General Chat

Thank you Pat. I was in Soho one night when two Policemen in a new Panda car drove by. Meanwhile across the road a Burglar Alarm was going off and being ignored. This would be in the late 60's I think. That was when I knew that the Police would lose control of the streets. Unfortunately there are always those who must find a new way of doing something and insist on changes even though the old system is tried and tested, and WORKS.

Grampa Jim is correct and it’s been proven in many Countries such as Germany & Portugal and to a lesser extent Spain the Police presence makes a great difference in fighting crime Ireally do NOT believe the guns they carry have the biggest affect on crime rates. An example of this is nearly every major road and junction in City Centres there’s a very visible Police presence, the sheer numbers make people feel a lot safer & makes criminals less likely to try it on. If issuing guns to all the Police worked then America wouldn’t have the highest gun crime in the World also South America & many parts of Africa & also parts of the Caribbean would be crimeless rather than crime ridden. In South America and many Caribbean Countries the Army is employed as well as the armed Police. The more police with guns the more criminals with guns and the bigger the guns the criminals use. New Zealand has a Police Force that do not carry guns & they have a low crime rate, lower than many other Countries where Police force carry guns. In Ireland the Police do not carry guns just the special force, they too are fighting criminals heavily armed with all sorts of guns many of these terrifying armour it was stated over the weeked can be rented nightly!!! there is an escalation of gun crime everywhere it is worth checking all approaches that are made by other Countries rather than another knee jerk reaction to hand in guns and making it illegal to own one. There would be no turning back once Police are gun carriers it will stay that way :-( I also heard a Policemen state that at least half the police force would not be able to gain a certificate for gun use, so where would all the new recruits come from? No I believe Police with Guns is not the answer, a higher Police presence and community liaison is. Pat x

Felicity, I understand your reasoning, Personally as I said before I had always been against anyone owning guns, but it seems to me that in this society with so many criminals owning illegal arms, we have to fight fire with fire, its a shame its come to this but unless the police can get illegal fire arms off the streets I see no other option. Roxanne

Another interesting debate! :-) I added a comment earlier about police/the public being armed and see that the conversation has taken a different and interesting turn. The idea that no-one has a 'right' to a particular hobby may be true in certain circumstances, but it seems to me odd that target shooting, a perfectly legitimate hobby, has been outlawed because of the perceived dangers when there are many other hobbies and pastimes that have the potential to kill people, far too many to list here. There seems to be the idea that guns are inherantly dangerous and it is up to the government to protect people from themeselves, ie from the wish to own a potentially harmful item. This thinking is fundamentally flawed. They might as well try to legislate against car ownership on that basis. America's constitution was based on the right to bear arms for very sound reasons and I come full circle - if only the police in a country are allowed to bear arms it is the beginning of a police state and that is very dangerous. No goverment should have the right to forbid normally law-abiding citizens to own pretty much anything if there is no intention to hurt another person, and society needs laws in place to deal with things when things go wrong. We have that and that is why the knee-jerk reaction that effectively outlawed the sport of target shooting in Britian was, to my mind, such a mistake.

Hi Bob, I totally agree that there are far too many guns around - legal and illegal. I don't think the pusuit of a hobby is a 'right' and should have a higher priority than public safety. I'm sorry that some people can no longer pursue an interest but it isn't that important in the scale of things. I've had lots of interests and hobbies over the years but none were so important to me that I'd put them above the safety of others. Gwynne

Gwynne, Thats the trouble, it is up to the owners to take care of their own security.a gun locked in its safe, with the action elsewhere, cannot harm anyone.but a moments carelessness can cause a lifetime of regret... hamilton, as far as I understand was not stable, and also had been reported to the local police authority, but no action was taken.(allegedly). I used photography purely as an example......... like most things in life, if you have no interest in a pastime, then its of no consequence..there are many pastimes that annoy me, but I give to the enthusiasts, their right, of participation. There ARE too many guns already in the public domain, Mostly held by criminals. THESE are the ones to be got rid of. Bob

Arming the police would unfortunately create many more problems than it solves - and I speak as a retired police inspector. It is probably too late now as we have allowed the horse to bolt but offensive weapon crime should receive proper punishment, none of this 'two year, out in less than one' nonsense. We need, in the short-term, more police stop and search rather than less etc etc, but as I say the ball of wool has already been unravelled. We reap what we have allowed to be sown. Happy days

Roxanne In all the cases I can think of in which a policeman/men were shot, I can't think that if they were armed it would have saved them, unless they had their weapon drawn and ready to fire - most policemen are shot before they can realise their assailant is armed. If they assume all assailants are armed, and always have guns drawn and ready to fire, this will just lead to more deaths. I am not sure whether criminals nowadays are more likely to have guns than previously. And I don't think tightening the licensing laws will achieve much - this was done after the Dunblane massacre and apparently there was more gun crime afterwards, not less. It is (so I've been told) quite easy to get a gun illegally if you are willing to pay. nell

I have to add that for years I was very much 'Anti Guns' but Now we have a situation were Criminals are carrying guns, the only way to argue with a gun is with a gun!! Yes, I know there have always been criminals who carry guns but not to the extent that they do today, we need protection from these people and arming the police is a positive step.

Hi Wendy, I'm not saying that the poliice shouldn't be armed at all. I understand that some have to be, although it makes me feel uneasy. I accept that they undergo thorough training. But they still make mistakes, despite that. I don't want all policemen/women to automatically carry guns, I don't believe it is necessary. Gwynne

Hi Bob, That's where we disagree, I think. You say it should be the job of the police and I say there are far more important things that they should be dealing with than issuing licences for people's hobbies. There are those who have passed the vetting system, like Thomas Hamilton, who then go on to kill. The police are not qualified to assess the psychological state of anyone. It isn't their job and they are not qualified to do it. That's the job of psychologists or psychiatrists. I can't agree that reasons for wanting a gun are the same for wanting a camera. Cameras can't kill people. That's what guns were designed for. People have been killed with legally owned guns in the past, maybe not at the shooting range, but dead is dead. Not far from where I live a little boy shot and killed his sister with his uncle's legally owned shotgun. I think the laws need tightening not relaxing. Gwynne

Gwynne, Sorry but that is just what the police ARE for. In that instance,THEY vet who is allowed, to own a weapon.If you dont fit the criteria, then you dont get allowed. Reasons for wanting a gun? similar to wanting a camera, or or skiing, motorcycling....... I could go on... Well, shooting IS an Olympic sport and a satisfying passtime for thousands of UK citizens. It Is closely regulated, and safety is paramount. As far as I know, NO ONE has ever been killed accidentally, in the sport of target shooting,(not including hunting here) It will be interesting, to see how the foreign shooters will get on, when they come to London/Britain, in 2012 no doubt our leaders will wrangle some kind of legislation, to allow them here. Bob

In my ideal world the police won't be armed as a matter of routine. There are a lot of armed police around anyway, Birmingham is quite intimidating at times. It unnerves me to see policemen with machine guns under their arms. Nearly all countries with routinely armed police have higher murder rates then here, so it isn't a deterrent at all. I was very glad to see legislation outlawing gun ownership after Dunblane. The man who killed those children had a gun licence. The police have better things to do with their time than try to sort potential nutters from the sane and issue licences. I've never been able to understand why anyone would want to own a gun anyway - apart from shotguns to kill vermin if you live in the country. Gwynne

I believe that the confiscation of legally held weapons as a knee-jerk reaction to the Dunblane incident, just so that politicians could say they were 'doing something', was a mistake. Now, the only people carrying guns are criminals and nutters. And it's always been the case that more people are knifed or bludgeoned to death than shot, but there's never been a ban on kitchen knives or hammers. I'd rather a criminal breaking into my house in the middle of the night was uncertain as to whether I had a gun under the pillow or not!

I DON'T think that all police officers should be armed. Some officers probably wouldn't pass the strict training courses to be armed and I still don't think it would put off the sort of people who carry out armed raids. What is really needed is much harsher sentencing by the courts. If anyone found carrying illegal arms knew they would get life imprisonment (and I mean LIFE) then maybe they would think twice about it. We are far too soft on wrong doers and I think it's time the civil liberties campaigners realised that for someone to expect civil liberty then they need to act in a CIIVIL way. Rant over. Kath. x

wether we like it or not it will happen, its only a matter of time, and to be honest I dont see any alternative, we live in extreme times and I blame it on our society, there is no respect for the law or for the citizens of great Britain, we only have ourselves to blame for letting it get this far,'BLINKERS' comes to mind.

Violence has escalated in our country our Police force is one of the best and deserve full protection, if that means they have firearms so be it. It's time people stopped worrying about the rights of armed drugdealers/bank robbers! I know there's sometimes mistakes (like when deranged loons brandish a boomerang in a cloth (pretending they are armed) or carry a replica and end up getting shot but that's their own fault. I also agree with Capital punishment for those who murder police officers. Jacquie

Len I agree wiuth all you have said. And the two officers were shot at close range as they got out of their car, so being armed would not have protected them, and probably a bullet proof vest would not, as they could easily have been shot n the head. We should have capital punishment for shooting or stabbing a police officer, and also for armed robbery, whether the arm is used or not. David

Its a ridiculous situation, some years ago many legitimate gun holder's were victimised and had to give up their sport, these people were licenced to hold a gun and were inspected at a regular interval, and they paid over the top for it, but that wasnt the problem, the police wanted to get rid of guns which they did, but only those poeple who had licence's lot out, the criminals were under no such duress, they could go and buy automatic weapons practically any time they wanted and could afford to do so, I believe the situation is still the same today, so what was the point of the earlier confiscation of weapons from people who knew how to take care of guns and respected them for what they were and had the facility to keep them in secure conditions. As has been said 'The law's an ASS' just a case of the government playing the number's game, which hasnt achieved anything as far as law and order are concerned Len

In an ideal world our Police Force would be armed but then you'll get people moaning when someone is shot by accident - like that incident on the train in London. Its not like the Police wanted to shoot him, they didnt do it for fun and yet they were critized for the force that was taken. At the end of the day the Policeman who pulled that trigger has to live with an innocent mans death for the rest of his life. The general public probably would like all Police Officers to be armed - as long as they shoot the bad guy, they are not allowed to make any mistakes