Should the UK police be armed?

Should the UK police carry firearms?

  • Yes, when on duty

    Votes: 26 18.1%
  • Yes, at all times

    Votes: 22 15.3%
  • No, the current policy is good enough

    Votes: 72 50.0%
  • No, they should never carry firearms at all

    Votes: 24 16.7%

  • Total voters
    144
  • Poll closed .

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
The reason they don't tend to use illegal tasers or cattle prods is because they are hard to come by. If tasers were available for self defence, the numbers of taser enabled crime would rocket, out of proportion I would imagine to those already injured in knife-point robbery.
And the victims wouldn't be getting stabbed ?
 
So the latest gem to come out of Arrse is that as a country we should legalise electric thingies in order to lower the number of knife attacks.

Again take it to your local MP, he will be very impressed.


Wets.
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
So the latest gem to come out of Arrse is that as a country we should legalise electric thingies in order to lower the number of knife attacks.

Again take it to your local MP, he will be very impressed.
That would only be the case if this suggestion is correct:
If tasers were available for self defence, the numbers of taser enabled crime would rocket, out of proportion I would imagine to those already injured in knife-point robbery.
But we've been given a wonderful insight into current police thinking, deduction and on-message replies.
I'd like to think the grown-ups could come up with a sensible solution, but I'm not anticipating one just now.
 

bojangles

Old-Salt
And the victims wouldn't be getting stabbed ?
I wasn't suggesting anything other than unarmed officers manning cordons far away. Tasers are only of operational effectiveness with day to day policing. Leytonstone was effectively a standard police incident, made a terrorist one by what the chap said.

I bow to your examples of battaclan, but I still reckon that hand guns on general issue would not fundamentally change sop's for average cops, which would not be to engage but to contain and evacuate as best as possible till arv's, sfo's or ctfo's arrive to take over.
Just to clarify, that's the pertinent point. The reality is that armed Officers can and have made a difference to the initial casualty count in such incidents. Don't get me wrong, I'm not very excited at the thought of engaging shouty beardy types armed with an AK, if I only had a glock. I'm fortunate where I work that I am provided with tools to re balance the equation.

It's widely accepted that initial responding Officers do not stand off and maintain a cordon. This lesson was painfully learned after the Virginia Tech shootings. Initial response is to close with the shooters and engage them. Follow up Officers will form rescue teams.

This is a sad reality of this threat, meaning that Officers have to have the mindset and the tools to do this.

 
Last edited:
That would only be the case if this suggestion is correct:


But we've been given a wonderful insight into current police thinking, deduction and on-message replies.
I'd like to think the grown-ups could come up with a sensible solution, but I'm not anticipating one just now.
We already have a sensible solution, Tasers etc are not lawful for the general public to possess.

Because of the non lethal outcomes from 99.9 % of Taser use, if they were freely available then obviously they are more likely to be used than potentially lethal knives. Less likelihood of prosecution or prison time.


Wets.
 
We already have a sensible solution, Tasers etc are not lawful for the general public to possess.

Because of the non lethal outcomes from 99.9 % of Taser use, if they were freely available then obviously they are more likely to be used than potentially lethal knives. Less likelihood of prosecution or prison time.


Wets.
Ok. So when you say 'obviously' they are more likely to be used than potentially lethal knives... Isn't that a good thing?
 
Despite what most people think, the majority of knife based injuries are not from robberies but stabbings for other reasons.

Most knife-point robberies use the threat of force rather than the application of force.

If tasers were more easily accessible, I would entirely expect robberies to rocket because it is a weapon which causes more fear than knives and can be used with much lower consequences.

I think robberies would hurtle up, and I also reckon the times force would used would fly upwards too, far disproportionately to the number of times a knife was used.

The answer to chuffit's above question is no. There will be any number of knock-on other crimes, not just robbery. I think it would enable far more crime than it would ever prevent. From the last year on my borough I can't think of a single stabbing which was from a robbery where something went wrong.

Also, though presumably you'd think it no bad thing given *our* attitudes on here, but what an easy way to get away from Police! Stun the bugger, give him the full 10 seconds, 'cos he's a Bastard, then offski.
 
Just to clarify, that's the pertinent point. The reality is that armed Officers can and have made a difference to the initial casualty count in such incidents. Don't get me wrong, I'm not very excited at the thought of engaging shouty beardy types armed with an AK, if I only had a glock. I'm fortunate where I work that I am provided with tools to re balance the equation.

It's widely accepted that initial responding Officers do not stand off and maintain a cordon. This lesson was painfully learned after the Virginia Tech shootings. Initial response is to close with the shooters and engage them. Follow up Officers will form rescue teams.

This is a sad reality of this threat, meaning that Officers have to have the mindset and the tools to do this.

If you don't mind my asking, which part of the country or globe are do you work from? Could you pm me if you were planning to give specifics at all?

I can only post based on sop's of an entirely no-specialist and unarmed cop. The issue here is that anyone with a gat will automatically be part of a specialist mob and have the training to do something above and beyond standing back.

To give all normal plod a sidearm, I don't suppose - given the way the job sees these things - there would be too much of a fundamental change in the expectations for a non specialist cop in such situations, as stated above in my post which you quoted.

If weapons were issued generally, perhaps that would change. But this is a difficult question to address in the uk because the issue of how the first responder acts if he had a gun and wasn't already a specialist is a moot point. Non specialist cops are unarmed.

-Edit-
Big question though -- how would the psni manage?
 
By that rationale people should be allowed to carry everything from knives and baseball bats to guns, as it's just for self defence honest.
That the negatives would outweigh the positives is exactly the argument I have made, I've not offered any proof beyond personal experience as a policeman nor do I intend to as there aren't any studies that I'm aware of into the subject.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
Sounds reasonable.
 
What negatives? You haven't presented any.

You've said that criminals will get hold of them. And do what? Attack people in a more humane way than they do currently?
Humane until you go down like a sack of shit and crack your skull, jaw, teeth etc. As another poster has said the fact they're (predominantly) non-lethal means people would probably be more willing to actual use them and probably not legally.
One of my original points was that as most robbers rely on surprise and outnumbering their victims having a cattleprod on your belt or in your bag wouldn't be a lot of use.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 
If you don't mind my asking, which part of the country or globe are do you work from? Could you pm me if you were planning to give specifics at all?

I can only post based on sop's of an entirely no-specialist and unarmed cop. The issue here is that anyone with a gat will automatically be part of a specialist mob and have the training to do something above and beyond standing back.

To give all normal plod a sidearm, I don't suppose - given the way the job sees these things - there would be too much of a fundamental change in the expectations for a non specialist cop in such situations, as stated above in my post which you quoted.

If weapons were issued generally, perhaps that would change. But this is a difficult question to address in the uk because the issue of how the first responder acts if he had a gun and wasn't already a specialist is a moot point. Non specialist cops are unarmed.

-Edit-
Big question though -- how would the psni manage?

thats just it - if society (law,government, police) says joe bloggs cant defend himself with a firearm/stick etc then the responsibility for that lays firmly with the police. if (god forbid) any terrorist active shooter incident happened in the uk and any armed police officer didn't immediately close with said terrorists then it is entirely the fault of the police, if there were no armed police nearby -thats the fault of the police - the expectation, and you wont like it is that if you (the police) say you have taken full responsibility for our safety then you have to live up to that expectation and deal with it. society doesn't dictate the threat it has to rise to it. The police cant have it both ways.
 
thats just it - if society (law,government, police) says joe bloggs cant defend himself with a firearm/stick etc then the responsibility for that lays firmly with the police. if (god forbid) any terrorist active shooter incident happened in the uk and any armed police officer didn't immediately close with said terrorists then it is entirely the fault of the police, if there were no armed police nearby -thats the fault of the police - the expectation, and you wont like it is that if you (the police) say you have taken full responsibility for our safety then you have to live up to that expectation and deal with it. society doesn't dictate the threat it has to rise to it. The police cant have it both ways.
Nope society needs to be mature enough to accept that there will, for the foreseeable future, be a continual threat posed by terrorism and that unless society wants to become a police state it will suffer casualties if and when terrorists can carry out an attack.
Having armed police or soldiers on every other street corner hasn't stopped successful terrorist attacks, look at Paris just last year and Northern Ireland throughout the Troubles. Even if every PC, PCSO and traffic warden was armed the terrorists would change tactics abandoning shooting sprees for suicide bombing which in this country is probably easier to do that get a rifle and enough ammunition to do a Mumbai or Paris.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 
Nope society needs to be mature enough to accept that there will, for the foreseeable future, be a continual threat posed by terrorism and that unless society wants to become a police state it will suffer casualties if and when terrorists can carry out an attack.
Having armed police or soldiers on every other street corner hasn't stopped successful terrorist attacks, look at Paris just last year and Northern Ireland throughout the Troubles. Even if every PC, PCSO and traffic warden was armed the terrorists would change tactics abandoning shooting sprees for suicide bombing which in this country is probably easier to do that get a rifle and enough ammunition to do a Mumbai or Paris.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
well to be honest thats not acceptable, many many other countries have armed police and as you say they wont necessarily stop incidents from starting but armed police can and do reduce loss of life. saying terrorists will just change there MO is probably true, but that does not mean ignore the current threat so they dont change their SOP's. i am a mature member of society and i certainly dont accept loss of life from terrorist incidents when there is a solution to reduce mass killing of this type. And having armed police doesn't constitute a 'police' state it just means you carry a different tool for a particular job.
 
well to be honest thats not acceptable, many many other countries have armed police and as you say they wont necessarily stop incidents from starting but armed police can and do reduce loss of life. saying terrorists will just change there MO is probably true, but that does not mean ignore the current threat so they dont change their SOP's. i am a mature member of society and i certainly dont accept loss of life from terrorist incidents when there is a solution to reduce mass killing of this type. And having armed police doesn't constitute a 'police' state it just means you carry a different tool for a particular job.
Well tough shit frankly. The government has neither the money nor the will to arm all British police officers. There were armed police all over Paris as well as armed soldiers carrying out patrols and they still couldn't stop the attacks there killing 130 people in the same way as SCO19 and the SAS probably wouldn't be able to if something similar happened in London so everyone having a gun isn't really a solution at all. The best way to defeat these attacks is to stop them from occuring through intelligence gathering.
I didn't say arming the police would create a police state, I implied the only way you'd stop every terrorist is by creating one and even then some would get through the net.
 

arcticfox042

Old-Salt
Bees and wasps have caused as many deaths in the UK as terrorism in the past decade, an independent watchdog has found.
In the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation's annual report, published on Wednesday, it was revealed that, on average, bees and wasps are as big a killer in Britain as acts of terrorism.
Five people per year are killed by bee or wasp stings, the report said, exactly the same amount, on average, of terrorist actions in the past decade.

"During the 21st century, terrorism has been an insignificant cause of mortality in the United Kingdom," the report, lead by David Anderson QC, said.
"The annualised average of five deaths caused by terrorism in England and Wales over this period compares with total accidental deaths in 2010 of 17,201, including 123 cyclists killed in traffic accidents, 102 personnel killed in Afghanistan, 29 people drowned in the bathtub and five killed by stings from hornets, wasps and bees."

Saying that we havent had many atom bombs dropped on our heads either but we still have a deterrent .................
 
5 or 10 minutes wait for armed response I suppose is considered an acceptable to those who make decision. It is currently.

Equally maybe it wouldn't be if all peelers had some sort of firearms.

I am interested to know - what would the expectation be on a psni ossifer in such circumstances.
 
Bees and wasps have caused as many deaths in the UK as terrorism in the past decade, an independent watchdog has found.
In the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation's annual report, published on Wednesday, it was revealed that, on average, bees and wasps are as big a killer in Britain as acts of terrorism.
Five people per year are killed by bee or wasp stings, the report said, exactly the same amount, on average, of terrorist actions in the past decade.

"During the 21st century, terrorism has been an insignificant cause of mortality in the United Kingdom," the report, lead by David Anderson QC, said.
"The annualised average of five deaths caused by terrorism in England and Wales over this period compares with total accidental deaths in 2010 of 17,201, including 123 cyclists killed in traffic accidents, 102 personnel killed in Afghanistan, 29 people drowned in the bathtub and five killed by stings from hornets, wasps and bees."

Saying that we havent had many atom bombs dropped on our heads either but we still have a deterrent .................
Bomb the bees! War on wasps!
 
5 or 10 minutes wait for armed response I suppose is considered an acceptable to those who make decision. It is currently.

Equally maybe it wouldn't be if all peelers had some sort of firearms.

I am interested to know - what would the expectation be on a psni ossifer in such circumstances.
same as what would be expected of an unarmed police officer - nothing, but possibly observe if not directly involved and get comms out. there is nothing much more they can do in reality.
 

Latest Threads

Top