UK: Female bodyguards to get lighter 'baby' guns

Submitted by Broadsword on Sun, 2010-06-13 18:53

Article here. Excerpt:

"Police bodyguards protecting the Royals and the Prime Minister are being armed with 'baby' guns in a bid to recruit more women officers to the role.
...
In a report to the Metropolitan Police Authority, John Bunn, a senior detective in the Yard’s counter-terrorism command described 'considerable improvements' in the work of SO1, the specialist protection unit.

He wrote: 'A diversity forum and work strands following best Metropolitan police service practice have been established, for example changing the type of firearm used to accommodate smaller hands, changes in recruit[ment] advertising, female-only insight days and mentoring under-represented groups expressing an interest in SO1.'
...
Patrick Mercer, former chairman of the Commons sub-committee on counterterrorism, told the Sunday Times: 'I hope the judgment has been made on effectiveness and not on some contorted view of equality.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

Actually it's good overall to have smaller/lighter weapons when they need to be drawn quickly or carried for long periods of time, regardless of the sex of the user. The issue here is that it looks like they plan to issue them to women only. Really, if you can generate the same firepower from a smaller/lighter weapon and not endanger the user or compromise the accuracy of the weapon, everyone assigned to use it ought to be carrying it.

But that does bring up a point re accuracy and safety to the user: if one is reducing either just to make a weapon that appeals to the user more esthetically, then that is a bad idea. These paras. point to that being an issue:

'The replacement weapon for women officers is believed to be the Glock 26.
Marketed by its Austrian manufacturer as the “Baby Glock”, the gun has a single magazine with just 10 bullets.

Its barrel is just 3.46in long, more than an inch shorter than the Glock 17, which makes it a less accurate weapon, particularly at longer range.'

And I have to laugh at the closing para:

"'The organisation has introduced a number of initiatives to attract female officers into roles where they are under-represented however all selection is based solely on merit.'"

Apparently it's also based on what weapons are hawked to potential recruits as being more "girly" than others-- otherwise I guess they wouldn't be doing it.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Sun, 2010-06-13 20:15

Only under a feminist-warped society could equality be more important than security.

They'll get what they deserve.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Demonspawn on Sun, 2010-06-13 21:28

What I find funny is women can be employed to protect men but at the same time have special laws protecting them from men. How can women protect a man when they by their own admission can't protect themselves from men?

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Broadsword on Mon, 2010-06-14 13:08