Should the UK have armed cops/troops on our streets full-time?

[dosxuk]

In the light of yesterday's events, I think there is certainly an arguement for allowing troops to carry side arms at all times.

 

Where would Harry keep his gun when playing Billiards?

[Electerrific]

I think the future solution could be assessed upon the following-

 

 

• Region of terror threats (ie. possibly all of London as the primary target, thus Govt)
  
• The level of security nationwide
  
• The nature of the terrorist threat (seaborne, airborne etc)
  
• The strand of terrorism (IRA/INLA, Islamic extremism, etc)
  

[erebus]

As the country slides even deeper into poverty, although just kept afloat through the practices of the financial sector, and the defence industry busily selling weapons to mainly Middle East dictatorships with plenty of oil dollars to spare, it just might be necessary to one day control our own population.

 

Militarising the police, getting the public to accept guns in the hands of an authority on the streets, seen as normal practice, allows individuals to possibly reconsider bothering to demonstrate, question government policy in public, which just might be the point.

 

As for fighting a 24/7 war against terrorism, in which we invade, and kill civilians in foreign lands, which creates resentfulness, making the natives want to fight the invaders, which we them justify calling them terrorists. Strange when the IRA were bombing the nation, blowing up civilians, it was never in that war, very close to home, in which far more damage was done, including failing to kill Thatcher in Brighton, did not require a weaponised police force to parade itself on the streets.

Obviously different values for different times.

[Rupert_Baehr]

No there shouldn't be - it would just ramp things up to the point in America where the gun lobby are arguing that teachers should routinely carry guns.

 

Which is a totally irrelevant comment. The gun crime committed in American schools has, in the past, been committed by armed - and severely-disturbed - individuals who were not armed policemen.

 

One of the major problems with routinely-armed policemen is that such people need routine firearms training - which takes a significant amount of time and costs a significant amount of money.

 

Do British Police Forces have a surplus of money?

 

Are they increasing their numbers?

 

Where are you going to get the money and the manpower (extra hours for those being trained every few months, additional personnel to cover them when they are training, trainers and armourers - for a start

 

British Military personnel have no wish to patrol the streets. If you're not aware why, Google 'Peterloo Massacre' It'll make a reasonable starting point.

 

There are a number of Police Forces in European countries which are armed. They are also well-trained and practiced in the use of their firearms. People accept that.

 

I doubt that the British people would accept armed Police as a routine part of hte scenery.

[Electerrific]

British troops aren't desirous (or not) because of drunken hussars at Peterloo in 1819, most won't have heard of it. They follow orders, but I get what you are saying generally.

[s2 blade]

No, absolutely not.

 

Firstly there's no need. Secondly, routinely arming the police would inevitably lead to more people dying and thirdly, it sends out the wrong message.

 

If its people like yesterday's attackers who cares if they die ?

[megalithic]

Yes ! And i've been saying so for many years.

[dosxuk]

If its people like yesterday's attackers who cares if they die ?

 

The problem comes when it turns out they were actually Brazilian electricians.

[megalithic]

The problem comes when it turns out they were actually Brazilian electricians.

 

Though there's a few on this list that might be here today if they'd had a gun.

[samgale]

UK POLICE STATE ermmm no thanks

 

 

And the week minded will cheer on tyranny ,

 

Liberty and freedoms go bye bye