[catherine]

I'm watching Sunday Morning Live and they are discussing if police officers should all be armed for public protecting. Yay or nay? Discuss.

[Yudster]

I have NO idea. But how are they saying that having armed police would have protected anyone who got hurt in this case?

[catherine]

Well they said with cases like Raoul Moat but that all police having guns wouldn't have made a difference to that case. Maybe the Cumbria killer case?

[foot-loose]

I think I'd rather the police had the option to shoot a mentalist than not have the option. Plus, they look * scary - it must be a bit of a deterrent surely?

[catherine]

But what about the armed police that shot the guy on the tube saying he was a terrorist? Also it seems they used a taser gun on Raoul Moat which is being investigated because it might have caused him to shoot himself?

[Bonanzoid]

Definitely not. However, do all police carry tasers? That'd be slightly more understandable.

[foot-loose]

But what about the armed police that shot the guy on the tube saying he was a terrorist? Also it seems they used a taser gun on Raoul Moat which is being investigated because it might have caused him to shoot himself?

I accept that sometimes it might go wrong. I dunno, I just think that in certain situations, I'd rather be safe than sorry. That guy on the train - I don't know much about the case but the basics that I've heard that a cop with a gun told him to stop and he started running away from them. That's not really a good idea to me.

[MK Chris]

No I don't think all police should be armed, in the vast majority of cases, it would have made no difference in my opinion and I think the potential for people to blame them is too great... however, training all police in firearms is probably not a bad idea; just don't arm them all the time.

[foot-loose]

I may have misread the question. I don't think all police people should be armed all the time. I do think they should be in certain situations.

[Yudster]

They already ARE armed in certain situations though aren't they? As soon as there is any perceived need for weapons armed police are deployed - have been for years. So I assumed the question was should police be armed routinely, in the same way as they are in the USA. And no matter how hard I think on that question, I still can't make up me mind.

[Latina]

I understand that there is debate to be had about the wider issue, but regarding the Raoul Maot thing, are some people (not on here) seriously asking why Police were armed when cornering a man who had already shot some people - one dead - and had been threatening the Police?

[MK Chris]

They already ARE armed in certain situations though aren't they? As soon as there is any perceived need for weapons armed police are deployed - have been for years. So I assumed the question was should police be armed routinely, in the same way as they are in the USA. And no matter how hard I think on that question, I still can't make up me mind.

That was the question, but I think that there is an argument for training ALL police in firearms, but not arming them all the time... so that you don't have to wait for the armed response, which could be miles and miles away (particularly in a big force like Thames Valley), but I don't think I want them to be armed at all times.

[DevilsDuck]

I think if you arm all the police, then petty thieves will be armed as well! I like that most of our police don't have guns