More armed police - do you feel safer ?

The group of officers who are well are armed have access to motor cycles and boats so they can move quickly if an incident occurs as distance from them.

I am not minimising the risk to the public but in the current climate, to link the death of Mark Duggan as a potential reason for us having only unarmed officers on our streets seems inflammatory.

Most potential attacks are discovered and neuralised before they overspill into violence through 'intelligence' - thank goodness.

But for those that slip through the net, or for these 'loner and loser' attacks then we can hardly expect the local bobby with his trunceon and taser to be sufficient. Attacks like those on shopping centres and other crowded areas need an armed response, sadly. Imagine terrorists loose at, for example, the Bullring.

This is about saving civilian lives on the ground and, yes, there's no simple solution to situations like this, but at least something is being put in place. Terrifying though they may look I'd rather see them if I'm ever in that situation than the alternative.

There must also be undercover people out and about amongst us. Dangerous times.

A minus - it will make some people more jumpy. It may prompt more people with mental illness to act??
[I did used to know someone who got quite riled and jumpy, when things of this nature were occuring, and I was never quite sure how he would ultimately react. I have lost contact with him now, so dont know what happened to him].[yes I have seen the news].

A positive. People will be more vigilant about packages and rucksacks?

It should not be overlooked that many modern guns have tremendous firepower; some of them are capable of firing straight through the walls of a house and out the other side. In a crowded situation, many civilians could easily be killed or easily wounded if police opened fire.

My guess is that there have been well informed terror alerts. Where the armed police are, may make a difference, so reassuring possibly?

But I cant see that they can do that everywhere in London for any length of time.

I dont know whether anyone knows if there was say a terrorist attack, would it mean that armed police are ready to go, even if they are in the wrong place? Would it be a speedier reaction in that case?

theconversation.com/five-years-after-his-death-sparked-riots-we-must-not-forget-mark-duggan-62748

We are in central London a fair bit and have noticed many more armed - with Heckler and Koch (big guns!) - police on the streets. We find their presence reassuring as we are at war, whether we have declared one or not.

I agree the police can't be everywhere, they are a reassurance (but hardly a deterrant as the mad bug**rs actually want to die). What else are we to do? Roll over?

I smile as I pass and usually receive a nod and smile in return. I would approach them if I had the need - they would probably welcome some contact.

I approached an armed policeman in Paris last summer to ask directions. He couldn't have been more helpful, taking out his phone to consult maps.

The armed police they showed on the news this evening looked quite terrifying; however, I have been in countries where the police have been armed and they carry a gun in a holster which you wouldn't really notice.

At places like major airports or where they are aware of a threat I would be reassured but I don't think I would like to see the police on the beat routinely armed.

Gononsuch, might I respectfully suggest that you brush up on your history before posting what is in the main idiotic rubbish.

The arms training for the police used to be done on Hounslow Heath.

Just take yourself back to the 50s - unbelievably different!!!!

I'm slightly dubious about the safety of armed police because I have seen them do some stupid things with guns in the past.
Not many people know that Michael Bentine, who was an expert shot, used to train the Met in handling firearms.

Sir William Blackstone (July 10, 1723 – February 14, 1780)
It is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer

Gononsuch And it predates Stalin and Hitler by about 200 years

They said tonight that armed police would be a presence in cities throughout England not just London.
Think it's one of those situations where the police are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Life has changed and sadly we must change to protect our life and country.

No thevira taegetted Birmingham, Warrington and Manchester, My dad was a snr officer, sent for to do firearms training at the height of the IRA campaign. He didn't want to do it, was committed to an unarmed police force but he did the training.

I don't like the police being armed, except in exceptional circumstances. It's never made me feel safer when I've been on holiday in countries where they have armed police, and I don't think I would feel safer here. I think it just raises the stakes, resulting in more guns on the street and more shootings. That seems to be the way it has gone in the US.

My granddaughter has always wanted to be a police officer, and it is still her ambition now that my DD's family have moved to the States. The fact that she would carry a gun and come up against many people - law-abiding or criminal - who are also armed causes me great concern. It doesn't worry her at all. In fact, I think that the gun may have added to the job's desirability but, of course, she's a teenager and they never think anything bad will happen to them.

I agree with Rosina, armed police on the streets certainly make me feel safer. Sheilasue, like you my son works in central London, he and his partner and child live in London, and we travel to London at least once a fortnight to do childcare, and I'm pleased that there will be armed police there to (try to) protect us all. A terrorist attack could occur anywhere in the country so we need armed police visible in every city, but whatever we do, we cannot protect every train, bus, ferry, cinema, restaurant, church etc and of course the terrorists know this. However I still find armed police reassuring.

It is so sad that our 'bobbies' are being armed (well, some of them). I thought it said a lot for our society that our police were not armed. Armed police look more like soldiers than policemen. Will they really deter a terrorist attack? Unlikely. These terrorists don't care about being killed. In my busy, tourist-packed northern city I never see a policeman let alone an armed one.

They said on the news to say "hello" to the armed Police. Can't say I would fancy it, they do look scary. I was always proud our Police were unarmed. Different times.

London is an obvious target but many towns and cities have a military presence; Blanford Forum, Portsmouth, Aldershot, Winchester, Portsmouth and many many more. The IR A didn't stick to London.

In the past (I can't talk about now)
The police officers applied for Arms training
The ones who were successfully trained were very aware that
1 They may hit bystander and
2 After using a fire arm they would have give a detailed report
3 They could be still be charged with a wrongful shooting

They are highly trained officers and not just taken off the beat given a firearm

A truncheon was mentioned
If the truncheon was drawn at an incident then a report had to be given as to where and why. ( I expect the same of tasers now)

We cannot suddenly put extra armed police on the streets
They ready and waiting to be sent where required.
Again I can only speak of the past
The regular police officers did not want to be routinely armed. (the exception being of course the trained armed division).

gonosuch I think the quote was
'Its better to let ten men go free than to Hang one Innocent man'

Hopefully it will make trouble makers think twice

How do you define 'troublemaker' and what 'troublemaking' would you expect them to think twice about? Indeed, at what point would you expect the armed officer to fire at someone? Would they shoot to kill or to wound. What about passers by?

As far as I can see the only time an armed response is possibly needed is in situations the police already know about, where they would have their armed officers deployed anyway. Can't see any need for the police to be carrying guns 'on the beat'.

I'm sure I heard on the radio that the extra 600 armed officers are not additional recruits. The police have trained more armed police, from their existing force. Teresa May reduced our police force when she was Home Secretary as part of austerity. I'd be happy to see a bigger police force. Like other posters, I would prefer not to have armed police but a police officer with a baton couldn't have saved Lee Rigby.

Swanny on the radio today they talked about the difficulty of 'recruiting' enough extra qualified police.