Not to want armed police on the streets of Scotland.

[Solopower1]

I heard on the News yesterday that Scotland Police have been increasing the number of armed officers on the streets. I get the impression that this is being spread out quite widely over the whole of Scotland.

How did this happen? How come it wasn't discussed by politicians. Why wasn't there an open debate about it? I think they said on the programme that 60% of the public wanted the police to be armed. Where do those figures come from? Does anyone know anything more about this?

There have been armed response units since at least 2005. They are deployed only in very specific circumstances and are certainly not "on the beat". Unfortunately they are very necessary, and are being deployed more often these days than ever before. That said, I've yet to see them involved in an incident where they've actually drawn arms, they are not in a position where they make that decision themselves, that decision is made much higher up the command chain, and not without a very specific set of risk assessments being made.
They are often deployed for officer safety, rather than to go after a suspect eg if a person is armed and making a threat against their own life, there could be unarmed negotiators involved, and the armed police are there to protect the negotiator in case the suspect decides to use theirs weapon on the negotiator.
This probably doesn't make a whole lot of sense (it's too early for me!) but I wanted to respond to some of your points, as I'm operational police staff and have working knowledge of firearms units.

On the BBC News last night they said that these were not armed response units but just normal police, on patrol, armed.

Are you saying this in not true? (I hope so!) If so, why did the BBC report it?

BBC Scotland.

I have had a quick look at the article and it's more that specialist armed officers doing routine patrols, rather than officers routinely being armed.

Routine beat officers are not armed with firearms apart from cs.

If so, why did the BBC report it

Because the media is sensationalist?

No idea whether its true or not, but shesparkles seems to have knowledge.

Yes, Nicknacky, I think you are right. Sorry for the misrepresentation.

But why? And how can this happen without politicians and the public and the media being aware of it? For example, could the police one day decide that they would gradually arm all the officers, without consulting or changing the law?

What nickynacky said about patrols (told you it was too early for me!)
I'm not going to go into any details about the whys and wherefores of that as it does seriously come under classified or at least 'restricted' info, and would lose me my job.
As for the media, slow news day perhaps

So from this report the specialists are carrying their guns rather than having them stored then collecting them when needed.

I don't see the issue? They are police officers that happen to carry firearms, isn't it better they are utilised than sit about in a room waiting to be called out?

Firearms officer have been doing this for years, it's not a new thing. Stephen house likes to show the public how many police are out and about. That's why unmarked vehicles now are marked "police". Public reassurance and all that.

Oddboots, to my knowledge firearms officers have always carried them and don't collect them from a base when required. That would cause a delay when they were required urgently.

Ah apologies, old. I see you are referring to the locked case in the vehicle. I have no idea what the changes in policy are but I would far rather they were carried than left in a locked vehicle, an idiot might not be able to get to them but they might try!

Why can't specialist armed officers leave their arms behind, if they are on routine patrol?

You can show a police presence without them being armed. They already have tasers, which look horrendous (but are better than guns).

So this information is 'restricted', Shesparkles? That is seriously worrying. I think we should know if there are going to be more armed police officers on the streets.

Obviously I care (a lot) about the police officers themselves being protected.

But do they really feel under threat on the streets of Scotland? Is this happening in England too, does anyone know?

So if the arms are in say Glasgow, and the patrol is in prestwick it's a massive delay to go to Glasgow, collect the weapons to attend an incident in say, girvan. If I urgently needed the assistance I would rather the officers had them to hand.

Tasers are magic, they should be more officers trained in them.

I find it hard to believe there are "more" firearms officers. More often than not these specialist department are being trimmed. It's all in the way it's reported!

I assume because they may need to go from routine patrol directly to where they are needed without wasting time returning to base to collect weapons.

All our police are armed here, makes sense to me that not only the criminals have weapons.

I think it's more dangerous to have more weapons on the streets. The police need to continue doing what they have done so skilfully for so long, which is calming people down, de-escalating crises, etc.

Also, how many times have the armed response unit been called out in, say, the last month? How does it make sense for these officers to carry arms if they are not likely to need to use them?

But the main thing is - this shouldn't happen by stealth. There should be a proper, public debate about it. If the police think that 60% of the public are in favour of this measure, they would have nothing to lose.

Policing by consent.

Solo I really don't want to say any more as it would get me into serious bother, but if you're looking for number of deployments etc you'd get that information via a Freedom of Information request.

There really isn't more weapons on the street, honestly.

And if they didn't carry weapons, well they wouldn't be armed response officer then lol!

I have no idea how often they have been called out, but you would be surprised how quickly a routine incident can escalate so it can't be predicted when they should take weapons with them.

And I don't think every policing decision should be run by the public and debated, where would you draw the line?

I'm not talking about every day policing decisions. I think policing policy is something the public should have a say in, especially something as important as the bearing of arms.

Shesparkles, it worries me that you can't say more.

Solo, something like this IS and operational decision.

Nothing has changed, it just means the officers get out their vehicle more often.

MrsW I understood that this is not a case of moving firearms officers to where they are needed.

The police seem to be able to increase the number of weapons on the streets without informing anyone - that's what worries me.

I agree it's puzzling about the cost. I did think about this. Maybe it's because they have cut down on numbers of unarmed police officers elsewhere, and have to use armed response people to plug the gap.

Have you written to your MSP about this? If so, what did s/he say?