(UK)Pc partner would have shot gunman

[Geezah]

The partner of a probationary Nottingham Pc who was wounded in the stomach has said he would have shot the gunman if he had been armed.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41343000/jpg/_41343214_trevon_203.jpg

Trevon Kyron Thomas, 24, from Melford Road in Bilborough, denies the attempted murder of 24-year-old Pc Rachael Bown on 14 February 2006.

He also denies possessing a firearm with intent to resist arrest.

Pc Martin Foster told Nottingham Crown Court his first thought on seeing the gunman was: "Where's my gun?"

Pc Bown suffered life-threatening injuries when she was shot in the stomach below her body armour, while investigating reports of a burglary in the Lenton area.

Pc Foster, who was armed with CS gas and a baton, told the jury: "My first thought was 'Where's my gun?' Had I had one I would have shot him.

"Then my secondary thought was choosing between CS and my baton. Which to draw, which would be best."

The officer, who has served on Nottinghamshire Police for 17 years, said he and Pc Bown were standing a short distance apart when the gunman opened fire as he ran between them.

Three bangs

"To protect myself and Pc Bown I used my CS incapacity spray.

I may have hit him slightly, but not a direct hit to the face. It didn't appear to have any effect, he turned his head away from it.

"He was approximately 7ft (2.1m) away, between myself and Pc Bown. I heard three bangs, I can't say which one hit her."

The officer said they both moved to let the man - who was running with a gun - past them but he fired anyway.

He then told the court he frantically tried to help Pc Bown by laying her on the ground and helping her remove her vest and shirt.

"Almost immediately she started screaming.

"Pc Bown brought her hand out of her waistband and there was blood on her hand.

"I found what I believed to be a bullet wound to her lower left abdomen. I stood there in disbelief at what had happened," he added.

The trial continues.

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/nottinghamshire/6214000.stm)

.........................

[cosimo]

Its about time our police carried guns. They are kitted out like ****son of Dock Green to face well armed scum who won't hesitate to shoot.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

I heard that someone got shot in the Utopian States of Amerika once (apparently) or maybe it was just one of those internet rumour thingies.

[Geezah]

I heard that someone got shot in the Utopian States of Amerika once (apparently) or maybe it was just one of those internet rumour thingies.

Still trying to compare apples to oranges, last I heard you cannot legally own handguns over in the UK, is that still the case???

Seems to be a problem with the not so law abiding not paying attention to the laws put in place to keep the law abiding under control!

[CPLHUNTER]

I agree, the freaking police need to be armed. Period. Start with that and then work toward allowing law abiding citizens proper gun rights.

Not arming the police force has to be the dumbest idea I've ever heard...who disagrees?

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Still trying to compare apples to oranges, last I heard you cannot legally own handguns over in the UK, is that still the case???Yet again you are wrong as free pistol is now allowed.

[dj_1911]

Yet again you are wrong as free pistol is now allowed.

But police officers don't have them? :cantbeli:

[a_very_ex_STAB]

But police officers don't have them? :cantbeli:

Whenever the UK Police Federation take a vote on the issue they always come back with an overwhelming rejection of the idea of having a completely armed police force. The bottom line is that the Police themselves don't want it.

[dj_1911]

How are they supposed to deal with armed criminals?

[Geezah]

Yet again you are wrong as free pistol is now allowed.

Yet again I am wrong, what else have I been wrong about???

And free pistol is open to who?????

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Still trying to compare apples to oranges, last I heard you cannot legally own handguns over in the UK, is that still the case???

Seems to be a problem with the not so law abiding not paying attention to the laws put in place to keep the law abiding under control!

How can it have been a law to 'keep the law abiding under control' when before the 1997 Firearms Amendment Act only a tiny fraction (<1/1000) of the UK population owned a handgun ?:roll:

The use of phrases like 'keep the law abiding under control' indicate membership of the tinfoil hat paranoid brigade :)

[Geezah]

How are they supposed to deal with armed criminals?

They have their version of SWAT, CO19.

Or they always have their can of CS gas.

[joe mama]

Yet again you are wrong as free pistol is now allowed.

Isn't "free pistol" a single shot .22 that is so large as to make it not the least bit useful for concealment and pretty limited in use for self defense? (Obviously it being .22 makes it a very poor choice for self defense as well.)
I would think it pretty clear that by handgun Geezah means something that is either reasonably concealable or powerful enough (while considerably smaller than a rifle or shotgun) to be a useful self defense tool or best of all, a compromise of both.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Yet again I am wrong, what else have I been wrong about???

And free pistol is open to who?????Most persons deemed responsible enough to hold a FAC who have access to a suitable shooting venue I would imagine.

[Geezah]

How can it have been a law to 'keep the law abiding under control' when before the 1997 Firearms Amendment Act only a tiny fraction (<1/1000) of the UK population owned a handgun ?:roll:

Well, prior to the ban, the law abiding weren't breaking the law with their licensed firearms, so just who have these law affected...............the law abiding!



The use of phrases like 'keep the law abiding under control' indicate membership of the tinfoil hat paranoid brigade :)

Or membership to the league that agree, criminals don't obey the law!

[Geezah]

Most persons deemed responsible enough to hold a FAC who have access to a suitable shooting venue I would imagine.

Now hang on, you're telling me I'm wrong, yet you don't seem to have a positive answer yourself?

Joe, good you see you back.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Isn't "free pistol" a single shot .22 that is so large as to make it not the least bit useful for concealment and pretty limited in use for self defense? (Obviously it being .22 makes it a very poor choice for self defense as well.)
I would think it pretty clear that by handgun Geezah means something that is either reasonably concealable or powerful enough (while considerably smaller than a rifle or shotgun) to be a useful self defense tool or best of all, a compromise of both.There is a simple fact of British life that Americans will have to grasp, the premeditated use of firearms for self defense is not an option and will never be under any existing UK political entity; period.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Now hang on, you're telling me I'm wrong, yet you don't seem to have a positive answer yourself?

Joe, good you see you back.Oh I think its clear enough the right to have a .22 free pistol is not automatic but is at the discretion of your local firearms officer.

[dj_1911]

They have their version of SWAT, CO19.

Or they always have their can of CS gas.

Brit Policeman being shot at by a criminal. "Stop shooting at me while I call CO19, dammit! I'll pepper spray you, I swear!" rofl

[CPLHUNTER]

Well according to a_very_ex_STAB, they prefer to be unarmed, so I guess I can't feel bad from them?

I would like to see some evidence of the police voting against carrying firearms, I just can't see why they would???

[Geezah]

Oh I think its clear enough the right to have a .22 free pistol is not automatic but is at the discretion of your local firearms officer.

So my statement still stands?


last I heard you cannot legally own handguns over in the UK, is that still the case???

Unless, .22 Free Pistol is classified as handguns?

[Geezah]

Well according to a_very_ex_STAB, they prefer to be unarmed, so I guess I can't feel bad from them?

I would like to see some evidence of the police voting against carrying firearms, I just can't see why they would???

Over on the UK Police Forum I sometimes post on, they had their own poll and it looked like there was a majority of uniformed Officers that were in favour of carrying a firearm.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

So my statement still stands?



Unless, .22 Free Pistol is classified as handguns?It will show up on an FAC as a pistol not a rifle.

[Freedom06]

I would like to see some evidence of the police voting against carrying firearms, I just can't see why they would???

Police Federation: Officers against carrying guns

Monday, 21 Nov 2005 14:42

The Police Federation of England and Wales has said it is against the idea of the police being routinely armed, but believes officers should be given more firearms training should the need arise.

Its comments come as the murder of a policewoman last Friday reignites the debate about whether Britain should have an armed police force.

PC Sharon Beshenivsky died after being shot while attending an armed robbery in Bradford.

A Police Federation spokeswoman told politics.co.uk: "The Police Federation are planning to re-survey our members, but back in May 2003, 78 per cent of the officers polled claimed that despite being threatened by knives, guns and other weapons they would not wish to be routinely armed.

"However, they believed more officers needed to be trained to carry firearms."

www.politics.co.uk

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Over on the UK Police Forum I sometimes post on, they had their own poll and it looked like there was a majority of uniformed Officers that were in favour of carrying a firearm.Yet at their last conferance they were still against the general issue of sidearms. My feelings are that most of the voters on that forums poll were disafected gun loving British ex pats now resident in the US.:)

[joe mama]

There is a simple fact of British life that Americans will have to grasp, the premeditated use of firearms for self defense is not an option and will never be under any existing UK political entity; period.

So does "not an option" mean it's illegal "period" for a legally armed person attacked by an intruder armed with a knife in their home (as an example) in the UK to use their firearm in self defense? Please note i clearly said the person is legally armed, whatever that means in terms of specific firearms, and they're in their home, and they're attacked (there's not doubt about the attack) by an intruder with a knife (again, NO doubt about the danger of this person or the attack, to illustrate a point).

[Freedom06]

So does "not an option" mean it's illegal "period" for a legally armed person attacked by an intruder armed with a knife in their home (as an example) in the UK to use their firearm in self defense? Please note i clearly said the person is legally armed, whatever that means in terms of specific firearms, and they're in their home, and they're attacked (there's not doubt about the attack) by an intruder with a knife (again, NO doubt about the danger of this person or the attack, to illustrate a point).


No its not illegal period. You are allowed to use what you deem is 'reasonable force'- 'in the moment'- when you encounter an intruder.. if he is threatening your life and the gun is close by and you shoot him because you deemed your life was in danger-it would be justifiable. However if you kept the gun loaded beside the bed (premeditated) ready to shoot and kill any intruder, regardless of whether he was armed or posed a real threat then it wouldn't stand in court as far as I know...

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

So does "not an option" mean it's illegal "period" for a legally armed person attacked by an intruder armed with a knife in their home (as an example) in the UK to use their firearm in self defense? Please note i clearly said the person is legally armed, whatever that means in terms of specific firearms, and they're in their home, and they're attacked (there's not doubt about the attack) by an intruder with a knife (again, NO doubt about the danger of this person or the attack, to illustrate a point).On paper in the eyes of the law yes its illegal but there are shades of grey here depending on circumstance. In Scotland the right to physical self defence still stands (within reason) but the right to self defence with a weapon is much more clearly and precisely defined, the attacker would have to be in your home after dark and each case would be looked at individually.

[Geezah]

Police Federation: Officers against carrying guns

Monday, 21 Nov 2005 14:42

The Police Federation of England and Wales has said it is against the idea of the police being routinely armed, but believes officers should be given more firearms training should the need arise.

Its comments come as the murder of a policewoman last Friday reignites the debate about whether Britain should have an armed police force.

PC Sharon Beshenivsky died after being shot while attending an armed robbery in Bradford.

A Police Federation spokeswoman told politics.co.uk: "The Police Federation are planning to re-survey our members, but back in May 2003, 78 per cent of the officers polled claimed that despite being threatened by knives, guns and other weapons they would not wish to be routinely armed.

"However, they believed more officers needed to be trained to carry firearms."

www.politics.co.uk

Same date, same website,

Protect the Protectors: Police need more guns

Monday, 21 Nov 2005 11:22
An "informed debate" is now required to decide whether police officers should routinely carry firearms, according to the head of police pressure group.

PC Norman Brennan, a serving policeman and chairman of Protect the Protectors, backs the call for more police to carry guns.

"The adage that if you arm the police more criminals will carry guns is nonsense. The police service is being outgunned on the streets of Britain day and night," he said.

His comments come after the murder of policewoman Sharon Beshenivsky, shot while attending an armed robbery last Friday, which has sparked a renewed debate about the non-armed status of Britain's police force.

Mr Brennan added: "If police officers are to retain the highest confidence of the public and their own morale surely the time has come for them to be able to defend themselves and the British public with every means possible."

Link (http://www.politics.co.uk/issueoftheday/protect-protectors-police-need-more-guns-$369631$366730.htm)

Taken from the UK Police Online Forum, you have to register to post of read through the threads.



I presume you have by ow heard of the results from the survey the Police Federation issued to us all ( sorry, serving full time Police Officers, front line )

Anyway...

I think, if memory serves..


23% wanted firearms,

80% want tazers for all Police Officers...

Isn't it ironic though that out of 141,000 officers surveyed, only 47,000 responded to the survey :roll:

No wonder the % levels were low :!:

Black Rat is a mod over there.

Link (http://www.police-recruitment.com/one2/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=103&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=135)

[joe mama]

No its not illegal period. You are allowed to use what you deem is 'reasonable force'- 'in the moment'- when you encounter an intruder.. if he is threatening your life and the gun is close by and you shoot him because you deemed your life was in danger-it would be justifiable. However if you kept the gun loaded beside the bed (premeditated) ready to shoot and kill any intruder, regardless of whether he was armed or posed a real threat then it wouldn't stand in court as far as I know...

Sounds like he's just about as wrong about self defense with a firearm as Geezah was about handguns being banned. Geezah you evil bastid, how dare you imply handguns that are useful for anything other than putting tiny holes in paper are banned. Don't you know how wrong you are!?!?!?!?!?
(grin, and thanks for the welcome back, i've been lurking, just haven't bothered to post in a long time)

[Geezah]

Yet at their last conferance they were still against the general issue of sidearms. My feelings are that most of the voters on that forums poll were disafected gun loving British ex pats now resident in the US.:)

Actually, there is one mod I have gone around the block with, in a nice way, not all agree, but currently it seems to be 49% in favour of being armed and 50% against.
Granted it is an informal poll but it is a poll all the same.

It also mentions that 80% of the public want to see an armed force.

[cosimo]

There appears to be a fairly large percentage of police officers who feel they should be armed. Perhaps they are the officers working in high risk areas. It may be wise to take a poll of constables working in major cities were gun crime is a problem. I have a feeling the results will be quite different.

[Geezah]

(grin, and thanks for the welcome back, i've been lurking, just haven't bothered to post in a long time)

Well, it's good you stuck around, now all we need is for Legion to post in this thread and the circle is completep-)

[Geezah]

There appears to be a fairly large percentage of police officers who feel they should be armed. Perhaps they are the officers working in high risk areas. It may be wise to take a poll of constables working in major cities were gun crime is a problem. I have a feeling the results will be quite different.

I'm not sure how true it is, but I think I remember allot of the Officers responding to the polls are desk jockeys?

[Hydro]

Reference police being routinely armed, i've always held the opinion that when they say so, then go for it. They're the guys out on the street and if they believe carrying a weapon enables them to more effectively do their job, then so be it. Though I'm not terribly enamoured by police in higher risk areas without firearms. Certain cities *cough* Manc, Brum for sure have very rough areas.

[Hydro]

I'm not sure how true it is, but I think I remember allot of the Officers responding to the polls are desk jockeys?


Probably the only people with time to do it, beat officers tend to be snowed under with patrolling and paperwork last I heard.

[Geezah]

Probably the only people with time to do it, beat officers tend to be snowed under with patrolling and paperwork last I heard.

Oh no, you're right about lack of time on their hands. I lurk over there abit and post on anything firearm related(surprise surprise) and they seem to hit brick walls which ever way they turn. My hat is off to the Boys in Blue, they sure do put up with a bunch of crap and then ask for seconds.

[cosimo]

Reference police being routinely armed, i've always held the opinion that when they say so, then go for it. They're the guys out on the street and if they believe carrying a weapon enables them to more effectively do their job, then so be it. Though I'm not terribly enamoured by police in higher risk areas without firearms. Certain cities *cough* Manc, Brum for sure have very rough areas.

I agree, parts of Leeds are also really rough. Many people in this country have no idea quite how rough some places can be. Many policemen don't either. I worked in manchester for a short while and met quite a lot of policemen, they admitted that some parts of that city are no go areas for them.

[sir-chimp]

I have a question - how are English police taught to handle deadly force situations?

A baton and CS spray mean f_uck all when you round a corner and there is a perp with pick one: 2x4, crowbar, knife, machete, bat, etc and he has one thought in mind - kill the pig, or when you walk into a house on a alcohol fueled domestic full of potential weapons.

Are they being equipped with tazers at least so they dont have to get in arms reach and have a chance to neutralize the threat before it crosses the safety gap in distance between the officer and the perp?

Or are they counting on the public always taking their meds, never going on alcohol and drug binges, and always obeying a police order?

[joe mama]

Reference police being routinely armed, i've always held the opinion that when they say so, then go for it. They're the guys out on the street and if they believe carrying a weapon enables them to more effectively do their job, then so be it. Though I'm not terribly enamoured by police in higher risk areas without firearms. Certain cities *cough* Manc, Brum for sure have very rough areas.

I think you're bringing up something important: if the majority of police are not interested in being armed, is that because the majority of them are not in the dangerous areas? Maybe the decision about whether or not the officers who patrol the most dangerous areas shouldn't be made by whether or not some guys out in the countryside where there's far less crime should be armed. Also, is it the guys on the street expressing these opinions?
Think about it this way: YOU are a cop patrolling the streets of (insert bad neighborhood/area/city here) day to day. Shouldn't you, and the officers working closely with you be the ones who are asked if arming is necessary or wanted?
I'll still remain of the opinion that they should be armed regardless of whether or not they think it's necessary, thinking it's better to have the tool and never need it (most US cops NEVER shoot in the line of duty in their careers, my dad and uncle are two of them, and they were big city cops in bad neighborhoods for 23 and 30+ years) than to need the tool, even once, no matter how unlikely it is, and not have it.

[joe mama]

I have a question - how are English police taught to handle deadly force situations?

A baton and CS spray mean f_uck all when you round a corner and there is a perp with pick one: 2x4, crowbar, knife, machete, bat, etc and he has one thought in mind - kill the pig, or when you walk into a house on a alcohol fueled domestic full of potential weapons.

Are they being equipped with tazers at least so they dont have to get in arms reach and have a chance to neutralize the threat before it crosses the safety gap in distance between the officer and the perp?

Or are they counting on the public always taking their meds, never going on alcohol and drug binges, and always obeying a police order?

From posts here from some of the UK folks I think they're taught to call for the armed back up and wait for it. Sounds ok and works ok when the armed back up can respond quickly, but what if they can't? What if it's the drugged out psycho killing his family (or whatever other horrible worst case scenario)? While they call for help and wait, people could be dying. Being prepared for the worst case (but still extremely possible) scenario is part of what fuels my views on this.

[sir-chimp]

From posts here from some of the UK folks I think they're taught to call for the armed back up and wait for it. Sounds ok and works ok when the armed back up can respond quickly, but what if they can't? What if it's the drugged out psycho killing his family (or whatever other horrible worst case scenario)? While they call for help and wait, people could be dying. Being prepared for the worst case (but still extremely possible) scenario is part of what fuels my views on this.

There is no time to wait in deadly force situations. They present themselves - RIGHT NOW.

[joe mama]

There is no time to wait in deadly force situations. They present themselves - RIGHT NOW.

My point exactly.

You don't send firefighters out with fire extinguishers to see if it's enough and then call for (and wait for) back up that's better equipped while things burn.

I understand that if the police get a call that is believeably enough serious gun crime the armed officers might be the first responders, but aren't there tons of situations where the police come across things before anyone calls, and/or the call turns out to be more than was originally thought?

[sir-chimp]

My point exactly.



I understand that if the police get a call that is believeably enough serious gun crime the armed officers might be the first responders, but aren't there tons of situations where the police come across things before anyone calls, and/or the call turns out to be more than was originally thought?

Every call turns out to be more than was originally thought. And you never know what your going to come across driving down the road, or walking down the street.

[jameshr4]

Just going back to the police fed survey my team didnt get the survey until a week after the closing date!!!!! The same for most of the division hmmmmmm well done fed!!! Not that it would have made that much difference to the results I feel.

[gaz]

Same date, same website,


Link (http://www.politics.co.uk/issueoftheday/protect-protectors-police-need-more-guns-$369631$366730.htm)

Taken from the UK Police Online Forum, you have to register to post of read through the threads.



Black Rat is a mod over there.

Link (http://www.police-recruitment.com/one2/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=103&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=135)

Geezah, I'd like to remind you of this thread (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=81198) where an article you saw fit to post yourself says that the majority of British police officers do not wish to be armed, I also gave reasons as to why the the police forum poll you quoted can't really be trusted.

[California Joe]

I guess it all boils down to culture. I feel very bad for the cop that was shot. My opinion would be that if the majority of the police in Britain said they don't feel that a firearm is necessary to do their jobs then those are the guys I would arm. If they can do their job without it then they have very good skills with people. They would be the types to only use their firearm when it was absolutely necessary. Like in this cited instance. They would view it as a tool of last resort. Which I think is a very positive thing. Does that make sense? Have it, but continue to do business as usual. But if a very dire need arises, protect yourself and your partner.

[Aerosoul]

Makes sense to me, Joe.

As you said, it's just the culture, though.

[Geezah]

I don't buy into the culture thing, after all it wasn't that long ago that Sherlock Holmes carried a pocket pistol, or was that Watson.

[Freedom06]

I would just like to add that there are disadvantages to carrying a gun routinely (though if Police officers said they needed them in this day and age then give them guns..).

In Britain, policing used to be (post war) all about the bobby on the beat who was seen as approachable, knew everyone on his beat and policed 'by consent'.( Of course those days are pretty much over, at least in inner city areas.) If a policeman is armed, it automatically places a 'barrier' between you and the person you are dealing with-especially if the majority of the public in britain are not used to the idea of weapons and are unnerved by them. It is more of a psychological point, but still important to how the police are viewed by the public and the interactions between them, however subtle. I think maybe this is why police officers have resisted the call to be armed for so long..

[Geezah]

Geezah, I'd like to remind you of this thread (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=81198) where an article you saw fit to post yourself says that the majority of British police officers do not wish to be armed, I also gave reasons as to why the the police forum poll you quoted can't really be trusted.

Actually, if you read over the details again, you will find it is not the majority.

141,000 Officers polled, 47,000 Officers replied, of those 47,000, 76.6% were not in favour of arming the Police. That works out to be 36,002 Officers if I'm correct, and I'm not a wizard when it comes to numbers.

So, as James has already mentioned, there could be any number of reasons why the other 94,000 Officers did not respond to the poll, which I would call flawed when compared to a public poll on an online UK Police Forum with frontline Officers responding.

[Geezah]

I would just like to add that there are disadvantages to carrying a gun routinely (though if Police officers said they needed them in this day and age then give them guns..).

According to the Officers over on the other site, there are 30,000 Glocks on hand in storage should the need ever arise, this was something echoed by other Officers over there.



In Britain, policing used to be (post war) all about the bobby on the beat who was seen as approachable, knew everyone on his beat and policed 'by consent'.( Of course those days are pretty much over, at least in inner city areas.) If a policeman is armed, it automatically places a 'barrier' between you and the person you are dealing with-especially if the majority of the public in britain are not used to the idea of weapons and are unnerved by them. It is more of a psychological point, but still important to how the police are viewed by the public and the interactions between them, however subtle. I think maybe this is why police officers have resisted the call to be armed for so long..

So just how scary are these unapproachable Officers?

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2006/08/11/heathrow_wideweb__470x335,0.jpg
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/060816/060816_britianprofiling_hmed_12p.hmedium.jpg
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2005/11/21/chung372.jpg

I see those guys a little scarier than a PC with a handgun on his hip holstered.

[joe mama]

I would just like to add that there are disadvantages to carrying a gun routinely (though if Police officers said they needed them in this day and age then give them guns..).

In Britain, policing used to be (post war) all about the bobby on the beat who was seen as approachable, knew everyone on his beat and policed 'by consent'.( Of course those days are pretty much over, at least in inner city areas.) If a policeman is armed, it automatically places a 'barrier' between you and the person you are dealing with-especially if the majority of the public in britain are not used to the idea of weapons and are unnerved by them. It is more of a psychological point, but still important to how the police are viewed by the public and the interactions between them, however subtle. I think maybe this is why police officers have resisted the call to be armed for so long..

Haven't you had cops are airports and some other places carrying f'ing MP5's and bigger for many years now? And people would still have that much of an issue seeing other cops armed? I know they may not be used to it, but aren't people supposed to be used to trusting police as someone to turn to when there's a problem? Them being armed just tells me they're that much more prepared (ie equipped with tools that might be necessary) to deal with things that I, the average citizen, hope to never have to deal with.

[Freedom06]

Geezah, I was offering a point of view-what does your view on the approachability of armed police got to do with what the public as a whole believes? The armed police at airports are there to provide a visible deterrance against a terrorist attack-it is not community policing.

Tell me, why do you think the police have been so far resisting calls to be armed?

[jameshr4]

I think with some members of the public it would become an issue. However if your taking details for a burglary or dealing with a road traffic accident why should the gun become an issue? If we the police deal with incidents and not make a deal about being armed it will make the public easier. When I came back into Heathrow on Thursday thier were 4 armed officers with MP5's on patrol. No-one batted an eye lid apart from an old guy who went up to one to ask for directions.
I'm not saying I want us to be armed I've said my piece before but it is a complicated issue with a lot of reasons why we aren't issued with firearms and/or taser. If a Chief constable wanted to arm his force he/she could, however it would cause an uproar in certain elements of the press and certain elements of ACPO as the PC's would be given the final say so far more than they do now.

[Geezah]

Geezah, I was offering a point of view-what does your view on the approachability of armed police got to do with what the public as a whole believes?

I was offering visual stimulance to your idea that once armed an Officer is then unapproachable.
I believe this isn't the case, the only time it would be unwise to approach one is when the barrel is facing at you.



The armed police at airports are there to provide a visible deterrance against a terrorist attack-it is not community policing.

But they still deal with the community, otherwise why not just replace them with members of the Armed Forces?
They're also at the House's of Parliament.



Tell me, why do you think the police have been so far resisting calls to be armed?

Frontline Police or higher ups, after all not all 141,000 members of the Police Federation reponded to the poll?

[Freedom06]

I think its basic human psychology... Again, at airports police are there to reassure a (nervous) public about flying-so in that case a show of force is comforting-it is only one part of the argument but something to consider. I have lived in Germany (where all police are armed) and Israel (where most people are armed!) and in both places I sensed a different kind of policing to here in the UK. UK policing has a distinct style which I treasure, it may be that we have to sacrifice that in order to protect them..if that's the case so be it, but we will be losing something in the process I believe.

[John John Peters]

Yet again you are wrong as free pistol is now allowed.

No, you are wrong, at the moment the pro gun lobby is TRYING to get the Gov't to let those UK citizens involved in the 2012 Olympic pistol shooting permission to train in the UK with "free" pistols... as of now that hasn't been allowed.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/TargetPistols/

[Vandervahn]

...

Frontline Police or higher ups, after all not all 141,000 members of the Police Federation reponded to the poll?

You are constantly argueing around the lack of voters in the poll compared to the overall police(wo-)men serving. Still, in the statistical sense, 47.000 voters indeed form a vastly sufficient cross-sectional study. Its moot to argue against with the number of those that did not participate, as their opinion can be either-side and is therefor to be ignored - and especially in this case where the figure of 23.4% pro-gun voters remains largely identical to the 22% pro-gun voters in the previous poll (as was said in the article).



I don't buy into the culture thing, after all it wasn't that long ago that Sherlock Holmes carried a pocket pistol, or was that Watson.

Both were no police officers ;)

[sir-chimp]

I think with some members of the public it would become an issue. However if your taking details for a burglary or dealing with a road traffic accident why should the gun become an issue? If we the police deal with incidents and not make a deal about being armed it will make the public easier. When I came back into Heathrow on Thursday thier were 4 armed officers with MP5's on patrol. No-one batted an eye lid apart from an old guy who went up to one to ask for directions.
I'm not saying I want us to be armed I've said my piece before but it is a complicated issue with a lot of reasons why we aren't issued with firearms and/or taser. If a Chief constable wanted to arm his force he/she could, however it would cause an uproar in certain elements of the press and certain elements of ACPO as the PC's would be given the final say so far more than they do now.

Thats a pretty interesting insight into English Police culture James.

In the US the culture states there is no such thing as a routine call, be it a burglary report, traffic accident, parking ticket, ect. Thats pounded into police recruits heads from day one. A gun in the US is first and foremost another tool on the belt, that is there when the need arises. The fact no one can predict when that need arises is why no competent and Officer safety conscious officer in the US would ever hit the streets in uniform with out one, and often times a back up tucked away some where on their person ;)

Im not critisizing the English Police culture, just the difference in attitudes regaurding Officer safety is quite interesting.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Well, prior to the ban, the law abiding weren't breaking the law with their licensed firearms, so just who have these law affected...............the law abiding!

Barry Prudom, Michael Ryan and Thomas Hamilton were law abiding up to the point where they started killing people with their legally held firearms.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

I don't buy into the culture thing, after all it wasn't that long ago that Sherlock Holmes carried a pocket pistol, or was that Watson.


LOL 123456

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

No, you are wrong, at the moment the pro gun lobby is TRYING to get the Gov't to let those UK citizens involved in the 2012 Olympic pistol shooting permission to train in the UK with "free" pistols... as of now that hasn't been allowed.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/TargetPistols/A slightly misleading petition as it refers only to target pistols the petition is to allow semi auto target .22's not free pistol which you would be aware of if you picked up a copy of Target Sports and saw the latest offering from Pardini. p-)

[Geezah]

Well, prior to the ban, the law abiding weren't breaking the law with their licensed firearms, so just who have these law affected...............the law abiding!

Barry Prudom,
Barry Prudom's murderous spree took place in the summer of 1982. Prudom was a bitter and twisted man with a history of petty crime and an obsession with guns. (http://archive.thisisyork.co.uk/2005/4/4/226868.html)


Michael Ryan

There doesn't seem to be anything that would indicate that Michael Ryan had a criminal past, seems to be a recluse that went over the edge, but the ban that came out of that episode only helped to prevent further amok killings.
It did not sto[p the criminal elements from procurement of illegal arms.


and Thomas Hamilton were law abiding up to the point where they started killing people with their legally held firearms.

Well, I would not even mention this monster, as he was well known to the Police and it had been rumoured he was a kiddy fiddler, so I put the majority of the blame for what took place on the shoulders of the local law enforcement.
They should have investigated this case further prior to him going acting on his loco ideas.
Instead they pushed another ban which was a knee jerk reaction to another nutter going, well nuts.
Didn't do anything to stop crime, only affected the majority of the law abiding and would help stop future amok killings, which have not happend that often.

[Geezah]

Frontline Police or higher ups, after all not all 141,000 members of the Police Federation reponded to the poll?

You are constantly argueing around the lack of voters in the poll compared to the overall police(wo-)men serving. Still, in the statistical sense, 47.000 voters indeed form a vastly sufficient cross-sectional study. Its moot to argue against with the number of those that did not participate, as their opinion can be either-side and is therefor to be ignored - and especially in this case where the figure of 23.4% pro-gun voters remains largely identical to the 22% pro-gun voters in the previous poll (as was said in the article).

You might have missed this on the other page?

Just going back to the police fed survey my team didnt get the survey until a week after the closing date!!!!! The same for most of the division hmmmmmm well done fed!!! Not that it would have made that much difference to the results I feel.

This is taken from UKPoliceOnline forum,



Isn't it ironic though that out of 141,000 officers surveyed, only 47,000 responded to the survey :roll:

No wonder the % levels were low :!:

I heard that loads of Officers never even got the survey form - so how could they respond?

Link (http://www.police-recruitment.com/one2/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=103&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=150)

Same complaint is echoing across the force maybe?





I don't buy into the culture thing, after all it wasn't that long ago that Sherlock Holmes carried a pocket pistol, or was that Watson.

Both were not police officers ;)

Yeah, that's right, but I did hear on the radio years ago that it was rumoured they were both gay, not sure how true that is though.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Barry Prudom's murderous spree took place in the summer of 1982. Prudom was a bitter and twisted man with a history of petty crime and an obsession with guns. (http://archive.thisisyork.co.uk/2005/4/4/226868.html)


Ahhh there you see - the dangers of an obsession with guns. Hoist it in.

[Geezah]

Ahhh there you see - the dangers of an obsession with guns. Hoist it in.

Obession with guns, I like them........maybe allot but I don't obsess over them.

Anyway, the guy had a history of petty crime.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Obession with guns, I like them........maybe allot but I don't obsess over them.

Anyway, the guy had a history of petty crime.

Petty crime does not necessarily prevent someone getting an FAC even now.

[joe mama]

Barry Prudom, Michael Ryan and Thomas Hamilton were law abiding up to the point where they started killing people with their legally held firearms.

People who would ignore the laws against using their legally held firearms to murder people would, of course, obey the law if it said they couldn't have guns, right?

[Freedom06]

You might have missed this on the other page?


This is taken from UKPoliceOnline forum,



Link (http://www.police-recruitment.com/one2/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=103&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=150)

Same complaint is echoing across the force maybe?



I think you missed Vandervahns' point. 47,000 out of 141,000 is a very large statistical sample, and if, all other things being equal, the rest were asked their views the likelyhood is the result would still be exactly the same. i.e vote against arms... Now if the 47,000 voters were not representitive of the force as a whole for some reason, that's a different issue, but as far as pure numbers go there is no problem.

[Geezah]

I think you missed Vandervahns' point. 47,000 out of 141,000 is a very large statistical sample, and if, all other things being equal, the rest were asked their views the likelyhood is the result would still be exactly the same. i.e vote against arms... Now if the 47,000 voters were not representitive of the force as a whole for some reason, that's a different issue, but as far as pure numbers go there is no problem.

Yes it is a very large group, it is 1/3, but because we have no idea how many of those Officers are frontline Officers, how much emphasis can we place on the poll being valid?
You have to take into account that it seems that those that should have the biggest say in what happens did not recieve the poll or recieved it too late.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Obession with guns, I like them........maybe allot but I don't obsess over them.


LOL
Denial is always the first stage in that particular form of psychopathology :)

[Geezah]

LOL
Denial is always the first stage in that particular form of psychopathology :)

I thought that was a river in Egypt?

[gaz]

Actually, if you read over the details again, you will find it is not the majority.

141,000 Officers polled, 47,000 Officers replied, of those 47,000, 76.6% were not in favour of arming the Police. That works out to be 36,002 Officers if I'm correct, and I'm not a wizard when it comes to numbers.

So, as James has already mentioned, there could be any number of reasons why the other 94,000 Officers did not respond to the poll, which I would call flawed when compared to a public poll on an online UK Police Forum with frontline Officers responding.

You're correct, but as previously pointed out by someone else almost a third of the officers were polled, that's a much greater statistical sample than is usually used for polls and would suggest a greater degree of accuracy.
Your statement that poll is flawed in comparison to an internet forum poll is slightly bizarre, we at least know the police federation poll only consisted of police officers whereas the online poll can be voted on by people such as you and I and to the best of my knowledge, neither of us is a police officer. Let me put it another way, SOCNET is a website for members of the Special Operations Community but it also has a very large membership of civilians (Myself included), could any poll taken there honestly represent the Special Operations Community bearing in mind that I could vote in it? Also, to return to your first point and logic, unless more than 47,000 officers replied to the online poll then it's inherently more flawed than the police federation poll.


Frontline Police or higher ups, after all not all 141,000 members of the Police Federation reponded to the poll?

Taken from the article - " The federation, which represents frontline police officers....". That suggests all 47,000 responding officers were those with frontline duties.

[John John Peters]

Barry Prudom, Michael Ryan and Thomas Hamilton were law abiding up to the point where they started killing people with their legally held firearms.

Michael Ryan and Thomas Hamilton were both being reported to the police as people unfit to have access to firearms but the police took no action against them.

At the inquest into the hamilton shooting certains documents were put under the 100 yrs rule to stop the public from learning the truth, latley this rule has been successfully overturned and what is emerging is that hamilton had a very unhealthy interest in young children as did some of the police involved in the OK'aying of his firearms permit.....

[a_very_ex_STAB]

I thought that was a river in Egypt?

Geographically challenged.
How typically American:)

[gaz]

At the inquest into the hamilton shooting certains documents were put under the 100 yrs rule to stop the public from learning the truth, latley this rule has been successfully overturned and what is emerging is that hamilton had a very unhealthy interest in young children as did some of the police involved in the OK'aying of his firearms permit.....

I've heard that mentioned before on forums and such but have never actually seen it in a bona fide news source, any ideas where I could find one?

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

I've heard that mentioned before on forums and such but have never actually seen it in a bona fide news source, any ideas where I could find one?I have yet to see a bona fide source that can support that particulat allegation but I remain convinced that the Chief Firearms officer said no to Hamiltons FAC renewal only to be told by others way on high to reverse his decision.

[John John Peters]

I've heard that mentioned before on forums and such but have never actually seen it in a bona fide news source, any ideas where I could find one?

The Gun Mart ran a couple of articles on it a while ago. From what I understand although the 100 yr rule has been quashed the terms under which you can read the documents are very strict ie: only one document at a time no photocopying etc and you can only see them in Scotland after giving notice etc etc everything that can make it harder to actually see the documents is being done but there is a report being put together.

[Geezah]

I've heard that mentioned before on forums and such but have never actually seen it in a bona fide news source, any ideas where I could find one?

Search for Thomas Hamilton and my name and it brings up quite a few links;)
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/461_1117979198_dunblane.jpg

[tyovan]

The police in Northern Ireland (former RUC and now PSNI) all carry firearms, so I don't understand why its such a big deal for police on the mainland to carry as well..

How did a country that used to have the largest Empire and most glorious army go to a nation that is so utterly terrified of guns?

[gaz]

Thanks Geezah, though some people would laugh at using the Mail on Sunday as a bona fide news source. That article is over a year and a half old, did anything ever come of it?



How did a country that used to have the largest Empire and most glorious army go to a nation that is so utterly terrified of guns?

Sixteen dead five and six year olds.

[Geezah]

Thanks Geezah, though some people would laugh at using the Mail on Sunday as a bona fide news source. That article is over a year and a half old, did anything ever come of it?

It seems any news source is laughed at here, apart from the BBC for some reason.
I've posted a few things on the monster Thomas Hamilton, just need to search.

[Vandervahn]

...
How did a country that used to have the largest Empire and most glorious army go to a nation that is so utterly terrified of guns?

Because societies tend to evolve over time ;)

[a_very_ex_STAB]

The police in Northern Ireland (former RUC and now PSNI) all carry firearms, so I don't understand why its such a big deal for police on the mainland to carry as well..

How did a country that used to have the largest Empire and most glorious army go to a nation that is so utterly terrified of guns?


It didnt' - guns are simply a non-issue for the vast majority of people who live here. They are simply irrelevant. That's why I always find it amusing when all these septics are frothing at the mouth about something that's not even on the radar over here.

How did a such a mighty continental 'empire' of Soviet Socialist Republics become such a corrupt, decadent shadow of it's former self?
;-)