god these people are retards. on my uni forum, and their argument against arming the police, is because it will make the criminals get more and better ones. heres one of my replys:


--
as far as i can see is that it comes to two things:

First, police need for firearms: i.e how many people dying a year is an acceptable number, i need a number from you.

second, you think arming police with bigger and better weapons will escalate it. that is not the case because:

a/SWAT are already armed to the teeth, so they have bigger and better weapons, the only difference is responce time, so basically your saying it's ok for police to be fully armed....as long as criminals with guns get a head stsart to do what they want to do.

b/using the don't advance further logic, would be like saying after ww2 britains soldiers should only ever use bolt action/old rifles, so other countries wouldn't make more advanced ones...that naturally wont happen and for the same reason it wont happen with criminals. It's clear for all, that as there is a unarmed police force, criminals are getting more and more and better guns....and yet the police arn't gettign any....do you not kinda see the pattern the criminals are following? if not, well nevil chamerbain eat your heart out!

__________________
I am a stone, I do not move. I take my time, I let him come closer. I have only one bullet. I aim at his eye. I do not tremble, I have no fear.

I agree. Taking guns away from the police will only make them easy targets for criminals with cop killer assault weapons. It's like taking guns away from soldiers because we fear that the enemy will only get bigger and better weapons. It just doesn't work like that. If anything the police need BETTER weapons than they have now, and by that I don't mean more lethal. I mean they need weapons to stop criminals as best as they can. If that means automatic weapons... so be it. No criminal will ever openly shoot at a SWAT officer and survive.

i liked this point i made.

heh, though i've now been called a troll and a gun nut because i advocate police carrying weapons.

it's funny how these ppl think all guns should be smelted and they are evil....i ask have you ever used one....silence. i also asked them how many dead ppl per year would be an acceptable number to keep the police unarmed.....i've asked that 5 times, naturally they haven't answered.....they liberal, pacifist pansie hippy neville chamberlains don't like facing up to the concequences.

__________________
I am a stone, I do not move. I take my time, I let him come closer. I have only one bullet. I aim at his eye. I do not tremble, I have no fear.

LMAO

I got to admit that firearms is one issue that I think I completely agree with you on.
My solution would be to let the police skip the handgun and go straight to the fully automatic rifle. That way you beat them right away at having the better ones. What are they armed with right now anyways?

__________________
Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness ~Thomas Paine

yea, defiantly a topic i can agree with a lot of people here. i find it funny that liberals in general, are usually more for restrictions than conservitive are, thats not what true liberalism is all amout, they have bastardised it by letting hippies, soccor mum, idiots, form political thinking. though i doubt the ppl in the forum are even liberals, they are 'too' wet sponge, spineless, hippy, pounces to even be liberals, they must be hippies or socialists ....or just plain stupid.

they started the "bigger and bigger weapons"...and i was like, what? what are they gonna get, a tank? the came with BS about if criminals had a nuke, should the cops? ur not gonna get much better than a well aimed m-16

they preach open mindedness, and tollerance...yet when i agreed with arming police i was called a troll and a gun nut.

this is me replyingto one of the retards:


i have, and i came to the conclusion that im in england, and people fear things they don't know about - it's natural. i don't get annoyed by peoples ignorance on the suspect, i as someone who has seen the effects of both (which i doubt ppl arguing here have) i am trying to impart knowlege on people, who don't really know enough about it, apart from conjecture and rumour.

they said i was being condensending, i said "i didn't intend to, i was just saying it how it is."

__________________
I am a stone, I do not move. I take my time, I let him come closer. I have only one bullet. I aim at his eye. I do not tremble, I have no fear.

im writing a lot, but im rhilled up:

they are saying no because it would be bad, i have seen the effects of arming police in n.ireland, and i can see it in england...they haven't , they haven't even used one. they are retards and hippes of the most usless kind, they're the ones that would probally figure that we should have smelted all our weapons in 1938 to stop hitler attacking ppl....goddam hippie, i hate goddam hippies.

__________________
I am a stone, I do not move. I take my time, I let him come closer. I have only one bullet. I aim at his eye. I do not tremble, I have no fear.

heh, Nice Cartman rant.

I can't understand why they would be willing to put their lives in the hands of unarmed police.

__________________
Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness ~Thomas Paine

i liked making that point. apparently englsih people are very happy with armed police....as long as they give the criminals a head start

heres a good one someone wrote./....all on the fact that i supported armed police:

my reply: "heh, you get all that from me choosing one of the options in the poll alright, well, you have a nice night monty."

theres no point even trying to argue with some people, their only cure is a lobotomy.

sic - apparently they think police officers will "judge" people in the streets and execute them. they say how can the police decide if it's ok to kill some one, the courts do that. i was like "ohhh, i dunno, maybe after he smeared 10 people brains on the pavement the police may kill this one man to stiop him killing 10 more?"

heh, then told him he spends to much time watching judge dread.

__________________
I am a stone, I do not move. I take my time, I let him come closer. I have only one bullet. I aim at his eye. I do not tremble, I have no fear.

If policemen had fully automatic weapons, I guarentee that crime would go way down. Here in the US, cops are armed, but they often are outgunned by criminals (with the exception of SWAT teams). It's funny that liberals who don't like guns have no solution as how to beat these scumbags with illegal firearms that will kill any man woman and child in their way....

But that's a general problem with "liberals". They have no solutions, just complaints. It's easy to complain about police brutality because it's in the public eye. But it's not easy to pinpoint the more important but less visible problems such as criminals with illegal firearms.

I have no problem with the police being properly armed. I see it as that they carry weapons so that I wont have to. However I do not appreciate when the cops load their weapons with ammo that has been banned for use in war (for use against people). Our own cops recently made this switch and it has stirred up quite a scandal, they claim that they need the increased stopping power, I say that using these things makes them criminals in my eyes.

__________________
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he doesn't become a monster.
Friedrich Nietzsche