Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: 3 Attacks in London [getcereal] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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.

Quote Reply
Re: 3 Attacks in London [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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!!!
Quote Reply
Re: 3 Attacks in London [mv2005] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mv2005 wrote:
windywave wrote:
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.

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.

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.
Quote Reply
Re: 3 Attacks in London [Sanuk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Sanuk wrote:
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.

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.
Quote Reply
Re: 3 Attacks in London [mv2005] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mv2005 wrote:
Andrew69 wrote:
mv2005 wrote:
Andrew69 wrote:
mv2005 wrote:
The Lindt siege in Sydney also showed that even tactical units don't always get it right.

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?

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.

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.
Quote Reply
Re: 3 Attacks in London [Andrewmc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Andrewmc wrote:
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

Is it possible she's wrong?
Quote Reply
Re: 3 Attacks in London [windywave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
windywave wrote:
mv2005 wrote:
windywave wrote:
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.


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.


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.

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?
Quote Reply
Re: 3 Attacks in London [mr. mike] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mr. mike wrote:
windywave wrote:
mv2005 wrote:
windywave wrote:
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.


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.


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.

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
Quote Reply
Re: 3 Attacks in London [windywave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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.
Quote Reply
Re: 3 Attacks in London [windywave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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
Quote Reply
Re: 3 Attacks in London [mr. mike] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Has no one watched my youtube clip........

I thought it explained it ;)
Quote Reply
Re: 3 Attacks in London [mr. mike] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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)?
Quote Reply
Re: 3 Attacks in London [nc452010] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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.
Quote Reply
Re: 3 Attacks in London [Andrewmc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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.
Quote Reply
Re: 3 Attacks in London [nc452010] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
nc452010 wrote:
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)?

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...
Quote Reply
Re: 3 Attacks in London [windywave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
windywave wrote:

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.

Serious! There are some pretty stringent criteria that effectively make the cops impotent. Can't recall the exact nature.
Quote Reply
Re: 3 Attacks in London [mv2005] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mv2005 wrote:
nc452010 wrote:
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)?


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...

lol....

A "gun-free" zone is typically first choice for the bad guys. Wonder why?
Quote Reply
Re: 3 Attacks in London [mv2005] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mv2005 wrote:
windywave wrote:

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.

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

Let's just say I disagree with that philosophy
Quote Reply
Re: 3 Attacks in London [nc452010] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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?
Quote Reply
Re: 3 Attacks in London [nc452010] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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.
Quote Reply

Prev Next