Derrick Bird

[fortune82]

Maybe we should pull back the army from the waste lands of this world

and have them patrolling with the police by far the soldiers of this country are

more disciplined and as use of firearms is basic for them wouldn't take much more

plus by pulling them out of the hell hole they are in it will save BILLIONS

some of which will pay for the soldiers to patrol with the police.

 

Plus the army are not as trigger happy they would have been knocked out of them in week one.

 

The copper will still have over all control BUT in a case like Bird the soldier would be able to shoot back

with a more accurate shot which would over all be safer for Joe public.

 

And on the other plus side would YOU really go up against an armed soldier who is SAS, SBS, Para, Royal marine?

Because I bloody wouldn't.

 

Many won't agree with it and claim its communist-the idea is the soldiers are an armed back up or the officer on duty.

 

This is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard!!! Do you honestly think you would get people joining elite regiments like the Marines, SBS, SAS etc if they knew they were going to spend their time on patrol with the police!!!

 

At the end of the day they would be called upon to use their weapons about once every 10 years going on the frequency of these events( Dunblane, Hungerford etc).

 

The average infantry soldier does not have the training to use an SA80 in a public situation. The streets of Basra have different "qualities" to the streets of your average town or city in the UK!

[Devon Fox]

Sadly police officers like most people are not perfect. Unlike some posters on here.

 

Never a truer word spoken

Edited March 26, 2011 by Devon Fox

[al4x]

arm everyone, makes perfect sense after all it works so well else where

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12869141

[masterzone2]

Valid one Alex arm everyone works well in south Africa and Texas

You try robbing a bank in Texas or a bar fight in Africa everyone pulls a gun

no one will fire.

As for my army idea well the money we waste having them in the middle east at least the tax payer

would be getting their monies worth.

BOTTOM LINE is when a **** like Bird etc go off on one there needs to be something quicker

than the system in place-the rest of the world seam fit to arm their police (granted I wouldn't trust half my police force to open a tin of beans that was already open)

 

But the chances of civilians getting firearms to shoot back is daft and NEVER going to happen so forget it NOW

bye bye gun Licence, long time in jail and chances are you'd have to give the nutters family compensation.

 

AND as for people joining the army only to be sent out with regular police- GO TO AN ARMY TOWN/CITY AND HAVE A LOOK

ARMED R.M.Ps EVERYWHERE WITH REGULAR POLICE DID THEY JOIN FOR THAT MAYBE NOT BUT IT IS THEIR JOB

AND I HAVE SEEN CIVILIANS BACK DOWN VERY FAST WHEN ONE OF THEM TURNS UP AND YES THEY ARE CARRYING LOADED HANDGUN

SIGN UP YOU MIGHT FIND OUT!

Edited March 28, 2011 by masterzone2

[al4x]

I'd stick to donning the pajamas at weekends and giving the good old spas a workout. This subject will just test the grey matter a little too much

[monster1971]

if all the police were armed how long would it be before a pigeon shooter in a hide was shot or some bloke rough shooting.

then what?

i think that for the very small ammount of these incidents that happen arming police should be considered very carefully

[poontang]

 

GO TO AN ARMY TOWN/CITY AND HAVE A LOOK

ARMED R.M.Ps EVERYWHERE WITH REGULAR POLICE DID THEY JOIN FOR THAT MAYBE NOT BUT IT IS THEIR JOB

AND I HAVE SEEN CIVILIANS BACK DOWN VERY FAST WHEN ONE OF THEM TURNS UP AND YES THEY ARE CARRYING LOADED HANDGUN

SIGN UP YOU MIGHT FIND OUT!

 

I live in a military town, and yes RMP's do sometimes patrol with civil police. Usually on a Friday/Saturday night.

 

However, I've NEVER seen them armed whilst on the streets.

[four-wheel-drive]

if all the police were armed how long would it be before a pigeon shooter in a hide was shot or some bloke rough shooting.

then what?

i think that for the very small ammount of these incidents that happen arming police should be considered very carefully

so you think that in most other country's where the police are armed ie France Germany Italy etc etc etc it is not safe to go out pigeon or rabbit shooting for fear of being shot by the local cop.

I do not think so why do people have to put down our police they are now different to the rest of us some are good and some are bad that is how things are I am shore that a police man with a gun is now more of a risk than you are.

[Vince Green]

A policeman with a 9mm is not going to much of a match for a man armed with a shotgun or a rifle. Or a terrorist wth an AK47. So by arming the police you raise the stakes but not far enough. The cost, in terms of time, training all those police from scratch and then having them back regularly for requalifying, would be very high and take them off the streets for days at a time. Not enough manpower now.

The time taken up inside police staions issuing all those guns and handing them back at the end of each shift would soak up time that could better be spent out patrolling.You would need an officer in every police station on every shift to act as armourer. And for what? a once in a blue moon incident.

Edited March 28, 2011 by Vince Green

[Dr_Scholl]

arm everyone, makes perfect sense after all it works so well else where

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12869141

 

It's Mississippi, 'nuff said.

[Vipa]

I live in a military town, and yes RMP's do sometimes patrol with civil police. Usually on a Friday/Saturday night.

 

However, I've NEVER seen them armed whilst on the streets.

 

 

RMP are not routinely armed on garrison streets, they have no jurisdiction other than in theatre or at time of war, on home soil they act as support for civilain police only. If an armed response was required it would be civi ARU that would attend, NOT RMP.

[toka_shigazu]

I think if you tried to arm the police force now many of the officers would refuse to carry or even leave....not to mention the ones you wouldnt want with a gun.

 

atb

[fortune82]

Valid one Alex arm everyone works well in south Africa and Texas

You try robbing a bank in Texas or a bar fight in Africa everyone pulls a gun

no one will fire.

As for my army idea well the money we waste having them in the middle east at least the tax payer

would be getting their monies worth.

BOTTOM LINE is when a **** like Bird etc go off on one there needs to be something quicker

than the system in place-the rest of the world seam fit to arm their police (granted I wouldn't trust half my police force to open a tin of beans that was already open)

 

But the chances of civilians getting firearms to shoot back is daft and NEVER going to happen so forget it NOW

bye bye gun Licence, long time in jail and chances are you'd have to give the nutters family compensation.

 

AND as for people joining the army only to be sent out with regular police- GO TO AN ARMY TOWN/CITY AND HAVE A LOOK

ARMED R.M.Ps EVERYWHERE WITH REGULAR POLICE DID THEY JOIN FOR THAT MAYBE NOT BUT IT IS THEIR JOB

AND I HAVE SEEN CIVILIANS BACK DOWN VERY FAST WHEN ONE OF THEM TURNS UP AND YES THEY ARE CARRYING LOADED HANDGUN

SIGN UP YOU MIGHT FIND OUT!

 

Really? I have never seen an armed RMP officer on the streets. They only go out on a weekend to mop up fighting squaddies with the regular police. Sounds like youve got next to no experience of this yourself.

[four-wheel-drive]

Really? I have never seen an armed RMP officer on the streets. They only go out on a weekend to mop up fighting squaddies with the regular police. Sounds like youve got next to no experience of this yourself.

For what it is worth there is a lot of military in my area and and when I am out walking the dog I see them out running down country lanes with big packs on there backs and carrying SMG'S

[Vipa]

For what it is worth there is a lot of military in my area and and when I am out walking the dog I see them out running down country lanes with big packs on there backs and carrying SMG'S

 

Yes, on a run or training (they don't have any ammunition with them!!!) but, as I have already stated, the RMP are not routinely armed and have no jurisdiction on UK soil. All matters are treated as civil matters and it is the civil authorities who deal with them.... unless the whole format of the regiment and juristictional responsibilities have changed since I was in

 

Fortune has their role pretty much summed up!

Edited March 29, 2011 by Vipa

[Vince Green]

For what it is worth there is a lot of military in my area and and when I am out walking the dog I see them out running down country lanes with big packs on there backs and carrying SMG'S

SMGs, lucky *******, it was an SLR in my day, bloody heavy after six miles.

[Albertan_J]

no matter which way you look at it this was a one off which the police were not prepared for. In honesty I find the police attitudes in the UK a lot more aggressive without guns then in the states or Canada so lord help us if they have side arms. I'm now going to watch the dc cop pull a gun out in a snowball fight and eat humble soup.

[death from below]

no matter which way you look at it this was a one off which the police were not prepared for. In honesty I find the police attitudes in the UK a lot more aggressive without guns then in the states or Canada so lord help us if they have side arms. I'm now going to watch the dc cop pull a gun out in a snowball fight and eat humble soup.

 

Nowt wrong with that, the aggression just needs to be targetted at the scrotes of this world - I don't want my police force to be social workers (even though they act as such umpteen times a day depending on the situation), I want them to crack heads when needs be (metaphorically speaking).

 

As for arming all cops, no way man

[jacksdad]

If I had a shotgun, I could just walk out of my house right now and shoot some people. No amount of police, armed or not, could get to me in time. OR I could equally jump into my 2.5 tonne van and go mowing down people waiting at bus stops...the latter would do a hell of a lot more damage and again the police couldn't do a thing to stop me in time :blink:

Arming the police, in these examples only, would make no difference whatsoever! If a seemingly 'normal' person goes off the rails there is not a lot anyone can do, unfortunately.

[Zapp]

All matters are treated as civil matters and it is the civil authorities who deal with them.... unless the whole format of the regiment and juristictional responsibilities have changed since I was in

 

The above is correct.

 

Aside from some "niche" capabilities which have blanket authorisation like EOD, specialist policing etc etc, any deployment of UK armed forces in support to the civil authorities is governed by the Military Aid to the Civil Authorities/Military Aid to the Civil Power on a case by case basis.

 

Each case has to go through a pretty complicated set of checks and balances (including Ministerial approval) before it can be signed off and the deployment authorised.

 

For this reason, you WILL NOT see the routine deployment of armed (meaning rifles + ammunition) UK Forces personnel outside of the jurisdictional areas of control around garrisons/bases etc.

 

It all dates back to the days of Cromwell and the New Model Army, and is a measure to stop the military from staging coups.

[Breastman]

If I had a shotgun, I could just walk out of my house right now and shoot some people. No amount of police, armed or not, could get to me in time. OR I could equally jump into my 2.5 tonne van and go mowing down people waiting at bus stops...the latter would do a hell of a lot more damage and again the police couldn't do a thing to stop me in time :blink:

Arming the police, in these examples only, would make no difference whatsoever! If a seemingly 'normal' person goes off the rails there is not a lot anyone can do, unfortunately.

 

This is the truth that the government/police don't want to admit as there is only one solution, arming the public, or rather giving them the option to arm themselves. Armed populations don't have to do what the government tell them to. Theres no way any British government is going to give us subjects that kind on power.

 

Mark

[MaybeNextTime]

I believe it was the 1689 Bill of Rights that gave us the right to bear arms.

 

Not sure which barely elected collection of corrupt landed gentry worried about protecting their estates took it away but it was one of them.

 

Also not sure how legal it is for a later parliament to cancel out a national right - isn't a right supposed to be inalienable?

Edited March 30, 2011 by MaybeNextTime

[Breastman]

It was a right to a revolver for self defence rather than a right to bear arms. It has in fact never been repealled, as you can't repeal a right! Having it written down merely states which 'rights' a populace has, it does not grant them.

 

It has been conveniently forgotten about and gradually eroded by various Acts of Parliament (as is the way with rights in affluent countries) but the comically/ironically named Prevention of Crime Act 1953 was when self-defence was no longer considered a 'good reason' for an FAC

 

Mark

Edited March 30, 2011 by Breastman

[poontang]

The 1689 Bill of Rights never granted a right to 'bear arms' as such.

 

It allowed the 're-arming' of Protestants (who had been disarmed after the civil war).

 

The actual wording was that there was to be:

 

No royal interference in the freedom of the people to have arms for their own defence as suitable to their class and as allowed by law.

 

The right to control and regulate arms was to be by consent of parliament, not the monarch.

 

It was basically just a way of taking control from the monarchy and transferring it to parliament.

Edited March 30, 2011 by poontang

[HW682]

Hadn't heard of this so did a bit of googling...according the all knowing oracle that is wikipedia , the 1689 Bill Of Rights seems to have been drafted at the time of inviting William and Mary to come over and have a go at being king/queen. The bill was written to clarify exactly what powers they had and what they could and couldn't do.

 

One clause sets out:

 

no royal interference in the freedom of the people to have arms for their own defence as suitable to their class and as allowed by law

 

Assuming this is correct, it doesn't really say what the law may or not permit, it just seems to say that the monarch can't interfere with it.

It would be interesting to believe that there is a secret little known law that over-rides all others and lets us go out tomorrow and "get tooled up". Realistically though, I can't help thinking that if it did exist someone, somewhere, would have bought it to light by now and got it clarified once and for all.

 

 

( just noticed Poontangs post, but having typed this out I am going to post anyway )