Should the police be armed

[cowasaki]

Taken from this thread: http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=436186&page=2

I have created a thread specifically for the discussion on whether or not police should be armed, obviously some of the first posts might be commenting on other posts that are not here but it should be ok.

 

[neil_g]

my thoughts are with the families of these police officers. its about time all police officers were armed in the uk.

agreed. if these female officers were armed there may have been more chance of getting him in custody the first attempt.

thoughts to the families..

 

[Garry Edwards]

This is terrible news and a reminder of the danger that police officers can be subjected to. My thoughts are with their families.

It reminds me of the shooting of two other female police officers in Bradford, during an armed robbery.

Personally though, I wouldn't be happy for all police officers to be routinely armed with handguns, and I believe that most police officers don't want it either. The best answer may be for more police officers to be armed with non-lethal tasers - but the only real answer is to do more to stop guns getting into the hands of criminals, and for the Courts to pass down much more severe sentences when criminals are caught with guns. There is a mandatory 5 year sentence for illegal possession of a firearm, but the Courts seem to routinely ignore this...

 

[cambsno]

There is a huge fault in the law where you carry a knife and you get let off, and as Garry says, you carry a gun and you get nothing or very little. Trouble is there are probably a number of people with Grandads old WW2 pistol who if caught would probably get 5 years, but who pose no risk, yet the villan caught with one in the street would get let off.

I think MORE (not all) officers should be armed, and surely at any action involving arresting people like this should have armed police present. Trouble is there is always less reaction to this (2 decent law abiding people being shot) than the criminal getting shot last year which resulted in the riots.

 

[Garry Edwards]

But I don't think it's as bad as you assume it to be. The fact that most of the handguns used by criminals are in fact blank firers or airguns that have been converted to fire just one round indicates this. Things are improving, it is now extremely difficult for criminals to get the ingredients to make ammunition (since the murder of PC Ian Broadhurst in 1993) and both firearms dealers and legitimate firearms owners keep their ammunition very secure, and guns can't be fired by criminals unless they can get the ammunition for them.

 

[pepi1967]

Very sad day

But more guns will not solve anything.

no very true but atleast it will give the police officers a fighing chance.

 

[johnny8977]

Speaking from experience, yes I'm a cop, and from working in a big city, guns are generally uncommon - although I've personally arrested someone in possession of a handgun for armed robbery and stopped someone routinely and found a handgun (I was unarmed).

Knives, bats and a whole host of inventive weapons are the biggest risk.

We work alone now most of the time (looks like there's twice as many you see ) and most of us would prefer to be armed with Taser. Its excellent and believe it or not, the person is far less likely to suffer injury that when being hit with a metal asp or even just taken to the floor. But the big plus of it, most violent offenders suddenly lose all interest when 'red dotted' and will happily out their hands behind their backs.

However, they cost £700 each plus the training. But remember, the cuts don't affect frontline policing.

 

[Bernie174]

but as for the second- I rather hope not. It's likely to encourage the likes of the scrotes that we visited this morning to arm themselves.

Its not as if not arming police officers has worked well has it?

I'm not in favour of blanket arming, which seems to put me out of step with most currently serving officers. But I do want to see far more armed Police, based at response team level, and tazers for all officers.

 

[AllyB999]

Tazers or even the beanbag shotguns, would certainly make folks think twice about attacking an officer. Of course would need to be vehicle patrols with the beanbag shotguns.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Its not as if not arming police officers has worked well has it?

I'm not in favour of blanket arming, which seems to put me out of step with most currently serving officers. But I do want to see far more armed Police, based at response team level, and tazers for all officers.

I don't think that you are out of step. From memory, 86% of frontline police officers were against routine arming last time they were asked.

It actually takes a very special kind of person (not specially good or specially bad, just someone who is very different from the norm) to actually point a gun at someone and, by association, to be prepared to kill them. People sometimes need to make life or death decisions extremely quickly, and without any thought for the consequences that they personally will suffer. And I don't think that the average police officer is the type of person who would be happy to do that - which is not a criticism of police officers.

And then there is the risk to innocent members of the public, bullets don't have homing devices that magically ensure that they only hit the bad guys. And only a tiny minority of experienced pistol shooters can shoot with accuracy, even when someone isn't shooting back at them - it's nothing like the movies.

And then there is the type of handgun that would be issued - so-called automatics are inherently unreliable, especially in less than expert hands, which leaves us with revolvers, which tend to be very reliable. But most revolvers can only take 6 rounds, for obvious safety reasons the hammer must always be on an empty chamber, leaving just 5 live rounds - and as it takes, on average, 3 handgun rounds actually hitting someone in the head or upper torso to stop them, 5 isn't very many.

And then there's the training, there would need to be at least one full day a month, on an ongoing basis.

And then there's the cost, a government that won't even pay for sufficient numbers of unarmed officers isn't likely to pay the increased cost of armed ones.

And then there's the risk of more handguns ending up in criminal hands...

It just ain't gonna happen.

 

[Bernie174]

Garry

From my experience, which was a vote in the 90's it was 60% against being armed. However, I also know a lot of of police officers, many of who voted in that poll, who've since changed their minds.
I'd suggest you read Insp Gadgets blog to see how much feeling there is in favour nowadays.
So having dealt with my opinion being out of step, next lets look at facts.
My last station, 70% of officers were armed. Mostly with handguns, glock's to be exact. So 70% of officers at that station were the type to make that decision, just as I was quite willing to make the decision to clout someone with an asp, and if necessary clout them in a way that may well have killed them.
So in short my point is I did the job and know the mindset intimately of those that do it. You're wrong.
Going back to the type of pistol, yes, badly maintained, automatics can be unreliable. Well maintained they are not. Certainly every European Police Force that use them, ie most, don't have an issue. Why would the UK Police be any different? The issue of using revolvers therefore doesn't arise.
Cost of purchase? Bit late to worry about that.
The only other cost is training. Easily solved, stop wasting money on diversity training, and use it for self defence in all it's forms. After all, you can't be nice to Gypsies if your laying dead.
My only concern is the repercussions of using a gun, which is why I refused to carry one. The likes of Duggan, I assume you've now seen the news about him, and seen the error of your previous conjecture about him, shows that even when properly used, people will insist in believing the Guardian's inaccurate tripe rather than waiting until the evidence is made public.
Until a better system than the incompetent "I"PCC is put in place, I wouldn't carry a firearm. Thats not to say that I support "Judge Dread" Policing, it simply means that I do not support trial by media and trial by rumour, I do support quick and proper investigations conducted by those with experience and knowledge.

 

[Dave *]

And then there is the type of handgun that would be issued - so-called automatics are inherently unreliable, especially in less than expert hands, which leaves us with revolvers, which tend to be very reliable. But most revolvers can only take 6 rounds, for obvious safety reasons the hammer must always be on an empty chamber, leaving just 5 live rounds - and as it takes, on average, 3 handgun rounds actually hitting someone in the head or upper torso to stop them, 5 isn't very many.

Without derailing the thread, everything written in that passage is incorrect.

 

[big soft moose]

Without derailing the thread, everything written in that passage is incorrect.

yep - chances are that officers would be issued with glock semi-automatics (which is what most currently armed police carry) - which carry 11 in the magazine and potentially one in the chamber. They arent inherently unreliable - the only proviso being that you cant fire one in your pocket because the slide will snag (not relevant to armed police anyway)

the idea of a revolver always having to be on an empty cylinder is silly - if the hammers down its safe anyway regardless of whether its on a round or not

and one well placed round will bring even an adult male down

but this isnt the place for an indepth discussion of firearms and their use

 

[big soft moose]

I'm actually in favour of more armed police on the streets - the criminals are armed anyway so the argument that it would make therm more likely to be is falacious

However that said the two WPCs this morning could have been loaded for bear and it wouldnt have made any difference - if someone throws a grenade at you , a glock semi auto is not going to make much difference

 

[Garry Edwards]

Garry

From my experience, which was a vote in the 90's it was 60% against being armed. However, I also know a lot of of police officers, many of who voted in that poll, who've since changed their minds.
I'd suggest you read Insp Gadgets blog to see how much feeling there is in favour nowadays.
So having dealt with my opinion being out of step, next lets look at facts.
My last station, 70% of officers were armed. Mostly with handguns, glock's to be exact. So 70% of officers at that station were the type to make that decision, just as I was quite willing to make the decision to clout someone with an asp, and if necessary clout them in a way that may well have killed them.
So in short my point is I did the job and know the mindset intimately of those that do it. You're wrong.
Going back to the type of pistol, yes, badly maintained, automatics can be unreliable. Well maintained they are not. Certainly every European Police Force that use them, ie most, don't have an issue. Why would the UK Police be any different? The issue of using revolvers therefore doesn't arise.
Cost of purchase? Bit late to worry about that.
The only other cost is training. Easily solved, stop wasting money on diversity training, and use it for self defence in all it's forms. After all, you can't be nice to Gypsies if your laying dead.
My only concern is the repercussions of using a gun, which is why I refused to carry one. The likes of Duggan, I assume you've now seen the news about him, and seen the error of your previous conjecture about him, shows that even when properly used, people will insist in believing the Guardian's inaccurate tripe rather than waiting until the evidence is made public.
Until a better system than the incompetent "I"PCC is put in place, I wouldn't carry a firearm. Thats not to say that I support "Judge Dread" Policing, it simply means that I do not support trial by media and trial by rumour, I do support quick and proper investigations conducted by those with experience and knowledge.

Bernie,
Why do you keep doing this?
Why is it that every time someone writes anything about the police you have to tell them that they are wrong, have no idea what they're talking about and that you are the resident expert on all things police?
Nobody here is knocking the police in any way, you have absolutely nothing to defend.

As for being wrong about the percentage of police who are against being routinely armed, I think this quote from the Police Federation report in 2006 - not the 1990's says it all

The response rate was high and the message emphatic. An overwhelming majority of 82 per cent stated that they do not want all officers to be routinely armed on duty.

As for 'Inspector Gadget' yes, I have read some of his nonsense but I don't believe that his views are those of the average police officer. I certainly hope they aren't. The last opinion of his that I read was on the eviction of the Dale Farm 'Travellers', I really can't take him seriously after that.

As for automatics, it doesn't matter how well maintained they are, if the slide spring breaks they become a priest, not a gun. And if they aren't held correctly they can jam. And in a stressful situation, these things can and do happen. Ask PC Jim Beaton about that, fortunately he survived.

the idea of a revolver always having to be on an empty cylinder is silly - if the hammers down its safe anyway regardless of whether its on a round or not

The hammer is only safe down on an empty cylinder, when there is a live round there, accidentally catching the hammer can result in an accidental discharge. It has happened many times, especially as the gun is being removed from a holster.
I'm actually in favour of more armed police on the streets - the criminals are armed anyway so the argument that it would make therm more likely to be is falacious

However that said the two WPCs this morning could have been loaded for bear and it wouldnt have made any difference - if someone throws a grenade at you , a glock semi auto is not going to make much difference

You're right. And sadly there is absolutely nothing that can be done to prevent this kind of senseless brutality.

 

[big soft moose]

on the issue of whether police should be armed - I don't think all police should be routinely armed on duty - as this is unnecessary , however there should be a larger pool of officers who are trained to carry when necessary , and enough armed officers available that if gunshots are reported they don't wind up being investigated by someone armed only with a tasco.

to be fair as i said before its doubtful whether being armed would have helped the WPCs today - its vaguely possible that had they been they might have got the drop on todays perpetrator before he threw the grenade, but given it was essentiaslly a cold blooded ambush this is quite unlikely - but that doesnt mean that the next unfortunately unarmed cop to get shot at might not be saved by being able to shoot back

 

[neil_g]

Blimey did I really start this?

 

[gramps]

I do support quick and proper investigations conducted by those with experience and knowledge.

Wasn't that why the likes of the IPCC was formed in the first place?

 

[ChrisMClark]

Should the police be armed? I'd say so now, yes. The argument of 'arm the police & the crims will just arm themselves' is no longer valid; it's painfully obvious the criminals are already arming themselves. Criminals don't want to get slotted; in my opinion the reason that this scumbag handed himself in is becuase he didn't like the idea of having armed police to deal with, and knew full well that they wouldn't be looking for a 'friendly chat'. Pure cowardice in my book.

To the question 'would it have saved the 2 brave WPCs if they were armed?': In all likelyhood no. They were ambushed, and even if they could have chucked a few rounds back there's no defence against a grenade in this situation. They were up against 2 enemies who had time to conceal their position and prepare an ambush; it was never going to end well. They may as well have walked into a war zone. May they both rest in peace.

 

[Lynton]

hmm all a bit disjointed for obvious reasons.....

OK - no affiliation to the police whatsoever, last time I fired a gun, was a shotgun and clay pigeons and real rabbits and pheasants........

Personally, I would leave the decision to each Policeman/woman as if they wanted a truncheon / taser / short arms....

PCSO's imo is a different kettle of fish...

I would also push for more rapid response / armed response vehicles to have heavier guns on board... be it MP80 or equiv / bean bag gun / 12 bore.. I am not in a position to decide, and more leniant rules regs of when can those threats be utilised......

However for what 90% or so or current armed police could deploy at once today, those 2 police ladies would not have stood a chance, if the media reports of grenade/s being used.

 

[big soft moose]

thing is - as bernie said on the other thread if we are going to arm the police we've also got to back them up when they pull the trigger - imo the principal reason so many cops are opposed to carrying on duty is that they fear a witch hunt if they do light an armed criminal up

 

[ChrisMClark]

However for what 90% or so or current armed police could deploy at once today, those 2 police ladies would not have stood a chance, if the media reports of grenade/s being used.

This, totally.

And it gives rise to another question re. police equipment:

As I understand it, your run-of-the-mill garden variety police officer is equipped with baton, radio etc, and a soft-armour stab vest. Should they wear ceramic plate & kevlar helmet when responding to a 999 call?

 

[2blue4u]

I used to be very much against the wider use of firearms by our Police but not any more. And I blame the failed and highly flawed judiciary. Where's the deterrent? The system now allows multiple cautions for what I would regard as serious crimes. There was a time when a scrote would only be allowed a single caution. The entire system is broken and it needs fixing - and funding. Because of the greater number of weapons now on the streets, and the people willing to use them, we need a much wider use of firearms.

The discussion about the exact type of firearm used by the Police is something of a red herring, IMHO. As someone who has carried firearms, both overtly and covertly, on the streets, I would say that all these weapons are safe when used by fully trained officers who undergo a continuous programme of training and testing. Conversely, without comprehensive training, all of these weapons are extremely dangerous.

 

[joebh123]

I don't think that you are out of step. From memory, 86% of frontline police officers were against routine arming last time they were asked.

It actually takes a very special kind of person (not specially good or specially bad, just someone who is very different from the norm) to actually point a gun at someone and, by association, to be prepared to kill them. People sometimes need to make life or death decisions extremely quickly, and without any thought for the consequences that they personally will suffer. And I don't think that the average police officer is the type of person who would be happy to do that - which is not a criticism of police officers.

And then there is the risk to innocent members of the public, bullets don't have homing devices that magically ensure that they only hit the bad guys. And only a tiny minority of experienced pistol shooters can shoot with accuracy, even when someone isn't shooting back at them - it's nothing like the movies.

And then there is the type of handgun that would be issued - so-called automatics are inherently unreliable, especially in less than expert hands, which leaves us with revolvers, which tend to be very reliable. But most revolvers can only take 6 rounds, for obvious safety reasons the hammer must always be on an empty chamber, leaving just 5 live rounds - and as it takes, on average, 3 handgun rounds actually hitting someone in the head or upper torso to stop them, 5 isn't very many.

And then there's the training, there would need to be at least one full day a month, on an ongoing basis.

And then there's the cost, a government that won't even pay for sufficient numbers of unarmed officers isn't likely to pay the increased cost of armed ones.

And then there's the risk of more handguns ending up in criminal hands...

It just ain't gonna happen.

Garry, don't want to get into another argument with you but, think about it.

If you can name me more than a handful of armed police forces that still use a revolver, I'll give you this one. Semi-auto handguns are reliable, otherwise the vast majority wouldn't use them.

You know as well as I do that if you look after your weapon, It will look after you.

Joe

 

[TriggerHappy]

Can people provide a reliable source to support that there are more 'weapons' about?

 

[big soft moose]

Can people provide a reliable source to support that there are more 'weapons' about?

umm - well there was the small matter of a headcase with a gun and grenade this morning :shrug:

 

[AllyB999]

As for police equipment, you can only wear so much protection then the protection becomes a hazard itself. Would have required an armoured car and for the two police officers to be in it, to stand a chance of surviving a grenade attack.

In my time in the army (80s god I feel old), wearing flak jackets and skid lids was very uncomfortable, hot, sweaty and knackered you out quickly. So not really a realistic idea for the common copper on the beat.

 

[Splog]

Can people provide a reliable source to support that there are more 'weapons' about?

Considering that most are illegal and thus not recorded! ...... :shake:

 

[big soft moose]

Garry, don't want to get into another argument with you but, think about it.

If you can name me more than a handful of armed police forces that still use a revolver, I'll give you this one. Semi-auto handguns are reliable, otherwise the vast majority wouldn't use them.

You know as well as I do that if you look after your weapon, It will look after you.

Joe

not to mention that special forces nearly all use semi -automatic handguns - if its good enough for the SAS i'd say it would be good enough for the average cop.

as regards failures - theres a known issue with the slide shattering on old models of the beretta 92F, but i'm not aware of any recorded incidence of failures with the modern glock/sig/ steyr etc except where they've had substandard ammunition put through them (most jams are down to the bullets not the gun)

also garry was talking about the way the gun was held causing them to jam - this is an issue with fully automatic weapons if there is insufficient gas to throw the brass clear when the ejection port is upwards - leading to shell casings falling back inside and jamming the works (this was a known issue with the SA mk1) , but its incredibly unlikely with a semi automatic hand gun.

 

[TriggerHappy]

umm - well there was the small matter of a headcase with a gun and grenade this morning :shrug:

Which, to the best of our knowledge, wouldn't have been preventable even if every police officer in the force had been armed. :shrug:

I mean actual, solid, reliable evidence to justify statements that there are an increasing number of guns on the streets, rather than a knee-jerk reaction of things getting worse because of the tragic event today.

(For what it's worth I'm not arguing against more armed police, but let's at least have an attempt to justify opinions with something a little more substantive!)

 

[big soft moose]

As for police equipment, you can only wear so much protection then the protection becomes a hazard itself. Would have required an armoured car and for the two police officers to be in it, to stand a chance of surviving a grenade attack.

In my time in the army (80s god I feel old), wearing flak jackets and skid lids was very uncomfortable, hot, sweaty and knackered you out quickly. So not really a realistic idea for the common copper on the beat.

yep - dupont second chance titanium mail and spun kevlar vests (which you wear under your shirt not on top ) are the lightest reasonable protection but these cost about a grand a pop so they arent likely to be standard issue - they are also men only as they can't be made easily to fit the female form.

they'll protect you from pistol bullets and shrapnel - but not from rifle bullets at close range or blast - plus they only protect your torso so your neck and limbs are still vulnerable.

The only chance those cops this morning would have had would be to see their attackers and drop them before they could throw a grenade - but that would require a shoot first, if you think its hostile kill it, war fighting ROE , and cops never have that degree of freedom - they have to wait until they are sure , and against a cold ambush like this mornings case they'd have had no chance

 

[Rebel t3i]

perhaps this should be a poll
I don't think all police should be armed we already have air ports full of armed police and we have the armed response unit

 

[Keith W]

Please can we have a yes/no poll on this thread on the question of: Should the police be armed? for those that may not want to take part in the wider discussion.

 

[big soft moose]

from the BBC in 2008 ( I cant find anything more recent - i'm guessing home office research lags behind by about 4 years)

According to Home Office figures, there were 59 firearms-related homicides in 2006-07 compared with 49 in the previous year. That is an increase of 18% in just one year. There were 507 serious injuries from firearms - more than one incident a day.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Can people provide a reliable source to support that there are more 'weapons' about?

I think that there are probably less about, in the hands of criminals. But it'[s very hard to say, because there are no reliable statistics. I looked into this in detail a while back when I got involved with the Select Committee that followed the Bird shootings. Over the last 15 years or so ago the number of reported crimes involving guns has followed a steady downward trend. Nobody seems to know though whether it is a genuine downward trend or whether the figures are just even more chaotic than they appear to be.

For example, from memory no distinction is made between legally and illegally held firearms, although that may not be important as we know that there are hardly any crimes committed with legally held firearms.

A firearm is whatever someone says it is, so if a member of the public claims to have seen a firearm used in a crime then it is assumed that they did, unless it can be proved not to be. I have no evidence on this, but I think it's pretty obvious that public imagination, and toy guns, will have pushed the figures up a bit.

As for serious injuries caused by firearms, they are classed as serious if someone went to hospital. They may have bruised their big toe by dropping an airgun on it, but if they went to hospital then it's a serious injury.

 

[TriggerHappy]

I think that there are probably less about, in the hands of criminals. But it'[s very hard to say, because there are no reliable statistics. I looked into this in detail a while back when I got involved with the Select Committee that followed the Bird shootings. Over the last 15 years or so ago the number of reported crimes involving guns has followed a steady downward trend. Nobody seems to know though whether it is a genuine downward trend or whether the figures are just even more chaotic than they appear to be.

For example, from memory no distinction is made between legally and illegally held firearms, although that may not be important as we know that there are hardly any crimes committed with legally held firearms.

A firearm is whatever someone says it is, so if a member of the public claims to have seen a firearm used in a crime then it is assumed that they did, unless it can be proved not to be. I have no evidence on this, but I think it's pretty obvious that public imagination, and toy guns, will have pushed the figures up a bit.

As for serious injuries caused by firearms, they are classed as serious if someone went to hospital. They may have bruised their big toe by dropping an airgun on it, but if they went to hospital then it's a serious injury.

Thanks, that's much more the type of answer I was looking for (and it was a genuine question, not an antagonistic one before I get jumped on by someone).

I had a quick look myself after and found a few graphs charting a considerable downward trend from the 90s but a smaller increase in the years 06-08 and that seemed to be where most data ended.

I'm completely undecided whether more armed officers can provide a solution to the problems they face, or just create more problems. Hopefully a few more posts like yours will help me become more informed before I start to shape any type of opinion.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

from the BBC in 2008 ( I cant find anything more recent - i'm guessing home office research lags behind by about 4 years)

The official figures for Scotland (2011) show that gun crime up here is down by 50% since 2006. The weapon of choice for the discerning gangster now seems to be the cordless drill....

 

[big soft moose]

its also a downward trend nationally but an upward trend in some forces - according to home office figures in 06-08 nearly 90% of gun crime was in 3 forces (met, manchester, and nottinghamshire) with nottingham seeing the biggest rise

 

[Garry Edwards]

Glad it's useful, here is some more up to date and more detailed data - but as I say, the methods of collecting data and the definition of firearm are very loose.

UK Firearm Offences (of any kind, not just those causing death or damage) 2010/11:

Shotgun: 601
Handgun: 3,090
Rifle: 73 (Full power air rifle goes here)
Imitation firearms: 1,595
Other firearms: 1,647 (Sub-limit air rifles apparently fall in here, as do paintball guns.)

TOTAL: 7,006

7006/1,801,540 = 0.39% of firearms are used in a crime each year, if EVERY crime is committed with a legally-held firearm.

HOWEVER, it's actually more like (73+601)/1,801,540 = 0.037%, since rifles and shotguns are the main legal things on that list.

3,090/7006 = 44%, so nearly half of ALL offences with any firearm in the UK are committed with that specific type of already-illegal item.

ALL UK offences:

Violence against the person of ANY kind: 914,000 instances
Robbery: 76,576 instances

TOTAL crimes that could possibly involve firearms: 990,576
TOTAL crimes that actually might have involved a firearm : 7,009
Thus, a maximum of 0.07% of all violent crime of any sort could involve a firearm.
Since not all firearm offences are filed under violent crime, this figure is actually VERY HIGH.


To restrict this to just the fatal crimes:


United Kingdom Homicides 2009/10:

Unlawful killing: 1.75 per 100,000 population


United Kingdom Gun Homicides 2010:

Males: 7.8% of all unlawful deaths
Females: 4% Of all unlawful deaths
Overall: 5.9 % of all unlawful deaths.

Thus: 0.059*1.75 = 0.1 per 100,000 population. Literally one in a million people was killed by a firearm.

 

[CT]

I would hate to see the police armed across the board and I sincerely hope it doesn't happen. Not everyone has the temperament to use a firearm in high pressure situations and I can think of coppers I served with who would probably shoot you for double parking.

If the two female officers had been armed I very much doubt it would have saved them - it was a routine call and they had no reason to suspect anything untoward as they approached the house. The killer had the element of surprise and it's highly unlikely they'd have had time to draw a weapon anyway.

As it stands at present there are always armed officers on duty and available. Those officers nowadays do nothing else - the training is first class and they have regular training sessions. The level of fitness required to be accepted as a firearms officer is way above the level of fitness of the majority of rank and file officers. Despite the training and the dedicated role they perform, these officers make mistakes - you've all read about them. If you'd like to see the mistake statistics climb vertically - then just arm the police nationally!

I've carried a firearm in the line of duty in stake-out situations where I was frankly ******** myself at the thought of any sort of exchange of fire in crowded shopping streets and malls. there's nothing glamorous about it - it's an unenviable responsibility.

Finally I'd just say that putting a gun into some peoples' hands has a very curious effect on their personality and some police officers aren't exempt from that either.

The current selection process is very searching andI think things are much better left just as they are.