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

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: fleabit
People always seem to claim that armed citizens will stop crime. But does it? Not really. Did it save anyone in Florida when a disgruntled worker killed 5 employees and then himself? Nope. Did it save anyone when a crazed lunatic raided a gay bar? Nope. There is quite a long list of tragedies were concealed gun laws utterly failed to make a difference. The only time you hear about how the glory of armed citizens stops crime in its tracks, is the rare story of an armed home owner shooting a burglar. Those often gets dozens of pages of responses here.. as if those rare occurrences totally justify guns.

The problem with your argument is that, if an armed citizen shoots a bad guy and stops the killing spree... it's not reported as a killing spree.

There are multiple incidents where someone was stopped at a very early stage, not just "rare story" of a home owner shooting a burglar. Often those incidents start with some firing indiscriminately into a crowd of people.

For example, a second nightclub was attacked about two weeks after the Orlando shootings, did you know that? The attacker was stopped by an armed patron, with only three victims falling before he was stopped.

Or the guy who opened fire with a rifle in a shopping mall in Oregon - it was a CCW who stood their ground and challenged him, thankfully before anyone was hurt.

Then there was the guy who rammed his car into a church parking lot and started shooting at people - stopped by a member of the congregation with a CCW.

Or Kiet Thanh Ly, who flipped out and started stabbing people at a supermarket screaming "YOU KILLED MY PEOPLE!" - stopped by a customer with a CCW.

Or Peter Odighizuwa, who walked into a law school, executed some members of faculty, then started to fire randomly into a crowd of students, killing at least one - stopped by armed students before more people died.

Did you hear about the guy who decided to go to his doctor's office and shoot everyone? Probably not, as the doctor used his CCW to stop the attack after the first victim was killed. The shooter had a pocket full of ammunition, potentially 40 victims if he used it all.

The list goes on, and on, and on. Do you know which incidents you DO hear about? The ones that DON'T get stopped.

The disgruntled employee case is a bit different. It's not a random attack in a public place. You tend to keep your guard down at work and some companies may prohibit CCW anyway. As the doctor's case above shows, even those incidents can be stopped if you're able to react.

CCW of some kind is not a guarantee, I completely agree with you. What I do think, however, is that it's better to have a fighting chance than no chance at all.

Such BS examples.

Sadly because of the USA's gun addiction/problem, googling Oregon Mall Shooting returns numerous hits. Most seem to end with Police rather than some CCW hero.

Wasn't Peter Odighizuwa stopped by unarmed students, or a Police Officer and County Sheriff?

But thanks for your list of vague untraceable stories.

Did you hear about the guy who had a concealed licence and killed his whole family? No. Oh well. And that other guy who bought loads of guns and ammo and killed a load of people, he had a concealed licence as well. Here's another one for you to google, man kills other man with gun.

The main difference is the lack of gun crime in UK means its safer to keep your distance, in America every nutjob can get a gun, so every wanna-be Rambo gets one on the off hope their fantasy act of stopping a crime comes true.

The sad FACT is they are more likely to shoot their own daughter than ever stop a crime. But hey, whatever keeps your ego happy right?

What a horrible life you must have if you feel the need to carry a gun everywhere, such paranoid fear.

a reply to: SudoNim

The gun addiction, as you put it, is the fault of the British Crown and not the US. Had King George not treated the colonies like crap, taxation without representation, quartering soldiers in private homes, ex post facto laws, due process diminished, letters of attainder etc, we would not have ever needed to rebel.

Our 2nd amendment, which applies to the individual, is to protect the right to keep and bear arms (it does NOT grant that right). It guarantees the citizens are able to keep a government in check that could / would otherwise run roughshod of the populace. Our government derives its authority and legitimacy through the consent of the citizens as well as the individual states.

If you look at lot of the shootings people like to use as examples have occurred in locations where the law prohibits a firearm. So law abiding citizens comply and criminals find a place where there are a lot of people who are not armed. Those individuals (not all) are individuals who are also disqualified from owning a firearm from either mental health adjudication or felonious conviction of certain crimes.

I love my country and like my government. I have trust in my country however that trust does not extend to the government at the same level. Our government answers to the people (contrary to the views of several politicians).

An armed population = citizens
an unarmed population = subjects.

a reply to: Xcathdra

You still have one of the most # and useless goverments in the west.

Your guns have not donr # all since the civil war.

Admit it, you have guns because you like them. There is nothing wrong with that, its a valid reason. But dont try telling me your guns do any good in this day and age of drones, tanks and attack helicopters or that your goverments politicians are any more accountable than ours.

a reply to: crazyewok

But dont try telling me your guns do any good in this day and age of drones, tanks and attack helicopters

Oh, wouldn't dream of it, 'cause you wouldn't listen.

or that your goverments politicians are any more accountable than ours.

Now in that, we're in agreement.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Wah wah, its always someone elses fault.

America is stuck in the middle ages if it thinks individual gun ownership is keeping a government in check.

Keep telling yourself that though, if it makes you feel better for endangering those around you. I'll enjoy my freedom while you embrace your fear.

a reply to: crazyewok

You're right... The US and its guns had nothing to do with World War I, World War II nor the cold war.

Maybe the US should go down the road of appeasement to our enemies being how well it worked for Neville Chamberlain.

No - we have guns because our government has guns. Let history be your guide here.

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.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: crazyewok

You're right... The US and its guns had nothing to do with World War I, World War II nor the cold war.

UK was not exactly a defencless easy target either and fought just as hard and for longer in both world wars.

So your argument is invalid.

originally posted by: XcathdraMaybe the US should go down the road of appeasement to our enemies being how well it worked for Neville Chamberlain.

Chamberlain made the best descion with the information avaliable. The UK was not ready for a war as it was still recovering from WW1 and a American caused depression. The UK was rearming.

And the UK when ready DID draw a line in the sand and DID stand up and fight in 1939....2 years before the USA did. And the USA was even less prepared for war!

originally posted by: XcathdraNo - we have guns because our government has guns. Let history be your guide here.

No you have guns because you like them and they are part of you culture.

Once yes they had that use but today they are just a cultural thing.

originally posted by: SudoNim
a reply to: Xcathdra

Wah wah, its always someone elses fault.

America is stuck in the middle ages if it thinks individual gun ownership is keeping a government in check.

Keep telling yourself that though, if it makes you feel better for endangering those around you. I'll enjoy my freedom while you embrace your fear.

Sounds like you might be afraid of gun owners...

originally posted by: SudoNim

But thanks for your list of vague untraceable stories.

Nightclub attack

Oregon Mall Shooter

Church shooting (stopped by off-duty policeman)

Kiet Thanh Ly

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.

Hospital shooter

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.

originally posted by: crazyewok
UK was not exactly a defencless easy target either and fought just as hard and for longer in both world wars.

So your argument is invalid.

Brush up on the lend-;ease act then get back to me.

originally posted by: crazyewok
Chamberlain made the best descion with the information avaliable. The UK was not ready for a war as it was still recovering from WW1 and a American caused depression. The UK was rearming.

So you arent familiar with the document that ended WWI then, leading to WWII. Mr. Peace in our Times set the stage for WWII. The UK lobbied very hard for the US to enter the war by the UK for years.

originally posted by: crazyewok
And the UK when ready DID draw a line in the sand and DID stand up and fight in 1939....2 years before the USA did. And the USA was even less prepared for war!

They drew the line after Hitler started annexing countries and continued to ignore that line until Poland. Yes the US was no where near ready for a global war. However when it came we became the "arsenal" for the allies.

Again brush up on the lend-lease act.

originally posted by: crazyewok
No you have guns because you like them and they are part of you culture.

Once yes they had that use but today they are just a cultural thing.

It is a part of our culture because its guaranteed by our founding document. It exists because of the Crowns behavior and we decided to ensure tyranny by the government could be checked by the people.

You and others who think getting rid of firearms is the solution are lacking in knowledge. Only law abiding people will comply while those wanting to do harm will have a field day. In almost every situation requiring a law enforcement response law enforcement is never on scene first. The suspect and the victims are first on scene.

The purpose of law enforcement, at least in the US, is NOT to protect the individual but society as a whole.

A nanny state is not the answer nor will it ever work.

Apparently hand to hand combat is not the function of community police. Get over it.

a reply to: EvillerBob

In your US examples all those incidents occurred in buildings where the law prohibits the carrying of a firearm, concealed or open carry, by civilians (LEO's are exempt). In the law school case an off duty officer had a firearm to end the situation. Had he not been present the outcome would have been a lot different.

The situations, again, are evidence where law abiding citizens who comply with the law are at the mercy of those who dont abide by the law. Also in all the scenarios (except law school incident) law enforcement was the last people on scene. The suspect and victims are there from the start.

originally posted by: angeldoll
Apparently hand to hand combat is not the function of community police. Get over it.

Does anyone from the UK know if your law enforcement is required to act?

"I do not choose to be a common man,
It is my right to be uncommon … if I can,
I seek opportunity … not security.
I do not wish to be a kept citizen.
Humbled and dulled by having the
State look after me.
I want to take the calculated risk;
To dream and to build.
To fail and to succeed.
I refuse to barter incentive for a dole;
I prefer the challenges of life
To the guaranteed existence;
The thrill of fulfillment
To the stale calm of Utopia.
I will not trade freedom for beneficence
Nor my dignity for a handout
I will never cower before any master
Nor bend to any threat.
It is my heritage to stand erect.
Proud and unafraid;
To think and act for myself,
To enjoy the benefit of my creations
And to face the world boldly and say:
This, with God’s help, I have done
All this is what it means
To be an American

Bold was changed by me.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I'm not, xcat, and I haven't even read the whole thread, but doesn't it sound like they are sort of like security guards, people who call police if they see something wrong? Or people who give parking tickets and such?

I'm just guessing.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

Brush up on the lend-;ease act then get back to me.

You mean the trade deal the UK PAID for in full. Lend lease was not "charity" it was trade.

And as for American Guns? Sure we brought some but most our guns and weapons where BRITISH MADE. Bren Guns, Le Enfiled rifles, Webley revolvers ect As well as Spitfires, Hurricans and our british built navy......
Most the stuff we brought off the USA was raw resources.

Hell even you American have up until resently brough british gear like Harriers.

Weapons are not a American only domain and certainly not so in WW2

originally posted by: crazyewok

They drew the line after Hitler started annexing countries and continued to ignore that line until Poland.

And the USA did sweet # all after poland too. You did not get invloved until you where actually attacked.
UK was not ready for war. Appeasement brought time until we where and at least we did something when the germans inavded poland....unlike the USA.

originally posted by: crazyewok
Yes the US was no where near ready for a global war. However when it came we became the "arsenal" for the allies.

Again brush up on the lend-lease act.

Lend lease was trade. Hardly a selfless or brave act especially when you got so much out of it IE the death of the british empire and reign of the USA as the sole superpower.

originally posted by: crazyewok


You and others who think getting rid of firearms is the solution are lacking in knowledge.

And this is where your argument becomes TOTALY FLAWED AND INVALID.

Why?

BECAUSE I HAVENT GODDAMED SAID THE USA SHOULD GET RID OF GUNS!

Your guns laws are your own dammed buisness. What works in the UK wont work in the USA. Especially when you have 300 million guns floating around.

Keep your guns. Not my country. If you want them have them.

originally posted by: crazyewok
The purpose of law enforcement, at least in the US, is NOT to protect the individual but society as a whole.

We dont have law enforcement in the UK we have police.

We have a compeletly diffrent police culture and glad of it.

But again your country so your police force. If you like haveing roided up retards with military hardware forcing the goverments whimes on people? Well go for it.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

"I do not choose to be a common man,
It is my right to be uncommon … if I can,
I seek opportunity … not security.
I do not wish to be a kept citizen.
Humbled and dulled by having the
State look after me.
I want to take the calculated risk;
To dream and to build.
To fail and to succeed.
I refuse to barter incentive for a dole;
I prefer the challenges of life
To the guaranteed existence;
The thrill of fulfillment
To the stale calm of Utopia.
I will not trade freedom for beneficence
Nor my dignity for a handout
I will never cower before any master
Nor bend to any threat.
It is my heritage to stand erect.
Proud and unafraid;
To think and act for myself,
To enjoy the benefit of my creations
And to face the world boldly and say:
This, with God’s help, I have done
All this is what it means
To be an American

Bold was changed by me.

But a bunch of dross.

Someone of the best entrepreneurs in the world have been Brits from humble beginnings.

And the USA is home to some of the biggest welfare leeches.
In fact both country’s have its share of welfare leeches and entrepreneurs.

And I don’t take “handouts” nor am I anyone’s slave.

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.

As 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.

As for police verse law enforcement and a completely different system you again are wrong. Its like arguing you dont have officers but constables. The law enforcement system in the US is based on the British model - Policing by consent. If you want to get into the semantics game you can do it all on your own as its nothing more than a deflection. The few differences that do exist are, again, a direct result of the Crowns actions and our new government, not wanting a repeat of the crowns actions, specifically addressed the problems.

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.

so 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. Restricting 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.

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.

a reply to: crazyewok

Complaining about welfare leeches in the US is rich coming from a person living in the UK. Hows your health system doing? Why are terrorists on UK watch lists receiving government assistance, including money? The Manchester attack occurred because the terrorist bought his bomb supplies with money he received from the government.

Unlike the UK US states are separate sovereigns from the federal government with their own laws and governments, including "welfare".

I posted the item to try and get you to understand the US. You blew it off and since ignorance is a choice, all I can do is let you remain ignorant of the facts and American culture.