Should the police be armed

Should the police be armed?

  • Yes

    Votes: 43 32.6%

  • No

    Votes: 52 39.4%

  • In some situations I guess it'd be ok

    Votes: 34 25.8%

  • I already am

    Votes: 3 2.3%
  • Total voters
    132
It's happened already up in the Highlands, armed police on patrol carrying pistols as a matter of course. There's been a lot of complaints about it, local MSP up in arms (pun intended) and it's gone as far as the Scottish parliament. The Chief Constable is unrepentant though and seems pretty adamant his officers will continue to be armed even though the Highlands has one of the lowest crime rates in the UK, certainly for violent crime.
 
Steep said:
It's happened already up in the Highlands, armed police on patrol carrying pistols as a matter of course. There's been a lot of complaints about it, local MSP up in arms (pun intended) and it's gone as far as the Scottish parliament. The Chief Constable is unrepentant though and seems pretty adamant his officers will continue to be armed even though the Highlands has one of the lowest crime rates in the UK, certainly for violent crime.
Click to expand...

I hope we get armed police in Glasgow, I cannot wait for this to happen.
 
neil_g said:
10...9....8...

:p
Click to expand...
Although its a bit of a "holy thread revival" Batman,
to be fair, its been running nearly two years now, so far so good :D
 
Cobra said:
Although its a bit of a "holy thread revival" Batman,
to be fair, its been running nearly two years now, so far so good :D
Click to expand...

The vast majority of police don't want guns (although many are prepared to have them if they really have to)
The vast majority of the public don't want them to have guns
There is a tiny, tiny amount of crime that requires an armed police response and there are always police officers available with guns if required, they don't need to walk around with them - all that's actually needed is a better system so that they are able to get to incidents much more quickly than they do.

ST4 does want them to have guns - so what else is there to say on the subject? :)
 
Garry Edwards said:
The vast majority of police don't want guns (although many are prepared to have them if they really have to)
Click to expand...

Thing is why do the "vast majority of police" not want guns ? - is it because they honestly don't want to carry them, or is it because they know that as soon as they use them they'll be jumped all over by civil liberties and not be adequately backed up or defended by their senior officers.

most of the cops i know lean to the second option, and wouldf actually love to be able to defend themselves and the public more easily , if only there wasnt a virtual certainty of being hung up by the balls as soon as they shoot someone
 
Well, no doubt individual people have individual reasons, but my guess is that you're right about the second reason - they feel that there would be a lack of support from senior officers if they actually had to use them.
The role, usefulness, efficiency, value for money, capability etc of very senior police officers is of course another subject altogether.

As it happens, I know quite a few ARO's, and I haven't yet met one who is comfortable with their level of training - and these are supposed to be the elite, so it may be that 'ordinary' police officers feel that they would be left with even less in the way of support and training.
 
I wonder how many lives, both of policed and general public would actually have been saved over the last few years had the police routinely been armed? On the whole I like the way as a society we're policed at present and don't see the need for routine armament.

I know there is a argument of civil liberties, but I have no problem with police officers being held to account for their actions. As is the case with any other citizen of the country. Both armed and unarmed.
 
Garry Edwards said:
The vast majority of police don't want guns (although many are prepared to have them if they really have to)
The vast majority of the public don't want them to have guns
Click to expand...
If you haven't voted,and can't see the poll, results (I can ;) )
it would suggest otherwise,
the Yes and in some situations leads the no vote.

  1. Yes
    39 vote(s)
    32.8%

  2. No
    50 vote(s)
    42.0%
  3. *
    In some situations I guess it'd be ok
    27 vote(s)
    22.7%

  4. I already am
    3 vote(s)
    2.5%
 
Garry and Bernie were the reason the other two threads got locked, so perhaps we can hear everyone else's opinion on the subject?

The media are certainly scare mongering the public atm with regards to threats from abroad coming home to terrorise us, but it certainly is a real threat. It wouldn't surprise me if David Cameron (when he eventually comes back from holidaying on the tax payer) decides to step up security measures in the UK, to the point where he asks forces to arm themselves... Time will tell!
 
boyfalldown said:
I wonder how many lives, both of policed and general public would actually have been saved over the last few years had the police routinely been armed? On the whole I like the way as a society we're policed at present and don't see the need for routine armament.

I know there is a argument of civil liberties, but I have no problem with police officers being held to account for their actions. As is the case with any other citizen of the country. Both armed and unarmed.
Click to expand...
I agree. I think that, as a society, we have to decide whether or not it's OK for the police to shoot unarmed people. It does happen now, but very occasionally, and when it does happen there is always an enquiry, even if the public are usually unhappy with the findings of that enquiry.

The reason I say that is that our police are trained not to use force unless they really have to, and that to me has to be the right approach. We all know what happens in other societies where the police (allegedly) shoot unarmed people without apparent hesitation. And then there are public demonstrations, and the police carry on shooting...

How often are unarmed police officers in this country actually shot by criminals? One is one too many of course, but there are very few. A female police officer was shot, through a door, by a criminal with a sawn off, that case has just been concluded. A gun would not have helped her because she had no way of knowing that he was armed..

PC Rathband was shot by Raoul Moat, it's arguable that a gun wouldn't have helped him either. And, PC Fox, DC Head and Temporary DC Wombwell were shot by Harry Roberts in 1966. Maybe, as there were 3 of them, guns may have helped. And of course the two female police officers shot and also attacked by a hand grenade in Liverpool. There may well be others, but I'm guessing not that many.

Now, my point is, that unless we have police officers who are actually holding a gun in their hand at the moment they need it, unless they are very highly trained and unless they are able to fire with no hesitation whatever, and unless they can actually hit their target in any lighting conditions and in any weather conditions, having a gun won't save them, it will just increase the risk to the public and perhaps to them too. We don't have, and don't want, police officers who will shoot immediately and instinctively and without real justification.
 
Eddzz!! said:
Garry and Bernie were the reason the other two threads got locked.................
Click to expand...

From a Mod point of view, that's not correct.
They both have very strong feelings on the subject, both with good reason.

The petty bickering, name calling and going round like an Ozlum bird,
(Chasing it own tail, only to disappear up its own arse)
Are the main reasons that threads (any) get locked.

So lets hope this one can carry on as a sensible discussion,
without any of the above (y)
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Garry Edwards said:
I agree. I think that, as a society, we have to decide whether or not it's OK for the police to shoot unarmed people..
Click to expand...

I have no issue with that but a tazer is often more suitable. They need to keep safe, they are out dealing with violent criminals and bad people day in day out, they should have guns. Practically every other police force have armed cops as a matter of course.
 
Last edited:
Cobra said:
If you haven't voted,and can't see the poll, results (I can ;) )
it would suggest otherwise,
the Yes and in some situations leads the no vote.

  1. Yes
    39 vote(s)
    32.8%

  2. No
    50 vote(s)
    42.0%
  3. *
    In some situations I guess it'd be ok
    27 vote(s)
    22.7%

  4. I already am
    3 vote(s)
    2.5%
Click to expand...

Surely the "No" leads the poll? :thinking:
 
viv1969 said:
Surely the "No" leads the poll? :thinking:
Click to expand...
You can prove anything you like with statistics as you know.
There is a no vote with 50 votes.
A yes vote with 39 votes,
but add in the "sometimes" 27 votes and we have a clear winner.
and of course the 3 already are go towards the yes vote too.

Isn't this the way that politicians do it? :D
 
You can prove nothing with stats...but you can cheat a lot. :LOL:
 
What we don't know (or at least what I don't know) is exactly what the police federation asked their members to vote on, i.e. we don't know the wording of the question, we only know the answer
And given that "the Police Federation of England and Wales (PFEW) continues to push for more police officers to be trained specifically as Authorised Firearms Officers," this may be very relevant.
Summary of key findings member survey
The response rate was high and the message emphatic. An overwhelming majority of 82 per cent stated that they do not want all officers to be routinely armed on duty. This is particularly significant given that there has been almost no change in police officers’ opinions since we conducted the previous surveys in 2003 and 1995, and this despite the massive rise in gun related crime.

Link here

Edit: I don't know where they got the bit about the massive rise in gun related crime from
 
Last edited:
Garry Edwards said:
What we don't know (or at least what I don't know) is exactly what the police federation asked their members to vote on, i.e. we don't know the wording of the question, we only know the answer
And given that "the Police Federation of England and Wales (PFEW) continues to push for more police officers to be trained specifically as Authorised Firearms Officers," this may be very relevant.
Summary of key findings member survey
The response rate was high and the message emphatic. An overwhelming majority of 82 per cent stated that they do not want all officers to be routinely armed on duty. This is particularly significant given that there has been almost no change in police officers’ opinions since we conducted the previous surveys in 2003 and 1995, and this despite the massive rise in gun related crime.

Link here

Edit: I don't know where they got the bit about the massive rise in gun related crime from
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that Police opinions matter when it comes to threats on national security. The point I initially raised was how public opinions may come to change as threats made to us from overseas begin to increase. Media exposure aside, this ISIS thing is rather frightening and I for one would feel safer if our officers can respond effectively to serious threats of terrorism in the UK... Let's face it, Police on the streets with firearms is a deterrent!
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Eddzz!! said:
Let's face it, Police on the streets with firearms is a deterrent!
Click to expand...

somewhat factiously I admit you could argue that arming the police only deters terrorist 'cause the police running round with guns causes as much damage as terrorists ever could.

As a serious point though its not a deterrent.
 
boyfalldown said:
somewhat factiously I admit you could argue that arming the police only deters terrorist 'cause the police running round with guns causes as much damage as terrorists ever could.

As a serious point though its not a deterrent.
Click to expand...

and you would know as an active terrorist? :p
 
Garry Edwards said:
I agree. I think that, as a society, we have to decide whether or not it's OK for the police to shoot unarmed people. .
Click to expand...

I think it depends on how you define 'unarmed'

on the whole i'd say its not okay to shoot innocent people whether they are armed or not.. although if a cop honestly believes them to be armed at the moment that he pulls the trigger he shouldnt have to worry about being treated like a murderer, although neither should cops people to shoot anyone they wish with total impunity - its a dificult balance to strike

(like with de menzies - okay they shot an unarmed brazilian electrician - but they believed they were confronting a suicide bomber and had a fraction of a second to make the shoot/no shoot call )

Likewise if they shoot a criminal who is driving in a manner likely to endanger them or others , is he 'unarmed' or is he using the car as a weapon ?

It shouldnt be beyond the wit of man to write an ROE that covers these things (although tbh the civil service struggle to define a sensible ROE for the military so it might be harder than it looks)
 
Eddzz!! said:
and you would know as an active terrorist? :p
Click to expand...

to be fair to Hugh - a lot of terrorists are religious or political fanatics - they arent going to be deterred by cops with guns. On the other hand cops with guns have a lot better chance of dealing with them than a cop with a baton and a can of pepper spray
 
ST4 said:
If people here aren't breaking the law, why does it matter to them if the police officer has a gun, tazer or AK47 on their person?
Click to expand...

the AK47 is distinctly inaccurate and tends to climb on automatic fire- I'd prefer them to have an MP5 personally :LOL:
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
big soft moose said:
the AK47 is distinctly inaccurate and tends to climb on automatic fire- I'd prefer them to have an MP5 personally :LOL:
Click to expand...

Ok, but you get the point of my post. Why are people so anti police using guns if they are being law abiding they won't get shot. I don't see the issue.

With the London riots etc, a lot few well placed bullets would have worked a lot better.
 
ST4 said:
Ok, but you get the point of my post. Why are people so anti police using guns if they are being law abiding they won't get shot. I don't see the issue.

With the London riots etc, a lot few well placed bullets would have worked a lot better.
Click to expand...
But surely the whole point is that law abiding people do get shot. It doesn't happen often, but if all police were routinely armed, the law of probability says that if 40x as many police were armed, it would happen 40x more often - and that takes no account of the fact that the standard of training would be much lower.
big soft moose said:
(like with de menzies - okay they shot an unarmed brazilian electrician - but they believed they were confronting a suicide bomber and had a fraction of a second to make the shoot/no shoot call )
Click to expand...
That's the problem. They didn't have a fraction of a second, two police officers were holding him down before two other police officers started shooting him.
big soft moose said:
the AK47 is distinctly inaccurate and tends to climb on automatic fire- I'd prefer them to have an MP5 personally :LOL:
Click to expand...
Actually the AK47 (or at least the models that use the 7.62 short) is reasonably accurate. Like all bottom ejectors, it should only be fired in short bursts, otherwise the only danger is to birds, but used properly, it's not bad. The perceived problem with the AK47 is probably related to the poor standard of most of the people who shoot them.
 
I'm not opposed to arming the police - providing that officers are well trained (and backed up when they use the weaponry for lawful purpose)

That said the reason a lot of innocent civilians may be opposed to such arming is the fear that they won't be well trained , and thus the risk of being caught in the cross fire, or by an over penetrating round would exist (some may also fear being shot by being mistaken for an armed criminal , although that is a more remote possibility)

The average tom , dick or harry given a hand gun (far more an SMG) without propper training is going to miss with more rounds than he hits except at very close range , and where those misses go could be a serious issue

(like with the riots - a gun fired in the air would probably have dispersed the rioters - but what goes up must come down , and a bullet fired in the air in an urban street has a fair chance of coming down through someone's window
 
ST4 said:
If people here aren't breaking the law, why does it matter to them if the police officer has a gun, tazer or AK47 on their person?
Click to expand...


Because I consider it very fortunate that I've grown up and live in a society where the police aren't armed. Nor do they need to be. If police across the UK can open fire only a handful of times over the last few years why do they suddenly need to be armed.

I'm sure you'll come up with the terrorism argument. And to be honest its a bit tired. Isis (or whatever they call themselves today) aren't really a threat to the UK at the moment, and arming the local force won't stop a really determined fanatic doing lots of damage. I'm sure you'd see more De Menzes type incidents if you armed the police through fear (which is what you suggest really). I'd also argue that if you live in fear of terrorism then they've already won.
 
Garry Edwards said:
That's the problem. They didn't have a fraction of a second, two police officers were holding him down before two other police officers started shooting him.
.
Click to expand...

But they thought he had a bomb and the intent to blow it up - personally in those circumstance i'd have shot him several times in the head before he got anywhere near a tube train. Most of the saturday morning quarterbacking that followed was from people who've been no closer to a weapon than their x box or tv screen and haven't got a clue about making a snap decision under stress

Yes he was very unfortunate , and yes it wasnt great policing - but it wasnt murder either . - and it doesnt take much to imagine how much the very same critics would have been spouting if the police hadnt fired and he had turned out to have a bomb and blown up a train full of passengers
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
People here etc talk about how well trained traffic police are, why would be any different for their fire arm training. We trust our traffic police to drive well over a ton, but not joe public. The argument being the police officers training makes them safe to this, but joe public driving training means it isn't for them.

I apply that logic to guns, a trained police officer with a gun isn't an unacceptable risk, IMHO. Despite my views on the police, the training that is given to officers is more than decent and they are capable people going through a tough selection process. They won't turn rambo but be able to deal with bad people more effectiverly.

There is the counter terrorism argument, there is the person safety to the officers, there is the argument their training will be effective (we trust police with high speed driving, tazers, why not guns), theres the argument they will use them with restraint and most other police forces uses them.

The only argument against is some misfound liberal hug a hoody crap that guns are bad bred by the anti gun lobby.
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
Because I consider it very fortunate that I've grown up and live in a society where the police aren't armed. Nor do they need to be. If police across the UK can open fire only a handful of times over the last few years why do they suddenly need to be armed.
.
Click to expand...

I think part of the trouble is that when people think of an armed police force the USA is the obvious example that comes to mind - there are many other countries where the police are routinely armed where police shootings of innocents are very uncommon.

As to why the police should be armed , my take is because the criminals increasingly are - and the police need to be able to defend themselves and others. If you look at the records of police killed in service, and police wounded in service you have to wonder how many of them wouldn't have been had they had a glock (and been properly and thoroughly trained in its use) rather than a baton when they confronted said armed criminal.
 
ST4 said:
a trained police officer with a gun isn't an unacceptable risk, IMHO.
Click to expand...

This is true - but its a damn site harder to learn to put all your shots in the ten ring under pressure than it is to drive fast but safely. I don't disagree with arming the police if its done responsibly , but I can see the govt doing it on the cheap nand that aint a god idea (or fair to the officers concerned)
 
Garry Edwards said:
How often are unarmed police officers in this country actually shot by criminals? One is one too many of course, but there are very few..
Click to expand...

Its not just shooting though - how many cops are assaulted with knives, bats, iron bars, run down with by criminals fleeing the scene etc (and how many don't make the mainsteam news if its not a fatal injury). Currently a cop dealing with a criminal with a knife has to get close enough to deploy his pepper spray , rather than being able to shoot him at a safe distance (or to threaten to do so in order to force compliance)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top