UK Cops to Carry Guns?

“All police officers in England and Wales are to be asked if they want to routinely carry a gun,” telegraph.co.uk reports. “The survey by the Police Federation, which represents 123,000 officers, will begin next week.” As a certain pointy-eared Vulcan used to say, fascinating.

Here we have a country that disarmed its populace in the name of public safety. “We’re so civilized we don’t need guns,” went the logic. “Not even the police need guns.”

Then, well, yes, the police needed guns.

But only highly-trained, specialized rapid response armed officers. Who aren’t all that well-trained. mirror.co.uk: Blundering armed police accidentally fire guns into their cars, tables and even their own legs.

Be that as it is, The Land of Hope and Glory is now home to soaring gun, knife and acid attacks, not to mention the recent unarmed police encounter with terrorists. Which is why her Majesty’s government is hiring and training (such as it is) 1500 more armed officers. And considering arming the average Bobby on the street..

The UK is facing the fact that yes, they do need firearms to defend against criminals, crazies and terrorists. But again, only the police!

Hang on. If the police need guns to counter criminals, doesn’t that mean British citizens subjects need them too? After all, when seconds count, the [armed] police are only minutes away.

I doubt the average Brit will make this connection, regardless of whether or not their government-paid protectors are tooled-up. Not for a while anyway.

And when they do realize that they are their own first responders, what are the odds that their class-bound, Oxbridge-educated statist politicians will entertain the idea?

comments

  1. avatar Ralph says:

    “what are the odds that their class-bound, Oxbridge-educated statist politicians will entertain the idea?”

    About the same odds that our class-bound, Harvard-educated statist politicians will entertain the idea.

    1. avatar Paul B says:

      “Class-bound,” that’s the key concept in the great gun debate. The supposedly egalitarian left…ain’t so egalitarian.

      1. avatar FedUp says:

        Not when they’re calling their opponents class warfare names like white trash redneck mouthbreathing hicks.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      We are the government. We are here to protect you from your own foolishness.
      Oink.

  2. avatar DaveL says:

    If the police need guns to counter criminals, doesn’t that mean British citizens subjects need them too?

    That’s only true if the idea were for ordinary people to prevail against criminals and terrorists. Actually, the traditional role assigned to them by the ruling class has always been to take up such miscreants’ attention, not to mention absorb their bullets, bog down their vehicles, etc so that the ruling class’ armed guards can more easily deal with them.

    1. avatar John in AK says:

      When the UK (which is where England, Scotland, and Wales used to be) was considerably more civilized, it was the standard that Roughs and Blackguards were armed, and that Bobbies were not. The tradition, generally adhered to by all but the worst of the worst criminals, was that one did NOT shoot a Bobbie–not only because doing so would result in a hanging upon conviction, but on the premise that, as Bobbies didn’t shoot criminals, it was Bad Form for a criminal to shoot one of them. Informal ‘courts’ of the Criminal Classes would mete out terminal punishment to one of their own who DID shoot a Bobbie–as, by doing so, said miscreant made the lives of everyone in the group miserable for a time due to increased police scrutiny.
      Now, that’s not to say that it wasn’t OK to cosh, stab, gouge, cudgel, bludgeon, garrote, throttle, blackjack, or generally thrash a Bobbie if necessary; It just wasn’t sporting to SHOOT one.
      Alas, times have changed. . .

    2. avatar The Duke says:

      That statement presuppose that the average citizen has value (and a right) in being protected.

      For king and country doesn’t really sound like it gives much value to the individual

  3. avatar Vanbulance says:

    We all know what happened the last time they let subjects have largely unregulated and unrestricted access to military arms.

    1. avatar ColdNorth says:

      It went alright once Mainwaring took the Thompson away from Private Pike, and Private Fraser found the spring for the Lewis gun.

      1. avatar mike says:

        They don’t like it up them.

  4. avatar Jared says:

    You mean Great Britain, not the U.K.

    PSNI carry pistols on and off duty.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      The police in Northern Ireland carry guns because Protestant and Catholic “militias” transformed themselves into ordinary criminal organizations while they wait for the next round of sectarian violence.

  5. avatar jwm says:

    Allowing the average Britain to decide whether he or she needs to buy and carry a gun is to admit that they are a free people.

    That ain’t gonna happen.

  6. avatar Cliff H says:

    In the video is a raw statistic you never see or hear anywhere else. The Brits are quick to point out how many Americans are shot dead every year as a measure of how depraved our “gun culture” is and compare it to the relatively low number of Brits who are shot to death in their gun-free society. But here is a telling number: In England last year 6,000 (!) Brits were shot. Not died, but SHOT, in a nation that is supposedly gun-free and non-violent. And then you have all the stabbings by criminals and hooligans who can’t be bothered to find a gun because they know their victims won’t be armed with any useful self-defense tool.

    1. avatar Nick W says:

      Do you have a source for that 6,000 number? It seems a little bogus to me.

      http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7654/CBP-7654.pdf

      2014/15 had 4,912 total offences involving firearms in England and Wales (excluding air guns). 1,540 of those involved violence against the person; most of the rest are robbery, illegal possession etc. In only about 1,000 cases was there an actual injury.

  7. avatar Hank says:

    Gun control is on the losing side of history.

  8. avatar Ranger Rick says:

    Is this an admission that they’re having a problem getting criminals to obey the law?

  9. avatar Kendahl says:

    So armed British cops are as careless with their weapons as US cops. I wonder what the negligent discharge rate is among the SAS.

    1. avatar Red in CO says:

      I’m sure it’s as low as that of our own JSOC operators, since they actually have both training and accountability.

  10. avatar Baldwin says:

    “All police officers in England and Wales are to be asked if they want to routinely carry a gun,”… feelings over facts win again. Police officers “need” to routinely carry firearms. And that shouldn’t require a survey of “wants”. The boss says you’re gonna carry. Period. Done.

  11. avatar tjlarson2k says:

    Wonder how many more years it will take for the UK citizens to realize the establishment doesn’t have their best wishes at heart.

    California, New York, and Chicago may as well be the UK.

  12. avatar Hannibal says:

    They aren’t going to carry guns. They are sending out a survey to gauge feels about carrying guns.

    Maybe next they’ll create a blue-ribbon commission and you’ll know they’re REALLY serious.

    1. avatar Red in CO says:

      From what I’ve read about armed UK cops, the answers are probably going to come back as a resounding NO, not necessarily because they don’t like the idea of being armed, but I’ve read (not sure if this is actually true, but I could easily believe it) that police shootings in that country almost always end the cop’s career, no matter how justified it was

      1. It’s not exactly the case that officer involved shootings usually / always end the career; it’s more a feeling that “you might beat the rap but you can’t beat the ride”. Even a good shoot gets investigated thoroughly, and if there’s any element of doubt there (not necessarily “reasonable doubt”) it can have a negative effect on future career path.

        In a sense that’s a good thing: it means the UK Police are generally very circumspect in the use of force. Plenty of discussions on this site revolve around the worrying mentality in some PDs in the States that thinks officers are “more equal” than others… and on that basis I’m pleased our Police officers maybe think twice before dropping a citizen.

        On the other hand, I think the system errs too far on the side of caution: some shoots are legitimate and unavoidable, and in those cases the officer(s) involved should be congratulated and supported as necessary, not hauled over the coals.

        I suspect this latest move indicates a shift in a sensible direction – recognising that sometimes a good guy with a gun has to act, and shouldn’t be punished or unduly investigated for doing so.

        Just my $0.02

  13. avatar tiger says:

    A survey???? They have had all these terror attacks and watched attacks across the Channel for months. And the response is a survey? They Could have a cargo plane full of sidearms from any of the major gunmakers here or in Europe in days. Good grief, at least give every cop a chance to fight.

  14. avatar Your Real Name says:

    No, but I need slices of lemon between my toes.

  15. avatar Luke 22 says:

    I wonder where they are going to find all of those Webleys to arm their bobbies? I think they dumped most of them in the Channel..

  16. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    At the 5:19 mark of the video …

    St. George’s is one of just four major trauma centers in London facing more than 1,000 stabbings a month.

    That means the four major trauma centers in London alone receive more than 48,000 stabbing victims every year. How many additional stabbing victims do other major cities see every year? And how many gunshot wound victims do they see in Great Britain every year? (The video mentions over 6,000 “gun offenses” every year and does not say whether that is in London or across all of Great Britain.)

    This tells me that Great Britain is anything but the peaceful, tranquil, non-violent paradise that everyone claims.

  17. avatar Samson says:

    The best way to convince someone they’re wrong is to let them have it their own way.

    This is the nation, mind you, that spent more time attacking President Trump for using the term “reeling” after a terrible murderous terrorist attack — trying to look anti/Trump-chic in the process — than actually, you know, dealing with the terrorist attack.

    Keep calm and pass the ammo. You guys have fun over there across the pond. Needless to say, we know you’ll call us when you need to get bailed out of another world war. US – the country that kicked the UK’s a$$ twice and saved the UK’s a$$ twice.

    1. avatar Richard Keown says:

      You said that right. TWICE on both counts. But they will never admit to either. Especially the saving part.

  18. avatar bryan1980 says:

    Hey, the City of Minneapolis should have plenty of gently-used police turn-ins as soon as their future mayor disarms their police force….just sayin’.

  19. avatar Joe R. says:

    If the police need guns, the people will change their mind.

  20. avatar John Dennis says:

    Gun crime? Knife crime? How about Automobile crime? Fist crime? Blunt instrument crime? Poison crime?

  21. avatar J says:

    400 acid attacks in 6 months…

    and yet they still have the manpower to scour social media for anti-Islamic rhetoric .

    Geee which one should be a higher priority to stop….

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email