Would having armed Police on the streets of The United Kingdom stop the terrorists?

[Honky Tonx]

I've been having a slightly heated discussion with a bunch of Americans on the Ted Nugent for President Facebook page. They criticised the British for not having armed Police visibly on it's streets the whole time. For some reason when I pointed out that though their Police carry weapons, they were unable to stop School and university massacres, unable to prevent the 9/11 attacks, unable to stop Timothy McVeigh and unable to stop gun related crime, I was immediately blocked and my post was deleted. It suddenly dawned on me that I might have rubbished their argument. Do any of you think that there would be an end to the Manchester or London style attacks if our police were armed?

 

[Tom Bombadil]

The Ted Nugent for president facebook page?

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Wouldn't make much difference would it? The visual deterrent aspect is irrelevant to Jihadists, as is the prospect of being shot dead. It'd make more difference if you say banned all vehicles near big population centres, but that would only impact on one aspect of the threat.

 

[Weststander]

I think it's the way forward. Despite the brave efforts of the the public and unarmed cops, it took vital minutes to get armed cops there.

It won't stop the initial events, but in the long run will likely save many lives and maimings.

It's a war.

 

[easynow]

No.

 

[happypig]

What makes people safer :

A. More guns ?
B. Less guns ?

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

What makes people safer :

A. More guns ?
B. Less guns ?

Longer guns?

 

[StonehamPark]

BIGGER guns.

 

[bn1&bn3 Albion]

Prevent? No.
Reduce the number of victims the terrorists can kill? Probably.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Guns that can shoot round corners?

 

[Honky Tonx]

The Ted Nugent for president facebook page?

I think it's rather right wing!!

 

[Bozza]

No. There are simply too many places that are vulnerable to these "low tech" attacks.

We were away camping this weekend with [MENTION=236]Papa Lazarou[/MENTION]'s family and another family and we were sitting up talking and drinking last night when we saw the news of the London Bridge attack breaking.

It crossed my mind that if someone drove into a campsite at night and just ploughed through as many tents as they could it would be horrific. And there's nothing anyone could do to stop it happening.

The brutal truth of our wonderfully liberal and free society is that the bad guys have almost limitless places where there are very soft targets.

 

[AmexRuislip]

Quote from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_Kingdom

This originates from the formation of the Metropolitan Police Service in the 19th century, when police were not armed, partly to counter public fears and objections over armed enforcers as this had been previously seen due to the British Army maintaining order when needed.

It's a choice that IMO has worked well over many years.
We have special armed police units that respond when needed, to any event that deems necessary.
Having all police armed on the streets gives the impression(IMO) that we are at war, which we are not.
So it's a no from me!

 

[Silk]

We already have armed police. The attackers were shot dead by them. But no, it would not prevent attacks. Do wars fail to happen if both sides have weapons?

Sent from my F5121 using Tapatalk

 

[JC Footy Genius]

You would probably need to have armed officers paired up all the time as I could see terrorists who only had access to knives trying to ambush a lone armed officer to get his firearm and ammunition. It's a no from me.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

No. There are simply too many places that are vulnerable to these "low tech" attacks.

We were away camping this weekend with [MENTION=236]Papa Lazarou[/MENTION]'s family and another family and we were sitting up talking and drinking last night when we saw the news of the London Bridge attack breaking.

It crossed my mind that if someone drove into a campsite at night and just ploughed through as many tents as they could it would be horrific. And there's nothing anyone could do to stop it happening.

The brutal truth of our wonderfully liberal and free society is that the bad guys have almost limitless places where there are very soft targets.

Realistically it's not limitless, you're not going to bother with some campsite in Chipping Sodbury. You're talking the big cities, probably Brighton wouldn't be considered worth the bother, and not just because it's a relatively small population centre, but because it's not globally known in the way that London, Manchester, Birmingham or Glasgow are, and so the 'political' capital is less.

 

[clippedgull]

Terrorists that don't care about death will always find a way.

 

[Hugo Rune]

No. An arms war would ensue. Those three brainwashed scumbags would still have attacked last night if all Police were armed but I think they would have made sure they'd got hold of automatic guns beforehand. Yes it's harder to get these types of weapons but if they can get them to Paris I believe they can get them to London.

 

[Raleigh Chopper]

Realistically it's not limitless, you're not going to bother with some campsite in Chipping Sodbury. You're talking the big cities, probably Brighton wouldn't be considered worth the bother, and not just because it's a relatively small population centre, but because it's not globally known in the way that London, Manchester, Birmingham or Glasgow are, and so the 'political' capital is less.

Sorry, but a few years ago a bloke from Plymouth tried to attack a cafe in Exeter.
Now, he was a white simpleton who thought he had converted to Islam, he got put away for some time and I believe he died a few years ago.
Not a terrorist but it can happen anywhere but you are mostly at risk in the bigger cities.

 

[The Birdman]

At the moment yes as the first police officer was only armed with Baton however once the threats are over we should stand down the guns.