To counter terror, Europe's police reconsider their arms

[webfact]

To counter terror, Europe's police reconsider their arms
By LORI HINNANT

PARIS (AP) — One was a young policewoman, unarmed on the outskirts of Paris and felled by an assault rifle. Her partner, also without weapons, could do nothing to stop the gunman. Another was a first responder with a side arm, rushing to the Charlie Hebdo offices where a pair of masked men with high-powered weapons had opened fire on an editorial meeting. Among their primary targets: the armed police bodyguard inside the room.

With the deaths of the three French officers during three days of terror in the Paris region and the suggestion of a plot in Belgium to kill police, European law enforcement agencies are rethinking how — and how many — police should be armed.

Scotland Yard said Sunday it was increasing the deployment of officers allowed to carry firearms in Britain, where many cling to the image of the unarmed "bobby." In Belgium, where officials say a terror network was plotting to attack police, officers are again permitted to take their service weapons home.

On Monday, French law enforcement officials demanding heavier weapons, protective gear and a bolstered intelligence apparatus met with top officials from the Interior Ministry. An official with the ministry, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss ongoing talks, said automatic weapons and heavier bulletproof vests were on the table.

Among the most horrific images from the Paris attacks was the death of police officer Ahmed Merabet, who can be seen on eyewitness video lying wounded on the pavement as a gunman approaches and fires a final bullet into his head. Merabet, who is seen alone on the street, had a service gun and a bullet proof vest, said Michel Thooris, of the France Police labor union.

"But he did not come with the backup he needed, and the psychology to face a paramilitary assault," Thooris said. "We were not prepared in terms of equipment or mind-set for this kind of operation."

One of the attackers, Amedy Coulibaly, said in a posthumous video that his plan all along was to attack police.

"We don't want necessarily the arms that American police have. We need weapons that can respond," said Philippe Capon of French police union UNSA.

Among those weapons, he added, are modernized criminal databases, because the current databases are out of date, and firewalled between different law enforcement branches. "The databases are not interactive. They are not accessible to all. They are not up to date," he said.

Unlike their British counterparts, French national police are armed although their municipal counterparts tend to be weaponless. But Thooris said they are not permitted to have their service weapons while off duty, raising the possibility that they could be targeted when vulnerable or unable to help if they stumble across crime afterhours.

Because of increasing unease and last week's anti-terror raids, police in Belgium are again allowed to carry weapons home rather than put their handguns and munition in specialized lockers.

"The conditions we have now are clearly exceptional," said Fons Bastiaenssens, a police spokesman in Antwerp, where there are many potential targets, especially in the Jewish quarter.

In addition, firearms suddenly became far more visible, with some police carrying heavier weaponry as they guard sensitive buildings and police offices, and paratroopers in the streets of the major cities.

In Britain, the overall threat level is "severe" — meaning intelligence and police officials have evidence that a terrorist attack is highly likely. The threat to police officers themselves is judged to be very high after the Paris attacks as well as the recent disruption of a reported Islamist extremist plot to attack individual police officers in west London.

In response, the Metropolitan Police said Sunday it is bolstering the deployment of specialist firearms officers who are authorized to carry weapons. The force, also known as Scotland Yard, declined to provide details, and senior police officials say there is no need for a wholesale policy shift that would arm all police.

But Mark Rowley, chief of the counter-terror operation, said the "overall security posture" of the police is being reviewed in light of the Paris attacks.

In Norway, where far-right fanatic Anders Behring Breivik killed 69 people in a shooting spree at a political youth camp and eight others by bombing a government office, police are increasingly agitating for weapons.

"We have seen from the declarations of Coulibaly and also from what happened in Belgium that police can be primary targets for terrorist groups," said Nicolas Comte, of the SGP police union in France. "We have to give the means to police services, and notably intelligence, to fight this new form of terrorism."
-- (c) Associated Press 2015-01-20
___

Associated Press writers Jamey Keaten and Milos Krivokapic in Paris; Raf Casert in Brussels; Greg Katz in London; and Jan Olsen in Copenhagen contributed to this report.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-01-20

[NeverSure]

"We need weapons that can respond," said Philippe Capon of French police union UNSA."

Well then you'd better get assault rifles because that's what the killers had. "A handgun is what you use to fight your way to your rifle."

They also should get level IV bullet resistant vests because any centerfire rifle bullet will go right through their level III's. The news said the killers had Kalashnikov rifles which is another way of saying they had some type of AK-47 or AK-74.

http://blogs.prio.org/2015/01/how-did-the-paris-killers-acquire-their-guns/

[HeijoshinCool]

While you're at it, give all the citizens 18 years old and up 40 hours of combat arms training, and a Beretta PX4 Storm.

With three magazines.

[smedly]

While you're at it, give all the citizens 18 years old and up 40 hours of combat arms training, and a Beretta PX4 Storm.

With three magazines.

and would you give these weapons to all citizens of all religions ?????????? stellar idea mate - stay off the yogurt

I personally believe all police should be armed, it's been like that in N. Ireland for as long as I can remember, I believe the reason it doesn't happen in other forces is primarily down to cost not just for the hardware but for the ongoing training and certification required

It doesn't matter if these terrorists are carrying AK47's - there wouldn't be too many of that type of weapon in circulation and effectiveness in an urban environment is questionable, police normally carry H&K MP5 which is very capable and useable weapon in most situations - also used by special forces

I think given the current and escalating environment in European countries the public would eel much safer if the police were armed JMO

Edited January 20, 2015 by smedly

[Tchooptip]

All this has nothing to do with Islam, since we are told every single day by politicians all over Europe Islam is a religion of piece

[NeverSure]

When did this thread go from police needing better arms to US gun control or any citizen gun control?

Police must not be asked to encounter AK's when all they have is a handgun. End of.

Edited January 20, 2015 by NeverSure

[MJP]

I agree with Neversure.

If this deteriorates into a US bashing contest then free posting holidays will be won.

Fact is Europe is facing serious threats from nutters and the police need machine guns.

[Morch]

Getting hold of an assault rifle (such as the Paris terrorists had) is not very costly (about 2k Euro), not that hard to smuggle in (mostly from East Europe, small quantities, trucking companies), and difficult for security forces to keep track of (databases not well integrated).

A lot could be improved with regards to this issue, but it would entail curbing them open borders the EU is so proud of, enforcing existing laws and taking a stricter stance when these do not provide a solution (civil rights issues bound to be raised as objections). This is not that easy to pull off even on a national level, so making it an effective coordinated,and integrated multinational effort would be a much harder task.

As for police being unarmed - can't say I even get the concept. It may work in countries or societies were the law is generally upheld with the level of sanctity accorded to religion, but this is not a general condition and there will always be those who do not play by the rules. Making each and every policeman a true equivalent of specialized anti-terror operative is unrealistic, but giving them better training, better equipment and better intelligence seems like something which should have been there to begin with.

Wonder how regular police officers from relevant countries feel about this, most of the information presented is by top brass, politicians and talking heads.

[smedly]

Getting hold of an assault rifle (such as the Paris terrorists had) is not very costly (about 2k Euro), not that hard to smuggle in (mostly from East Europe, small quantities, trucking companies), and difficult for security forces to keep track of (databases not well integrated).

A lot could be improved with regards to this issue, but it would entail curbing them open borders the EU is so proud of, enforcing existing laws and taking a stricter stance when these do not provide a solution (civil rights issues bound to be raised as objections). This is not that easy to pull off even on a national level, so making it an effective coordinated,and integrated multinational effort would be a much harder task.

As for police being unarmed - can't say I even get the concept. It may work in countries or societies were the law is generally upheld with the level of sanctity accorded to religion, but this is not a general condition and there will always be those who do not play by the rules. Making each and every policeman a true equivalent of specialized anti-terror operative is unrealistic, but giving them better training, better equipment and better intelligence seems like something which should have been there to begin with.

Wonder how regular police officers from relevant countries feel about this, most of the information presented is by top brass, politicians and talking heads.

most of your post is reasonable except for the underlined section, arming police is not making them specialised anti-terror operatives, it simply means that they are better equipped to do their job (protecting the public) especially when this threat seems to be escalating across Europe - you may find that the police themselves are feeling rather exposed I know I would be

[Morch]

Getting hold of an assault rifle (such as the Paris terrorists had) is not very costly (about 2k Euro), not that hard to smuggle in (mostly from East Europe, small quantities, trucking companies), and difficult for security forces to keep track of (databases not well integrated).

A lot could be improved with regards to this issue, but it would entail curbing them open borders the EU is so proud of, enforcing existing laws and taking a stricter stance when these do not provide a solution (civil rights issues bound to be raised as objections). This is not that easy to pull off even on a national level, so making it an effective coordinated,and integrated multinational effort would be a much harder task.

As for police being unarmed - can't say I even get the concept. It may work in countries or societies were the law is generally upheld with the level of sanctity accorded to religion, but this is not a general condition and there will always be those who do not play by the rules. Making each and every policeman a true equivalent of specialized anti-terror operative is unrealistic, but giving them better training, better equipment and better intelligence seems like something which should have been there to begin with.

Wonder how regular police officers from relevant countries feel about this, most of the information presented is by top brass, politicians and talking heads.

most of your post is reasonable except for the underlined section, arming police is not making them specialised anti-terror operatives, it simply means that they are better equipped to do their job (protecting the public) especially when this threat seems to be escalating across Europe - you may find that the police themselves are feeling rather exposed I know I would be

Could have phrased my post better, but this is what I meant.

[NeverSure]

Getting hold of an assault rifle (such as the Paris terrorists had) is not very costly (about 2k Euro), not that hard to smuggle in (mostly from East Europe, small quantities, trucking companies), and difficult for security forces to keep track of (databases not well integrated).

A lot could be improved with regards to this issue, but it would entail curbing them open borders the EU is so proud of, enforcing existing laws and taking a stricter stance when these do not provide a solution (civil rights issues bound to be raised as objections). This is not that easy to pull off even on a national level, so making it an effective coordinated,and integrated multinational effort would be a much harder task.

As for police being unarmed - can't say I even get the concept. It may work in countries or societies were the law is generally upheld with the level of sanctity accorded to religion, but this is not a general condition and there will always be those who do not play by the rules. Making each and every policeman a true equivalent of specialized anti-terror operative is unrealistic, but giving them better training, better equipment and better intelligence seems like something which should have been there to begin with.

Wonder how regular police officers from relevant countries feel about this, most of the information presented is by top brass, politicians and talking heads.

An AK that's been built (or more likely rebuilt) to be semiautomatic rather than fully automatic can be bought legally from a gun dealer for around US$500.

I don't know why one that's fully automatic would cost more. All it takes is a different trigger group, an auto sear, and a select fire switch.

In fact it's likely that the $500 semi auto version had the expense invested to convert it back from fully automatic. I do know that an auto sear costs $25 for instance, and a trigger group about $50. They are really easy to change if the parts are on the bench. Then you'd still have the value of the parts to convert a different used one to semi automatic.

The guns have been made since 1947 (thus the 47) and are still used by the militaries of nearly 50 countries including China and there must be countless numbers of them out there. (The AK stands for "automatic Kalashnikov", Kalashnikov being the name of the Russian inventor.) Russia has used them for approximately the 60 years and just last year began to phase in a different gun.

[Morch]

Getting hold of an assault rifle (such as the Paris terrorists had) is not very costly (about 2k Euro), not that hard to smuggle in (mostly from East Europe, small quantities, trucking companies), and difficult for security forces to keep track of (databases not well integrated).

A lot could be improved with regards to this issue, but it would entail curbing them open borders the EU is so proud of, enforcing existing laws and taking a stricter stance when these do not provide a solution (civil rights issues bound to be raised as objections). This is not that easy to pull off even on a national level, so making it an effective coordinated,and integrated multinational effort would be a much harder task.

As for police being unarmed - can't say I even get the concept. It may work in countries or societies were the law is generally upheld with the level of sanctity accorded to religion, but this is not a general condition and there will always be those who do not play by the rules. Making each and every policeman a true equivalent of specialized anti-terror operative is unrealistic, but giving them better training, better equipment and better intelligence seems like something which should have been there to begin with.

Wonder how regular police officers from relevant countries feel about this, most of the information presented is by top brass, politicians and talking heads.

An AK that's been built (or more likely rebuilt) to be semiautomatic rather than fully automatic can be bought legally from a gun dealer for around US$500.

I don't know why one that's fully automatic would cost more. All it takes is a different trigger group, an auto sear, and a select fire switch.

In fact it's likely that the $500 semi auto version had the expense invested to convert it back from fully automatic. I do know that an auto sear costs $25 for instance, and a trigger group about $50. They are really easy to change if the parts are on the bench. Then you'd still have the value of the parts to convert a different used one to semi automatic.

The guns have been made since 1947 (thus the 47) and are still used by the militaries of nearly 50 countries including China and there must be countless numbers of them out there. (The AK stands for "automatic Kalashnikov", Kalashnikov being the name of the Russian inventor.) Russia has used them for approximately the 60 years and just last year began to phase in a different gun.

The price mentioned is what it would cost on EU black market, things a bit different in the USA.

I was not being specific on models, alterations etc, as this seems to be the going price for this general class of weapons.

Don't think one could legally buy these sort of things in Europe without much hassle, or legally transport them over borders.