Back in the early 19th Century, England had a similar problem to that which it faces now. Citizens didn't go out at night; dinner parties often involved an overnight stay as the streets and roads were unsafe. That was when Robert Peel formed the Metropolitan Police. While the "bobbies" weren't usually armed with anything more than a club and a whistle, they could count on aid from armed citizens.
However, the belief that the English police have always been unarmed is a myth. From the beginning, the Metropolitan Police force has had firearms, starting with 50 flintlock pistols, which were eventually replaced by revolvers. Until 1936, Metropolitan Police officers in the outer districts could carry handguns if they wished. A supply of revolvers was maintained for this purpose. While he was a fictional character, one might remember Inspector Lestrade from the Sherlock Holmes stories who, whe asked if he was armed, said, "If I have my pants, I have a pocket. If I have a pocket, I have something in it."
Today, a significant number of English police officers are visibly armed. For the first time of which I am aware, the question is being raised as to whether all sworn officers should be armed with at least a pistol. Public sentiment and the majority of police officers are against arming all officers but the influx of foreigners and the youth gangs that have been a long-standing problem in England are spawning more confrontations between unarmed police officers and armed criminals. The question that must be asked is how many police officers the country is willing to sacrifice to maintain the "tradition" of unarmed officers. While the total number of police casualties is small compared to the United States, it is large compared to England's own experience.
One of the factors the English either forget or ignore is that many of the immigrants that have changed English society come from countries where the police and criminals have always been armed; guns were a daily part of life. Incidentally, the police in Singapore, which has a low crime rate, are armed with Taurus revolvers that replaced S&W M36 J-frames with 3-inch barrels. In addition, a variety of factors have made Britain's home-grown gangs and younger criminals more likely to acquire and use firearms, something that appears to be little more difficult in England than it is anywhere else.
Frankly, arming of police could be a non-issue. The traditional appearance of the police constable could be maintained by simply carrying concealed firearms (a whole new twist on "don't ask; don't tell). There's never been anything in the rule book that said an officer's sidearm must be a large handgun carried in a prominent holster and there's certainly no shortage of suitable pistols. It would also give the lawless element some pause as criminals could no longer be sure they would be up against just pepper spray or perhaps a taser. It would also give the individual officer the choice, just as was true until the 1930s, without compromising that uncertainty. While we think police officers should be armed as a matter of course, a lot of British police officers really don't want t carry guns and a small percentage would rather resign than be required to go armed.
In the end, the English will have to make their own decisions about the best method to reclaim their cities and lifestyle. Since guns are now a part of English crime, they are going to have to be part of the English response. Whether that means assuming responsibility for their own well-being and repealing laws against civilian ownership of lethal weapons or placing the responsibility on their police services and equipping them accordingly is something that will have to play out over time.
