Attacks in London

[SocketRocket]

I am now leaving this thread as it seems my view is annoying a number of members.
There seems no valid point to keep reiterating different views that are not going to converge so I would respectfully request we leave the issue of arming Police now as it's going nowhere.

Thanks.

 

[Old Skier]

SR how far did you want to go with arming the boys in blue. The German police in Berlin used to go around with Charlie G's, Claymores, handgrenades and other assorted weaponary in the back of their vehicles.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

To be honest Phil, i can not remember , i am in tonight so will ask (if i get time.)

Had a good chat with one of the guys i used to play hockey with who is now on the motorways in regard arming - he was in the belief of the specialist response units. All it would take is one person to get hold of a policemans firearm and the consequences could be awful. I expect for your average person it's prob very hard to get hold of a firearm - putting them on a policeman puts them withing reaching distance maybe ?

 

[SocketRocket]

Then for someone who appears to be a smart person the simple answer for you is that anyone you don't want to answer or maybe you can't because the question is too tough - don't respond , meet it with silence but just because you post towards SILH and others in the EU threads with a high and almighty attitude doesn't mean you can do it on every thread.

Oh Dear!

 

[Fish]

On your point of European police, France isbroken into 3 divisions, they have the Gendarmerie who are almost army like with a huge array of weapons to use and do carry all the time, you then have the National police who have a lesser choice of weapons and dont all carry but do in sensative or hotspot areas, and then you have the local Municipal police who don't carry at all!

So there's 1 European country that isn't a straight like for like comparison to make.

 

[Old Skier]

German plod all have side arms but they aren't allowed bullets in case they take over Europe again. That didn't work

 

[Midnight]

Had a good chat with one of the guys i used to play hockey with who is now on the motorways in regard arming - he was in the belief of the specialist response units. All it would take is one person to get hold of a policemans firearm and the consequences could be awful. I expect for your average person it's prob very hard to get hold of a firearm - putting them on a policeman puts them withing reaching distance maybe ?

I would agree with this Phil. There are some very,very good officers who I am happy to work with but i would worry if they had a firearm.

 

[Fish]

I just read about the attack in France 2015 when 2 UNARMED police officers were gunned down, it went on to say that even if they had been armed with side arms it would have made no difference as they were quickly gunned down by AK-47's and they would never have had the opportunity to draw their weapons!

 

[williamalex1]

I am now leaving this thread as it seems my view is annoying a number of members.
There seems no valid point to keep reiterating different views that are not going to converge so I would respectfully request we leave the issue of arming Police now as it's going nowhere.

Thanks.

:whoo:

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Met Police Federation has just finished a survey in Jan from it's members about being fully armed.

Article also states last poll had 58% of the public in favour of fully armed police.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...sked-want-carry-guns-wake-terror-attacks/amp/

 

[MegaSteve]

Article also states last poll had 58% of the public in favour of fully armed police.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...sked-want-carry-guns-wake-terror-attacks/amp/

Surely that's 58% of those polled rather than 58% of the public...

And, can we trust polls in light of recent outcomes...

 

[NWJocko]

I was pretty close to this on Wednesday last week in London.

Firstly, horrendous for those injured and killed either doing their job or enjoying the City.

The speed of response was hugely impressive with armed police and units seemingly appearing from nowhere to fill the streets and stations. I made my way back across the City asap and couldn't believe how many armed police were around in general and (I guess) at potential other targets.

In terms of arming all police officers, based on the response I saw that reinforced my previous thoughts I don't think it's necessary. Having the right people/units in the right places for rapid response would seem be the most important thing IMO.

I'm quite surprised the poor PC who lost his life wasn't armed purely because of their position but there are people far better qualified than I am to assess which police "on the street" require arming and where specific armed units need to be etc.

 

[Leftie]

Met Police Federation has just finished a survey in Jan from it's members about being fully armed.

Article also states last poll had 58% of the public in favour of fully armed police.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...sked-want-carry-guns-wake-terror-attacks/amp/

"At a glance | Armed police around the world
America
Police in the United States routinely carry a handgun while on duty, and can also be required to have an off-duty weapon. Several hundred people a year are shot dead by police officers.

France
Members of the National Police and the Gendarmerie are usually required to carry a handgun when on duty.

Germany
Police are armed and are also allowed to carry their department issued firearms while off-duty.

Norway, Iceland, New Zealand, Ireland and Britain
Most police officers are unarmed while on patrol.

Brazil
Police are armed and shoot thousands of people a year."

Just one of several reasons why not all police should be armed. (Not, I hasten to add, that I believe that the British Bobbies would ever be as gung-ho as the American police)

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I've not commented much at all on this is far - and haven't got back through 20 pages of posts.

But just in respect of how we view and react to terrorist attacks such as this. I take a rather pragmatic view. 100yrs ago very few were dying as a result of car accidents - in fact it was 'just' 120yrs ago that saw the very first death.

Today? Deaths in vehicle road accidents are unfortunately commonplace - with over 1700 fatalities in 2013. This is an unfortunate fact of life that we accept - and indeed it is a fact of life that is not absolutely inevitable as we could halt that immediately were we to get rid of road traffic.

And multiple fatalities are not unusual. So four fatalities as a result of a crash on the M4 (say). It is tragic for the families but not deemed tragic for wider society. We do not stop driving on the M4 or on other motorways. The authorities look at the accident for the cause and if lessons can be learned. But each and every one of us knows the risks associated with driving - and we know the steps we have to take to minimise the likelihood that we will be involved in such an accident, we can't prevent us being involved - but we can minimise the risk. We know what to do - we know what NOT to do.

And so I see it with terrorist attacks of the nature of last week.

We accept that there will now always be a risk. But we know what to do ourselves to minimise the risk, and we know that the authorities will also be looking into what to do to minimise and counter it.

And we get on with living. We don't go around patting ourselves on the back for doing so - for were we to do that then that adds kudos to the acts and to those perpetrating such acts.

 

[Snelly]

I am in favour of all police officers being armed. I suspect many more on this forum are as well but do not want to be on the receiving end of a torrent of criticism.

 

[drdel]

Last week's incident was unlikely to have been a planned acted of terror. Containment was achieved by an armed officer on the spot. These rogue fanatics and criminals will not sit around and wait for an armed response team before causing maybe.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I am in favour of all police officers being armed. I suspect many more on this forum are as well but do not want to be on the receiving end of a torrent of criticism.

Not for it. My understanding and experience of armed police in the US and on the continent is that you just do not approach them so readily and unless you have a problem. And on their side they are much less accepting of your approach and will ask you to not get close (risk of you grabbing their gun?).

The fact that we can all just wander up to a police officer for a chat - and maybe a hug or a laugh - is what makes our police force special; that officers do not generally feel threatened by a member of the public approaching them. That is for me at the core what is oft said about our policing - but not so well understood - in the UK we do policing by consent.

 

[Snelly]

Not for it. My understanding and experience of armed police in the US and on the continent is that you just do not approach them so readily and unless you have a problem. And on their side they are much less accepting of your approach and will ask you to not get close (risk of you grabbing their gun?).

The fact that we can all just wander up to a police officer for a chat - and maybe a hug or a laugh - is what makes our police force special; that officers do not generally feel threatened by a member of the public approaching them. That is for me at the core what is oft said about our policing - but not so well understood - in the UK we do policing by consent.

When I say I am in favour, I think what I really mean is I would not object to it. Am fairly agnostic about it.

And I certainly don't feel the US police are anything massively different to ours and am in the States often. Then again, I am not young, poor and black.