The idea of hugely increasing the number of firearms in British civil society, and thus inevitably the number of deaths and injuries from shootings, is indeed perverse and offensive. You may be in favour of more people getting shot, and you are entitled to your opinion, but I am against it as are most people. You may be in favour of pushing Britain down the slippery slope towards a more violent and lethal future, but I have to part company from you. As for "hacking someone to death" and "murdering school children", there is no shred of reason to suppose that routinely armed police would or could prevent any offences on those lines, so your emotive expressions have no relevance to the matter in hand.
In another forum, we call this "feeding the trolls". Still, good point. Leave no childish mind behind and all that The mushroom crop is going to be a bumper harvest this year :biggrin: Now, now. Shadow is every bit as amusing as you are, Phill, just in a completely different way :smile:
Agree. More firearms about = more deaths (something the Americans have a problem understanding). There are indeed more shooting deaths in Switzerland than most other European countries. This is due in the main to people topping themselves. As the army is a citizen's army, there are very many officially issued army rifles at home. People get a bit depressed and hey presto - are able to act on a suicidal impulse because the means to carry it out is easily available. But there aren't any more criminal shootings, I reckon than elsewhere. Indeed, the Swiss police have no need to be armed.
give it a couple of millenia and everyone will be worshiping the big apple in the sky or the giant golden arches
I partially agree with the gun argument but with one big reservation. virtually everyone in the USA is able to own a gun by right. it is their constitution. guns are endemic and they couldnt get rid of them even if they wanted. we have no such freedom of weapons and I personally wouldnt know where to get one even if I tried. so the suggestion that there would generally be more shooting if the police had guns doesnt stand. joe public would also have to have acces too - what they dont. criminals or serious heavyweight gansters have always managed to obtain firearms so that wohldnt change.. criminal fraternity in the UK are seemingly able to get weapons at will and generally use them if the need arises to achieve their goal. there have been a few recent occasions where licenced gun holders have gone on the rampage over here. so maybe licensing needs looking at. but arming those 2 poor manchester female cops possibly would have saved them or given them a chance against that unhinged idiot who took their lives... its a difficult one
We have gone a bit off topic but do you not think that the gun holders would have used something else to kill if they didnt have guns? I have several guns and have not killed anyone. Not many criminals have gun licences.
I agree and have grown bored of argueing the toss on this subject, everytime something like these crimes happen,be it murder rape or this extremist atrocity, those that want a good nights sleep safe in their ivory towers will point out why we must all toe the "we're above taking severe measures as it doesn't befit our civilised society direction." Now I can understand that you cant predict when these crimes will take place and be there with deadly force to stop it, but unless you start to be more proactive and toughen up on known nutters then you reap what you sow , all the fancy rhetoric will not keep us safe. And that's the crux being safe, if it's not you or your family being safe day in day out ,I'm pretty sure ,in fact I'm certain you'd be squealling like a stuck pig asking for any means possible to protect your cosseted little lives.
Having every police officer routinely armed wouldn't have prevented any of the horrific events mentioned in the thread though, maybe having more members of SCO19 on patrol might reduce the delay in getting armed specialists on location but giving every cop a Glock won't help. Everyone's family would be kept a lot safer by having more traffic police out there, that's the biggest danger to everyone, not isolated incidents of lunacy.
well theres room for debate there Constable fionna bone and Constable nicola hughes may strongly disagree as would any police officer who has been shot by a criminal can you explain that if these 2 police officers were armed that it wouldnt have changed the outcome contrary to you last post
generally i dont think there is a need but you would be shocked if you knew how many armed response vehicles were in some police forces.
As I understand it the two officers in question were called to a reported burglary and were ambushed by Dale Cregan whi fired 31 bullets and used a hand grenade in an attack that lasted just over 30 seconds. Being armed is only a protection if you know you are going into a situation where you will need to be armed which they didn't. They were lured into a situation where they would be vulnerable and not expecting an attack and subsequently murdered before they would have had time to react. How would having a gun have achieved anything apart from giving Cregan two more guns from dead police officers?
