Somebody's probably gonna ask where Trump is.

ugh - this is getting all too common. haven't seen any word of fatalities yet.

have to wonder if this timing is related to the election.

---

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

I'm watching the t.v coverage on CNN and there's just no way of knowing at this point if it's a terror attack and who could possibly be behind this.

I can hear sirens. Lots of ambulances will be directed towards my house as i'm 300m from one of the larger london hospitals and a trauma center.

More than one dead apparently

7 dead so far is the report..... The UK actually has more power to deal with this shit than the US they need to implement it

 sorry to see this. Manchester, now this. Your gmen are good, ours are good, but I don't see it being mostly put down till the vast majority of Muslims decide to become activists against radicalism in their religion.

but I don't see it being mostly put down till the vast majority of Muslims decide to become activists against radicalism in their religion.


They have to do more than simply say "these terrorists have nothing to do with Islam" and move on. There has to be Muslims starting to cooperate with police and actively point to those spreading fundamentalism and to those who seem to have become radicalized.


My bet is that whoever did this was the following will come out.


a) He was known to police and likely being watched
b) Many will come forward to say how they saw him become radicalized
c) He attended a Mosque that preaches radical views


Just a wild guess though.

What makes you so sure it was Muslim(s).

What makes you so sure it was Muslim(s).


Since I haven't heard any confirmations yet I am guessing. I'm torn between this being carried out by either Buddhists or Muslims and I'm torn but going way out on a limb...

And? I bet someone knew he had a vehicle too. What are they supposed to do? Arrest anyone with unpopular views who has a car?

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Unpopular views?

My bet is that whoever did this was the following will come out.

a) He was known to police and likely being watched
b) Many will come forward to say how they saw him become radicalized
c) He attended a Mosque that preaches radical views


Just a wild guess though.


And? I bet someone knew he had a vehicle too. What are they supposed to do? Arrest anyone with unpopular views who has a car?


Not sure what this has to do with someone who has a car. I listed 3 items that have typically been discovered after the fact. In many cases, the police come forward to say they have been watching someone who returned from a country like Syria or Libya and that they were watching them. There are an estimated 23,000 people in the UK the police are currently watching, that is a problem.


Then, we will hear from friends or neighbors who will suddenly remember and share that he was quiet and recently changed his views, becoming more radical. At the same time, we typically find out that the Mosque he attends has a history of spreading radical views.


We could continue to ignore red flags and have the weekly terrorist attacks around the world, or find ways to prevent them and actually do something worthwhile. Right now, it seems we are being very reactive, too afraid to offend a religion instead of facing reality.

Snitches get stitches

I agree with slowguy. There are a lot of people with radical views and intensified hatred who would not turn terrorist. We don't have thought police and we have free speech.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

The London Bridge attack was a guy in a van.


So I ask you again. Do what? Even if this guy was known to law enforcement, known to have radical views, etc, what would you propose to do about him? He didn't build a bomb or buy guns or anything else that is criminal, up to the point at which he ran people over with his van. What do you propose we do to stop that and be less reactive?

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Yes. Unpopular views. Views you and I might very well disagree with, but which are not illegal to hold.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

This is for both you and Slowguy. I fundamentally disagree with the fact that inciting terrorist attacks is just advocating an unpopular view. There is a line. Whether it should be punished or silenced is a different discussion entirely, but to term it as an unpopular view is moronic IMO.

Rarely, if ever, do guys who carry out attacks like this incite terrorist attacks. They are the sheep who carry out the attacks, not the ring leaders.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

So I ask you again. Do what? Even if this guy was known to law enforcement, known to have radical views, etc, what would you propose to do about him?


- find out which Mosque is preaching radical views and shut it down.
- if someone goes to a country like Syria and fights to join with ISIS, cancel their passport when they are out of the country.
- improve intelligence by working with Muslims to identify those at risk. If they are known by police and identified by others as holding extreme views, then you have to find a way to arrest them and if it is true, deport them.

There has to be far more pressure on the Muslim community. They can't be given a free pass when they withhold information from police.

no shit. . . . My beef is with the "holy" men inciting this garbage.

Neither slowguy nor I are talking about the people who do the inciting. We are both talking about those who carry out the attacks, who are known to frequent websites that promote the attacks, but have done nothing illegal until the attacks are carried out.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

As before, you're really just not much of a fan of actual freedom of thought or travel or many of the freedoms our country is built on.

Who do you propose gets to decide if a religious institution's ideas are radical enough to justify govt shutting them down? That couldn't possibly go wrong.

"Find a way to arrest them and ...deport them" because they hold extreme views? WTF?

Pretty sure Canada generally believes in free speech, religious practice, thought, etc more than this.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Technically they have broken the law when they've taken an affirmative action towards the crime. They should indict the radical preachers as co-conspirators

No they haven't. If I plan a bank robbery, scope it out, obtain all the supplies, drive to the bank, then change my mind and do not follow through, I have committed no crime.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

If you're working with someone you have

Pretty sure Canada generally believes in free speech, religious practice, thought, etc more than this.


After each one of these attacks, I keep hearing how it has nothing to do with Islam so if that is the case, their actions aren't protected under the freedom of religion doctrine. I also believe that free speech has a limit. I don't believe an Imman has the right to incite hatred against citizens and hide behind the freedom of religion protection of the UK or any other country.


If an Imman in Canada is teaching their followers to perform attacks on the Canadian people, to kill innocent people because they believe something different, then I would want our government to arrest them or deport them.


Once again it seems we are so intent on protecting the rights of people intent on killing while ignoring the rights that innocent people have. Something has to change.

You keep talking about deporting people. Many or most of the UK terrorists have been British born, with British passports. Where would you deport them to?

Cancelling passports for people who go to fight for ISIS abroad is something I could get behind.

I'm not sure that cancelling passports is an option. I understand that here they say that under some sort of international convention people cannot be made 'homeless' if they only have a western passport.

JSA - what is the difference between a bank robbery and terrorist attack? By that I mean they often arrest suspects planning a terrorist attack prior to it happening. They don't walk free just because it never actually occurred.

Sanuk - how about adding the hiring of vans to the list of suspect items that requires more stringent identity checks and possibly a one week waiting list with only the person applying being able to collect. Like how buying ammonia etc started raising eyebrows and triggering the attention of authorities..

Do you mean strongly criticizing, or actual terrorist training? You appear to be skating on a hopelessly slippery slope

They were shot within 8 mins. Iniatial damage was with a van from a DIY chain so not sure it was a hire.

They then went on a killing rampage and were shot. One escaped one arrested.

All British press immediately reported it as terror related.

Curious, does the slippery slope fallacy only apply to conservative opinions or can it be equally applied to liberal ones too?

999 to 3 dead in 8 minutes is - i suspect - a pretty good result for those types of operations

It also shows you can do a lot of damage in 8 minutes with 3 nutters with big knives

Sanuk - how about adding the hiring of vans to the list of suspect items that requires more stringent identity checks and possibly a one week waiting list with only the person applying being able to collect. Like how buying ammonia etc started raising eyebrows and triggering the attention of authorities..


The problem is that the use of vans is a recent addition to their arsenal and we seem to be playing whack a mole when it comes to trying to stop them.


The problem is that in many cases, after incidents like this, people come out and talk about seeing a change in the terrorist. They talk about how he started changing his appearance (ie. growing a beard), changing his clothing, showing signs of withdrawing, showing more signs of radicalization. It would be an imperfect science of course but those things could at least alert the police to a potential problem. I see the difficulty but it seems when these things occur, many are not that surprised, except for the police who were watching them.


It's like the bully problem in schools where they ask kids to report the behavior to the schools before the bully acts out. It may not be perfect but at least the Muslim community would show they are involved and trying to stop these type of acts instead of simply saying "Islam is a religion of peace" after the fact and then waiting for the next attack to occur.

If an Imman in Canada is teaching their followers to perform attacks on the Canadian people, ....


Do you mean strongly criticizing, or actual terrorist training? You appear to be skating on a hopelessly slippery slope


I think we have to be far more aggressive in trying to prevent these attacks and that means getting the Muslim community involved. Maybe it means changing a few things because what we are doing now is playing defense, waiting for attacks to occur and then intercepting the cells to prevent another attack. The British PM was talking about how many attacks have been prevented in the last few months and that is what has to be done.

After each attack, leaders around the world talk about condemning the attacks in the strongest possible way and saying we stand united behind the people of the country. Then Facebook is lit up with the flag of the country where the attacks occurred with everyone being united and saying the terrorists will not win and how we stand together. A few weeks later, we do it again.

It is a slippery slope and I understand that we have to be careful but I think it has to start with the Muslim community. Maybe they have done more than I realize but it is kept quiet but I haven't heard of a single case where someone in the Muslim community came out and informed the police in advance of an attack but in most cases, they come out later and start talking about how they noticed a change and it seems a lot of people suddenly realize the terrorist had become radicalized.

You keep talking about deporting people. Many or most of the UK terrorists have been British born, with British passports. Where would you deport them to? Cancelling passports for people who go to fight for ISIS abroad is something I could get behind.

You are not going to stop every attack, but I think we have to go on the offensive when there are clear problems. There were thousands of people in the UK, the U.S and Canada who went to Syria and were known to be fighting with ISIS. Those people were then allowed back into the country of origin and the police started "watching" them, it happens in Canada too. In those cases, maybe they are not going to be the ones carrying out the attacks but they may be inspiring others to do it. If those people are so intent on going to fight, and are known by police, let them stay there.

My niece is married to a man from Lebanon and he was telling me about a Mosque outside of Toronto, which he left because of the messages being taught. He said it was going too far in terms of the anti-American (not Canadian) rhetoric. I asked him if he reported it to the police and he said no, it was between Muslims.

If they hate the West so much and are originally from a Muslim country, maybe we can start sending them there. Maybe we have to start identifying those people and think about getting them out before they carry out some of their threats. Also, what about the people who do nothing and sit back and allow this to happen?

I wonder where the breaking point is where people say enough. We are spending a lot of time and money on this but it continues and will continue until something changes. Maybe we have to start looking a little closer at the high risk areas, like the Muslim communities for a solution instead of spending more money and investing time chasing them.

    Beyond radicals entering a country to commit terroristic acts, one thing that I notice is that these attacks are often not first gen Muslims, but their offspring. Is it because of poor integration, lack of opportunity, discrimination, etc (seems France has problems more in this vein)? Is it just because they are young, and the young are more passionate in whatever belief? Thoughts?

Well if religious doctrine isn't the issue, then you have no need to go after Mosques, do you? But of course, we know that isn't the case, and you don't really hear how these attacks have nothing to do with Islam (since they're all pretty much immediately tied to ISIS or ISIS sympathizers). Regardless, you have proposed to shut down Mosques based on what they believe and teach. That's where the freedom of religion issue comes into play.


Well first of all, it's "Imam." Second, the basis of freedom of religion, expression, and speech, is that telling people what you believe shouldn't be reason for government to penalize you. There are already laws that cover conspiracy to commit a crime, inciting violence, etc. Simply teaching your congregation that unbelievers should die doesn't really fit the bill, and typically, it's not the message in front of the congregation that's the issue. It's the smaller subgroup of people that meets and plots out of view of the main congregation that are the problem.


Well, defending the rights of people who haven't yet committed a crime is part of the basis of our and your systems of criminal justice. You and I have no right to not have someone in a Mosque or Church telling people we're evil and deserve to die. When you say something has to change, what you apparently mean is that our basic system of beliefs with regard to religion, speech, and system of law all have to change because you're scared. I agree that we need to find ways to combat these types of attacks and plots, but it doesn't really help to abandon our ideas in the process.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

    Well Theresa May is going all non-PC, repeatedly using the phrase "Islamic extremist"...doesn't she know that just creates more terrorists!!! It will be interesting to see what GB actually does, but she sounds serious:

"Third, while we need to deprive the extremists of their safe spaces online, we must not forget about the safe spaces that continue to exist in the real world. Yes, that means taking military action to destroy Isis in Iraq and Syria. But it also means taking action here at home.
While we have made significant progress in recent years, there is - to be frank - far too much tolerance of extremism in our country. So we need to become far more robust in identifying it and stamping it out across the public sector and across society. That will require some difficult, and often embarrassing, conversations.
But the whole of our country needs to come together to take on this extremism, and we need to live our lives not in a series of separated, segregated communities, but as one truly United Kingdom."
-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/...xtremism_134094.html

TM knocked it out the park. the bbc took nearly 80 minutes for someone to use the phrase islamic extremism. Before that they just said she issued a strongly worded statement

In Canada if you are critical of someone's sexual orientation you can be fined by a human rights tribunal. People have actually been fined for being publicly critical of gays. So I don't see how preaching that non-Muslims should die would be okay. Not a big fan of these human rights tribunals though.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

If that's true, then the issue is with fining people for criticizing gays, not with allowing Imams to preach in their Mosques.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Of course not, why would you ever think that I would apply support for free speech differently?

Beyond radicals entering a country to commit terroristic acts, one thing that I notice is that these attacks are often not first gen Muslims, but their offspring. Is it because of poor integration, lack of opportunity, discrimination, etc (seems France has problems more in this vein)? Is it just because they are young, and the young are more passionate in whatever belief? Thoughts?


I think it is similar to the problems with the Mexicans in America. The generation that came into the U.S did to find work and support their families. They did not come for political or religious reasons, it was purely economic. The problem comes when they have children. Suddenly they feel they don't belong in America because they are different and they don't belong in Mexico because they are American citizens. They have a hard time fitting in, tend to do poorly in school and then can't find work. When you have a large group of young, unemployed boys that don't feel like they belong, they tend to act out.


I think you hit on a lot of the factors. Some people are perfectly fine assimilating and take responsibility for their lives and others don't and they tend to blame everyone but themselves (kind of like Hilary :)).


Now add a problem with Muslim Imam's teaching a radical version of Islam and you can see how things get out of hand.

I don't hold out much hope that the worldwide Muslim population will do anything. I once did, but no longer believe that's a realistic expectation.
More and more, it's looking to me that a radical Muslim is a terrorist that kills innocent people in the most horrific ways imaginable and a moderate Muslim doesn't actually engage in terrorism, but is generally "okay" with radical Muslims doing the dirty work.

If there was any appetite for the worldwide Muslim population to halt radical Muslim terrorism, it could be accomplished. There is none.

---

Lifeguard: "Do you need help?" Me: "No, that's just my butterfly."

As a second-generation Mexican, I salute you!

The missing piece in controlling Muslim extremism is the outrage from the Muslim community. Sure, a representative government shouldn't be policing what people think, altho that gets gray once a person starts advocating violence. But a community can bring to bear a lot of influence on it's members, if it so chooses.

If a convicted pedophile moved into the neighborhood, the community would be outraged. Every parent within a couple blocks would be filling every sort of media with hysterics. The house would be ringed by picketers and TV cameras.

We're very sensitive about racism here in the US. It doesn't take much to get folks really worked up. if some notorious racist shithead moved into the neighborhood, there'd be constant rage, just like above. Out would come the pickets and TV cameras.

Parents are serious about protecting their kids. 99% of the country is exceedingly intolerant of racism. But an Imam preaching violence doesn't seem to get the Muslim community to worked up. The signs that some Muslim kid is turning to violent extremism doesn't seem to get the Muslim community too worked up. The issue on the skyline is usually "don't blame Muslims for a few bad actors". Sure, that's a legit message, but I'd sure like to see "don't blame" be overwhelmed by a blizzard of reports about how the Muslim community has decided to go after those that preach hate and violence, followed by some suspicious disappearances.

---

Books @ Amazon
"If only he had used his genius for niceness, instead of Evil." M. Smart

As a second-generation Mexican, I salute you!


I made my comments as a general observation, not to point at every single immigrant. Both of my parents were born outside of Canada so I am a first generation Canadian and fit in just fine.


If you look at the Muslim communities in France, Belgium, Netherlands, the UK and most of Europe, you will see the rise in radicalism within the Muslim communities and almost all of it is with the young and unemployed males. A high percentage are born there with their parents having immigrated there. They are not fitting in and are having a hard time adjusting. There are similarities with the inner cities in America. That doesn't mean everyone ends up like that but if you don't see the problem, you're not looking very hard.

Ad Muncher

It's called "conspiracy to commit murder".

I read somewhere a while ago that the problem could be with the lifestyle Islam is creating. They are not allowed to do anything...No drinking, no dating, no sex, no parties...So you and up with a bunch of bored, unemployed, sexual frustrated young males to whom somebody then promises bunch of virgins if they kill.


Ad Muncher

I would argue that's just more pap from our culture's beat down of "personal responsibility". There's a vast array of shit holes in the world so it's pretty easy to test the theory of the causel link between living in a shithole and deciding that one should go murder lots of innocents. Only in the West do we look at a murderous asshole and start wringing our hands re. the difficult conditions the asshole faced. By far our favorite "difficult conditions" are those that we can connect to our own culture. Like "we don't try hard enough to reach" the islamic youth, therefore it shouldn't shock us when they become disaffected and violent.

Just like being outraged is lousy new hobby sweeping the West, so is "wringing our hands re. our own culpability".

---

Books @ Amazon
"If only he had used his genius for niceness, instead of Evil." M. Smart

Hmmm, you really "observe" massive radicalization by 2nd-generation Mexican-Americans? My observation as a person who lives near extremely large Mexican-American communities is that you are astoundingly ill-informed. If you are trying to say that poor folks tend to be alienated, you "might" have a (small) point, but that point was buried by a steaming pile of shit, when you isolated a particular race/nationality that is in fact not particularly known for any significant level of extremist ideology or activity.

Hmmm, you really "observe" massive alienation by 2nd-generation Mexican-Americans? Hmmm, my observation is that you are astoundingly ill-informed. If you are trying to say that poor folks tend to be alienated, you "might" have a point, but that point was buried by a steaming pile of shit, when you isolated a particular race/nationality that is in fact not particularly known for any significant level of extremist ideology or activity.

The 2nd generation Mexicans have never taken part in extremist ideology but they have taken part in drug wars and gangs. 2nd generation Koreans also have an increased level of criminology when compared with their parents who immigrated. Similar increases in the crime rates are seen in almost every immigrant group.

In Europe, the 2nd generation Muslims are not assimilated and they are going through similar things except in their case it is with religious extremism. You can argue who is to blame for the lack of integration but if you look at the statistics across almost all nationalities, in almost every country, the 2nd generation rates of crime are far higher than the generation that came into the country as immigrants. Some of that is poverty, some of that is the host country not providing the best opportunities and some of that is due to the 2nd generation feeling alienated, not being part of the host country yet feeling alienated from their country of origin.

The first cop on the scene got stabbed for his troubles because all he had was a billy club. At least give them pepper spray. How many were killed because he didn't have a gun? I can't think of another police force that is unarmed.

Again, are actually observing a poverty effect, or an immigration effect? Your 2nd-generation "argument" looks really weak when you actually say that it is similar to inner-city issues which occur without any immigration aspects. Do you really find wealthy and middle-class 2nd-generation Mexican Americans radicalized or criminalized? Where do you live? Your observation is easily explained by various issues surrounding urbanization/segregation/poverty, rather than pulling immigration out of your ass.

I can't post them now but every single study I have ever seen shows that crime rates amongst 2nd generation immigrants is higher than 1st generation.

My comments are in general and they agree with numerous studies but of course there are lots of exceptions.

Are you trying to turn this into an NRA style 'well if the good guys had guns' thread? I think the citizens of the UK wear this lack of guns thing as a badge of honour. It's served them well for many years and good on them. I think it's something to be proud of; it's part of their identity. Armed cops and armed good guys doesn't stop this from happening, nor does it mean cops won't still die at the hands of bad guys. Let's not forget these bad guys were 'only' armed with knives and a van.

I agree that it seems unusual but I also think it gives the UK part of its charm.

It's also likely that innocent people were not harmed because regular beat police were not inaccurately firing at the bad guys. One innocent in London was caught by friendly fire. The Lindt siege in Sydney also showed that even tactical units don't always get it right.

I'd say you watch too many movies but you don't own a tv.

As I said earlier, the U.K. Have done a pretty damn good job of coping without guns in the hands of regular cops. Neither the USA (or Oz etc) have demonstrated superior capability of preventing deaths for all their guns.

Admiral Ackbar

As I said earlier, the U.K. Have done a pretty damn good job of coping without guns in the hands of regular cops.


It's actually a pretty good argument for the lack of guns. The terrorists could have caused infinitely more damage if they had guns instead of knives. Also, for the police to arrive and kill them within 8 minutes is incredible. They should come here to show everyone how it's done.

8 minutes is fantastic, but I don't consider it a good argument for the lack of guns. 8 minutes is still a hell of a long time for someone unconcerned with their own continued life to do incredible damage.


Also, Terry Gilliam is a prophet.

That was a total cluster fuck.
From the fact he was on bail to the fact the cops waited more than 10 minutes after he executed Tori Johnson to go in after him.

Just proved how little threat we perceived terrorism to be up until that day.

Where did you get 10 minutes from? As soon as the snipers over the road made the hostage down call reports here indicated they got the green light to go in and they did. Sure it wasn't 10 minutes after he fired at the half dozen or so that fled when he went in the kitchen?

Sorry, you're right,it was ten minutes after he fired at escaping hostages and Tori was killed in that time before the cops stormed the building.
Edit : Cops policy was to try and wait him out and that they would not storm the building unless he killed a hostage. WTF?

Certainly the terrorists would have caused more damage with guns and I agree it aligns with the argument that less guns in general distribution makes it harder for bad guys to cause mass carnage. I'll clarify by distinguishing between real underworld types (who I think can get their hands on guns regardless of how many are around) and wannabe jihadis and crazies who mass kill (and IMO would have more problems getting a gun in the UK than the States).

As for the cops, in fairness these guys did encounter their demise at the hands of tactical cops with guns. Bit of a catch 22. Yes they may have been brought down sooner (by guns) but also could have caused more carnage with them.

I can see a day when regular cops do have them there but for now if I was a citizen I'd be proud of showing the world that they're every bit as efficient at dealing with scenarios without them.

Yeah there needs to be a change in law that allows such people to be taken out prior (to innocents dying) without being charged with murder. Perhaps something where it requires the green light from the Minister, the Commissioner and the head of the unit in charge (at the scene) to jointly green light it. Don't really know.

At the end of the day the snipers could have ended it much earlier had they not positioned themselves behind that thick glass in the renovated tv studio, effectively becoming nothing more than spotters.

A) that is almost certainly true

B) it takes no account if every other situation where a policeman if they did have a gun might kill someone innocent or inadvertenly or inappropriately

I have been pondering the gun issue and whilst i almost certainly agree had he been armed some of those killed may not have been e.g. the ones killed on the bridge by the van would have still been and i understand that was the majority. It would or might have prevented some or all of the stabbings

BUT

The problem is that we would almost certainly have more people killed by police than were killed as a result of the police not being armed

Wr have had jean charles de menedez at kennington mistaken for a terrorist. We have had shootings in tottenham

I simply dont trust the police "in total" to not fuck up.

So the choice is possibly preventing less than half of the seven deaths and many of the stabbings on sat night OR having all police armed and many more families with membets of families killed due to incompetence, accident or some other reason.

At present i do not think there is any overwhelming public desire to see all police armed because you are using this in isolation, where as there are many instances of police getting it wrong and on balance some people might have been saved and their families incensed that they were not armed, and i can give you examples where innocents have been killed.

Do the people in London support the idea that police are unarmed? Is there ever a request from the police to be armed?

traditionally, detectives could carry a weapon if they wished; beat cops/uniforms/traffic cops were unarmed by default.

---

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

The chief of the met police has repeated today she does not believe arming all is the solution

The only people who can carry them are fire arm trained officers which includes dip protection service

  Without looking it up, there was a headline that said the cops shot 50 times to kill the three guys. Anything said about that?

At this point. I think the best solution is to bring in more, i mean a lot more refugees especially the young males from countries that are always at war with each other. We can give them tons of free shit, housing, schooling, food, pray time...

With all this love it will convince these devout warriors of Islam how great the west is and they will drop their radical ways. Or maybe we can actually learn great stuff from them. Who is to say we are always right?

One thing we should absolutely never do is vet people! Open borders for all, bring them in! Our compassionate politicians got it all under control. Love people! It is all about love and compassion!

Thats what i'd heard

From what i have read they cleared everyone out and then killed them

At this point. I think the best solution is to bring in more, i mean a lot more refugees especially the young males from countries that are always at war with each other. We can give them tons of free shit, housing, schooling, food, pray time...

With all this love it will convince these devout warriors of Islam how great the west is and they will drop their radical ways. Or maybe we can actually learn great stuff from them. Who is to say we are always right?

One thing we should absolutely never do is vet people! Open borders for all, bring them in! Our compassionate politicians got it all under control. Love people! It is all about love and compassion!

I had no idea Justin Trudeau posted here.

when I was in Okinawa I saw the types of cops, ones that carried weapons and some that didn't... came to find out those without weapons (hand gun) only with a "night stick" were high level black belts in karate! as a young and dumb marine, as soon as we so a gunless cop stopping anyone, we quickly did an about face and proceeded quickly and quietly the opposite way! nobody resisted nor tried to attack those cops for sure!

---

Speed kills unless you have speed skills!!!

No I'm pointing out that the cop who showed up to a knife fight with a stick probably wouldn't have lost if he had a gun.

Why do you assume the terrorists would have guns because the police do? Logical fallacy. Not incredible for the casualties after the first cop showed up.

Wait what? Some assholes has a gun to a kids head and you can't take the shot until he shoots the kid? Justified homicide IIRC under common law is killing to prevent death or grievous bodily harm to yourself or others.

Is it possible she's wrong?

I'm trying to think through this, and, if you had a "Hunger Games" type deal where you get to run over to a pile of weapons and pick one, and the only 2 left were a knife or a billy club, I think I would choose the stick. Maybe that's because I don't have any skills as a swordsman (no, that's not what she said). If it's was an actual sword, maybe not, but if were talking the best knife in my kitchen, I'd probably take the stick. What say you? If I get a gun, stick, knife choice, I obviously go with the gun if there is ammo, but just stick vs. knife?

It was a 12 inch knife... and it was 3 on 1 ... a gun would have been more useful ... one on one I'd still take the knife with a good long blade

yeah, 12 inch blade cuts (yes that was intentional) in the knife's favor. I still might choose the billy though. Close call.

I'm going to take an informal poll around the office.

Quite possibly

As far as i know the police federation have never advocated for it but maybe there is a demand for it

Its up to the police and government to make that determination

As i said in another post Armed police would have done nothing to prevent the deaths caused by the van.

The van, based on reporting to date, appears to have been the cause of the greatest trauma. The knife related injuries, including the policeman, albeit serious have been so far reported as surviving.

If most if not all the deaths were caused by the van, then armed police would have prevented few or none of them

Has no one watched my youtube clip........

I thought it explained it ;)

Has anyone thought of the notion that maybe the bad guys would think twice about doing anything......if they knew all the police were armed (and their antics would be cut short in record time..........via death by gunfire)?

Yes. We have also seen police overseas kill innocents, shoot first ask questions later, kill people in cross fire

So we do understand it. Many of us are happy as it is. Broadly speaking i have no confidence that all police could be trusted to carry guns and not fuck up.

Again, you seem to be missing the point that armed police would not have prevented the van running people over

I should also note in Nice last year on bastille day there were multiple armed police and he still killed a shitload before they shot him

I think its unlikely the british public will be convinced that at present, on balance, arming is the solution.

I'm pretty sure the terrorists know they're going to eventually get shot and killed. But, in the meantime, they also know there's plenty of targets they can kill and injure.....until the gun-packers arrive.

What do you say to the families of the ones who get caught up in that space between (between....no officer with a gun could have saved them.....up until the officer with a gun DOES save them)?

Do you trust the ones who finally show up with a gun and do the killing? What makes them different from the others (as far as trustworthiness)? Or, do you just view them as a "necessary evil" and wish they were all unarmed?

Serious questions. This is all foreign, to me.

You're right! I mean this sort of thing simply doesn't happen in the States with all those armed cops and civilians. No one would dare try and harm people in public because they would get gunned down before they could do anything.

Oh wait...

Serious! There are some pretty stringent criteria that effectively make the cops impotent. Can't recall the exact nature.

lol....

A "gun-free" zone is typically first choice for the bad guys. Wonder why?

Let's just say I disagree with that philosophy

The difference between armed and unarmed british police is training in the same way that not all police in the Uk are permitted to enter high speed pursuits. Again its training. High speed responders only do traffic work.

No. I don't wish them to all be unarmed but for the same reasons not all police can undergo the driver training they cant all undergo the firearms training

Back in the day. After you'd been through the police college, to go from being a constable to an advanced driver was something like 6-10 weeks of driving on an 8 hour a day course full time. The final bit - high speed - alone was 3 weeks. The training basically requires being almost flat out in any national limit area and being able to narrate your activity. To see more look at a ROSPA gold test on youtube. Its all about following the police driving system IPSGA.

Fire arm training is the same, special units, psychometric tests to ensure or minimise the degree to which you might not be appropriate to carry a gun (you could qualify to be a policeman and not be suitable for armed work)

The police can not train every officer to be equally competent in all aspects of the job. If driving is 10 weeks of full time training to be trusted in a high speed pursuit and fire arm training is a number of weeks for basic and a further 18 full time for advanced plus 20 weeks or so when you initially join it would be 18 months of training to get on the street.

What do you say to the families of people killed by poorly trained incompetent officers that do have guns that perhaps shouldn't?

Has anyone thought of the notion that maybe the bad guys would think twice about doing anything......if they knew all the police were armed (and their antics would be cut short in record time..........via death by gunfire)?

Lots of bad guys commit crimes in the U.S where cops are armed.