to think all police were armed?

[strawberrygate]

I'm really not seeing why this would now be a bad thing. There were police right there at the London attack, and if they'd been armed then some lives could have been saved.
If someone drives a truck through a crowd in somewhere random like Sheffield, there will be police there, but currently not armed. How would they stop them? they would have no option but stand and wait until armed response arrived, which in most areas would be a hell of a lot longer than the 5 mins. or so it took in central London.
We're sitting ducks.

Is there a precedent, anywhere in the world, where a previously-armed police force has subsequently given up its guns?

Another classic AIBU where OP asks AIBU? Vast majority say yes, YABU and give logical reasons why, OP still adamant she isn't. Why the ducking ada post in AIBU then? Why not just post in chat?

Being on MN more regularly has made me very ratty and intolerable, all the things I hate. (or maybe it's just coincided with giving up smoking).

OP YABU for all the reasons everyone else has already said. But you won't acknowledge it, so crack on.

The first officer on the scene apparently was off duty. He rugby tackled one of the terrorists. When I said that was brave DH (police) said probably not. He wouldn't have had time to be brave he'd have just done it without thinking. I think our police are awesome. They are a police service not a police force and that attitude is one of the things that makes them different from other countries. Arming police as a matter of routine would escalate more situations than it would help resolve. More guns = more deaths. It really is that simple.

I do understand the knee jerk call for all police to be armed, what's happening now is frightening but if you move away from the right or wrong argument it is still important to realise that arming our entire police force would take years & it wouldn't actually make any difference to what is happening now. If we did decide to give guns to all police surely we would want them to be properly trained?

Sorry simply, I read somewhere it was hand - agree though it was almost inevitable with all those shots fired, and it's due to the excellent training of the armed response officers that there weren't more casualties

A while ago the Met tried to make all officers who were firearms trained but not actively working in one of the firearms teams become active firearms officers again.

A lot of them handed in their gun licence and refused to do it. For many UK police officers the idea of having guns on the street, and of suddenly being asked to shoot to kill rather than shoot to disarm, is too much.

All the evidence shows that more guns just lead to more people being shot.

I understand the impulse behind wanting it but it would be a false illusion of security.

How exactly would an armed policeman have stopped the attack at London Bridge? If the driver had been shot while in the van, the likelyhoood is that the van would have gone into a building, a building full of people at that time of night too. Would have probably meant even more victims, not less.

Armed police have their place, yes, but not everywhere, not all the time.

It's similar to the argument that people in South Africa, USA etc use "I need a gun to protect myself". It's an illusion. More guns can only ever cause more death and injury not less. It's the same with knife crime here,all these kids think they "need to carry a knife for protection." In reality it just exacerbates the situation and makes being armed normal.

By shooting through the windscreen

Have you been watching re-runs of The A Team? It's not a fucking documentary love.

OP, how much of a terrorist risk do you imagine exists in Kendal, and how does that justify arming every police officer?

Hasn't it always been said that statistically guns are more likely to be used against you than help you.

I wouldn't want all police armed. That's just going to lead to criminals trying harder to get a gun and more hostage situations.

I cannot fathom how shooting dead a driver in a van or truck could be safe. Ploughing into buildings sends rubble flying and can damage surrounding buildings what about the people in them. Concrete doesn't always protect you sometimes it cages you in or collapses on top of you.

Police do more than stop terrorists people need to feel safe approaching them.

Most criminals if armed have a knife or taser they don't have guns but if we arm arm all police we are upping the anti so they will get guns. This puts the public at a greater risk especially getting caught in the crossfire.

If the decision is made to arm us all I will leave. I've had a baton and spray for 11 years and used my baton once in that time then it was only a chest strike to push someone back mostly it's been used to break windows to gain entry for ambulance crews.

We have the best police force in the world, members of the public still like us and will help us. I have been out numbered was so touched when people have assisted me when struggling to detain someone twice my size. I don't want to see the public turn their back on us such as some European countries where the hit first ask questions later. Leave the guns to the specialists.

Not saying a policeman with a gun is safe bit certainly i would think many people would be daunted but he sight of a gun. I'd assume they were on a really big high profile high risk case and wouldnt want to disturb them.

Bravo Princess and thank you for being a member of the best police force in the world.

Firearms officers are highly skilled and accomplished in their field. Ordinary police officers are not and may never be, even with training. On Friday trained firearms officers fired 50 bullets and caused one "minor" injury to an innocent party. Unskilled armed standard officers could have killed countless people. Guns are not like the movies you don't just point randomly and get a nice clean head shot, it's not the Walking Dead! We cannot make shoot to kill our first line of defence. All it takes is one twitchy police officer and the shot out windscreen is a completely innocent family with children.

The police are armed in Belgium, and in 10 years I haven't seen a problem with that. I am ambivalent. There is a middle way between policing by consent and the U.S., as police forces on the continent prove every day.

We have the best police force in the world

Indeed we do. So a few tweaks here and there in response to changing circumstances, yes, complete re-engineer, absolutely not.

Interesting that you speak to people in the Met that say they want all police to be armed. We deal directly with the armed police and they say different. That's the problem with anecdotal data.

The important thing is that the majority of this country do not want guns as a solution to crime.

Police, whilst doing a brilliant job, are still only human and can make mistakes.The member of the public that was shot by accident in London is understandable, it was crowded and they were trying to save lives by shooting terrorists, who obviously don't just stand still and let them shoot, but do you think the poor officer that fired the shot is looking at it like that? or do you think more likely they are feeling pretty guilty and questioning themselves right now? I can completely understand why police wouldn't want that added pressure on what is already a difficult job.

For those of you who live outside London, how quickly do you think armed officers will take to respond to a similar incident?
I'll give you a clue. It's no where fucking bear 8 minutes. It's all very well stating you don't want British police armed, so you're happy for them to be slaughtered protecting you until the ARV's turn up? Do you think that's fair, as long as it maintains your Dixon of dock green view of the police?

scary And they weren't able to prevent the bomb at the airport, sadly. With this time of crime, guns may take out the terrorists but almost never before they have committed some atrocities first. Sad world we live in.

Let's just ban cars/vans/trucks

They are more dangerous after all,

there is a much higher day to day chance of being killed crossing the road by a vehicle being driven badly than one being driven by a terrorist.

Let's not spend, spend, spend to solve a minute problem in the scheme of things - (I KNOW some people who have been personally affected will not consider it in any way minute).

I do not need the "appearance of safety" that an armed force gives - because that is all an armed force gives.

My DH is in the Met and never ever wanted a gun, but these days even he can see that sending police officers out there with nothing but a baton to protect themselves is stupid. And I can tell you for sure that doubtless the only reason the government are holding back from arming officers routinely is the cost. It is ALL about the money. Budgets have been slashed so much that the job my DH is doing right now used to be done by FOUR people, now it's just him. I could go on but this is about guns - officers should have adequate means of protecting themselves.

No thank you, I live in the north of England and am well aware that armed police would not be at an incident in 8 minutes but I do not think arming all police is a proportionate response. A more heavily armed society is not a safer one. While the terrorist attacks are scary and awful for the people directly impacted by them it is important to remember that that the toll of death and injury will be lower than less dramatic events like road traffic accidents.