This is obviously going to vary by region (I’d imagine law enforcement officers in the west began carrying firearms earlier than in the industrialized northeastern cities) – but when did police in the US begin to regularly carry guns?
In 1829 the first UK police force were known as ‘Peelers’ after Home Secretary Sir Robert Peel. He authorised joint Commissioners Sir Charles Rowan and Sir Richard Mayne to purchase fifty flintlock pistols, but police officers routinely did not carry them. Police began to use revolvers for night patrols after two officers were killed in 1884.
I only read the ‘US’ bit after looking that up
Are you asking when they were first issued an official department firearm*, or when they were expected to carry some firearm of their own possession matching some loose standard?
And are you asking specifically about handguns or are long guns included?
Looks like the NYPD adopted the Colt New Police in 1896, and it suggests that they had no standard before then.
*I know that many departments require you to purchase it yourself today, but they usually force you to choose a model, Glock 22 or similar.
Good questions. I have to admit I didn’t know enough about the subject to even consider these factors.
I suppose the main question is when law enforcement actually began carrying handguns (particularly issued by the police department) as part of their regular, daily work. I’m going off memory here, but it seems like early depictions of cops in America showed them carrying batons only.
Many early images of Police are them in their dress uniform, with long coat. The sidearm might not be worn for the photo session or could be carried under the coat. Mind you, in urban areas many police did carry only the billyclub.
But it’s only in Britian there has been widespread reluctance for the Police to carry firearms:
The Maréchaussée carried firearms or swords as needed, since 1515.
United States Marshals Service carried guns since inception, in 1789.
This implies that carrying revolvers was routine. It was and is not, except for officers on special duties. Even in today high tension times, most police in the Uk ar unarmed and all the better for it.
What is the general reasoning behind this? Is it more for appearances? More to ensure that everyone on the field has more or less the same stopping power? To ensure that everyone can reload from a shared ammo supply?
Are there any departments where you can more or less carry whatever you want as long as it’s more or less a handgun?
In England, Wales, and Scotland. In Northern Ireland, RUC officers were generally armed, as is the current Police Service of Northern Ireland.
Yes.
After I retired I took a part-time patrol gig to maintain my certification. P/T have to supply our own weapon but it can be pretty much anything we can qualify with, most makes, 9mm, .40, or .45. It’s a large agency so there are numerous different makes being carried. The department supplies the ammo. A few years ago they nixed carrying revolvers, at that time there were a few still carrying .38’s/.357’s.
The issue for full time is a Sig.
Where I retired from the issue at the time was a Glock 22 .40S&W. But those of us on special units had some options.
In Aus, as in Britain, the Police were disarmed. I imagine that the policy was widespread in the British empire, once larger than the American empire is today.
The first peelers were issued cutlasses.
I suggest US police have their guns withdrawn and replaced with cutlasses. Good for a laugh anyway.
The sun never sets on the British Empire because G-d does not trust a Britisher alone in the dark.
:rolleyes:
Yes. Yes*. Yes*. And if they require any accessories, they will fit the same gun, or if the department has armorers they can specialize easily.
*I think .40 ACP is most common now which is why I specified G22, but some use 9mm or .45 ACP.
In Meiji period Japan, swords were banned, but police still carried them.
Well, yes, the police require better weapons than the miscreants and hence the populance.
Not really. A lot of agencies carry different ammo calibers. The chance that an officer will run out in a firefight and need to borrow another officers rounds is highly unlikely. Using just one type is easier to order and keep track of, though.
A lot larger, since America has no empire. I mean, unless you count American Samoa & Guam. I think the various scattered islands the US have control of are of a size with the current remnants of the British Empire.
Still, in the rest of the world- France, Spain (who also had pretty big empires of a time), Germany, etc the Police carried guns.
It’s the Brits who are the odd man out here.
If bows and arrows are banned, then only criminals will have bows and arrows.
Yes. Many small departments, especially those that make extensive use of part-timers require the officer to buy his entire uniform and kit at his own expense. They allow a pretty fair degree of leeway on the gun so as to permit officers/deputies to use one already owned. The sheriff’s office where I part-timed for 12 years specified obly that revolvers had to be at least .38 caliber and automatics had to be at least 9mm parabellum. All weapons were subject to final approval by The Sheriff Hisownself lest somebody want to be cute and try to carry a Desert Eagle as a duty pistol. (Yes, that happened. No, he didn’t get to carry it. TSH was, shall we say, unamused.) At various times, I carried a S&W 4566, an HK USP 40, and a Springfield 1911. I qualified each year with a .357 revolver just for giggles, but never carried one on duty though I could have.
New Zealand is also principally unarmed though the rules are being stretched slightly these days.
A significant difference between NZ and UK is what happens when armed Police are used. IN UK they are much more likely to use lethal force.
The NZ Police has the Armed Offenders Squad. It consists of volunteer regular Police who are rostered for standby to the squad in addition to their usual duties. They receive some additional training but are essentially ordinary Police. They have a culture of remarkable reluctance to use lethal force and any occurrence is national news.
The UK in contrast has specialist firearm units plus local force based weapons. The specialists do not do ordinary Police work. They are well known for using their weapons where circumstances did not warrant it ‘due to their training’.
This is not logical.
In America the crims and the police are in an arms race. In the UK, most criminals do not go armed. That is because they, on the one hand know that if they are caught with weapons, they will get a longer sentence, and on the other, they know that they are not likely to meet any armed resistance from security guards or from the police.