Routinely armed police on Britain's streets

[Rhyfelwyr]

Britain's first armed police on routine patrol

Small numbers of police officers in Scotland have begun to carry firearms on routine patrol duties. This is of course unusual in Britain, which has a unique history of keeping its officers unarmed (with the exception of Northern Ireland, for obvious reasons).

I am worried that this may mark some sort of cultural shift in the police away from the 'friendly bobby', and towards the more aggressive style of policing you see in the USA and other places.

Plus I guess I just don't like authority figures having tools which could kill me in a flash. I realise that that is paranoia, but I think that regardless of the facts of the matter, at a more emotive level, this will make people view the police in a less friendly light for that reason.

I'm also a bit concerned that this could be a reflection of Scotland's more 'authoritarian' streak, especially with the prospect of independence looming. I don't believe that Scotland has such a healthy suspicion of the government as the wider Anglo tradition does.

It all just seems a bit 1984-ish. Especially when you consider its rather clandestine implementation - not necessarily done deliberately, but it makes me uneasy to think how this has flown under the radar. Apparently, it began with Strathclyde Police (which covers the Glasgow area and my home area) a few years ago, and has since been implemented throughout Scotland since the regional forces merged to form Police Scotland. The public only became aware of it when people began to notice armed officers in seemingly innocuous circumstances, eg at a shop or a traffic incident.

I blame a culture of fear that would rather trade away freedom than come to terms with violence or death.

Thoughts?

[Sp4]

It's really about time if you ask me. Personally, I trust the police enough that I feel better knowing that they're carrying guns. I have no idea what that says about me but I've dealth with police officers often enough to not feel uneasy about them =x

[HoreTore]

You don't need to go all 1984 to highlight undesirable consequences; an armed police force will kill by accident. That's as certain as the sun rising tomorrow. It will be innocent bystanders, it will be suspects who make a move misinterpreted by the police officer. That Brazilian guy who was shot after 7/7 wasn't shot because of an incompetent officer; he is dead purely because of the natural consequences of an armed police force.

Aside from innocents getting killed, there are two more considerations. The first is that we might see less flexible police. Currently, the police needs to take into account their own lives when assessing a situation. Give them guns, and they can be assured of their own lives. I feel rather confident that this will create more aggressive police. I like the type of cop who runs away instead, certain in the knowledge that they'll get the criminal in a day or two anyway. Now they'll probably just shoot him.

Second is the escalation. Criminals carry knives. While of course a danger, they're not terribly dangerous, and result in relatively few deaths. Cops now bring guns to the table. It seems unlikely this will not get a response, particularly among the Hells Angels types.

In conclusion, I like my police unarmed. Sure, let them have guns available when they need them, but not all the time. The situations I consider guns necessary would be one where an innocents life is in danger. Not when police lives are in danger. Not because I hate dem cops or anything, but because I would prefer the cops to run away. In situations where escape may not be an option, give them a gun.


Rather than blaming a culture of fear, I blame a culture of wanting easy answers to difficult problems.

EDIT: the situation is the same over here, btw. An unarmed police force with a conservative government who will probably arm them up before the next election. An interesting note is that the majority of the police leaders do not want to be armed, while a small majority of the police union wants it.

[Husar]

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2...-total-in-2011

Natural consequences I guess. Our police force has been armed as far as I can think back, but we still don't have the problems they have in the US. It's a matter of culture and circumstances. If an armed police officer scares you, would a second amendment help you be less scared because you can then carry your own rifle with you? Would that reduce the amount of times a police officer draws his gun on you?
IMO it's all about the underlying violence of a population, and the vunderlying violence in a country where many strictly demand to have killing toys and to kill more criminals is pretty high. You ge what you ask for and yes, fear is a part of it but it depends on more than just an armed police. An armed police trained to serve and protect the population rather than trained to bring their buddies home alive like every encounter with a civilian is a potential firefight makes a world of difference IMO.

[Sir Moody]

Honestly it isn't a big change - these are armed response officers who were already armed - the only difference is instead of keeping the guns in their cars when responding to normal calls they carry them.

This isnt a move to arm all of the Police and it doesn't look like there is any intention to do so.

I am pretty unconcerned by this since the number of armed response officers is considerable smaller than the normal constabulary.

Should an attempt be made to arm ALL officers then I will be concerned...

[HoreTore]

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2...-total-in-2011

Is this the federal police, or both the federal and state police?

[Husar]

Is this the federal police, or both the federal and state police?

I assume both, they're all not terribly trigger happy AFAIK.

[ICantSpellDawg]

If presented with a choice of potential realities; one where only government had access to firearms OR one where everyone had firearms, even criminals - I would prefer the later in every case.

Good luck having an armed police force with a disarmed populace. I'm sure that will go well for everyone.

[Pannonian]

If presented with a choice of potential realities; one where only government had access to firearms OR one where everyone had firearms, even criminals - I would prefer the later in every case.

Neither of these potential realities are familiar to me. I'm more familiar with my reality of a mostly unarmed police and a mostly unarmed populace, with suspicion of any in either group who are armed.

I think I've only seen armed police on the streets on one occasion, on one of the bridges (London Bridge?) when some personage or whatnot was passing through and IIRC it might have been just after the 7/7 bombings. Other than that, the only armed police I've seen in the UK is in airports. Although I'd presume the ones guarding Downing Street are armed, I've not noticed.

[Husar]

Good luck having an armed police force with a disarmed populace. I'm sure that will go well for everyone.

You mean like in most countries of Europe that are doing just fine or better than the US regarding police brutality and democracy?

Well, considering it's Germany, why should a criminal bother with a gun when they can just pay their way out of prison?

Indeed, our way of dealing with crime is simply superior.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Many people are armed without you noticing. Concealed carry is the preferred method of carry for plainclothes officers and civilians.

In a society that does not recognize the right to keep or bear arms, there are still police and from my understanding London Police have had arms for a long time - even though they may not carry them directly on their person.

[Pannonian]

Many people are armed without you noticing. Concealed carry is the preferred method of carry for plainclothes officers and civilians.

In a society that does not recognize the right to keep or bear arms, there are still police and from my understanding London Police have had arms for a long time - even though they may not carry them directly on their person.

If that's the case, then that's without me knowing. I've known a number of people who've been or who were police officers at the time, and all of them were against police being routinely armed. The police nowadays are more visible than they used to be, partly because they wear luminous yellow jackets as well as their bobby hats, but the beat patrol usually consists of a male and a female officer, probably for flexibility in resolving arguments, but they're not noticeably armed, and the patrol composition doesn't exactly plan for violent confrontation.

It's quite a difference from some foreign countries I've been to, where their police stations are more like fortified camps than the offices we're used to here, and where police are openly armed.

[Sir Moody]

Many people are armed without you noticing. Concealed carry is the preferred method of carry for plainclothes officers and civilians.

In the US maybe - in the UK not so much.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Speak out about it now rhy. If there is no necessity in carrying guns on person, then it's only utility is fear and intimidation. The gun imparts power and while I do not know the laws Scotland has on police officer conduct, it only leads to bigger potential abuses. Frankly if the situation requires discharging a weapon, the police should go through a process of requesting firearms so it can be logged and recorded for later review.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Are you saying that your plainclothes police don't carry a handgun?

[Sir Moody]

most don't no - very few are qualified to do so

[Sir Moody]

to put figures to what I am saying

In England and Wales there are 128,351 serving officers (numbers from an article on Police cuts from January this year)

of these officers 6,868 are qualified to carry a firearm (with ~2700 in London) (numbers from a BBC article published in June)

We really don't have a the same attitude to guns over here

[Pannonian]

to put figures to what I am saying

In England and Wales there are 128,351 serving officers (numbers from an article on Police cuts from January this year)

of these officers 6,868 are qualified to carry a firearm (with ~2700 in London) (numbers from a BBC article published in June)

We really don't have a the same attitude to guns over here

I'm sure the American answer is that British police carry guns without being qualified, and thus citizens have even greater need to carry guns to counter them.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

As to Americans and their attitude on guns:

While some Americans do believe in carrying arms to protect themselves from the police, those persons tend to be either criminals or tinfoil hat types who assume that the government is, on some level, hunting them (we do have our whack jobs).

Most Americans believe in carrying arms to protect themselves until the police finally arrive.


As to UK police carrying guns:

As I understand it, regular carriage of firearms has long been restricted to SWAT and HRT groups -- who are not on regular patrol. I would be interested as to whether this change is being implemented as a means of deterrence or as a response to an increased use of firearms by the criminal element.


One thought on the difference in policing:

When visiting London, one of the things I admired was the fact that I could not go very far nor for very long without spotting a "bobby" on foot patrol. We used to have cops walking a beat in the USA -- using their presence to minimize petty crime -- but that has long since lapsed.

[Kadagar_AV]

Hah, how quickly you become the things you hate. How do you get off ever criticizing America when your last post could just as easily be a caricature of any ignorant redneck going off about inner city problems?

Oh... I was grown up having the perspective that guns kill and all that.

My adult life and meeting with reality has made me change my view. I remember back when a shooting would be headline news, this summer we broke the "record" of one shooting a day.

And no, it wasnt cops doing the shootings.

So yeah, with the people surrounding me that I do have, I would very much like to arm myself up to the best of my ability. Wasn't even a year ago when a guy my age got stabbed 17 times just outside where I live.

And, mind you, I live in one of the BETTER parts of Stockholm. Real estate values here are skyrocketing because people want to flee the immigrants, however, we have no huge wall, so they are still free to roam.

I want to live in a gated community, something I despised the very idea of, growing up. Oh how times change.

[Kadagar_AV]

Safe little fantasy-Sweden became a bit more dangerous, so you became a delusional reactionary?

I see it more like: "I was assaulted in a way that change my everyday life in a negative way, and would like to protect myself from it happening again".

You don't have to be Freud to understand this line of thoughts. It's not really delusional when you get assaulted and your fiance is a minute away from being blown up by a muslim bomber.

I don't buy it. There's no doubt Sweden is undergoing a demographic shift, but the claims made by you and Frags are routinely shown to be overblown whenever people post sources and facts that dig a little deeper.

Actually, threads are having people spewing **** and very little actual debate is going on.

* Gypsies are more criminal than the rest?
* Immigrants from MENA nations leads to a rise in violent crime.
* immigration from MENA leads to way more rapes.
* Immigration from MENA leads to social insecurity.

You argue any of those points? Seriously?

You absolutely cannot deal with immigration by alienating the newcomers and proving to them that they are outsiders who must fight for a piece of the pie. It is a flawed approach that ignores reality and won't work. You can't just make them go away, and you can't make them completely assimilate. You will have to meet them somewhere in between, and your country will be changed. Tough shit, its no excuse to be reactionary.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

How come nobody ever uses that word in political discourse any more? There's a reactionary wave of sentiment spanning the whole world right now, causing all kinds of trouble in all kinds of places, and its like people don't remember even what to call it.

Yes, immigration leads to meeting somewhere in between.

However, I prefer a western country than a country that is in between western standards and muslim standards. What are they going to contribute with? Their fantastic view on womens equal rights, or what?

Sweden was fully functional when ethnically more robust, nowadays with the immigration I want to arm up. And it's obviously NOT just me. As I said, we just broke a record with one shooting a day.

If the criminal immigrant thugs have guns, I'd like the police to carry heavier equipment than that, and myself to at the very least have a gun to be somewhat level with them in a conflict.

[Husar]

How come nobody ever uses that word in political discourse any more? There's a reactionary wave of sentiment spanning the whole world right now, causing all kinds of trouble in all kinds of places, and its like people don't remember even what to call it.

I think you Americans ruined it by applying a whole lot of the labels wrong.
But I also notice a very strong trend towards complete ignorance of grammar rules. The amount of genitive forms people try to pass off as plurals lately is astounding. But I see it here in Germany as well, both the wrong plural and other mistakes such as using plural and singular forms intermixed. It's like a lot of people don't really care about correctness anymore at all and all communication goes down the gutter in the long term. No wonder divorce rates are at 50% if people are unable to communicate.

[Husar]

Pah, language is ruined when you try to get so technical anyway. That's why American English is the best, because the only rules that matter are the ones you make up.

It becomes problematic when someone tries to tell you something and screws up the their/they're/there so bad that you don't even know what he is trying to tell you because the sentence would mean something completely different depending on which is the right one.
I also hardly doubt that there were quite a few communication errors in history that lead to lots of people dying. It's not about being 100% accurate, I find enough typos in my own texts, it's about getting at least some of the basic rules right so that you can actually get a point across without looking like you don't care. Or in other words, if people start to put as much effort into their regular work as they do into their grammar, welcome to the new banana republic.

[Kadagar_AV]

English is awesome...

The money he had had had had no effect on his happiness.

[Pannonian]

It becomes problematic when someone tries to tell you something and screws up the their/they're/there so bad that you don't even know what he is trying to tell you because the sentence would mean something completely different depending on which is the right one.
I also hardly doubt that there were quite a few communication errors in history that lead to lots of people dying. It's not about being 100% accurate, I find enough typos in my own texts, it's about getting at least some of the basic rules right so that you can actually get a point across without looking like you don't care. Or in other words, if people start to put as much effort into their regular work as they do into their grammar, welcome to the new banana republic.

This post puzzled me, as it presented no argument apart from painting a picture, as though the picture itself is an argument.

And the fact that a massive part of the empire has broken away from by using hyper violence or by exploiting the staggering collapses of successive world wars.

It reminds me of Tony Blair's rhetorical habit of listing noun after noun without any verbs to describe what he means by those nouns. At times he wouldn't even bother with nouns, but would just go on with adjective after adjective.

[ICantSpellDawg]

It reminds me of Tony Blair's rhetorical habit of listing noun after noun without any verbs to describe what he means by those nouns. At times he wouldn't even bother with nouns, but would just go on with adjective after adjective.

I was specifically referring to the collapse of Empire precipitated by the end of WWII, where British former colonies broke away with minimal bloodshed. IE India

With a government that did not experience the devastation of WW2, it could be argued that Great Britain would have made it harder for them to leave.

Also, WWI made it easier for Ireland to finally break away, without which they may still be under the yolk of John Bull

[Husar]

This post puzzled me, as it presented no argument apart from painting a picture, as though the picture itself is an argument.

Just like that text that I had to read lately puzzled me because it was trying to tell me something but the grammar was so bad that I couldn't be sure what it was trying to tell me. I guess I succeeded in conveying that feeling.

As for the guns thing, the Taliban and the IS succeeded to break free from the yoke of oppressive imperialist invaders and their tools using personal gun ownership, I guess we all have to support it now.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Thanks for the info. Either way, if your life or health are threatened by someone breaking into your home and you have a gun, it is totally reasonable to use it to defend yourself and stop crime. They used to say "I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6" when our laws used to destroy the lives of good people trying to defend themselves. Now they don't, and I hope that the similar laws in Canada suffer the same fate.