Poll: Arming the UK Police

[Paragon Fury]

As a general rule of thumb, the peacekeepers should be far more heavily armed than the potential trouble-makers.

 

[Gladiateher]

I vote having police not having fire arms but with special divisions having them, however i think that these spcial units should respond if called

my main concern is that with the current government there will be alot of protests and some will turn into riots, imagine what would have happened at the student riot in london if the police had fire arms there

In the U.S. officers carry guns and we still have riots without massacres. I have a hard time imagining anything being worse with the guns being there, teargas, batons, and horses can and will clear and crowd guaranteed. I have a friend who was at a street fire and got shot with a beanbag round. Guns don't necessarily mean death.

 

[Shock and Awe]

The British police should never, ever be routinely armed with guns.

The sight of American policemen pulling their guns out at every minor offender makes me sick.

If you are going to pull a gun on someone, it must only be because you are going to shoot them. A police force which needs to bully minor offenders into doing anything in this way is not one I want in my country.

Im sorry but where are you getting your information? Officers here never pull there weapons unless a suspect hays done something to make themselves an active threat to either the officer or a bystander. Every time an officer pulls there sidearm they have to justify it since they are often caught on tape by the camera in every officer's patrol car. Please don't generalize an entire country's police force on precious little information.

 

[crhoades]

I Agree as long as they are properly trained and levelheaded then by all means they should be armed.

 

[triggrhappy94]

Something about this reminds me about how a cop "accidentaly" shot a man in the back of the head (pretty much execution style) in BART last year.
BART is the name of the subway system in San Fransisco.

 

[rossatdi]

Got the knife stats also per capita? Or just general violent crime?

No but I'm sure the glory of the internet can help you out. Its higher than some and lower than others, what it doesn't have is maniacs running around and cutting up police officers despite a few tragic cases.

 

[DefinitelyPsychotic]

I say give them guns! It would make an incident such as that end much quicker! 20 mins? Madonna Mia! That's crazy!

Also, in case it isn't already obvious, I voted for option one!

 

[Jason Danger Keyes]

Canadian police forces carry at least a pistol, I'm sure that the special forces units pack heavier. I can't imagine a police force that is not equipped well enough to handle a lone man with a knife.

 

[commodore96]

Get them some gats

 

[Baneat]

Got the knife stats also per capita? Or just general violent crime?

No but I'm sure the glory of the internet can help you out. Its higher than some and lower than others, what it doesn't have is maniacs running around and cutting up police officers despite a few tragic cases.

Just seems strange that the source you pulled for gun crime wouldn't have other violent crimes?

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Well ... as long as police training is exceptional and the criterion to be a police officer is rigorous and the individual psychologically assessed. All for it.

The UK is a pretty dangerous place nowadays, so I have heard. Might just be gossip (or simple, and incorrect nostalgia of a time in the UK where people didn't bother reporting crimes, thus the appearance of being safer).

The telescopic police batons are an excellent close quarters weapon so I hear. Australian police have had firearms for awhile, but I'm not sure if they're outfitted with the collapsible batons ... if they aren't they should be. Versatile, robust, and not so cumbersome as the old nightsticks.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

The point is to kill them before the bomb goes off. A police officer with a handgun can only shoot a suspect up to 100 meters away reliably. Those officers with rifles can shoot them up to 300 meters away.

We must also be vigilant of a Mumbai style attack which Al Qaeda has been planning for New York.

Non-terror example: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34364869/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/cop-kills-man-times-square-shootout/

100 metres is a pretty good distance in a city street, dont you think? I mean sure those rifles might have a few hundred extra yards of effective fire, but what good does that do when you have people running around all over the place?

I've always liked the idea of 'plain clothes' police units with only pistols. They are more likely to actually be useful in a terrorist situation, rather than 'that guy who gets shot first' type of heavy-armed and armoured looking fellow with the rifle.

More likely to blend in with the crowd to fight regular crime as well. Oh ... and they will inspire less dread and angst in the average person on the street. Also more apporoachable by the general public, and good reputations and friendly demeanours win the hearts and minds of people.

Bit hard to feel safe around a guy dressed as a soldier and packing all the same kind of heat. Guy in a honey-coloured trenchcoat, shirt and tie over a stab vest? Little more approachable.

 

[Kuilui]

If the police can have guns then so should citizens. Gun control is such a stupid concept. Your taking guns away from people that want to LEGALLY obtain one. Criminals don't get guns legally their freaking criminals. Either politicans are all idiots or they just like knowing pissed off citizens that will probably crack one day cant fight back as well as they can. Didn't crime in the UK go up like 40% after the gun ban? Makes no sense whatsoever. That's politicans for you though. Logic and common sense are two things you can't have to be a politician for some reason. Glad I live in America.

 

[LarenzoAOG]

Currently the rank and file police forces of the United Kingdom are armed with CS spray (a gas which acts as an eye irritant and can cause retching, like mace) and an extendable baton. If something particularly hairy is going down then Armed Response Vehicles, or specialist CO19 squads (our version of SWAT), are deployed. However, recently the anonymous whistleblowing blogger and author 'Inspector Gadget' (a pseudonym, obviously) has called [http://inspectorgadget.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/why-uk-police-should-be-armed/] for the UK police forces to be armed with firearms as a last resort weapon to protect both the public and themselves from immediate threats. This is why and is just one such incident of many:


Currently, most EU, Asia-Pacific, Eastern and American countries have firearms issued to officers as part of their standard equipment and I think that above video makes it pretty bloody obvious why that's the case. So what are your thoughts, Escapist, on arming the police of the UK with firearms as standard issue and why?

Context: It took 20 minutes for (reportedly) 30-35 police officers to detain the man in the video above. The police had called for an Armed Response Vehicle to attend the scene, but none arrived as they were all either busy elsewhere or denied by command. By the time the filming starts, eight police officers had reportedly sprayed him directly to the face with CS spray. The man was a previously released mental patient (seriously, so much is wrong with this country). The weapon the man was wielding was a machete of between 2-3 feet in length, similar to that which was used to kill PC Keith Blakelock [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Keith_Blakelock] in 1985, after he was almost beheaded and lost multiple digits when an assailant hacked at him 8 times with a machete.

Spoiler: Options for the poll

Why have I chosen to spoiler the options rather than just sticking them in plain format? To stop people from entering the thread, clicking a poll option without watching the video and thus skewing the results:

Option one: All police should be armed at all times whilst on duty if they've passed firearms training

Option two: Police shouldn't be armed with firearms unless they're heading to a call which is particularly likely to place themselves or the public at risk and only after passing firearms training

Option three: Standard police shouldn't be armed with firearms, that should be left to a few specialist divisions such as ARVs whose sole purpose is to respond to high threat calls from ground officers

Option four: No police officer of any branch or division should be armed with firearms

Option 1 for sure. Police need to be at least one step up in terms of weaponry then criminals, if that man had had a gun the cops would have been almost powerless to stop him, he could have shot at police or passersby until he ran out of ammo. Besides I'm sure the cops would adhere to the mindset of "I'd rather have it and not need it then need it and not have it."

 

[ThisIsSnake]

Jean Charles De Menezes? Ian Tomlinson?

2 things:-

1) Whenever I hear Jean Charles' name, I keep thinking he's a character from GRAW 2
2) Why are we referring to Ian Tomlinson? His death wasn't really to with gun-crime, rather general (possible) police misconduct.

Because, Ian Tomlinson's death was an act of unprovoked police violence. I wouldn't trust MET with guns, or batons, or sharpened sticks, or boards with nails in them.

 

[Popido]

But they might use them to attack America. D:

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

If the police can have guns then so should citizens. Gun control is such a stupid concept. Your taking guns away from people that want to LEGALLY obtain one. Criminals don't get guns legally their freaking criminals. Either politicans are all idiots or they just like knowing pissed off citizens that will probably crack one day cant fight back as well as they can. Didn't crime in the UK go up like 40% after the gun ban? Makes no sense whatsoever. That's politicans for you though. Logic and common sense are two things you can't have to be a politician for some reason. Glad I live in America.

Violent crime and homicide diminished by capita in Australia after the auto/semi-auto/easily concealable pistol/loaded weapon/carry in public ban. People are quite content with overt gun control over here.

But we live on an island ... so gun laws are easy to enforce. That and Australians attained independance the new, trendy way (through the ballot box). So most of the citizenry believe that the most effective political action is peaceful negotiation. Works for us.

Still get glassings and stabbings, but it was worse when people added guns to the mix.

 

[Escapefromwhatever]

Sorry, Doctor, but we non-Timelords only have one life. Arm dem cops.

Although, the giant mob of cops all tackling the guy was pretty awesome.

 

[Da_Vane]

Gun fetishists aside, the fact is that the UK police force have enough trouble handling the CS spray and tazers as it is now, without causing more injury than they actually know how to handle.

The issue to OP describes isn't caused by the fact the police are not armed, but because the squads designed for such situations are over stretched while the police forces in the UK have had their budgets stripped and cut so many times, they cannot effectively police this country.

By arming UK police forces, they risk putting more guns on the street. It is a known part of FBI training that there is always at least one firearm in every situation they attend - their own, and they have the responsibility to look after their firearm, others it can easily be turned against them. Therefore arming UK police forces, which have very strict gun control laws, means an increase in firearms in a society where firearms are not common.

The problem is, and will always be, the the law enforcement officer on the street expected to deal with things for which they are not equipped and isn't their job. If UK society had looser gun control laws, then it would make sense, because every one and their grand mother could carry around a firearm for personal defence and other uses. Yet arming the UK police force isn't necessarily the answer here - it's about giving the police forces the budget so that the specialist units required for this job can actually do it, rather than have a bunch of unarmed guys try to take on a machete-wielding man when all they have is a stab vest and a stick.

If the problem persists once funding has been restored, then it might be worth considering arming the UK police in some capacity - but this is a one-off incident based on a critical shortage of resources for a service that has been undermined for a very long time. There may be time to arm the police, but this isn't it.

 

[Sovvolf]

1. Then train your cops better. I read many on here calling members of the Met idiots. Here in NYC we call them our finest.

I don't think any extra amount of training is going to affect the probability of a beat cop running into a suicide bomber or terrorist before the deed as been done. Least not out side the movies. The chances of that are one in a million. Those things often require stakeouts, undercover work and other such things, we've caught plenty over here before they've had the chance to destroy many a property and people. However you don't often catch them in the middle of the street, without no prior information, no training is going to increase those odds and I only hope that if an officer over there did see something like that, he'd not just flash his cannon in hopes of being a hero, but go and radio for back up and have the area evacuated.

2. Those officers are always (24/7) out in high risk areas ever since 9/11. The first time I came upon them I was scared sh*tless. It was dark, 11 PM in Brooklyn. I am coming out of a subway station at Borough Hall onto the street. I can just make out 4 officers and 7 soldiers standing in the darkness, one having a cigarette. My heart jumped, but since then I have not heard of a single cop shooting a civilian with a rifle.

Mmmm, honestly wouldn't have thought that. Well the more you know. Sounds a little paranoid to be honest however, different culture so different solutions.