– Snip –

If he does do that the press will, as always, be all over it as a miscarriage of justice.

For me, the only approach is that all illegal weapons carriers are locked away for life. No Ifs, no buts!

It's not much use, for a PC, to carry a gun unless the criminal has every confidence that the PC will, actually, use it.

Let's consider that.

I think that the PC should "shoot first & ask questions afterwards" when faced with a baddie with a gun.

If he does do that he has to make sure that the wound will be bad enough to stop the baddie from firing back!

If he doesn't do that, the battle is lost right there. The baddies will know that they have the high ground.

If he does do that the press will, as always, be all over it as a miscarriage of justice.

For me, the only approach is that all illegal weapons carriers are locked away for life. No Ifs, no buts!

That is exactly the reason why there is currently a shortage of 500 police who are fully trained and willing to carry firearms. The fear of being charged with murder or manslaughter for doing their job obviously weighs heavy on some police.

Added to the fact that bullets pass through, or miss, and could well kill anyone standing nearby.

Added to the fact that bullets pass through, or miss, and could well kill anyone standing nearby.

That would be just one of the reasons why I favour all police batons being replaced with Tasers or issued as well as batons. They fall short of arming all police with firearms but still have the ability to defuse a situation where otherwise a baton would be used. In more serious situations it would be a firearm if police were routinely armed and what you describe could easily be the outcome.

Those police units that are currently armed are called to any situation where it is known or suspected there are weapons being used. However, if they were some distance from the scene that could be a problem but if police had Tasers that would not be quite as critical to the outcome.

Understand that police enlist now under the belief they will not be carrying a gun. It is not for everyone.

I realise facilities are not in place to train thousands more officers.

But I do believe we should offer a stop-gap approach so capable, heavily vetted officers wanting to be trained can be and then can carry a handgun on duty.

This would not rip away the approachability of our officers.

In my view, arming police would not make the slightest difference to the threat’s severity or to keeping the public and police safe.

In France, Turkey and Germany, which have tragically suffered the most recent terrorist attacks, police on the streets are very visibly armed but this did not deter those attacks.

It did nothing to stop Anis Amri driving a truck into a Berlin Christmas market at speed.

A terrorist bent on attacking, who does not care if he lives or dies, will not be stopped by the knowledge local police are armed.

And there is a far greater chance we will face a domestic abuse incident or a road traffic accident than a terrorist attack.

Training and arming police would put a huge strain on the force – taking resources from where we need them, in daily protection.

Firearms training facilities are not there for 20-30,000 officers, it would be impossible operationally and structurally.

Most senior officers have not been firearms trained and we don’t have enough instructors.

There’s also the fear of accidental blue on blue shooting. Firing a gun is a huge responsibility to place on our police.

Violence can escalate violence, meaning there is a danger that if our police carried guns, more criminals would do so too.

Then our officers would be at greater risk.

I’m proud of our policing tradition. The belief that we do not arm our officers means each of us feel able to approach them, to see them as equals, and to trust them.

I feel uneasy seeing armed officers where they are not needed.

We have officers trained in firearms who are used when and where intelligence says they are required.

I’m all for reinforcing those numbers if statistics and safety say you should. But no one has shown me, statistically, they are currently not able to cope.

It is investment in intelligence and specialist training for our firearms teams which will help keep us and our police safe.

Not every officer is physically and psychologically able to handle a firearm or live with the guilt of using it.

We do not want officers who are trigger happy, the unnecessary loss of lives and a lengthy investigations process.

Added to the fact that bullets pass through, or miss, and could well kill anyone standing nearby.

That is exactly the reason why there is currently a shortage of 500 police who are fully trained and willing to carry firearms. The fear of being charged with murder or manslaughter for doing their job obviously weighs heavy on some police.

Acceptable collateral damage. It HAS to be.