Not surprising they are "trigger happy" many are pretty jumpy due to the kind of firearm rules they have there - especially those that make a thing of exercising their rights when a simple bit of common sense would de-escalate the situation.
Is it now time that our police are all armed?
- Thread starter Dr House
- Start date
Not surprising they are "trigger happy" many are pretty jumpy due to the kind of firearm rules they have there - especially those that make a thing of exercising their rights when a simple bit of common sense would de-escalate the situation.
The 'heart' of London is full of armed police!! But yet it still gets hit!. So your suggestion is palpable nonsense. If a terrorist wanted to really cause some trouble they should go somewhere rural and start killing because it wont be 8 minutes until the ARV's arrive AND kill the terrorists! Given it was a long time ago but look how long the Hungerford mass murderer, Michael Ryan, was on the loose!
out of curiosity roff have you tried airsofting?
its really weird until you do it (espcially random unknown guy pulling a weapon, we hada laugh in the shooting house trying this)
it seems simple but after trying it you realise just how **** you aim is in a panic situation.
and how people will pull the tigger before theyve checked everyone's movements (yes i shot my team mate in the back of the head
)#no theyll attack where they can inflict the most damage, which is highrst population density.
polcie response time is say 8 mins max based on this event, ylou can kill a lot in that time with lots of mpeople but far fewer out in the coun try
So they were on a 'list' and were 'known'..... word of advice plenty of people are on 'lists' and are 'known' to the police and security services for all sorts of different things (not just Islamic terrorism) fortunately the UK still remains a largely free country and simply being 'known' or 'on a list' is not yet sufficient grounds to be imprisoned! Quite a few of our terrorists tend to be British born (albeit some are first of second generation) so there isn't anywhere to 'send them home'.
Problem is I despise the attempts by religious fascists to impose their world views on the UK but I'm not quite stupid enough to think the solution is giving the state the power to round up 'suspected' terrorists or people 'rolling in the wrong circles' with the state then moving to ensure that their 'gone' (given there's often no place to deport a lot of these people I wonder what your might mean by that?). You see the problem is that if you let the state act in such a way you ARE in a de facto police state and the state wont just stop at Islamic fanatics......
You never know one day you might find yourself on 'a list' or be deemed to be 'rolling in the wrong circles'
Caporegime
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 25,948
- Location
- Lorville - Hurston
They
They are already armed
out of curiosity roff have you tried airsofting?
its really weird until you do it (espcially random unknown guy pulling a weapon, we hada laugh in the shooting house trying this)
it seems simple but after trying it you realise just how **** you aim is in a panic situation.
and how people will pull the tigger before theyve checked everyone's movements (yes i shot my team mate in the back of the head
Done some airsoft - played at groundzero around a dozen times also done "kill house" with laser rig.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,749
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Police don't need more powers, what they need is funding to improve community policing as that's where intelligence for these sorts of attacks comes from and how you ultimately prevent atrocities. This is the policing that has been heavily cut due to reduced funding from the Government.
Those two things have absolutely nothing to do with each other. The comparison with America is as nonsensical as always too, we're not America and there's no reason a routinely armed police service in this country would suddenly become "American".
I think it's a balance. I would prefer the police to carry arms but object to them being interrogated and scrutinised if they do fire off rounds in error. We're all human at the end of the day and all subject to making mistakes. The armed police who shot dead the terrorists last week must have had so much adrenaline going through their system and I will never side with a condemning report issued by some muppet behind a desk who has no idea how the practical application of counter terrorism actually works.
So give them all a gun but don't make them accountable for pulling the trigger? Sounds like a great idea in a police state and a terrible one in a free country!
There is no need to routinely arm the police most would never draw let alone discharge o e in a career using current policing methods so all you do is leave them open to making mistakes and in a potential arms race with criminal.
From a certain perspective it looks like the price of a free and open society is a relatively small number of innocent people being murdered by an even smaller minority of madmen.
For me that's a slightly uncomfortable truth that resides at the opposite end of the scale from an authoritarian police state where all sorts of people are detained without cause or made to disappear in the middle of the night because they disagree with the state.
It might be a high price for those who have to pay it and for their families; surely no-one can argue it is not. But our freedoms are hard won and should not be given up lightly or as a knee-jerk emotional response to an event that is so far from an every day occurrence that the chances of it happening to you or anyone you know are relatively slim. You're more likely to die of cancer or in a road traffic accident than you are to be murdered by islamic extremism.
My view is that most of the statements by various politicians calling for more powers are not for our security but for the power of the state; they are cynical and short-sighted and almost entirely self serving as they pander to a short-lived emotional outburst by the general public who spend relatively little thought on the consequences of making long lasting or irreversible decisions in the heat of the moment, disregarding calm pragmatism for the rabble of the crowd and its ire.
Should all police carry guns in light of the recent incidents? No. Absolutely not.
I'd wager that if they did, within 10 years the number of civilians killed by the police would exceed the current figures for manchester and london extremist victims.
As far as I can see we need to enforce the laws we already have and allow for more staff to deal with policing matters in general.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, hundreds of innocent people are murdered by islamic terrorism every day. Were is our collective out-pouring of grief, our minutes silence to remember and honour the innocent dead of the most recent bombing in afghanistan?
Oh, but they're so far away and our young people, the flower of our youth attending a music concert are right here...
The contrasts between our peaceful western lives and those of the numerous countries we've had military expeditions in could not be more starkly delineated.
For me that's a slightly uncomfortable truth that resides at the opposite end of the scale from an authoritarian police state where all sorts of people are detained without cause or made to disappear in the middle of the night because they disagree with the state.
It might be a high price for those who have to pay it and for their families; surely no-one can argue it is not. But our freedoms are hard won and should not be given up lightly or as a knee-jerk emotional response to an event that is so far from an every day occurrence that the chances of it happening to you or anyone you know are relatively slim. You're more likely to die of cancer or in a road traffic accident than you are to be murdered by islamic extremism.
My view is that most of the statements by various politicians calling for more powers are not for our security but for the power of the state; they are cynical and short-sighted and almost entirely self serving as they pander to a short-lived emotional outburst by the general public who spend relatively little thought on the consequences of making long lasting or irreversible decisions in the heat of the moment, disregarding calm pragmatism for the rabble of the crowd and its ire.
Should all police carry guns in light of the recent incidents? No. Absolutely not.
I'd wager that if they did, within 10 years the number of civilians killed by the police would exceed the current figures for manchester and london extremist victims.
As far as I can see we need to enforce the laws we already have and allow for more staff to deal with policing matters in general.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, hundreds of innocent people are murdered by islamic terrorism every day. Were is our collective out-pouring of grief, our minutes silence to remember and honour the innocent dead of the most recent bombing in afghanistan?
Oh, but they're so far away and our young people, the flower of our youth attending a music concert are right here...
The contrasts between our peaceful western lives and those of the numerous countries we've had military expeditions in could not be more starkly delineated.