An historical occasion

[Oldbillplod]

OK but was the actual arming of officers publicized enough that the public ( and the associated dirtbags) now know that more officers are ARMED ?

Do I really need to answer this?
The public are so daft that most are probably not aware that any police officers in England carry at all.
When i've been approached my the public I get questions such as 'that's not a real gun is it' or 'you haven't got bullets in there have you'

[Scruit]

Do I really need to answer this?
The public are so daft that most are probably not aware that any police officers in England carry at all.
When i've been approached my the public I get questions such as 'that's not a real gun is it' or 'you haven't got bullets in there have you'

Chav: "Nice gun, it doesn't have bullets in it, does it?"
OBP: "Nice head, it doesnt have brains in it, does it?"

[Jenna2006]

My brother is GMP, and his opinion had historically been that he'd quit before carrying a gun.

What was his rationale?

[Silver Fox]

As of 12 midday today my police force became permenantly armed for those allowed to carry guns.
This might not seem a great deal to you but means we can now carry handguns overtly as well as Taser without the need for a firearms deployment allowing us to remove them from the safes in the vehicle.
We will still continue to carry H & K MP5, G36, baton gun, nine bang and smoke grenades in the safe as usual but this is a truly momentus occasion.

Without the proper tools/guns to enforce the law how does the British police defend and protect the public and themselves against armed gunmen, hide behind behind a wall? :eek:

[Aussie George]

You don't need guns. You just whip them snazzy little ASP batons out and "SNAP"...that sound scares teh crooks into dropping their weapons.

I've seen The Bill, I know....:D

[oscarmitre]

Without the proper tools/guns to enforce the law how does the British police defend and protect the public and themselves against armed gunmen, hide behind behind a wall? :eek:

No, they walk into situations unarmed and get killed.

[Oldbillplod]

What was his rationale?

Im guessing the fear that he would be hung out to dry if he had to shooot someone and not get the support that he deserved regardless whether it was a justifed shot or not.

[DB839282]

I saw something I found interesting. Well, not really but just odd. Not odd really either. But anway.

I was sitting in a hotel room watching some most outrageous moments crap and I noticed that, yes, in America, the robberies involved guns. Sometimes the clerk was shot, sometimes he wasnt. This is the stuff the left nuts are crying about and saying taking away the guns is going to fix it.

But, I noticed that when there was a robbery in britian for example, it involved the clerk getting the living sh** kicking out of him. One guy used a friggen hammer, and another guy used a crowbar.

Thats the blindness of it all. I would take a gun pointed in my face over being beat with a hammer anyday.

Glad there are people looking over me. :rolleyes:

[Scruit]

What was his rationale?

I couldn't tell you, other than my experience from living in England for over 20 years was that the people in the UK overwhelmingly believe that guns are evil and that nobody should have the power to kill another.

Guess they forgot about the criminals. :confused:

[oscarmitre]

I have a slanted observation. The prevailing philosophy of the ACPO (think British IACP) is a wank. That wank is "policing by consent". If you believe in "policing by consent" then there is no need for weapons. That is why it's a wank. Policing by consent is a con job. The ACPO may have mass casualties due to a swooning epidemic at the realisation but I'm sorry it has to be said, policing is about using force and using more force than the crooks do.

It's summed up perfectly in Kilvinsky's Law in The New Centurions.

And if a copper doesn't want to carry a firearm, for whatever reason, then they are free to use the exit. I would not work with an un-armed colleague.