Equipment of a Metropolitan Police Service (MET Police) Authorized Firearms Officer in London, United Kingdom.
Posted by davegoku12@reddit | ForgottenWeapons | View on Reddit | 274 comments
• SIG 516 rifle (semi-automatic version) with 2 magazines.
• Glock 17 pistol with 2 magazines.
• Taser.
• PAVA spray (incapacitant spray).
• Handcuffs.
• Radio.
• Baton.
• Ballistic vest.
This entire loadout weighs approximately 20 kg.
GunMun-ee@reddit
Am i stupid/ignorant or are they only half loading their mags?
Prior_Fault2801@reddit
No, the mag is filled to capacity. That's just the spring fully depressed which you don't normally see as the mags are not always clear plastic.
GunMun-ee@reddit
i understand that, but on a 30 round mag the spring is much lower than that. If the follower is halfway into the mag there’s only 10-15 rounds in the mag
taucco@reddit
if i am not mistaken they are allowed to have 15 rounds. That shows in translucent magazines (search for g36 pics)
1610925286@reddit
Why?
HyperionSaber@reddit
Don't need more. British armed police don't generally have shoot outs. They are either guarding something or rapid response. Police shootings make the news here, and they are all generally very efficient take downs rather than prolonged engagements.
slvneutrino@reddit
Don't *need* more? How is one going to know the time when one DOES actually need more? If carrying two mags, it seems trivial to just... load them completely...
HyperionSaber@reddit
Why don't we all just carry as many weapons as we can hold, just in case our society devolves to the level of the USA?
Zethos9@reddit
They way the UK is going these days, you’re going to wish you all are able to carry as many weapons you can hold.
HyperionSaber@reddit
never been to the UK huh?
boneologist@reddit
As the last line of defence before invoking military assistance, that makes zero sense. They already presumably only carry semi-autos.
HyperionSaber@reddit
They aren't acting in that capacity. We don't employ the military against our own populace. We aren't under any particular threat of invasion. They aren't "military light" they are "police heavy".
apophis-pegasus@reddit
Has the SAS not operated on British soil a number of times?
S3cmccau@reddit
SAS killed one of my family members in Northern Ireland back in 1990, would that be considered British soil?
apophis-pegasus@reddit
Well yeah (independent of the morality of the operation). There's also Operation Nimrod, and iirc they were present on a few terror responses on the 2010s.
jumpinjezz@reddit
Depends on who is asking, but at the time of the SAS deployments there, the government felt it was British soul.
DuMemeSoGut@reddit
Not disagreeing you but we do have a history of deploying soldiers in response to terror attacks.Operation Temperer
And
2003 Heathrow Deployment
boneologist@reddit
the last line of defence ~~before invoking military assistance~~
Letting that second line slide for a second, it's like not issuing rear plates to save money because cops will "never retreat."
Certain_Still_324@reddit
So why not use airsoft guns then? (with 15 eco sustainable vegan bbs in each mag).
1PistnRng2RuleThmAll@reddit
Why two half filled 30 rounders instead of one full 30?
fuzzycaterpillar123@reddit
Well these are 20 rounders, and I’d much prefer to carry those instead a half filled 30. The extra length actually is annoying when just slinging a tile
ironiccapslock@reddit
It looks like the length of a 30 round magazine.
Are you saying it's a 20-rounder that's the same size as a 30?
CaiusCrispin@reddit
Maybe I'm just too fucking American but I still don't get it.
The logic, if I understand correctly, is as follows. Most things that police do on a day-to-day basis don't require guns. Therefore, most police are unarmed. I'm on board with this, and I think most American cities would benefit from following the same logic.
Occasionally, an incident occurs in which police need to be armed, so there are a smaller number of armed officers. These officers only get used when a gun is required.
So here's the disconnect for me. We're specifically sending someone into a situation in which we've determined there's a need for them to be armed. Why on earth would we intentionally handicap them by giving them reduced-capacity magazines?
It's great that British police generally engage in efficient takedowns rather than prolonged engagements, but we don't get to dictate that that's always the case; the opponent also has a say. There's no real penalty to carrying two 30 rounders instead of two 15 rounders, so again, why intentionally handicap the person we've entrusted with armed violence?
boneologist@reddit
Exactly. I am vigorously against militarized beat patrol police, and unnecessary "show of force" policing. Many Canadian jurisdictions do this correctly by having ERT (SWAT) members respond in unmarked pickup trucks. I think most cops couldn't shoot their way out of a wet paper bag. I've taken courses from former cops who agree wholeheartedly. Under the British model, why the fuck do they do this nonsense? When you sign a contract that says you're going to do dangerous shit with guns, you should be armed properly, and you should be ready to die for the greater good.
This being the same force that annihilated a random Brazilian guy because they're fucking idiots.
1610925286@reddit
So they are carrying a 10kg rifle they also never use for decoration then, but aren't trusted to hold more than 30 rounds? That sounds more like the government doesn't trust to arm their cops, but wants them scary enough to keep the populous in line kind medieval shit.
Jumblesss@reddit
It’s a semi auto 5.56 rifle with 15 rounds in each mag. In what universe is that unarmed?
1610925286@reddit
In the context in which I said it? Giving a cop a whole set up rifle but only 15 rounds for it sounds to me like they don't trust their cops to get up to mischief. If they disappear with the gun and 15 rounds there's a far more limited scope of actions that can be taken than with several hundred rounds. Pretty easy to understand.
jimmy_leonard1@reddit
Because they are retarded.
TheSlipperySnausage@reddit
Cucked British politics is my guess
Not_an_alt_69_420@reddit
You're being downvoted, but I can't think of any tactical reason to only carry 15 rounds in a 30 round magazine besides optics (not the gun kind). And even that doesn't make sense given how unfamiliar most people from the UK are with firearms.
IllustriousAd5505@reddit
It's gonna take a tragedy to prove those fools wrong.
Jigglepirate@reddit
Halfway through the shift.
KingofSkies@reddit
They're not American police.
IknowKarazy@reddit
Of course not. US cops carry a lot more ammo
bfh2020@reddit
You’ll be hard pressed to ever encounter a policeman in the U.S. randomly carrying a rifle like this; rifles stay locked up until SHTF.
TheHumanoidTyphoon69@reddit
Not in TX my friend, I told a sheriff that he'd had magazines in his door when I took a ride and he said it was "if I needed to reload" lol backasswards shit going on in the south
bfh2020@reddit
I didn’t say they didn’t have rifles, I said they don’t randomly carry them around as seen here. I’ve been to Texas many times, including SXSW, and never have I seen a police officer randomly walking around with an AR in public.
TheHumanoidTyphoon69@reddit
Not in public no, not without provocation they do have them in squad cars though, usually carrying them is supposed to be a deterrent
bfh2020@reddit
Yes, this is pretty much exactly what I said?
TheHumanoidTyphoon69@reddit
I'm confused by when you say "locked up" apparently that shits not back at the station with someone make them sign in or taking a weapons card, it's in their car and at their discretion to carry, can they? Yes, do they? Usually not
bfh2020@reddit
They are in locked racks, in their vehicle. A.K.A. “Locked up”
Not if they’ve been issued a duty rifle, no.
If they have been issued a duty rifle, this is correct.
Once again you find yourself back to my original point. I’m glad we could go on this journey together.
eastmick32@reddit
Honestly, a lot of this depends on the threat profile of the situation there are present for. In a general patrol type shift you are correct, the rifle is generally locked inside the patrol vehicle. However, in my community, when the threat level is elevated (in accordance with agency directives) officers are authorized to carry rifles slung. Situations include but not limited too, site protection (high profile trials at our local courthouse), executive protection (when the president visits), a county, city or state wide emergency (flooding or mass protests). Also all patrol rife trained officers are required to carry at least one magazine for said rifle, on body, whenever in uniform, even when the rife is still secured inside the patrol vehicle. This includes Class A uniforms. I also know of zero patrol cops that carry only one additional magazine for their sidearm, even most detectives carry two.
To site my source, my father is a retired LEO of 30 years and my brother in law is a rifle trained officer with me local police department. My sister is also a local cop but has not taken rifle qualification.
bfh2020@reddit
So you agree that they don’t randomly carry a rifle on them, as I said?
Even the secret service discretely carry. There were no policemen with ARs visible during Trumps trial. Post a pict if you can prove me wrong. Either way, if you have to have an elevated threat level to encounter the scenario, or have to travel to an event where POTUS is patroning, I suggest that meets the burden of “hard pressed”.
This comes down to department policy. It will vary. Regardless I’m not sure what it has to do with anything. My only point is that US police officers don’t casually patrol about with a slung AR, as seen here, which you have already conceded.
TheHumanoidTyphoon69@reddit
But hey he was a Marine as well we had a nice talk lol
jimmy_leonard1@reddit
Their rifles are in the car and American cops are sitting on their fat asses in the car 99% of the time.
bfh2020@reddit
You sound like someone who really knows what they’re talking about.
reznov-where-are-you@reddit
very rarely would a metropolitan police officer need 30 rounds of 5.56
1610925286@reddit
They also never need a rifle in the first place by that logic
reznov-where-are-you@reddit
thats not what i said?
1610925286@reddit
Huh? How is that relevant? You don't have to say something for it to be the logical conclusion of your statement.
reznov-where-are-you@reddit
let me rephrase. just because they dont need 30 rounds doesnt mean they dont need a rifle. for example ive seen several bodycam footage videos of british armed police officers shooting someone in the leg to essentially immediately incapacitate them and things like that.
1610925286@reddit
I've seen people pushed over an be incapacitated from falling on their ass, so what? If we are saying 15 rounds of 5.56 is already more than they need 99% of the time, we can go down to 0 rounds and still have a true statement. The question is why they are limiting it if there's no cost to carrying more. I've seen body cam footage of people needing more than 15 as well.
If I have space in my mag, space in my pockets I'll carry as much ammo as I can without detriment.
The rifle thing in the UK is odd anyway. Almost nowhere else in the west do I see people decked out with 5.56 Rifles just for general guard / police duty. I don't think I've ever been anywhere in the US where a general cop is just handling any rifle. The only places that come to mind are airports where I've seen SMGs be prevalent. But if you already improse the additional work of handing out a rifle, it makes 0 sense to make it turn into a heavy brick after firing 15 times x 2.
reddit_moment123123@reddit
what are you even going on about
1610925286@reddit
Lol the pathetic insta downvote. If you don't understand what I'm saying after I spelled it out in such detail you might just be too slow.
Stay safe out there buddy, it's a big confusing world afterall. Lol.
Jumblesss@reddit
… no?
vent666@reddit
Tbh it's more about having the rifle than the bullets. I expect they would have the same effect if they had only one round
1SGDude@reddit
Until they do need more- than what, break out the harsh language?
reznov-where-are-you@reddit
if they are in a situation they have expended more than a few rounds there will already more than enough officers at the scene to handle it.
1SGDude@reddit
That’s the hope strategy mindset- you hope backup will get there vs prepared to have no backup.
Unhappy__Analysis@reddit
Why bring a second mag then?
DecayingAnus@reddit
Stoppages
archer2500@reddit
This.
Over_End_6816@reddit
Why not carry 20 round magazines?
RamTank@reddit
Regular 30 rounders are just more common. And it’s better to have the space but not need it.
Halofauna@reddit
I was at a gun shop the other day looking at mags, the 20 rounders were slightly more expensive than 30 rounders too
Jumblesss@reddit
Less ergonomic to use for a multitude of reasons.
jinglesan@reddit
Having 30 rounds split between two half-full mags also offers slight mitigation in the event of the gun being taken snatched by an attacker. If it's a quick snatch and run they have slightly fewer rounds in circulation. Obviously they could take the second mag, but that's more time for the perpetrator to be identified or apprehended.
It also allows you to easily share with a colleague needing a reload in an emergency, and reduces the chance of a jam if you underfill your mag.
killer_by_design@reddit
It's probably only 10 rounds. I know back in the day the guards regiment at say Buckingham palace would only be issued X number of rounds, never fully magazine. Sometimes 5 rounds.
You assess it against the risk. Why would a police officer need more than 10 rounds in their rifle? Discharging your forearm is an exceptionally rare event. It's not like the US police spray and pray situations. Every Armed police officer is essentially/functionally/doctrinally a marksman.
Goodfalafel@reddit
Because you always use way more ammo than you think. 10 rounds of 5.56 in a mag is basically nothing.
WearIcy2635@reddit
If you’re only ever going to be up against one guy who only has a knife, 10 rounds of 556 in a semi auto rifle is way more than enough
Clyde_McGhost@reddit
Not sure why you're getting down votes. In the UK our arm police are not trained to unload multiple magazines into their own police car when an acorn falls near them. Maybe thinking about relevant levels of lethal force would help instead of buying tanks.
Architeuthis-Harveyi@reddit
Yeah poor cop training in the U.S is something but it’s also completely nonsensical to carry two partially filled magazines when you could just carry one full one. Especially when she’s already carrying two guns like Rambo. Even most U.S cops don’t patrol with two guns. The rifle stays in the car for emergencies.
Reveley97@reddit
And when your only mag has a stoppage or breaks?
Clyde_McGhost@reddit
I believe the display the multiple armed weapons like this has proved as an effective deterrent. When you only see a single pair of armed officers over a year at a football match or event is stands a hell of alot. When they are so rare you dont get desensitised to their appearance.
Architeuthis-Harveyi@reddit
It’s just strange to me that they’ve deemed there to be enough of a threat to issue a loadout of both rifles and handguns but decided to limit the rounds completely arbitrarily. Do they not trust their own training enough not to mag dump like American cops?
ScaredRate805@reddit
I don't think it's so much a matter of trust per se.
Rather the chances that'd a mag dump event would occur and an innocent bystander being killed is higher than the chance she would need more rounds in the mag.
Anyhow I doubt that's the main reason she carries 2 mags, I've replied this elsewhere in here but there are another 2 reasons.
1) weight/convenience, she probably stands long hours and carrying so many rounds slung over your neck is tiring, and the reality is since you probably don't need those rounds keeping them in a separate magazine and distributing the weight is just fine.
2) equipment loss, if she somehow loses the gun either irresponsibly or otherwise. There's now less rounds for a criminal to work with and thus less damage to be caused. We see this being a real possibility now with those 5 idiots that left a bag of guns outside the mayors home
Island08@reddit
Unless you miss
357noLove@reddit
You very obviously don't know much about shooting encounters. There are a ton of documented cases (with body cam videos available to see!) of people taking 10+ shots to the body and not stopping. Plus under stress and adrenaline, there is zero guarantee that the officer is going to make hits with all 10 rounds. Educate yourself, the information is free on the internet and readily available.
Nearby-Chance-3852@reddit
Thats not entirely true mostly yes but we’ve seen quite a few people mostly GMs from crews with big rappers and lots of funds be able to acquire modern Glocks, ghost guns, older semi automatic pistols, shotguns, blank guns converted to .380, and even a few sub machine guns and assault rifles but yeah mostly just knives as you said
DrZedex@reddit
I can't tell if this is satire or not
ScaredRate805@reddit
Why would it be? I'd be surprised if those guards even carried any rounds, their role is almost entirely ceremonial nowadays.
I'm not British, but in safe environments (especially Europe and Asia) it's common for Police and Soldiers to carry just a few rounds.
When I was in the military, standard gate guards only carried one magazine of five rounds. Before 9/11 they carried an unloaded magazine in their rifle and had one magazine of five rounds in their pouch for emergencies.
Even when I was on counter terrorism duty at it's peak my load out was similar to what this police officer had, 2 magazines of 15 rounds each
DrZedex@reddit
Is a full mag somehow more dangerous than a half one? What do you gain with this bullshit half-measure?
Reveley97@reddit
Stoppages and mag failures happen
ScaredRate805@reddit
Tactically? Nothing at all, in fact as many have pointed out and common sense dictates it's disadvantageous to ourselves.
The actual reason is that there just isn't a need for a soldier to have 30 rounds at any point of time given the threat profile.
Someone has run the calculations and decided that the risk of something going wrong
(eg, a soldier going crazy and going on a shooting spree or even something as mundane as Joe left his rifle behind and a civilian now finds a gun with 30 rounds instead of 15)
Is higher than the risk that Joe is in a situation where he needs to reload because he has expanded all 15 rounds in his magazine.
At the end of the day it goes back to threat profile, where I'm from (and I assume the UK has decided the same) it's safe enough that the risk of something going wrong by having more rounds is higher than something going wrong because we needed more rounds.
To illustrate this point, my battalion was on said counter terrorism operation and myself was involved for a period of roughly a year and a half. During this period, we encountered no situation where we had to use our firearms, not even to point it at someone threateningly to effect an arrest, which itself was already uncommon enough.
I suspect that you've been or are from an environment which is not as safe as where I'm from which is why this seems ridiculous to you.
DrZedex@reddit
Why even run this calculation at all? It costs literally nothing to fill the mag. I assure you my daily life is radically safer than these dweebs and there's no way in hell I'm going to half load a magazine. Either fill the damned thing or stop pretending to be capable of any meaningful defense at all.
ScaredRate805@reddit
Why run this calculation? Our job is there to protect and ensure safety of people around us, of course you'd calculate the risk of every action you take.
And again, the risk that something goes wrong is higher with more rounds than it is with less. We literally see this right now on this subreddit when those Brits assigned to guard the mayor left a bag of guns and ammunition outside in public. Stuff like this happens as much as you want to prevent it. Extrapolate this example to the load out I had. Someone with bad intentions finding a gun with 30 rounds instead of 15.
15 rounds is more than capable of mounting a defence. We're not in a war zone, we are in a public location with civilians. In fact 15 rounds has been overkill for literally every situation I've been in. British Military Police in the streets and most British officers are literally unarmed.
DrZedex@reddit
So in response to somebody losing a fucking machine gun, the response was "maybe we should lose slightly less ammo" lol as if that were the real critical part
ScaredRate805@reddit
Of course you shouldnt be losing any firearms at all, but it happens all the time. This time with the Brits, a month ago when a national guardsman left his M4 in a public bathroom etc etc. there are many cases of dumbasses losing their assigned weapons
Are events like these common or even likely? no, but it's much more likely that something like this happens and someone with bad intentions now gets to hose down a bunch of civilians compared to a large scale terrorist attack where I need to fire more than 15 shots.
Therefore to minimise the damage from if said event occurs we load our weapons with 15 rounds so that bad guy schmuck only has 15 rounds to do damage with instead of 30
DrZedex@reddit
This is like going to the restroom and only taking half a piss for fear of dribbling on your shoes.
Dr_Allcome@reddit
Why carry two 15 round mags instead of all 30 in one mag? Even if you are unlikely to need them and therefore also would be unlikely to need to reload, it would at least save the space. Mag failures can't be that common that you would need a spare.
ScaredRate805@reddit
I've answered the main question you had in my reply to another person. But to address the point about space its really not much of an issue.
On duty we wore a vest with both soft and hard plates inserted as well as a water bag behind it, carried a helmet slung about and had a gas mask bag strapped to our thighs, an extra magazine does not make much difference overall.
Mag failures are of course uncommon, I've personally never experienced any myself but military equipment isn't exactly the highest quality or well maintained, but then again mag failures isn't the reason we carried 2 magazines instead of one
IllustriousAd5505@reddit
It has to be, I know the brits are touched, but they can't be THAT touched.
DrZedex@reddit
This is worse than those morons that stop for fuel and only buy 3 gallons.
IllustriousAd5505@reddit
Having your officers underarmed is just putting their lives at risk needlessly.
And for what? Because you don't trust them not to start shooting up the precinct? It's madness.
DrZedex@reddit
"we trust them with a gun, but only with 15 rounds" is genuinely hilarious to me. They could've at lest given her a 20rd mag so it's not so awkward proned out.
Though having heard their reasoning, I'm guessing she was never trained to shoot prone anyhow 🤷
IllustriousAd5505@reddit
Gun control laws are usually made by people who know nothing about guns.
seatron@reddit
"We're trained to aim for the shoulder instead of killing" energy
DrZedex@reddit
Haha yeah. Same line of thinking.
Skeledenn@reddit
Wouldn't it also put less load on the magasine spring and allow for better feeding and less wear? Or is this irrelevant with modern magasines?
animefan1520@reddit
Thats Boer Fudd lore. Mags wear out from use not storage. Thats why GI mags last decades loaded amd fuctional for civilians, yet marines get maracas. Its the loading and unloading that wears it the most.this misunderstanding was spread around for years, to the point that Daniel Defense started (and still do) making their mags 32 rounders so people on duty can leave 2 rounds out the mag amd still have 30rnds. Why 2 rounds?... no one knows why other than "someone told me and showede its what they do"
ecodick@reddit
2 rounds is random, but I do like that (more with pistols than with rifles) a down-loaded mag is easier to insert on a closed bolt/slide.
gropingforelmo@reddit
It doesn't really matter the load that is on a spring, as long as it's within design limits. Cycles are what wear out springs, like loading and unloading a magazine repeatedly.
0481-RP-YUUUT@reddit
So which one is it, “Every armed police officer is essentially/functionally/doctrinally a marksman”, or, like someone above stated, many armed police officers aren’t marksman and don’t shoot often?
Also, why more than 10 rounds in their rifle? Because Germany, France and Belgium would disagree, and carry full mags, and multiple at that because, see Batlaclan Theater in Paris…..
Good luck stopping multiple threats in a vehicle at a distance, speeding towards a crowd, but I guess they are marksman trained doctrinally and have 15 rounds or whatever, they’ll neutralize the threat.
Gold-Bard-Hue@reddit
I've worked as a correctional officer for the last ten years. Our outside guard towers have AR-15s and thirty round magazines, but we're only issued fifteen .223 Remington rounds.
I'm sure it's just to save money, but they'll probably say you don't need more than fifteen.
I know it's a budget issue because for most of my career, during annual training we're expected to hit 7/10 at a target, but they'd only give us seven rounds. If you had to re-shoot they'd give you the other 3. In recent years they finally gave us all ten and the re-shoot rates are a lot lower. They re-load all their ammo also. (At least in training, on unit the rounds are just very old since it's rare we ever have to fire them)
FishUK_Harp@reddit
When this person says "rare", they mean it. Between 31 Mar 2016 and 31 Mar 2025, the number of incidents in England and Wales in which police discharged firearms at people was 63.
That's not per 100,000 people, or an average per year - that's the absolute figure.
mrtbearable@reddit
lol no
WearIcy2635@reddit
It looks like 20. I own some transparent pmags limited to 10 because of local laws and the magwell completely covers all 10 of them.
Island08@reddit
Every armed police isn’t a marksman. They aren’t shooting enough for that lol.
skoppingeveryday@reddit
Cuckhold energy
Tax_this_dick_1776@reddit
Now that’s some peak Eurotard logic
RealMuthafknGerald@reddit
Old habits die hard. British doctrine used to be to load Lee Enfields with 5 rounds all the time, and put 5 more in when entering combat. :P
Bon3rBitingBastard@reddit
I found someone asking that question to UK Police officers, apparently they do it sometimes when there's an officer just stationed somewhere who isnt actively responding to an issue, they only download normal mags by 1 or 2 rounds.
Its a unit policy issue, not a general rule for Armed Police
dcutts77@reddit
They track ammunition in the UK... and to be fair a firefight more than 15 rounds is rare even in the US.
Easy-Cheetah6666@reddit
Seem like the mag spring and follower plate take up a load of space toward the bottom there
HerrGronbar@reddit
For me it looks like only 1/3 of mag is transparent
seabiscut88@reddit
Budget cuts
CorpsesOTI@reddit
The former
luger114@reddit
Its atleast 20. I have a window mag and 20 is barely visible past the magwell.
New-Score-5199@reddit
Why they need a fully semi automatic death stick in a country, where citizens are not allowed to carry a weapon? They disarmed their population citing "security", why now they need a guns in a "secure" country?
ghuntex@reddit
Because believe it or not criminals get illegal weapons through criminaling even here
InitialAd4125@reddit
So it stands to benefit that all people could need weapons to defend themselves but are forced to rely on police who will show up after the fact?
ghuntex@reddit
The fact stands that there so little gun crimes we dont have that situation because not every dipshit has a gun easily available to them
InitialAd4125@reddit
"The fact stands that there so little gun related crimes we dont have that situation because not every dipshit has a gun easily available to them and police is like three minutes away and its not our country wide fetish to wish for someone to step on our lawn to feel some frontier justice"
Ah yes step on your lawn tell me is that how it is in the Czech Republic?
ghuntex@reddit
What you state is the need for an option to shoot an intruder
InitialAd4125@reddit
Do tell me why are there armed guards outside the properties of the monarchy and politicians are there life's more important then you and me? Because it just screams hypocrisy to me that you the individual can't defend yourself while politicians actively get armed security.
ghuntex@reddit
I dont know your lifestyle but a public figure, standing for a nation, being in a lot of open to the public situations with high tension, having to maybe even stand up for a country in war etc. Has a higher need for security than just an average EU Citizen
InitialAd4125@reddit
"I dont know your lifestyle but a public figure, standing for a nation, being in a lot of open to the public situations with high tension, having to maybe even stand up for a country in war etc. Has a higher need for security than just an average EU Citizen."
Yes or no is there life more important.
Natural_Comparison21@reddit
So in other words all animals are created equal but some are more equal then others?
Natural_Comparison21@reddit
Shoot a intruder < have the means to protect yourself from a intruder if they get violent.
Why is being defenceless a good thing to you?
Reveley97@reddit
No, the average civilian shooting of a gun in the rate instances of gun crime would make things far worse
InitialAd4125@reddit
Is that how it is in the Czech Republic?
Reveley97@reddit
No idea i dont live there
Natural_Comparison21@reddit
They are a safer country then the UK lol.
Reveley97@reddit
Good for them?
Natural_Comparison21@reddit
Why don’t you adapt the laws of a country that is safer then you that empowers it’s people by letting them protect themselves?
Reveley97@reddit
Because copy laws from a completely different country wouldnt work 😆
Natural_Comparison21@reddit
Why not? All you have said is a statement with no explanation.
Reveley97@reddit
Because any attempt to reintroduce firearms to the British public would be extremely unpopular
Natural_Comparison21@reddit
And? That would affect how the laws actually work in practice? Like let’s say the laws are put in place. People scream cry pout and whine about it. But they are now in place. What happens? Does crime magically shoot up? Does Britain somehow become less safe because people can conceal carry now with a license? What actually happens apart from brain washed anti gunners screaming and crying over it?
New-Score-5199@reddit
Sure mate "you have no idea", because you just can't admit that your Taliban state is less safe than Czech republic lol
InitialAd4125@reddit
You've never heard of a thing called stats?
Reveley97@reddit
Yes, i also know they can be cherry picked and often dont align with the lived reality of people
Natural_Comparison21@reddit
You can’t really cherry pick stats from a country when your focus is on said country. Like cherry picking would just be taking one year from a country’s data rather then looking at it over time. Overtime the Czech Republic has gotten safer as it’s let people protect themselves more. Funny that.
fuzzycaterpillar123@reddit
Terrorism.
caffpanda@reddit
Believe it or not, this is the default state in most of the world. They didn't disarm their populace, it was just never very armed to begin with and didn't escalate the way it has here in the US. Like the citizenry, the average cop in the UK doesn't carry a firearm either; armed police are specialist units called in when needed rather than the default because of how rarely a threat calls for it.
MazalTovCocktail1@reddit
Perfectly equipped for arresting people making tweets
Captaingregor@reddit
Please watch this video on the "arrested for mean tweets" situation, which explains why the sensational news stories are very misleading.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB3WVygAM8I
MazalTovCocktail1@reddit
Some twink, probably British, saying it's not so bad because it's some small portion of arrests/population so please stop talking about it and uhhh but also it happens in the US sometimes kinda.
Kindly consult the following video for my refutation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qmoXhFm-tk
Captaingregor@reddit
Evan is from New Jersey. Also I don't think anyone would class him as a twink.
MazalTovCocktail1@reddit
Wow, too true oomfie. Please consult my previous video.
Captaingregor@reddit
Sorry, are the facts too real and confusing for you? My apologies.
MazalTovCocktail1@reddit
You have failed horribly to understand what is being said, even by yourself, and you think I am the one who is confused?
Good lord, man. Get a grip. I recommend consulting the video I linked as an appraisal of your capabilities.
Captaingregor@reddit
If you're going to be juvenile about a serious topic with a lot of misinformation that I am trying to dispel then you're a lost cause. Sorry the facts and logic aren't on your side pal, I wish you the best of luck in the future.
Nearby-Chance-3852@reddit
Im an American and I have a question does it make any of you uncomfortable that your government has guns and most of you dont? Or that criminals do and you don’t? I understand America is different we have lots of guns and therefore gun violence whereas you guys have the gun violence equivalent to New York City alone or so I’ve read. Plus our nation was founded off of revolution so it’s a key part of our constitution to be able to have weapons to form militias and I know that you guys can get a firearms license but the laws are very strict. You can only have certain calibers and modifications need to be made to the rifles to make them fire one shot at a time. So is it a uniquely American thing of “we need to be armed just in case the government tries to bully us” or is there people in England who feel the same? Also the one thing I really do like about your gun laws is you can get a 22 caliber pistol with a built in suppressor due to barrel length laws thats an expensive and long process to get one in the states.
CrabAppleBapple@reddit
I'll be honest, outside of some incredibly rare outside occurrences, the sorts of criminals that have guns just aren't the sorts of criminals you'll ever, ever interact with as a none criminal. It's barely worth having one as a criminal given the amount of attention it would bring if you even pulled it out during a crime.
Not really, we just don't have a history of the government turning them against civilians regularly, especially not for the past century or so. Frankly I'm more worried about the government dicking me over with spiteful/short sighted/idiotic policies.
A lot of people here are sceptical of your constitutions use as a protector of civil liberties given recent events.
Suppressors (although they're called sound moderators) are, as far as I understand, are less regulated in the UK than in the US, it's just getting the gun to put it on that's the hard part.
All of this differs in Northern Ireland though.
JayManty@reddit
It's funny remembering the news a while back when some wanna be gangsta rapper was apprehended with a gun and it was like a 6mm Flobert pocket revolver. This is the peak armament of the English criminal underworld.
Nearby-Chance-3852@reddit
Oh ik who ur talkin about i listen to UK drill ur referring to Loski from Kennington he’s part of the Harlem Spartans he’s stabbed a few people apparently and his gang was definitely very active a few years ago but then they got into a war with a few gangs like Zone 2 from Peckham and another gang called 410 from south London as well and now a lot of their members have been murdered including most of the people who rap under them so they aren’t really in the public’s eye anymore but yeah it’s true that Loski has most likely claimed to have done things his partners have actually done there’s actually more proof of him being an active road man then you might think if you can’t tell UK drill is a little bit of a hobby for me 😂
Nearby-Chance-3852@reddit
Makes sense I definitely know about how the Northern Irish feel they are definitely a wild bunch. You summed it up pretty well for me thanks man.
CrabAppleBapple@reddit
It's more that the laws there are slightly different, due to the need for personal protection weapons for police etc when off duty (even retired) during the 'troubles'.
Nearby-Chance-3852@reddit
Oh that makes a lot of sense tbh it’s not like the terrorism stopped after the Troubles of course.
collinsl02@reddit
Without wanting to get too political about it, in the UK I think it's easier for us to vote representatives (members of Parliament) out of office if they look like they're going to become authoritarian than it would be to do so in the US. Plus we're a lot more docile and ready to accept government rule for the good of the nation than people in the US are.
Nearby-Chance-3852@reddit
Thats actually pretty cool I like the idea of it being easier to avoid tyrants getting elected and it’d be nice if the US was similar
Reveley97@reddit
Yeah look into the last conservative government, they went through tonnes of prime ministers because as soon as one messed up they were removed
Nearby-Chance-3852@reddit
Thats pretty nice icl makes me happy to know that at least some places have a decent political system
SlaterSpace@reddit
In terms of the people being unarmed, it's just not really much of an argument here. When you get into the countryside you'll find a lot more firearms, there's that 2 men in a shed culture that is prevalent even in the suburbs, look at what Philip Luty did just to make a point. Go over to Northern Ireland and you had the IRA, they held their own against the "police" and army and punched well above their weight. As for armed criminals vs an unarmed population, it's just not really an issue, gun crime exists but it's so small that each shooting is a national story and it is very, very rarely a victim that is uninvolved in crime themselves.
This idea that one nation was founded by firearms while the other wasn't has some weight, but for most of our countries existence it was a requirement that men above the age of 10 practice archery to be proficient for military service every Sunday. That was tradition for longer than your country has existed but it would be laughable to mention it as a key part of our culture, just because something was, doesn't mean it needs to continue to be so.
There are a few things we can do with firearms that you can't in the states but that just stems from the treatment of firearms as tools. It would be rude not to shoot suppressed in most situations so why try to curtail that? But because of the way laws work in the states they can't ban the gun, so they do all they can to make it difficult to shoot it, weird California grips that just seem unsafe, silly magazine laws and weird suppressor tax requirements. Here as long as you have a valid reason for a certain calibre you'll get it. There's nothing you need a semi or a fully automatic weapon for that isn't personal defence (even uttering a whiff about using firearms as personal defence will have them removed and rightly so, within the confines of the law as it is right now.) Saying that there are people who have that mindset of distrust of the government, arm the people sort of thing, but they're generally viewed as nutjobs. Lately they've been getting louder and bigger but that can mostly be attributed to Russian efforts to destabilise European political process through bot farms and the mentally ill.
Now would I love to go hog wild and shoot automatic firearms at a range someday? Absolutely, looks fun as hell. Ultimately while I do shoot and I do enjoy using firearms as tools, I just see American gun culture as "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should"
InitialAd4125@reddit
"even uttering a whiff about using firearms as personal defence will have them removed and rightly so"
Thats frankly disgusting forcing people to be reliant on the police and the damn hypocrisy of having armed guards for politicians and the monarchy proving guns are effective for personal defense.
"Saying that there are people who have that mindset of distrust of the government, arm the people sort of thing, but they're generally viewed as nutjobs."
So if someone said I sure don't trust the government we should be more like the Swiss they'd be viewed as nut jobs why exactly? Like why is it so insane for someone to distrust a government when governments lie and mistreat there people all the damn time? Like why do people seem to so willingly bootlick them.
"Lately they've been getting louder and bigger but that can mostly be attributed to Russian efforts to destabilise European political process through bot farms and the mentally ill."
Ah yes destabilize a nation by checks notes holding governments accountable and letting people protect themselves and making them more like the most stable nation in Europe Switzerland.
SlaterSpace@reddit
I understand the point of view, but I just don't think it makes any sense.
You're "forced" to rely on the police because that's the whole reason you have a police force. If you think they're not doing a good job then vote in your local elections. The Swiss have a huge gun culture, but it's from a love of shooting and a national identity of being competent soldiers and protecting their country from outside threats. It has nothing to do with a fear of a tyrannical government within their borders, that is a uniquely American mindset.
My personal view is as follows, take any given period of time, sum up how many citizens the government has killed within that time period. Now sum up how many people the armed citizens have killed within that same period. Objectively who is killing more citizens within your borders? If you reject this then you must reject the notion that firearm ownership has anything to do with protecting people. It would be akin to changing your backseat seatbelts to garrote wire for the slim chance there is an attacker in your back seat, meanwhile just being blind to the death of children throughout your country. You can argue that YOU didn't kill anyone so YOU should be allowed to have firearms for home defense but the whole point of laws is to have a collective responsibility as a society to abide by certain rules. If you want that exemption then take a licencing route.
You mention the Home Guard, that's a big source of pride for our nation but it's also a perfect example. In view of an emerging threat the population was armed, whether through government means or two men in a shed making weapons of war.
I don't like making this argument because it makes me look anti gun and I'm not. I'm pro gun, but I'm pro gun as a tool, not as a culture. Like I said I think it would be a lot of fun getting a chance to use some of the more excessive firearms you have in the states just for fun, but in the same vein as driving a nice car fast, it's a risk, one that puts other people in danger regardless of how much I believe in my skills as a driver. That's why speeding is illegal, fun doesn't equate to necessary.
InitialAd4125@reddit
"You're "forced" to rely on the police because that's the whole reason you have a police force."
Police only exist to protect the rich and powerful lets be real here.
"If you think they're not doing a good job then vote in your local elections. "
If voting changed anything they'd make it illegal.
"The Swiss have a huge gun culture, but it's from a love of shooting and a national identity of being competent soldiers and protecting their country from outside threats. It has nothing to do with a fear of a tyrannical government within their borders, that is a uniquely American mindset."
Yeah because there government for the most part is set up to actually care about the people unlike Britain which has a literal monarch stealing the peoples money to this day.
"My personal view is as follows, take any given period of time, sum up how many citizens the government has killed within that time period."
Nah that isn't reasonable it should be how many people the government has killed period not just citizens. We should not be giving excuses to their mostly bullshit wars.
"Now sum up how many people the armed citizens have killed within that same period. Objectively who is killing more citizens within your borders?"
Typically the government because frankly you shouldn't be counting just your boarders you should be counting every soldier killed in some bullshit war far away. And every other person those soldiers are killing while they are there. Because tell me besides World War 2 what was the last reasonable war Britain has taken part in?
"If you reject this then you must reject the notion that firearm ownership has anything to do with protecting people."
Bullshit explain to me why there are armed guards outside where politicians work and where the monarchy lives. If not to protect them.
"It would be akin to changing your backseat seatbelts to garrote wire for the slim chance there is an attacker in your back seat, meanwhile just being blind to the death of children throughout your country."
Nah it would be more like putting seatbelts in cars in the first place despite the fact many people may never need them and the fact that children can strangle themselves with them. And again do the Czech's and Swiss have lots of dead children?
"You can argue that YOU didn't kill anyone so YOU should be allowed to have firearms for home defense but the whole point of laws is to have a collective responsibility as a society to abide by certain rules. If you want that exemption then take a licencing route."
Yeah like the Czechs and the Swiss do which is what I've been arguing for a real long time. Whatever the police are army does should be the standard for all the people it should not be based on if you have money or land or if you're part of some select family who had a magic sword thrown at them by some watery tart. Anything else is pure hypocrisy.
"You mention the Home Guard, that's a big source of pride for our nation but it's also a perfect example. In view of an emerging threat the population was armed, whether through government means or two men in a shed making weapons of war."
Yeah and like the Swiss you should of kept them like that instead of having you being kept with your pants down. Because tell me who do you think would fair better in threat of invasion a nation like Switzerland that is already well armed and prepared or England who isn't.
"I don't like making this argument because it makes me look anti gun and I'm not. I'm pro gun, but I'm pro gun as a tool, not as a culture."
Then frankly you are not pro gun if you don't believe all the people deserve them and that all human beings have a right to the same level of self defense as those deemed important by society. Instead you are extremely classist. You mention guns being a tool which is correct a tool that all those who desire and can wield should be able to do so. With said licensing you previously mentioned.
"Like I said I think it would be a lot of fun getting a chance to use some of the more excessive firearms you have in the states just for fun, but in the same vein as driving a nice car fast, it's a risk, one that puts other people in danger regardless of how much I believe in my skills as a driver. That's why speeding is illegal, fun doesn't equate to necessary."
Actually fast cars aren't that much of a risk driving them fast is a risk. Because last I checked a car that can go 300 mph can typically also go the speed limit. It is you the person who chooses to drive fast with it. As well at a certain point it doesn't matter how fast you are going because you can be going the legally posted speed limit in an area and still kill someone even if your car is only capable of the legal speed limit.
"That's why speeding is illegal, fun doesn't equate to necessary."
And yet tell me what cars are illegal to have if you have a drivers license? Despite being deadly. Last I checked very few hell even nonstreet legal cars you can still own just not drive on the street. So again a license should entitle you to whatever the state owns.
Natural_Comparison21@reddit
“I understand the point of view, but I just don't think it makes any sense." I don't think trusting a nation state that has made plenty of laws that oppress the people makes a lot of sense.
"You're "forced" to rely on the police because that's the whole reason you have a police force." Yea so that you can't protect yourself instead being forced to outsource your violence to the government. So that you struggle to imagine a world with even a tiny amount less government.
"If you think they're not doing a good job then vote in your local elections." So a local election can say "No more police people are allowed to defend themselves now."?
"The Swiss have a huge gun culture, but it's from a love of shooting and a national identity of being competent soldiers and protecting their country from outside threats. It has nothing to do with a fear of a tyrannical government within their borders, that is a uniquely American mindset." Sure but you really think the Swiss government would pull anything on there people considering how armed they are? Because that would be quite something if they tried that.
"My personal view is as follows, take any given period of time, sum up how many citizens the government has killed within that time period." I did. The government of Canada has killed far more people either directly or indirectly then the people by a long shot. Also even so this metric is unreasonable. A much more reasonable metric is looking at who per capita does more damage. The people who are in the millions or the government who depending on the size of the country might be 1/10th that size if that.
"It would be akin to changing your backseat seatbelts to garrote wire for the slim chance there is an attacker in your back seat, meanwhile just being blind to the death of children throughout your country." In Canada more children die from cars then firearms. If anything the government by not increasing public transit is leading people to drive more which causes people to be more prone to accidents.
"You can argue that YOU didn't kill anyone so YOU should be allowed to have firearms for home defense but the whole point of laws is to have a collective responsibility as a society to abide by certain rules. If you want that exemption then take a licencing route." Na the point of society it would seem is to create laws to benefit the rich and to oppress the peons. As for a licensing route unless that licensing is shall issue and the government needs a damn good reason not to grant you the license then it's not worth the paper it's written on.
"You mention the Home Guard, that's a big source of pride for our nation but it's also a perfect example. In view of an emerging threat the population was armed, whether through government means or two men in a shed making weapons of war." So why not keep that mentality during peacetime? Is it better to have it and not need it then need it and not have it?
"That's why speeding is illegal, fun doesn't equate to necessary." Speeding is illegal because speed limits are rather arbitrary. If we actually cared about saving lives we would limit cars to traveling at 40kms a hour. Need is also a shitty argument. Very few people 'need' a firearm. You should be allowed to want something and have a avenue to get it legally. Doesn't matter if it's a single shot muzzle loader or a 50 cal machine gun.
InitialAd4125@reddit
You'd think the home guard during world war 2 would get Britain to value an armed citzenry but most nations seem unable to learn reality.
Nearby-Chance-3852@reddit
That makes sense to me and thanks for the additional info I didn’t know some of the things you told me.
Myoclonic_Jerk42@reddit
Re: the 2nd Amendment as defense against tyranny:
As an American and someone originally pro 2A, I've started viewing the best defense against tyranny as what the French do: protest and strike every time the government gets out of line. If the government doesn't listen? Riot.
Zealousideal_Ad2379@reddit
The current argument for the 2A is honestly bad and it should be restructured to finally kill the damage the 90s Era NRA did.
The 2nd was meant as an individual right but also a civic duty. Meant to augment the central government ala Ukraine or Polands Territorial Defense forces
The OG civilian militia could be called to muster and serve for example. ie putting down Shays Rebellion or the Whiskey Rebellion. Modern realistic scenarios fighting against illegal strike breaking corporations, keep order and protecting infrastructure and communities during times if civil unrest and natural disasters
I believe it is against “tyrants” but the context of that has been ground down over time by bad actors.
Even for a country as powerful as the US id argue there are many benefits to a militia model for more broader civil/national defense.
of course this would come with some responsibility such as training, safe storage, and organization imo which wouldn’t be prohibitive on what is still an individual right
InitialAd4125@reddit
America has kind of become disgusting with that like if I remember right the whole point of the 2nd amendment was so that the civilian population would be armed and would be the main military. That America would have a small or possibly not even have a standing army most of the time. Which honestly is kind of the way to go but at some point they abandoned that idea and became the biggest military in the world and for a nation that is supposed to rely on it's citizens for an army instead wishes to disarm the peons who get out of line. Despite the fact arguably the peons were meant to hold the power in the first place although I guess that is debatable with the whole land owning thing.
Nearby-Chance-3852@reddit
Thats the best way to do it tbh
leto78@reddit
The most annoying part of British gun laws is that they basically made it almost illegal to do any competition shooting.
In continental Europe, it is harder to stop the flow of illegal weapons into the hands of criminals because of land borders. Knife crime is rampant in the UK among the youngsters.
Nearby-Chance-3852@reddit
Yeah I listen to UK drill and ik it’s real bad I see some guns being confiscated but mostly sawed off shotguns, old revolvers, and then the rare modern beretta or Glock plus military surplus Soviet guns but knife crime there is insane I’ve been to a federal penitentiary in the US and have since changed my life but that’s what it reminded me of because there wasn’t a week without a stabbing or gang fight and of course everyone had knives but yeah the UKs knife crime is off the charts man
Captaingregor@reddit
The UK has fewer stabbings per capita than the US. Knife crimemay be higher because the category of "knife crime" includes carrying large blades without good reason and other similar offences.
Nearby-Chance-3852@reddit
Ok that makes a lot of sense so they include possession of the knives as knife crime.
anActualGiantSquid@reddit
It's neither an expensive nor a long process to own suppressors or SBRs in the US.
Form 1 and Form 4 for both suppressors and short barreled rifles is free, as the $200 tax stamp has been repealed. Average wait time is less than two weeks, with a week being more common.
Nearby-Chance-3852@reddit
Wow it was repealed? I didn’t know that thanks for the info.
ecodick@reddit
You still need to do the exact same process, fingerprints, photo, background check, but it's $0 instead, which is quite nice. There's definitely a concern that a future administration will update the expense to something much higher than $200 though
Nearby-Chance-3852@reddit
Thats pretty cool man thanks for letting me know
SoupieLC@reddit
I love the fact that the police have guns and we don't, never once have I stopped to wonder if my kids are being massacred at school that day or not
75149@reddit
You shouldn't believe everything that big media tells you. The majority of people here don't honestly think their kids are being sent off to school to be killed. My kids are almost 15 and 16 and do not do drugs or hang out with drug users or drug dealers. They are most likely to die because of a motor vehicle accident. 97% of the homicides in my city over the last several years were directly drug-related (per the Lt over the Vice division at the PD).
If every shitty doctor wasn't prescribing so many SSRIs, there absolutely wouldn't be as many dirt balls going on shooting sprees. But good luck getting the pharmaceutical industry to put an end to that.
Reapercore@reddit
SSRIs are over subscribed here in the UK aswell, but not once have they driven me to go on a shooting spree.
Nearby-Chance-3852@reddit
True that makes sense. I saw a couple of stabbings that happened in UK schools but most of them were gang related. Makes sense to me why guns are so heavily regulated.
SoupieLC@reddit
I live in rural Scotland and it's easier to get firearms than in England I think, for hunting and land management purposes, recreational shooting is different
Nearby-Chance-3852@reddit
Thats a good thing tbh hunting is a good thing I like that. It’s definitely interesting to see how other countries handle guns to me because I’ve only ever lived here it’d be nice to be in a place where the average person doesn’t feel the need to carry a gun just to protect themselves from other bad actors wielding them.
JayManty@reddit
It's not even an American thing, look at the current government and the crowd of your so-called "freedom fighters" sitting on their asses lol
The whole "We need the 2nd amendment to protect our citizens from a tyrannical government!" is proving itself to be more of a roleplay than an actual threat. American militiamen are larpers.
Nearby-Chance-3852@reddit
I completely agree if you’re going to be about an ideology you need to go all the way with it or shut up
Samwrc93@reddit
Not at all tbh I quite like most our laws. It does actually do a good job at keeping guns out of the wrong hands.
I don’t agree with all the laws (semi automatic rifles and handguns should never have been banned) but some of them do make sense.
For example we can have a “12 barrelled suppressed SBR AR15 with a 30 round magazine quite easily that would be out right illegal in some of your states.
But if it was going to be in .556/.223 it would have to be strait pull unless you go down the .22 AR route they are still allowed to be semi automatic.
I’d love to post a picture of my build but sadly I can’t.
Nearby-Chance-3852@reddit
Hell yeah that sounds not all that bad tbh
henno13@reddit
Honestly, no, it doesn’t make me uncomfortable. Gun violence is a non-issue. If criminals are armed, it’s not the job of a particular individual to address it, the state is expected to have the monopoly on violence.
Generally speaking (I am talking the broadest of brushstrokes), European countries are extremely high trust societies. There is no need for individuals to be armed in the way that many are in the US because there isn’t a reason for it. Where there is wider firearm proliferation, it’s almost exclusively in societies that have conscription (Switzerland comes to mind) so there’s an expectation and/or assumption that anyone who has a firearm is trained to use it.
I don’t think that Americans truly believe in the whole 2nd amendment to protect against the government spiel to be honest.
As another commenter noted, Northern Ireland is special in that every officer is armed, and I grew up there (so I’m used to armed officers). The same is still true though, they are universally armed because of the history of terrorism, but you don’t see officers discharging their firearms very often at all.
SwissBloke@reddit
We're talking about less than 150k military-issued guns VS up to 4.5mio civilian-owned ones
And the vast majority of the population doesn't go through military service
Those who choose to serve don't necessarily do it armed, and even if they're issued a gun most soldiers end up in non-combat roles where the firearms instruction is lackluster at best and completely absent at worst
Gun ownership also isn't linked to military service
ShotgunEd1897@reddit
Whether it's believed or not, there's no evidence to convince us that being disarmed is a positive thing. We have weapons and we will continue to get more weapons and carry them.
kremlingrasso@reddit
Gun crime in most of the EU is extremely low and even those cases most of it is when the victim and the assailant know each other (ie domestic disputes, business disputes and criminal dealings gone violent). Randomly committing roberies and muggings with guns are very very rare. Both becuse it's very hard to get access to guns, legal guns are thoroughly tracked, and the criminal underworld won't sell guns to violent criminals becuse they are stupid, get caught and lead the police back to the arms dealers. Any criminal who actually has a gun goes out of their way to not draw attention to it. It's very rare a police officer needs to take out a gun let alone use it. And even then it's usually warning shots.
Nearby-Chance-3852@reddit
That makes sense sounds nice tbh
leafericson93@reddit
In a word: no
Armed police in Great Britain are a specialist and highly trained role. They are the only guns I ever see (only near highly secure areas in the capital) aside from those in museums. I am very happy that firearm ownership is tightly controlled for the avg citizen and that pistol ownership is basically outlawed. Owning a rifle and range firing it is perfectly possible if that’s something you wanna do.
The fact is; that this means in my normal day I never have to worry about an angry guy pulling out a gun. Or deal with accidental discharges of firearms like some folks I know in America have had to go through. The average joe is way less responsible than is really ideal. So in Britain removing guns from consideration in the vast majority of situations just makes everyone safer.
The whole - we need guns to protect from tyrants - is a very American perspective and to be honest I really don’t see that working in practice. It hasn’t historically. However violent you might be able to be as an individual, the government will always maintain a greater monopoly on violence through overwhelming force. I really don’t see that a citizen militia could ever reasonably defend themselves against even a moderate us police force. I mean they are armed to the teeth over there. It’s a joke. I’m glad our police don’t feel the need to drive around in armoured trucks here, filled with rifles and shotguns.
Nearby-Chance-3852@reddit
Makes sense. Thx for answering man.
MlackBesa@reddit
Looks well equipped, she also has a camera, which still isn’t systematic (at least in my country which is very close to theirs in terms of development). 2 magazines is plenty enough considering most of our situations are lone knife attackers and rarely involve firearms. She didn’t mention it but obviously she is wearing a vest, most likely with NIJ IIIA soft plates resistant up to .44mag and knife. Only question as others have said, why not fully loaded to 30 rounds? Besides that, she’s well equipped for an average European police.
FishUK_Harp@reddit
She's not average European police, in Great Britain armed police are a specialist role.
MlackBesa@reddit
My bad that’s correct
jedburghofficial@reddit
Every one of them is armed with a whistle.
Reveley97@reddit
Im guessing here but theirs probably a rule that police can carry a maximum of 30 rounds on them or something along those lines. Im guessing they then split this across 2 mags incase of stoppages etc
Clifton1979@reddit
Shoots 5 rounds…. Yells “I’m out!”
SurgicalStr1ke@reddit
UK police don't get into protracted gun battles. They would at most have to fire one or two rounds to stop an armed suspect or dangerous dog.
jimmy_leonard1@reddit
UK police are fucking jokes just like the whole country is a joke.
SurgicalStr1ke@reddit
Settle down, try not to get shot by a cop with 6 weeks of training.
Architeuthis-Harveyi@reddit
Then why carry a rifle at all? She’s already got a Glock, a baton and some kind of OC spray.
AdeptusKapekus2025@reddit
Have you ever tried firing any gun before? If you are in a situation where you have to use deadly force in a populated area, and this means being absolutely on point with your marksmanship, then its better to use a rifle. Per hour of training time, most people will be more accurate with a rifle than a pistol.
Using a rifle also means being able to cover more scenarios like being able to defeat a bad guy with body armor or having to shoot longer distances.
Architeuthis-Harveyi@reddit
It’s always better to use a rifle. That’s why handguns are mostly superfluous in warfare. That wasn’t my point. The point was she’s literally armed to the teeth with multiple weapons including TWO firearms but can’t be trusted with a full 30 round mag. It’s fucking bizarre no matter how you want to cope about it.
AdeptusKapekus2025@reddit
I think its the same reason why Japanese cops are still issued revolvers. Its to encourage precision/accuracy instead of volume of fire.
Having only 15 shots in the mag does place you in the mindset to be significantly less trigger happy.
Architeuthis-Harveyi@reddit
Skill issue. Following this logic she may as well only have 10 rounds because then she’ll be EVEN LESS trigger happy because apparently it just scales like that. Actually fuck it the most efficient number in limiting the mag dumping of perpetrators by police should be like 2 or 3 rounds tbh. After all, as all of the Brits have already pointed out, there’s apparently a 0 percent chance she’ll ever need to engage with a gun anyway.
AdeptusKapekus2025@reddit
What you are forgetting, likely brought along by how militarized the US Police is now, is that the Civilian Police and a country's Military have different functions. Application of deadly force is the not primary role of the Civilian Police.
People qualified and assigned to carry rifles over there are not even the same as SWAT, so they expectation of the kind of firepower they are supposed to have is not even the same.
I do agree with the downgraded magazine thing tho. If you are limiting the amount of ammo, hand out 10, 15 or 20 rounders so that its easier to carry around but I guess this is more of a procurement/logistical issue in their part.
Nerdenator@reddit
If the baddie has body armor level IIIA or below, or is at a distance, the officer is far better off with the AR.
Emiian04@reddit
if You really have those levels of threats to consider, shouldnt they at least carry the mags fully loaded?
Architeuthis-Harveyi@reddit
Ok and if there are two or more baddies hyped up on drugs she’s better off with more rounds in her magazine. The what ifs of combat can go on endlessly but if you’ve already felt it necessary to arm officers with what is basically an assault rifle (I know calling it that is heresy here) than limiting their rounds from a normal mag size makes no sense.
ChggnNggts@reddit
why the downvotes, he is right? Why arm them with rifles and then give them 15 rounds in a magazine with one spare?
Theres enough data out there and even videos of people taking 10+ rounds of 5.56 with decent shot placing.
vent666@reddit
UK police policy is not to shoot people except in very limited circumstances. In his suggested situation she would maintain distance and use her baton or tazer if needed
NorthWestSellers@reddit
They are worried about the officers being disarmed and the aslant having a fully loaded firearm.
It’s a losing mentality but that’s the U.K for you.
mtommygunz@reddit
Why London cops got so many weapons on patrol when the citizens can’t even carry knives?
ghuntex@reddit
Ever heard of criminals they dont care for rules
fishman15151515@reddit
London cops get a taste of American freedom
zloy_mp4@reddit
"the getaway:black friday" dropped guys
justaheatattack@reddit
he's too big for you, sweetheart.
MaiAgarKahoon3@reddit
who forgot about sig sauer 516? or glock 17? was it you OP?
Smoothian421@reddit
It’s so they can arrest more unarmed citizens for making Facebook posts they don’t like
Captaingregor@reddit
Please watch this video on the "arrested for mean facebook post" situation, which explains why the sensational news stories are very misleading.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB3WVygAM8I
InitialAd4125@reddit
Can we get a TLDR.
Mrpandacorn2002@reddit
The tazer on the vest is better than the hip imo gotta keep non lethal and lethal seperate so we don’t pull a Kimberly potter
boneologist@reddit
That stupid fuck who was a TRAINING OFFICER who shouted "taser taser taser" before executing someone with her service weapon?
Friendly_Estate1629@reddit
Before that we had Oscar Grant. It’s a lesson that shouldn’t have to keep being taught the hard way
Shiibii_theshibafox@reddit
And all of this is standard issue for the tweet response task force.
jimmy_leonard1@reddit
Look at the lackey of a horrible facist government!
treecutter34@reddit
It’s a bad day if an American cop has to break out the rifle. They must be on a detail.
FloridaManPrints@reddit
Very vanilla set up
luger114@reddit
Nothing wrong with that
FloridaManPrints@reddit
True. Those are guaranteed to work reliably at all times. Just a little uninteresting for r/forgottenweapons
luger114@reddit
Oh, yeah good point
Imaginary-Text4690@reddit
I feel like a lot of people forget that sometimes and just post random people with random loadouts but meh I still like it not so much that it’s annoying
willem_79@reddit
The fact you think that is exactly what is wrong with your policing strategy
prizzle92@reddit
hes talking about the fact that this is supposed to be a sub for rare/interesting firearms and this is just a cop with an AR
SoupieLC@reddit
Our police and military are still distinguishable
maximus129b@reddit
All that to check a TV liocesne??
Alita-Gunnm@reddit
If it's a six-hour rifle, what do they use the rest of the shift?
1SGDude@reddit
Wow only 1 spare mag for each
JayManty@reddit
Honestly 34 pistol rounds and 30 rifle rounds is honestly more than enough. They're police, they're not going into Iraq
1SGDude@reddit
Have you been to London it’s worse than Baghdad lol- plus 2 spares for each gun minimum
Captaingregor@reddit
Hey come one pal, I've only been murdered to death 3 times in London
Reapercore@reddit
Of course you’re American….
JayManty@reddit
I actually have! It was pleasant. A bit too crowded but I had a nice time walking around
Alpha1Niner@reddit
That looks like annoying placement for the cuffs
I_2_Cast_Lead_45acp@reddit
Could be, honestly it is how you train. Enough reps you naturally reach for the same spot without thought.
If you had me switch to a thigh holster verse a hip holster, it would seriously mess up my head in a emergency.
lethphaos@reddit
agreed, except that when she talks about the baton she reaches for her hip before realizing it is on her vest, so one might argue she does not have enough reps with that arrangement
Proactiveselfdefence@reddit
Noticed that too, rifle setup is probably not her standard.
felixthemeister@reddit
Armed police in the UK aren't there to cuff people. They're there to deal with people with guns.
Cuffs aren't something they use all that often.
Modern_Doshin@reddit
Those might be ridged cuffs. The offcier can cuff really quick with those
FishUK_Harp@reddit
They will be, the UK switched to rigid cuffs years ago.
Snichblaster@reddit
Curious to see the qualifications for being the officers that are trained to be armed compared to American LEO.
PandorasFlame1@reddit
It is several years for MET police before even being considered for weapons.
According to Google, the average turnaround for a police officer in the US is under 6mo.
PandorasFlame1@reddit
Probably way more training. It's my understanding that officers in the UK have years of training before even being considered eligible to apply to carry a weapon.
Livid_Sun_716@reddit
Laughs in American
Dry_Advertising_460@reddit
**says baton in American**
Snoot_Boot@reddit
Why is this on this sub?
Samburger241@reddit
Got to police those Facebook posts somehow
Tatsoot_1966@reddit
Just before leaving them all in a bag outside Khan's house 😂
Natural_Youth_5941@reddit
Eh free mp5!
Nerdenator@reddit
Reject Royal Enfield and kraut space magic, return to Eugene.
Not-a-Cranky-Panda@reddit
It looks like they don't even trust them with any ammo.
LawfulGoodBoi@reddit
Everything is cool except that vertical grip
mzrdisi@reddit
Buzz, your VFG, woooof!
kaizergeld@reddit
Tacky lookin yeah lol. But those palmswell groove grips are pretty comfortable I gotta give em that
AutoModerator@reddit
Understand the rules
Check the sidebar. It's full of resources to help you.
Not everyone is an expert such as yourself; be considerate.
No Spam. No Memes.
No political posts. Save that for /r/progun or /r/politics.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.