1. Skicarver mentions firearms as a status symbol, and the eagerness of teenage males in particular for status; if they can possibly obtain a weapon they will do regardless of whether the police have them or not, because "they're cool" and the "gangstas" have them.

2. When these crims see armed police officers and suddenly think "Oh, they're armed, I'd better get myself a gun too" why would they think that; people predicted exactly the same when the police took up telescopic batons, CS spray and taser and to the best of my knowledge there's been no mass uptake of batons or incapacitant sprays by the criminal community; they've just carried on carrying knives and the odd firearm like they did before; what makes you think police firearms would be any different?

3. Where are all these criminals going to get hold of these weapons, Poundland? If you're saying that an arms race would result then you're implying that firearms are easy to get hold of illegally (a fact which I don't dispute) and that to me seems to strengthen the argument for armed police even more.

4. If more police were armed the organisation as a whole might have a more sensible outlook on firearms and shooting and life would become easier for civilian shooters. I see nothing wrong with a position closer to the USA provided there are reasonable controls on who can own what. If anything the proper use of firearms dispels the lore about them; I can't remember many cases of ACF cadets committing firearms offences.

If only that were true. I still have a load of holsters, speed-loaders etc. from when I had to hand my guns in in 1997. Armed crime has gone up by 100% since then.

Sadly the idea of re-opening gun clubs is a non-starter. If there was a sudden influx of people named Jamal in full Terry kit or Winston in gangsta jeans with the arse round his knees wishing to join a pistol shooting club how would that be handled? Bit of a tricky one.

You apply for your licence, you are vetted, your weapon is kept at a club armoury and when you're competent you undergo a WHT run by plod and repeated annually along with the vetting. The club instructors have to meet a professional standard and be accredited. If it's done properly it would work; banning pistols was a foolish knee-jerk reaction.

Bravo_Zulu, you won't get any real arguments from me on any of your points 1 to 3, on point 3 to clarify the 'arms race' I eluded to in my previous post related to the American public having access to just about any weapon they liked including assault rifles, to combat this problem the police need equivalent or better weapons to nullify the threat these weapons in the wrong hands pose, the crims get wise, seek 'better' weaponary and so on and so forth.

Not sure I agree with point 4 though, the reaction to the Hungerford shootings was far from knee jerk and for once the government of the time listened to the fears of the wider public and acted swiftly to redress the problem.

It seems that the UK it is the other way around. It's the police with the 'big guns' and there will be criminals who will respond in kind.

Reference young guys getting weapons. I am not expecting everyone to buy guns if they see police with them. Asi said, it is a continuum. There will simply be more kids wanting to carryy, and carry bigger guns. In the UK it is likely to be a small minority who do this, but most crime is committed by a small percentage of people.

Did they redress the problem? If they did then why are CO19 now patrolling on foot in bits of London? All that happened was the pistol clubs were forced to close down, the Olympic shooting team now has to train in Switzerland; criminals have continued using firearms regardless of the ban. It's commonly said that blanket prohibition solves nothing; the only people affected by the ban is the law-abiding public. America might have a high gun-crime rate, but if you discount the crime committed with illegal weapons then the numbers drop right off.
Ryan and Hamilton both killed themselves during Hungerford and Dunblane respectively; they were set on doing what they did, and would most likely have acquired illegal weapons had legal ones not been available.
Firearms are only a status symbol because they're remote objects only ever seen in films. Knowledge dispels fear.

Of course our cultures are different in many key respects such that comparisons between us, especially on such issues as this are not especially meaningful. To me and many of my countrymen (and thankfully even our Supreme Court as late as last year), our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms trumps any of these other issues such as the "arms race" between criminals and police etc. It is another of those pesky problems that result from a "free" society ( I mean this in a relative way-other nations and cultures obviously define it differently and consider themselves "free" even with more government control than we---at least for now--will accept).

I thought it was the 'right to bear arms as part of a formed militia', something the pro-gun lobby never seem to mention.
Also does arms specifically have to mean fire-arms?

Then there is this On your marks,get set....

Dead Link

Try adding an "h" to the start of the URL; not many web addresses begin with ttp://

www.telegraph.co.uk/ne...tings.html

No-that was specifically rejected by the Supreme Court recently in overturning the DC gun law. The Court found that it is a personal right of all citizens not merely one for militia members.