Just now, LCPDDevin91 said:

 

 

I understand and respect your opinions aside from those regarding Tommy Robinson. As far as i am concerned he is the last true British Man left. If you do not think you have a problem going on in the EU, than you are as blind as Germany and Sweden's citizens. 

Tommy Robinson (or whatever his name was originally) is not representative of Britain in any way. I've lived here my entire life, worked with a wide range of rich and poor communities, from MPs and businessmen down to street level drug users, and I have yet to meet somebody who does not think that he's an idiot.

 

There are plenty of problems in the EU. I just think that arming the police would cost a lot of money, and that money could be better spent elsewhere (like recruiting more officers and civilian support staff, or funding more training for officers).

 

At the moment, a surprisingly large amount of London cops aren't trained to drive with lights and sirens. I think that stuff like that is probably a higher priority than giving them all guns :/

2 minutes ago, sek510i said:

At the moment, a surprisingly large amount of London cops aren't trained to drive with lights and sirens. I think that stuff like that is probably a higher priority than giving them all guns :/

 

Wow that fact in general is disheartening. 

6 hours ago, sek510i said:

 

Armed with a taser? Great. With a gun? I still don't see the need. I think that increased numbers of ARVs would be more effective, without compromising standards.

 

Alternatively, if violent crime continued to rise and it did become necessary to arm significantly higher numbers of officers, the Scandinavian system of storing guns securely in police cars would probably be better than giving handguns out to whichever officers were willing to take them. That way the option is always there, but it doesn't have such a big effect on public perception of the police, and makes situations less likely to escalate unnecessarily.

Ironically, with that public perception, I believe from recent surveys (how accurate I don't know) that the public is generally in favour of arming the police. I think the Met is actually one of the forces in least need of having a fully armed police force. There are over 500 officers who are ARV trained. Not to mention the 130 CTSFOs and the DPG. If you look at other forces, such as Essex (which actually has quite a high number of firearms officers compared to some), there are around 120 officers. 2 per ARV, thats about 60 ARVs. Most forces have around 50 to 80 firearms officers. If some guy went on a rampage with a knife, or lets say, attacked a church in some commuter London suburb like the terrorists in France last year did, they could be waiting 15 minuets plus for an ARV to arrive. And I still believe officers should be allowed to have a gun in the Met.  They face a huge number of scumbags on a daily basis who are ready to kill them outright. Criminals are laughing at the UK police and justice system right now. They know that most police officers don't carry guns, and that the public has a perception that firearms are illegal. I do like the system of keeping a gun in the car, but what happens if they go to a call and some guy with a knife or a gun comes up? They've got to run back to the car and risk their lives. In the early ARVs in the 90s, they did used to keep their revolvers locked in the car and required authorisation to remove them. They soon got rid of this because the handguns are mostly their for personal protection. ARV officers do not usually remove their rifles from vehicles until an armed callout, or after authorisation is gained from the control room. The same approach should be taken with response officers. If the policeman on the scene at London Bridge had a handgun, he could have killed the terrorists outright. 8 minuets is a half decent response time, but its still in the middle of London and still too long in my opinion. But better than the Lee Rigby attack. But then, that was in a London suburb. I imagine the response time to somewhere like Woolwich would be the same today. 

Regarding standards, response officers should only be trained to fire, load, and handle the pistol correctly. There is no need for tactics. The guns are there for a last resort and for personal protection. For anything more than a person with a knife or a gun (ie person with a gun barricades himself inside a house), ARVs should be deployed. Maybe public order units could carry a member of the team or more armed with a gun? TSG already do, but not on a regular basis. Like they have a medic on board each carrier, make it so one team member is an AFO. That way you have every officer with a Taser, riot shield, helmets, and a gun. 

6 hours ago, LCPDDevin91 said:

I have seen countless videos of French or Other Police officers being beaten and running off from violent confrontations.

 

So, you basically allow yourself to judge the whole police forces of entire countries entirely based on biased, hate-mongering and non-objective Youtube videos. I mean, all is said, there's nothing else to argue after that.

The thing is, is that most police officers in the UK (who are obviously unarmed) are basically left to be members of the public during a terrorist attack or an armed callout. In the Lee Rigby attack, they literally had to stand behind the cordon while brave members of the public tried to talk to the attackers. In a bank robbery, they are told to "take cover and call for backup" as explained by ex Met marksman Tony Long (who shot 5 people, killing 3 of them, making him the UK's deadliest police officer).  A US cop replied to him with "So you basically tell them to do what you tell members of the public to do?"

 

Too true. 

5 hours ago, qwertyK said:

Ironically, with that public perception, I believe from recent surveys (how accurate I don't know) that the public is generally in favour of arming the police.

 

One of the founding principles of UK policing is that the police should not bow to public opinion; a police force's success is measured by the absence or presence of crime, and not by the public's perception of it.

 

Regardless of how much of the public want more guns, the police themselves are still voting against routine arming.

 

I do think that the TSG AFO idea might work, but I still don't see what's wrong with just increasing the number of ARVs. If they're spread out and in high enough numbers, they could deal with most incidents fairly quickly.

 

Also, some areas don't seem to have a need for more ARVs. For example, Wales has more of a problem with drugs, and their officers have never fired a shot outside training. I don't see the point in spending more money getting more AFOs in Wales when they could fund people to deal with the drugs problem instead.

 

I'm just thinking that practically, there isn't enough money to arm these quantities of officers, and there's a lot of other stuff that they need to fund properly as a higher priority.

58 minutes ago, sek510i said:

 

One of the founding principles of UK policing is that the police should not bow to public opinion; a police force's success is measured by the absence or presence of crime, and not by the public's perception of it.

 

Regardless of how much of the public want more guns, the police themselves are still voting against routine arming.

 

I do think that the TSG AFO idea might work, but I still don't see what's wrong with just increasing the number of ARVs. If they're spread out and in high enough numbers, they could deal with most incidents fairly quickly.

 

Also, some areas don't seem to have a need for more ARVs. For example, Wales has more of a problem with drugs, and their officers have never fired a shot outside training. I don't see the point in spending more money getting more AFOs in Wales when they could fund people to deal with the drugs problem instead.

 

I'm just thinking that practically, there isn't enough money to arm these quantities of officers, and there's a lot of other stuff that they need to fund properly as a higher priority.

Funding is true, but I think a way around it woud simply to be legalise handguns and whatever officers wanted to be trained in one, they could buy their own provoiding it was approved, and recieve basic training from firearms instructors. In someways, before ARVs, we were still pretty prepared and more in rural areas to a certain extent because every station had revolvers and there would be AFOs at every station. Granted they would be kept at the station and not carried on duty, but in terms of a Lee Rigby style attack, could be very useful.

Just now, qwertyK said:

Funding is true, but I think a way around it woud simply to be legalise handguns and whatever officers wanted to be trained in one, they could buy their own provoiding it was approved, and recieve basic training from firearms instructors. In someways, before ARVs, we were still pretty prepared and more in rural areas to a certain extent because every station had revolvers and there would be AFOs at every station. Granted they would be kept at the station and not carried on duty, but in terms of a Lee Rigby style attack, could be very useful.

Legalise handguns and massively increase gun crime overnight? Or do you mean give AFO status to any officer who wanted it?

 

As long as standards of training don't drop, I wouldn't object to an increase in armed police officers. It's just that I don't think that universal arming is needed. If they just offered an AFO to each police station, perhaps that would be an improvement. Or did what some forces are doing, and training traffic cops as AFOs (they've already got the fastest cars and most highly trained drivers, so they can cover a wide area faster than conventional cops)

Yeah, that is true, what forces are they doing that for? I know Durham and Cleveland do it, as well as Thames Valley, believe Norfolk and Suffolk does it too. Essex used to do it but they got separate departments in the end. 

 

I don't believe gun crime would increase by that much if at all if handguns were legalised. Granted a different country, but look at the gun laws in America. Some of the states with the tightest - have the highest rates. Chicago, New Orleans etc. Yet take Texas - the safest city in the USA is El Paso in Texas and you can buy a gun within a day in Texas.

 

And I'm pretty sure the gun crime rate was lower before Dunblane than it is now. Criminals get guns illegally anyway, mostly, and with all the recent acid attacks, it proves they will just use other methods. 

 

The way I see it, it just seems crazy to have such violent crime as the UK does and for most police officers still only having access to a baton and CS spray. Times have moved on, policing needs to move with it. 

On 7/20/2017 at 11:30 AM, qwertyK said:

The way I see it, it just seems crazy to have such violent crime as the UK does and for most police officers still only having access to a baton and CS spray. Times have moved on, policing needs to move with it. 

 

 

Exactly. You do not meet a new violent radical murderous threat taking over your nation with non lethal personal defense weapons. Enough is enough. I felt so sick to my stomach after watching Manchester, and I'm a US Citizen. How can French and British people sit back and watch their police retreat and get beaten constantly?. I understand our cops kill people left and right, I am not advocating your guys start wearing Tier III vest and get bulletproof windows in stuff. But the time of the public " fearing " firearms that maintain their safety is over. I have seen it on TV, Live weeks after the attack. Women and children cower and nearly get tears induced from seeing an armed Police or Military person on the street. Time to harden up and bunker in folks. It's happening everywhere. And if your Police and Government are not ready, what will happen to you and those you love?. Bare in mind i own 3-5 firearms for this case. However others in various nations do not have this option.

Quote

As an armed US Citizen i feel all Police Forces should have access too, and carry at least one firearm. I mean you essentially have a ideological terrorist war going on in some of the EU and to expect your law enforcement to keep you safe with a baton is laughable. I have seen countless videos of French or Other Police officers being beaten and running off from violent confrontations.

Just FYI: French police are armed. Some municipal police are not, but municipal police are mostly ordinance enforcement. Both the National Police and Gendarmerie arm every officer, and the Gendarmerie is literally a component of the French military. You posted a video of Swedish police as a "police should be armed," but Swedish police are also armed. The only three countries in the EU whose cops don't routinely have guns on their belts are the UK (outside of Northern Ireland), the Republic of Ireland, and Norway. Even among those three, Norwegian cops don't have guns on their belts but do have them in their cars.

I've read pages two and three of this topic, and I still don't understand where this "what percentage of Muslims commit crime and which ones don't" debate is coming from, but whatever. 

 

Now about the arming of U.K police, people can debate this all they want, but I just don't see why they need to be armed. The U.K police have operated in this fashion for decades upon decades, and even in today's society, where violent crimes are happening more often, the method of the U.K police still works! So, unless the something drastic changes (like hundreds of criminals getting guns and going out on a shooting spree),  I think it should remain the same. Then again, I'm not a police officer and have never stepped foot in the U.K, so what do I know? 

Interesting opinion, coming from the States. Most guys seem to think we're crazy. Maybe I'm just generalising. It just seems to me with such high knife crime in London, and considering most officers still don't carry Tasers and only carry a ASP (extendable) baton and pepper spray, it just seems insufficient in inner city areas. In rural areas, there is less need for guns, because the guns in rural areas are mostly legal and belong to gun owners. In inner city areas? All belong to gangs. 

 

 

7 hours ago, LCPDDevin91 said:

How can French and British people sit back and watch their police retreat and get beaten constantly?

 

It's easy really. Because they don't retreat and don't get beaten constantly. If you're basing your opinion on Youtube videos, you should reconsider your judgement really.

Edited July 22, 20178 yr by Hystery

17 hours ago, Hystery said:

 

It's easy really. Because they don't retreat and don't get beaten constantly. If you're basing your opinion on Youtube videos, you should reconsider your judgement really.

 

Five to seven incidents in videos uploaded within weeks of each other. It's enough for me to judge. Sorry we have differing opinions on your lack luster law enforcement. Maybe when someone you care about is blown to pieces by a nail bomb or gang raped you will actually care. My friend lost his Niece in Manchester, he sounded a lot like you before he changed his tune that afternoon. He went from not a care in the world to marching with the EDL rather quick. I guess this is one of those things its easy to be opinionated about, but until it effects you directly or indirectly, you don't see the full picture. I just hope more people in the EU don't have to senselessly be killed before the people and government there realize something has to change.

Edited July 23, 20178 yr by LCPDDevin91

7 hours ago, LCPDDevin91 said:

Five to seven incidents in videos uploaded within weeks of each other. It's enough for me to judge. Sorry we have differing opinions on your lack luster law enforcement.

 

No, it's not enough for you to judge. Do you live in any of those countries? Have you seen police forces in action yourself, rather than in the narrow spectrum of a camera? No. You simply CANNOT have an objective, exhaustive opinion about something just through a couple of videos on the internet. It's not a matter of having differing opinions, it's facts. Police in Europe do not retreat constantly and do not constantly get beaten up. That's a fact and that's simply how it is. You can't choose not to acknowledge it just so you can advance your own agenda.

Edited July 23, 20178 yr by Hystery

24 minutes ago, Hystery said:

That's a fact and that's simply how it is. You can't choose not to acknowledge it just so you can advance your own agenda.

 

Well since you said that, you certainly changed my mind. Lol, it's all opinions..-..you have yours and i have mine. 

 

Let's just agree to disagree. Maybe someone else can share there thoughts on this and the general uptic in terrorism and violence in the EU in general.

 

 

 

Comments : 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I guess my opinion is rather common in this topic in other online communities.

 

 

 PS - Just like in Britain, your Intel Agency knew the suspects prior to the attacks and the " views " they held. But instead of thwarting a terrorist attack and saving lives they sit back and monitor, as to not offend anyone or " impede on their religious/Human rights" .Hope those 8 hours of training and minor law adjustments do enough to protect your citizens. I highly doubt it will, but then again...-..just my opinion.

Edited July 23, 20178 yr by LCPDDevin91

1 hour ago, LCPDDevin91 said:

 

Well since you said that, you certainly changed my mind. Lol, it's all opinions..-..you have yours and i have mine. 

 

Let's just agree to disagree. Maybe someone else can share there thoughts on this and the general uptic in terrorism and violence in the EU in general.

 

I guess my opinion is rather common in this topic in other online communities.

 

Guess what, this video is filled with wrong information. And I should know: my own father is in the police, motorized brigade of the national police.

 

Dude, I'll repeat myself, but you're basing your judgement on wrong information and biased internet videos. It's really easy to manipulate the image to make it convey a message, positive or negative, and you're falling right into that. Most videos you posted so far couldn't be farthest from reality.

 

1 hour ago, LCPDDevin91 said:

PS - Just like in Britain, your Intel Agency knew the suspects prior to the attacks and the " views " they held. But instead of thwarting a terrorist attack and saving lives they sit back and monitor, as to not offend anyone or " impede on their religious/Human rights" .Hope those 8 hours of training and minor law adjustments do enough to protect your citizens. I highly doubt it will, but then again...-..just my opinion.

 

Do you know why they didn't arrest them and simply monitored? Because you can't prosecute someone based on how much you THINK they'll commit a crime. You can't charge people with thought crime, that's all. It's nothing related to not offending people or anything like that, that's just how the legal system is. You can charge people only if you have concrete proof they were either preparing a crime, or when the crime is committed. So again, you base your judgement on wrong or misinterprated information coming from hate-mongering videos and comment sections. Not the most objective part of the internet.

Edited July 23, 20178 yr by Hystery

On 7/20/2017 at 4:34 AM, LCPDDevin91 said:

As an armed US Citizen i feel all Police Forces should have access too, and carry at least one firearm. I mean you essentially have a ideological terrorist war going on in some of the EU and to expect your law enforcement to keep you safe with a baton is laughable. I have seen countless videos of French or Other Police officers being beaten and running off from violent confrontations. When your Law Enforcement cannot physically stand up to a simple threat, you have a problem. All of them should have FN 57's and some sort of taser and or mace.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The examples go on and on. I could list tens of videos if you like. 

 

 

 

 

 

well there are the exact opposite examples of european police use of force, I can continue with these videos aswell....

 

so what's your damn point?
Everybody can find some youtube clips to support a stupid and also simply false claim

On 7/23/2017 at 3:31 AM, LCPDDevin91 said:

 

Well since you said that, you certainly changed my mind. Lol, it's all opinions..-..you have yours and i have mine. 

 

Let's just agree to disagree. Maybe someone else can share there thoughts on this and the general uptic in terrorism and violence in the EU in general.

 

 

 

Comments :

 

 

I guess my opinion is rather common in this topic in other online communities.

 

 

I would just like to point out that you're referencing Youtube videos and Youtube comments.  First off, you do realize how toxic Youtube comments are, right?  Just because you find some comments that share your opinion doesn't mean those are the only comments.  Not only this, "let in immigrants they said, embrace equality they said." This is literally a meme from 9Gag, aka not a serious opinion.

 

Anyone can post Youtube videos about anything to further their agenda and/or opinion.  I strongly encourage you to look up actual facts and not rely solely off Youtube videos to form an opinion.

Edited July 26, 20178 yr by Kallus Rourke