Arming the Police?

Because of the actions of one Raoul Moat, Inspector Gadget has written a piece that seems to call for routine arming of all Police

The actions of this individual, and the police response outlined above (recalling all officers to stations for fear of further casualties) proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the current unarmed police service in Britain is no longer fit for purpose.

and ...

Northumbria Police has had to bring in ARVs from other Forces so as to offer a measure of protection to citizens and officers alike.

Within the comments we can read that,

... all unarmed (the vast majority) of Northumbria officers are grounded, apart from going to “I calls”(I take it they will know which ones are genuine and which is a trap).

The call for routine arming of all Police seems to be widely supported by comments left, so Mrs Rigby, naturally, jumped in with both feet and wrote this. She wouldn't normally repeat comments she's left elsewhere, but this is an exception.

With the greatest of respect to you all, because you do a grand job, and I can see my comment comes after some who are asking for Police to be armed, but maybe you don’t understand why we ordinary mortals are a bit bothered to hear even more talk about having ‘all police armed’.

You see, it’s because we read about things like this (inserted extract ... "One of the hostages was then apparently shot by mistake with a Taser...")

We think most people will recover from being hit by a tazer, we fear that being mistakenly shot if wrongly identified will result in a very different outcome. And, you see, some Police are already telling us it’s illegal to take photographs and some of those are being a bit too pushy about it too. How long will it be before a photographer is tazered for arguing about his or her rights, or for pushing back when a police officer wrongly grabs their expensive camera?

Some people are a bit concerned that some – only some – Police are a bit more worried about looking after themselves, or covering their own backs when they make a mistake, instead of looking after us ‘members of the public’.

We know it’s only a few bad apples, but in the wrong hands a gun is lethal. That’s how we ended up with the knee-jerk legislation that made British gun laws so stringent.

There are lots of legally held guns in this country, their owners are very careful to keep themselves legal. But, you see, as somebody else has pointed out, our gun laws are so strict that decent people and aren’t even allowed to pursue a challenging hobby they once enjoyed. Some of our excellent Olympic shooters have to train in France – yet this chap managed to get a weapon within 12 hours of being released from jail.

How could he do that? It’s against the law!

Aren’t your demands to be armed yet another knee-jerk reaction? We don’t hear you calling out for the same when ordinary folk, including children, are shot dead. Be honest, and ask yourself if you’d be making the same demands if this man had stopped after murdering Chris Brown.

Would PC Rathband have been able to use his weapon, if he’d had one? Would it have made any difference?

Why aren’t we hearing more about pressure and significant efforts to prevent and shut down the illegal gun trade?

The important things now though are to hope PC David Rathband makes a full recovery and the maniac who shot him is quickly captured before he does any more harm.

So why is this comment repeated?

It's because 'Smithyknows' replies to 'Mrs R', 'Crux' and 'JuliaM' with this,

So if you consider how rare it is that fires actually occur why do most people have smoke alarms?

Most rtc’s are minor but most people have airbags.

So why can’t I- who faces danger more often than I have ever had an rtc, a house fire or any kind of such near misses- why can’t I be afforded the same protection of safety when facing seriously armed individuals.

Don’t judge someone until you’ve walked in their shoes.

Once you have dealt with incidents of such violence or volatility that you are chuffed you’re still alive, tell me your opinion.

Do I not have the same Human Right to Life?

It would be very easy to fully fisk this comment and to take up space on Insp Gadget's blog to do so, but that isn't really fair, so Mrs Rigby is responding here on her own blog.

First of all, Mrs Rigby has not, can not, and does not want to 'walk a mile' in a Police officer's shoes - but she has family and friends who have, and who still do. And she knows which of these individuals she would trust to be 'routinely armed'.

Don’t judge someone until you’ve walked in their shoes.

But, 'Smithyknows', you aren't walking in our shoes are you?

You don't know who we are. You don't know how we live our lives. Nor do you know what we, our families and friends, 'do' to make a living - you're making a sweeping assumption that all apparently non-Police commenters know nothing of policing, violence or firearms, and because of that you're claiming that we can't relate to the issues raised when you call for Police to be routinely armed.

You're also suggesting that you should be allowed to protect yourself because of your job, when you know of Britain's very restrictive firearms legislation - drawn up as a reaction to serious incidents, rather than being carefully thought through. Maybe if that law was rigorously enforced then this current 'arming' debate wouldn't be happening, and there wouldn't be questions raised elsewhere about allowing ordinary people, who some Police refer to as MOPs, being permitted to carry firearms or sidearms - and thus being able to protect ourselves when we go about our everyday lives, and when we're doing our jobs, or visiting the park (can't find the link).

Talk about being disconnected! Have you any idea how cynical and self-seeking that looks?

You want a gun because your job is sometimes dangerous. Yet, in the heat of the moment and wanting to join in the debate you don't seem to have thought it through. Or have you?

To make us really understand how tough and dangerous your job is you compare the protection afforded by an airbag and a smoke alarm with a firearm - even an infant will know which of those three tends to save lives and which, in the wrong hands, will take a life.

If you're successful, who'll be next to make the same demands? Will it be the fire brigade, paramedics, night club bouncers, security guards, parking attendants – anybody with a badge who comes into contact with those terribly dangerous MOPs who could turn awkward when they don't want to do as they're told?

And then how long would it be before all these 'official firearms users' are allowed to have them at home - just in case some nutter MOP (who isn't allowed to have a firearm because it's against the law) takes a dislike to them, the job they do, or doesn't like the look of their uniform?

And in the meantime, law-abiding MOPs who go out for the day and take a picnic with them, get their forks taken away - when they visit a museum, because presumably somebody has decided that cutlery is a dangerously offensive weapon.

We are told the Police form a service that is ...... a varied, multi-layered, responsive institution working to ensure your safety - the 'your' refers to us MOPs, it isn't inward-looking, self-protecting.

..........

There are currently 168 comments left on Insp Gadget's blog please take the time to read them, if only to see how they highlight what seems to be a widening chasm opening up between the Police and those they're supposed to serve - because the Police is still called a Service - and that's what we expect, a service. And, oddly enough, we also expect them to know the law.

And, as an aside, it's important to remember that we MOPs tend to follow instructions, especially at airports which we're told are very dangerous places these days. We take off our shoes and belts, and bracelets, ear rings, rings and watches whilst waiting patiently in the 'security' queue and we put indescribably small liquid items in a see-through bag. Sometimes we get frisked because a filling or a metal screw in a knee has panicked a machine, or maybe it's because there's a target to chase. We often have our hand luggage publicly dissected by uninterested officials who don't even speak to us and now, at some airports we can be x-rayed - refusal means not being able to travel. All this is meant to deter the bad guys, so we do as we're told.

So why is it that Mrs Rigby hasn't a clue what she and her family, as ordinary members of the public - MOPs - are supposed to do if, and when, one of those 'routinely armed with scarily big guns' black-uniformed Police she sees at an airport shouts out a warning and then instantly opens fire? Should we try to run and hide? Should we throw ourselves to the ground, and try to merge with the floor? Or are we meant to turn into statues in case any small movements are seen as threatening and we're mistakenly identified as a 'target'?

....

Why should ...?

One of the questions asked about the ownership of guns was ...

"Why should a taxi driver want a gun?"

Simple answer - because when people aren't doing their day job they are doing something else, even if it's only sleeping. Okay, yes, perhaps that's a flippant response but it's true.

Mrs R is more than aware that the current 'discussion' is about why anybody should want to have a gun, of any sort, because guns are dangerous and guns kill - and one man did dreadful things in the Lake District with legally held weapons. QED - so some say. And they say let's ban guns, permanently, for ever - because the unspoken bit is that normal people don't use guns.

But Mrs Rigby disagrees, and so do lots of other perfectly normal, rational and law-abiding people. She's going to try to explain why, and then offer a question or two in return.

Years ago, it seems like a lifetime away, there were people in this country who enjoyed taking different sorts of pistols to a club and firing ten, twenty or more rounds of ammunition at bits of paper. They did it to see how close together they could group their shots, and had competitions to see who was best. The winners of those in-club competitions were often chosen to compete in inter-club competitions, and some of them even went on to represent their country at even more important competitions - such as the Olympics, World Championships and Commonwealth Games.

British shooters always did quite well in these competitions, even though they wore weird-looking gadgets on their heads and had fancy sort of custom-made grips for their pistols, and managed to win gold medals. They were patted on the back and told how good they were, how dedicated to their sport. We were pleased with them because they helped Britain get quite high up the international medal tables.

Overnight, all those years ago, many of not-medal-winning people had their private interest - their sport - outlawed by the then Labour government, and had their means of 'having fun' made illegal. In short they were criminalised in a knee-jerk legal sledgehammer in response to some nutter having done awful things with a gun. The events of last week show that even sledgehammers sometimes miss their target, because sometimes 'targets' do unpredictable things.

As a result of the legislation some shooters handed their carefully maintained and carefully secured guns to the police, knowing they would be melted down and made into manhole covers. Others took their guns to France, some stayed there permanently. They did this because their sport meant so much to them, and because their weapons were too valuable to be melted down.

Britain is due to host the 2012 Olympics. The list of Olympics sports still include various shooting disciplines, perhaps because the Olympic movement acknowledges that shooting is a skill that requires patience, dedication and lots and lots of practice to be any good. It's probably why the military still acknowledge 'marksmen' as being particularly skilled, so skilled that they get their own special weapons and more often than not, their own very special tasks and a special badge to wear on their sleeve.

As already mentioned, Britain has always done quite well at shooting and according to Wikipedia is ranked 6th in the overall Olympic tables - a cumulative score dating from 1896. Britain has won 12 gold, 15 silver, 16 bronze medals. It might not seem many, but has to be compared with those higher up the table and, ignoring the whopping medal roll of USA, second is China with 19 gold, 11 silver, 12 bronze. These medals cover the sporting disciplines of using air pistol and rifle, .22 pistol and rifle, and shotgun/clay.

The 2012 Olympics shooting events are due to be held in a temporary arena at Woolwich Arsenal, much to the dismay of Sportsman's Association and the National Shooting Centre at Bisley - where the Commonwealth Games shooting events were hosted in 2002. It was pointed out that a

shooting fans will get "nothing in return" if the temporary venue is used ...

Tessa Jowell is reported to have said that

... the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich would be used because they "allow us to deliver the compact Games we promised in 2005".

Compact maybe, but Mrs R thinks it's a whopping waste of money to build

... a 7,500-seat structure that will be taken down after the Games have finished, with the cost ranging from an initial quote of £30m to the latest estimate of £42m.

Anyhow, the venue may actually be the least of the worries, because although the 2012 Olympics website extols the virtues of shooting, and says

Shooting is a fun way to learn discipline and responsibility. In the UK, more than 350,000 people currently practice the sport, with equal numbers of boys and girls entering competitions.

If you want to get involved, British Shooting is a good place to start.

There is a problem, because our gun laws are quite complex and very, very strict. The laws are ...

... so stringent that Britain’s Olympic gun team has been forced to train for the London 2012 Games overseas.

These very strict laws cause other knock-on problems too, as the Guardian reports (20 May 2010):-

London 2012's shooting event is heading for chaos because of Britain's draconian firearms legislation for athletes from European countries. Some European teams have been unable to compete at a clay pigeon World Cup event in Dorset this week after failing to lodge original certificates of firearms permits with UK police long in advance.

Without having that paperwork in their possession several athletes would be in breach of their national laws to hold their firearms at home. They have also been unable to travel after they waited four to six weeks for the documentation to be handled. Indeed, in order to guarantee German athletes' participation, that nation's administrator was flown in to the UK by tournament officials – at a cost of £1,500 to the event – with a sheaf of athletes' documentation for on-the-spot processing by police.

and

"This situation has arisen with only 350 competitors. It would take the Metropolitan Police a year to process the 2,000 people at the Olympics.

That seems to be a heck of a lot of people and legally held weapons to be arriving in one small corner of London, and Mrs R has no idea if it's accurate, but considering that there are

... 15 events in all: five in each of the three Shooting disciplines – Rifle, Pistol and Shotgun.
In each of these disciplines three events are for men and two for women.
Gold medals : 15
Athletes: 390

Presumably there will be support staff and technicians who also need to be registered and licensed.

There are also the Modern Pentathletes

Events: Fencing, Swimming, Riding, Combined Run/Shoot Event
Gold medals : 2
Athletes: 36 men, 36 women

Maybe the Fencers will also need to be Police checked?

Gold medals : 10
Athletes: 212

Stepping sideways for a moment it's interesting to look the winter Olympics sport that also includes shooting. The Biathlon - a gruelling cross country race, carrying a rifle. This 'sport' was developed from the cross-country training enjoyed(?) by Norway's military.

So, when you look at all that, is it really odd that somebody so ordinary as a taxi driver might have been licensed to use a firearm? Nobody seemed to mind too much that a myopic plasterer had thought it was a good idea to learn to ski. Shooting, and wanting to be good at it - is a sport, an interest, a skill, that's all.

Some people, in post-Labour Britain, are very quick to make value judgements based on their own narrow interests and lifestyles. Anybody who might want to do something, anything, that's outside their experience is open to derision. Their interests and activities challenged as being 'odd' or even 'elitist'. And if what they do is too odd (or too elitist) for the ignoramus with an opinion? Well, it should be banned - naturally.

So in pandering to populist opinion, and seemingly hating anybody who wants a bit of freedom of choice, it isn't really a surprise that the BBC's HYS had a write-in about Britain's gun laws, asking the question Are [Britain's] gun laws tough enough? Naturally the very first comment is from somebody very much 'on message' who says

Why did a man that lived in a terraced house in a village have a licence for a shotgun and a rifle? I should have thought that the minimum requirement would be to be a farmer or landowner and thus be able to justify using these weapons as part of pest control

Maybe neither that individual nor the BBC are aware of the London2012 message which, to remind you, says that "In the UK, more than 350,000 people currently practice the sport" - and they do so safely, and within the strict confines of the law.

And that's why Mrs Rigby has to ask a question. Taking all things into account, and assuming we can't legislate for the unpredictable - why shouldn't a [not rich] person who lives in a terraced house in a [rural] village have a license for a shotgun and/or a rifle?

She asks this alongside media reports of teenagers in inner city high rise flats having illegal machine guns, pistols and sawn-off shotguns that they use so frequently that deaths from using these weapons rarely hit the headlines other than in the local paper.

Also, if Britain's very strict laws (which were supported by almost all political parties prior to the incident in the Lake District) are so effective then how, for example, could this have happened - on 29th May 2010?

A man has been charged in connection with a triple shooting in east London that left one man dead and two injured.

A 36-year-old man died during the incident in Newham during the early hours of 29 May.

Kevin Powell, 34, unemployed, of Harlesden, west London, was charged with the attempted murder of a 26-year-old and possession of a firearm.

Perhaps, maybe, the BBC and the person who left the previously quoted message on HYS could try to explain why an unemployed man living in lovely Harlesden, with its' "Jubilee Clock which commemorates Queen Victoria's Golden Jubilee." and "... its vibrant Caribbean culture" needs a firearm, of any description because it's unlikely he is either a farmer or a landowner. Or wouldn't those rules apply?

....

Rules and regulations.

If you read this excellent, and very reasoned article by Simon Jenkins you'll also have the chance to read quite a lot of comments. Some, of course, are calling for more legislation, some agree with the author and say we should back off, but Alfredthegreat sets the tone

Wow, Guardian posters railing against the big state. Maybe there is hope yet.

There were a few more that caught Mrs Rigby's eye. mikeeverest asks:-

Why, in a civilised society, is a taxi driver allowed access to lethal weapons?

Tell you what mikeeverest, Mrs Rigby's got a good idea that'll make us all much more 'civilised' and make sure nothing like this can ever happen again.

Let's nag and pester the government into bringing in a nice new law that says all taxis, oh, and buses and, to be really safe, all motor vehicles must have a big sign that says, "It is against the law to carry lethal weapons in this vehicle." And lets have a whole new squad of enforcement officers too, with instant 'penalties' for the naughty people who break the brand new law.

That'll work, won't it?

But a regular Guardian reader does it even better, took the words right out of Mrs R's mouth!

Erm, every taxi driver does have access to an extremely lethal weapon Mike - it's called a car - ever thought of the damage you could do with one of these if you went a bit mental?

I'm currently cutting up my dinner with a razor sharp implement I could use to butcher my entire family if the mood took me - I think we have to be mindful of the 'ban everything' mentality of the hideous nulabour regime and realise, relucantly and with regret, that there will occasionally be nutters who do terrible things you just can't legislate for.

..........

Let's move onto something else that's prompted by the article.

Numbed says this

I work with children everyday, and everyday at least one person makes some bizarre remark about child safety that puts the onus on my organisation to increase security measures, as if I was suddenly working in a maximum security prison, rather than a place of education and support for young people.

The silliest example recently was when - in a public building, also used by children, a visiting teacher asked why a male member of staff (CRB checked and cleared) was allowed to use a bathroom that might also be used by a child.

I could go on...

In another circumstance, a school locally failed OFSTED for not having high enough walls around the children's toilet building, despite the fact that the windows to the room were high and opaque glass.

Additional security for perceived guilty-until-proven-innocent adults who have regular contact or even irregular contact with children is ridiculously out of hand now.

repeal, repeal, repeal.

I'm watching a generation of young people growing up knowing that when confronted or challenged for poor or dangerous behaviour, all they have to yell is "pedo" and the power is with the child not the adult.

children deserve rights and they deserve to be respected, but adults should not fear children and they certainly should not be presumed to be dangerous when there is no evidence to prove they are.

A little later on shazthewombat says this

@ Numbed 8.01pm - great and depressingly familiar post. At my school, we've had the same stuff about kids & adults potentially using the same toilet facilities.

More worryingly, we had a supply teacher in last week. One of the children was overheard to say that he was gay and a paedo, and was going to rape someone.
This child is 10. There is something very wrong somewhere when kids of that age think it's acceptable to make comments like that - especially since official responses to such accusations can be swift and harsh.

and Numbed's response:-

and the ridiculousness of it is that I find myself constantly watching my behaviour around children. I don't touch them, even when they are upset or hurt; I don't give them anything other than water for fear they are allergic to everything else and that I will be prosecuted for causing them harm; and i find myself saying "of course, i understand" when some nutty comment is made because I am too scared that to challenge them would mean I too am a risk and that my organisation would lose it's reputation or business if I did.

I hate that I do this and I absolutely hate that I don't challenge this head on.

Instead, I wait for a staff meeting or similar and raise my concerns there. But, I generally meet with the response that we have to work within the law and that we also do less harm by agreeing than by dissenting.

this is terrible.

Mrs Rigby simply can't comment. These experiences show just how bad things have got in the past few years. There really is a lot of unpicking to do.
..........

Let's move on to robi, who is still in Guardianista mode

Many people enter into blind fits of rage... most of the time they don't have access to firearms and most of the time their rage subsides and they can go and seek anger management courses.

Yerrs!
..........

So let's move on to the discussions about the police response. There are varied comments, some say Cumbria uses Lancashire's helicopter ... and it got there quickly, they saw it flying over. They are corrected by another person who saw the same helicopter and it was Sky News.

There are questions, as already mentioned, about police preparedness. "Dungal", who lives in the area, explains things :-

I really don't think the police could have done a lot to prevent this incident as they are mainly briefed on terrorism due to Sellafield, which if targeted would make Simon's article look like opportunism.

Which means, of course, that if Mr Bird had driven up to Sellafield they would have known what to do, because he might have been a terrorist.

Small point. Although Mrs R has never met one she's fairly confident that "terrorists" don't always ask first before they start shooting, and they don't always look like terrorists either.

If there was a specially trained team available, why ...

Oh, there's no point in asking the obvious question, is there?

We know the routine - a committee will get together and have an enquiry. Afterwards they'll tell us it's very sad and 'lessons will be learned'. At least that's what they used to say, and then they'd bring in even more rules.

So, let's hope Cameron means what he says. The last words are his, via BBC.

"Of course we should look at this issue but we should not leap to knee-jerk conclusions on what should be done on the regulatory front. We do have some of the toughest legislation in the world," he said.

He added: "You can't legislate to stop a switch flicking in someone's head and this sort of dreadful action taking place."

..........

h/t Al Jahom, without whose blog Mrs R wouldn't have read the article in the Guardian.

....

Fast response?

... Derrick Bird was able to continue shooting people for a good three hours, entirely unhindered. According to press reports, the tv news seemed to be aware of the route being taken by the killer and warned local villagers to stay inside. The Cumbria Constabulary is small, sure, by comparison to other forces – but it does have 1,500 officers, plus the usual complement of “Blunkett’s Bobbies”. To find and apprehend one man. ...

So says Rod Liddle, and he asks a few more questions too.

Inspector Gadget says

I support the routine arming of all UK mainland police officers at all times.

Mrs Rigby acknowledges that the events in Whitehaven and nearby towns are a terrible tragedy. Any loss of life is sad, to have members of your family killed by somebody on a killing spree must be awful, and it's something Mrs R can't really relate to.

But things like this do happen. Thankfully they're rare events, but there are 'nutters' out there who do terrible things, and they always seem to find a way round the law, because they ignore it. And they don't just ignore the laws relating to the owning and use of firearms.

They ignore the law that says murder is illegal.

The media is, naturally, awash with 'ban all guns', 'ban all violent video games' and so on. The sort of knee-jerk reaction we've come to expect. It's the sort of reaction that led to the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 - following the Hungerford Massacre in 1987.

But that legislation didn't stop the Dunblane killings in 1996.

And the more stringent Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 and melting down of previously legal and never-killed-anybody weapons didn't stop Rhys Jones being killed in 2007, although it has stopped Britain winning Olympic medals.

So Mrs Rigby would like to ask some questions:-

1) Could Mr Bird's actions have been predicted?

2) Would armed police have prevented Mr Bird from going on his killing spree?

3) Would armed police have prevented him from taking any of these lives, including his own?

4) How easily could Mr Bird have acquired his firearms by other than legal means?

5) Have Britain's 'strict' gun laws seen a real, unmanipulated, statistical decrease in the number of shooting/gunshot fatalities?

If the answers to these questions are, "No", "No", "No", "fairly easily", "No", then routine arming of all UK mainland police officers would be a waste of time, more draconian firearms laws would also be a waste of time, and the existing laws - along with the penalties for breaking them - need to be carefully reassessed. They need to be reassessed using all those lovely statistics the last government liked to collect and looked at alongside legislation in other countries, including different states of the USA.

The UK population is apparently around 62,598,810. If correct, it means that 62,598,809 people did not go on a killing spree in Cumbria.

The government has to be very sure the rest of us are not punished for the wrongdoing of one man who is now beyond punishment.

..........

Oh, and maybe this is a slightly flippant comment that shouldn't be allowed. But, we have been led to believe that CCTV and webcams will prevent crime.

Mrs R has no idea how many constantly-running cameras, watched and monitored by carefully-trained operators there are in the towns Mr Bird drove through, but she did find this map of 'webcams'.

If CCTVs and CCTV operators are as good as they say, then Mrs R wonders why reports indicate that the police were alerted by a 999 call made from a mobile phone.

....