Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Haighus wrote:

I don't think anyone is saying armed police makes terrorist attacks more likely- we are just arguing that there is no need to arm all UK police to reduce any further attacks. In other words, having a police force with everyone armed makes no difference compared to one where most coppers are not armed. So we'd rather keep our largely unarmed police.

I wonder if the dead unarmed cop from this attack would have been armed if he could come back and relive the event.

 Blackie wrote:

jouso wrote:

 KommissarKiln wrote:


Could more lightly armed law enforcement be a contributing factor to why there have been so many more attacks claimed by ISIS in European countries than the U.S.? Perhaps it's more lax border-crossing policies? Simply the fact that Europe is geographically much closer to the conflict zones where ISIS thrives?

Unarmed police is a uniquely British phenomenon.

Every police officer in France, Belgium or Germany (to name recently terror-stricken countries) carry firearms just like US law enforcement, there are paramilitary gendarmeries and actual military with heavier equipment doing the rounds in sensitive places.

So I'd say no. Location, location, location.

In italy not every cop carries weapons. Municipal police doesn't have guns.

Interesting, still French, German, Belgian, Spanish, etc local police do carry guns.

 CptJake wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

I don't think anyone is saying armed police makes terrorist attacks more likely- we are just arguing that there is no need to arm all UK police to reduce any further attacks. In other words, having a police force with everyone armed makes no difference compared to one where most coppers are not armed. So we'd rather keep our largely unarmed police.

I wonder if the dead unarmed cop from this attack would have been armed if he could come back and relive the event.

When asked, British officers have clearly said they don't want to be armed by default. They'd like to have more firearm especialists on call, though.

Its a cultural thing.


British People see the Bobbies as friendly folk to help you out in a tough situation.

They walk the streets, chat with members of the public, help people cross roads and that sort of thing.

There isn't the American Ideology of Protect and Serve, it's more of Help and Advise.

 CptJake wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

I don't think anyone is saying armed police makes terrorist attacks more likely- we are just arguing that there is no need to arm all UK police to reduce any further attacks. In other words, having a police force with everyone armed makes no difference compared to one where most coppers are not armed. So we'd rather keep our largely unarmed police.

I wonder if the dead unarmed cop from this attack would have been armed if he could come back and relive the event.

Probably not, for the reasons given above. Plus, when you arm the Police, you arm the criminals. They're not a deterrent at all. You only need to look at US gun crime rates compared to UK gun crime rates (and appreciate that in the UK, a threat to shoot someone, or even the old 'fingers in the coat pocket' trick are both counted as actual gun crimes) shows that.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

I don't think anyone is saying armed police makes terrorist attacks more likely- we are just arguing that there is no need to arm all UK police to reduce any further attacks. In other words, having a police force with everyone armed makes no difference compared to one where most coppers are not armed. So we'd rather keep our largely unarmed police.

I wonder if the dead unarmed cop from this attack would have been armed if he could come back and relive the event.

Probably not, for the reasons given above.

Somehow, I highly doubt that. I just don't think your average cop, in the UK or anywhere, would rather get sliced to death unarmed than to have a chance to be alive when put into the position this cop was put into.

If you're right our cultures are a LOT different.

I wasn't talking about deterrents and don't care about gun crime rates, I simply believe no cop would rather be unarmed and dead than armed and alive if those were his/her specific choices. By the way, here in the US in most jurisdictions, THREATENING to shoot someone even with the 'fingers in the coat pocket' is going to get you charged with 'armed robbery' or 'armed' version of whatever crime you're charged with if/when caught. The UK is not magically unique in that matter.

 CptJake wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

I don't think anyone is saying armed police makes terrorist attacks more likely- we are just arguing that there is no need to arm all UK police to reduce any further attacks. In other words, having a police force with everyone armed makes no difference compared to one where most coppers are not armed. So we'd rather keep our largely unarmed police.

I wonder if the dead unarmed cop from this attack would have been armed if he could come back and relive the event.

Probably not, for the reasons given above.

Somehow, I highly doubt that. I just don't think your average cop, in the UK or anywhere, would rather get sliced to death unarmed than to have a chance to be alive when put into the position this cop was put into.

If you're right our cultures are a LOT different.

Ask them. My cousin who's a cop here was driving a couple British bobbies (euro police forces run exchange programs, especially in areas where there are tourists from the visiting country) and they basically told him that if they had to carry guns they would feel like they're failing to do their job.



They do wear anti-stab vests, and a lot of them have been at the pointy end of a knife or two so it's not just empty talk.

 CptJake wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

I don't think anyone is saying armed police makes terrorist attacks more likely- we are just arguing that there is no need to arm all UK police to reduce any further attacks. In other words, having a police force with everyone armed makes no difference compared to one where most coppers are not armed. So we'd rather keep our largely unarmed police.

I wonder if the dead unarmed cop from this attack would have been armed if he could come back and relive the event.

Probably not, for the reasons given above.

Somehow, I highly doubt that. I just don't think your average cop, in the UK or anywhere, would rather get sliced to death unarmed than to have a chance to be alive when put into the position this cop was put into.

If you're right our cultures are a LOT different.

I wasn't talking about deterrents and don't care about gun crime rates, I simply believe no cop would rather be unarmed and dead than armed and alive if those were his/her specific choices. By the way, here in the US in most jurisdictions, THREATENING to shoot someone even with the 'fingers in the coat pocket' is going to get you charged with 'armed robbery' or 'armed' version of whatever crime you're charged with if/when caught. The UK is not magically unique in that matter.

Nope, our cultures are just that different.

I know several police officers, several of whom have been attacked or stabbed, and none of them want to be armed with guns.

Maybe a tasor or a hard baton, but never guns. It defeats their purpose.

And it likely increases the chances of being attacked with a lethal weapon, on account those nutty enough to have a crack at a Copper wouldn't be too keen on being shot for their efforts.

Plus, there's the major nad-ache of the paperwork. Every single time a Police officer discharges a firearm in the line of duty, they come off active service for investigation. Every. Single. Time.

Yes, including the copper that shot this particular fruitloop. That's an additional measure to make sure shots are only fired when there is no alternative. None of the this 'he's coming right for us' stuff we hear* from the States


*I cast no aspersions. I can only go on the media I receive, and I'm quite aware it's a very rare media report that isn't working some angle.

My wife is a scottish police officer and she has never wanted a gun or lethal weapon, it's against everything she stands for. Firearm officers are a last resort and we don't don't need guns they make law enforcement less effective. I appreciate it is different depending what country you are in . In the UK live is better without armed people everywhere.

 CptJake wrote:
I simply believe no cop would rather be unarmed and dead than armed and alive if those were his/her specific choices.

Not only is that a false choice but it is a childishly simple analysis of the problem. There's nothing quite like exploiting an emotional situation to get in some pro-gun propaganda.

If armed response is needed there are highly trained specialists ready.

Those who volunteered and where selected for that duty carefully, trained, made sure there right for the duty etc... Our system seems to work, we do not see the same level of questionable incidents like the USA.

Tasers are a firm middle ground. There non leathal but if needed give them a ranged ability to take down a suspect.

But no. We do not need fully armed police.

To put this in perspective, the stabbing happened in a highly sensitive area that had a high proportion of armed officers. The attacker was surrounded by armed officers, yet was still able to charge one down whilst wielding a pair of kitchen knives before any of the officers could draw their weapons and bring him down. I don't see how the officer attacked would've been able to draw a weapon any quicker than the other officers.

There was a study done which showed how a knife-armed attacker can generally close 21 feet and stab an officer drawing a weapon from a holster before being shot. Having a weapon doesn't guarantee safety, and I doubt it would've changed the situation if the officer was armed.

 jhe90 wrote:
If armed response is needed there are highly trained specialists ready.

Those who volunteered and where selected for that duty carefully, trained, made sure there right for the duty etc... Our system seems to work, we do not see the same level of questionable incidents like the USA.

Tasers are a firm middle ground. They're mostly, but sadly not always non leathal but if needed give them a ranged ability to take down a suspect.

But no. We do not need fully armed police.

FTFY - Tasers can still kill, for instance if someone's got a dodgy ticket, pace maker or other underlying medical condition, whether known or not.

But yeah, compared to guns, non-lethal.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
FTFY

Beware, mods really don't like FTFY, even if they are innocuous like this.

Dodgy ticker I presume he meant,also with a gun the intent is to kill or seriously wound , the teaser is temporary incapacity and a highly amusing jerking dance to watch

PC Palmer may still be alive had he been armed. Those who died on Westminster Bridge would still be as dead.

As an unarmed officer, PC Palmer absolutely ensured that further civilian casualties were minimised or non existent the minute he engaged the attacker.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
PC Palmer may still be alive had he been armed. Those who died on Westminster Bridge would still be as dead.

As an unarmed officer, PC Palmer absolutely ensured that further civilian casualties were minimised or non existent the minute he engaged the attacker.

Well. Said he deserves to be remembered for his heroic act not because he didn't have a gun, weapon escalation would have made this worse not better.