Originally Posted by SultanOfSwing

OK, that was a bad example but consider SCO19, the Met's armed response unit - those are armed British policemen, albeit specially trained ones. Letting a beat cop carry a sidearm is just a more direct version of that. I really don't think there is a danger of trigger-happy policemen in the UK but if it acts as any kind of a deterrent for an armed criminal getting his weapon out in public, it isn't a bad thing.

It should only be done if the level of violent crime in a given police district warrants it though, independent of buzz words like terrorism or immigrants. I'm with you on that part.

Plenty of other European police forces are armed. German police are required to carry while off duty. They seem to handle it OK, though. I think it does a disservice to the British police to suggest that they couldn't.

Originally Posted by Sally Redux

If the police are getting specific threats we need to look at that. If it's Hot Fuzz getting twitchy when they see a beardy bloke, no.

Originally Posted by Sally Redux

If the police are getting specific threats we need to look at that. If it's Hot Fuzz getting twitchy when they see a beardy bloke, no.

Originally Posted by SultanOfSwing

That's what I mean. If violent crime in a district is at a level where the beat cops and the public are at a raised rick of running into armed criminals, then the playing field should be leveled. I have no problem with ordinary coppers carrying a pistol in the same way as German or Australian officers might. Training is key, of course.

I am certainly not advocating a militarised police force. Protection within reason is what I am on about.

Originally Posted by Sally Redux

As we said, that's a general policing issue. Using 'terrorist threat' has to be quantified.

Not sure if that's the right word but it looks good.

Originally Posted by Pulaski

Led by the liberal "lets all be happy, we can leave the immigrants to remain unintegrated in their own community" thinking that has been the dominant political thinking of both the main political parties in the UK, and pretty much all western democracies. We have, indeed, allowed these cancers to develop right under our noses.

Originally Posted by SultanOfSwing

I don't know why they even have to connect it with terrorism. It should be concerned with crime, no matter the source. I guess I'm off topic with respect to the article in question.

If a terrorist threat were to be received, armed response units would be dispatched to handle it. I am actually thinking more about allowing the policeman on the beat to carry a gun for his own protection. If the level of crime in the UK at this time doesn't warrant that, then fair enough, leave it alone.

Quantified looks OK to me, too.

Originally Posted by Hotscot

One of the issues, here and in the UK...is that there is rarely a frank and honest discussion on the pros and cons of immigration.

Some people benefit from the current policies.
Some people are harmed.

To admit this and to have a balanced view is seen as a weakness in one's position.

That gets my goat...

Originally Posted by Sally Redux

Kind of links with our other conversation. The 'freedom-loving' right-wingers strangely seem quite happy to put us under an authoritarian regime on the flimsiest of pretexts.

Originally Posted by SultanOfSwing

They're all statists at heart ...

This is one of those situations that won't really apply in the case of the UK though because they just don't have the same kind of gun crime as the US does. It's easier for four or five unarmed policemen to take down a guy with a knife than it would be to deal with gun-toting crims. Completely different situations.

Originally Posted by Sally Redux

Agreed. I was looking up the local crime stats here and the weapons column was like

0
0
0
1
0
0
0
...

Originally Posted by SultanOfSwing

You might see it slightly higher in London, because of the larger population but in general, yeah it's bugger all.