Can you add a source to suggest this is because of "strong opposition" rather than just "pragmatic reasons"?

@Erik well, even the police doesn't carry a gun, which is unlike almost every other country in Europe. Surely that's because of a strong aversion to handguns?

It could also just be that they found out this is what works for them. If the guns don't add anything to the police's ability to do their job, or take something away from it, not letting them carry a gun might just be pragmatism.

Police in your area probably don't carry swords, for example. Is that because there is a "strong opposition to swords", or is it just not useful for a regular police officer to carry a sword?

Because guns kill people

@Erik they don't carry swords because they're less effective than guns. Not sure why you would bring up such a fallacy.

It's not a fallacy. Police wear tools because they are useful for their job. If a gun isn't considered useful for their job, why would they wear one? They don't have to oppose the tool to just not have one because it doesn't help them do their job better. (Also, don't assume that swords are always less effective than guns. That really depends on circumstance, and police do tend to operate at very close ranges where a large knife or short sword might come in handy. They still don't have any. Soldiers do, though. Because of pragmatism. )

UK police officers do not want to have guns. Currently support for an all-armed police force is around 33% (source), even with all the issues of terrorism. And that 33% is an all time high. A survey in 2008 reported that 82% of police officers did not want to be routinely armed (source). I agree with Erik that you should provide a better definition for the "strong opposition" that you assume.

@SJuan76 here in Czech Republic you'd be laughed at by any police officer for even suggesting the silly idea of taking away their gun. What makes British policemen so different?

@Erik: Well, yes. But that merely changes to the question from "Why is there opposition in the UK to guns?" to, "What distinctive qualities of the UK mean that guns are not considered useful?"

@RoyalCanadianBandit that's not "merely" changing the questions - it's a completely different question.

@Erik: I disagree. In the UK, there is a strong belief that guns for the police are not useful. This is not technically the same thing as "strong opposition to guns", but for the purposes of an SE question I don't see what difference it makes.

@Valorum So when someone runs a bus into a crowd of people, it was the bus that killed them too? The idea that it's the inanimate object doing the evil is a bizarre transfer of responsibility that I've never been able to understand. It's certainly a useful construct to try and get something banned though.

@JackOfAllTrades234 - If the US banned guns, something like 30,000 lives a year would be saved. You can argue all you like that it's people using the guns that are causing the problem, but short of controlling people's actions directly, you're left with the option of controlling the weapons.

@Valorum Where are you getting that statistic? The vast majority(over 60%) of "gun deaths" in the US are suicides, which would just turn into some other form of suicide. ~10,000 is a more accurate number for actual gun homicides, of which the majority are related to gang violence and criminals committing felonies. A draconian crack down on gangs, and equally draconian crack down on criminal youth before they graduate to more serious crimes would be just as effective(probably more so) compared to banning guns.

@JackOfAllTrades234 - I fear we're veering off topic, but I will say that trying to convince an American that guns are bad is hard work, despite the rolling holocaust going on around them.

Is this question about the public deployment of guns among police officers, or the violation of the individual right of self defense?

@DrunkCynic - In the UK, self-defence requires the use of the minimum level of force required to protect oneself. The possession of a firearm with the intent of defending oneself with it is clearly not the minimum level of force required, which is why various gun-owners have gone to jail for shooting burglars; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)

@Valorum in many parts of America that man wouldn't ever be tried thanks to Castle Laws...

@DrunkCynic both

@JackOfAllTrades234 that people don't understand buses and guns were designed for entirely different tasks is something that I've never been able to understand. :)

@JonathanReez Then you should re-word your question. As it stands, it reads like you're comparing the philosophical differences between Czech and UK on the use of personal firearms for armed self defense, using the citation of disarmed police officers as general reference point. If you are asking two questions, then this question should be closed as too broad until narrowed.

@Valorum Guns aren't bad; they are just inanimate designed to provide a specific mechanical advantage. The moral quantity of guns is dependent on how they are used. In regards to your referencing Tony Martin, how might that be differently considered under the Crime and Courts Act of 2013?