Guns won't stop terror attacks.  Having a gun doesn't mean you're psychic and know "he's going to do this!" ahead of time.  I like how the UK police are currently.  The reason all officers aren't armed is because their people are civilized.  We, in the US, are not.  If you sent cops out on patrol in the US without guns, you've given them a death sentence.  Rarely ever is an officer going an entire shift without some type of call that requires the use of a gun, even if it's just to have the gun in your hand as a precaution.

 

UK and US society is vastly different.  In one, you don't even consider the possibility of being ambushed because it's rare as hell. In the other, you practically send the entire force to assist an officer in the event officers are being set up.

 

[Edit]

 

Also consider this:  UK police are trained a lot better in lieu of not being armed with a firearm.  It is my assumption that they are trained in ways to deal with someone that does have a firearm, if the situation presents itself. 

Edited June 24, 20178 yr by Deputy Rourke

Yeah, I think there is a big difference between US and UK society. 

Even here in Australia where our police are all armed, an officer I spoke to said he'd drawn his firearm twice in 10 years.

On 6/21/2017 at 3:52 AM, sek510i said:

We already have a pretty good response time for the recent terrorist attacks.

That's because they've occurred in some of the most highly protected areas in the country. Even considering this, it took 8 minutes for armed officers to arrive on London Bridge. Had the BTP officer who was on scene there in 2 minutes been armed rather than having to confront the attackers with his baton and getting injured, lives could have been saved. Good luck getting even one armed response vehicle on scene within half an hour in say, Cornwall. 

 

I believe more armed officers should be recruited and trained, but furthermore there needs to be a major shift in attitude from the likes of the IPCC. It is fully unacceptable that officers have to endure being treated as a suspect, often for multiple years, for doing their job and using the weapons as they've been trained and recruited to do. Legislation must be put in place to ensure this happens and officers do not face practically automatic legal and career fears for doing just what they've been trained and expected to do.

 

In addition I believe all officers should receive taser training at the very least. A recent survey showed that an overwhelming majority of the public and officers support giving more officers tasers, and for good reason. It's just a question of our lovely home office following through with it.

 

I wouldn't be opposed to all officers being armed. Nearly all countries in the world do this - and arming does not mean giving all officers 'big' guns like they're often pictured. Furthermore, making analogies with the state the US is in right now regarding gun crime is also absurd. The UK would be far more comparable to just about any Western European country, where there are strict gun laws in place, practically preventing anyone from possessing them. Take Northern Ireland police (PSNI) for example. Having a sidearm is really not going to make any noticeable difference in the day to day interaction. Where the situation warrants and requires it, though, the officers are then able to protect themselves should they need to. This then extends also to other places than UK parliament in London - most cops don't have the luxury of likely having an ARV near enough to save them within a matter of minutes. This analogy can be easily repeated for other western European countries - and gun crime there is absolutely nothing like the US. It's the norm for officers to be armed with a sidearm there. The difference in the UK would ideally be that all officers also have access to tasers, and thus don't have to reach for their sidearm as fast as officers in other countries may have to.

On 6/23/2017 at 0:47 AM, Thot Patrol said:

Can someone from the U.K. answer this question for me, are police in the U.K. generally respected?

Luckily a majority of the public still respect the police. With the constant negative coverage from the media and policitians over the last couple of years (pretty much since Theresa May became home secretary) the situation has worsened considerably. This officer stabbing incident is just one of many and occurred yesterday, to give a simple example (follow this ex officer on Twitter for more incidents that go under the radar somewhat, violent crime is at epidemic levels since police cuts & stop and search criticism started. You'll be shocked). If you want to see the front line state of policing and the baffling disrespect police officers get on the front line daily, check out The Met: Policing London which started airing 4 weeks ago.

Edited June 25, 20178 yr by Albo1125

7 hours ago, Albo1125 said:

That's because they've occurred in some of the most highly protected areas in the country. Even considering this, it took 8 minutes for armed officers to arrive on London Bridge. Had the BTP officer who was on scene there in 2 minutes been armed rather than having to confront the attackers with his baton and getting injured, lives could have been saved. Good luck getting even one armed response vehicle on scene within half an hour in say, Cornwall. 

 

I believe more armed officers should be recruited and trained, but furthermore there needs to be a major shift in attitude from the likes of the IPCC. It is fully unacceptable that officers have to endure being treated as a suspect, often for multiple years, for doing their job and using the weapons as they've been trained and recruited to do. Legislation must be put in place to ensure this happens and officers do not face practically automatic legal and career fears for doing just what they've been trained and expected to do.

 

In addition I believe all officers should receive taser training at the very least. A recent survey showed that an overwhelming majority of the public and officers support giving more officers tasers, and for good reason. It's just a question of our lovely home office following through with it.

 

I wouldn't be opposed to all officers being armed. Nearly all countries in the world do this - and arming does not mean giving all officers 'big' guns like they're often pictured. Furthermore, making analogies with the state the US is in right now regarding gun crime is also absurd. The UK would be far more comparable to just about any Western European country, where there are strict gun laws in place, practically preventing anyone from possessing them. Take Northern Ireland police (PSNI) for example. Having a sidearm is really not going to make any noticeable difference in the day to day interaction. Where the situation warrants and requires it, though, the officers are then able to protect themselves should they need to. This then extends also to other places than UK parliament in London - most cops don't have the luxury of likely having an ARV near enough to save them within a matter of minutes. This analogy can be easily repeated for other western European countries - and gun crime there is absolutely nothing like the US. It's the norm for officers to be armed with a sidearm there. The difference in the UK would ideally be that all officers also have access to tasers, and thus don't have to reach for their sidearm as fast as officers in other countries may have to.

Luckily a majority of the public still respect the police. With the constant negative coverage from the media and policitians over the last couple of years (pretty much since Theresa May became home secretary) the situation has worsened considerably. This officer stabbing incident is just one of many and occurred yesterday, to give a simple example (follow this ex officer on Twitter for more incidents that go under the radar somewhat, violent crime is at epidemic levels since police cuts & stop and search criticism started. You'll be shocked). If you want to see the front line state of policing and the baffling disrespect police officers get on the front line daily, check out The Met: Policing London which started airing 4 weeks ago.

 

I agree that the idea makes sense on paper, especially when you look at how unique the UK is in the fact that our police are not routinely armed, but I'm simply not comfortable with how it might work in reality.  It would be a very profound shift in every aspect, and it's just not something you could flip a switch on.

 

I think instead that the answer lies in when say that not everyone has the luxury of an ARV near enough to save them.  It's very simple - they should.

 

It's reassuring to know that the police who do carry firearms in the UK are both highly trained and vetted.  I think that as a result, there's just a heightened awareness of their responsibility.  I feel reasonably confident knowing that a firearms officer in the UK will only use their firearm (including merely showing/drawing it) when absolutely necessary.

 

This honestly isn't a confidence I think you can have in most other countries in the world.

5 hours ago, Sam said:

 

I agree that the idea makes sense on paper, especially when you look at how unique the UK is in the fact that our police are not routinely armed, but I'm simply not comfortable with how it might work in reality.  It would be a very profound shift in every aspect, and it's just not something you could flip a switch on.

 

I think instead that the answer lies in when say that not everyone has the luxury of an ARV near enough to save them.  It's very simple - they should.

 

It's reassuring to know that the police who do carry firearms in the UK are both highly trained and vetted.  I think that as a result, there's just a heightened awareness of their responsibility.  I feel reasonably confident knowing that a firearms officer in the UK will only use their firearm (including merely showing/drawing it) when absolutely necessary.

 

This honestly isn't a confidence I think you can have in most other countries in the world.

 

I second this.  I doubt any of you would rather your law enforcement agencies become similar to the US's. Shootings every day, abuse of power out the ass, racially motivated shootings, etc.  The last thing we need is for another country to be like us.

2 hours ago, Deputy Rourke said:

 

I second this.  I doubt any of you would rather your law enforcement agencies become similar to the US's. Shootings every day, abuse of power out the ass, racially motivated shootings, etc.  The last thing we need is for another country to be like us.

I think issues of abuse of power and racially motivated shootings in the US are overblown. That's not to say there isn't a problem, but time and time again stories that supposedly showed this have been debunked and shown to be justified or at the very least non racially motivated. The number of shootings is less of a police related issue but rather more an issue of the astronomical levels of gang and gun crime.

32 minutes ago, orley said:

I think issues of abuse of power and racially motivated shootings in the US are overblown. That's not to say there isn't a problem, but time and time again stories that supposedly showed this have been debunked and shown to be justified or at the very least non racially motivated. The number of shootings is less of a police related issue but rather more an issue of the astronomical levels of gang and gun crime.

 

You're partially right.  The news is biased, and only reports the negativity.  However, this situation is not overblown at all.  It is a serious problem that, at this point in time, has no solution.  Seeing as this topic is about arming UK police, I won't get into a debate about it.  However, if you wish to discuss it more, we can via PM.

On 6/25/2017 at 2:48 PM, Albo1125 said:

That's because they've occurred in some of the most highly protected areas in the country. Even considering this, it took 8 minutes for armed officers to arrive on London Bridge. Had the BTP officer who was on scene there in 2 minutes been armed rather than having to confront the attackers with his baton and getting injured, lives could have been saved. Good luck getting even one armed response vehicle on scene within half an hour in say, Cornwall. 

 

I believe more armed officers should be recruited and trained, but furthermore there needs to be a major shift in attitude from the likes of the IPCC. It is fully unacceptable that officers have to endure being treated as a suspect, often for multiple years, for doing their job and using the weapons as they've been trained and recruited to do. Legislation must be put in place to ensure this happens and officers do not face practically automatic legal and career fears for doing just what they've been trained and expected to do.

 

In addition I believe all officers should receive taser training at the very least. A recent survey showed that an overwhelming majority of the public and officers support giving more officers tasers, and for good reason. It's just a question of our lovely home office following through with it.

 

I wouldn't be opposed to all officers being armed. Nearly all countries in the world do this - and arming does not mean giving all officers 'big' guns like they're often pictured. Furthermore, making analogies with the state the US is in right now regarding gun crime is also absurd. The UK would be far more comparable to just about any Western European country, where there are strict gun laws in place, practically preventing anyone from possessing them. Take Northern Ireland police (PSNI) for example. Having a sidearm is really not going to make any noticeable difference in the day to day interaction. Where the situation warrants and requires it, though, the officers are then able to protect themselves should they need to. This then extends also to other places than UK parliament in London - most cops don't have the luxury of likely having an ARV near enough to save them within a matter of minutes. This analogy can be easily repeated for other western European countries - and gun crime there is absolutely nothing like the US. It's the norm for officers to be armed with a sidearm there. The difference in the UK would ideally be that all officers also have access to tasers, and thus don't have to reach for their sidearm as fast as officers in other countries may have to.

Luckily a majority of the public still respect the police. With the constant negative coverage from the media and policitians over the last couple of years (pretty much since Theresa May became home secretary) the situation has worsened considerably. This officer stabbing incident is just one of many and occurred yesterday, to give a simple example (follow this ex officer on Twitter for more incidents that go under the radar somewhat, violent crime is at epidemic levels since police cuts & stop and search criticism started. You'll be shocked). If you want to see the front line state of policing and the baffling disrespect police officers get on the front line daily, check out The Met: Policing London which started airing 4 weeks ago.

 

I expect that recruiting more officers to firearms units would only be possible in large numbers with some changes in the IPCC. They seem to be used to placate the public more than they are to investigate crimes (at least, that's what my view as an outsider is).

 

Tasers would be nice, but they're up to £700 per officer, so it's unlikely that they'll be universal as soon as they need them to be (they are expensive, and money is short. Unless you're the DUP....)

 

I doubt that it's practical to equip all police officers with guns. If they can't afford tasers, the more expensive training and firearms equipment is unlikely to come in. There's probably a better way to spend that amount of money, too.

 

The Met does seem a bit more grounded than most of those programs. I agree that most people probably don't know what the policing situation in the UK really is (especially when it comes to officer numbers).
 

1 hour ago, sek510i said:

 

I expect that recruiting more officers to firearms units would only be possible in large numbers with some changes in the IPCC. They seem to be used to placate the public more than they are to investigate crimes (at least, that's what my view as an outsider is).

 

Tasers would be nice, but they're up to £700 per officer, so it's unlikely that they'll be universal as soon as they need them to be (they are expensive, and money is short. Unless you're the DUP....)

 

I doubt that it's practical to equip all police officers with guns. If they can't afford tasers, the more expensive training and firearms equipment is unlikely to come in. There's probably a better way to spend that amount of money, too.

 

The Met does seem a bit more grounded than most of those programs. I agree that most people probably don't know what the policing situation in the UK really is (especially when it comes to officer numbers).
 

Yeah, money seems to also be a big part of this issue. I live in Australia so I really have no idea of the political climate over in the UK but it seems your government is a lot more keen on making the public feel good than allowing police do their jobs.

23 minutes ago, orley said:

Yeah, money seems to also be a big part of this issue. I live in Australia so I really have no idea of the political climate over in the UK but it seems your government is a lot more keen on making the public feel good than allowing police do their jobs.

 

The government seem keen on making the public feel safe. I don't think that the police here need to be routinely armed, and there are probably better ways that they could spend the money that it would cost, but it's hard to tell if the government's motivation is a cost benefit analysis or just making the public feel better about themselves :/

 

 

1 hour ago, sek510i said:

 

The government seem keen on making the public feel safe. I don't think that the police here need to be routinely armed, and there are probably better ways that they could spend the money that it would cost, but it's hard to tell if the government's motivation is a cost benefit analysis or just making the public feel better about themselves :/

 

 

 

Another thing to consider, arming every officer could have an opposite affect and scare people.  "Things are really getting bad if all cops have to be armed now."  I still think arming all UK officers is extreme and unneeded.  What are the statistics of UK officers being attacked and/or killed?  If it's significantly low or rare, I don't see a reason to change anything just because of terror attacks.

Something else to note, when our school was placed into lockdown because of someone threatening to stab a pupil, the (reported) response time was over 20 minutes.
Later, our school also commented that "North Wales Police's armed units are nearby (or something along those lines", which to me at least, implies that all the armed officers are based in one station here, or maybe I'm just interpreting it wrong. Which would dramatically increase response time especially across much larger police jurisdictions like Dyfed Powys Police, for example.

Edited June 27, 20178 yr by Starmix

6 minutes ago, Starmix said:

Something else to note, when our school was placed into lockdown because of someone threatening to stab a pupil, the (reported) response time was over 20 minutes.
Later, our school also commented that "North Wales Police's armed units are nearby (or something along those lines", which to me at least, implies that all the armed officers are based in one station here, or maybe I'm just interpreting it wrong. Which would dramatically increase response time especially across much larger police jurisdictions like Dyfed Powys Police, for example.

 

This doesn't surprise me.  They probably want to keep the armed response officers in a single unit, instead of spread around the city. This makes more sense if the amount of armed officers is thin - they wouldn't want the armed response split up in the event of something major.    Here's something, why aren't all officers equipped with at least a taser?  I know they have a baton, but since gun violence isn't a huge issue, and the officers may not have to worry as much about responding and being fired upon, why not just use a taser for all incidents, including stabbing?  I know in the US, the typical response to a stabbing suspect is "He should've been shot by the police!", and yes, there are incidents where you need to shoot on sight, such as you come upon the suspect stabbing someone.  Still, a taser would be just as effective.  Would it have the range of a bullet?  No, but it'd get the job done.

 

Except when your department is spread over around 6290 square kilometers, and potentially places your armed response units around 30 minutes away from the largest population center in the area. Of course, I can't confirm if all of the officers are in one place, but it definitely made it seem as if they were.

4 minutes ago, Starmix said:

Except when your department is spread over around 6290 square kilometers, and potentially places your armed response units around 30 minutes away from the largest population center in the area. Of course, I can't confirm if all of the officers are in one place, but it definitely made it seem as if they were.

 

It seems like they're relying heavily on patrol officers to dealt with armed individuals.  We both know crazy people with guns generally aren't going to wait 30 minutes.  It really wouldn't hurt anyone to spread out the armed response officers.

On 6/27/2017 at 10:20 PM, Starmix said:

Except when your department is spread over around 6290 square kilometers, and potentially places your armed response units around 30 minutes away from the largest population center in the area. Of course, I can't confirm if all of the officers are in one place, but it definitely made it seem as if they were.

 

If Welsh police forces are anything like London's, they probably have a few police stations equipped with armouries that equip armed response officers at the start of a shift, before they head out on patrol like normal units. Could that have been what they were referring to?

I am a supporter of gun control and have never been into firearms or the second amendment  but I personalty believe All police should have a gun. Disarming your police force is one of the dumbest decisions ever.

The real issue with the arming officer's issue is complex and multi-faceted.  As I said at the beginning of this thread, officers themselves consistently vote against being armed, why?  Because we simply don't feel the need.  

 

I was a police constable in Dumfries and Galloway until 2013, never once was I in a position where I felt as though I needed access to a firearm even though, at that time we didn't have a dedicated ARV on duty, they were instead called up on an ad-hoc basis from a pool of around 50 AFO's.   During my time serving there, I confronted knives and firearms (anyone who knows the rural UK will know how many guns are around).   

 

Criminal use of firearms is so low here that we simply couldn't justify the routine arming of all officers, there have been about 60-65 officers killed by gunfire since 1903 here in the UK.  Arming our officers in light of the recent incidents would be a knee jerk reaction and completely disproportionate in line with everyday police work.  

 

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion on this, though as I say, the standard British officer simply isn't interested, nor do they see the need for carrying a sidearm at this present time.

22 hours ago, Oka Ruto said:

I am a supporter of gun control and have never been into firearms or the second amendment  but I personalty believe All police should have a gun. Disarming your police force is one of the dumbest decisions ever.

Well that's one way of looking at it.

Another way would be that it is stupid to army 100,000+ front line police officers to run around with handguns in order to find one of the very, very few illegal guns in this country. The reason this country has such low gun crime and why it is extremely rare to hear about a cop shooting a suspect (excluding during a terrorist incident) is because criminals do not feel the need to use firearms against them - when they are used they are met with extreme force by Specialist Firearms Officers who's training would rival that of some countries military Special Forces units.

If you armed them - against their will I might add. You are looking at hundreds of millions in costs to acquire the firearms and then train the officers with said firearms. You will also most likely lose the quality that Armed Police Officers here are trained to, all resulting in a police force which polices through use of firearms, in which the first thing to do in a situation is rich for a loaded weapon.

It's rather silly if you ask me, to even consider such a thing.

i am not sure how westerner and asian people thinking tho .

 

 

But one thing for sure is both Hong kong and singapore police are both used to trained by the UK metropolitan police . but the facts is 

 

 

Singapore and hong kong police forces are both armed . i mean the regular police and special constabulary .  even thought Singapore and hong kong is well knowed for its gun control in border . it is well knowed facts that is it almost impossible to carry guns to singapore . but still the singapore and hong kong police carry arms for its own police officer safety .