Should all UK Police be armed?

[Lucy Hamilton]

Yes. If the recent knife attacker attacked another victim AFTER unarmed police arrived and asking him nicely didn't work, he should have been shot dead.

Armed police on guard at stations after Leytonstone attack

"# Fears after attack in Leytonstone which suspect said was 'for Syria'
# Armed police patrols have been increase in major stations
# British Transport Police say plain clothes officers are also on patrol
# Critics say the Leytonstone incident shows the need for armed police"

NO as once you do that you put more members of the public at risk from criminals also becoming armed.

The criminals are already armed and have been for years, so I'm not sure what point you're making?

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Yes. If the recent knife attacker attacked another victim AFTER unarmed police arrived and asking him nicely didn't work, he should have been shot dead.

Armed police on guard at stations after Leytonstone attack

"# Fears after attack in Leytonstone which suspect said was 'for Syria'
# Armed police patrols have been increase in major stations
# British Transport Police say plain clothes officers are also on patrol
# Critics say the Leytonstone incident shows the need for armed police"

No, You can arm them with a stun gun or taser gun but a firearm is not needed to take down a person with a knife.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Yes. If the recent knife attacker attacked another victim AFTER unarmed police arrived and asking him nicely didn't work, he should have been shot dead.

Armed police on guard at stations after Leytonstone attack

"# Fears after attack in Leytonstone which suspect said was 'for Syria'
# Armed police patrols have been increase in major stations
# British Transport Police say plain clothes officers are also on patrol
# Critics say the Leytonstone incident shows the need for armed police"

No, You can arm them with a stun gun or taser gun but a firearm is not needed to take down a person with a knife.

I agree re. knife. Although, I'm not that familiar with the taser gun. Can you taser them from a distance, or do you have to go right up to them to do it? If it's the latter, they could have already caused a considerable amount of carnage by the time you get to them, even worse carnage if they're using a machete.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Yes. If the recent knife attacker attacked another victim AFTER unarmed police arrived and asking him nicely didn't work, he should have been shot dead.

Armed police on guard at stations after Leytonstone attack

"# Fears after attack in Leytonstone which suspect said was 'for Syria'
# Armed police patrols have been increase in major stations
# British Transport Police say plain clothes officers are also on patrol
# Critics say the Leytonstone incident shows the need for armed police"

No, You can arm them with a stun gun or taser gun but a firearm is not needed to take down a person with a knife.

I agree re. knife. Although, I'm not that familiar with the taser gun. Can you taser them from a distance, or do you have to go right up to them to do it? If it's the latter, they could have already caused a considerable amount of carnage by the time you get to them, even worse carnage if they're using a machete.

Here:

"
Law enforcement personnel use TASER™ Devices, not stun guns. Though similar in effect, TASER Devices are different in that they shoot out two barbs attached to wire. The electrical energy passes down the wires and into the barbs which are affixed to the person that they shot.

These weapons do have a range of about 21 feet or more which makes them different from stun guns. They are also a lot more expensive which puts them out of reach for most people. "

Stun Gun Range

Also another weapon that could be used against a knife wielding assailant would be Bean Bag Shells for shotguns. They're non-lethal and can be used in your standard 12 gauge shotgun which most police departments carry.

So giving live rounds is not needed in a country like England.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Yes. If the recent knife attacker attacked another victim AFTER unarmed police arrived and asking him nicely didn't work, he should have been shot dead.

Armed police on guard at stations after Leytonstone attack

"# Fears after attack in Leytonstone which suspect said was 'for Syria'
# Armed police patrols have been increase in major stations
# British Transport Police say plain clothes officers are also on patrol
# Critics say the Leytonstone incident shows the need for armed police"

No, You can arm them with a stun gun or taser gun but a firearm is not needed to take down a person with a knife.

I agree re. knife. Although, I'm not that familiar with the taser gun. Can you taser them from a distance, or do you have to go right up to them to do it? If it's the latter, they could have already caused a considerable amount of carnage by the time you get to them, even worse carnage if they're using a machete.

Here:

"
Law enforcement personnel use TASER™ Devices, not stun guns. Though similar in effect, TASER Devices are different in that they shoot out two barbs attached to wire. The electrical energy passes down the wires and into the barbs which are affixed to the person that they shot.

These weapons do have a range of about 21 feet or more which makes them different from stun guns. They are also a lot more expensive which puts them out of reach for most people. "

Stun Gun Range

Also another weapon that could be used a knife wielding assailant would be Bean Bag Shells for shotguns. They're non-lethal and can be used in your standard 12 gauge shotgun which most police departments carry.

So giving live rounds is not needed in a country like England.

Thanks, okay so for knives and machete's, the taser gun is good.

The thing with a suicide bomber and/or someone with a gun, the Bean Bag Shells could be even more dangerous to the public. The reason, especially if the person seems to have a suicide bomb detonator, you have to shoot to kill, a straight headshot, you can't take the risk of them just being injured, they can still detonate the bomb.

The training with a shooter, is that you shoot to kill not to injure, the same situation as a suicide bomber, if you injure a shooter, they can still pull the trigger.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Yes. If the recent knife attacker attacked another victim AFTER unarmed police arrived and asking him nicely didn't work, he should have been shot dead.

Armed police on guard at stations after Leytonstone attack

"# Fears after attack in Leytonstone which suspect said was 'for Syria'
# Armed police patrols have been increase in major stations
# British Transport Police say plain clothes officers are also on patrol
# Critics say the Leytonstone incident shows the need for armed police"

No, You can arm them with a stun gun or taser gun but a firearm is not needed to take down a person with a knife.

I agree re. knife. Although, I'm not that familiar with the taser gun. Can you taser them from a distance, or do you have to go right up to them to do it? If it's the latter, they could have already caused a considerable amount of carnage by the time you get to them, even worse carnage if they're using a machete.

Here:

"
Law enforcement personnel use TASER™ Devices, not stun guns. Though similar in effect, TASER Devices are different in that they shoot out two barbs attached to wire. The electrical energy passes down the wires and into the barbs which are affixed to the person that they shot.

These weapons do have a range of about 21 feet or more which makes them different from stun guns. They are also a lot more expensive which puts them out of reach for most people. "

Stun Gun Range

Also another weapon that could be used a knife wielding assailant would be Bean Bag Shells for shotguns. They're non-lethal and can be used in your standard 12 gauge shotgun which most police departments carry.

So giving live rounds is not needed in a country like England.

Thanks, okay so for knives and machete's, the taser gun is good.

The thing with a suicide bomber and/or someone with a gun, the Bean Bag Shells could be even more dangerous to the public. The reason, especially if the person seems to have a suicide bomb detonator, you have to shoot to kill, a straight headshot, you can't take the risk of them just being injured, they can still detonate the bomb.

The training with a shooter, is that you shoot to kill not to injure, the same situation as a suicide bomber, if you injure a shooter, they can still pull the trigger.

A suicide bomber in England is rare but not out of the question, and that is why they have trained officers for those cases.

A shooter in England is rare too, so again trained officers would be dispatch is a person with a firearm is running around.

The knife assailant is easily taken care of by a taser or bean bag shotgun and no need for a firearm with live ammo in it.

England versus the States is a massive difference seeing the size and the fact the U.S. has a good amount of firearms within her border, so the police force here need to be trained to fire live rounds and using a taser or bean bag round in most cases would not work and a firearm attack is more realistic here than there.

 

[Phoenall]

Yes. If the recent knife attacker attacked another victim AFTER unarmed police arrived and asking him nicely didn't work, he should have been shot dead.

Armed police on guard at stations after Leytonstone attack

"# Fears after attack in Leytonstone which suspect said was 'for Syria'
# Armed police patrols have been increase in major stations
# British Transport Police say plain clothes officers are also on patrol
# Critics say the Leytonstone incident shows the need for armed police"

NO as once you do that you put more members of the public at risk from criminals also becoming armed.

The criminals are already armed and have been for years, so I'm not sure what point you're making?

Not that many or they would be killing more and more people. Have an armed police force and the criminals will then arm themselves for protection against being shot. They will go down in a blaze of glory and be remembered for ever.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Yes. If the recent knife attacker attacked another victim AFTER unarmed police arrived and asking him nicely didn't work, he should have been shot dead.

Armed police on guard at stations after Leytonstone attack

"# Fears after attack in Leytonstone which suspect said was 'for Syria'
# Armed police patrols have been increase in major stations
# British Transport Police say plain clothes officers are also on patrol
# Critics say the Leytonstone incident shows the need for armed police"

No, You can arm them with a stun gun or taser gun but a firearm is not needed to take down a person with a knife.

I agree re. knife. Although, I'm not that familiar with the taser gun. Can you taser them from a distance, or do you have to go right up to them to do it? If it's the latter, they could have already caused a considerable amount of carnage by the time you get to them, even worse carnage if they're using a machete.

Here:

"
Law enforcement personnel use TASER™ Devices, not stun guns. Though similar in effect, TASER Devices are different in that they shoot out two barbs attached to wire. The electrical energy passes down the wires and into the barbs which are affixed to the person that they shot.

These weapons do have a range of about 21 feet or more which makes them different from stun guns. They are also a lot more expensive which puts them out of reach for most people. "

Stun Gun Range

Also another weapon that could be used a knife wielding assailant would be Bean Bag Shells for shotguns. They're non-lethal and can be used in your standard 12 gauge shotgun which most police departments carry.

So giving live rounds is not needed in a country like England.

Thanks, okay so for knives and machete's, the taser gun is good.

The thing with a suicide bomber and/or someone with a gun, the Bean Bag Shells could be even more dangerous to the public. The reason, especially if the person seems to have a suicide bomb detonator, you have to shoot to kill, a straight headshot, you can't take the risk of them just being injured, they can still detonate the bomb.

The training with a shooter, is that you shoot to kill not to injure, the same situation as a suicide bomber, if you injure a shooter, they can still pull the trigger.

A suicide bomber in England is rare but not out of the question, and that is why they have trained officers for those cases.

A shooter in England is rare too, so again trained officers would be dispatch is a person with a firearm is running around.

The knife assailant is easily taken care of by a taser or bean bag shotgun and no need for a firearm with live ammo in it.

England versus the States is a massive difference seeing the size and the fact the U.S. has a good amount of firearms within her border, so the police force here need to be trained to fire live rounds and using a taser or bean bag round in most cases would not work and a firearm attack is more realistic here than there.

I still feel an armed police force would reassure the public. The public would feel safer knowing the police are armed in numbers on the streets. That's essentially what the most important thing is, making the public feel safe.

 

[Dogtanian]

The police in the UK didn't need guns in the 1940's, 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's or 2000's. There is always someone pushing to give more power to the police, and they don't need it. We already have armed response units, and to date, the system has worked well enough.

 

[Dogtanian]

No. When you start arming a public service sector they start playing the role of occupying army. In so doing you create a wall between the public servant and the public that servant was formerly the 'protector' of, and is now transformed into the 'authority over'. You create a kind of social hierarchy.

Arming the entire police force is a sign of a society degenerating into Authoritarianism. What happens all too often in this country ought to be a glaring example of where that leads.

Gonna change your mind if/when ISIS attacks UK? Another Paris scale incident because first officers on scene were unarmed and had to wait for their armed counterparts to show up?

Terrorist attacks in the Western world are very rare and statistically the number of deaths from terrorist attacks is almost negligible. Jihadism and Islamism are a serious threat, but they are a different kind of threat to terrorist attack and cannot be defended against in the same way; jihadism and Islamism commonly manifest as criminal acts; intimidation, harassment, vandalism and an escalation to violence. It's not the same thing as terrorism.

 

[Phoenall]

No, You can arm them with a stun gun or taser gun but a firearm is not needed to take down a person with a knife.

I agree re. knife. Although, I'm not that familiar with the taser gun. Can you taser them from a distance, or do you have to go right up to them to do it? If it's the latter, they could have already caused a considerable amount of carnage by the time you get to them, even worse carnage if they're using a machete.

Here:

"
Law enforcement personnel use TASER™ Devices, not stun guns. Though similar in effect, TASER Devices are different in that they shoot out two barbs attached to wire. The electrical energy passes down the wires and into the barbs which are affixed to the person that they shot.

These weapons do have a range of about 21 feet or more which makes them different from stun guns. They are also a lot more expensive which puts them out of reach for most people. "

Stun Gun Range

Also another weapon that could be used a knife wielding assailant would be Bean Bag Shells for shotguns. They're non-lethal and can be used in your standard 12 gauge shotgun which most police departments carry.

So giving live rounds is not needed in a country like England.

Thanks, okay so for knives and machete's, the taser gun is good.

The thing with a suicide bomber and/or someone with a gun, the Bean Bag Shells could be even more dangerous to the public. The reason, especially if the person seems to have a suicide bomb detonator, you have to shoot to kill, a straight headshot, you can't take the risk of them just being injured, they can still detonate the bomb.

The training with a shooter, is that you shoot to kill not to injure, the same situation as a suicide bomber, if you injure a shooter, they can still pull the trigger.

A suicide bomber in England is rare but not out of the question, and that is why they have trained officers for those cases.

A shooter in England is rare too, so again trained officers would be dispatch is a person with a firearm is running around.

The knife assailant is easily taken care of by a taser or bean bag shotgun and no need for a firearm with live ammo in it.

England versus the States is a massive difference seeing the size and the fact the U.S. has a good amount of firearms within her border, so the police force here need to be trained to fire live rounds and using a taser or bean bag round in most cases would not work and a firearm attack is more realistic here than there.

I still feel an armed police force would reassure the public. The public would feel safer knowing the police are armed in numbers on the streets. That's essentially what the most important thing is, making the public feel safe.

And that is the problem as the cost of arming the police would mean far fewer police on the street. The left have seen to that by giving local government leaders salaries over and above those the job merits, they employing their cronies to the positions. Originally the leaders of local government where just clerks who took orders from elected officials, now the elected officials take orders from the clerks

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

I agree re. knife. Although, I'm not that familiar with the taser gun. Can you taser them from a distance, or do you have to go right up to them to do it? If it's the latter, they could have already caused a considerable amount of carnage by the time you get to them, even worse carnage if they're using a machete.

Here:

"
Law enforcement personnel use TASER™ Devices, not stun guns. Though similar in effect, TASER Devices are different in that they shoot out two barbs attached to wire. The electrical energy passes down the wires and into the barbs which are affixed to the person that they shot.

These weapons do have a range of about 21 feet or more which makes them different from stun guns. They are also a lot more expensive which puts them out of reach for most people. "

Stun Gun Range

Also another weapon that could be used a knife wielding assailant would be Bean Bag Shells for shotguns. They're non-lethal and can be used in your standard 12 gauge shotgun which most police departments carry.

So giving live rounds is not needed in a country like England.

Thanks, okay so for knives and machete's, the taser gun is good.

The thing with a suicide bomber and/or someone with a gun, the Bean Bag Shells could be even more dangerous to the public. The reason, especially if the person seems to have a suicide bomb detonator, you have to shoot to kill, a straight headshot, you can't take the risk of them just being injured, they can still detonate the bomb.

The training with a shooter, is that you shoot to kill not to injure, the same situation as a suicide bomber, if you injure a shooter, they can still pull the trigger.

A suicide bomber in England is rare but not out of the question, and that is why they have trained officers for those cases.

A shooter in England is rare too, so again trained officers would be dispatch is a person with a firearm is running around.

The knife assailant is easily taken care of by a taser or bean bag shotgun and no need for a firearm with live ammo in it.

England versus the States is a massive difference seeing the size and the fact the U.S. has a good amount of firearms within her border, so the police force here need to be trained to fire live rounds and using a taser or bean bag round in most cases would not work and a firearm attack is more realistic here than there.

I still feel an armed police force would reassure the public. The public would feel safer knowing the police are armed in numbers on the streets. That's essentially what the most important thing is, making the public feel safe.

And that is the problem as the cost of arming the police would mean far fewer police on the street. The left have seen to that by giving local government leaders salaries over and above those the job merits, they employing their cronies to the positions. Originally the leaders of local government where just clerks who took orders from elected officials, now the elected officials take orders from the clerks

Well in Britain there are 15,000 fewer police on the street, this is the reduction since 2010....this is the crime committed by Cameron and May. I consider it a crime to reduce a police force by such figures, especially in a time where more police are needed not less.

 

[Phoenall]

Here:

"
Law enforcement personnel use TASER™ Devices, not stun guns. Though similar in effect, TASER Devices are different in that they shoot out two barbs attached to wire. The electrical energy passes down the wires and into the barbs which are affixed to the person that they shot.

These weapons do have a range of about 21 feet or more which makes them different from stun guns. They are also a lot more expensive which puts them out of reach for most people. "

Stun Gun Range

Also another weapon that could be used a knife wielding assailant would be Bean Bag Shells for shotguns. They're non-lethal and can be used in your standard 12 gauge shotgun which most police departments carry.

So giving live rounds is not needed in a country like England.

Thanks, okay so for knives and machete's, the taser gun is good.

The thing with a suicide bomber and/or someone with a gun, the Bean Bag Shells could be even more dangerous to the public. The reason, especially if the person seems to have a suicide bomb detonator, you have to shoot to kill, a straight headshot, you can't take the risk of them just being injured, they can still detonate the bomb.

The training with a shooter, is that you shoot to kill not to injure, the same situation as a suicide bomber, if you injure a shooter, they can still pull the trigger.

A suicide bomber in England is rare but not out of the question, and that is why they have trained officers for those cases.

A shooter in England is rare too, so again trained officers would be dispatch is a person with a firearm is running around.

The knife assailant is easily taken care of by a taser or bean bag shotgun and no need for a firearm with live ammo in it.

England versus the States is a massive difference seeing the size and the fact the U.S. has a good amount of firearms within her border, so the police force here need to be trained to fire live rounds and using a taser or bean bag round in most cases would not work and a firearm attack is more realistic here than there.

I still feel an armed police force would reassure the public. The public would feel safer knowing the police are armed in numbers on the streets. That's essentially what the most important thing is, making the public feel safe.

And that is the problem as the cost of arming the police would mean far fewer police on the street. The left have seen to that by giving local government leaders salaries over and above those the job merits, they employing their cronies to the positions. Originally the leaders of local government where just clerks who took orders from elected officials, now the elected officials take orders from the clerks

Well in Britain there are 15,000 fewer police on the street, this is the reduction since 2010....this is the crime committed by Cameron and May. I consider it a crime to reduce a police force by such figures, especially in a time where more police are needed not less.

At the same time office workers have gone up as have plastic plods. We cant sustain the price increases needed to keep an active police force and pay the looney left directors wages