we both agree routine arming probably isnt best. but the current situation isnt good either. by the way north yorkshire has 1 arv to cover 320 square mile it was cut from 2 to save money. but all I dont agree with Is your generalsation that those officers would definitely be dead even if they had a firearm you just dont know that there were 2 officers the first shot didnt hit them both at the same time and may have even missed. they didnt die immediately. firing back with harsh language wouldn't work either wait for the report after tbe trial
We may be in danger of violently agreeing here. I'll be surprised if the report does say being armed would have made a difference but until it's in we can't know for sure. You're right about being shocked at the number of Armed Response units in North Yorkshire
and some survived because they were armed.also a lot of civilians survived because of the actions of the army/ ruc/psni. and I really take offence at sugestions the police were the cause of the ni problem.( not by you shadow )
we probably agree on more than we dont. always a difficulty of complex topics and busy lives and not having the time to be word perfect
At risk of labouring the bleedin' obvious, the two points made in this section of pb's post contradict one another. First it is asserted that if the police were routinely armed that does not mean criminals would be increasingly armed (because weapons are not readily obtainable), and there therefore would not be more shootings. Second it is asserted that criminals are able to get weapons at will, so this is a reason for arming more police in response. One or the other of those arguments might have some validity, but they obviously cannot both be right. That's why I asked if there was anyone who was unable to grasp the inherent contradiction.
you have taken my original quote out of context since there was reference to the USA I was making reference to the availabilityof weapons to all people that they have - we dont.
well no I didnt say that it doesnt necessarily no. you are presuming that all criminals have a desire to arm wiyh a gun for all crimes
serious villians drug dealers taxmen human trafficking armer robbers have been using guns for decades and more. it is obvious that if they choose to do so for the commission of their crime they can and will arm
I cant cut and paste on my phone. when I get home I will dust off the PC so I can do a full cut and paste and explain what I meant
I'm with you here FE. A decent memorial is needed. Not a little plaque, nor the naming of some insignificant cul-de-sac
