Two police officers shot dead in Manchester

[Mikey]

Handgun hunting definitely has its proponents here too - the idiotic proposition of the "Dirty Harry" movies notwithstanding, that's what the big revolver calibers like .44 magnum, .454 Casull, .500 S&W, etc. are for. However, I made little distinction between handguns and other firearms. English hunting pieces, especially wingshooting shotguns, were widely regarded as the finest through and beyond the Industrial Revolution - the major effect of the Industrial Revolution on such things was to make lesser-quality hunting weapons more widely available to the masses rather than to affect the manufacture of high-end, artisanal weapons for those who could afford them.

Bear in mind that we in the States aren't all private versions of the Montana Freemen or somesuch. I come from a family history rich in military service, yet I can count on one finger the number of times I've actually held a firearm and that was my father-in-law's Remington .308 Win deer rifle. My own father left the army after a three year tour at the age of 21, and that was the last time he ever touched a gun. The one time you've seen an automatic weapon is one time more than I have; I've been in close contact with guns four times that I can recall: once with the aforementioned rifle along with my dad-in-law's 12-gauge pump-action shottie, once with a former boss' range pistol which was a decorated 1911 type, and once with a P229 worn on the hip of an arresting officer (long story.) We are quite far from being the "gun in every hand" nation that much of the world seems to think we are, even if we have a culture that supports the right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms.

[IanKennedy]

Here's some facts about hunting in the UK. A recent study by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) reports 480,000 people involved in hunting as you would know it. http://www.shootingfacts.co.uk/ even then the vast majority of that hunting is birds. The very rich will have access to estates where they can hunt deer. Given the population of the UK is about 62 million that is about 0.77%. The only people I've ever heard of hunting deer is the Royal family.

In 2006 a US gov study put the number of hunters at 12.5 million. The population then was 300 million. That gives a rate of 4.2%. To put that another way that's about 54 times as many people hunt in the US than in the UK per head of population.

[IanKennedy]

The only time I've seen a gun in the UK is at a show where the army had a recruiting stall and had some rifles you could handle. That and the airshow with similar things. Apart from that if you go to an airport you can see them there on cops. Outside of that I don't know anyone who has a private gun and to my knowledge have never met anyone who has. The only gun ownership I've seen is here on the site when deep and others have shown pictures of hunters with guns.

[IanKennedy]

Handgun hunting definitely has its proponents here too - the idiotic proposition of the "Dirty Harry" movies notwithstanding, that's what the big revolver calibers like .44 magnum, .454 Casull, .500 S&W, etc. are for. However, I made little distinction between handguns and other firearms. English hunting pieces, especially wingshooting shotguns, were widely regarded as the finest through and beyond the Industrial Revolution - the major effect of the Industrial Revolution on such things was to make lesser-quality hunting weapons more widely available to the masses rather than to affect the manufacture of high-end, artisanal weapons for those who could afford them.

Bear in mind that we in the States aren't all private versions of the Montana Freemen or somesuch. I come from a family history rich in military service, yet I can count on one finger the number of times I've actually held a firearm and that was my father-in-law's Remington .308 Win deer rifle. My own father left the army after a three year tour at the age of 21, and that was the last time he ever touched a gun. The one time you've seen an automatic weapon is one time more than I have; I've been in close contact with guns four times that I can recall: once with the aforementioned rifle along with my dad-in-law's 12-gauge pump-action shottie, once with a former boss' range pistol which was a decorated 1911 type, and once with a P229 worn on the hip of an arresting officer (long story.) We are quite far from being the "gun in every hand" nation that much of the world seems to think we are, even if we have a culture that supports the right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms.

You see an automatic pistol every time you see a cop.

[Mikey]

You see an automatic pistol every time you see a cop.

That's an absolute fabrication. The only police of which I've ever heard to use automatic weapons are S.W.A.T. officers; and in general automatic pistols are very rare animals even in the U.S. There are a dwindling few older plainclothes police officer who still carry revolvers as their duty arms, and a number of officers (where permitted) carry snub-nose revolvers as BUG's; but the vast majority of police in America as well as Federal LE agency officials carry semiautomatic handguns, aka pistols.

In high-threat situations, the elements of the Secret Service which are assigned to presidential protection sometimes carry small submachine guns - last I heard, the Micro-Uzi was the one of choice - but that's the only automatic weapon that I've ever heard being used for regular carry by any sort of LE official.

[IanKennedy]

You see an automatic pistol every time you see a cop.

That's an absolute fabrication. The only police of which I've ever heard to use automatic weapons are S.W.A.T. officers; and in general automatic pistols are very rare animals even in the U.S. There are a dwindling few older plainclothes police officer who still carry revolvers as their duty arms, and a number of officers (where permitted) carry snub-nose revolvers as BUG's; but the vast majority of police in America as well as Federal LE agency officials carry semiautomatic handguns, aka pistols.

In high-threat situations, the elements of the Secret Service which are assigned to presidential protection sometimes carry small submachine guns - last I heard, the Micro-Uzi was the one of choice - but that's the only automatic weapon that I've ever heard being used for regular carry by any sort of LE official.

I think we have a terminology issue then because this is what I was referring to as an automatic pistol:



I'm not suggesting that people in the US are running around with sub-machine guns.

[IanKennedy]

Great! If those less-lethal* methods are considered to be means enough to incapacitate a violent offender, why does the provision - which Graham mentioned - exist to allow these guys to NOT try to help people in danger?

There is no provision as such. It's not as if it's documented in their contract at all. It just isn't something an officer would be expected to do.

* - I use the correct terminology "less lethal" rather than the colloquial "less-than-lethal" or "non-lethal" because those latter terms are frankly incorrect. While the chances of being killed when shot with a gun are far greater than when targeted by a Taser, CS spray, bean-bag round, etc., those methods can and have killed people. BTW, you might surprised to find out how many violent offenders are NOT incapacitated by CS or Tasers/stun guns.

I didn't say they used tasers just that they where being looked at. The problems with deaths are causing people to think they will not be used, the jury is still out on that. They don't have beanbag rounds or rubber bullets here, they did in Northern Ireland during the "troubles" but not in mainland UK.

[Mikey]

Ah, that picture appears to be what is known as a "pistol," a handgun which can be referred to as "semiautomatic" or an "autoloader." That is, pulling the trigger fires one round and chambers another. "Automatic" generally refers to either burst-fire - a pull of the trigger fires a burst of either two or three rounds - or full auto, in which case the weapons keeps firing rounds as long as the trigger is held.

There is no provision as such. It's not as if it's documented in their contract at all. It just isn't something an officer would be expected to do.

OK, it seemed to me from GK's language that it was something more formal about police work than that. Even so, it seems rather odd that police aren't expected to do police work. Are your bus drivers not expected to drive buses?

I didn't say they used tasers just that they where being looked at. The problems with deaths are causing people to think they will not be used, the jury is still out on that. They don't have beanbag rounds or rubber bullets here, they did in Northern Ireland during the "troubles" but not in mainland UK.

Yeah, that was just an aside, I didn't meant to imply that LTL options weren't valid alternatives, just that if someone was waiting for a completely safe method to apply violent force, they'd be waiting for a VERY long time. Restrictions on such things in the States are in fact widely varied and confusing. In my state, for example, many municipal police carry Tasers (or use similar shock rounds for their shotguns) even while carrying their sidearms... however, while civilian gun ownership is legal (though very highly restricted, compared to most other states) here, civilian ownership of Tasers/stun guns/CS spray is not. Go fig.

BTW, I lied - I did see an automatic weapon once. I had to fly on business in October of 2011, and a National Guardsman in the airport had an M4.

[IanKennedy]

Ah, that picture appears to be what is known as a "pistol," a handgun which can be referred to as "semiautomatic" or an "autoloader." That is, pulling the trigger fires one round and chambers another. "Automatic" generally refers to either burst-fire - a pull of the trigger fires a burst of either two or three rounds - or full auto, in which case the weapons keeps firing rounds as long as the trigger is held.

You can see my confusion when you say things like that's a "semiautomatic" which isn't an "automatic....".

OK, it seemed to me from GK's language that it was something more formal about police work than that. Even so, it seems rather odd that police aren't expected to do police work. Are your bus drivers not expected to drive buses?

Police are expected to do police work, but what is and isn't police work is dependent upon where and what you exact job is. Deep referred to "unarmed officers" in his area, so clearly they do exist in some areas of the US. He also said that they wouldn't be sent to respond to an active crime scene. It would first be cleared by armed officers. Are you somehow suggesting that those unarmed officers are not expected to do "police work". It also raised your very own question to deep's force. What is expected of those unarmed officers if they happen to be in the location of your "rape by gun point"?

Standard SOP for UK police when faced with gun crime, as has already been pointed out, is to secure the area as best they can (ie keep civilians away), call for backup and try and talk down the situation if safe to do so. The armed response unit will generally get there fairly quickly. Much like calling in a SWAT team in the US. I imagine this is exactly the same situation as in the US when a beat cop finds an significant armed robbery in progress (a bank or the likes). He wouldn't be expected to rush into the bank and face down multiple bank robbers with "assault weapons" just because he has a pistol. Instead he attempts to cover the exists and calls extra officers and specialist teams like SWAT, negotiators etc.

BTW, I lied - I did see an automatic weapon once. I had to fly on business in October of 2011, and a National Guardsman in the airport had an M4.

I figured as much as it's pretty difficult to go to an airport anywhere in the world these days and not see some sort of burst fire weapon at some point, even in the UK.

[Angharrad]

I see police in NYC with automatic weapons all the time. I also see soldiers with automatic weapons at Grand Central. There are soldiers other places but they usually don't have automatic weapons.

[IanKennedy]

I see police in NYC with automatic weapons all the time. I also see soldiers with automatic weapons at Grand Central. There are soldiers other places but they usually don't have automatic weapons.

Wow, it's Robocop in New York

[IanKennedy]

Here you go "Robocop UK".



Obviously this isn't my picture. Just showing that our armed police can be as kitted out as yours. Ours would never be on patrol like this, there would have to be some sort of very serious event going on to merit this.

[Teaos]

I question the logic of giving Cops automatic rifles like that. Surely they sure "Look, acquire target, take the shot, evaluate, repeat as necessary" Surely spraying an area with bullets, especially a place like a airport or train station is just asking for collateral damage.

[IanKennedy]

I question the logic of giving Cops automatic rifles like that. Surely they sure "Look, acquire target, take the shot, evaluate, repeat as necessary" Surely spraying an area with bullets, especially a place like a airport or train station is just asking for collateral damage.

I think the idea is that at say an airport where a car may be driven at the building rapid fire at least gives you a chance of hitting the driver and throwing them off course. Other than that I can't see their use in day to day policing.

[Mikey]

Here you go "Robocop UK".



Obviously this isn't my picture. Just showing that our armed police can be as kitted out as yours. Ours would never be on patrol like this, there would have to be some sort of very serious event going on to merit this.

Complete with a German rifle, I see.

Deep referred to "unarmed officers" in his area, so clearly they do exist in some areas of the US. He also said that they wouldn't be sent to respond to an active crime scene. It would first be cleared by armed officers. Are you somehow suggesting that those unarmed officers are not expected to do "police work". It also raised your very own question to deep's force. What is expected of those unarmed officers if they happen to be in the location of your "rape by gun point"?

I have never heard of actual enforcement officers who go unarmed. There are certainly sheriff's officers, who are county rather than municipal officers; but they only serve as LE in more rural areas without adequate municipal policing, in general keeping to duties more in line with executing court orders, etc. Even then, they are generally armed. The there are auxiliaries, who perform community outreach programs and the like, but are generally not in an enforcement role.

To answer the question: a LE officer swears to "protect and serve," even if not in those exact words. I would expect a police officer to perform the job of a police officer - including stopping a violent assailant from hurting a victim. The hypothetical fact of him not being equipped for the task is tantamount to him not being trained for the task, and in either case represents a failure of the system.

I question the logic of giving Cops automatic rifles like that. Surely they sure "Look, acquire target, take the shot, evaluate, repeat as necessary" Surely spraying an area with bullets, especially a place like a airport or train station is just asking for collateral damage.

I'd question that logic too, if that was how automatic weapons are used by professionals. It isn't, whether those professionals be soldiers, S.W.A.T., paramilitary, SOF, or whatever. The idea of keeping a weapon on full auto and having a thought of being able to hit a target with more than the first subsequent round is about as crazy as a police officer carrying a .44 magnum revolver in a city (cf. Dirty Harry, et. al.) What that automatic weapon does accomplish is being able to incapacitate a target more quickly and thusly acquire a second target more readily. No professional shooter believes in the "one-shot stop" fallacy, most being trained to deliver at least three shots downrange. If you do that with a pistol, you can use the venerable Mozambique drill (two to the center of mass, then one aimed at the head/jaw.) Obviously it's harder to do that with a rifle, even limited to three-round bursts, but the far greater muzzle energies and bullet expansion that can occur with a rifle mean the actual drill is less important... and, of course, you get your three shots downrange very quickly. Where distance and one-shot accuracy are required - e.g., snipers - bolt-action rifles are still generally preferred.