About time too...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Every single time that the Police Federation has carried out a member survey, the overwhelming response from their members is that they don't want to routinely carry guns.

And, as a member of the public who has followed news stories of (often) totally innocent members of the public being shot by the so-called highly trained police marksmen, I wouldn't be happy to see police officers routinely armed.

And maybe one of the reasons that only a tiny minority of criminals carry guns is that the police don't - in countries where the police are routinely armed, far more criminals are armed too, although I don't know which is the chicken, which is the egg or which led to the other...
 
Other law enforcement officers abroad carry guns, I find it out ours do not. It would help them deal with unrest so much more easily. Our cities are bear pits, they need these guns.

Steve, do you actually become nervous at dusk and hide quivering behind firmly locked doors and twitching curtains until the sun re-appears?
Or are you, in fact, posting from Beirut?
 
The article is misleading, if you don't read all of it.
This isn't anything new. DPG officers in London deal with non DPG incidents and are armed, same with armed officers at Heathrow.
Whats happening in Scotland does therefore make sense. It's simply the ARV crews having the gun strapped to them, rather than having them locked away in the boot, which was the case when armed response first started.
They are still Police and still have a responsibility for dealing with anything a Policeman should. Gone are they days when armed officers used to peddle the line they were armed so could not deal with run of the mill stuff.

, I find it out ours do not. It would help them deal with unrest so much more easily. Our cities are bear pits, they need these guns

No, it wouldn't, in fact in some ways it makes it harder. If you have to get all tangled up in a fight, then the officers has to keep much of his mind on the security of the weapon. Unarmed you don't have that concern.

If you aren't fighting with the yobs, it makes no real difference, they know they aren't in play to get shot.

And, as a member of the public who has followed news stories of (often) totally innocent members of the public being shot by the so-called highly trained police marksmen, I wouldn't be happy to see police officers routinely armed

I think you'll find it's far fewer than the number of members of the public shot by...members of the public! In fact the number is 33 people killed by Police since 1995. The vast majority of those there is no argument that they were shot perfectly lawfully. In the small number that remain, one is now sub judice, and the only others where there were proceedings resulted a finding of not guilty.
So please do tell what you base this 'unhappiness' on?
 
Last edited:
Steve, do you actually become nervous at dusk and hide quivering behind firmly locked doors and twitching curtains until the sun re-appears?
Or are you, in fact, posting from Beirut?

If you have to take public transport late at night (after 9pm) up here, you contend with drunks, rowdy blokes, neds, all of which have the real potential to pose you danger. It's not uncommon for violence to happen in the cities/trains/buses.

Its why I welcome these armed policemen with open arms to our streets, they will give a real obvious deterent. I'd love to see them ride the trains too, one per carriage. It would stop the rowdiness and unpleasantness. I'd love with if you could post without satire and sarcasm, but I will not hold my breath
 
Last edited:
If you have to take public transport late at night (after 9pm) up here, you contend with drunks, rowdy blokes, neds, all of which have the real potential to pose you danger. It's not uncommon for violence to happen in the cities/trains/buses.

Its why I welcome these armed policemen with open arms to our streets, they will give a real obvious deterent. I'd love to see them ride the trains too, one per carriage. It would stop the rowdiness and unpleasantness. I'd love with if you could post without satire and sarcasm, but I will not hold my breath

Not sure where you live. In London, where I've lived all my life, you can get by generally, and armed officers on each carriage is not really practical on the tube or trains unless we all want to pay a lot more tax. That said, I doubt an armed officer v non-armed would make much difference so someone drunk, or generally rowdy. As Garry mentions they know they won't get shot, so it won't affect them.

Personally I don't want to see armed officers on the streets, other than when needed for exceptional occasions.
 
Glasgow. It's a riot on the trains with intoxicated drunks, yobs etc. I welcome this move and cannot wait to see more armed officers. Of course what I want isn't practical, but in an ideal world it would be epic.
 
If you have to take public transport late at night (after 9pm) up here, you contend with drunks, rowdy blokes, neds, all of which have the real potential to pose you danger. It's not uncommon for violence to happen in the cities/trains/buses.

Its why I welcome these armed policemen with open arms to our streets, they will give a real obvious deterent. I'd love to see them ride the trains too, one per carriage. It would stop the rowdiness and unpleasantness. I'd love with if you could post without satire and sarcasm, but I will not hold my breath

I'm not being satirical or sarcastic. You post like you are in constant fear for your life, and live in some post-apocalyptic lawless hellhole.
 
If you have to take public transport late at night (after 9pm) up here, you contend with drunks, rowdy blokes, neds, all of which have the real potential to pose you danger. It's not uncommon for violence to happen in the cities/trains/buses.

Its why I welcome these armed policemen with open arms to our streets, they will give a real obvious deterent. I'd love to see them ride the trains too, one per carriage. It would stop the rowdiness and unpleasantness. I'd love with if you could post without satire and sarcasm, but I will not hold my breath

It's only a deterrent if there is a possibility of use. No one would consider it reasonable to shoot rowdy drunks, blokes and neds (whatever they are).

Personally, I do not want to see our police armed. Once you arm the police, the criminals will start going out armed.


Steve.
 
I'm reminded of this story...

A wise man was sitting at the gate of a large city. A traveller approached him and asked, “Sir, I’m new here. Could you tell me the kind of people that live in this city?”
After pondering, the wise man asked in return, “And what were the people like where you came from?”
The man replied, “They were unfriendly and mean-spirited.”
The wise man responded, “That’s what they’re like here, too.”
Not long thereafter another traveller approached the city and asked the wise man again the kind of people that lived within the city. “What were the people like in the city that you’ve come from?”
The traveller replied, “Friendly, good-hearted, willing to help their neighbour,” to which the wise man responded, “And that is what they are like here, too.”
 
It's only a deterrent if there is a possibility of use. No one would consider it reasonable to shoot rowdy drunks, blokes and neds (whatever they are).

Personally, I do not want to see our police armed. Once you arm the police, the criminals will start going out armed.


Steve.

Some knife yield and kick peoples faces in. Armed police will help instil a sense of public order. I think it's great.
 
Some knife yield and kick peoples faces in. Armed police will help instil a sense of public order. I think it's great.

I actually agree with you here.

I'm off to poke red hot knitting needles in my eyes and cut me genitals off with a rusty junior hacksaw.:eek:
 
Some knife yield and kick peoples faces in. Armed police will help instil a sense of public order. I think it's great.

Seen both happen and witnessed two stabbings in one night on my drunken sprawl around Glasgow a few years back. I don't visit there often but when I have it has been lively to say the least lol. Totally different place in the day but maybe I was just hanging around a dodgy part.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Our cities are not bear pits. That's ridiculous.

Also, I suppose you would have no issue with the police shooting dead rowdy drunks?
 
snipers on motorway bridges shooting speeders and general moron drivers, that'd get my vote

Snipers? No, they are for one off precision.....an area weapon is much more appropriate for places where so many people fit into the category. Whats the biggest Nuc you can get?
 
Seen both happen and witnessed two stabbings in one night on my drunken sprawl around Glasgow a few years back. I don't visit there often but when I have it has been lively to say the least lol. Totally different place in the day but maybe I was just hanging around a dodgy part.

It's a nasty city. My biggest shame was not intervening when I saw six guys kicking someone in at 830pm on the padestrianised part of suchiehall street. It's a terrible place at night
 
Our cities are not bear pits. That's ridiculous.

Also, I suppose you would have no issue with the police shooting dead rowdy drunks?

They are. Leeds, Newcastle, Glasgow I've sampled on Saturday nights. The rowdiness and drunkeness which trims violent is appalling. Armed police will set the tone and give people a second thought when they attack police officers arresting their mate. Can't wait to see more of this armed police
 
They are. Leeds, Newcastle, Glasgow I've sampled on Saturday nights. The rowdiness and drunkeness which trims violent is appalling. Armed police will set the tone and give people a second thought when they attack police officers arresting their mate. Can't wait to see more of this armed police
seriously, they're not going to adopt a judge dredd approach and pop an unarmed civvy even if they are kicking off.
 
Think it through.

A gun is only a threat if there is a likelihood of use. In the situations you describe, there isn't.

Plus read all the thread. This is not a new initiative, it is just standard armed response units carrying while going about normal policing.

Nothing new here.
 
I actually agree with you here.

I'm off to poke red hot knitting needles in my eyes and cut me genitals off with a rusty junior hacksaw.:eek:
The choice of a 'junior' hacksaw is interesting, surely a whopping great big saw would have been better :-)
 
Bottle yeilding, syringe yielding, knife yielding

I have to tell you that any of those 3 have been common Thursdays (when people were paid in cash on Thursdays!), Fridays and Saturday nights in many parts of good old London Town.
Armed Police were like Cabbies, "South of the river? Sorry mate, I'd melt, or be dissolved or sumfick", so it was down to Plod and Mr Wood to sort out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
The choice of a 'junior' hacksaw is interesting, surely a whopping great big saw would have been better :)


No, because I have an extremely small penis a junior hacksaw will suffice:cool:
 
The article is misleading, if you don't read all of it.
This isn't anything new. DPG officers in London deal with non DPG incidents and are armed, same with armed officers at Heathrow.
Whats happening in Scotland does therefore make sense. It's simply the ARV crews having the gun strapped to them, rather than having them locked away in the boot, which was the case when armed response first started.
They are still Police and still have a responsibility for dealing with anything a Policeman should. Gone are they days when armed officers used to peddle the line they were armed so could not deal with run of the mill stuff.



No, it wouldn't, in fact in some ways it makes it harder. If you have to get all tangled up in a fight, then the officers has to keep much of his mind on the security of the weapon. Unarmed you don't have that concern.

If you aren't fighting with the yobs, it makes no real difference, they know they aren't in play to get shot.



I think you'll find it's far fewer than the number of members of the public shot by...members of the public! In fact the number is 33 people killed by Police since 1995. The vast majority of those there is no argument that they were shot perfectly lawfully. In the small number that remain, one is now sub judice, and the only others where there were proceedings resulted a finding of not guilty.
So please do tell what you base this 'unhappiness' on?
With the greatest possible respect, the law in this country protects the police (or anyone else) from prosecution as long as the person using the force believed, at the time, that it was reasonable and necessary. Therefore, when a police officer shoots an innocent member of the public (or a criminal who doesn't in fact present a real danger) the police officer is still acting lawfully as long as s/he can come up with a good explanation of his/her actions, whether true or not.

Yes, there is one case that is sub judice - but how long ago did that incident take place - 8 years or was it 9? why have we only now got to the point where a police officer may finally be tried as a result of of what many people consider to be the use of nothing more than gratuituous violence? The answer to that one, and to several others, is that police officers, police forces and the so called IPCC refuse to co-operate and withhold evidence from Coroners, with the result that, in several cases, an inquest cannot be held. Why do they do that? Why are they allowed to do that?

Personally, I'm unhappy with the idea of even more police officers walking around with guns because I believe that the safety standard is nothing short of appalling. My personal experience is limited to just 3 force areas, it is of course possible that all of the armed officers in the other 40 forces may be much better trained.
 
If you have to take public transport late at night (after 9pm) up here, you contend with drunks, rowdy blokes, neds, all of which have the real potential to pose you danger. It's not uncommon for violence to happen in the cities/trains/buses.

were do you live in Glasgow - I travel through some not so nice areas on public transport and have never in 20 years had an issue. you must be seriously paranoid. maybe time to move
 
were do you live in Glasgow - I travel through some not so nice areas on public transport and have never in 20 years had an issue. you must be seriously paranoid. maybe time to move

Lets just say I go down the Yoker line daily, and its not nice and there have been stabbings on this route. This is an appalling city with an appalling problem of drunken and/or drug fueled violence and robbery. Some one even tried to get my gear off me in Patrick station at 830pm (and Partick is a nice bit), you know the sort, sucked in face, pasty faced, tracksuit - rough looking. A ned.

Anyway, why is this thread about me. Its about the pro's and cons of our police being armed. I can see very few cons. Abroad police are armed. It works well.
 
Last edited:
what exactly is an armed response police-person going to achieve against some drunk idiots that an unarmed police-person could not?

Have his gun nicked in the scuffle?
 
Have his gun nicked in the scuffle?

Quite likely. I have no idea about the statistics relating to guns (obviously from other countries) but it has been stated that if you carry a knife for self defence, you are more likely to have it used against you than use it yourself.


Steve.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top