Looks like the U.K. will never be able to have freedom of gun ownership now

And now, eleven years later, there are more terrorists attacks being carried out on their own soil, in the areas that they must work.

 

Nyar, there's always been terrorism in the UK. I had the world's largest car bomb (at the time) explode a few blocks away before anyone even heard of Al Queda. I doubt there is more fear in the rank and file now but even if there was, it would need a massive swing from 82%.

 

But gun and knife attacks are up 7% from the previous year. Might make a difference in attitude.

 

Nor are you officially tasked with fulfilling the same duties and obligations of law enforcement officers, who are required to engage such individuals, and face such dangers in an everyday setting.

 

Maybe. I think violence against police officers themselves would make more of a difference.

In relation to general violence against the public, the debate would focus on the opinions of the public rather than the police...

 

No. but 82% of this officers rejected your dumb idea of throwing live bullets into the equation, despite decades of continuing terrorism

 

Then it would appear law enforcement officers in the united kingdom are quite content with not only being unarmed, but just as helpless and useless as any other member of the general public when something goes wrong. Perhaps they are secure in the knowledge that their unarmed state gives them a valid excuse for doing nothing beyond fleeing the location, and hiding, whenever there is an act of violence unfolding. They have authority over the public, but no obligation to actually use it when they face the possibility of getting hurt in the process.

 

Yup. I mean to compare and contrast the definition of freedom between us and them.

 

Hence why Police must care for themselves.

 

That is the reason why the public needs to be Armed.

 

This weasely flame-bait is below you, Xenamnes.

 

Perhaps so. But what other reasoning would explain an overwhelming disinterest in law enforcement officers being armed while performing their daily duties, when terrorist-related attacks are a very real and almost common occurrence in the united kingdom? Why would those in a position to potentially be armed, overwhelming refuse such an option being made available to them? What is the logical reasoning behind such?

 

There was once a famous member of the peerage, he was accustomed to throw his corespondance out a window, why ? Because people would find his letters and post them.
England, does not have as many Criminals as does the U.S., your regular neighbors pose no threat, however, there are your hardcore Criminals anywhere in the World, it is those few we must protect ourselves from, so must the valient officers of New Scottland Yard.

 

Well, they're at least talking about it. That's something.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...m_source=SocialMedia&utm_campaign=SocialPilot

 

What is your experience in Police work ?

And in what capacity that provides you with the expertise to answer such a question ?

Before I believe any posted statistics you may have access to, I know that any answers to any such questions have possibly been tampered with by politically appointed hacks.

 

But in the US, some states DO require a license for the exercise of the right to bear arms.

 

Not all of British police are unarmed of course, I know that Northern Ireland isn't.

How do unarmed police shoot their way out?

 

Ever see the Movie Dune ?

By using the Weirding way, the Psychic powers concentrated from the Spice and a small steam iron like device, no Guns are needed, and the user yells;

Chowwww Chuck !

And it is most effective.

 

That's right. Uniquely RUC was formed with the dual role of territorial army and police.

They call in the armed police, same as any other force. I was using some poetic licence, of course.

 

Yes. This runs contrary to established jurisprudence, and will be struck if it ever makes it to the SCotuS.
Because, as I said, the state cannot require a license for the basic exercise of a right.

 

Great movie. I must watch it again ...
.

 

And that is unconstitutional; though the courts have failed to overturn such laws as of yet.

Northern Ireland isn't "British". A person from Northern Ireland is considered a UK national, but he/she shouldn't be called British (because Great Britain is only Scotland, England and Wales). Irish is no good either, since that probably means from the Republic of Ireland.

I know they have to put up with being called "British" (at least in the passport), because there is nothing like UK-donian, or UK-ans....

They don't; but that's a situation a growing number of British police are wanting to change.

 

So what you mean is, they should not require a license for the exercise of a right. However, they quite clearly can, right or wrongly, constitutional or anti-constitutional.

 

Strange. That video has been taken down since you posted.