Arming British Police

[tacklebry]

This is the age old question in the United Kingdom which raises hard line views on both sides of the fence -
Should all British Police Officers be armed?

A recent poll of officers equivalent to 57,000 believe that their lives have been placed in serious danger by a member of the public at least once in the last two years. ( There are about 130,000 Police officers in the U.K.)

A poll carried out by the Police Federation For England and Wales questioned only 20% of officers. 78% of these officers stated that they did not wish to be routinely armed.

Gun crime in the U.K. has spiralled up by 35% over the period 2001 to 2002. Violence is increasing too and it is Police Officers on the ground who are called in to deal with these incidents, often at great personal risk of death or serious injury armed only with their mouth, a 21 or 24 inch baton and a can of CS / pepper spray. Two Police officers this year alone have been murdered in such incidents.

Some findings of the report were -
1) 30% of officers have been threatened with a knife at least once in the last two years.
2) 40% of officers have been threatened with another weapon at least once in the last two years.
3) 7.4% of officers have been threatened with a gun at least once in the last two years. ( That is about 9800 officers )
4) 40% of officers have been subject to criminal assault by a member of the public whilst making a lawful arrest in the last two years.

Figures over a nearly four year period from January 1998 to November 2001 show that out of a total of 44,871 times when Police were issued with firearms, there were 11 fatal shootings. that is equal to one fatal incident per 4079 incidents.

Over the last five year period to 2002, the number of firearms officers reduced by 809. Over the same period gun crime has soared.

MY VIEWS
From the outset I have presented the facts as above. I would prefer to be armed with a sidearm. At the moment I am employed in the role of Police Constable on a Roads Policing Unit. Part of this role is pursuit of vehicles. These vehicles maybe stolen or involved in crime, but as we all know inocent people don't tend to run from the Police. Yes the County I work in does have two, two officer firearms units on 24 hours a day, but they can be 30 minutes away if not more. We are given a baton and spray to protect ourselves. We are also given body armour which will stop a high powered round. THis causes me some concern as it shows that the government agree that i could get shot, but they will not give me the tools to defend myself or other members of the public. If I stop a car with a drugs dealer or armed robber in it, do I stand there and say "PLEASE DON'T SHOOT, YOU'LL HAVE TO WAIT FOR MY FRIENDS WITH GUNS TO ARRIVE SO IT'S MORE FAIR!" - I DON'T THINK SO!
I am then left with two options 1) tackle a person armed with a gun with words, a stick and a spray or 2) RUN!
Lets put it this way, I am no Olympic sprinter so I may end up another statistic. Which brings me onto my point. How many officers are going to have to get killed before British Police Officers are at least given the option of whether or not they want to carry a firearm. I think if we were at least given the option on a daily basis and not forced to carry them, then more than 22% of officers would carry.

I look forward to reading the views of other officers especialy those of you who are routinely armed.

[gumshoe4]

I mean no offense, sir, but how many of your own citizens are asking the same questions on their own behalf, now that the level of gun violence against both citizens and cops is rising in Britain as a direct result of your wide-sweeping gun bans?

I respectfully note that Britain has incarcerated a law-abiding citizen who used a shotgun to defend himself against violent attack by two street hoods who were armed with blades or screwdrivers. Apparently, the court found that British subjects are not authorized to use lethal force to protect themselves from violent attack, despite centuries of British jurisprudence to the contrary.

I also have many misgivings about the government possessing the only weapons, as in Britain and elsewhere, and I see no reason why British cops need weapons when, by statute, their citizenry has been completely disarmed.

Sorry to start it off with a bang. I have great respect for the British people and I greatly appreciate your contribution of men at arms in the Iraqi matter. I am sure I'll get flamed over this, but you asked for opinions and I'm giving you mine.

Bob

[Delta_V]

IMO, I don't see how police officers would agree to do the job unarmed. But that said, I live in the US, which has a vastly different view toward firearms than that of Great Britain. I believe that most British officers don't want to be armed simply because they either don't like or aren't familiar with firearms.

As Bob pointed out, since the far-reaching gun bans in the UK, crime (especially violent crime) has risen to very high levels. One can easily deduce from these statistics that gun bans don't do anything to reduce crime.

The problem that I see lies with your government's view on gun ownership. In the US, there is a constitutional right for citizens to own firearms. Many of us in this country value this right greatly. In the UK, your government does not only prohibit most citizens from owning guns, but it doesn't recognize the need for the average LEO to carry a firearm.

As I said, I just can't see LEOs not being armed. I'm not that familiar with international LE, but I would venture to say that the UK is one of very few places in the world that does not arm its LEOs. Either way, it really doesn't effect me so I don't care. Britian is a prime example of how gun bans don't work, and the British people (and British LEOs) are finding this out the hard way.

[Phillyhopeful]

As said before, in this thread and others, wide sweeping gun bans coupled with skyrocketing crime show that laws will not stop criminals from having and using guns. "Oh, guns are illegal? Oh, my. I'll just have to commit my crimes with a carrot then." Banning guns, and not allowing LEOs to carry guns basically gives criminals the advantage.

England's LEOs should be able to choose whether to carry a gun or not, or a grandfather program should be implemented where all new LEOs must carry, but grandfathered ones can choose not to.

[Kentuckian]

Hey tacklebry, I'm all for you guys being armed. I like the saying, "It's better to have it and not need it, than it is to need it, and not have it". I've got three cousins in England, who I haven't seen in a LOT of years. Next time they come to the states, maybe I will take them out to the range for some shooting?

Oh, by the way, I have a fine 'New in Box' condition (refurbished) .455 Calibre Mark 1 Webley revolver.....this is one of the ones that England gave away when you all were disarming.

If you know someone there with a Webley-Greene that they don't want, I would be glad to take it off of their hands...:)

[snocodet]

If I was a criminal in England, I would have a gun and use it routinely. I know the chances of running into a cop that has a gun are slim and I win, since I have the gun. Speaking as a cop from the US, I wouldn't do this job in a place that handicaps me to the point where my life is endangered. Maybe you should think of moving here and getting a job in the US?

[Cockney Corner]

Speaking as a Police Constable in Intervention (Patrol), I am of the opinion that officers should be armed if they want to be. I personally see no need to be but I deeply resent the most commonly used argument against routine arming, namely that the average officer can't be trusted with a firearm.

[tacklebry]

Another point to note is that the PSNI have no problem with recruits failing shooting range tests so why should the rest of the UK. The aother argument that it will change the way the public will be towards us....you mean we may be respected more? But this argument was used prior to the issue of CS sprays. The doom and gloom merchants came up with all these theories that the public would not trust us and we would be un approachable....and are we? I don't think so. CS is just another tool on your belt as a sidearm would be.

[Cockney Corner]

The one draw-back I can see is that the number of kids who come up to you and demand to try out your baton/handcuffs/spray/radio, will increase exponentially if we have guns. Mind you, lots of people seem to believe the CS is a firearm of some description anyway (yes, I know it is technically one for the purposes of English law ...)

[snocodet]

Originally posted by Cockney Corner
The one draw-back I can see is that the number of kids who come up to you and demand to try out your baton/handcuffs/spray/radio, will increase exponentially if we have guns. Mind you, lots of people seem to believe the CS is a firearm of some description anyway (yes, I know it is technically one for the purposes of English law ...)

I just tell the kids that I only use my equipment of bad guys. That is usually good enough for them.

[Huey14]

Didnt the guy who shot the burglers shoot them in the back? Im not 100% on this, just something I heard 3rd hand.

[tacklebry]

Originally posted by Huey14
Didnt the guy who shot the burglers shoot them in the back? Im not 100% on this, just something I heard 3rd hand.

Yes Tony Martin did shoot the TGB in the back, hence why he got convicted as the boy was running away and offering no immediate threat to him. Had the boy been facing him or coming towards him then he may not have been convicted. The fact was that although I agree you should have a right to defend your own home, you cannot shoot someone in the back if they are leaving. The other side to it was that Tony Martin had illegal firearms and was not licenced.
He was lucky to get away with the sentence that he did because now, illegal possession of a firearm carries a minimum 5 year jail term.
The strange thing is that this has to be for section 5 fire arms as well as section 1. As things like sub machine guns and automatic weapons fall into section 5 fire arms, you would think that this was correct, but imagine getting put inside for 5 years for possession of CS spray which as Cockney said, is a section 5 firearm!
Strange but true.:rolleyes:

[Huey14]

Thanks. Im going to look that case up and have a geez at the what the media say about it. Sounds interesting.

[Sleuth]

Everyone on your side of the pond needs to understand that firearms are a tool, and an option. As an armed officer in the US, and a 25 year firearms instructor, I spent considerable time teaching not just the how, but the when of firearms use. I have drawn my gun on some occasions, but never had to fire a shot. In the cases where shots were fired in my agency, only in one case in my career were the officers wrong. So that is over 6,000 armed officers X 26 years on the job, and only one bad shooting. Yet lots of our officers are alive because they had a handgun and knew when and how to use it.

YES, you should be trained and armed - then perhaps crime in the UK will go down. And for sure fewer officers will need to die. It is only a question of when, not if, you will be armed - before or after another officer dies?

[Cockney Corner]

Other than England, Scotland and Wales and (I think) the Republic of Ireland, is anyone aware of any country where the Police don't routinely carry firearms (or at least have access to them in their patrol vehicles with the authority to self arm, which I think is the situation in one or two Scandanvian countries)?

[Huey14]

NZ dont CC, except for DPS and Airport from what Ive noticed.

[PeteBroccolo]

I voted yes - I figure, if those of us in the more Northern, younger, of the 2 former colonies, get to carry on duty, so should the girls and boys in the Kingdom. I would have sent you my .38 Spl, but apparently that would have been unseemly!