[Flipside]

Ok, those of us i the UK know of the recent shooting of a WPC in Bradford during an armed raid on a Travel Agent.

This, for some unknown reason, has started off this whole discussion regarding arming Police officers again, noting that this Officer was shot whilst getting out of her car, and even if she had been armed, a bullket proof vest would have been far more useful than a gun. Theres also talk of re-introducing the death sentence.

Is it me or has this country suddenly gone utterly paranoid? For crying out loud, more officers were shot in New York in 2003 than have been shot for the last 20 years in the UK, and the number of people caught and killed in crossfires between gangs and Police is terrifying.

I see that the current Labour 'Kneejerk' reaction is contaigous

So, what do you guys think? Considering out Police has always focussed their actions on community relations, that would change massively if guns were introduced, Police would not be as approachable, nor welcomed as they were before, and I think using the stick instead of the carrot would do far far more harm than good. It's a terrible crime that this woman was shot, but I think it would be a worse crime if we allowed her death to destroy everything she was representing at the time.

[aldo_14]

Ok, those of us i the UK know of the recent shooting of a WPC in Bradford during an armed raid on a Travel Agent.

This, for some unknown reason, has started off this whole discussion regarding arming Police officers again, noting that this Officer was shot whilst getting out of her car, and even if she had been armed, a bullket proof vest would have been far more useful than a gun. Theres also talk of re-introducing the death sentence.

Is it me or has this country suddenly gone utterly paranoid? For crying out loud, more officers were shot in New York in 2003 than have been shot for the last 20 years in the UK, and the number of people caught and killed in crossfires between gangs and Police is terrifying.

I see that the current Labour 'Kneejerk' reaction is contaigous

So, what do you guys think? Considering out Police has always focussed their actions on community relations, that would change massively if guns were introduced, Police would not be as approachable, nor welcomed as they were before, and I think using the stick instead of the carrot would do far far more harm than good. It's a terrible crime that this woman was shot, but I think it would be a worse crime if we allowed her death to destroy everything she was representing at the time.

I agree absolutely with you.  All this kneejerk response is focusing on sticking plaster solutions based on the idea of doing something different rather than doing something right.  Arming officers would only increase the likelihood of shootings (not to mention the costs of training), and it's been pointed out a number of times IIRC that a truly bulletproof vest is far too heavy for use in (for example) beat policing.  Even if we could afford all that hardware for the police, when we can't even afford it for the army!

[Flipside]

Arrrgh! Someone on the BBC Website is blaming video games! Someone hold me back! :/

When I was aged around 8+ I ran around with plastic imitation cap-guns (took these tiny little gunpowder 'dots' on a roll that went bang), owned hundreds of toy soldiers, built spaceships with Lego and then blew them up, built WW2 Airfix kits etc. Why can't these people figure out that nothing has changed the toys are different, but the games are identical.

[Prophet]

Arming officers would only increase the likelihood of shootings (not to mention the costs of training),

Police are armed in Finland. And thought we are a smaller country than UK with less police, we are not as wealthy as UK.
And though police are armed here, we likely have less shootings in a year than in UK. Generally our cops deal with drunken people who do not need shooting at.
It's a culture thing. You people can't comprehend an armed police officer. On the other hand I think that a british police is a unarmed guy/gal in a funny costume.
To us armed police is not menacing. It is a person with the authority and ability to uphold the law and public order.
I figure the police officers are still the same people, are they carrying a piece or not. And should be capable of solving situations without using it as well as before. But I guess it's not as simple to you in UK since you aren't used of seeing guns...

Generally a gun is leathal if it is pointed at someone and fired. Even then the shooter must have at least some skill or he'll likely miss. But again it's a cultural thing and you people in UK likely disagree with that.

Arrrgh! Someone on the BBC Website is blaming video games! Someone hold me back! :/

Sadly there are some people who don't see the difference in shooting a computer generated image with a mouse and shooting a real person with a real gun. They are stubborn people and not much can be done about them. Other than pray they don't multiply...

[Flipside]

Thing is Prophet, with the state of our Police force at the moment, I wouldn't trust them. Earlier this year an officer was sacked because an Asian boy recording him spouting racist comments on his phone (though I do personally feel the officer was egged on before the recording starts, but that doesn't count.) The problems with training Police officers properly is a massive one, the multi-cultural gap here is a large one.

The Police Commisioner is pushing for all he is worth to put the Police in the position of almost being a personal Army. The no-guns rule DOES work, nearly every incident involving guns in the UK has been resolved without the use of firearms, mainly because they weren't there. If you make Firearms an option, then there will always be officers who use that as their first, and favourite one, regardless of whether it is needed or not.

Also, if a criminal is cornered and faced with being caught and being given the Death sentence or even being locked up for the rest of their natural life, running and being shot and killed, or going out in a blaze of glory like a gangster movie, taking as many people with them as they can, I'm very very worried about which option he/she would pick.

[aldo_14]

Actually, Finland does have more shooting deaths per capita; in finland 0.86 deaths per 100,000 are to guns, in Scotland it's 0.19 and in England and Wales it is 0.11. (from http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html, actually a pro-arms site).  But it is of course worth noting the massive variances in things like culture too, anyways.  Certainly I wouldn't say arming police increases crime, just that it can risk changing the nature of it.

But the issue for me is really a) do police need to be armed and b) will it improve policing.  I would say no to both; it's the extraordinary rarity of a police shooting that makes this news story so high profile, after all.  Partly due to cost; you'd need to intensively train every officer to use a weapon responsibly and that would take money away from other places (without any pressing need for all officers to be armed).

Although we do have armed police, and it's scarcely seen as menacing or incomprehensible.  (Not just in special deployments, but also sometimes patrolling the likes of Heathrow airport; although never AFAIK in public such as on the streets)  It's simply that armed police are - rightly - seen as a last resort, used in situations where lethal force may be required, and the more frequent use of them would seem to indicate (rightly or wrongly) that society was going downhill and becoming dangerous, more dangerous than it actually is.  People don't get worried by armed police because they carry weapons, it's because they are usually only seen when the **** has hit the fan.

My other concern, of course, is that armed police encourage criminals to buy and use guns in a sort of arms race type affair.  I think we've seen that - to an exaggerated effect - in the US, with criminals using assault rifles.  Also once you get into the mentality of arming yourself i think you risk losing sight of the other aspects of policing by augmenting your police force to be more 'aggressive' in appearance.

[Unknown Target]

While it's great that the UK does not have armed police officers, what happens to them if the situation arises? Being an American, I guess I'm used to seeing officers with guns, so I don't see how British gun crime would increase if only the officers were armed. I'm not saying it won't, I just don't see how it would.

[aldo_14]

While it's great that the UK does not have armed police officers, what happens to them if the situation arises? Being an American, I guess I'm used to seeing officers with guns, so I don't see how British gun crime would increase if only the officers were armed. I'm not saying it won't, I just don't see how it would.

They call out SO19, who are specialised armed officers.

The idea that gun crime would increase, is that criminals would obtain guns to 'compete' with the increased possibility of being shot.  I'm not sure if this can be proven statistically, it must be said; it's just a gut instinct I have.

[Flipside]

Well, my take on the thing is firstly, the 'no way out' situation, where the options available to someone holding a gun is reduced to 'kill or die'.

Secondly, this would, most likely, lead to armed shootouts betweens gangs and police, instead of between gangs ( a very rare act atm, but it does happen). This means yet another set of bullets flying back and forth. Thus increasing the odds of a bystander getting killed by at least 33%, not to mention the increased 'glamour' aspect of having a movie-type shootout with Police would actually increase the odds of it happening.

Rather than making guns 'cooler' and more accepted by arming the Police etc, we should be looking at how these guns are entering the country and a way of destroying their rep as status symbols.

[DeepSpace9er]

Seems like the UK unarmed police best be left the way they are. If they get buns, body armor, etc. criminals will one up them.. as it is, there is very little gun violence it seems from your statistics. If the murder and shooting rate were to climb drastically, then the police would have no choice. But as it is, they seem to be able to handle everyday situations on the streets without a weapon.

[Lt.Cannonfodder]

Actually, Finland does have more shooting deaths per capita; in finland 0.86 deaths per 100,000 are to guns, in Scotland it's 0.19 and in England and Wales it is 0.11. (from http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html, actually a pro-arms site).  But it is of course worth noting the massive variances in things like culture too, anyways. 

It's indeed a cultural thing, as sadly booze+guns is a bit too common combination in Finland. That's partially why I support police carrying firearms, properly trained in their use of course. I have a pretty high trust to our police force and fully support Prophet's view.

[Prophet]

The problems with training Police officers properly is a massive one, the multi-cultural gap here is a large one.

Seems to me that it's not training them to use firearms, but training them to be a public servant is the challenge here...

The no-guns rule DOES work, nearly every incident involving guns in the UK has been resolved without the use of firearms, mainly because they weren't there.

What? I understand that guns weren't used if no one had them, so how were the guns involved then if no one had them...???

If you make Firearms an option, then there will always be officers who use that as their first, and favourite one, regardless of whether it is needed or not.

That is likely yes... As in every police force in the world that uses firearms. But really, is that person fit to be a police officer? And if he is prone to use a gun when facing adversary, then is't he just as prone to use his other weaponry if the gun is denied from him? Thought I guess its better to be beaten than shot...

Also, if a criminal is cornered and faced with being caught and being given the Death sentence or even being locked up for the rest of their natural life, running and being shot and killed, or going out in a blaze of glory like a gangster movie, taking as many people with them as they can, I'm very very worried about which option he/she would pick.

What? Just for the record let me first say that I don't really like the idea of death sentence....
But any average (or even not so average) criminal would seriously consider surrendering, even with death sentence. A person has to be seriously ****ed up if he drives his car in to a building hoping to kill dozens of people,including himself, rather than goes to jail...

Well, my take on the thing is firstly, the 'no way out' situation, where the options available to someone holding a gun is reduced to 'kill or die'.

Secondly, this would, most likely, lead to armed shootouts betweens gangs and police, instead of between gangs ( a very rare act atm, but it does happen). This means yet another set of bullets flying back and forth. Thus increasing the odds of a bystander getting killed by at least 33%, not to mention the increased 'glamour' aspect of having a movie-type shootout with Police would actually increase the odds of it happening.

Rather than making guns 'cooler' and more accepted by arming the Police etc, we should be looking at how these guns are entering the country and a way of destroying their rep as status symbols.

Are we talking about UK or Irak? At least half of Finnish homes have at least a shotgun, often a couple of rifles too. For hunting and stuff. Either you are being way too worried, or there is some weird people in UK...

[vyper]

Given that even the highly trained officers get it wrong some times (read: shooting innocent brazilians 8 times in the head) then I really wouldn't trust Strathclyde's finest with a firearm. Hell I wouldn't trust them with a tazer.

[aldo_14]

Incidentally, Lord Brian Mackenzie - former president of the Superintendents' Association of England and Wales - is against arming police, citing evidence from the FBI of when suspects have turned officers guns upon them (http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4451640.stm).

[Flipside]

Seems to me that it's not training them to use firearms, but training them to be a public servant is the challenge here...

- To a certain degree, yes, however, being multi-cultural with a gun is a lot lot harder because you are no longer consulting, you've changed the carrot for a stick.

What? I understand that guns weren't used if no one had them, so how were the guns involved then if no one had them...???

- Guns do appear in the UK, usually smuggled in from abroad, there IS gun-crime in the UK, however, those incidents have almost always been resolved without a single shot being fired.

That is likely yes... As in every police force in the world that uses firearms. But really, is that person fit to be a police officer? And if he is prone to use a gun when facing adversary, then is't he just as prone to use his other weaponry if the gun is denied from him? Thought I guess its better to be beaten than shot...

- Beating with Batons does happen, but all you need is one copper who gets that rush of power from having a gun and had an argument with his girlfriend that morning etc. This has always been my problem with armed police, it brings authority from a consensus thing to 'I've got the gun'.

What? Just for the record let me first say that I don't really like the idea of death sentence....
But any average (or even not so average) criminal would seriously consider surrendering, even with death sentence. A person has to be seriously ****ed up if he drives his car in to a building hoping to kill dozens of people,including himself, rather than goes to jail...

- You'd be surprised. This happens a lot in the US states with death penalties. He doesn't need to drive his car into anything, just try and do a Bruce Willis, leaping out all guns blazing and not aiming in particular.

Are we talking about UK or Irak? At least half of Finnish homes have at least a shotgun, often a couple of rifles too. For hunting and stuff. Either you are being way too worried, or there is some weird people in UK...

- UK. Most UK residents have airguns or swords in their house, simply because the Police turn a blind-eye to burglary (not completely there fault, it's a policy thing). However, the UK has a history of arresting people for using those weapons, even as a threat, to defend their home or family. There is one famous case of a woman who is now dying of cancer in jail because she dared to stand up to a gang of youths who were vandalising her car and defacing her house, after several requests and complaints being ignored by the local Police, she bought out an airgun and threatened them and got 5 years. The youths got nothing. Yes, there are some wierd people in the UK, and some of them make the rules.

[SadisticSid]

I think you're basing your dire predictions on false assumptions here...

First of all most petty (90%+) criminals are opportunistic cowards, but rational ones. They're not willing to risk themselves in unfavourable odds unless the potential return is incredibly high. If you make the odds less favourable to the criminals - i.e. put guns in the hands of police officers - they're going to be less likely to resist arrest or run, and especially less likely to carry a gun, because it very much increases the odds of the officer opening fire if he sees one. You're just not going to see people who don't have the intent to kill or maim arm themselves if the police do.

Flip, you mention gang shootings with police. Why? People in these groups may have a dislike for officers of the law, but there's no personal hatred between them like there is between different gangs. If the prospect of going down in history in a shootout with police was so appealing, then you'd already have them targeting police on the streets. What better way to provoke an armed response, after all? It's sensationalist Hollywood nonsense.

[Flipside]

I worked as an Administrative Assistant in a Police Station in London for 2 years. I can assure you that most criminals are not rational. The moment Police appear with guns, it justifies criminals using theirs to their eyes. Police would never consider carrying knives because they consider them barbaric, however, pointing a tube at someone and being able to execute them without trial is ok.

A lot of the people who were arrested at Islington for possesion of weapons were often so high on drugs that they were not even aware that they could be killed, or possibly even that they'd been arrested, they would spit, bite and make murder threats to all and sundry all the way between the vans and the holding cells.

I'm not talking about those who choose not to arm themselves, I'm talking about those who do arm themselves, and will see the armament of the Police as justification.

Shootouts between gangs and Police will happen because it is 'cool', it happens in the movies, as much as people argue about this, I believe most people live in a mental 'movie' in which they are the star. It's all about 'having the right attitude', 'adopting the right pose' and 'Getting Respek'  If you have bragging rights of a shootout with the Police, it adds social 'weight' to your reputation. Whilst the UK does have it's run-down and poor areas, I personally feel this is a lot more about image than crime in desperation. There are people who no more see Police officers as human beings as the members of the public they commit crimes against.

That is why I think it would happen, most people aren't actually aware that they are mortal until the moment before they die.

[aldo_14]

After all, people will still try and get away from persuing police cars - and helicopters - on the roads, despite the obvious futility of it.......

[Prophet]

Shootouts between gangs and Police will happen because it is 'cool', it happens in the movies, as much as people argue about this, I believe most people live in a mental 'movie' in which they are the star. It's all about 'having the right attitude', 'adopting the right pose' and 'Getting Respek'  If you have bragging rights of a shootout with the Police, it adds social 'weight' to your reputation. Whilst the UK does have it's run-down and poor areas, I personally feel this is a lot more about image than crime in desperation. There are people who no more see Police officers as human beings as the members of the public they commit crimes against.

No, I don't think that is true at all. At leas not around this country...

That is why I think it would happen, most people aren't actually aware that they are mortal until the moment before they die.

After all, people will still try and get away from persuing police cars - and helicopters - on the roads, despite the obvious futility of it.......

Most people aren't actually aware that they are mortal unless they have a minute to think about it. Then most of those realize that they might be doing something stupid, and then slow down/drop the knife and calm down. The rest worry about their own ass and then do something stupid. And a small minority just don't care, about anything at all.

[Flipside]

As someone who was recently told to stay in his house because a gang from the Inner city had turned up near the local school wielding guns, knives etc looking for a pupil who had 'dissed' them, I'm afraid I must disagree. It can and does happen in the UK. The Police response was simply to follow them around with four Police vans till they got bored an left without commiting a crime. Had several armed officers jumped out and levelled weapons at them, things would have gone downhill very very fast indeed.

Admittedly, I was a bit annoyed that no attempt was made to arrest them, however, this was school closing time, and I can promise that the Police most likely have some lovely mugshots, assuming they weren't wearing masks etc.

Edit : Apparently they were trying to 'help a mate'... http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/display.var.589725.0.0.php