Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think all police were armed?

196 replies

strawberrygate · 05/06/2017 08:28

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.

OP posts:
ShatnersWig · 05/06/2017 11:53

Kursk Yeah, America is known for its low crime rates. This is from USA Today 12 months ago:

The gun homicide rate in England and Wales is about one for every 1 million people, according to the Geneva Declaration of Armed Violence and Development, a multinational organization based in Switzerland.

In a population of 56 million, that adds up to about 50 to 60 gun killings annually. In the USA, by contrast, there are about 160 times as many gun homicides in a country that is roughly six times larger in population. There were 8,124 gun homicides in 2014, according to the latest FBI figures.

SisterhoodisPowerful · 05/06/2017 11:53

I'm American. One of the best things about living in the U.K. is that police don't carry guns as standard. I feel a whole lot safer here with appropriately trained to carry firearms. Considering the higher rate of domestic violence perpetrated by police than the general public, I prefer general officers not have guns. From a community policing perspective, preemptive policing of youth at high risk of violence is a good thing - preventing crime doesn't require guns. It requires well trained officers who understand the dynamics of violence and can work with other organisations supporting youth.

bruffian · 05/06/2017 11:54

surely the gun homicides in the USA are mainly because the general population can legally own guns? rather than having armed police

Biggreygoose · 05/06/2017 11:55

In answer to a PP. British police were routinely armed for the early part of the 20th century, although often not well - read about the Sidney Street seige in 1911 and the aftermath of police armament.

British police haven't always been unarmed (with firearms). They however cottoned on pretty quickly that it was resulting in an arms race.

Also: guns are legally available in the UK, including pistols (although limited to 2 shots, and are bloody hard to get).

These are however for either sporting/pest control purposes and using them (with the possible exception of a section 1 shotgun(over 3 shots)) against armed police/army would find yourself out gunned very very rapidly. They are very different tools.

The licencing process is rightly very thorough, and the firearms not really what your average terrorist would be after anyway. I think the reason we haven't seen armed terrorists in this country is that why would you the go to so much effort to get something not fit for purpose when you can do as much damage (if not more) with a van and a knife.

What you may not have read about recently is the MET being potentially in breach of the data protection act that resulted in a third party company ending up with a list of every firearms owner in the MET area. They claim they acted appropriately, lots of gun owners strongly disagree...

ShatnersWig · 05/06/2017 12:07

Bruffian Kursk said the fact that most Americans are armed deters criminals. Others have said guns deter criminals. The stats I quoted suggest the opposite is true, that more guns equal more guns equal more deaths. Because if your criminal knows you, as a homeowner have a gun, you'd better break in to the home with a gun just to make sure that if anyone gets shot, it's the homeowner rather than you. It's not rocket science. That's just criminals. We haven't started on how many people get shot by trigger happy US police.

Kursk · 05/06/2017 12:12

ShatnersWig

I agree, I would like to see the same crime rate with Chicago, New York and New Orleans removed.

Kursk · 05/06/2017 12:15

Also stabbing should be included in the U.K. Gun crime statistics

ShatnersWig · 05/06/2017 12:24

Um, why should or would stabbing be including in gun crime statistics?? Weird.

Kursk · 05/06/2017 12:29

Because without access to guns criminals use knives instead. Including them provides a more accurate view

wowfudge · 05/06/2017 12:30

Guns are a last resort for the police - it should stay that way.

Charmageddon · 05/06/2017 12:35

Because without access to guns criminals use knives instead. Including them provides a more accurate view

A more accurate view of what?! Confused

Kursk · 05/06/2017 12:38

A more accurate view of weapon related deaths. As guns are illegal people are stabbed instead

ShatnersWig · 05/06/2017 12:38

But we'd no longer be talking GUN CRIME and would not be comparing like with like.

However at the same you have also proved the point we have mostly all been making. "Because without access to guns criminals use knives instead." These guys use knives and home made bombs because they can't get access to guns. So putting more out there ain't a good idea.

LanaKanesLeftNippleTassle · 05/06/2017 12:39

Only a couple of pages in but I really need to make a point to the posters who have said something along the lines of "they were only there in 8 minutes because it was in central London- it would have taken much longer in another place"

Actually this is wrong.

I live in a town of roughly 120,000 people.
A few weeks ago I opened my front door to find armed response officers with full automatic weapons at the bottom of my driveway.
They had responded to reports of a man waving a gun around- they were there in not more than 10 minutes from the first call.

So there are armed response teams all over the country.

I don't want police routinely armed.

*Our police have excellent de-escalation training.

*Armed officers have years of training, to arm everyone would mean cutting that training.

*Despite all the training, armed (and unarmed) police still routinely make mistakes and/or step across the boundary into mistreatment and that results in innocent deaths.

*Fully armed forces equals more armed criminals.

*Attacks on police will increase.

*Deaths of innocent people will increase.

mummytime · 05/06/2017 12:46

Knife crime UK: 27,487 knife crimes in the UK in the year to September 2015, of these only 188 were murder, the rest were threats and attempted murder. In the USA for 2014 the number of murders by knives was 1567, which is still 10 times the UK number, with only 5 times the population and you would expect guns would be used in preference there.

SomewhatIdiosyncratic · 05/06/2017 12:49

Imagine a large vehicle ploughs over a crowded bridge killing and maiming pedestrians. The vehicle comes to a halt, the crazed murderer leaps out at a police officer on duty before he has chance to respond...
Oh wait, that sounds familiar...

What happens if that officer has a firearm taken off him as he is overpowered? He didn't have chance to use it for his own protection, but the murderer could have ruined a couple more lives in those seconds before another officer could act from a more appropriate distance.

No, I don't want routinely armed officers and an increase of gun usage in the criminal world.

When travelling around various countries, I did not feel safer at the sight of clearly armed officers.

Snowdog37 · 05/06/2017 12:55

I live in the States where police are armed. Gun crime is rife, and many of those that are killed by gunshot are killed by the police. There's wrongful shootings by the police frequently. There's very much a "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality. Which has led to the breakdown of police/community relations in many towns and cities. Placing guns in the hands of those who are supposed to be in charge of our safety and wellbeing isn't the answer. I'm not sure what is, though.

LanaKanesLeftNippleTassle · 05/06/2017 13:02

Exactly Snowdog.

I have always suspected that the image of the police force in the US attracts types who probably shouldn't be trusted with firearms and nearly carte blanche to shoot for spurious reasons.

I really don't want a police force staffed by people who think they are in a Hollywood movie.

Kursk · 05/06/2017 13:07

mummytime

Thanks for the stats, makes an interesting comparison. I was expecting that it would have made things equal.

My experience of the US has been that there is less crime than the Uk

Inmyownlittlecorner · 05/06/2017 13:09

DH is an armed officer. He is highly trained & constantly updating his training.
If he discharges his weapon he will be immediately relieved of firearms duties pending an investigation.
He doesn't know any police officer armed or unarmed that thinks having an entire force carrying weapons is a good thing.

Dawnedlightly · 05/06/2017 13:09

Sadly kursk that's probably because you've become desensitised to it or don't hear about it- it's not newsworthy in the States, every fatality is news here.

ThouShallNotPass · 05/06/2017 13:11

You know what will stop a speeding van aiming at pedestrians? Not a movie style shot to the head through a windscreen.

Bollards.

Not the penguin type either.

Just bollard the crap out of busy pedestrian areas of our cities and watch the stupid buggers slam their vans into concreted in posts. Yes it's possible they could smash through but not without significant damage to the vehicle and significant loss of speed.

So in true MN style, the obvious answer is.... bollards.

ShatnersWig · 05/06/2017 13:11

Dawned You're probably right. After all, we seem to hear on our news every time an American police officer shoots someone in the US. I bet that doesn't happen in the US every time it happens here!

FlyingElbows · 05/06/2017 13:16

The notion that the "civilisation" of armed response begins and ends at London is ignorant and ridiculous. I don't need my local bobby to be armed because the chances of an isis attack in the field of cows outside my window is non-existent. Twenty minutes up the road in Glasgow the armed response to a terrorist event would be exactly the same as in London or any other major city in this country. In Glasgow there's more concern for the current gang land drugs wars which have recently spilled out on to the streets, the most recent of note being an assassination attempt at a primary school during the morning drop off!! To be fair to the Glasgow underworld they only kill their own but their new blood of disaffected young men is taking violence into the public arena now. Exactly the same as the disaffected young men in London and Manchester and everywhere else. The issue is disaffected young men, not the need to arm everyone.

Littledrummergirl · 05/06/2017 13:43

Thoushaltnotpass, I agree. Smile We are planning a sightseeing trip to London, Dd is terrified so our reassurances include us moving into a safer area to see for example big Ben.
I will feel safer behind bollards than with armed police.

As op hasn't answered my question, I wander if anyone else who wants armed police can answer it.
You are asking someone to carry and possibly use a weapon designed to take a life. Would you be able to do what you are asking of others?
Killing should never be easy.