Which Outfit For My Interview?
Jobs & Education0 min ago
Arming British Police
Forgive me for putting this in News when I do not supply some link to invite you to debate this thread.
Earlier today on LBC radio it was asked if we think, in light of Paris, that British police should be armed permanently.
If gunmen burst into the Savoy Hotel would it be better that a local copper had a firearm rather than hide in a corner and radio for armed back up from an ARV who could be 9 minutes plus away? Remember Lee Rigby. Officers on scene but unarmed and powerless until ARV arrived.
Not all police officers feel happy about carrying firearms. I can respect that decision although as a member of a unit that carried a H&K MP5 single shot 9mm carbine plus a Glock 9mm for the last 20yrs of my service I was none too happy about some of my colleagues who never loaded their weapons and locked them in the glove box of the vehicles they travelled in.
We are told we have members of the Special Recognicance Regiment patrolling in plain clothes around London along with armed plain clothes police officers. Allegedly the army officers are not armed. I hope that is not true. Why bother to have them? Of course we have an army member arrested for murder during terrorist troubles years ago so perhaps the SRR are not happy with the so called rules of engagement the H.O. wish to saddle them with.
There are many ex police/army firearms trained personnel living in London
and other towns/cities. Would you feel safer knowing that there may be an armed gentleman dining next to you who would be happy to intervene should a terrorist storm your restaurant.
It isn't that stupid or laughable. The LDV/Homeguard (Dad's Army) were entrusted with firearms to protect their countrymen in times of war.
Obviously some older gentlemen would have to be tested as to their capability in possessing and using a firearm in a close quarter situation but do any body think there may be some merit in the suggestion that sensible ,capable persons who have been trained in the use of firearms be allowed to carry them covertly and use them to protect their fellow citizens?
r
Earlier today on LBC radio it was asked if we think, in light of Paris, that British police should be armed permanently.
If gunmen burst into the Savoy Hotel would it be better that a local copper had a firearm rather than hide in a corner and radio for armed back up from an ARV who could be 9 minutes plus away? Remember Lee Rigby. Officers on scene but unarmed and powerless until ARV arrived.
Not all police officers feel happy about carrying firearms. I can respect that decision although as a member of a unit that carried a H&K MP5 single shot 9mm carbine plus a Glock 9mm for the last 20yrs of my service I was none too happy about some of my colleagues who never loaded their weapons and locked them in the glove box of the vehicles they travelled in.
We are told we have members of the Special Recognicance Regiment patrolling in plain clothes around London along with armed plain clothes police officers. Allegedly the army officers are not armed. I hope that is not true. Why bother to have them? Of course we have an army member arrested for murder during terrorist troubles years ago so perhaps the SRR are not happy with the so called rules of engagement the H.O. wish to saddle them with.
There are many ex police/army firearms trained personnel living in London
and other towns/cities. Would you feel safer knowing that there may be an armed gentleman dining next to you who would be happy to intervene should a terrorist storm your restaurant.
It isn't that stupid or laughable. The LDV/Homeguard (Dad's Army) were entrusted with firearms to protect their countrymen in times of war.
Obviously some older gentlemen would have to be tested as to their capability in possessing and using a firearm in a close quarter situation but do any body think there may be some merit in the suggestion that sensible ,capable persons who have been trained in the use of firearms be allowed to carry them covertly and use them to protect their fellow citizens?
r
Answers
I'm a little concerned about the police in general being armed, because of the number of '
11:46 Mon 16th Nov 2015
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
DB
Unless the government get a grip on our so called border controls there could well be a recipe for disaster in the UK if there are not enough legitimate firearms to protect the innocent. 450 jihadis back in the UK. Not interned. Still in possession of passports.!!
I knew some excellent police officers whose hands would shake if they were handed a gun. They wanted nothing to do with them. I respect their stance.
I worked in a department where we were obliged to carry firearms. A very small number only joined us because of a certain off shoot activity that did not involve firearms but did not disclose that on interview for selection.
Hence we had one or two on an armed operation who (a) didn't load their weapon in the armoury and (b) locked their unloaded weapon in the glove box of the vehicle they were travelling in. Very dangerous,selfish cowardly individuals who were a liability to the team they were working with.
I disagree that all UK police officers should be armed.Those who are happy to carry. Yes definiteley. Those who are not happy.Ok. Not a disbarment from being a police officer.
We expect the lefties to trot out firearms incidents that went wrong in the UK to prove some point. Wardhof and Mendez.These are comparitively few and regretful.
When all US police are obliged to carry firearms the accident rate or unlawful killing rate soars. I once drove a D11(as it was then known)officer on an operation once. He sat in the back of the vehicle caressing his Remington Birdmaster 12g pump and cooing,"Who are you going to find me to kill today?"
That was also an instructor who supervised our monthly refresher shoots.
He got his chance to kill someone about 10 years later in Barnes and found himself in front of a beak at the CCC.
Not all are suitable candidates to be entrusted with lethal weapons but those of us who proved we are in the past could be of some use to our fellow man in the future IMO.
.
Unless the government get a grip on our so called border controls there could well be a recipe for disaster in the UK if there are not enough legitimate firearms to protect the innocent. 450 jihadis back in the UK. Not interned. Still in possession of passports.!!
I knew some excellent police officers whose hands would shake if they were handed a gun. They wanted nothing to do with them. I respect their stance.
I worked in a department where we were obliged to carry firearms. A very small number only joined us because of a certain off shoot activity that did not involve firearms but did not disclose that on interview for selection.
Hence we had one or two on an armed operation who (a) didn't load their weapon in the armoury and (b) locked their unloaded weapon in the glove box of the vehicle they were travelling in. Very dangerous,selfish cowardly individuals who were a liability to the team they were working with.
I disagree that all UK police officers should be armed.Those who are happy to carry. Yes definiteley. Those who are not happy.Ok. Not a disbarment from being a police officer.
We expect the lefties to trot out firearms incidents that went wrong in the UK to prove some point. Wardhof and Mendez.These are comparitively few and regretful.
When all US police are obliged to carry firearms the accident rate or unlawful killing rate soars. I once drove a D11(as it was then known)officer on an operation once. He sat in the back of the vehicle caressing his Remington Birdmaster 12g pump and cooing,"Who are you going to find me to kill today?"
That was also an instructor who supervised our monthly refresher shoots.
He got his chance to kill someone about 10 years later in Barnes and found himself in front of a beak at the CCC.
Not all are suitable candidates to be entrusted with lethal weapons but those of us who proved we are in the past could be of some use to our fellow man in the future IMO.
.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
I don't think that that would work, divebuddy. We are in a dreadful situation here and facing covert attacks. We need a covert response IMHO. Reality is facing us. If someone could have killed (even rendered helpless) one of those attackers in Paris, lives would have been saved.
Yes, one can quote the nutters who slipped through the net of gun licensing, but this idea is considering the creation of a totally different force, allowed to carry guns in normal life - which would, I agree, need careful selection and monitoring, far more than involved in day-to-day licensing.
We are at war, just as certainly as we were at war in 1939. Different thinking is needed. I'm hugely sorry that this is the case. I'm a peaceable soul who worked for understanding between religions for years, face to face. We need to shoulder the burden and, as I said, the reality of the situation, sad as it is.
Yes, one can quote the nutters who slipped through the net of gun licensing, but this idea is considering the creation of a totally different force, allowed to carry guns in normal life - which would, I agree, need careful selection and monitoring, far more than involved in day-to-day licensing.
We are at war, just as certainly as we were at war in 1939. Different thinking is needed. I'm hugely sorry that this is the case. I'm a peaceable soul who worked for understanding between religions for years, face to face. We need to shoulder the burden and, as I said, the reality of the situation, sad as it is.
Jourdain
A BA and bar. It is a war but a cowardly war where uniforms are not worn by the cowards. Covert guile should be used to combat it.Not by psycopathic wannabee gun nut rambos but sensible trained men who are still happy to protect and preserve. That old fashioned sense of duty does not dissolve once retired.It still is a moral requirement IMO
A BA and bar. It is a war but a cowardly war where uniforms are not worn by the cowards. Covert guile should be used to combat it.Not by psycopathic wannabee gun nut rambos but sensible trained men who are still happy to protect and preserve. That old fashioned sense of duty does not dissolve once retired.It still is a moral requirement IMO
Arming civilians who were former military personnel has not been untried in recent times.
//The Home Service Force, 1982-1993[edit]
At the height of the Cold War, the Home Service Force was established in 1982, starting with four "pilot companies". Recruitment began in earnest in 1984 and was open to ex-servicemen who could not meet Territorial Army (TA) training requirements. It was envisaged that this force, a company in every Territorial battalion, would be used to guard strategic points against sabotage from enemy special forces in the event of war. The disbandment of the force commenced in 1992,[45] as a part of the "peace dividend".//
Sir Oracle
I believe you are very much incorrect when you state the Home Guard/LDV had NO ammunition for their weapons!
https:/
//The Home Service Force, 1982-1993[edit]
At the height of the Cold War, the Home Service Force was established in 1982, starting with four "pilot companies". Recruitment began in earnest in 1984 and was open to ex-servicemen who could not meet Territorial Army (TA) training requirements. It was envisaged that this force, a company in every Territorial battalion, would be used to guard strategic points against sabotage from enemy special forces in the event of war. The disbandment of the force commenced in 1992,[45] as a part of the "peace dividend".//
Sir Oracle
I believe you are very much incorrect when you state the Home Guard/LDV had NO ammunition for their weapons!
https:/
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.