The UK police force will never need every police officer to be armed with firearms. Road traffic accidents are statistically the greatest killer of police officers in England and Wales. In the last 30 years there have been 16 police officers killed by being shot, and only 3 have been shot and killed in the last 17 years (so levels are not rising). Considering the police force in England and Wales has an an average size of 138,000 officers, that is a very small number. Police in England and Wales now all wear compulsory body armour. Officers also carry non-lethel weapons [asp, captor spray, taser] that they can use to neutralise an indivdual. I have been a member of the Terratorial Army, so am trained in the use of firearms. I am also currently training to be a Special Constable [volunteer Police Constable] and I certainly would not want to carry a firearm as standard. I would much rather use taser which is just as effective, but will not kill the person it is used against [although I appreciate some people have died following the use of taser].  We do have firearm units within the police force, which are used occasionally in firearm situations. In my opinion this helps keep the gun crime rates down as criminals do not feel that they have to carry firearms to 'protect' themselves from the police as the vast majorty of police officers are not armed with firearms. I am proud of the fact that our police force do not carry firearms as standard, and that firearm licencing laws do not allow 'everyone' the right to own a firearm.  "if I feel the need to protect myself and wife" Is this because you know that anyone you come into contact with could be carrying a firearm? If no-one had the right to own a firearm except police and military would this negate the need for you to own a firearm yourself? How safe would you feel on holiday in the UK, knowing that you would not be able to carry a weapon yourself, but that neither could the majority of the population? In my mind, it appears that the only reason a lot of Americans own firearms is because they feel they need to be protected from everyone else that owns a firearm, causing a vicious cycle of gun ownership. Of course, I appreciate that a lot of people own firearms for hunting or sport shooting, but whenever I hear from Americans on the issue of gun control, the main reason (and for some people, the only reason) is to 'protect' themselves from another gun owner. It seams to ,me that the greatest way to protect yourselves would be to restrict gun ownership. This has been done in Austrailia and the UK with positive effects and reduction in gun crime.   "in America we have had hundreds of shootings where the Gunman was taken down by an armed licensed civilian, or off duty policeman" Is this before or after they have completed thier shooting spree? And how many shootings have occured where the Gunman has not been taken down by anyone? Regardless of how strict or liberal firearm control laws are, I don't think it will ever prevent events like this, as it is almost impossible to prevent unknown unknowns. Apologies if this seams like a bit of a rant. We come from completely different ends of the spectrum so I find it hard to fully appreciate things from your point of view, as I am sure you do mine, and I am genuinely interested to understand the reasons behind currect gun controls in the US, and how Americans feel about them.
Posted by kiaravin

The UK police force will never need every police officer to be armed with firearms. Road traffic accidents are statistically the greatest killer of police officers in England and Wales. In the last 30 years there have been 16 police officers killed by being shot, and only 3 have been shot and killed in the last 17 years (so levels are not rising). Considering the police force in England and Wales has an an average size of 138,000 officers, that is a very small number. Police in England and Wales now all wear compulsory body armour. Officers also carry non-lethel weapons [asp, captor spray, taser] that they can use to neutralise an indivdual. I have been a member of the Terratorial Army, so am trained in the use of firearms. I am also currently training to be a Special Constable [volunteer Police Constable] and I certainly would not want to carry a firearm as standard. I would much rather use taser which is just as effective, but will not kill the person it is used against [although I appreciate some people have died following the use of taser].  We do have firearm units within the police force, which are used occasionally in firearm situations. In my opinion this helps keep the gun crime rates down as criminals do not feel that they have to carry firearms to 'protect' themselves from the police as the vast majorty of police officers are not armed with firearms. I am proud of the fact that our police force do not carry firearms as standard, and that firearm licencing laws do not allow 'everyone' the right to own a firearm.  "if I feel the need to protect myself and wife" Is this because you know that anyone you come into contact with could be carrying a firearm? If no-one had the right to own a firearm except police and military would this negate the need for you to own a firearm yourself? How safe would you feel on holiday in the UK, knowing that you would not be able to carry a weapon yourself, but that neither could the majority of the population? In my mind, it appears that the only reason a lot of Americans own firearms is because they feel they need to be protected from everyone else that owns a firearm, causing a vicious cycle of gun ownership. Of course, I appreciate that a lot of people own firearms for hunting or sport shooting, but whenever I hear from Americans on the issue of gun control, the main reason (and for some people, the only reason) is to 'protect' themselves from another gun owner. It seams to ,me that the greatest way to protect yourselves would be to restrict gun ownership. This has been done in Austrailia and the UK with positive effects and reduction in gun crime.   "in America we have had hundreds of shootings where the Gunman was taken down by an armed licensed civilian, or off duty policeman" Is this before or after they have completed thier shooting spree? And how many shootings have occured where the Gunman has not been taken down by anyone? Regardless of how strict or liberal firearm control laws are, I don't think it will ever prevent events like this, as it is almost impossible to prevent unknown unknowns. Apologies if this seams like a bit of a rant. We come from completely different ends of the spectrum so I find it hard to fully appreciate things from your point of view, as I am sure you do mine, and I am genuinely interested to understand the reasons behind currect gun controls in the US, and how Americans feel about them.
Posted by kiaravin

Hi Duane, I appreciate the points you make about carrying a firearm whether legaly or not. How would this gunman be able to buy 6000 rounds? Is it from gun markets or firearm shops or would they have been bought  illegally?. What checks and balances are there for buying a gun and ammunition for a member of the public?. Thanks.
Posted by kirked