It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Few Unarmed London Community Police Ran Away From Terrorists Leaving Citizens Alone

page: 10
16
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 11:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: crazyewok

Well for starters lend lease accounted for almost a quarter of British supplies (equipment / ammunition / planes / tanks / naval vessels / food) and was paid in full in 2006. That figure does not include the UK participation in the Marshall Plan nor the direct loans from the US to the UK.

we can continue debating the world wars however it does not change the fact the UK needed American guns / other military equipment to fight the Axis powers. If the UK didnt need them then Churchill would never have needed to keep lobbying the US to enter the war.

And we made 3/4 of our own.

We brought some and made most.

We wre not defenceless or totally reliant of US guns as we did have our own too,




originally posted by: XcathdraAs for you not saying the US should get rid of guns your insinuation is clear. You dont see a need for them in the US except for people to have them. That logic is fatally flawed and ignores history and the reason it was in the Constitution - it exists because of the British. I am sorry if you cant accept that fact and ignoring it doesnt make it go away.

Dont tell me what I am "insinuating".

Yes the USA had the 2nd amendment for the reason of government. Not denying thats was its original purpose.
But in this day and age of tanks and drones? That purpose is obsolete.
Still its a part of your culture. You want it still? Fine. But using outdated reasons to justify it is silly. You want guns because you like them.


originally posted by: Xcathdra
Gun ownership is severely restricted for civilians in the UK and after Dunblane handguns pretty much became impossible for civilians to own. With that being said the UK still has a gun homicide rate in low single digits per 100k people. For a country who has strict gun laws you still have gun violence and a major issue for police in the UK are the number of illegal weapons.


Yeah gun crime is IN THE SINGLE DIGITS. seems gun control works for us.

Doesnt mean it will work in the USA, not when you have 300 million guns floating about.

But it works for us. Cant complain are rare single digits. And even those single digits are restricted to gang bangers.


originally posted by: Xcathdraso long as that threat, along with terrorism threats exist, your law enforcement should be able to adequately deal with the situation upon arrival instead of having to wait for an armed unit to respond.

Take that up with UK police as they are the ones that dont want fo be armed. Though the majority of the police in big cities are now, infact all the police I see in london now are.


originally posted by: XcathdraRestricting gun ownership in the UK, as we can see with the stats, does not prevent the crime. It punishes the law abiding citizens by making them sitting ducks for those who dont care about the laws. They are at a further disadvantage by having to wait for a police response and then an armed police response.

Actually the stats show very very low gun crime, which means our gun laws are working FOR US.

again doesn't mean they will work for you. Diffrent countrys, diffrent situations.

quote]originally posted by: Xcathdra
The gun laws in Australia are just as strict as the UK when it comes to handguns yet their police are armed.
Gun laws in Canada are strict yet their police are armed.


The one area in the UK where police have always been armed is N. Ireland. Care to explain why they are armed? Could it be because of IRA terrorists?

Sky poll: Most Britons want police to be armed


The vast majority of Britons support routinely arming police officers in the UK, a Sky Data poll reveals.

Some 72% of the public say police officers should be routinely armed, while 20% think the police should not carry guns as a matter of routine.

Excluding those who answered "neither" or "don't know", 78% support arming police and 22% oppose.

The poll was conducted in the aftermath of terrorist attacks in Manchester and London.

Theresa May has come under pressure from Labour for presiding over cuts to numbers of armed police, while she in turn has criticised Jeremy Corbyn over his past opposition to a "shoot to kill" policy in the event of a terror attack.


click link for article...

The UK can do whatever it pleases regarding their police and gun ownership. Your police need to be armed considering the attacks and the thousands of refugees the UK took in who are on UK terror watch lists. ISIS wont stop until they are defeated or an ISIS flag flies over Parliament.

Why make it easy?

and just to recap our 2nd amendment is a direct result of the British.

Again thats something that needs to be taken up with the police not the people as its the police that resist being armed.

But as I said almost all london police are armed and most police in the big cities.

As for outside the cities? Well they afe not a terrorist risk.

And guns dont stop terrorism anyway, the thousands of dead Americans who have died at the hands of terrorists over the years will attest to that.




posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 12:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
And we made 3/4 of our own.

We brought some and made most.

We wre not defenceless or totally reliant of US guns as we did have our own too,

History disagrees with you. While you werent totally defenseless you also werent self sufficient and the longer the war dragged on the more US assistance was needed.




originally posted by: crazyewok
Dont tell me what I am "insinuating".

Then dont insinuate.



originally posted by: crazyewok
Yes the USA had the 2nd amendment for the reason of government. Not denying thats was its original purpose.
But in this day and age of tanks and drones? That purpose is obsolete.
Still its a part of your culture. You want it still? Fine. But using outdated reasons to justify it is silly. You want guns because you like them.

Again your just not getting it... The original purpose of the 2nd amendment is the exact same today as it was back then. As for tanks and drones you once again demonstrate a lack off understanding how the US works. Each state has its own military that answers to the Governor of the State and not the President. If the federal government goes rogue the people have a means to defend themselves.

Again its not because "we like them". The fact you keep coming back to that completely wrong conclusion bears out the fact you dont understand the US at all



originally posted by: crazyewok
Yeah gun crime is IN THE SINGLE DIGITS. seems gun control works for us.

Doesnt mean it will work in the USA, not when you have 300 million guns floating about.




originally posted by: crazyewok
But it works for us. Cant complain are rare single digits. And even those single digits are restricted to gang bangers.

If it worked your homicide by guns would be zero. Because its not your laws have failed.Tell the families of the people who were killed by guns just how well your gun control works. Explain to them why their relative is dead while the perpetrator is alive. Explain how your gun control laws protected the dead.




originally posted by: crazyewok
Take that up with UK police as they are the ones that dont want fo be armed. Though the majority of the police in big cities are now, infact all the police I see in london now are.

So your police are armed in certain cities because your gun control laws work so well. Please explain how that works?





originally posted by: crazyewok
Actually the stats show very very low gun crime, which means our gun laws are working FOR US.

again doesn't mean they will work for you. Diffrent countrys, diffrent situations.

If a law is passed in order to prevent something, and that something continues to exist / occurs, the law doesnt work. The law ties the hands of law abiding citizens while freeing the hands of the criminals breaking said law.




originally posted by: crazyewok
Again thats something that needs to be taken up with the police not the people as its the police that resist being armed.

So the people of the UK cant decide if their police, who operate under their consent, should be armed or not? You think the police should make that determination? That mindset is EXACTLY why the US has a 2nd amendment.

An armed population = citizens
An unarmed population = subjects

You dont find it backwards that your Parliament, Royal Family and government have armed police present to prevent anything while the ordinary people keep bearing the brunt of terrorist attacks? If only your government cared as much about the people as they do about their own safety.



originally posted by: crazyewok
But as I said almost all london police are armed and most police in the big cities.

and again your gun control laws have failed.




originally posted by: crazyewok
As for outside the cities? Well they afe not a terrorist risk.

Really? why? Lone wolf or terror cells are prohibited from operating / attacking in those areas? Which do you think will have a bigger impact on the population -

A - A terror attack in a large city where 10's of / 100's of people are killed
or
B - A terror attack in a small city / town village where 10's / 100's of people are killed with the mindset being it will never happen here?

The goal of these terrorists is to enslave everyone under their system. Everyone... by everyone they mean all and not just the large cities. Its only a matter of times before it hits outside large cities, in locations where the police arent armed and the population cant adequately defend themselves.




originally posted by: crazyewok
And guns dont stop terrorism anyway, the thousands of dead Americans who have died at the hands of terrorists over the years will attest to that.

Sure however we at least have a means for our citizens and law enforcement to defend against them.

If your police were armed how many civilians could have been spared being knifed / killed as opposed to the number of civilians who were knifed / killed in the 8 minutes it took for armed officers to arrive?

How many of your officers would not be in the Hospital with stab wounds to their face / arms / body's had they been armed?

Your gun control laws / our gun control laws are irrelevant to terrorists. If the UK government is unwilling to allow the people to defend themselves then at least arm your police to take that into account. The first line of defense will always be the person who is present - civilians. The government cannot protect every single individual person and its a growing problem to deny the people the right to defend themselves.
edit on 8-6-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 02:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: SudoNim

In this particular case our 2nd amendment is a DIRECT result of the actions of the British Crown. Our entire Constitution is because of the Crown. The existence of the US is because of the Crown.


Unsurprisingly I don't care about the 2nd amendment.

Great motto though, what's done is done and can't be undone. Someone told us to do something many years ago and no-one can change it now. America really is a backwards country.



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 02:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: SudoNim

But thanks for your list of vague untraceable stories.




Nightclub attack


So he managed to shoot 3 people before being shot? You consider this a success? I would say its a failure that the criminal was able to get into the club with a gun, or even get a gun in the first case. Guess that's what you get when everyone has access to guns. Yay! We shot him... but he shot 3 of us first. Fail.




Oregon Mall Shooter



Lets just ignore how horribly this article is written for a second. Not only did this Concealed Carry man HIDE BEHIND A PILLAR. He also didn't confront the shooter or shoot himself. He just credits himself with the reason the attacker committed suicide.

I'm guessing you were hoping people didn't actually read the article for this example.




Church shooting (stopped by off-duty policeman)



Again another example of a man with easy access to a gun. I love how the articles don't even care how he got it, its just Meh he had a gun. And he was shot by a policeman. How does this help your argument at all?



Kiet Thanh Ly



Ah! Finally a story that is at least similar to what you claimed.

Man stops murderer with knife using his concealed carry gun. After he had stabbed two people. The most shocking part of the article is his list of prior-convictions including threatening people with a knife. Why was he allowed out?




Peter Odighizuwa

Peter Odighizuwa was stopped by two students who also happened to be off duty LEO. Once challenged by the armed pair, the bad guy dropped his weapon and other (unarmed) students then restrained him.



Well you haven't bothered to read this case either. A police officer and a county sheriff after hearing gunshots ran to their cars where they both kept guns (sounds safe to me
). One account says that another student (former marine/police officer) unarmed subdued the attacker before they even got back from their cars.

Lets not mention the fact he had already killed 3 and wounded another 3 people. Or that nearly everyone in all your examples is an off-duty police officer or some form of law-enforcement officer.

This was a success right? Man shoots and only kills 3 people in a school and you raise this as a beacon of healthy gun-ownership. Pathetic.




Hospital shooter



Opening line. - "A psychiatric outpatient opened fire".

Land of the free! I wonder where he got his gun from, maybe he took it from the car of one of your other unsung heroes :
:.

"Hospital policy allows only on-duty law enforcement officers to carry weapons on campus"

So why did the doctor have his personal fire-arm? By disobeying the hospital policy. Maybe this is how the shooter found a weapon. A wannabe Rambo brings in his gun thinking he will save the day and ooops he left it in the room. Meh, oh well.

The fact that a hospital has to even tell people not to bring guns in with them is laughable.




Lack of gun crime in the UK? Go and tell that to the parents of the teen who was shot and killed in Liverpool a few days ago.

Teen killed in Liverpool

Interesting quote from the article:



It was the third gun attack in Merseyside this week: in Fazakerley, a 43-year-old man was shot in the chest, and in Seaforth, a 27-year-old man was shot in the arms and leg. Both attacks happened within 25 minutes of each other on Thursday.



Do you want to start comparing gun crime per capita against the UK? Please, please say yes. 2012 - 10% of murders in the UK included the use of a firearm, 2012 - 60% of murders in the USA included the use of a firearm. 10% or 60%.... and you think gun ownership is a good thing? Deluded.



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 05:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

Yeah gun crime is IN THE SINGLE DIGITS. seems gun control works for us.



Umm, no, no it isn't. It's certainly very low, thankfully, but quite common. Merseyside has had five shootings in the last 8 days.

5 shootings in 8 days

It's worth considering this: in both the US and the UK, firearms incidents usually occur within geographical clusters. In both cases, this means "cities". If you take those cities out of the equation in the UK, then as a country we have really negligible amounts of gun violence. However, the same also applies to the US. The actual level of gun crime per thousand people (or whatever way you want to count it) is very, very low in the US when you ignore the ghettos and look at the country as a whole. Those hotspots (in both countries) throw the whole thing off.

Just to be clear, it's still higher than the UK by quite some margin, but no where near as high as people think.



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 05:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: SudoNim
...and you think gun ownership is a good thing?


Yep.


originally posted by: SudoNim
Deluded.


Nope.



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 05:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Why are you so obsessed with UK gun laws?

Preaching and self righthous?

Most brits like me are happy for you Americans to have your guns.


As for gun control "it not working ". Your deffinition of not working is obviously diffrent.

Gun crime being reduced to single digits and being as rare as being struck by lighting and confined to gang on gang violence is a success to most people.
You will never get ride of anything 100% only reduce. By your dumb logic we should get rid of rape laws because they dont get rid of rape 100% or ban certain cancer drugs as ineffective as they dont have a 100% cure rate.

The armed police are not there for gun crime either but terrorists, a independent problem to gun crime.

Its works for us, the majority of the UK is happy with yhe guns laws.
Does that mean they will work or should be tried in the USA? No

As for police being armed? Again take it up with UK police, its they who resist. Its not even our goverment that refuse to arm them either as the government has proved willing, its the police who resist.



Your infatuated with your boom boom sticks I get it, doesn't mean every other nation will share that same infatuation.



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 05:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: Xcathdra

As for police being armed? Again take it up with UK police, its they who resist. Its not even our goverment that refuse to arm them either as the government has proved willing, its the police who resist.


It's also important to remember that the police were set up specifically to NOT be the military, and several of the choices made (including uniform and equipment) were designed to reflect this. Peel (who created the modern uniformed police service) was responding to the events of the Peterloo Massacre, where the military who were tasked with keeping order responded in the way they were trained - by drawing sabres and performing a cavalry charge into the crowd of boisterous, though unarmed and non-violent, protestors.



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: SudoNim

Then dont attack something you dont understand.



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: SudoNim

Then dont attack something you dont understand.


Says the self righthous arrogant American who doesnt understand British police culture.

We have diffrent cultures in regards to guns and policeing, get over it.

We have whats suits both our countrys.



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Yes we do however your arrogance is clouding your ability to think rationally. Your police need to be armed and this last terror attack underscored that. But by all means continue to bury your head in the sand and pretend everything is ok.

Again since you cant seem to get this through your head, the Police model in the UK is Policing by consent and its the exact same model we have hear. Our law enforcement here is based off law enforcement n the UK. What part of that confuses you?

Aside from Northern Ireland, where all your police are armed, there are over 7000 armed response officers across the UK. It looks to me that the mindset of your country on law enforcement being armed is changing.

The question then becomes how many more terror attacks and civilian deaths need to occur before you arrive at the right conclusion?
edit on 8-6-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Why are you so obsessed with someones opinion about law enforcement? I have a background in the profession where as you dont (based on your comments in other threads). Viewing the situation with experience paints a different picture than someone who doesnt have experience, like yourself.



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Arming all our cops is missing the point.

right now we have an issue with a specific group of jihadists intent on causing death and destruction.

Instead of changing how we all live, lets just round up the killers and their supporters and get rid.
Then our society can carry on in it's civilised way and we can all just enjoy life.



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: SprocketUK

There doesn't seem to be much of a problem getting rid of awkward witnesses.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


bastion

. . . they falsely imprisoned my Uncle for several years and shredded 10 years of documents of him working for MI5, MI6 and CIA exposing arms deals . . . selling Saddam his Supergun and once their illegal cover up was exposed in court and Parliament they murdered two of my aunties and finally murdered my uncle three years ago . . .


Have to wonder why the powers are so squeamish about rounding up known extremists and sympathisers.

Someone doesn't want us to enjoy a civilised life.
edit on 8 6 2017 by Kester because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: crazyewok

Why are you so obsessed with someones opinion about law enforcement? I have a background in the profession where as you dont (based on your comments in other threads). Viewing the situation with experience paints a different picture than someone who doesnt have experience, like yourself.


You have experience with US law enforcement not British policing.

We have diffrent societys, diffrent cultures and different problems.

Now I have relatives in the british police. They have there reasons for not wanting to be armed all the time. My uncle who is a detective in the met is firearm trained and certified but chooses to be unarmed unless dealing with gang bangers/ terrorists, be find being armed escalates things.



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Violent armed robber who threatened to stab and shoot children jailed


A man from Hackney has today been jailed after committing a series of robberies where he threatened to stab and shoot his victims, including several children.

Marvin Melvin-Browne, 30, (31.10.1986) of no fixed abode was sentenced at Wood Green Crown Court today, Friday 9 June, to six years' imprisonment and a three year extended licence after pleading guilty to seven robberies and four attempted robberies at an earlier hearing at the same court on Friday 12 May 2017.

Melvin-Browne committed the offences between 14 November 2016 and 21 January 2017 across Hackney. His victims were aged between 11 and 41 years.


click link for entire article...


Your police need to be armed. Your business as usual approach does not work.



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Unlike yours?

Hmmmm....horse for courses my friend.



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: Xcathdra

Unlike yours?

Hmmmm....horse for courses my friend.



Not sure what your getting at.. can you explain please.



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

We have armed police who are deployed when necessary.

You keep on insisting that our police force need to be armed exactly their US counterparts - they don't.

US policing approach isn't example the shining beacon that the rest of the world should aspire to really is it.
Even its most ardent supporters must surely recognise that it has many failings.

We in the UK know what's best for us just as you in the US know what's best for you.
When it comes to gun control and arming our police the UK and US really are an ocean apart and our societies require different approaches.

Keep your guns, Second Amendment and Armed Police etc and we'll keep ours the way WE want.



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Freeborn

Then I dont want to hear any bitching the next time people die while waiting for your armed police to show up.




top topics



 
16
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join