Has Time Come For the Brits to be Armed?


June 6, 2017 by gregrabidoux2013



Run, Hide and Tell.


In the aftermath of yet another vicious and cowardly terror attack on London many disturbing and haunting images remain, none perhaps as poignant, as tragic and quite possibly avoidable as that of a woman who begged for her life as her attacker stabbed her 15 times while other would-be victims frantically ran, hid and waited for the British police to respond.

Let me clarify a bit here.

Several British Community Police (some may call them “Bobbies”) were at the scene nearly immediately while others left to get reinforcements. Stay with me here. That’s what they are trained to do. In fact, one, a former rugby player tried valiantly to ward off at least one of the knife wielding terrorists at the London bridge with nothing more than a night-stick. He was stabbed but his bravery may have saved lives.


London-Bridge BB

Time to be armed?


And therein may just lie the problem. Not his bravery but the odds stacked against him and others at the scene.

Shortly after the 3 terrorists drove their white van at 50 MPH through a crowd of people on the bridge they then leapt from the van and began to randomly stab any and every victim they could get to. Londoners who were enjoying a night of pub-going tried in vain to defend themselves by throwing chairs, rocks and bottles while others, adhering to the official governmental policy, ran and hid.

The BCPers are not by law armed with anything more than a night-stick, commonly known as a “Billy Club” and only a select few are authorized to carry pepper spray and that is normally only for riots in progress.

And while the London Metropolitan police chief has called for the daily BCP foot patrols to be allowed to carry arms, asserting that if they had arms at this attack they could have “put the attackers” down before more lives were lost  others disagree. There has been a push-back, including by the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan who has said that is not the London way.


London-Bridge mayor

“Part and parcel”


But sadly that is the way of terrorism. These attackers may be cowards and lowlifes but they are strategic in that they probe for weakness and attack the defenseless. The weak, the unarmed.

And sadly, and tragically, nearly all Londoners are just that-defenseless. By their own choice.

If only their enemies played by the same set of rules and respected the same set of values that Londoners and most of the British do.

But they clearly do not.

So, in the aftermath of this brutal attack by modern day barbarians, one question that needs to be addressed by our friends across the pond is;

Has the time come to arm the British police?

The former Israeli counter-terrorism special operations officer, Aaron Cohen, thinks so. In fact, he goes one step further and says it is also the time to deploy undercover, trained and armed agents at popular London nightspots to aid in immediate response and even pre-emptive action. This is analogous to having armed undercover federal agents on US flights that may be particularly attractive to terrorists.

Critics, and certainly there are many, have argued against this idea. They assert concerns about abuse of such power, a surrendering of values and a first step to having Britain become “another US.”

Mayor Sadiq Khan has said that terror attacks are a “part and parcel” of living in a big city like London and that his city is “one of the safest in the world.”

Certainly the families of the 7 killed and 50 injured from this latest attack and those just days before who died in the Manchester concert bombing might strenuously disagree but the ideological and policy battle lines have been drawn.


london attack victims

Another day, another attack, this time in Manchester.


It’s been said that only a fool brings a knife to a gun fight. Is it time for Brits to become “less foolish?”

Don’t get me wrong here, the British SWAT teams who did respond on the scene after 8 minutes ultimately shot and killed these 3 attackers.

But 8 minutes went by. 480 seconds. An absolute eternity when you are frantically running and hiding for your life or trying in vain to ward off a trained terrorist with a 12″ knife with nothing literally but your bare hands. One bloke who hid in a dumpster said he had only 2 thoughts running through his head-One was to make it out alive and two was to never be this helpless again.

Is it time for all of Britain to never be this helpless again?


london attack bear

Enough balloons and bears and candlelight vigils. More celebrations of life and less grieving for the dead. I pray.



london attack ariana grande

While some celebrities were making faux beheadings others like Ariana Grande were trying to help Manchester heal. Kudos to a brave young woman.




20 thoughts on “Has Time Come For the Brits to be Armed?

  1. Brandy R says:

    without a doubt. Only an idiot liberal who would rather just fall on their knees and beg for mercy would want to see Londoners continue to be helpless again terrorists.

  2. Trey H says:

    British police need to be armed as well as undercover agents, geez, the home of James Bond and all they have are chairs and bottles to defend themselves? That’s a sad joke.

  3. Vanessa F says:

    I can’t believe anyone would want more guns in this world. Peace not guns!!!

    • Sharon Pyles says:

      It may be sad to be talking about more guns in the world, but terrorist don’t play by any rules but their own. They certainly don’t believe in peace, so that philosophy just isn’t going to fly. That’s just taking the “ostrich” way. I certainly see the side to both arguments but I certainly do not want to be caught without any protection, when in a case like this, it would have stopped the terrorist quicker, saving more lives and decreasing the number of wounded. One large problem is the responsible gun owner is never talked about in the news, only the irresponsible – giving everyone the impression that Americans are just leaving guns laying around willy nilly with no thought to safety when that is not the case.

      It appears that the average Londoner maybe forced to arm themselves somehow for their own protection, if not guns, at least tasers and stun guns. Those would be better than chairs and bottles.

  4. LaShonda W says:

    Well if cops have guns in the UK guess it’s good there are few Black Americans there for them to shoot for no reason.

  5. Barry T says:

    only a fool thinks they will ever beat terrorism with their bare hands. Give me a break snowflakes and grow up!

  6. Keiana B. says:

    This could be a controversial issue for awhile before they actually approve British being armed. People fear changed so it will be questioned until the city has a real wake up call. You would think after so many incidents that they would allowed if not the people of Britain to be armed but at least those who are trained to protect. I agree with Aaron Cohen when he said he,”it is also the time to deploy undercover, trained and armed agents at popular London nightspots to aid in immediate response and even preemptive action. Terrorist are only getting worse and somewhere they need to be protected. Don’t get me wrong I am for peace and agreeing with the Mayor but until its your family or your own self being gunned down for no apparent reason wondering how can there even be a fight when you only have your hands it should at the least make you reconsider. If Gun control was eliminated completely then terrorist would just find some other sort of way to do what they feel needs to be done like this incidence and used knives. From a sociological perspective I can agree with the statement terrorist look for the weak and unarmed and usually they don’t have a care in the world regards to other people. So that makes you question, Will I have to suffer or my family lives have to suffer at the hands of someone else? The British police need to be armed and trained, better trained than what we have over here in The United States that is for sure. They should implement better security for public places and if the Mayor should provide options for the people of Britain to have a better understanding in protecting themselves.

  7. Brian Rice says:

    I don’t think there is any question that the British police need to be armed. I think the real question is if the British people should be armed. A study conducted by the FBI of active shooter situations in the United States between 2000 and 2013 showed that 60% of the active shooter incidents ended prior to the arrival of the police. Many of these events are ended by the actions of armed citizens that step forward to resolve the situation. Waiting 8 minutes for the arrival of the armed police is not what I consider a government protecting the citizens. I can only imagine how helpless people felt when all they could do is hide and hope that somebody showed up to stop the threat. I also think it is an excellent idea to have armed undercover officers at these prominent venues. It makes a place a much harder target if the suspects have to worry about others that may be prepared to strike back. It is very important to have a quick response to retaliate against the violence and unfortunately the unarmed officers could’ve ended this event sooner if they would have had the proper equipment.

  8. Michelle Elliott says:

    Great Britain is at war. A war created by their own policy. This is just another example of idealistic decision making that has led to the slaughter of innocent people. Unchecked immigration, incomplete follow through on known terrorists, and unarmed law enforcement have no place in the society that has been created in London. Talking to frequent visitors who love the City of London, one quickly learns it is unrecognizable compared to the London they fell in love with. While it may never return to the London of old, leaders have an obligation to ensure the safety of residents and not give in to the will of the terrorists, who are counting on a “national discussion” about arming police. I can only imagine every parent of one of those lost young people (just out enjoying life) reliving that eight minutes when their son or daughter might have been saved from this unspeakable event.

  9. Raymond L Pheris says:

    Maybe it is my bias being from Texas, but it is ridiculous for law enforcement to not be armed with a firearm. Just because there are strict gun control laws does not mean that the bad guys will follow them. If they intend to murder, what is a gun possession charge going to do to them? If someone jumped out of a van in Houston and started arbitrarily stabbing people, they would be shot dead before law enforcement could even arrive. In America, gun control will never work due to the vast amounts of guns in the hands of citizens. In an area like Britain, it may be more successful, however, law enforcement should be the obvious exception, as waiting for reinforcements to go get their guns and come back to a scene costs citizens lives.

  10. Angelia G. Brown says:

    I feel comfortable around guns, because I’m familiar with gun safety. When I see others with a gun I start to feel nervous. NYC got a lot of illegal guns taken of the streets and stabbings skyrocketed. Criminals will be criminals. I think the Brits police should be armed. From personal experience when I walk through Time Square and see multiple police officers with rifles it makes me feel a little more secure. When walking in time square it’s so crowded everyone is shoulder to shoulder it seems like a terrorist target. Then I see the NYPD armed and ready to defend us citizens it gives me a sense of security. So I think the Brits police force should be armed.

  11. Jonathan Klusmeyer says:

    The fact that police in London are unarmed is disturbing at best. Have we not learned that criminals do not obey gun laws yet? Restrictions on gun ownership only apply to those who obey the law in the first place. Chicago is a prime example of how gun laws do not work! The idea that cops are trained to take cover is absolutely baffling. In the U.S., police changed their tactics following Columbine. Before this massacre, armed officers responding to an active shooter were supposed to provide a cordon of the area and wait for a SWAT team to respond. The fatalities, however, build as long as you continue to wait. As Military Police, we are trained to immediately confront a shooter no matter the odds. It is our job, we signed up to do it. The role of a police officer is to intervene and protect in this type of situation. Armed citizens can also take on this role. If Londoners were allowed to carry by law, this attack would have been stopped quickly and lives saved.

  12. Tayo Sowemimo says:

    British police should definitely be armed, but on whether British citizens should bear arms as a strategy in combating rising terrorist attacks, I believe that should be determined by the majority of their people.

  13. Wes Milam says:

    As a law enforcement officer I think this is a no brainer. Absolutely should they be armed. So many times in the US there have been situations that would have been worse had there not been a good guy with a gun. Bad guys are going to do bad things, and if there is no good guys to stop it where are we? NYPD did a study of all the active shooter incidents in America up to Sandy Hook. They found that waiting on the police to resolve the incident resulted in 25% MORE fatalities than if the victims waited on the police. Running for backup as the BCP did only allowed the terrorists to do more killing. By having someone that is armed in the immediate area the threat can be eliminated much quicker. I certainly advocate arming these officers.

  14. Joe Pennino says:

    I absolutely believe that all British Police should be armed. The police not being armed seem akin to the military not being armed. The police, by nature of their occupation, are supposed to protect the citizenry. A firearm is a tool used to do just that. While British Community Police have long got away without using guns, the world is changing. I don’t believe the increase in terrorism in Englan is a complete coincidence. Terrorists know they have an opportunity to inflict severe damage before armed reinforcements arrive. It is challenging for me to envision a logical argument against police carrying weapons. “It’s not the London way” is not a rational rebuttal and would not appease the family members of those lost. The government has to continually find new ways to meet challenges and rise to the occasion. If the British Community Police are going to face terrorists in their streets, it would be wise for them to be armed.

  15. Aaron W says:

    This is so sad. The British police should be armed at all times. I understand that some could possible abuse the power but I think that’s why the laws are in place that very reason. If the British police would have been armed, less people would have been injured or killed. It is so unfortunate that people cannot enjoy themselves without the fear of never seeing their love ones again.

  16. Elizabeth B says:

    I do believe the police should be armed with at least standard handguns. I don’t think that allowing police to be armed would lead to an American-like gun-centric lifestyle. It is important in tragic situations like standoffs and terrorist attracts that the police are equipped to handle those situations. This doesn’t have to lead to no sensible gun laws, like what you see in the US. Time and time again in the US, we see tragic gunman situations, but no motivation to pass gun control laws to keep firearms out of the hands of individuals that don’t need them, or firearms such as assault rifles. I think arming the police is a step that isn’t too drastic that would keep UK traditional gun laws intact.

  17. B Penn says:

    The U.K., unlike the U.S., is not a highly-armed society. I don’t think that the average street cop in London needs to be armed with firearms. Maybe they could and should employ more cops who are armed, have more armed undercover police, etc., but to arm every street cop in the U.K. with a firearm is a bit overkill for a society without a large firearm presence. It’s a solution in search of a problem – but this certainly isn’t the right problem.

  18. Kade Bell says:

    I don’t think without a doubt that the U.K. should be armed. Being armed would help prevent these issues. It would also help save lives because they could disarm the attackers quicker. There will be less attacks because the attackers will then be worried about the police having weapons. With a weapon the police could handle these issues more successfully,

  19. Levi says:

    It is truly disconcerting that the police in London do not carry weapons. It is folly to have unarmed officers paroling the streets of one of the largest and most well known cities on the planet. It reminds me of the criminological theory the routine activities theory. Where it states that crimes occurs because of freely motivated offenders, a suitable target, and the absence of capable guardians. People who wish harm on the great city of London realize there are no capable guardians. The terrorist are better equipped than law enforcement there and that is a major issue for the safety and security of Londoners and tourist.
    I believe that the UK has to update its security measures to deal with the ever evolving threat of terror, especially since they are such a visible target. It is just a sad reality of the world we live in, but it must be done.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: