Do we arm all police officers?

[Shrimpers are Magic]

In light of yesterdays murders by Islamist terrorists, are we as a society ready to see police officers firearm trained as standard? I appreciate the speed that armed officers got to scene but you have to put that down to location - if an attack had happened in say Ealing or Barnet then I don't suspect armed response would have been there so swiftly.
British Transport Police officer tackled one terrorist with his baton and sustained serious injuries in doing so. Had he been armed with a lethal weapon then the terrorist would have been shot dead sooner possibly saving lives.
It's a big call and once done it probably doesn't get reversed but I think we have to seriously consider it and soon.
Mods, not sure about these things but could you possibly put up a poll?
A simple YES NO or DON'T KNOW should do it.

 

[MK Shrimper]

I think serving officers have already indicated that they don't want to be armed, so it's a moot point regardless.

Yes if it would stop ***** like those in Manchester or London Bridge, but no if it ends up like America where innocent people get shot, like kids playing with water pistols.

 

[Benfleet A1]

I'm in the yes camp but have been for many years. Now is the time for all officers to be armed.

 

[Benfleet A1]

I think serving officers have already indicated that they don't want to be armed, so it's a moot point regardless.

Yes if it would stop ***** like those in Manchester or London Bridge, but no if it ends up like America where innocent people get shot, like kids playing with water pistols.

We are not americans for a start. I have encounted many police abroad and have only been threatened with gun once at a militery airport by an over zealous cop getting the pip with kids taking pictures of planes. I **** myself and he got a fearsome bollocking from his superiors.

As some on here know, I travel in europe to derby matches and have never once seen a handgun drawn or being pointed, even in extreme provocation. It just does not happen and there is absolutely no reason to think it would here if our officers are armed.

I want them armed.

 

[rigsby]

No kids with water pistols were killed last night. If all the police had been armed then more lives would have been saved.

 

[OldBlueLady]

No. We are not America.

 

[southendkid]

The police are in a better position than us to know if they need guns and they always say 'no' overwhelmingly when asked. I trust their judgment over people with no experience in what it takes to enforce the law.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Ask the police. Many don't want to be armed. Discussions should be had with the Police Federation on what they need. Unfortunately in recent times when they said what they need they were told they were 'crying wolf' so there needs to be a bit of rebuilding of trust first. Three terror attacks in a few months may mean that their role is given more respect than over the last few years.

 

[mattitouk]

Well if many police officers don't want to be armed, so be it, but I think the police should promote the use of officers carrying firearms for the ones that would prefer to be armed.

 

[GBJ]

I think serving officers have already indicated that they don't want to be armed, so it's a moot point regardless.

Yes if it would stop ***** like those in Manchester or London Bridge, but no if it ends up like America where innocent people get shot, like kids playing with water pistols.

This is the facts, sadly. And you can't blame them. The amount of scrutiny and potential ramifications that face an armed officer, if/when they pull that trigger, are so ridiculous that nobody wants the job. They are frontline officers, with no extra pay. The government aren't likely to change the legislation regarding this, so it's no surprise officers don't want the job.

I don't think we'd suffer the same problems as Americans do though. With the amount of guns on the streets, those cops are constantly in fear for their lives, in every single shout they get. Whether it be a DUI stop, or a terrorist attack. Thankfully, guns aren't common place here, so an armed officer wouldn't neccessarily feel under that same imminent threat, on a daily basis.

 

[GBJ]

Well if many police officers don't want to be armed, so be it, but I think the police should promote the use of officers carrying firearms for the ones that would prefer to be armed.

Agreed. Only way you'll get more old bill wanting to be armed though, is if the incredibly strict scrutiny for their potential actions, was overhauled & reformed.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Well if many police officers don't want to be armed, so be it, but I think the police should promote the use of officers carrying firearms for the ones that would prefer to be armed.

it's a funding issue as well, armed police are on a higher pay rate due to the extra responsibility - as it stands the police funding has been massively cut with the implication that it will be cut further. So if we have more armed police - with the higher pay rates, expense of equipment, expense of initial and continued training - if we shift funding to extra armed police then we would have to reduce further non armed police. It's that or increase the police funding.

Peter Kirkham, an ex high ranking member of the Met police has stated very clearly and forcefully on Sky News that the armed police in London over the last week have been pulled in from surrounding areas and that all leave was cancelled and that officers are suffering burn out as there are too few spread too thinly. He said the reaction times in London and Manchester would not be possible anywhere else in the country. He said that information from the public is not being managed as there are too few local police officers. He said the government are lying about the level of police and the level of armed police and specifically said that today the Home Secretary was lying to the public about police numbers.

His interview is doing the rounds on social media but if you've not seen it I'd suggest tracking it down.

Maybe someone more literate than me can post it up here.

 

[mattitouk]

Well, i have no idea in terms of what the additional cost would be to train & arm any police officers that would personally prefer to carry a fire arm on duty, but I do think there should be room in the budget for it if there was a policy change. I hold all the emergency services in the same high regard as I do the NHS staff and teachers as being the core of our national beliefs of what makes this country great.

Say if scrapping / re-directing just some of our overseas aid to countries such as India (a country that has its own space program & nuclear weapons) would save us £175 Million a year, i'm fully behind it, if it makes us all and our children live in a safer society than we currently do today.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Well, i have no idea in terms of what the additional cost would be to train & arm any police officers that would personally prefer to carry a fire arm on duty, but I do think there should be room in the budget for it if there was a policy change. I hold all the emergency services in the same high regard as I do the NHS staff and teachers as being the core of our national beliefs of what makes this country great.

Say if scrapping / re-directing just some of our overseas aid to countries such as India (a country that has its own space program & nuclear weapons) would save us £175 Million a year, i'm fully behind it, if it makes us all and our children live in a safer society than we currently do today.

Foreign aid is tiny. When you look at national spending all amounts sound a lot, but the reality is that foreign aid is relatively tiny. It's also not just about giving free stuff, it is making connections, creating new markets for trade, gaining an influence - this is why no serious political party look at ending it - because it creates value, it is not just money sent abroad - the end. Yes it should be much better managed and targeted, but it's a small amount and it's a stick used by people like Farage to make out that we are all being ripped off and they are here to save us.

 

[mattitouk]

Like I said, I don't pretend to know anything about the costs involved, but I believe we spend 0.7% of our national income on over seas aid. Again I have know I idea what 0.7% is in terms of money??.

And i'm not suggesting we stop it all countries, my point being is if a British policeman would prefer to be armed (but we couldn't afford it) I would prefer we shifted the pot of money around if it would make our streets safer, in which case, then i'm all for it! even if that means our lack of funds would effect India's space program to put a man on the moon.

Anyway, whats your stance on it ***? For the record, i'm the only voter (so far) that voted for "don't know".

I see both sides to the story, I'm proud that we are one of the few major countries in the world that don't have generic armed police walking the street, and to add to that, I think that arming the Police will only mean that gangsters and terrorists will have to up their game in terms of fire power to counter act it.

Yet on the other hand, it could be argued that the policeman that died outside the houses of parliament about 2 months ago could have survived if he was carrying a side arm. & also the other policeman that got stabbed in the face on London Bridge whilst taking on a knife wielding terrorist when he was just carrying just a truncheon as protection.

 

[rigsby]

Like I said, I don't pretend to know anything about the costs involved, but I believe we spend 0.7% of our national income on over seas aid. Again I have know I idea what 0.7% is in terms of money??.

And i'm not suggesting we stop it all countries, my point being is if a British policeman would prefer to be armed (but we couldn't afford it) I would prefer we shifted the pot of money around if it would make our streets safer, in which case, then i'm all for it! even if that means our lack of funds would effect India's space program to put a man on the moon.

Anyway, whats your stance on it ***? For the record, i'm the only voter (so far) that voted for "don't know".

I see both sides to the story, I'm proud that we are one of the few major countries in the world that don't have generic armed police walking the street, and to add to that, I think that arming the Police will only mean that gangsters and terrorists will have to up their game in terms of fire power to counter act it.

Yet on the other hand, it could be argued that the policeman that died outside the houses of parliament about 2 months ago could have survived if he was carrying a side arm. & also the other policeman that got stabbed in the face on London Bridge whilst taking on a knife wielding terrorist when he was just carrying just a truncheon as protection.

Never understood this argument. We are not the US so criminals and terrorists can't easily get hold of guns, if the could we would have had over 100 dead on Saturday night.

Police are armed all over Europe as well as most of their security guards, in Hospitals, hotels etc. Europe don't have problems with kids being shot by police and neither does Britain. Yes it will upset a few lefties because they hate the police anyway and are only using the underfunding argument to Tory bash.

The fact is we don't have nowhere near enough armed police to deal with the situation we now face. To expect police to patrol the streets of London and even guard the house of commons unarmed is murder and not just for them but for the public to.

 

[Napster]

Of course not. It's the thin end of the wedge. Giving more power to the security forces makes us more subservient to those who wield that power.

 

[mattitouk]

It's being mention across the press that more armed police numbers could be cut, The MDP (Ministry Of Defence Police) that guard Trident and whom are called in to assist in times of national security (such as the recent terrorist attacks) in order to make a further £12.5M saving to the government purse.

 

[MK Shrimper]

Yay, vote Tory to make this country less safe to terrorism. :thumbsup:

 

[Perth Bambi]

Australian police all carry firearms. There aren't hundreds of firearm waving criminals running around and there aren't loads of kids with water pistols getting shot. Its a bit of a ridiculous leap to make.