> At 02:37 16/12/95, Philip H. J. Davies wrote:
> >In the
> >UK, where for the most part even the police are not armed, the apparent
> >desire of ordinary civilians to own firearms seems quite inexplicable.
>
> Nit.
eh?
> This hasn't been true for more than ten years now. Almost every
> police cruiser that the Met has, and most of those in the rest of the UK
> have two MP5s and two revolvers in a gun safe in the rear seat. These are
> issued and turned in at every shift change.
I'm afraid not. UK police remain generally unarmed despite opinion
surveys of the public at large which indicate popular support for more
generally equipping them with firearms. The use of firearms remains the
specialist work of 'armed police' units.
Armed police are based around ARVs, armed response vehicles, with a
variable number in each police district. This practice became
increasingly frequent in the 1980s after a series of shooting incidents,
in particular the Hungerford Massacre in 1987 (after an explicit rejection
of the general deployment of ARV's by a Home Office review in 1986). The
Hungerford enquiry was conducted by the Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire
Charles McLaughlin who used the opportunity to recommend the general
deployment of ARVs (mysteriously, the Nottinghamshire force was the only
force to have deployed an ARV on its own recognisance at the time).
Most local forces have one or two ARVs, while the London Met has 8 ARVs
in which the officers carry open side arms, and two locked up HK MP5s in
the back. The Met also operates an armed Diplomatic Protection Group,
but is a somewhat specialist unit.
> I've heard (but have no
> evidence) that the arming of plain clothes officers has also greatly
> increased.
This, I'm afraid, is no more accurate a claim.
If you have any doubts concerning these matters, I would respectfully
direct you towards the published work of my colleague here at Reading,
Professor P.A.J. 'Tank' Waddington who specialises in police studies, and
on this topic in particular.
PHJD