppers on here, firearms would not be favoured. And if that goes right across the board in the police force, they who know best, ie officers, would be the only ones who should decide  It hasn't stopped officers in the states from getting shot and killed even in states where they have the death penalty. And the same in France.

[Tetley]

The key issue here is funding.
Cameron has cut police funding, so where will they find the money to provide:
1, Training for all beat bobbies ?
2, Firearms for all beat bobbies ?
3, Psychological assessments for all beat bobbies ?
Just raising the point....I have no opinion re. validity of the original post, although I do believe that the harder you are on an enemy with no fear of death, the more you play into their hands......just saying !

They will find the money and the Police budjet will go in the Bin especialy heaven forbid we get a Paris style attack,one thing yer high ups dont like is a bit of bover on the streets..... it un settles em... gets em thinking there all vunrable like the rest of us.....

:tiphat:

[nic.spato]

The key issue here is funding.
Cameron has cut police funding, so where will they find the money to provide:
1, Training for all beat bobbies ?
2, Firearms for all beat bobbies ?
3, Psychological assessments for all beat bobbies ?
Just raising the point....I have no opinion re. validity of the original post, although I do believe that the harder you are on an enemy with no fear of death, the more you play into their hands......just saying !

[Trinity]

Anytime Tets, you know how to get in touch.

[Tetley]

Not trying to make a two poster topic of this one but if it helps your lad the basis of English law is that anyoffender is entitled to be tried by his /her PEERS ie the Jury Judge the Facts and the Judge " the LAW" proceedure etc. An old trick used by Barristers in complicated fraud etc is to put the case in front of a jury of Lay-men who at best will struggle to understand it and therefore there is a better chance of an aquital.

Thanks for the explanation,he asked me how it worked and i couldent realy explain it in a streight foward maner as above.
:tiphat:

[Trinity]

Not trying to make a two poster topic of this one but if it helps your lad the basis of English law is that anyoffender is entitled to be tried by his /her PEERS ie the Jury Judge the Facts and the Judge " the LAW" proceedure etc. An old trick used by Barristers in complicated fraud etc is to put the case in front of a jury of Lay-men who at best will struggle to understand it and therefore there is a better chance of an aquital.

[Tetley]

I accept that we are slightly off topic as such, but it does follow on nicely. In respect of laws it was always said that you can never legislate for "nutters" and accept to some degree that they will always do the unexpected, be that terrorism or any other crime.  For all the Police's faults and at times they are many and varied, we must also understand that the Police no longer are the Prosecution Authity that is now in the hands of the C.P.S. and it appears with them that they will never take a case where most of us would say let the Courts decide, they will only take cases that they consider has more than a 50/50 chance of a conviction.

again off topic ish

Its intresting,my youngster is doing criminal law at the moment,he carnt get his head around how an un qualifed jury ( as in lay uk folks ) can reach the correct verdict in complicated point of law cases,ie the diffrence here were a judge/s decides on guilt.
all intresting stuff,lets just hope everybody keeps safe at the sharp end in 2015.
apparently there was plenty of national police on the streets yesterday in Murcia capital,including the bus station.
:tiphat:

[Trinity]

I accept that we are slightly off topic as such, but it does follow on nicely. In respect of laws it was always said that you can never legislate for "nutters" and accept to some degree that they will always do the unexpected, be that terrorism or any other crime.  For all the Police's faults and at times they are many and varied, we must also understand that the Police no longer are the Prosecution Authity that is now in the hands of the C.P.S. and it appears with them that they will never take a case where most of us would say let the Courts decide, they will only take cases that they consider has more than a 50/50 chance of a conviction.

[nibbler]

Back to the topic and unarmed Police officers, As this young lady was shot in the back a gun of any description would have helped and if as some have said mad men ofr fanatics get a gun, armed police would be no deterrent either.
As an aside did anyone see the news report of the shoot out in London last night.
Nibbler :tiphat:

[byrney]

I thought legislation already existed to stop people inciting hatred?  It's just that the politicians refuse to get a grip with it because they are terrified of offending these "minority" groups.

Sorry Tets, I don't agree with arming the entire police force for the sake of a "handful" of extremists.   They know who they are, just send the SAS in and quietly dispose of them and stop pandering to them.

[Tetley]

The problem is Hogs,all this was a train crash in the UK  waiting to happen,im not  religios but i am spirutual and happy to break bread in any person church,ie i respect the right to there belife,howver we have had a few waywards sprinkled in the job,saying how nasty the UK  inferdells are..... and in some cases we the inferdells have been feeding them with our taxes,home ing them..... were is the respect in that ?

now all this "speaking "/teaching  has become the norm,and it realy will be a difficult job to put the lid on it.

however i think what it will lead to... ie all this religios.... street war.... is right wing governments been elected in EU  states then that realy will... crank the job up... effecting a lot of peacfull,complient,belivers,wich will be a shame and a danger.

hey ho all very complicated stuff so off to the car boot and then a go on mi scoot   :tiphat:

[Tetley]

The thing is we can all debate it wich is great,but at the end of the day,the Police are now.... front line troops and seen as targets by these nutters ,as has been shown this week,so my veiw is they need arming

the days of 3.8 tripple carb wire wheeled S types,sorne offs,and tights are well gone

as has been shown this week,life to these fanatics is cheap,so lets have the tools evend up a bit on the frontline.

morning folks.

:tiphat:

[byrney]

"Had she been carrying a side arm (holstered or otherwise) would she have deterred the shooter from taking the shot?" - I personally doubt it.  Maybe what would deter them is the ultimate punishment for murder - the death penalty - although, if it is a true madman then he would be unable to make a sane decision anyway, so even this wouldn't necessarily work in this isolated incident.

[nibbler]

Melee, I don't know how to take that comment, (with a pinch of salt I think) :lol: It's actually 14 yr's but I am in constant touch with officer's old and new through the various Police organisations and I can confirm that if the question was put to the officer's serving today there would still be an overwhelming NO.
Nibbler :tiphat:

[gus-lopez]

No not the police, but they should have a group similar to the mossas.

Unfortunately vast amounts of them are mentally unbalanced & regularly partake in dishing out beatings for any reason they fancy whilst posting about it on facebook.there's quite a few you tube videos of them killing people.
They are a good advertisement for not arming any of them.

More importantly the govt need to ensure that mandatory punishment for carrying illegal weapons is sufficient to deter their use in the first place.

Yes summary execution for anyone carrying a gun or knife. Anything less is a waste of time. They've already tried the "carrot & stick " which wasn't any use. A stick that does nothing except put someone in prison has no use.

[jimmybeen]

I've never understood this topic, though it has been aired many hundreds of times over the years.
Some will always harp on about the USA and what happens there, but the only comparison IMO between the UK and USA is that on the most part we speak the same language.
I always think of the UK as part of the Commonwealth or even more so in recent years part of Europe, but think of it as you wish in the end you need to consider that 'the Police', be they in the Commonwealth or be they in Europe or indeed be they American, the fact is the whole world over (with very few exceptions) 'Police' are armed.
Why oh why will it make any difference how the Police treat the public or the public treat the Police if they have one more pouch on the already over used Police officers belt. The public will still ask the time or ask directions AS THEY DO THE WORLD OVER there is no difference if the officer is armed it's all down to how he / she conducts themselves.

Given the Manchester Police shootings of the WPC,S and now the events in Paris

is it Time to Arm UK  Bobbys on the beat as standard ?

my veiw is yes .

morning citizens   :tiphat:

I'm with you Tetley .... Yes

[byrney]

There's a time and place for guns, and it's not in sleepy little villages like La Alfoquia or Arboleas, but they are appropriate in no go ghettos like Moss Side and Cheetham Hill in Manchester for example.

As usual, one size does not fit all situations, but as usual we have to treat everybody the same way for fear of upsetting some sensitive terrorist....

When will the backlash against the PC idiots start?

[tandas]

They are lethal enough with their tasers!  Soldiers don't routinely carry their weapons and look at all the backlash they have faced when the have used them on the enemy in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Some of the gun toting policemen here in Spain look completely unable today use it sensibly if necessary.  Leave it to the experts.

[MELEE]

Nibbler it must be at least 20 years ago since you were a bobby - it is a whole new ball game now
I bet todays police forces have not been asked the same question - you might be surprised by the answer

[zuluwarrier]

This topic crops up every time there is an act of terrorism on the streets of a city/town in Europe. Unfortunately one day our police will most certainly be armed be it in our life time or not. The world is no longer the friendly place it was when we grew up. Times they are a changing ( for the worse ). Do the general public want it NO do the police want it NO but there will come a point when a particular act of violence/terrorism will tip the balance of public opinion & then as a matter of course all our bobbies will be carrying weapons.

[bobthelook]

No I think it would be a backward step. I think that we should stop cutting the number of police officers and stop giving them such a hard time when incidents happen. Armed police - certainly in the USA are IMO far too trigger-happy and I think that it would encourage more criminals to be armed.

[newholland]

No not the police, but they should have a group similar to the mossas.

[zilnor]

Hogs,   Is'nt it wonderful that our four legged friends serve such a valuable purpose within the police force and the military ?
I recently saw a clip on U tube about the Indian army giving a full funeral to one of their dogs who had died. They said "he was one of us and deserves to have a proper send off " or words to that effect. I like the fact that they gave the dog as much respect as they would a fellow serving soldier. Me and im indoors often say we prefer our dog to most human beings !
Sorry off topic  :redcard:

[rockymo]

 v(Must agree the police have enough to worry about without the "Gun Carry "problem the special provision for firearms police is more than adequate with the exception that they should have automatic shot guns!!! in their armoury and a reduced need for TOTAL exemption from criminal proceeding following their need to protect the public

[zilnor]

Cuddly Bill,  those facts and figures are definitely food for thought. Thank you.
My French friends and neighbours used to say that they admired the way the UK police could maintain control without carrying firearms. Mind you, they also said the Brits are a bit mad !  :wave

[Cuddlybill]

REPORT IN 2014 USA.


THE shooting of Michael Brown, an 18-year-old African-American, by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, is a reminder that civilians—innocent or guilty—are far more likely to be shot by police in America than in any other rich country. In 2012, according to data compiled by the FBI, 410 Americans were "justifiably" killed by police—409 with guns. That figure may well be an underestimate. Not only is it limited to the number of people who were shot while committing a crime, but also, amazingly, reporting the data is voluntary.

Last year, in total, British police officers actually fired their weapons three times. The number of people fatally shot was zero. In 2012 the figure was just one. Even after adjusting for the smaller size of Britain's population, British citizens are around 100 times less likely to be shot by a police officer than Americans. Between 2010 and 2014 the police force of one small American city, Albuquerque in New Mexico, shot and killed 23 civilians; seven times more than the number of Brits killed by all of England and Wales's 43 forces during the same period.



The explanation for this gap is simple. In Britain, guns are rare. Only specialist firearms officers carry them; and criminals rarely have access to them. The last time a British police officer was killed by a firearm on duty was in 2012, in a brutal case in Manchester. The annual number of murders by shooting is typically less than 50. Police shootings are enormously controversial. The shooting of Mark Duggan, a known gangster, which in 2011 started riots across London, led to a fiercely debated inquest. Last month, a police officer was charged with murder over a shooting in 2005. The reputation of the Metropolitan Police's armed officers is still barely recovering from the fatal shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, an innocent Brazilian, in the wake of the 7/7 terrorist bombings in London.

In America, by contrast, it is hardly surprising that cops resort to their weapons more frequently. In 2013, 30 cops were shot and killed—just a fraction of the 9,000 or so murders using guns that happen each year. Add to that a hyper-militarised police culture and a deep history of racial strife and you have the reason why so many civilians are shot by police officers. Unless America can either reduce its colossal gun ownership rates or fix its deep social problems, shootings of civilians by police—justified or not—seem sure to continue.

MY REPLY IS NO THANK YOU....................

[Tetley]

Well as a member of the GP i just dont see how yer can let a family member go on shift,kid,dad,mam to be lined up like a plastic duck shoot at a fair ground.... just bacause some shiit thinks " they can",were in the 21st century with Nutters abound from far & wide some of them with very little regard for human life including there own.

to me at nearly 55 i was brought up with the village Dixon of dock green type" heart beat "bobby ie yer got a bxllxking if yer was a good lad but whent befor a magistrate if you were a bad one ,i dont think the culter of police concent has to disapear from the genral public,just because the cop is a little bit better protected with a side arm automatic pistol.

hey ho good debate folks and nice to hear from the folks that spent years at the police  sharp end   :tiphat:

[Trinity]

Again as a full time served Police officer, my answer has to be NO. As someone commented we Police In England by consentand I for one would not like to see that changed. Also in the Uk, with the exception of Northern Ireland there is not the mentality of the acceptance of Guns on the street. For the record during my 30 years service (mostly C.I.D.) i only had a firearm pointed at me once, a .38 revolver and thank God when asked to put it down he did so. One thing I would also agree with I would support more non lethal weapons being made available if not carried full time.

[byrney]

Despite the increase in armed and terrorist crime, I still fundamentally disagree with arming all Police Officers.

As has already been touched upon, I also doubt that a good majority of them are psychologically able to use good judgement when it comes to handling a dangerous weapon.  And that is not meant to be derogatory to any past or serving member, but a fact of life relating to all human beings - hence, my abhorrence at Countries like the USA where carrying guns is an acceptable norm.

However, there is a case for arming some Officers to be deployed as and when necessary, but then they already exist in their SWAT/Rapid Response teams (or whatever fancy name they're given these days).

If there was to be an arming of the Police then that must come hand in glove with a fundamental review of the way that Officers are treated when a firearm is used and the wrong person ends up getting shot - especially when the "victim" is a known terrorist or has terrorist links.  Live by the sword, die by the sword.

[nibbler]

NO, this subject has been aired over many years. The police themselves have been polled on this and there was always a resounding no. I personally didn't want to be armed and as far as I know the same opinion applies to most serving officers now.
There already a lot of armed response units and as has been said if an officer shoots someone, justified or not there's hell to pay.
I would however like to see more non lethal weapons issued.
When you actually look at the number of crimes committed with a firearm compared to all crime it's still a very small minority.
Nibbler :tiphat:

[MELEE]

YES - but like LisaD said NO lengthy enquiries if they shoot an armed villain

[webejamin]

Hope they don't give an iron to some of the old bill that I know, they'll shoot themselves or their mates :o

[Tetley]

30 years a cop no thanks . Every time the police shoot someone there is hell to pay. You get suspended and always end up in court (only for a jury to find you not guilty) because the bosses and the government wont back you up for doing your job.

That a good point,But my veiw is times are changing,the police need protecting more,to enable them to give more protection to the gp ,we carnt carry on having these peices of shxxt gunning people down on the streets,times have changed and in a small way ( at the moment ) we have a cival war on EU  streets wether it be gun towting brain washed or anti faith preachings in UK  schools.

also ref the bosses...... there going to have to wise up a bit down at the shiity end,and give more back up to the thin blue line or risk.....Anarchy in some of the UK,s innner citys after folks have got the hump.

:tiphat:

[gus-lopez]

No ,not unless the rest of us can legally have them as well. Since Hungerford when the reaction was to make the UK gun free we have more criminals with guns than we ever did.
At present we have the same as we have with the economic situation. The legal, decent,honest & truthful working & paying taxes & N.I. to support those above & below.
Arming the Police as a matter of course will leave the same poor saps in the middle & paying the price.

I think yes they should be armed, but this needs to go hand in hand with gun laws.

Following the Hungerford and Dunblane incidents, the UK already has highly restrictive gun law.  Virtually all the guns involved with crime are illegal, arming the police will only serve to increase the number of illegal weapons on the street and encourage their wider use.

Two other things to bear in mind,  Quite a large section of the police regularly carry guns, you only have to visit an airport to see this.  Also, the proposal make the assumption that every policeman is psychologically fit enough to carry a firearm ... and I would hazard the opinion that many are not.

Quite right Doreen.
& Any one with half a brain would also see when observing at airports that anyone  wanting to could take out both armed officers single handedly & without being armed.

[sapper]

30 years a cop no thanks . Every time the police shoot someone there is hell to pay. You get suspended and always end up in court (only for a jury to find you not guilty) because the bosses and the government wont back you up for doing your job.