BrianH
At the Start
For the past three weeks an unofficial police internet chatroom has been hosting a debate between serving police officers on the question: should police officers be routinely armed? The chat began on October 30, and was influenced by the events of last Friday when two women police officers were shot, one fatally, in Bradford.
It included:
Fivejays
I've voted no - only because I wouldn't trust some of the officers I know with a water pistol. The training implications are immense. Plus having the IPCC [the Independent Police Complaints Commission] round your neck if you were ever to use the bloody thing.
Mintcake
I am a firearms officer. We place the responsibility of a firearm into the hands of 17, 18 and 19 year olds, give them very little police training and put them on the streets of Britian. Yes, we already do it. Its called Northern Ireland and the soldiers are answerable to the judiciary as Lee Clegg [paratrooper from Bradford convicted of murder of joyrider in Northern Ireland in 1990, later cleared on retrial] found out to his cost. I believe in certain areas of the UK, there is a now definite need for universal arming.
Billy Basic
I've been an AFO [accredited firearms officer] now for 8 years. I've voted no. Like Fivejays, I'd hate to see some of my colleagues armed. I'd hate to see the stakes raised, which will happen. I also believe the number of police officers and MOP [members of public] killed will rise dramatically. If we acquire more paramilitaria, we lose the ability to police at the lower level.
Oldbillplod
It can only be a matter of time. Ask any Met officer, they have bought enough Glocks for every one of them and given the nod from the government will be churning out two-day basic handgun courses and giving their people guns for protection only.
Canteen Cowboy
I've voted no. As a bobby I dread the day when a Glock is standard issue. I certainly would not say no to a Taser however. If they give guns to us all, there will certainly be far more bobbies and MOP [members of public] killed. The number of cops killed by an accident with their own weapon is shocking.
Penbwlch
I have voted no. Not everyone has the same skills. I always preferred the option of having high quality armed officers to assist when necessary.
Bluearsedfly
Hmmm, I can see both arguments, but I had to wait six minutes before a trojan unit turned up to deal with a potential firearms call, in which time the suspect had walked straight towards us and I had to use my gift of the gab to get the drop on him and cuff him ... I discovered adrenaline is brown that day.
Fivejays
Six minutes for an armed response is pretty good going.
Special Girl
I have voted no too. I really respect armed officers for what they do but I would not want to find myself in the same situation as them.
Barry, Northern Ireland
I wouldn't like to be the person that has to decide whether or not to pull the trigger.
Special Girl
Nor would I Barry ... just look what happens when you do!
Northern Monkey
Wouldn't bother me.
Cage
I voted no. If police are armed that gives the criminal more reason to be.
Canteen Cowboy
As an officer who is constantly armed with a Glock 17 I would say the following:
· being armed does not stop people attacking you.
· being armed does not stop police doing their job.
· you will name your firearm Matilda - helps when talking to your partner in front of the kids.
· the split-second decision will be the hardest to make in your life.
Robbo
I voted yes. But before this happens we should surely be issued with the BEST less lethal weapons. It irritates me greatly; there are Tasers as well as more efficient gas/batons available but we (certainly in the Met) get the cheap and less effective equipment.
Wolfie
A definite no vote from me ... the ensuing complaints would do my head in. There is no way the force would back you up, the scrotes know the system is too soft and arming us would make no difference whatsoever.
The debate continued after the killing of Sharon Beshenivsky last Friday
Rong
Carrying a firearm will not stop some s**tbag shooting you. What's known about the tragic events in Bradford would suggest any officer attending that alarm would have been met with a hail of gunfire. An ARV [armed response vehicle] would have approached in the same way. Arming all police officers is not the answer.
Rudolph
I think the problem in Bradford was that it was a panic alarm rather than a call stating there was a firearm, so even if the officers had been armed, they would still have approached without their weapons drawn.
Robbo
It's not just guns. Knives are just as dangerous and I suspect have killed many more officers than firearms.
Traffic
I have voted no to routine arming of officers. I spent several years as a "special" and have been threatened with a firearm while involved in a public order incident ... the "armed perpetrator" was disarmed using the most powerful natural weapon, "a cool head and confident voice projection" without incident. The weapon was found loaded. The "ARV" crew were still waiting to draw their weapons when I started booking the prisoner into custody.
It included:
Fivejays
I've voted no - only because I wouldn't trust some of the officers I know with a water pistol. The training implications are immense. Plus having the IPCC [the Independent Police Complaints Commission] round your neck if you were ever to use the bloody thing.
Mintcake
I am a firearms officer. We place the responsibility of a firearm into the hands of 17, 18 and 19 year olds, give them very little police training and put them on the streets of Britian. Yes, we already do it. Its called Northern Ireland and the soldiers are answerable to the judiciary as Lee Clegg [paratrooper from Bradford convicted of murder of joyrider in Northern Ireland in 1990, later cleared on retrial] found out to his cost. I believe in certain areas of the UK, there is a now definite need for universal arming.
Billy Basic
I've been an AFO [accredited firearms officer] now for 8 years. I've voted no. Like Fivejays, I'd hate to see some of my colleagues armed. I'd hate to see the stakes raised, which will happen. I also believe the number of police officers and MOP [members of public] killed will rise dramatically. If we acquire more paramilitaria, we lose the ability to police at the lower level.
Oldbillplod
It can only be a matter of time. Ask any Met officer, they have bought enough Glocks for every one of them and given the nod from the government will be churning out two-day basic handgun courses and giving their people guns for protection only.
Canteen Cowboy
I've voted no. As a bobby I dread the day when a Glock is standard issue. I certainly would not say no to a Taser however. If they give guns to us all, there will certainly be far more bobbies and MOP [members of public] killed. The number of cops killed by an accident with their own weapon is shocking.
Penbwlch
I have voted no. Not everyone has the same skills. I always preferred the option of having high quality armed officers to assist when necessary.
Bluearsedfly
Hmmm, I can see both arguments, but I had to wait six minutes before a trojan unit turned up to deal with a potential firearms call, in which time the suspect had walked straight towards us and I had to use my gift of the gab to get the drop on him and cuff him ... I discovered adrenaline is brown that day.
Fivejays
Six minutes for an armed response is pretty good going.
Special Girl
I have voted no too. I really respect armed officers for what they do but I would not want to find myself in the same situation as them.
Barry, Northern Ireland
I wouldn't like to be the person that has to decide whether or not to pull the trigger.
Special Girl
Nor would I Barry ... just look what happens when you do!
Northern Monkey
Wouldn't bother me.
Cage
I voted no. If police are armed that gives the criminal more reason to be.
Canteen Cowboy
As an officer who is constantly armed with a Glock 17 I would say the following:
· being armed does not stop people attacking you.
· being armed does not stop police doing their job.
· you will name your firearm Matilda - helps when talking to your partner in front of the kids.
· the split-second decision will be the hardest to make in your life.
Robbo
I voted yes. But before this happens we should surely be issued with the BEST less lethal weapons. It irritates me greatly; there are Tasers as well as more efficient gas/batons available but we (certainly in the Met) get the cheap and less effective equipment.
Wolfie
A definite no vote from me ... the ensuing complaints would do my head in. There is no way the force would back you up, the scrotes know the system is too soft and arming us would make no difference whatsoever.
The debate continued after the killing of Sharon Beshenivsky last Friday
Rong
Carrying a firearm will not stop some s**tbag shooting you. What's known about the tragic events in Bradford would suggest any officer attending that alarm would have been met with a hail of gunfire. An ARV [armed response vehicle] would have approached in the same way. Arming all police officers is not the answer.
Rudolph
I think the problem in Bradford was that it was a panic alarm rather than a call stating there was a firearm, so even if the officers had been armed, they would still have approached without their weapons drawn.
Robbo
It's not just guns. Knives are just as dangerous and I suspect have killed many more officers than firearms.
Traffic
I have voted no to routine arming of officers. I spent several years as a "special" and have been threatened with a firearm while involved in a public order incident ... the "armed perpetrator" was disarmed using the most powerful natural weapon, "a cool head and confident voice projection" without incident. The weapon was found loaded. The "ARV" crew were still waiting to draw their weapons when I started booking the prisoner into custody.
