Yeah, and a officer armed with only a baton tried to intervene and stop ARMED attackers, then CNN writes a stupid article yesterday screaming “British police fire over 50 ROUNDS” to kill attackers. mmmmmm, lets see, 8 armed armed officers response to 3 knife attacking assholes, fire about 5 rounds apiece,mmmmmm, well, having been there and killed my share, I can tell you that during combat, unlike the movies, you rarely get a chance to “count” your rounds. Damn, the idiocy displaced here is laughable.
BTW, what if our baton carrying cop, actually was ARMED?, intervened and shot the fucks dead? How many lives would he have saved?
Only in GB and the majority of the rest of Europe is gun control more important than the lives of innocents. Hell, let the terrorists kill as many as they wish, we can always make more babies, but, by GOD, we got really good gun control laws, we are a model for the world, never mind the dead cops and civilians, we can live with that.
Every picture in the paper is of British police standing around with MP5s and 416s. After the fact. A few weeks from now how many of those officers will be back on patrol with nothing more than a nightstick? It’s madness.
Just a clarification - you’re describing here a very specific situation in the UK, with unarmed officers and strict gun control laws. It’s widely publicized and attracts most media attention, but things vary drastically across Europe
Out of top 25 guns per capita countries 14 are European:
The head of the Met Police came out and had to explain why so many rounds were fired and give excuses for the officers. Only in the UK do our Police have to be worried about using force and only around 5000 are actually armed.
If this was not in London where most armed Police are located lots more would be dead. Thankfully they were killed within 8 minutes of being called.
For all of you in Great Britain, my sincere condolences.
I guess this is more of a comment than a question, but the front page this morning had an article about how these low-tech attacks are so hard to thwart. It’s very hard to prevent someone from driving a car into a crowd, or using a knife. And these kinds of things are harder to monitor, no computer trail or group required. A bit of a wake-up call to all the gun control people, who imagine that they’re safer if trained, law abiding citizens and police are all unarmed.
If driving a car or truck into a crowd becomes the new method of choice? How do we fight that?
I think the far left has an answer. First off we need to ban whatever it is that these evil doers used to commit these outrageous cowardly attacks. So we make cars, knives, clubs, sticks and stones…you know anything that could hurt someone illegal.
I think in the US at least Pelosi, Shummer and company have cornered the answer to stopping terrorism.
Beyond trying to keep guns and explosives out of the hands of terrorists, there’s no defense for this kind of thing, right? I guess concrete bollards in areas with high pedestrian traffic. Vehicles and something low-tech like a knife? Everyone has these things.
I think the question is where the line is for arresting or deporting people who are essentially attempting to overthrow a democracy. @Legalsteel put up a video earlier of an Islamist on the street openly talking about raising the black flag of ISIS over parliament, and over every embassy, and having the queen wear a burka.
What are the current laws about someone talking openly about overthrow of the government? We tolerate this until they make a concrete plan?
More or less. Unless we catch them in a conspiracy charge, or unless they actively recruit (by name) for a prescribed organisation, they are operating within the bounds of the law.
It is incredibly frustrating. Internet regulations aren’t gonna cut it. Preventative policing and harsher policies for agitators need to be considered.
Yes and no. Perhaps there is no defense for someone driving on the sidewalk and killing people initially. But if everyone owned a hand gun I guarantee that once the car hopped the curb the driver would be dead within seconds.
As usual we need the exact opposite laws that the left desires. More hand guns owned by the citizenry means less killing of innocent people and less crime in general.
If radical Islamists want to see Allah faster all they have to do is go to a state in the US where hand gun laws are more lax.
The strategy has been increased military presence in places like Paris. I’d imagine that the UK will be gearing up to have more military/ armed police in the cities. Remember when we had the attack here in San Bernardino, CA in 2015? Imagine having enough armed police and military in a place like the Los Angeles valley. Unless you’re very, very lucky and someone like Idaho happens to be in the area, you’re going to be on your own for awhile.
I should know more about the legalities of it. Thank you. I was thinking about how you balance free speech in a democracy on one hand, with people who actually have a goal of tearing down the government, who are out on the street talking about replacing the national flag with the black flag of ISIS. These ideas, and the advocacy of violence to achieve them, are incompatible with our way of life. If that man on the street preaching Islamism and terror would not be allowed in the country, because he’d be seen as an extremist and vetted out, then why are we allowing him to stay once he’s shown himself to be radicalized?