A very convenient response when you've made errors of fact. Moreover, you seemed quite happy to debate the issue on the previous page.
Your post and recent discourse with me has been entirely off-topic. This is around the fifth time I will be asking you now. Do you have anything to add on this topic?
If you want to discuss something else then create a new topic. The creators of this site have made it very easy and "convenient" for you to do so.
Honestly I would leave as quickly as possible and I would phone the police. I am 5'4 8 stone and a women. I wouldn't be one of those people who stood around and watched. I'd be out of their within the minute it kicked off.
However, soldiers may have had better unarmed combat training. Guns aren't the be all and end all of weapons, they just allow you to do your killing from a safe distance.
So if you're nimble on your feet and good at dodging you think you'd be ok going up against a gun , Interesting .
We don't have routinely armed police because firearm related offences are not so widespread as to necessitate them. 99% of incidents can be dealt with using the equipment officers are issued with. For more violent incidents, we have the armed response units. Even if they were armed, the two WPCs ambushed by Dale Cregan in Manchester for example would not have stood a chance given the speed and ferocity of his attack.
Your derision of the police in the UK makes me wonder why your average beat cop can't deal with incidents that your SWAT personnel have to attend to? Ought we deride them for that?
We don't have routinely armed police because firearm related offences are not so widespread as to necessitate them. 99% of incidents can be dealt with using the equipment officers are issued with. For more violent incidents, we have the armed response units. Even if they were armed, the two WPCs ambushed by Dale Cregan in Manchester for example would not have stood a chance given the speed and ferocity of his attack.
Your derision of the police in the UK makes me wonder why your average beat cop can't deal with incidents that your SWAT personnel have to attend to? Ought we deride them for that?
Then why do most, if not all, European countries have armed police, including countries with much less violent crime than yours. People keep refusing to address that golden nugget.
Your post and recent discourse with me has been entirely off-topic. This is around the fifth time I will be asking you now. Do you have anything to add on this topic?
If you want to discuss something else then create a new topic. The creators of this site have made it very easy and "convenient" for you to do so.
You were the one who first raised the matter of POW's being freed after WW2, ergo, if anyone was off topic, you were..
Why wouldn't I? I'm not point scoring, and neither should you.
You're the one who suggested that our army may be unreasonably restricted in the same way you think our police are.
I was simply pointing out that the US army, for example, has proven to be unable to respond effectively to a similar incident.
It's an odd way to live life hoping things, especially the unlikely, turn out for the best, and especially in a country where so few believe in faith.
I'd say that it's equally odd to live in a country that prides itself on individual freedom while, at the same time, happily abdicating ultimate responsibility for life and death to figures of authority.
As has been pointed out, if you are really so comfortable with armed police, it's hardly surprising that you aren't able to comprehend the idea of a country without them.
Then why do most, if not all, European countries have armed police, including countries with much less violent crime than yours. People keep refusing to address that golden nugget.
You'd have to ask them why they decided to routinely arm their police officers. The UK has decided that armed response officers are the way to go, and for the most part, it works well.
Why is there a need for SWAT in the US if routinely armed officers and squad cars could deal with situations?
I'd say that it's equally odd to live in a country that prides itself on individual freedom while, at the same time, happily abdicating ultimate responsibility for life and death to figures of authority.
As has been pointed out, if you are really so comfortable with armed police, it's hardly surprising that you aren't able to comprehend the idea of a country without them.
Not just me, but your fellow Europeans, and most people around the world.
By the way, this kind of response is a lot more productive than your last two, in the other thread.
Why? It's irrelevant to the topic. That's just country point scoring. There's no reason for it.
Then don't mention it if you don't think it's relevant.
If you think something is relevant enough to mention, don't throw your toys out of the pram when your assertion is shown to be nonsense.
Sorry, you lost me on that one. Clarify.
The concept of everybody having the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" seems at odds with allowing cops to end people's lives at will.
Not just me, but your fellow Europeans, and most people around the world.
And yet we rarely find ourselves in situations where this perceived inadequacy proves to be a disadvantage.
At the very least, that saves us a large amount of money, each year, in the cost of firearms, ammunition and training.
If other countries wish to spend that money, that's up to them.
Jeeesh PPhilster you come a cross as a right dick.
You always claim other people are point scoring against the US but happily run down my country's legal system, police tactics and levels of bravery. Seems to me you are the point scorer and denegrator of other countries.
You go off topic about keeping POWs at the end of WWII and as soon as you lose the argument you claim people are off topic.
Shooting an unarmed man in the head seven times at point blank range, because they thought he was someone else, makes me rather glad that our police aren't routinely armed.
Jeeesh PPhilster you come a cross as a right dick.
You always claim other people are point scoring against the US but happily run down my country's legal system, police tactics and levels of bravery. Seems to me you are the point scorer and denegrator of other countries.
You go off topic about keeping POWs at the end of WWII and as soon as you lose the argument you claim people are off topic.
You come across as an immature dick.
BIB: Precisely ~ he was the one to raise the issue, then cries foul as soon as he's called out on errors of fact.
Shooting an unarmed man in the head seven times at point blank range, because they thought he was someone else, makes me rather glad that our police aren't routinely armed.
Indeed ~ and of course that was a horrible mistake.
We have competent armed response units for any incidents where life is endangered by individuals with guns. Bobbies on the beat do not need guns.
Indeed ~ and of course that was a horrible mistake.
We have competent armed response units for any incidents where life is endangered by individuals with guns. Bobbies on the beat do not need guns.
And that, in itself, is a great example of why it's not necessarily a great idea.
If a specific operation involving armed police can cock it up so horrifically on a huge number of levels and then leave the poor guy who was actually there, in the train, to take responsibility for the outcome, why on Earth would the average beat-bobby want that same level of responsibility?
In a lot of countries it seems like cops shooting drunks or people who act strangely is met with a metaphorical shrug of the shoulders and ignored.
The fact that we DO seem to treat these type of incidents much more seriously is no bad thing, IMO.
If the UK had a gun culture like the USA then our police force would more likely have to be armed, but as we don't and they are not you're going to have to accept the UK is not like the USA.
Comments
Your post and recent discourse with me has been entirely off-topic. This is around the fifth time I will be asking you now. Do you have anything to add on this topic?
If you want to discuss something else then create a new topic. The creators of this site have made it very easy and "convenient" for you to do so.
Obviously.
Now getting back to your unarmed police....
So if you're nimble on your feet and good at dodging you think you'd be ok going up against a gun , Interesting .
Glad you agree that soldiers all over the world are poorly prepared to neutralise a threat on their home turf.
But yeah, let's talk about those unarmed police, who handled the situation optimally, with no further loss of life or injury...
What was your point, again?
We don't have routinely armed police because firearm related offences are not so widespread as to necessitate them. 99% of incidents can be dealt with using the equipment officers are issued with. For more violent incidents, we have the armed response units. Even if they were armed, the two WPCs ambushed by Dale Cregan in Manchester for example would not have stood a chance given the speed and ferocity of his attack.
Your derision of the police in the UK makes me wonder why your average beat cop can't deal with incidents that your SWAT personnel have to attend to? Ought we deride them for that?
Why wouldn't I? I'm not point scoring, and neither should you.
The "no further loss of life or injury" was only because the unlikely occurred. They had nothing to do with it.
It's an odd way to live life hoping things, especially the unlikely, turn out for the best, and especially in a country where so few believe in faith.
Then why do most, if not all, European countries have armed police, including countries with much less violent crime than yours. People keep refusing to address that golden nugget.
You were the one who first raised the matter of POW's being freed after WW2, ergo, if anyone was off topic, you were..
Statement of fact.
For the sixth time now, do you have anything to add on topic?
You're the one who suggested that our army may be unreasonably restricted in the same way you think our police are.
I was simply pointing out that the US army, for example, has proven to be unable to respond effectively to a similar incident.
I'd say that it's equally odd to live in a country that prides itself on individual freedom while, at the same time, happily abdicating ultimate responsibility for life and death to figures of authority.
As has been pointed out, if you are really so comfortable with armed police, it's hardly surprising that you aren't able to comprehend the idea of a country without them.
You'd have to ask them why they decided to routinely arm their police officers. The UK has decided that armed response officers are the way to go, and for the most part, it works well.
Why is there a need for SWAT in the US if routinely armed officers and squad cars could deal with situations?
I'll add as I choose. In the meantime I was merely correcting your factual errors in the off topic issue of ex WW2 prisoners which YOU raised.
As you are unable to rebut the points I made, I'll consider the matter closed. You can have a meaningless last word if you opt to do so.
Why? It's irrelevant to the topic. That's just country point scoring. There's no reason for it.
Sorry, you lost me on that one. Clarify.
Not just me, but your fellow Europeans, and most people around the world.
By the way, this kind of response is a lot more productive than your last two, in the other thread.
For the seventh time, do you have anything to add on topic?
Then don't mention it if you don't think it's relevant.
If you think something is relevant enough to mention, don't throw your toys out of the pram when your assertion is shown to be nonsense.
The concept of everybody having the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" seems at odds with allowing cops to end people's lives at will.
And yet we rarely find ourselves in situations where this perceived inadequacy proves to be a disadvantage.
At the very least, that saves us a large amount of money, each year, in the cost of firearms, ammunition and training.
If other countries wish to spend that money, that's up to them.
You always claim other people are point scoring against the US but happily run down my country's legal system, police tactics and levels of bravery. Seems to me you are the point scorer and denegrator of other countries.
You go off topic about keeping POWs at the end of WWII and as soon as you lose the argument you claim people are off topic.
You come across as an immature dick.
BIB: Precisely ~ he was the one to raise the issue, then cries foul as soon as he's called out on errors of fact.
Indeed ~ and of course that was a horrible mistake.
We have competent armed response units for any incidents where life is endangered by individuals with guns. Bobbies on the beat do not need guns.
Of course I bloody wouldn't.
And that, in itself, is a great example of why it's not necessarily a great idea.
If a specific operation involving armed police can cock it up so horrifically on a huge number of levels and then leave the poor guy who was actually there, in the train, to take responsibility for the outcome, why on Earth would the average beat-bobby want that same level of responsibility?
In a lot of countries it seems like cops shooting drunks or people who act strangely is met with a metaphorical shrug of the shoulders and ignored.
The fact that we DO seem to treat these type of incidents much more seriously is no bad thing, IMO.