Should the police be armed

[Flash In The Pan]

United Kingdom Gun Homicides 2010:

Males: 7.8% of all unlawful deaths
Females: 4% Of all unlawful deaths
Overall: 5.9 % of all unlawful deaths.

Thus: 0.059*1.75 = 0.1 per 100,000 population. Literally one in a million people was killed by a firearm.

There were two murders in Scotland over the same period that involved a firearm, which equates to 1 murder per 2.5 MILLION of the population.....

 

[gman]

I'm against more police being armed; the last thing I'd want is police pointing a gun at me because I'd done 80mph in a 70mph or such. Give them tasers and other non-lethal weapons, and give them decent armour if they don't already have it.

The heavier you arm the police, the heavier the criminals will arm themselves.

 

[j07cmt]

I can see the reason officers do not wish to carry weapons. If they are expected to use them, our laws need to change. Think back to the Brazilian electrician (who's family have received compensation). He was asked to stop by police and decided to run, carrying a backpack, shortly after a terrorist attack. The police officer took a decision to stop the man and gets dragged through the courts for his actions. He was trying to do the job he was asked to do - protect the public. If the fella had stopped, he wouldn't have got shot dead.

On the other hand, it may not have helped the two PC's today, but I think officers should be armed. Its about time we did shoot to kill, a bullet is far cheaper than providing a prison cell.

 

[Jayst84]

Its about time we did shoot to kill, a bullet is far cheaper than providing a prison cell.

People calling for capital punishment to be reintroduced is bad enough, but capital punishment without trial, do you not think that's a bit too far.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

I can see the reason officers do not wish to carry weapons. If they are expected to use them, our laws need to change. Think back to the Brazilian electrician (who's family have received compensation). He was asked to stop by police and decided to run, carrying a backpack, shortly after a terrorist attack. The police officer took a decision to stop the man and gets dragged through the courts for his actions. He was trying to do the job he was asked to do - protect the public. If the fella had stopped, he wouldn't have got shot.

A few slight errors there - he wasn't asked to stop, he didn't run and it wasn't a single officer. He was followed onto the train, wrestled to the ground by several armed police officers and shot in the head, but apart from that you've got it spot on

 

[KIPAX]

I have come acccross too many bad police.. lying cheating police.. to want to see them all armed... The majority of police are good.. but there is a minority that does exist... dont give em all guns or you are giving the bad ones guns as well..

Another reason.... I took this picture on Friday... these two look like they should be on the way to school.. not carrying guns!
http://www.kipax.com/gallery/index.php?action=view&album=EVENTS/2494&image=28

 

[MartynK]

also garry was talking about the way the gun was held causing them to jam - this is an issue with fully automatic weapons if there is insufficient gas to throw the brass clear when the ejection port is upwards - leading to shell casings falling back inside and jamming the works (this was a known issue with the SA mk1) , but its incredibly unlikely with a semi automatic hand gun.

I think he was referring to limp wristing. This is a known problem, but easily correctable.

 

[MartynK]

And then there is the type of handgun that would be issued - so-called automatics are inherently unreliable, especially in less than expert hands, which leaves us with revolvers, which tend to be very reliable. But most revolvers can only take 6 rounds, for obvious safety reasons the hammer must always be on an empty chamber, leaving just 5 live rounds - and as it takes, on average, 3 handgun rounds actually hitting someone in the head or upper torso to stop them, 5 isn't very many.

Just about all of this is incorrect. I'm not going to break it down point by point, because I don't think most of the people on this thread are all that interested in firearms, but we can discuss it if you like.

 

[ChrisMClark]

As for police equipment, you can only wear so much protection then the protection becomes a hazard itself. Would have required an armoured car and for the two police officers to be in it, to stand a chance of surviving a grenade attack.

In my time in the army (80s god I feel old), wearing flak jackets and skid lids was very uncomfortable, hot, sweaty and knackered you out quickly. So not really a realistic idea for the common copper on the beat.

With respect Ally, a lot has changed since the 80s. A decent modern armour will offer swignificantly more protection than they currently have, especially to vital organs, even in a grenade blast. I'm not saying that it would have mitigated the threat entirely, but the difference could have been 2 police officers who were still alive. And I wasn't talking just about this one incident. I'm sying any copper on a 999 call out should have the kit, in their car, ready to go.

 

[Richard King]

Unlawful killing: 1.75 per 100,000 population

To add a perspective to this
3.59 per 100,000 deaths last year in UK attributed to RTA's

This data makes interesting reading especially if considering usave vs availability: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

 

[astraman1]

more guns in the right hands id rather see the scum die who go out robbing and shooting than see a copper die just for doing there job

this day and age power is shifting into the wrong hands with some people scared to go out at night in there own neighbourhood that is not right

 

[purpleclouds]

With respect Ally, a lot has changed since the 80s. A decent modern armour will offer swignificantly more protection than they currently have, especially to vital organs, even in a grenade blast. I'm not saying that it would have mitigated the threat entirely, but the difference could have been 2 police officers who were still alive. And I wasn't talking just about this one incident. I'm sying any copper on a 999 call out should have the kit, in their car, ready to go.

If it were in their car, ready to go, it'd have been no use what so ever to the two officers who thought they were attending a potential burglary (and over an hour of it being reported, so very little chance of offender still being on site).

 

[Garry Edwards]

I'm wondering whether some of the people here who want police to carry guns routinely have been watching too many films, where the hero shoots 4 baddies with 3 shots in 1 second as he swings from a rope...

In the real world, handguns can give a false sense of security and I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't result in more police deaths than they saved. Escaping from danger is usually a much better option than standing and fighting, regardless of the weapons available.

And we are talking handguns here, small lightweights semi autos or revolvers that can be carried in a holster all shift (along with all the other equipment) need to be small calibre, otherwise the kick from firing the first shot makes it impossible to shoot accurately with the second etc., and small calibre weapons have very poor stopping power.

A tiny minority of expert shooters (I'm talking olympic standard pistol shooters here) can achieve incredible accuracy with a single shot under very controlled conditions, but I doubt whether even they could shoot accurately if someone was shooting at them. It's just a fact that handguns are far from accurate in the hands of most people. And the bullets that are fired and missed can hit innocent people.

The alternative deadly force weapons just aren't practical - shotguns, rifles, MP5s, and again carry risk of 'collateral damage' to innocent people.

But IMO the biggest single problem would be the need to open fire with absolutely no hesitation, knowing that doing so is likely to kill or seriously injure another human being and create massive problems for the shooter, who will need to justify his actions to other people who have never been in that situation themselves. Now, I know that there are a tiny number of rogue police, and there are also a large number of ex military in the police, but in my own limited experience (friends who are police officers) most police officers just couldn't bring themselves to shoot first and ask questions later - every part of their training and mental attitude forces them to think everything through carefully, weigh up the situation, balance the risks and act slowly.

I'm not talking about the horrific murders of the two police officers that this thread resulted from, that is hopefully a one off. I doubt whether anything could have saved them.

And if we don't routinely arm all police officers, would having more armed officers available help the unarmed ones? Probably not, as the system is at present. Having them available in the background only helps if they can get to the foreground quickly. I don't know what the situation is in big cities, but in rural areas it can take literally hours for armed police to arrive at a scene.

So what IS the answer?
I don't know, but I don't think that it's arming ordinary police. Obvious things to try would be better passive protection, the vests supplied to most police officers are designed to stop stab wounds, not bullets, simply because knife attacks are the greatest problem by far, but perhaps more money needs to be spent on better protection - although better protection has its problems in terms of heat, weight, discomfort and the ability to run.

And perhaps the best answer is for more, or maybe all, police officers carry tasers or similar. They are highly effective and are very unlikely to kill anyone. There are now tasers available that are basically housed in a shotgun cartridge, with a much greater range and with more than one shot available - maybe some more development is needed in this area, to reduce size and weight, and maybe our government needs to recognise that essential public services can't operate efficiently and safely unless they are funded properly.

 

[boyfalldown]

I can see the reason officers do not wish to carry weapons. If they are expected to use them, our laws need to change. Think back to the Brazilian electrician (who's family have received compensation). He was asked to stop by police and decided to run, carrying a backpack, shortly after a terrorist attack. The police officer took a decision to stop the man and gets dragged through the courts for his actions. He was trying to do the job he was asked to do - protect the public. If the fella had stopped, he wouldn't have got shot dead.

Ignoring that he didn't run and wasn't asked to stop don't you think getting shot in the head for the capital offence of carrying a rucksack is a little harsh?

 

[PMK]

The heavier you arm the police, the heavier the criminals will arm themselves.

This. And I think America is a good example...

 

[Musicman]

A few slight errors there - he wasn't asked to stop, he didn't run and it wasn't a single officer. He was followed onto the train, wrestled to the ground by several armed police officers and shot in the head, but apart from that you've got it spot on

Nor was he wearing a rucksack. De Menezes was carrying only a newspaper.

Although the covert surveillance police officer "Ivor" in the carriage restraining JCdM was carrying a rucksack and "was dressed virtually identically to Mr de Menezes. Denim jacket, denim jeans." [officer's own testimony at the Old Bailey].

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7034430.stm

 

[CT]

The weapons routinely issued in my time were .38 Smith and Wesson 'Police Specials', and shotguns. Sometimes the latter were true cylinder (no choke) guns, firing solid one ounce loads for tranny van stopping purposes. Nowadays, the specialised officers will carry in their vehicles a variety of weapons from which to choose as most suitable for any given situation. There are also other highly specialised trained firearms officers who've been on courses such as sniper courses, which are really physically exhausting and very demanding.

I've met two officers who've killed people in the line of duty and they've both been affected for life by the experience despite the shootings being found to be completely justified. They still have to lay down and go to sleep at night and they continually replay the situation in their heads wondering if they could have done things differently. They have to be able look the family and loved ones of that person in the eye and tell them they had no choice. It's not like the movies where you move on to the next episode and waste a few more scrotes - the consequences are with you forever.

 

[srichards]

If the serious gun crime is only a problem in a few force areas it makes more sense to make bullet proof vests standard issue in those force areas alone. Also more routine checks looking for weapons by known ne-er do wells.

Manchester met had a massive drop in crime as they put away one gang in their area that was pretty much into everything. Hounding these gangs seems to be the way forward.

 

[Steep]

Some figures USA v UK on police deaths as a result of shootings, not desperately accurate for various reaons but... US population is ~ five times that of the UK, in 2011 65 American police officers died in shooting incidents. If you translated that to here with an armed police force we would expect to see 12+ officers killed in this way instead of 2.

The police overwhelmingly do not want to go armed according to the police federations own findings.

We have no death penalty here for the very good reason that no twelve person jury can ever be 100%positive of guilt when evidential mistakes are all too easy to make. Arming the police would be tantamount to asking each of them to make that same death penalty decision in an instant on the evidence of their eyes only. I for one wouldn't want the responsibility and neither do they.

 

[Russ77]

I hate the idea of every officer being armed with a gun, tassers and other non-leathal items are fine with me though.

In addition to this better protection in the form of bullet proof vests should be made available if an officer wants to wear them and in areas that are particularly bad then other protective gear should be available too.

The final part of the puzzle has to be back up from the courts/government to deal with offenders effectively. No more slaps on the wrist, ASBOs etc. More prison time with little more than bread & water......OK maybe a bit of an exageration but let's make prisons somewhere you really don't want to be rather than some viewing it as free comfy digs.

 

[arclight]

The only countries in the world that do not have armed police are:-

UK
Falkland Islands
Iceland
Cook Islands
St. Helena
Pitcairn Islands

We do seem somewhat out of step. Comparable couuntries in Europe don't seem to have a problem with armed police.

 

[gman]

If the two female officers had been armed I very much doubt it would have saved them - it was a routine call and they had no reason to suspect anything untoward as they approached the house. The killer had the element of surprise and it's highly unlikely they'd have had time to draw a weapon anyway.

And the killer would have another two guns and ammo to add to his collection as well!

 

[CT]

The final part of the puzzle has to be back up from the courts/government to deal with offenders effectively. No more slaps on the wrist, ASBOs etc. More prison time with little more than bread & water......OK maybe a bit of an exageration but let's make prisons somewhere you really don't want to be rather than some viewing it as free comfy digs.

I absolutely agree with that - firearms offences need to to routinely attract custodial sentences of a length which makes the prospect of getting caught unacceptable. Beyond that there is no answer - police officers will be killed sometimes, it's the nature of the job and the risk is inherent from the day you join. I could go on about how the real answer is in the way we bring up our kids - which is the root cause of many problems, not just this one,but I really have no idea how we begin to address that one, and neither does anyone else.

Bullet proof vests are no protection to a head shot and would have been no help to PC Dave Rathband, shot twice in the face while sitting in his vehicle by that madman Raoul Moat. At least it was pretty quick for these two female officers - Rathband was blinded and suffered consequent personality issues which cost him his marriage. The poor bugger finally took his own life.

 

[Steep]

The only countries in the world that do not have armed police are:-

UK
Falkland Islands
Iceland
Cook Islands
St. Helena
Pitcairn Islands

We do seem somewhat out of step. Comparable couuntries in Europe don't seem to have a problem with armed police.

Add Eire, New Zealand and Norway. In Norway according to the BBC the police carry weapons in their vehicles but not on them, UK, Eire and New Zealand do have armed police in special units.

 

[Russ77]

I absolutely agree with that - firearms offences need to to routinely attract custodial sentences of a length which makes the prospect of getting caught unacceptable.

To me, carrying a gun or a knife (other than a pen knife or where the situation dictates you would actually need a knife) on the street means you have the potential to harm or kill someone. There is no other good reason for carrying either.

A minimum 25 year sentence just for being in possession seems fair to me!

 

[Garry Edwards]

The only countries in the world that do not have armed police are:-

UK
Falkland Islands
Iceland
Cook Islands
St. Helena
Pitcairn Islands

We do seem somewhat out of step. Comparable couuntries in Europe don't seem to have a problem with armed police.

I think that's a bit simplistic. In many countries, the armed police are little more than paramilitaries, they are not police as we know them here. Do you really want to live in a country where, if you are told to stop and don't, you'll be shot in the back? If you fail to stop because you're deaf, or preoccupied, then tough.

We are rightly concerned when a totally innocent person is shot by police in this country, but at least we make a fuss about it and try to learn from the mistakes that are made. In some countries, these things are just accepted as normal.

And some countries that appear to have all police armed, don't. In China for example, they have a branch of police that are very heavily armed, but they aren't on patrol - a bit like our own specialist firearms depts. They do have a few police who are armed, but probably 90% of the ones on patrol aren't.

 

[Garry Edwards]

I absolutely agree with that - firearms offences need to to routinely attract custodial sentences of a length which makes the prospect of getting caught unacceptable. Beyond that there is no answer - police officers will be killed sometimes, it's the nature of the job and the risk is inherent from the day you join. I could go on about how the real answer is in the way we bring up our kids - which is the root cause of many problems, not just this one,but I really have no idea how we begin to address that one, and neither does anyone else.

Bullet proof vests are no protection to a head shot and would have been no help to PC Dave Rathband, shot twice in the face while sitting in his vehicle by that madman Raoul Moat. At least it was pretty quick for these two female officers - Rathband was blinded and suffered consequent personality issues which cost him his marriage. The poor bugger finally took his own life.

 

[duggiebee]

The problem appears to be that in situations whereby police have been killed or seriously injured in the line of duty, speaking from personal experience, it tends to be spontaneous incidents which happen then and there. I cannot think of one occasion whereby a routine call attended by ordinary beat officers has resulted in armed units subsequently attending and saving the day. In some counties the response time for armed units can run to 20 - 30 mins which is obviously of no use whatsoever to ordinary unarmed officers. I am aware of incidents whereby containment of individuals has been undertaken by armed officers and fatal shots have been fired but to my personal knowledge there was no prior violence directed to the first unarmed officers who attended.
I am also getting a bit peeved with constant comparisons being made with armed police officers in the US. I would suggest that arming officers in the UK would be far more comparable to French, Dutch or German police officers as opposed to US officers.

Now, having said all that I also believe that this is such an important matter which affects the intrinsic nature of policing in the UK, the decision as to whether or not officers are armed should ultimately lie with the officers themselves. I cannot envisage any circumstances whereby serving officers would be forced to carry firearms when over 80% of these officers do not wish to be armed.

 

[TriggerHappy]

The only countries in the world that do not have armed police are:-

UK
Falkland Islands
Iceland
Cook Islands
St. Helena
Pitcairn Islands

We do seem somewhat out of step. Comparable couuntries in Europe don't seem to have a problem with armed police.

But that's too simplistic to simply state we're out of step. If the police in those countries listed are at a statistically significant higher risk of harm preventable by carrying arms then it would mean something, but without more evidence it doesn't tell us anything. One could just as easily argue those nations are more progressive because they don't arm police.

 

[Dave *]

Garry, with respect, please stop posting nonsense on a subject that you appear to have no practical experience of. Whilst you might have done plenty of armchair research into firearms, your practical knowledge is somewhat limited.

I
And we are talking handguns here, small lightweights semi autos or revolvers that can be carried in a holster all shift (along with all the other equipment) need to be small calibre, otherwise the kick from firing the first shot makes it impossible to shoot accurately with the second etc., and small calibre weapons have very poor stopping power.

No police force I can think of uses small calibre handguns (normally categorised as 6.35mm (.25") or 7.65mm (.32"), the common police handgun is chambered in either 9mm or .40", and less commonly .45" (which has called out of favour because it is a big heavy round that can can cause unreasonable injury in a law enforcement role). All of these calibres are easy to carry, size and weight wise.

The alternative deadly force weapons just aren't practical - shotguns, rifles, MP5s, and again carry risk of 'collateral damage' to innocent people.

Again, your lack of understanding shows, the MP5 is chambered for the handgun 9mm round, it just adds a longer barrel for more accurate shooting at longer distance, and a higher capacity magazine.

As for automatics, it doesn't matter how well maintained they are, if the slide spring breaks they become a priest, not a gun. And if they aren't held correctly they can jam.

The way a police officer holds his or her firearm would be handled in the first training sessions they have, or do you think it's like Hot Fuzz and the village Bobby just walks in and grabs a gun without any training?

I worked as an armed officer for 15 years, and can't remember ever seeing a slide spring break, (or any internal spring) have you seen the gauge of steel used in the recoil spring of a semi automatic?

With regards to maintenance, the British Army is still using the Browning Hi Power 9mm pistol in Afghanistan, some of the pistols are 1950's and 1960's vintage, and they still function properly, even in the sand, dust and heat.

The hammer is only safe down on an empty cylinder, when there is a live round there, accidentally catching the hammer can result in an accidental discharge. It has happened many times, especially as the gun is being removed from a holster.

You've been watching too many cowboy movies, while this was true of the revolver carried by Billy the Kid, any modern double action revolver will not do as you say, there is a safety mechanism built into the hammer and it will not fall back into the firing position unless the trigger is pulled.

Also your "hammer on an empty chamber" has another flaw, the hammer is actually attached to the cylnder (you are using the wrong terminology, the cylinder is the round part in the revolver with 6 chambers for cartridges), when the hammer is cocked back the cylinder rotates one chamber, so in your scenario the hammer would fall (if it was possible) on the loaded chamber next to the empty chamber you had left directly under the hammer.

I've had the misfortune of seeing a colleague killed by one round of 9mm to the head, so your nonsense of "3 shots to the head to kill" is just that, nonsense probably based on Hollywood movies.

 

[CT]

I agree with the last poster Duggiebee - the vast majority of officers don't wish to be armed and I would seriously question the motives of some who do want to be.

It's not that long ago that a handful of officers throughout my old force were firearms tactically trained - there was no specialised fireams unit - the idea was that at any given time they could call on officers on duty throughout the huge force area to respond to any given firearm situation. A minimum tactical team needed three officers. In practise, there were often not three qualified officers on duty which often resulted in guys being called out of bed in the wee small hours half asleep to make up a team to deal with whatever the situation entailed. This meant that on many occasions you were supposed to operate effectively with guys you'd never met, let alone previously trained with. It was an awful system and thankfully the present situation is much better.

Arming the police across the board means that they'll need to factor in refresher/training days to fit in with busy shift and work schedules and they're likely to be minimal. Carrying a gun undrawn for months and years on end to the point where it's just another item of uniform is no good at all - the training needs to be very regular and of a first class order. I don't even want to think about a lesser approach than that.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Garry, with respect, please stop posting nonsense on a subject that you appear to have no practical experience of. Whilst you might have done plenty of armchair research into firearms, your practical knowledge is somewhat limited.

You're entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't make you right.
I was originally trained by my dad, who was a sniper and small arms instructor, I have fired all kinds of military weapons, I have fired a variety of handguns of all types over the years competitively (until the post Dunblane ban), and currently shoot rifles over land and shotguns both over land and in clay competitions (class AA shooter). I am a qualified trainer and both range and shotgun safety officer.

I worked as an armed officer for 15 years, and can't remember ever seeing a slide spring break, (or any internal spring) have you seen the gauge of steel used in the recoil spring of a semi automatic?

Yes, of course I've seen the gauge used. I've also seen one break, twice, and seen many more that have broken. I saw a shooter lose half his ear when one of them broke. If you have that much experience I'm amazed that you haven't seen them break.

With regards to maintenance, the British Army is still using the Browning Hi Power 9mm pistol in Afghanistan, some of the pistols are 1950's and 1960's vintage, and they still function properly, even in the sand, dust and heat.

British army weapons are maintained by expert armourers.

You've been watching too many cowboy movies, while this was true of the revolver carried by Billy the Kid, any modern double action revolver will not do as you say, there is a safety mechanism built into the hammer and it will not fall back into the firing position unless the trigger is pulled

Again, I've seen it happen with double action revolvers. If the hammer is pulled back far enough then yes, the safety will kick in. But if it is just caught on clothing or a holster then there can be an accidental discharge.

I've had the misfortune of seeing a colleague killed by one round of 9mm to the head, so your nonsense of "3 shots to the head to kill" is just that, nonsense probably based on Hollywood movies.

Read it again, that isn't what I said. Of course a 9mm to the head can kill, come to that a 7.65mm to the head of a horse will kill instantly. But in the real world, in an emergency situation, it typically takes 3 shots to the upper torso to actually stop someone - obviously a 'lucky' shot can do it in one, but there are plenty of cases where very large numbers of shots have failed to stop a gunman on drugs, adrenaline or both - even if he has subsequently died of his wounds.

Again, your lack of understanding shows, the MP5 is chambered for the handgun 9mm round, it just adds a longer barrel for more accurate shooting at longer distance, and a higher capacity magazine.

Most are chambered for the 9×19mm Parabellum pistol cartridge, but the earlier models were chambered for 7.62 x 39mm and 7.62 x 51mm - which is as devastating round. Even if there are no police weapons still using these rounds, which I freely admit I don't know, because things may have changed, my point was that the rapid rate of possible fire and the large magazines considerable add to the risk of innocent people being shot accidentally.

All of these calibres are easy to carry, size and weight wise.

Yes they are, but that wasn't my point. The point is that heavy rounds produce heavy recoil, which dramatically affects the accuracy of second and subsequent shots when fired in quick succession. It's a simple law of physics - every action has an equal and opposite reaction. All experienced shooters know that.

 

[arclight]

Originally Posted by arclight View Post
The only countries in the world that do not have armed police are:-

UK
Falkland Islands
Iceland
Cook Islands
St. Helena
Pitcairn Islands

We do seem somewhat out of step. Comparable couuntries in Europe don't seem to have a problem with armed police.
TriggerHappy wrote:-
But that's too simplistic to simply state we're out of step. If the police in those countries listed are at a statistically significant higher risk of harm preventable by carrying arms then it would mean something, but without more evidence it doesn't tell us anything. One could just as easily argue those nations are more progressive because they don't arm police.

All these countries are islands. All except the UK are a bit different, because, comparatively speaking, there is hardly anyone there. Secondly they have not lost control of there borders like the UK has with result that there has been an influx of criminals and guns.

 

[Garry Edwards]

I agree with the last poster Duggiebee - the vast majority of officers don't wish to be armed and I would seriously question the motives of some who do want to be.

It's not that long ago that a handful of officers throughout my old force were firearms tactically trained - there was no specialised fireams unit - the idea was that at any given time they could call on officers on duty throughout the huge force area to respond to any given firearm situation. A minimum tactical team needed three officers. In practise, there were often not three qualified officers on duty which often resulted in guys being called out of bed in the wee small hours half asleep to make up a team to deal with whatever the situation entailed. This meant that on many occasions you were supposed to operate effectively with guys you'd never met, let alone previously trained with. It was an awful system and thankfully the present situation is much better.

Arming the police across the board means that they'll need to factor in refresher/training days to fit in with busy shift and work schedules and they're likely to be minimal. Carrying a gun undrawn for months and years on end to the point where it's just another item of uniform is no good at all - the training needs to be very regular and of a first class order. I don't even want to think about a lesser approach than that.

I agree with every word, except that I'm not sure that the present situation is much better in rural areas.

I was recently talking to a Bronze Commander in a very rural area, and wondered why it had taken over 3 hours for his team to arrive. The answer was that he was in bed, it took him time to report, then 20 minutes to dress, then another 20 minutes to prepare the vehicle, then a long drive to an area he didn't know to find a place with no known postcode.

 

[Dave *]

Most are chambered for the 9×19mm Parabellum pistol cartridge, but the earlier models were chambered for 7.62 x 39mm and 7.62 x 51mm

Nonsense, there has never been a 7.62x51 or 7.62x39 MP5, those rounds are assault rifle rounds, being used, for example, in the H&K G3 (and the British Army SLR) and the AK47 respectively.

There are variants of the MP5 chambered for 10mm (the MP5-10) and in .40 S&W (MP5-40), all others are 9mm para. They are all pistol cartridges.

You do realise the "MP" stands for Maschinen pistol (machine pistol)?

Yes they are, but that wasn't my point. The point is that heavy rounds produce heavy recoil, which dramatically affects the accuracy of second and subsequent shots when fired in quick succession. It's a simple law of physics - every action has an equal and opposite reaction. All experienced shooters know that.

If your experience is watching movies, perhaps, but from practical experience it is easily possible (and you would fail most police firearm assessments if you couldn't) to rapid fire an entire magazine of 9mm into a torso target.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Nonsense, there has never been a 7.62x51 or 7.62x39 MP5, those rounds are assault rifle rounds, being used, for example, in the H&K G3 (and the British Army SLR) and the AK47 respectively.

There are variants of the MP5 chambered for 10mm (the MP5-10) and in .40 S&W (MP5-40), all others are 9mm para. They are all pistol cartridges.

You do realise the "MP" stands for Maschinen pistol (machine pistol)?



If your experience is watching movies, perhaps, but from practical experience it is easily possible (and you would fail most police firearm assessments if you couldn't) to rapid fire an entire magazine of 9mm into a torso target.

Dave,
I'm sorry but you and I will never agree on this. I repeat, my experience is from actually firing guns, not from watching movies, all of which are totally ridiculous. I freely admit that I have never fired at a human (and hope that I never have to) but I do have a lot of practical experience, and have been trained by real experts. If you don't accept what I say then fair enough, but I can't help wondering whether you have had any training at all yourself, other than from other police officers, and whether you have any actual experience, other than from being an armed police officer.

End of subject as far as I'm concerned, I'm out of here.

 

[neil_g]

my god some people are paranoid..

"dont give the police guns, youll get shot for crossing the road without looking..."

really?

 

[Carlo]

i haven't read anymore than the very first reply to this thread so apologies if i'm going over old ground...
What i feel i need to say is this;
watching the news last night i said to the Mrs "Why have they got this guy on talking now who also lost his policewoman wife a few years back"? it just seemed odd, and a bit too sudden!
She immediately said it's propaganda about us arming our police force.
I was taken aback at first at her cynicism, but low and behold...yep. thats exactly why they had him on, she was bang on the money.
If anyone thinks the two officers would still be alive if they had been armed they're living in a dream world!
Remember this incident from New York a while back;

http://news.sympatico.ctvnews.ca/wo...colleague_near_empire_state_building/b7439cc2

All the people wounded by gunshots were hit with police bullets!!
If it wasn't so serious it'd be funny!

 

[Carlo]

my god some people are paranoid..

"dont give the police guns, youll get shot for crossing the road without looking..."

really?

well didn't someone get shot dead for carrying a chair leg in a plastic bag???

 

[Dave *]

.

End of subject as far as I'm concerned, I'm out of here.

With all the misinformation posted, a good call. Thank you.