Total sidebar comment here, in regards to whether or not you would train cops in basic firearms use if they were never expected to use firearms: In the US Air Force, all airmen receive some rudimentary training in marksmanship, handling and safe operation of firearms, and even some tactical movement (ie: “Duck, dumbass!” and the fine art of hiding behind stuff). As far as I know, most airmen are generally not expected to ever need to use guns, but we still all get taught how to use them if just so we know which end to hold if we ever do need to pick a gun up for some reason.
What does an unarmed Bobby do if attacked with a knife? I mean before he dies?
<Tasteless Joke>Well, normally he bleeds a bit</TJ>
Actually, do Bobbies carry night sticks or Maglites like American cops often do? One would imagine that such a thing could be rather effective to defend against a knife if the cop saw the attack coming (and if he didn’t see the attack coming, an assault rifle wouldn’t help him much either)
Well they do wear stabvests and as as been mentioned they carry nightsticks and asps (not snakes) but a telescopic metal thingy that delivers a blow sufficient to break an assailants arm.
They also have pepper spray
You know what? They should cary asps (snakes). I think it would be an excellent deterent to would-be cop killers.
“I was gonna stab that cop, but he’s got a snake on his arm! That’s some pretty scary shit, I’m not gonna mess with him!” 
Not as effective as a pistol or revolver. And I am a trained expert in the use of a baton.
In July I retired from a department after 25 years. I’ve since taken a job with another agency (part-time) so I’ve been in the game a long time. And I’ll tell you a fact: I know more cops who got hurt from suspects with knives than from guns.
But either way, knife or gun, a deadly threat is a deadly threat.
No freaking way would I do this job without a firearm.
As do we here in the U.S… It is not the appropriate response to a lethal threat (which a knife is). Neither is a baton, a sap, or a taser. The appropriate response to a lethal threat is deadly force: a firearm!
I am interested in knowing how many, and how often English cops get shot, stabbed, or just get the living shit kicked out of them.
How much respect/fear do you have for the unarmed guard at the mall, America?
You seem confused about UK society.
Making wild statements such as ‘criminals disregard laws’ meaning ‘the police need firearms training’ because ‘the public have been disarmed’ simply doesn’t apply here.
Most UK citizens have never owned a gun or fired one. Our regular police have never been armed. We like it that way. And no, there are not gangs of anrmed criminals roaming the streets.
We have a few specialist armed police units, plus officers are armed when guarding major airports and diplomats.
But the police don’t want to be armed and neither do the public.
Are you serious? This is your argument for giving every policeman and presumably every citizen a gun?
The police don’t want to be armed here.
The public don’t want to be armed.
The silly answer to your silly statement above is ‘move away from the US back to the UK.’
I am interested in how many US citizens get killed by guns each year.
How many more school massacres do you want?
OK, I can see this thread veering wildly into GD in the near future.
The problem with school shootings isn’t that private citizens own guns, it’s that either they don’t secure them properly (keeping them away from their angsty kids) or that they acquire them illegally (ie: getting someone else to purchase the gun on their behalf, or getting it on the black market/stealing it).
And then this gets us into the realm of why school shootings happen, which is much more of a sociological debate than a gun debate, and I don’t really feel like going into it.
Before you turn into a total dickhead here, let’s put this back on track.
I am asking questions (and yes, making some personal observations) about policemen being armed and situations in which they should be armed in. I make these as a 25+ year veteran cop.
Nowhere in this thread did I bring up right to bear arms or any other gun debate.
It seems that isn’t exactly correct!
Source: The Observer 20 November 2005.
From your own cite
Wanting 10% of UK police to be trained and authorised in the use of firearms is a long, long way from having armed bobbies wandering the streets.
“Wandering the streets”?
Am I to understand that the Brits don’t even trust their own police to be armed?
Glee seems to infer that on-duty cops shoot kids at school. (or did I mis-understand his goofy rant?)
I still would like to know what an unarmed Bobby is trained to do when confronted with a real threat?
Define a “real” threat.
Someone with a gun? Take cover, and call for backup. But this happens so rarely that it makes headline national news when it does.
With a knife? Call for backup, use pepper spray and a nightstick/asp.
With regard to police deaths, over the past thirty years 70 officers have been killed in the line of duty in the UK.
However, 14 of those deaths occurred last year, so there is concern at the current risk levels.
In comparison, the first six months of this year ALONE saw 39* police officers killed in the USA.
I guess being armed doesn’t help a whole bunch, huh?
In addition, UK police have shot (and killed) fewer than 60 people in the last 20 yrs.
How does that compare with the USA?
Cites: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2660885.stm and http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19853442/
You posted ‘What does an unarmed Bobby do if attacked with a knife? I mean before he dies?’
I consider that this was insulting to the British police. You clearly have no idea about how a society of 50 million people can work perfectly well with unarmed beat police and unarmed citizens.
You posted ‘armed bobbies wandering the streets’.
If you had bothered to read my posts and cites, you would realise that there are no armed officers patrolling the streets here. That’s how we like it. Even the police suggesting that 5% more could be armed refers to specialist units that await a call from an unarmed beat officer.
You posted ‘Glee seems to infer that on-duty cops shoot kids at school.’
Obviously I didn’t. I reacted to your ignorant suggestions about the dangers you think British society faces.
Despite our unarmed beat police and our unarmed citizenry, we have far less gun deaths and school massacres than the US.
I wouldn’t have brought this well-known fact up in this thread, except that you clearly don’t understand how much less gun crime there is here, despite our gun prohibtions.
You posted ‘No freaking way would I do this job without a firearm.’
Obviously you would be unable to work over here.
None. Which is why I want people to be able to defend themselves.
Actually, I posted this first (as an example of exactly what British people don’t want).
What I’m curious about, and I can’t recall if this question was ever answered any other time I brought it up in a US/UK gun debate, is the relative population sizes/densities between the US and the UK. The US is Big. Really really big. Almost as big as Canada, I’m told. I’d be suprised if the UK matched the US in terms of population sizes, and I honestly have no idea how densely populated British and Irish cities are compared to American cities (I’m also imagining that most of the shooting deaths of officers happen in larger cities like Houston or Detroit, and not smaller places like Mayberry or Beavercleaverville).
Now, as to whether the population difference is enough to make the numbers of police deaths proportional, I dunno, it’s just one more something that makes me curious.
EDIT: Oh, and Glee? Can you tone back a bit on the emotionally-charged vocabulary? I keep waiting on the edge of my seat for you to go into a rant about murder simulators and devil music.