UKC

I guess most people would agree that the casualty list from last nights horrific events in London would have been even worse if it was not for the amazingly fast response from armed officers getting onsite within minutes. My uninformed guess is that somewhere in London there is a team of highly trained armed officers sitting in a room kitted out and ready to go at a moments notice.
I'm also guessing that, that will not be the case just about anywhere else in the country and with terrorists choosing softer and softer target's sooner or later it will move to busy high streets away from the big cities which would take much longer to get an armed response team to.
Is it now time to train and arm all police countrywide so if something does happen its not the local bobby armed with a stick and a tazer turning up onsite?
Not sure myself and I know the answer to this if there is one is far far more complex, but at the moment how do you protect soft targets against this.

In reply to buzby:
Its not just about protecting soft targets it's about protecting the ordinary officers who are now getting killed because they don't have a gun. Its farcical, and it's about money because it will cost a fortune to arm the police in terms of training and providing the weapons.
The traditions of unarmed policing are long gone, your far better to have armed police than call in the army as is now happening. The SAS who were on London bridge would have had fully automatic weapons, as opposed to the police who have semi automatic, much easier to control and use accurately.
Unarmed officers are completely ineffective in stopping armed terrorist wither the terrorists have a knife or a gun. Armed officers cannot always stop them, but they will have a far better chance than somebody with a baton and PAVA spray.

In reply to buzby:
Firearms guys are selected. Fit as butchers canines and spend a lot of time at the range and exercise drills when not working. How do you think the 'average' old bill might find the time to do this alongside normal duties?

Why would the SAS have fully automatic weapons in urban CT operations? They use the tools appropriate to the job.

D

In reply to Dauphin:


im not sure , but it cant be impossible as they do it in a lot of other country's.

In reply to buzby:

Would I like to see full time armed police on the highstreet? No, not really, it goes against the quintessential approachable bobby that is the British police (i.e. a custodian helmet and a tie as opposed to stormtrooper-esque tactical load-out).

Would I mind a discrete patrol car armed to the teeth in major towns? Not at all.

Would I mind seeing full time armed police (handguns) in major cities? Again, not at all. Heavily armed police at airports and train stations again no. I think there should be careful deployment of the right resources to the right places. But then, don't we do that already?

What I would really like to see is a comprehensive incident management and trauma course that is provided (ideally free) to members of staff at shops, bars, train stations etc. Typical places that it takes a little more time for authorities to get to. I would like to know that on every high street there are a significant number of well trained persons capable of providing high quality immediate care to those injured with a decent amount of equipment. Knowing that Doris from the flower shop can rock up in a fluorescent jacket with an AED and a trauma kit to give immediate care to injured people in the event of *any* incident is far more reassuring that PC bob with his Glock 17 a 10 minute run away.

In reply to buzby:

Remember that the French police have been armed for years. The idea that good guys with guns will stop bad guys with guns / knives whatever is seductive but it just doesn't seem to happen that way. Look at America.

In reply to GarethSL:


So, reactive rather than proactive ??


My money's on a fully loaded plod rather than Doris with a band aid.

In reply to buzby:

There's pros and cons I guess. One problem would be that in many places there aren't any police around anyway, so then having weapons for a quick armed response would be academic. I appreciate this isn't the case in the big cities.

Not sure that the opinions on automatic / semi-automatic weapons above are right.

In reply to Jim 1003:

My guess is it would cost more lives than it saves.

In reply to Jim 1003:


Just because a weapon has a fully automatic setting does not mean it only works in full automatic mode...

In reply to arch:

No, because the proactive is already there. We have armed police but they simply can't be everywhere at any one time. Beyond investigating and arresting anyone who 'might' conduct an attack, there is little that can be done until an attack actually happens. Hence the common 'the attacker(s) were known to the police' headlines, yet still able to conduct an attack.

What we need to do is accept, that so long as there are organisations and individuals willing to conduct these atrocities, we need to be prepared for the aftermath. Having well trained, normal people who are regularly in the immediate area (ie shop staff etc), capable of managing an incident to some effect and reducing fatalities is about as proactive as you can get. As opposed to relying on a small number of entities (the police, ambulance etc) to arrive.

In reply to Jim 1003: At the moment it is relatively hard for the police to shoot the wrong person - requires a complete organisational cock-up as per the Brazilian guy whose name I can't remember.

With a fully armed police force, it's possible for each officer to get it wrong - look at the amount of contentious police shootings in good ol' US of A. It also increases pressure on criminals to be better armed.

I think I'd prefer the majority of the police to still be unarmed, but agree with GarethSL about armed patrol cars and appropriately placed armed police. However I'm pretty sure both of these occur a lot more than we realise, although whether the level is suitable is no doubt being currently evaluated.

As an example, tonight's concert in Manchester - Even if there are no visibly armed police, I suspect that one or more armed response vehicles will be very close by.

In reply to GarethSL:

Sorry, but I disagree. We will always be playing catchup. We may have armed Police in the area, but if every Police person was armed, they *may* be closer to the incident.

I'm a trained first aider, do you seriously think I'm going to jump into a situation where I may put myself into danger ?? That is the first rule of first aid. Don't endanger yourself.

I don't agree with you.

In reply to Michael Hood:

The trouble is 1 or more armed response vehicles is not enough....An 8 minute response time to yesterdays atrocity in London is actually pretty poor, and it appears an unarmed officer was wounded or killed. Perhaps we would not have had any members of the public killed if he had been armed.
I fail to see why nearly every country arms it's police apart from us. Lets just continue throwing batons at the armed criminals, or maybe the unarmed police should just run/drive away, as they did in the atrocity in Cumbria when Bird when on a shooting spree and there were no armed cops for an hour or more. It's actually ludicrous..

In reply to AdrianC:


The French police have managed to shoot terrorists, the French police are all armed and they have had to be supplemented by the army to attempt to stop attacks. I imagine the army will be back on the streets this week, you can't stop an attack with batons and incapacitant spray that doesn't work. Why should unarmed police officers put themselves in harms way.

In reply to Michael Hood:


Not really - they shot a civilian last night. I really hope he or she is OK, and I doubt anyone will hold it against the police dealing with such a chaotic and horrific incident. But it just shows there are problems with arming officers. Culture is a massive issue though, armed or unarmed. Where I used to live all officers were armed but it was not uncommon to hear of officers retiring having never drawn their gun, and when officers do draw their weapons it will often make the news it being uncommon.

I think overall we should just be thankful that no one is armed in this country and support very much keeping it that way. Compare the Paris and Mumbai attacks to London. Last night was a tragedy, but at least people could do something - chucking furniture and bottles at the attackers - to defend themselves. Fingers crossed that the officer who rugby tackled one of the terrorists makes a full recovery, but his bravery probably wouldn't have helped if the terrorists were gunmen like in Paris.

In reply to Jim 1003: If we arm all the police, then we as a society will have to accept the increased risk of people being inappropriately (*) shot and killed by the police. Sounds like you're happy to accept that risk whereas I'm not. But it's certainly appropriate for this to be discussed, especially in parliament. What wouldn't be good is a knee-jerk response.

* - doesn't necessarily mean innocent, but maybe also offenses where being shot is a bit over the top (a la USA).

In reply to TobyA:

^ That's such a load of rubbish saying that because an innocent person was shot accidentally it's a reason not to arm the police, the reason an innocent person was probably shot would be because it was chaotic, not because the police were armed. It is never going to be completely safe to use forearms in a public place but terrorist behaviour like this makes that a necessity for there greater good. If none of the police were armed who turned up then lots more people would have been stabbed to death, including the unarmed police, albeit a bystander would not have got caught in the crossfire.
Had the unarmed officer been armed, who tried to tackle them, then we might be looking at 3 dead terrorists and no dead public....and no dead or seriously injured officers.

In reply to Jim 1003:


Or a dead police officer, and a terrorist armed with his sidearm.

In reply to buzby:

What do the police themselves want? Surely they are best able to assess the pros and cons of total arming. As I understand it, in the past the police have resisted total arming of all. If you are a lousy shot but an excellent police officer, where does that leave you career wise?

Where is Off Duty for his input on this subject?

In reply to Jim 1003:

Putting more guns into circulation is a crap idea and if carrying a gun became compulsory for police officers, it would certainly change the nature of people attracted to a career in the police service.

A gun is no protection in any case unless you have prior warning of an attack. If someone drives at you ar knifes you without warning, a gun is useless.

In reply to Trangia:
Perhaps on duty?

In reply to buzby:
Personally, I'm deeply opposed to allowing Islamist tw*ts to have any impact on our society, certainly not the principle of a largely unarmed Police force. Our country is one of a tiny minority in the world that doesn't feel the need to maintain a permanent armed force on the streets to control/protect the public. This is an important distinction that sets the UK apart from the majority, and a freedom from the common place presence of firearms that should be protected.

In reply to Jim 1003:


If they hadn't been armed, not sure how anyone would have ended up shot?

Anyway, I didn't say that accidental shootings were a reason not to arm the police, I said that there are problems inherent with arming all officers.

In reply to Trangia:


Historically, the police have consistently been opposed to blanket arming of officers.

In reply to Jim 1003:

Armed police would have made no difference in the Manchester bombing.
For all we know most of the dead last night could have been a result of being run over.

How exactly does arming the police to stop that?

If anything it would create an imperative to shoot at errant cars or inspire Islamist nutters to forego knives and fake vests and go for the heavy artillery instead. There's a good chance we'd end up with more dead civilians as a result of mistaken identity than from terrorist acts.

In reply to buzby:

Given an option of less highly trained armed officers or more medium trained armed officers, I would prefer the former.

In reply to buzby:

Perhaps it´ s time to let people to be armed so they would not have to throw beer glases to an armed atacker

In reply to David Martin:

Yes.

And further- armed police would be an islamic terrorists dream come true. Currently firearms are hard to come by. With armed police, there is a ready supply- a surprise attack, perhaps with a vehicle, and now the gun can be turned against the public.

More armed police- yes. Routine arming of the police- a bad idea, on every conceivable level

In reply to Dr.S at work:


^ This. Lone PC gets called to kids being a bit of a nuisance in Bratfud and suddenly gets swarmed by the local scrotes? Easy pickings. Armed officers work in teams for a reason.

In reply to wintertree:


Ah! That's what the funny little switch with 'R'and 'A' that I could flick up and down with my thumb was...

In reply to Dr.S at work:


That is a key point. If you were a terrorist then ambushing a cop for their gun would be an obvious tactic. Right up to a second before you hit them or swerve towards them in a vehicle you just look like an ordinary member of the public. Cops would be forced to maintain separation from anyone who looks at all suspicious and react with armed force earlier because they need to stop people stealing their gun.

In reply to Ridge:

Or in grunt speak.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/69/df/c1/69dfc1b28f6763da9fd...

In reply to pavelk:

Personally, if someone has a beer glass in one hand, I'd prefer that to be the only "weapon" they are carrying at that moment.

I fail to see how a Wetherspoons full of tooled up pissheads would keep the streets safe.........

In reply to Jim 1003:

The unarmed officer who rugby tackled one of them was off duty. Are you advocating everyone carries a gun?

In reply to buzby:

There is probably a case for a larger number of armed response units, and also for a larger number of Police officers generally.

No, I don't believe there is a case for universal armed police. So far our strict gun control appears to be working (there have been in the UK no terror attacks involving mass shootings in recent years).

In reply to buzby:


Plenty countries have pistol carrying as standard, they also have the specialised units as well. It's not a black and white choice.

In reply to pavelk:


Doesn't work in America, does it?

In reply to Neil Williams:


Does work here in Czech. Despite much more relaxed gun rules here (it´ s about the same to get gun licence as driving licence here) we are safer coutry than Britain. The same applies to Switzerland and Austria

In reply to pavelk:


By what objective measure?

>The same applies to Switzerland and Austria

Those countries are VERY culturally different to the UK - they are much more compliant. They would probably have lower crime rates than the UK even without guns.

Correlation does not equal causation.

In reply to pavelk:

You have 10 times as many firearm related deaths as the UK per 100,000.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_...

I'll take our system.

In reply to pavelk:

I'd be interested to see the specific statistics you are relying on. Finland where the guns laws are much more lax than in the UK has a significantly higher murder rate than the UK. A quick look at the wikipedia list suggests Czech and Austria's intentional homicide rate is lower than the UK's, but are you claiming that is because people defend themselves with firearms? If so why doesn't it work in Finland where people have more access to firearms, but they have a higher rate than IH rate than the UK?

In reply to pavelk:

Safer I'm really not sure, but the Czech police are utter racist arseholes.

In reply to summo:


Such as Germany. We have never many, but always a few incidents every year where police shoot someone, and in a fraction of these incidents they shoot the wrong person. This is the unavoidable price of having armed police.

My preferred system would be an outright ban for short arms (IMO hunters do not need pistols to finish off injured animals, and there is no need to accommodate shooting as a sport: I am, for a good reason, also not allowed to build a amateur nuclear power plant in my garden), ultra tight gun control for hunting weapons including a duty to register every round off ammo, and armed police.

CB

In reply to Neil Williams:

Why did you use America as an argument then?

In reply to buzby:

No.

In reply to Dr.S at work:



Is it better to be stabbed then shot?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_r...

In reply to RomTheBear:


How did you find it out?

In reply to pavelk:


Yes, apparently
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/1993/10/05/knives-00000/

In reply to pavelk:
How many Czechs routinely carry guns? I'm guessing very few, in which case any argument they prevent crime is void. If I am wrong how many people are accidentally shot? I'm guessing a lot, as in the US or any other country where it is common, which again makes your argument void.

In reply to TobyA:

There is probably no statistics about crimes that have not happened. But there is no causation between number of arms and homicide rate as well. So it is a thing to consider if armed people are more safe against armed atackers.

In reply to buzby: ITS not a universal panacaea unfortunately. We had a local {Norway) bank robbery that pitched police armed with pistols against motivated armed robbery. The police lost. Also, a terrorist is not too fussy about collateral damage - the police are. IM not sure it would make a huge difference

In reply to buzby:

All police are routinely armed over here. It works.

In reply to AdrianC:


Someone HAD to say that didn't they? Who sane would look to the Yanks as an example for any type of worthwhile social behaviour?

In reply to Big Ger:


It would appear that it leads to more shooting deaths though (you're in Australia aren't you?) than in the UK despite the smaller population. http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016/07/08/us-police-shootings-compared-... Obviously figures for this year in the UK will be higher, but its pretty amazing how rarely police even fire guns in the UK, let alone kill people by doing so.

In reply to buzby:

We had an incident at this event where police firearms use resulted in injury to a member of the public.

50 rounds were fired. In a military framework, in open country, 50 rounds is nothing. A fire team of 4 guys might put that down in the first 25 seconds or less of an intense engagement. In a policing framework, in an urban environment, it's quite a lot since every round fired needs to be carefully assessed from the standpoint of collateral damage.

More firearms = more rounds fired = more collateral damage.

Let's keep a lid on this folks.

Good policing is not about projecting a threat.

In reply to TobyA:


"In 2011 German police were responsible for six shooting deaths, the same as Australian police in 2010."

How many of those deaths were criminals?

In reply to cb294:



The problem isn't terrorist getting guns though. The problem is bring incidents like the other day to an end quickly. You can control every hunters gun, but that would do nothing to speed up the end of a mad knife man.

In reply to Jim Fraser:


If you think someone is a suicide bomber who might have a trigger in their hand, then a large volume of rounds is probably closer to their policy. The damage if someone detonotated will obviously be more serious. Clearly these guys were bluffing. Shows how tough the next 100 years are going to be policing wise.

In reply to Big Ger:

What do you mean by "It works?"

In the two wiki leaks posted above, Austalia has a higher intentional homicide rate and a higher firearm related death rate than the UK. Am I reading the stats incorrectly?

In reply to pavelk:

British culture is closer to American culture than Swiss culture I'd say.

In reply to pavelk:


You've got more chance of preventing it.

In reply to summo:


Perhaps more police would be useful, not just for the incidents themselves but for more intelligence gathering.

In reply to summo:

I think the arming police refers more to shooting of attackers with guns and knives. Shooting dead a suicide bomber will result in the bomb going off... on account of the way they detonate these things.

In reply to summo:



It would be if there was ready availability of them for any terrorist willing to run over a police officer in a surprise attack.

No supporter of routine arming of police has addressed this concern yet

In reply to Bellie:


So what you are saying is that the police are b*ggered either way? Don't shoot and they blow themselves up, shoot and they will blow themselves up.

I don't know exactly how the detonator trigger works, but my understanding in past incidents was that the intention is to cause instant death to the bomber and reduce the chance of a reflex movement in a wounded bomber's hand.

In reply to Trangia:
Its called a dead mans switch. Like I said.. all the talk of armed officers is more about preventing loss of live in knife and gun attacks.

I don't wish to see regular officers armed. I know how tough the process is. I would rather more money invested in specific armed response teams.

In terms of police numbers. In Scotland recently, some of the armed response officers were having to attend routine jobs. Kicked up a bit of fuss there - with folks worried about having police with guns turning up. But with frontline officers being cut its hardly surprising.

In reply to Trangia:

I wonder if there is some truth in the 'shooting through the mouth' myth(?) to remove the back of the brain/ brain-stem in order to cause instant paralysis?

Edited for clarity

In reply to Jim 1003:


Mass casualty incidents perpetrated by suicidal loons are and are likely to remain rare. Chaotic violent altercations in confusing situations are not. Universally arm the police and far more will die by stray bullets, ricochets, misidentification, by their own weapons and by an escalation in ordinary criminals' behavior than may be saved in the sort of occasional low tech rampage scenarios we've seen recently.

I'm against routinely armed police as you will find are many of the police themselves and I know all too well the price some pay for that principal.


Nobody is arguing against having an available armed response.
jk

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

That's because it's a load of bollocks, Jeremy, armed officers work in teams to prevent this.

The fact remains, an unarmed on duty BTP officer confronted these attackers with a baton, was stabbed and is now critically ill. Had he been armed, he may well have stopped the attack. Another unarmed plain clothes officer was stabbed assisting, and had he been armed he would not have been stabbed and may have stopped the attack.

In reply to Jim 1003:

Personally I would put a very large amount of weight on what the police want with this. My understanding is that they overwhelmingly don't want to be routinely armed.

More widely, dealing with murderous bombers and the like is a very small part of policing and even here the benefits for routine arming are at best questionable. For other police work routinely arming them has wider effects that are undesirable, such as accidental shooting, an arms race with criminals, an inevitably increased them-and-us type relationship with the public, and cost. To be avoided if at all possible in my view.

In reply to Big Ger:


Depends on your definition presumably, it's not possible under most legal systems to try and convict a dead person.
jk

In reply to jkarran:

That made me smile, thanks.

In reply to krikoman:


Of course. Happy to pay more yourself? Or just something else for the rich elite to fund, the 5%.... ?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


How many police in Europe or the USA has this happened to?

In reply to Jim 1003:

So all police will have to work in teams in future? Presumably not walking so close together that one attacker can disable both with the same vehicle attack?

Really?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Better solution? I can't see anything changing for many years. Sadly unless the country goes into lockdown this is the new norm.

In reply to summo:

1. Much more easy to get hold of firearms in the US or continental Europe if you want them. We've had no bataclan style attack here yet, thank god, our extremely strict gun control laws no doubt help this

2 how long has running down people with vehicles been a MO of terrorists? A recent development, largely due to closing down other access to weapons. If we provide a means to access firearms how long before this new tactic is modified to cause casualties and get new weapons? Not long, sadly, I reckon.

In reply to summo:
Hard to come up with one. More armed response units to cut times to firearms officers on scene in numbers and with firepower. But stopping vehicle attacks is really hard. I'd say it's a relative success of our strategy that they're using these tactics though- as I say, no bataclan, and no repeat of 7/7 (yet; no room for complacency)

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

No, you said an armed police person could be run down for their gun. I asked for an example or evidence of this ever happening?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:



Firearms officers work in teams now, how many times do you need this pointed out... it's a ridiculous argument for not arming the police. You have absolutely no clue how armed police work. They are in teams because they can provide cover to each other to deal with an armed threat, which is why they are armed in the first place, basic tactic.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Would agree, intelligence is the winner. All those so called anti freedom laws or snoopers charter the left hate. UK gun legislation still has many loopholes. Luckily the various crime gangs, mafias etc.. won't consider supplying isis with weapons.

In reply to Jim 1003:
OK so the unarmed copper was out on the piss after work.

You'd like him to have been armed, so you're in favour of a possible drunk person having a gun in a public place, where they might be loads of other pissed people?


Sounds like a great idea, what could possibly go wrong.

In reply to summo:


Well if you go down the route of arming officers.. money will have to be found too. No money in police budgets as it is. Stripped to the core. In many areas, only managing to cover the basics.

In reply to summo:


What is the new norm? The new norm for the police today is the old norm. Sure, attention grabbing incidents grab everyone's attention but today they're not out there dealing with an epidemic of spree killings, instead the usual drunken brawls, wheely bin arson, kids stabbing each other over drugs, car accidents, domestic violence...

People intent on doing harm will find ways. We adapt as best we can and are willing to but that will always remain true. That they don't more frequently is in part testimony to good policing and in part I can only assume related to the true level of motivation and capability among the few who embrace the idea of political violence.
jk

In reply to summo:


Not yet, because they're (the armed police) usually a group, if they're all armed then it becomes much easier.

When before 9/11 was there any evidence of people flying planes into buildings, and when before about 2010 did terrorists start ploughing people down with cars and lorries.

Don't you think it's a viable scenario?

As for paying more tax then, yes I would, same as I'd pay more for a fully funded NHS, Why do you presume I wouldn't. You keep bringing this up as if that's the reason everything is shit, but it's not just about tax. It's about where it's used and how it's used.

In reply to summo:


Had anyone collapsed skyscrapers with hijacked aircraft on September 10, 2001?
jk

In reply to Jim 1003:

I think the point he is trying to make is that armed officers work in teams, but unarmed officers work in pairs or sometimes alone. If we arm all officers, then they will all have to work in teams. The same number of officers in larger groups means fewer groups overall, which makes it harder for them to do the vast majority of their work. So this is an argument against arming all officers.

In reply to Jack B:

Yes, this. I thought when I'd said I was arguing against arming all officers routinely, but was supportive of more armed response units, I'd made that point pretty clear; but apparently I somehow hadn't ...

In reply to Jim 1003:
The Fed has been consistent in it's message - that it does not want to see rank and file officers armed as routine.

The Police do not want to be armed. In a country with no real gun ownership, and where terrorist activity despite what has happened recently is rare, carrying a side arm (at minimum) is an embuggerance. It has to be checked in and out, not all officers will have a natural attitude with weapons, there is the possibility of an norbert and it will change the public's relationship with the Police, massively.

It is far better to have highly trained and highly specialised armed response units, with the appropriate weapons.

It might seem an easy solution, but just drawing a weapon presents its own complications, and too many people think it's like the telly, when in reality , a 9mm handgun is not particularly accurate and has a limited range.

In reply to MG:

That's exactly what Cressida Dick confirmed in her very articulate, balanced and informative interview about the London attack on Radio 4 this morning.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

What a load of utter bollocks, how do nearly all the other police forces in the world manage to carry guns? It appears that 6 unarmed officers were stabbed in this attack, why do you think unarmed officers should put themselves in harms way like this. Glocks are very accurate actually, and anyway it's only a back up weapon to the carbine. Nobody is answering the fact that had these unarmed officers, who tried to deal with the attackers with batons, been armed then nobody apart from the perpetrators would be dead. "Change the publics relationship with the police", more bollocks, I don't find the armed French police unfriendly and I live there half the year.

In reply to Jim 1003:

I never wanted to be armed when I was a police officer and year on year, when asked, the Fed and the Job have consistently said to no to being armed.

In reply to Jim 1003:


In that case may I propose a mutually advantageous solution, assuming of course your brexit hasn't scuppered it. Stay in France.
jk

In reply to Jim 1003:

France has a homicide by firearm rate that is ten times that of the UK. Do you think the arming of the French Police is effective?

In reply to Jim 1003:

I think there is a big misunderstanding about the role and effectiveness of armed officers.
Carrying a sidearm which may possibly be used in close quarter self defence or simply to threaten an aggressor not to attack is very different from responding to a terrorist attack that may involve hunting down or chasing terrorists (armed, who knows how) in crowded public places.
The latter is best left to highly trained firearm officers with the correct firearms, and involving semi trained police officers with inappropriate firearms may only complicate response to the situation and lead to more deaths or injuries.
Other than police officers in specialised firearm units, all officers I knew and worked with most certainly wanted nothing to do with firearms or being armed. I think that should be respected.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

"In a country with no real gun ownership, "

Over 1.8 million legally owned guns in the UK. Approx 80% of those will be shotguns. Considering how easily you can gain a shotgun certificate I wouldn't be surprised to see a marauding group of islamic terrorists with semi automatic shotguns in the near future. You get three shots, they re-load quickly and are lethal at close range and are cheap to buy. Harder to conceal than a knife, but I don't think guys in fake suicide vests are that bothered about being discreet.

In reply to Jim 1003:
Stupid statement of the day:

Glocks are very accurate actually.

I'm a pretty fantastic shot with a range of weapons but pistols have always been the hardest to hit stuff with, automatics more so than revolvers, clearly this is why, I was using the wrong one.

You surely cannot be serious.

Toby

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Compared to the rest of the world, gun ownership here is very small. According to Wiki / UN we rank about 82nd, behind Belgium (35) Matla (54) Spain (51) France (11) Norway (10) and Sweden (9)

The rest below us tend to be places where they prefer not to have "registered" guns, nice, peaceful places like Sierra Leone and Columbia......

I think we have to be proportionate.

In reply to Jim 1003:


So you'd have the poor policemen whose job it is to tell Mrs Smith that her husband d has been run over by a bus, knock on the door carrying a handgun, a carbine, and be flanked by a team of similary armed police?

In reply to Jim 1003:

Why are you so certain of yourself in the face of widespread disagreement with your view from the police themselves ? Why should they listen to you?

In reply to Jim 1003:

Well said. Looking at the statistics for fatal police shootings in Europe, the numbers are very small and it is easy for them to be swayed by one off incidents and overall there is very little difference in the number of people killed by armed police in the UK and France. Likewise, I have not had any worries when chatting to French, Finnish or German police, all of whom have been carrying a side arm. The image of Dixon of Dock Green is a fallacy. Police already look vastly different to how they did 20 years ago with stab vests etc. but it doesn't change the way the public interact with them.
Is it time to routinely arm the Police? Maybe. Incidents like Borough Market may become more frequent so is it better to take action now?

In reply to MG:

The facts speak for themselves, the army has had to be deployed because there are not enough armed officers, you can't deal with knives with batons, the government won't even pay for tasers for all officers.

In reply to summo:


Yes. Happy to pay more myself. I want good services and good services cost money.

In reply to Toby_W:

^ Part of the normal police qualification shoot for Glocks is at 20 m, obviously you wouldn't have passed it, so just another armchair know it all. Glock's are semi automatic by the way. Back to dreamland Wyatt Earp.

In reply to Jim 1003:
In the Met area PF survey, released in Feb 2017, 26% of the 31,000 officers polled wanted the routine arming of officers. So that's 75% near as dammit, who do not.

The same poll, conducted across England and Wales by the Fed revealed 20%.

12% said they never wanted to carry in any circumstance.

50% of the Met wanted more specialist armed personnel* and the general views was the use of tasers should be provided, as an option.
.
.* this is in part a reaction to the fall in armed officers from around 6,300 to 5,200 since 2010.

In reply to Jim 1003:
WTF happened to my post?

Guess I'll have to try and re-create if from scratch:

Back in the 1990s I did an analysis of gun deaths and injuries in the NYPD. In a force of about 40,000, in one year, 43 were killed or injured by firearms. One in a thousand. Of these, 23, over half, were hit by negligent discharges from their own or colleagues' weapons! On the same scale, with routine arming of all UK police, we'd see about 15 officers a year in the Met alone killed or injured by negligent discharges. In a letters exchange in the Evening Standard at the time my conclusions were challenged on the grounds that "our police would have better training than US police". However, soon after that letter was published a City of London officer negligently discharged his own weapon, injuring 3 colleagues, meaning that in that year, 75% of the 4 officers injured he gunfire in London were hit by "blue on blue". That from a specialist force of supposedly more highly trained officers than the general run of the mill street cop.

The fact is that in the USA there are over 12000 gun-related homicides a year (compared to around 700 all causes in the UK). They have far more terrorist and mass shooting incidents than we do. Dozens if not hundreds of often innocent people every year are shot by police when they were not doing anything to merit it (I almost was myself, years ago, simply for trying to explain that my Norwegian colleague didn't understand the heavily accented officer's instructions) and more police are still taken down in "blue on blue" incidents than are shot by criminals or terrorists. I've spent a lot of time in the States, and a lot of time in Russia, and I find that the guns give officers in both countries a sense of "entitled power" that is almost absent in the UK. They police by intimidation and fear, rather than by consent. In both countries, when I see a cop I tend to worry. In the UK I tend to feel happy that (s)he's visibly on the street.

In reply to Jim 1003:

So you think you know more about suitable equipment for policing than the police do. Why?

In reply to Rob Naylor:

Here if you want to repost it;

Perhaps we would not have had any members of the public killed if he had been armed.I fail to see why nearly every country arms it's police apart from us.

And perhaps we would. Impossible to tell. Back in the 1990s I did an analysis of gun deaths and injuries in the NYPD. In a force of about 40,000, in a typical year, 43 were killed or injured by firearms. One in a thousand. Of these, 23, over half, were hit by negligent discharges from their own or colleagues' weapons! On the same scale, with routine arming of all UK police, we'd see about 15 officers a year in the Met alone killed or injured by negligent discharges. In a letters exchange in the Evening Standard at the time my conclusions were challenged on the grounds that "our police would have better training than US police". However, soon after that letter was published a City of London officer negligently discharged his own weapon, injuring 3 colleagues, meaning that in that year, 75% of the 4 officers injured by gunfire in London were hit by "blue on blue".....and that in a force where only a small proportion of officers with supposedly vastly superior training!

The fact is that in the USA where police are routinely armed there are over 12000 gun-related homicides a year (compared to around 700 all causes in the UK). They have more terrorist incidents and mass shootings than we do. Dozens, if not hundreds, of often innocent people are shot by police when doing nothing to merit it (I almost was myself, years ago, simply for trying to explain that my Norwegian colleague didn't understand the heavily accented officer's instructions) and more police are still taken down in "blue on blue" incidents than are shot by criminals or terrorists. I've spent a lot of time in the States, and a lot of time in Russia, and I find that the guns give officers in both countries a sense of "entitled power" that is almost absent in the UK. They police by intimidation and fear, rather than by consent. In both countries, when I see a cop I tend to worry. In the UK I tend to feel happy that (s)he's visibly on the street.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:
Thanks mate....I got it almost word perfect!!! I did have an earlier draft saved

In reply to MG:

That survey was pre the recent incidents, are you a half wit....one unarmed cop stabbed to death at parliament, 5 or 6 stabbed at the recent London incident. Obviously guns would have prevented this, the stabbed unarmed officers were there well before the armed officers, and had to try and deal with deranged mad men stabbing people, why would you not want an armed officer there?

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

In both countries, when I see a cop I tend to worry. In the UK I tend to feel happy that (s)he's visibly on the street.

^ Go and see a councillor mate, they can help with stuff like that. Personally, I would be more worried to see an unarmed cop turning up to an ISIS bloodbath than an armed one....

In reply to Jim 1003:


^ Go and see a councillor mate, they can help with stuff like that.

Maybe you should see a doctor about your uncontrollably jerking knees?

In reply to Jim 1003:

I might be a half wit, but at least I can respond to the right people.

The survey was conducted in January 2017, and published in Feb. No doubt they will undertake a similar poll later in the year or early next, but don't hold your breath for the result to change much.

In reply to Jim 1003:

No I am not. Cressida Dick was confirming the position on the radio after the recent incidents. In any case the recent attack is hardly unique. If officers felt being armed was beneficial they would have said so before, not suddenly changed their minds after one further attack.


This has been outlined above - there are many other considerations beyond occasional frenzied attacks related to arming police. Further, it is not all obvious armed police would have prevented these incidents. They might well have made them worse.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:


To be fair to him several people have pointed to the survey. He knows more than the police about policing though. Actually, from his previous posts, he is clearly a world authority on many things. Quite a guy.

In reply to MG:

Fair point.

In reply to buzby:

Absolute not.

Some police arent fit to wield a baton arming them will end in more killings than what terrorism will cause. Even the trained and armed police took 50+ rounds to take down the three recent guys (im not saying that its an easy task), just imagine the potential cross fire issues from a not so fully trained police officer.

Also, it means the terrorist have once again impeded on our way of living, by arming police in response its another win for them.

In reply to cap'nChino:

But police forces have rules which govern use of firearms. They don't just blast away at any law-breaker in other countries, they apprehend them in much the same way as we do in the UK. I witnessed a bag snatcher in Paris pursued by 2 police officers who ran him down and arrested him, no use of guns.

In reply to Jim 1003:
As well as being ex military myself a lot of my family used to shoot (and I with them,pistols and rifles) and my father has been a merc in the Middle East for the last thirty years and I take every chance to shoot mainly pistols now when I go out to see him. When I said automatic I was differentiating between revolvers and automatic pistols. I know how hard it is to hit targets over 25m and that it takes constant practice, the thought of having to draw a firearm on my local high street and try to shoot an unknown number of attackers amongst frightened crowds would be terrifying. If I shot one and another took my weapon what then, but of course we're all in pairs now, so that's halved police cover and I understand we're already a few short.
You're an ignorant fool.

Toby

In reply to Toby_W:


I think your ignorant mate, police issue Glock 17's are semi automatic, dream on Wyatt...

In reply to MG:

^ But the armed police ended it by killing the terrorists...and the same happened when the police officer was stabbed to death at parliament...are you planet on earth?
Earth to MG come in please...the police need guns when marauding terrorists are killing anybody they can get hold of....

In reply to Jim 1003:

I thought I explained. Beware arguing with a fool least the observer not be able to tell the difference between the two.

I'll leave you to it you're clearly an expert.

Toby

In reply to Toby_W:

You said, "When I said automatic I was differentiating between revolvers and automatic pistols."

Well sorry Wyatt, police Glocks are not automatic, although you can get automatic pistols, so you really are clueless.

In reply to Toby_W:
I can see how shooting someone 25m away with a pistol would be ridiculously difficult but in these cases we are talking 2-3m, would a simple low velocity pistol not increase the ability of the average police officer to defend the public.

In reply to Jim 1003:


Guns may be useful (assuming they realise what is happening quickly enough and they can safely get a shot in without endangering the public) in about 0.001% of incidents dealt with by the police on a daily basis may be a more accurate description.

In reply to GrahamD:
Absolutely. Scrapping on the floor with a pissed up muppet outside some club the last thing I wanted was a side arm hanging off me. It's a liability in 99% of policing.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

You can gain a certificate easily, but there's a record of it which can potentially be tallied with other suspicions. There isn't a record of buying a 12" kitchen knife for cash, and given how many of those are sold it wouldn't really tell you an awful lot even if there was.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


I am as well, provided the money is spent prudently.

I have a left of centre approach to quality public services (set the proper quality, then set the price), but a right of centre approach to waste (all public services should be run to private business standards in terms of financial efficiency, and civil servants really should be priding themselves in offering the best quality of service they can for the money, not on spending on archaic and inefficient processes which are far too often the case).

In reply to John Kelly:


At what distance does a tazer work?

In reply to Tyler:

Good call, but they didn't, are they difficult to deploy?

In reply to Jim 1003:

Sorry Jim, but Toby is spot on both in referring to an automatic pistol to differentiate from a revolver and in his assessment of the relative accuracy of pistols and rifles. I was a good shot with a rifle but could never achieve any consistent grouping with a pistol. Learning to shoot accurately with a pistol takes shit loads of training and is an extremely perishable skill.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

Get your point but how do other forces manage that, to be fair fighting outside nightclubs is pretty predictable but there again the attack was in the sort of location an bit of good natured rolling around might be expected

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

>The survey was conducted in January 2017, and published in Feb. No doubt they will undertake a similar poll later in the year or early next, but don't hold your breath for the result to change much.

A few years back my friend was gunned down along with another officer in the line of duty. I don't recall a single one of her friends and colleagues I met and spoke to in the boozy aftermath of her funeral expressing any desire to be armed despite the press at the time clamouring for it. I don't suppose a few wallys with knives will have much more impact on their resolve.
jk

In reply to John Kelly:

Sorry Jim, I should not have been rude, I've not had any proper exercise for a few days and am tetchy.

MFB, I just don't know, I've never fired a weapon in anger and I don't know how often a normal gun carrying policeman in other countries has to practice. I imagine I could miss at that range but it would be less likely (but I'd hope they would practice much more than me).

I'm sure Off duty or any police officer could give a better answer.

Cheers

Toby

In reply to Stichtplate:

Bollocks...you are clueless, your shooting is about as good as your climbing...

In reply to Jim 1003:


If you are going to call people ignorant, at least proof read your post before you hit send so you don't have spelling mistakes in those posts!

In reply to Jim 1003:
The way you post I can just picture you , pissed and lolling about in your stained Y fronts.

Edit: you're right about the climbing, but in my day I shot falling plate at Bisley for my regiment.

In reply to Jim 1003:
Jim, if you could spare a minute from abusing people, you've still not explained how you would stop beat coppers with guns being prime targets for Lee Rigby style attacks, with the bonus that the attackers now have access to firearms to continue the attack and to return fire when the next lot of police arrive.

And 'a load of bollocks' isn't a argument, so just typing it a third time won't be any more persuasive than the last two times you did it.

In reply to John Kelly:


9mm parabellum is already probably as low velocity as you can get whilst still having a reasonable chance of stopping an assailant. It puts the police at an advantage over a knifeman, and certainly in a better position than with a baton that snaps when you wallop anyone hard with it.

The arguments oulined above still stand. Pistols are bloody hard to use effectively, especially in a street full of running screaming bodies when adrenaline is pumping. There is no way a 2 day course and probably 10 shots on the range once a quarter is going to turn the average PC into a steely eyed dealer of death.

In reply to Jim 1003:


Thanks for the technical clarification, you've googled a lot since asserting up the thread that the SAS have probably the only automatic weapons in the world without the capability to switch between full and semi automatic.

In reply to Ridge:

I think that settles it for me

I do get the arguments against increasing the carrying of guns by the police and respect the points of view but given our current operations in Syria and particularly in Iraq I think there is a significant threat of similar attacks

In reply to Jim 1003:


How old are you 10!!!

In reply to krikoman:

He's a regular troll here. And best ignored, really.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:


Wouldn't you just take it off and leave it on the floor, before getting stuck in? Simples! Don't forget to leave the spare ammo next to it so you can find them all after you've done.

In reply to John Kelly:


I've no idea, it was actually a genuine question rather than an attempt at point scoring! Hopefully someone will be along to tell us (my money is on Jim 1003 being able to tazer a mouse's nadgers from 50 meters)

In reply to buzby: Sadly the only thing I think arming the police will achieve is provoke an arms race. The weapons at the weekend were a van and knives, but if the terrorist knows the police have guns, they wil get guns too, and the ensuing shootout will likely kill a lot more people. French police , as noted are armed, but it didn't seem to help them unfortunately

I suppose it is fairly difficult to get guns, and I don't care to know the morals of british black market arms dealer and if they'd sell guns to people other than bank robbers, but any advantage would be short lived I guess

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:


Nonsense. If you had a gun you could have just shot him and avoided the floor scrapping.

In reply to wbo:

You think terrorists can already get guns if they want them but currently prefer knives and vans?

In reply to wbo:

I don't see why it would provoke an arms race. The attack in Borough Market didn't need to be particularly well planned. It used easily available weapons (van and knives) and could have been perpetrated by any radicalised group without much effort. Bomb making and firearms acquisition take much more forward planning and as such are more likely to be intercepted by intelligence services. Van and knife attacks are more dangerous in a way as they can slip under the radar so will surely remain an attractive option for extremists.

I don't agree being armed hasn't helped the French police either. There were a number of incidents in April where terror attackers were fired upon by police (and killed in the case of the Champs Elysees).

In reply to Ridge:

You are clueless, the police weapons are restricted and the switch to full auto is disabled on their carbines. I don't need to google it.

In reply to wbo:


The police have guns you half wit, that's what they shot them with.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Lee Rigby didn't have a gun....sadly, or he would probably still be here. If you are armed you don't patrol on your own.
Could you go to Spec savers, that's the third time you've asked that absurd question.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Less chance of arousing suspicion and you can do the same sort of damage. Mind you I think they'd prefer bombs if they could get then easy enough.

the recent London thing might have just been a spur of the moment thing, without much planning at all.

Sadly it's all a bit easy and very difficult to protect against.

In reply to Ridge:

There is no way a 2 day course and probably 10 shots on the range once a quarter is going to turn the average PC into a steely eyed dealer of death.

Rubbish, all firearms officers have qualification shoots at 20m. In any case, the 4 stabbed in London and the 1 killed in the previous attack had no chance with batons.

In reply to krikoman:

Yes, it was more the idea that the terrorists didn't obtain guns because the police aren't routinely armed that intrigued me.

In reply to Jim 1003:

Only if he was in a Hollywood movie. Or had the sort of superhuman reactions and infallible aim that you have.

So all police have to patrol in teams, weapons drawn, covering all possible directions in case of a surprise attack, in Jim's world.

What a ludicrous place it would be. But of you go, why are you wasting your time arguing with us, you must tell the people that actually matter and can do something about it. Start with Teresa May and Cressida Dick- especially Cressida, as you share something in common...

In reply to Jim 1003:


Ah, the protective Glock force field that stops you being run over from behind by a car. We should issue them as part of the Cycling Proficiency scheme to all kids with bikes.

You're obviously trolling, so we'll leave it at that.

In reply to Jim 1003:

Lee Rigby didn't have a gun....sadly, or he would probably still be here.

Lee Rigby was an off duty squaddie in civvies so what possible justification would there be for him to be armed?

In reply to Sir Chasm:


"Jamal, put that AK47 away, it would be jolly unsporting to use it".

In reply to Jim 1003:


Jim you are telling a lot of people that they are clueless or ignorant - this includes people who have explained they are ex military and ex police (and I think possibly some who are still in the military or the police). Anyway they've given the rest of us some reason to trust what they are saying.

But what's your expertise or area of interest? Do you have that kind of professional background also?

I do actually take the point you are making - that the first on the scene police officers on Saturday (both on duty and the off duty one) would have stood more chance of not being injured if they had had hand guns. But I think what loads of people are saying here is that most police officers will never be in that sort of awful situation, and there is a signifcant opportunity cost to giving all officers guns for that incredibly small chance of them needing to engage an attacker like we saw on Saturday.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

That's the old argument isn't it that "our" robbers are nicer than those American robbers, that they don't go out 'tooled up' with 'shooters' because the rozzers don't have them either. Not sure if it was ever true, maybe, but like you say it really doesn't make sense in the terrorism context!

In reply to blackmountainbiker:


Absolutely, the rules governing firearms works a treat in the US, the police force there are known for their self control and only drawing their weapon as an absolute last resort, even then they do it with great trepidation and with a full and open inquiry afterwards which is completely unbiased again any ethnic minorities or people of other race. I for one welcome the US system of police carrying fire arms.

But in all seriousness, I hear pulling a fire arm on another human is a traumatic experience and not something to be taken lightly. I just don't think the benefits outweigh the monetary costs or the social.

In reply to Jim 1003:

Perhaps we could all carry sidearms, make us all safer and not just the police.
Now there's a novel thought........

In reply to Moley:


Nah, you were un-ironically beaten to it 18:17 Sunday. The mind boggles.
jk

In reply to TobyA:

I am telling people not to post rubbish who make sarcastic, rude replies and post absolute nonsense about firearms. The fact remains if the officer who was stabbed to death at parliament gates was armed he would no doubt still be alive and the terrorist would be dead.The same applies to the 4 officers stabbed trying to disarm lunatics with knives in the recent attack. Unarmed police cannot defend themselves or the public against such attacks. There was a significant delay between unarmed officers arriving at the London attack and armed officers, no doubt a number of people were stabbed ,including the unarmed officers in that time. Hence the reason 99.9% of the rest of the world arm their police. The majority of officers don't even have a Taser, it's a disgrace, and a farce.

In reply to TobyA:

I am telling people not to post rubbish who make sarcastic, rude replies and post absolute nonsense about firearms. From what some posters are saying they haven't been in the police or military, because they post absolute rubbish. i.e.,glocks are semi automatic, there are automatic pistols, but they are not used by the police.
The fact remains if the officer who was stabbed to death at parliament gates was armed he would no doubt still be alive and the terrorist would be dead.The same applies to the 4 officers stabbed trying to disarm lunatics with knives in the recent attack. Unarmed police cannot defend themselves or the public against such attacks. There was a significant delay between unarmed officers arriving at the London attack and armed officers, no doubt a number of people were stabbed ,including the unarmed officers in that time. Hence the reason 99.9% of the rest of the world arm their police.

In reply to Jim 1003:

'The fact remains if the officer who was stabbed to death at parliament gates was armed he would no doubt still be alive and the terrorist would be dead.' It's not a fact, no.

For example; what if the attacker had just walked up to the policeman, as we are entitled to do in this country, then stabbed him before the policeman realised what had happened? Not only would the policeman be dead, the 'terrorist' (I prefer to call them pathetic, inadequate, drug fuelled scumbags) would have a weapon as well.

Anyone who thinks there are simple answers to these questions doesn't understand the questions. If there were simple answers we would do it.

And no, the reason that 99.99% of the world arm their police (if that is the figure; I doubt it personally) is because of any number of social, political and historical factors. E.g. many countries have more reason to fear their own citizens than we (usually) do. Our policing is a service based on consent. On the whole, it works. Lets not compromise that because of the actions of a few total inadequates.

In reply to TobyA:


I think you have your answer and judging by the evasion it appears to be 'smashing one out over the pictures in Guns & Ammo'
jk

In reply to jkarran:

In reply to jkarran:
Typical....Corbynite, lose the argument hurl abuse...

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


What an absurd response, its been pointed out several times they work in teams when armed. And if it's so easy, which it isn't, there's plenty of armed police about, so why has this not happened, the answer is because it's an ill informed absurd response.

In reply to Jim 1003:

No, we are genuinely interested in where your apparently 'extensive' knowledge stems. You have to this point been quite evasive.

And JK's comment, tho slightly unnecessary, was very funny.

In reply to Jim 1003:


I'm not sure of the relevance of my politics but whatever, moving on... the two points I've made on this thread which you have failed to effectively refute are:

Routinely arming police will result in more harm than good. Rob Naylor provided some good research and analysis to back this assertion earlier. As you're apparently immune to evidence perhaps consider some of the ludicrous stories we've heard since the introduction of tazers to the Police. The blind man with his cane tazered for example. Very bad I'm sure you'd agree but swap the tazer for a pistol and that's likely a fatal police shooting of an unarmed disabled person, a tragedy and seriously corrosive of public support for the police.

The police don't support it. You've been provided with evidence, you've been provided with personal testimony from past and serving officers, you've been provided with anecdote but it's like water off a duck's back, you just double down on your assertions and sling insults.

What specific expertise do you bring to this conversation Jim? I bring none beyond the ability to read and reason.

I don't feel I've lost the debate any more than you do but then that's not really for us to judge.
jk

In reply to jkarran:


Damn your'e right, my memory is not what is was!

In reply to Jim 1003:

Typical....Corbynite, lose the argument hurl abuse...
.
.
Given you respond to other people by first insulting them that takes the piss.

Most, if not all, responses to you on here have been polite, until the last few posts, when clearly your inability to be civil and articulate a reasoned argument, have proved frustrating.

You can spit and foam all you want, but the Police do not want rank and file carrying weapons. I'd respect that decision. It didn't change after Dale Cregan, Sharon Beshenivsky, Ray Codling and Ian Broadhurst were killed or when Harry Roberts went on the rampage and it won't change now.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

75% want tasers, as the Prime Minister and the MET Chief have said quite clearly in the last few days, we are now in a changing situation, clearly not able to cope with 3 atrocities in 3 months, it's obviously time for change. Unarmed officers being killed and stabbed. You cant protect the public or yourself with batons....
Did you do your 30 in the cops then ,or was it too tough for you?

In reply to Jim 1003:
I know about the tasers- I posted that upthread. I also posted 75% do not want routine arming.

Part of the reason I left the Police was 1) I got a job that paid much much better and 2) I got tired of having to deal with intellectually stunted wankpuffins, like you.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

2) I got tired of having to deal with intellectually stunted wankpuffins, like you.

I'm nominating this for sentence of the year, so far.......

In reply to Jim 1003:

I don't see it as an absurd response. It may have been pointed out several times that armed police work in teams, but that is not true when they are on routine patrol. At most, they work in pairs and, generally are mobile in vehicles as they have to be able to cover large distances. In the event of a firearms incident, they will try to come together in a team of 4/6 or more but, on many occasions, the urgency of the incident mitigates against that.
As for routinely armed police, how would you propose normal patrol strategies are changed? The vast majority of officers are now single crewed either in vehicles or on foot. In many rural areas only one officer parades on. I struggle to see how normal policing could continue and calls from the public would be serviced, if officers had to double crew.

In reply to Jim 1003:

Jim we haven't met but I assure you your information is incorrect both technically and politically.

I am a retired met Police officer and was an inspector on a specialist firearms team for 12 years.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:


In all the time the like/dislike buttons have been available I have not pressed them but you, sir, are having a like for that post. =)

In reply to Jim 1003:


Remind me, is that Lethal Weapon or Die Hard ?

In reply to Dorchester:

Do enlighten me as to where it is wrong.

In reply to GrahamD:

It's common sense unfortunately.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:


Damn! That one needs more than cold water!

In reply to Jim 1003:


Please address the issue of routine arming resulting in more harm than benefit to police officer safety, police service reputation and public safety. Again, I'd urge you to read and understand Rob's 14:55 Monday post before you respond.

As fun as it is seeing you tell serving and former police officers what they think in spite of them clearly and repeatedly telling you the opposite is true that avenue of the conversation isn't really getting us anywhere is it.

Others have had the courtesy to provide their credentials and explain their interest/expertise, perhaps you now would also.
jk

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:


Hmm, most of the people who left the job early were intellectually stunted wankpuffins as you say, and just couldn't hack it.

In reply to Jim 1003:


No, it isn't. Its redneck mentality

In reply to GrahamD:


How's that then?

In reply to Jim 1003:
Any chance you could address some of the substantive points made? I think on another thread you said you were an insurance clerk, so perhaps start by explaining where your expertise in firearm use in policing comes from.

In reply to Jim 1003:


No, Jim, no they weren't or aren't. There will always be the odd one who, as you crassly put it, 'couldn't hack it' but the vast majority who leave the job early are as a result if a physical or medical issue, or better life opportunities elsewhere. You talk about 'the job' as if you are a current or former cop. You should know better. And if you are a current serving officer, you seriously need to work on your interpersonal skills- I would wager you are the officer who is constantly the victim of assaults on duty.

In reply to MG:

What are the substantive points?

In reply to Jim 1003:

It must be awful to be you right now. Just go for a climb or something, get out. I'm sorry again I set you off on one.

Kind regards

Toby

In reply to Jim 1003:

- That your opinion isn't shared by most current police officers
- That your claims about guns are disputed by current and form police officers, current and former servicemen, and others
- That to be effective armed police must be in groups, according to you, thus reducing the number of locations that can be policed at any one time by at least a factor of two.
- What you expertise is.

Note: calling people ignorant, or half-wits or similar, isn't addressing the points. Neither is saying something is common sense or obvious.

In reply to Jim 1003:
There are things standing in fields, in the rain, with shitty bums, that have grasped this better than you.

Maybe this will sum up your current situation on this thread...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4&spfreload=10

In reply to MG:

That's not what is in the thread, it is just some inaccurate summary of what you would like to be in it. Can you provide some proper points linked to the thread?

In reply to Jim 1003:

It's all in the thread, as you must know if you have read any of it.

In reply to Jim 1003:


Two simple questions:

1) Please address the issue of routine arming resulting in more harm than benefit to police officer safety, police service reputation and public safety. Again, I'd urge you to read and understand Rob's 14:55 Monday post before you respond.

2) What is your relevant expertise?

You've been asked to address both by several people several times.
jk

In reply to Jim 1003:



Dear Mr Wankpuffin

Thank you for your recent application to join Specialist Firearms Command CO19. We appreciated your letter, even if the crayon did rub off onto our uniforms.

We note in your CV that you have achieved level 7 of Doom, and whilst it is indeed a challenging game and level 7 can be tricky, what with the zombie skull, it is probably not a realistic representation of modern policing in our capitol.

Nor is Grand Theft auto, even if you do choose the police cruiser everytime.

We do indeed recruit from the armed forces and we note you spent almost a year in the Field Mess Tin Rivet Repair Regiment (Territorials).

Policing is a complex and multi-faceted career, and you may wish to spend some time shadowing a working officer, as there is much more to this varied career than "putting a cap in a few ragheads, as you put it. Perhaps your out reach worker could arrange this for you.

Good luck with your future career plans, those burgers don't flip themselves.

Yours sincerely

Cressida Dick.

In reply to Jim 1003:


Down with this sort of thing!

In reply to cap'nChino:
I think in any debate about firearms the US should not be used as an example. Their perverse love affair with the gun, supported by a bogus claim for constitutional rights, puts them in an entirely different league to the UK or most of Europe. Surely France is a more suitable comparison.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

This whole thread has been worth it just to bring the phrase 'intellectually stunted wankpuffin' into my life. Pure genius.

In reply to Stichtplate:


Very true, although I'd hoped by now for some informed discussion of body armour as a protection when trying to stop knife wielding maniacs. I've no idea what the state of the art in practical knife resistant stuff is, or if it should be more widely deployed. Or if cost or comfort reasons prevent this?

In reply to Stichtplate:



Thats a good reflection of the sad life you have.

In reply to Knitted Simian:

Your about as funny as a flying turd...your profile is also similarly hilarious...not

In reply to Jim 1003:


You must be right Jim .as usual, because I'm finding your own posts increasingly hilarious.

In reply to Jim 1003:

No answer to my simple questions Jim? For a man so self assured and knowledgeable the cat suddenly seems to have got your tongue.
Jk

In reply to Jim 1003:


You have absolutely no way of knowing that.

But you've even had a former senior met officer with lots of years experience in firearms tell you that you're wrong so I guess I'm not going to be able to persuade you.

I note you STILL haven't said where your "expertise" comes from.

In reply to jkarran:


Maybe he just needs a little time to reflect? As you're well aware ,I'm no stranger myself to becoming a little emotionally over invested in a thread.

In reply to Jim 1003:

Hi Jim

For somebody who comes across on these forums as a special forces operative / serving military / police AFO / OPs Team AFO / AFO on the CT - SFO / Walt / air gun user / firearms specialist (or ex / retired / failed, any of these ) , you leave an unusually obvious internet footprint as to who you are . Odd for somebody working in the shadows


Albert ( ex MI5)

In reply to jkarran:

No answer to my simple questions Jim? For a man so self assured and knowledgeable the cat suddenly seems to have got your tongue.

Jim might be away for a few days as the security services have been monitoring this thread and have realised that they urgently needed his advice. They have therefore whisked him away in a helicopter, so that he can brief them on what exactly they should be doing and will start an extensive re-training program of all relevant staff as of immediate effect.

In reply to TobyA:


Oh yeah, the senior Met officer has been remarkably quiet since he was challenged for evidence.

In reply to Stichtplate:

Hello Stichplate and other Corbynites, I see the French police managed to shoot somebody going for their firearm ,

'Police have shot a man who attacked an officer with a hammer outside the Notre-Dame cathedral in Paris.
The man shouted "this is for Syria" during the attack, the interior minister said. Prosecutors have opened a terrorism investigation.
The officer suffered minor injuries. The suspect was wounded in the chest when another policeman opened fire.'

I think this scenario bears a remarkable resemblance to what I was saying would happen if you attacked an officer with a firearm.

I wondered why he wasn't killed with the hammer, maybe because he had a gun....
You are such a bunch of losers.....

In reply to Jim 1003:

Oh yeah, the senior Met officer has been remarkably quiet since he was challenged for evidence.

You seem happy to denigrate people that have stated that they've done the job, but have been remarkably resilient to revealing your actual personal experience when asked.
Go on, put your money where your mouth is and tell the thread what your actual experience is.

In reply to FactorXXX:
My experience is not really relevant is it, the French cop has done what the UKC collective said was impossible...they were wrong, he shot his attacker, not really surprising with half an ounce of intelligence, knifes and hammers do not prevail against probably equipped police. Go back to reading your Noddy books.....

In reply to Jim 1003:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Sergeant_Almog_Shiloni

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_La_D%C3%A9fense_attack

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapuah_Junction_stabbing_(2013)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lions%27_Gate_stabbings

two episodes in which armed soldiers were stabbed by terrorists and were unable to shoot them. two episodes when terrorists stabbed armed civilians and used their firearms on others.

In reply to Jim 1003:

The French officer was injured, his colleague shot the man. Which sounds very like what happened at Parliament earlier this year, except fortunately the French officer was not as severely injured.

At least you have admitted that you have no relevant experience now though, so thanks for that.

In reply to Jim 1003:
Spent 3 hours wandering round the Trafford Centre on Sunday. 2 armed police visible (mainly engaged in taking selfies with kids and handing out fist bumps). Spent 3 hours in Manchester airport on Monday morning. Again 2 armed police in attendance. In both cases their presence seemed both appropriate and reassuring.
Me and the wife and kids have spent the last 2 days walking around Rome. There are armed police everywhere and every important building and major road junction has a pair of soldiers and a military vehicle. It feels like a city under siege.

As for safety, If some nutter with a knife turned up, maybe I could do something to protect my family, but if a bunch of Italian squaddies opened up with assault rifles in a crowded street I could do nothing but try to act as a sandbag.

British policing over the last few months has been professional, effective and impressive. I'm very glad we've not let a handful of nutters change our way of life. They would count that as a win and I wouldn't want to give them the satisfaction.

Edit: lighten up a bit Jim, 'intellectually stunted wankpuffin' is comedy genius.

In reply to Jim 1003:

Perhaps, or perhaps because he attacked a group of officers patrolling a heavily defended attraction with a construction tool and announced that attack by shouting about his cause. It certainly sounds like there may have been two tools involved in the described scenario, the hammer and the throbber wielding it.

What do you reckon the outcome would have been if he'd gone for a quiet surprise attack on a solitary traffic cop on the way into town, a knife in back of the the neck while posing for a tourist pic with the beaming officer? I reckon 50:50 you've now got a loon with a gun, a police uniform and a cause. Thankfully so far most seem too dumb or bent on instant gratification to plan 'better'. Those that collaborate to overcome their intellectual deficiency increase their chances of getting caught massively and oddly enough the brighter ones with resources don't seem so keen on becoming corned beef or target practice for a swat team.

Still no answer to my questions Jim? If you're so certain you're right, speak from a position of knowledge and that we're all 'losers' as you so colourfully put it you should be able to quickly and effectively argue your case. At the moment you're coming across as the living embodiment of the Dunning Kruger effect with an anger problem. I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt and hear your case but you aren't helping.
jk

In reply to Jim 1003:


Of course its bloody relevant. If you derise people who comment - who have experience in the matter in hand, as idiots/halfwits, and people who can't hack it, then espouse your own views as coming from Jim the oracle, then people are entitled to ask how come your views are so correct when others are wrong.

Failure to even answer points put to you suggest you are full of shit.

In reply to Jim 1003:


How cute. Do you tell the youths down at the social that you were the second guy on the balcony?

Still interested as to where your extensive insight into this topic stems.

In reply to Bellie:


More likely a wind up merchant, in the image of niggle or bootrock. Most people grow out of it or more subtle at it with more maturity.

In reply to GrahamD:

Yes, sadly I bit this morning... a bit frazzled ; )

In reply to wintertree:

The police in the UK wear stab vests as standard as far as I aware. The issue with body armour is coverage. You can't cover every part of your body and expect to be able to perform as normal.

I imagine that running, jumping, grappling even getting in and out of a vehicle are daily occurrences for police officers which would become very difficult with large amounts of armour.

It's a constant balance of protection Vs mobility. You have to have gaps in the protection in order to move.

I am basing this on experience as a soldier who constantly have to adjust levels and coverage of body armour whilst working. So it may be slightly different for policing

In reply to Bish:

Pretty fair summary, you wouldn't want to be chasing people wearing Osprey.

As you say, you can't protect every area of the body vulnerable to a serious knife wound and still be mobile. In fact I often wonder if modern police carry so much 'safety' kit they're so restricted they become less able to defend themselves in a sustained attack. (Don't get me started on hands tucked away inside stab vests...).

In reply to Stichtplate:

Me and the wife and kids have spent the last 2 days walking around Rome. There are armed police everywhere and every important building and major road junction has a pair of soldiers and a military vehicle. It feels like a city under siege.

I respect what you are saying but in a way, your comment supports an armed police force. How many deaths due to terror attacks have their been in Italy in 2017? Or in the last 5 or 10 years? Zero. I am not for a second suggesting that the Italian guns are the only reason for this but statistically it's a no brainer. Actually what it probably demonstrates that 'comparisons are odious'.

In reply to blackmountainbiker:


It's only a 'statistical no brainer' if you don't actually believe what you say when you say accept the men with guns aren't the cause, merely that in Italy there is to date a correlation. Italy incidentally has a very high gun homicide rate as a result of deeply ingrained organised crime, you'd think if your arguments held much water they might have a handle on that by now.

It's only a 'no brainer' of any kind if you completely ignore the argument you claim to respect regarding the atmosphere of fear soldiers on the street cause and the significant risk of collateral harm to civilians in the event of an attack.

Apart from all that it's a total no brainer. Personally I'd prefer a brainier approach.
jk

In reply to buzby:

There is no doubt that Jim has been a bit of a d£%K throughout this thread but to be honest, a huge number of the responses to his comments have been not much better. He has a right to express an opinion, he has been a bit abusive in his exercising of this right but he has received a barrel load of abuse back which is not really on in my opinion. He is not an expert. The people who have objected to his opinions on here are not experts. The experts are not even experts. A group of people with a warped ideology are using lo-tech weapons to kill and injure random members of the public going about their normal daily lives. I'm 50 years old, I cannot recall a similar threat to public safety in my life time. Nobody knows what to do for the best.

In reply to blackmountainbiker:

Yes and the French police are armed and the French haven't had any deaths from terrorist attacks recently.

In reply to jkarran:

You clearly didn't read my comment. I pointed out that in a thread about arming the police, your example could be used to suggest that it is an effective way to keep people safe from terror attacks. Hence why I said 'statistically'. There were armed police at the Hay Festival this year - I felt deeply sad about that so am not advocating we flood the streets with armed police.

In reply to blackmountainbiker:

Taking Italy as an example, they have a firearm related death rate of 5 times that of the UK (the homicide by firearm rate is slightly higher but similar), according to that wikipedia age linked earlier (and a subsequent google has been less than fruitful in finding better/more up to date facts apart from one source showing firearm homicides as a percentage of all intentional homicides as 41% in Italy compared to 7% in the UK.

Do you think this makes Italy "safer"? They may not have had any terrorist attacks* but the cops' guns don't seem to be reducing firearm related homicide and death

*and this may be nothing to o with police presence, there would be a multitude of factors I imagine, including foreign policy, immigrant populations, economic climate, a chequered colonial past and how that affects the ethic makeup of your country etc.

In reply to blackmountainbiker:

If you preface your arguments with abuse, then you should expect some rebuke. If you tell people they don't know what they are talking about... when they happen to be professionals in their role, then expect to be challenged.

In reply to blackmountainbiker:


I'm 51 and I seem to recall attempts to assassinate the entire Govt in Brighton, mortar attacks on Downing Street, the largest bomb since WW2 exploding in Manchester, the common use of bent nails as shrapnel in numerous bombs and the murder of MPs happening on the UK mainland, plus much worse in another part of the UK, and a death toll in the thousands.

I agree that there is a potentially significant hazard with a few thousand committed islamists, many with experience in Syria, wandering around. However knee jerk over reaction won't help any.

In reply to blackmountainbiker:

I did read it and I think I understood it (except the "comparisons are odious" bit where you lost me).


My example of what? I'll presume you mean Stitchplate's example of Italy deploying troops on their streets. My argument is that you clearly demonstrate an understanding of the difference between causation and correlation then choose to ignore it to make a point. One which I disagree with for reasons I've been over several times.


I'm not sure we understand the same thing by 'statistically'. I agree with carefully adjusted blinkers some strong correlations can be found between extensive armed guard/patrols and low prevalence of terror attacks, 'successful' or otherwise but I can go no further with you that that.


Sorry, I mistook your first (and a couple of subsequent) contribution to this thread:

"Is it time to routinely arm the Police? Maybe. Incidents like Borough Market may become more frequent so is it better to take action now?"

to be rhetorical since you appeared to be in agreement with Jim in his belief this is a good idea without potentially serious negative consequences.
jk

In reply to buzby:


Interesting contribution here from a serving policeman BBC Radio 4 - It's a Fair Cop, Series 3, Punching Judy
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08sndpw


"Put your hand up if you think the police should be armed?
....actually put both hands up, you might as well get used to it. Consider that some of my colleagues I wouldn't leave unsupervised with a stapler"

In reply to blackmountainbiker:


You can't remember the IRA bombings?

In reply to krikoman:

Not really similar in that they didn't go for (in their eyes) civilians deliberately, they gave warnings, and they weren't suicidal.

In reply to MG:


You mean they were slightly better at their PR. They managed to kill and maim many more civilians and threatened to hit far harder at our constitution (actually suceeding in killing a member of the royal family and having a good go at wiping out the government) than a few isolated nut jobs have managed recently. The fact that they weren't suicidal just means they were free to kill and maim more than once.

In reply to jkarran:

At the moment you're coming across as the living embodiment of the Dunning Kruger effect with an anger problem. I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt and hear your case but you aren't helping.jk

Really, except it was you who started the abusive comments as soon as you started to lose the argument. What is your area of expertise to be criticising everybody who advocated arming the police.

In reply to GrahamD:

My point was the threat was different, not that they were "nicer" terrorists. (Although I don't recall them burning people alive)

In reply to Jim 1003:

Hi Jim,

'The SAS who were on London bridge' (per your comment at 15:27 Sunday)

Is that a personal observation at the time (ie you saw them), professional knowledge pertaining to the response to that incident (you were in, or are in, some form of operational control room, or privy to the watch log from one, which was involved in the incident), or is it based on something you have read, seen or heard ?

I'm not after being lambasted, criticised or insulted, i am just seeking an understanding of how or why you know or think that that wasn't a Metroplitan Police response.

Thanks in advance of your considered response Jim.

Tomo

In reply to Ridge:


It's not really knee jerk is it, several thousand on a watch list and 3 atrocities in as many months. Unarmed police being forced to deal with armed terrorists, it's like watching Michael Caine in Zulu....

In reply to MG:


and the Birmingham pub bombing were targeting who?

Manchester bombing?

They didn't always give warnings either.

So because they weren't suicidal, that makes then less of a threat to public safety?

You can't state with any certainty the three blokes in London were suicidal, they may have been hoping to escape, for all we know.

In reply to Jim 1003:


Let's not be racist

In reply to Bellie:

Your the one that starts being abusive, what's your area of expertise, apart from being a bell end. Anyway, I'm sure I've seen you at the crag, I see we both live locally...be nice to meet up and discuss this face to face instead of these ridiculous posts on here from yourself.

In reply to TobyA:


Er no I didn't, sorry Jeremy.

In reply to krikoman:


How is that racist? That's rich coming from you....

In reply to Jim 1003:


I've already given my relevant credentials Jim: I can read and reason, nothing more.

I see you're still avoiding answering simple on-topic questions. Obviously I'm no expert in this area and obviously you are so I do find it odd you aren't willing to explain why my concerns are unfounded and how you came to form that opinion.

You'd been slinging the insults long before I responded in kind. Prior to that I'd made several polite and patient attempts to engage you in an actual conversation. I'm happy to revert to polite conversation.

I don't believe I'm losing the argument, frankly so far you've completely failed to articulate one, if you had I'd be responding to it not you.

Let's simplify matters... I'll take at face value that you have significant experience of policing and counter terrorism operations but that it's all got to be kept hush hush. In exchange I'd ask that you please address and discuss the issue of routine arming resulting in more harm than benefit to police officer safety, police service reputation and public safety particularly with reference to Rob's 14:55 Monday post and any evidence you care to provide to the contrary. Deal?
jk

In reply to Jim 1003:


Ha ha ha Coming from me!!?!?!?

You know nothing about me, my life or my heritage.

Unless you're basing your knowledge on the same knowledge you have about guns and how to protect the world.

In reply to Jim 1003:

I'm sure I haven't offered up any expertise in the thread - in the same way as some have offered informed responses to some of your technical comments (guns and ammo) My opinions are based on other reasons.

When you see the guy at the crag who looks like me - say hello - just don't start berating him - he might get a bit confused on account of it not being me.

In reply to Bellie:


what's wrong with, "Oi! bell end!"

I think he should do this to EVERYONE he thinks is you, at the crag or otherwise, down the town around midnight would be perfect.

In reply to krikoman:

Made me smile... I'm in a better mood from this morning ; )

Normally its my mates that shout oi bell end to me.

In reply to krikoman:

That was nothing like this. I remember very well being evacuated from shops because a coded warning had been received. I don't recall people being run over by vans and randomly knifed. Do you?

In reply to galpinos:

I don't think it makes Italy safer but then I think the situation is so different there. They have a long history of organised crime. I did not imply that anyway - I simply made the point that Italy has not suffered from any terror attacks in the same way that the UK has.

In reply to blackmountainbiker:

IRA (and other) bombings weren't exactly cuddly political stunts, a lot of people died and a lot of damage was done. People used to today's realtively safe Britain would be totally losing their shit faced with the violence of the 70s and 80s.

If it helps you keep a sense of perspective London's air is many times deadlier than all-sources terror. That's actually a solvable problem, perhaps we should talk a little more about that and feel a little less scared about something that will very likely never directly impact us, after all, we all need to breathe.
jk

In reply to DerwentDiluted:


I'd agree with that. Some officers you do wonder if it would be safe to have a firearm. But those same officers are the ones that would willingly pull a kid out of a frozen lake, be first on scene at numerous RTAs, knock on the door of a family to tell them a loved one has died, and stand and take crap from drunks on the street of a weekend.

In reply to jkarran:

'Sorry, I mistook your first (and a couple of subsequent) contribution to this thread:"Is it time to routinely arm the Police? Maybe. Incidents like Borough Market may become more frequent so is it better to take action now?"to be rhetorical since you appeared to be in agreement with Jim in his belief this is a good idea without potentially serious negative.'

At no point in any of my posts have I indicated that I am in agreement with Jim or want to see routinely armed police on the streets. What I have said is that I don't agree with some of the arguments against it and think that it may be something to consider if the van/knife attacks (which seem to me to be almost impossible to predict or prevent) continue. I am NOT an expert by the way and have never commented on this thread in a way that implies I am.

In reply to blackmountainbiker:


Perhaps not run over by vans or knifed, but the Birmigham pub bombings killed 21 people, the IRA murdered Airey Neave MP, they attacked Downing Street, they tried to kill Margaret Thatcher in Brighton. There's quite a long list of IRA bombings in the UK.

In reply to blackmountainbiker:
Sorry, I probably didn't articulate my point very well.


Do you think this is a direct result of the armed police/military presence or due to the diffing immigrant populations/different foreign policy etc?

I, personally, can see that in the case of the most recent incident in London, having armed police there quicker would potentially have reduced the casualty level. It would have made no difference in Manchester. I don't believe that this warrants arming all police* but it does lend an argument to increasing the number armed officers/improving the support etc.

*There are multiple reasons why I don't think arming all officers is a good idea, most of which are mentioned above but they include:
- The police don't want it (it's a big thing to force upon a reluctant workforce)
- There is no need for a firearm for most police duties
- More people will get shot, accidental discharge, civilian in a firefight etc.
- It will adversely affect how the police operate now (no one up in a car, single patrols)
- It brings more weapons into circulation (I've no idea whether this would happen but it seems feasible that the police could be attacked for their guns)
- It could start an "arms race" with criminals

In reply to blackmountainbiker:


Genuine question, in what way would having armed police prevent a van attack?

In reply to jkarran:

I have been talking to my Year 6 children about the London Bridge incident this week as they are natural interested and some are quite worried and have said they will never visit London again. I have pointed out to a couple of children that you are 800 times more likely to be killed on the roads on the way to London than in attacks like the recent ones and that you only have a 1 in 39,000 chance of that happening anyway as our roads are now very safe overall.

In reply to galpinos:

I agree with most of what you said. I am not sure what the evidence is for the last 2 points as there is no other country like the UK to compare with really as many other European countries have had more lax gun laws. It would be a sad day if it were to happen.

And I just don't know about Italy. One of the London Bridge attackers was Italian (I don't know if that means anything).

In reply to blackmountainbiker:

I remember body parts and rubble in the streets, people screaming with horrific injuries, to me it doesn't matter how they are caused, it's the outcome that counts.

Like saying they gave warming, well if they gave warming, enough to save people getting hurt how come so many died or were injured.

Let's not get things out of proportion.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/many-people-killed-terrorist-attacks-uk/

Bees and wasps kill about 5 people per year.

In reply to galpinos:

I have no idea. It was the knife bit I was more referring to. The thing is, known radicalised individuals who try to obtain firearms or explosives are easier (albeit still really difficult) to monitor than those hiring vans and buying/taking from the drawer kitchen knives.

In reply to krikoman:

No, you are totally missing my point. People acquiring guns and explosives are far easier for the intelligence services to track down and act against than people taking knives out of kitchen drawers and borrowing vans. Unless my memory has totally gone, I don't recall the provisionals driving vans into people and knifing them.
I don't think I am getting it out of proportion when I say if this continues maybe it (arming police) is something that might need to be considered. I really hope not.

In reply to Bellie:

Yes but lets all just hold hands and be friends.

In reply to Jim 1003:


Yeah, I know - I was reading between the lines due to your continued refusal to explain why anyone should take you seriously.

I was going to point out you just made the same spelling mistake again as earlier, but that seemed churlish and off topic, so I won't.

In reply to blackmountainbiker:


"I'm 50 years old, I cannot recall a similar threat to public safety in my life time. Nobody knows what to do for the best."

I'd suggest the threat to public safety is considerably less in the last 5 years than just about any year from 1970 to 1990.

Does it really matter HOW people died, if we can't stop them bombing and we can't stop them running people down, it makes no difference. One way is no worse than another surely, it's numbers that count.

In reply to MG:


I don't recall anyone being burned alive by a terrorist although some of the IRA interrogation and punishment methods were, by all accounts, pretty barbaric.

On a practical level, the threat to me is significantly different. Its a lot lower for a start.

In reply to blackmountainbiker:


Wouldn't you consider the activities of the Brigate Rosse & their far right counterparts during the Anni di piombo (years of lead - 1960s - 1980s) as terrorism ?

In reply to Doug:

Of course. In my original reply to the Italian thread I said recent - 10 years.

In reply to krikoman:

Note from my post that you quoted I said 'similar' not greater. And it matters how people died because certain ways of killing are more spontaneous than others and therefore more difficult to detect. I stand by my statement which was, as quoted by you, I cannot recall a similar threat to public safety. An expert, don't ya love em, on the radio yesterday said that the really challenging thing for security forces was the speed at which individuals were going from being radicalised to taking action. He stated it was often weeks where it had been years but I don't know how true that was. I heard that on The world at one if you want to check!

In reply to krikoman:

PS. I also never stated or implied that the IRA never killed anyone. I said I could remember being evacuated because a coded warning was received which it was. It was not an uncommon occurrence for this to happen. Obviously the IRA also blew people up indiscriminately too.
Cheers for the debate!

In reply to blackmountainbiker:

I'm not sure about the last two either, they are just concerns I have if we break the current status quo of the average bobby not carrying a firearm.

In reply to buzby:
Personally speaking, things would have to be orders of magnitude worse before I'd want to see the UK police as an armed service.
I would like to see Islamist inspired terrorists referred to solely as 'wankpuffins' henceforth on ukc, and if possible, globally, by the end of the year.

In reply to buzby:

I think you just need to make their arms longer

In reply to Stichtplate:

That would make for good episode of Brasseye.

In reply to blackmountainbiker:


Are you new here?

Cheers too