More armed police - do you feel safer ?

Anniebach stop asking silly questions you know what the answer is.

Maybe we should sort out or own protection, i.e change the gun laws.

1World has had a solution and it known as integration, no more ghettos.

It is indeed a sad state of affairs when more and more of our police are carrying guns. But needs must, and I for one, feel safer because of it.

durhamjen There have been armed police on the streets of London for a lot longer than five years

I think it's unlikely the man would have been shot if he was subdued by a taser.

I have more trust in the police than in gangsters. That's probably based on experience of working with both those groups.

The new armed police, have reduced the ranks of the ordinary police, so we are not safer. You cannot treat the police rudely, as Teresa May did, reduce resources and then give a few hundred of them new uniforms and guns and expect the public to feel safer.

Far too many cost cutting measures, NHS, fire services etc, we cannot cut costs and be safer, no matter how many guns we hand out.

Decent public services cost money.

I feel the right decision has been made to have armed Police in London. A truncheon and taser is effective in some situations but if there is a incident where people are carrying guns and shooting innocent people as in France then to save life there people need to be stopped quickly in order to save life.

I to think it's all for show, it will not deter , quite possible more innocent people will be shot and there must now be even more fear among ethnic communities

While it looks as though we could be protected no one knows where an attack will take place, they all appeared last night AFTER the woman had been killed so although they may look like a deterrent it's only show

I note that the perpetrator of last night's stabbings was captured by being tasered. Seems to me to be a perfectly adequate method of 'control', far less hazardous for innocent bystanders and unable to ccause death or serious injury if misused.

Gononsuch, there is no way everyone can be kept safe. I await your answer to my question to you, are you content to have your loved ones or yourself among the innocent nine you support killing ?

The police in Northern Ireland have always been armed. To us it's no big deal.

So you shoot the whole population and then you are bound to have killed the guilty ones. Is that what he, whoever he was, meant?
I do not think so.

I agree durhamjen

It was said by Stalin or Hitler in the '30 so it would have been quite acceptable then.

Anniebach

Again you're right and if you've got a way to keep me and mine safe then don't keep it to yourself.

Before dismissing the mention of Mark Duggan, perhaps you should read the link, Iam, and look particularly at the people who have produced the film The Hard Stop.
It's worth thinking about what the thought of extra armed police will do to the disaffected young in places like Tottenham.

I'd rather not think about what use terrorists could make of such riots in London.

Mark Duggan. Jean Charles de Menzez. The poor man who was shot dead because the police thought he was carrying a gun - it was a table leg, and more victims too.

We cannot and should not forget the killing of Ian Tomlinson, the police officer who killed him had known problems with controlling his moods, red rages was the explanation from the Met when they dismissed him first time around.

Awful attack, but I think we have to agree the police can't be everywhere.

Gononsuch, that would have the whole country rioting.

Mark Duggan mentioned because just one person shot for the wrong reason by police caused riots, not just in London but across the country. That was five years ago, before there were armed police on the streets.

Its better to shoot 10 innocent people than to let 1 guilty person go free."

I'm sticking with my original post, the reason it stuck with me was the play on words and I thought it was unusual to have a thinking tyrant.

Yes well said lam64 we hear about the dishonest police but the majority are prepared to protect the public. It's a thankless and dangerous task currently.

Mrs. P, has just made a very valid comment (she does sometimes).

Had an armed officer been near, the event would still have occurred, but a mentally ill person would have been shot rather than tasered.

In America he would be dead.

Yes, it is so sad that all of europe is under threat. There are armed officers patrolling the beaches in France. I feel as I did when the IRA were marauding, let's all get on with our lives. Let's also be grateful that the majority of our police officers are honest and to be relied on in an emergency. They're the ones who have to run towards danger, whilst the rest of us run the other way.

Yes this does appear to be non-terrorist related.

Had it been a terrorist and an armed officer had been nearby, the terrorist would have gone elsewhere, same result, different place.

I'm sure the armed police are to make people feel more secure, but are a potential stable door scenario.

It's so sad that Britain has come to this .

Maybe so GrandTea but does that mean we don't have any armed officers on the streets. If an armed police officer had been in the vicinity, it's possible the attack could have been stopped, or may not have happened.
It seems this attack may have been carried out by another individual who has significant mental health problems.

Today's tragic knife attack in London, shows that the police cannot stop these events. A shooter would have run out of bullets before they arrive and a suicide bomber would have completed his deed long before.