Jump to content

Munich shooting


skygod

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Beaker71 said:

Someone at my work actually said to me that she felt safer in herbed jnowinf thst ISIS wont attack us because we have trident!!!  But then she also beleive that david cameron was a supwrb prike minister and actually said she believed westminster knows better than Scots when it comes to governing scotland.  Fully paid up member of the local tories, poor lass, doesnt have clue.

Only way to make these f**kers disappear is to stop their funding, i.e.  the USA and Saudi.

I want to go to herbed jnowinf, it sounds nice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/22/2016 at 6:18 PM, skygod said:

"Multiple casualties" reported.

In the light of this and the Nice atrocity, do people think that more UK police officers should be armed?

I've been in favour for a while now. I'd definitely feel safer if I knew that armed police could respond quickly to such an incident.

It would a regrettable step to take but the world has changed and measures have to change with it.

   

The problem with such a step that it's simply impossible to recruit/afford the numbers required in order to 'police' the streets properly.

Whenever a crime is committed, the first 10/20/30/40 people on the scene/first-responders are always civilians, therefore arming police will do little to change the overall outcome.

As can be seen from the Orlando nightclub shooting/s, you have a 'gun-free' zone that criminals who plan on committing a greater crime don't respect, the gunman went in there knowing full well that no one else would have a firearm, and picked them off one-by-one whilst the police sat outside like cowards, waiting until he gave himself up or killed himself.

Arming police without allowing your civilians to arm themselves is a recipe for disaster, either let it be a free-for-all, or have a strict ban on all firearms. A halfway house option doesn't work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/22/2016 at 7:15 PM, cammy_boy said:

Who says armed police cant respond quickly? 

Any half-competent gunman would've have killed 100+ civilians before the police had time to respond. The only reason these events don't have more casualties is down to the incompetence of the perpetrator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/23/2016 at 0:10 AM, skygod said:

 

It has always surprised me that terrorists usually choose big city targets.

Why not attack the public where they are least protected and at their most complacent - in small towns and villages? Think of the damage done by gunmen in Cumbria, Hungerford, Dunblane etc where they were free to kill at their leisure.

Hit say Aberfeldy, Aberystwyth and Aylesbury and you put the whole population in fear.      

 

I'm surprised that someone hasn't strapped a bomb to their chest, walked into an airport and joined the 'security'/body-scan queue with hundreds of folk in a compact area before detonating. 

The very things supposed to keep us 'safe' from terrorist threats are probably the next targets. 

Imagine the carnage if someone did such in Heathrow or CDG Paris?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rshedden said:

Anyone has now been shown the way to create mass terror without even having a weapon - steal a truck/bus and just randomly plough through groups of people in our city-centres. 

We should ban buses and trucks.

Bollocks. We need to arm our police with bigger trucks and buses. Demolition derby the radicalism out of the terrorists. 

Personally, I won't sleep sound until there's a policeman in a monster truck on every street in Aberfeldy. 

Edited by Zorro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Scooter said:

I could drive up King Street or Sauchiehall Street or any street using pedestrians like skittles and no amount of armed police is gonna stop mass carnage... unless we have gun towers on every corner... mon the totalitarian state of PRUK!! 9_9

"No amount of armed Police is gonna stop mass carnage"

No, but it's maybe the only means of putting an actual end to it happening at that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/07/2016 at 9:38 AM, rshedden said:

Any half-competent gunman would've have killed 100+ civilians before the police had time to respond. The only reason these events don't have more casualties is down to the incompetence of the perpetrator.

I know that. Having ordinary cops armed wont make a difference. You will only get more police killings like in the states. Armed police units have their use as a specialised resoponse unit but in the kind of situations we have seen recently, prevention is the only real means of making things safer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Scooter said:

 

3 hours ago, Squirrelhumper said:

Works well in America.

Another nightclub shooting, 2 dead and 17 injured.

It's not going to automatically prevent any incidents taking place, but rather it has the potential to minimise the damage as much as possible. 

Again, I can't see any negatives. If someone starts shooting randomly, it's better that there's the highest number of trained people possible to deal with it as prompt as can be, isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Dieter's Heeder said:

It's not going to automatically prevent any incidents taking place, but rather it has the potential to minimise the damage as much as possible. 

Again, I can't see any negatives. If someone starts shooting randomly, it's better that there's the highest number of trained people possible to deal with it as prompt as can be, isn't it?

Why should cops allowed to be armed, but civilians not?

Who protects us from the cops when they get trigger-happy and overreact to situations and 'accidently' start shooting folk being pulled over for minor driving offences and whatnot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, rshedden said:

Why should cops allowed to be armed, but civilians not?

Who protects us from the cops when they get trigger-happy and overreact to situations and 'accidently' start shooting folk being pulled over for minor driving offences and whatnot?

Is this in the same way that the cops already trained to use firearms are shooting motorists up and down the country on a daily basis? Or the ones who just carry pepper spray and spray random punters willy nilly without any repercussions?

It's absurd beyond belief that you're more feart of a specially trained cop shooting you for a minor road traffic offence than you are of an extremist attack in our country given the current climate and the somewhat laid back attitude UK cops have in comparison to the USA for example.

Skygod wasn't talking about arming every cop as they walk the beat or attend routine calls, but merely training more to use firearms SHOULD they be required to. You know, to protect you. 

Hypothetical question - in the event of a terrorist attack in King Street, Rugby Park, Silverburn or elsewhere, which you're extremely unfortunate to get caught up in, what would you want to happen? Would you console yourself with the fact the polis don't carry guns so at least everyone doing 34 in a 30 are ok?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Zorro said:

So let me get this right- we need to arm out police to the teeth, because of a terrorist attack that hasn't happened here yet, but the idea the police would abuse their new powers is ridiculous, because that also hasn't happened here yet?

Sorry but this is stupid. Infact it's not, it's pretending to be stupid in order to fit your make love peace out agenda. By your reasoning, is there a point in having Police out on patrol at all? Why try and prevent crimes which haven't happened? Is that how these things work?

Just if/when it happens, I hope that you're not the first to moan 'the Polis wur naewhere tae be seen as yoosual'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just FYI, I'm playing devil's advocate. I like to point our inconsistencies in reasoning because it sticks out like a sore thumb.

I'm entirely consistent in my views. I believe that everyone that wants to own a firearm should be allowed to, without any form of permit/licencing in place. I can't see why it benefits us that police carry weapons and we aren't allowed to?

After all, what's the point in licensing, really? If a bad guy wants to get a gun and starts shooting up in a public place, him not having a licence for the gun is the least of his worries. That's the point: bad guys don't give a s**t about breaking lesser laws when they plan on killing people, as they realise that as soon as they shoot a member of the public, every law they break after that one "comes for free". You're f**ked, either way, at that point.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Dieter's Heeder said:

Sorry but this is stupid. Infact it's not, it's pretending to be stupid in order to fit your make love peace out agenda. By your reasoning, is there a point in having Police out on patrol at all? Why try and prevent crimes which haven't happened? Is that how these things work?

Just if/when it happens, I hope that you're not the first to moan 'the Polis wur naewhere tae be seen as yoosual'.

I'm gonna guess comprehension ain't your strong suit. I'm one of the few advocating prevention through intelligence gathering, rather than this John Wayne, gung-ho, shoot everyone full of holes and let God sort them out bulls**t from the mungbean posse. 

There is adequate evidence to show police patrols reduce crime. I'd be interested in any evidence that shows arming the police, would reduce the number of terrorist attacks in the uk this year,  down from zero. Even the police aren't interested in every officer being armed. They don't see the need so why do you?

What other things that haven't happened would you like us to prepare for? Alien invasions? Zombie apocalypse? Lion attacks in Silverburn or Rugby park? Living your life in fear of the "what if?" Is exactly what the terrorists want to achieve. Arming more and more people doesn't reduce killings, it increases them. 

It seems to me, the guys most attracted to guns are the people with the most issues. Paranoia, insecurity, personal inadequacies, anger issues... The list goes on and on. Why anyone thinks arming this type of person is a good idea is beyond me. Peace n love bro xx

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rshedden said:

Just FYI, I'm playing devil's advocate. I like to point our inconsistencies in reasoning because it sticks out like a sore thumb.

I'm entirely consistent in my views. I believe that everyone that wants to own a firearm should be allowed to, without any form of permit/licencing in place. I can't see why it benefits us that police carry weapons and we aren't allowed to?

After all, what's the point in licensing, really? If a bad guy wants to get a gun and starts shooting up in a public place, him not having a licence for the gun is the least of his worries. That's the point: bad guys don't give a s**t about breaking lesser laws when they plan on killing people, as they realise that as soon as they shoot a member of the public, every law they break after that one "comes for free". You're f**ked, either way, at that point.

 

Did you see how it benefits us when the lad with the mental health issues tried to hack folk with a machete in a London tube station the other month before the Polis took him out with a taser? That's just the first example off the top of my head why Police carry weapons and civilians don't. 

A firearm as well, I'm sure Zorro thinks that a big hug would have been suffice. Sack the plod now.

For the record I think it'd be a great world if nobody carried weapons, police included. But bad people use weapons to do bad things to good people, so it's necessary to have some sort of control. 

19 minutes ago, Zorro said:

I'm gonna guess comprehension ain't your strong suit. I'm one of the few advocating prevention through intelligence gathering, rather than this John Wayne, gung-ho, shoot everyone full of holes and let God sort them out bulls**t from the mungbean posse. 

There is adequate evidence to show police patrols reduce crime. I'd be interested in any evidence that shows arming the police, would reduce the number of terrorist attacks in the uk this year,  down from zero. Even the police aren't interested in every officer being armed. They don't see the need so why do you?

What other things that haven't happened would you like us to prepare for? Alien invasions? Zombie apocalypse? Lion attacks in Silverburn or Rugby park? Living your life in fear of the "what if?" Is exactly what the terrorists want to achieve. Arming more and more people doesn't reduce killings, it increases them. 

It seems to me, the guys most attracted to guns are the people with the most issues. Paranoia, insecurity, personal inadequacies, anger issues... The list goes on and on. Why anyone thinks arming this type of person is a good idea is beyond me. Peace n love bro xx

 

Nobody suggested that Police carrying guns would PREVENT a terrorist attack, only that it might help to minimise the number of casualties if there is one. The Police say they don't see the need for it because they don't have the money to finance it. It's all politics and money, I'd have expected you to know that.

Exaggerating your argument is doing you no favours. As far as I know the alien invasion and lion attack threat level isn't sitting at severe. 

Intelligence gathering in this country is of a high standard but it can't possibly prevent everything.

Edited by Dieter's Heeder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dieter's Heeder said:

Did you see how it benefits us when the lad with the mental health issues tried to hack folk with a machete in a London tube station the other month before the Polis took him out with a taser? That's just the first example off the top of my head why Police carry weapons and civilians don't. 

A firearm as well, I'm sure Zorro thinks that a big hug would have been suffice. Sack the plod now.

For the record I think it'd be a great world if nobody carried weapons, police included. But bad people use weapons to do bad things to good people, so it's necessary to have some sort of control. 

So a non-lethal method was used to subdue a maniac, affording the police the opportunity to question and ascertain any motive, as well as giving them potential scope for intelligence gathering, had it been a terrorist? Seems like the metropolitan police recognise shootouts aren't the be all and end all of dealing with "bad people". Either that or they've learnt lessons from the illegal execution of Jean Charles De Menzes. 

Quote

Nobody suggested that Police carrying guns would PREVENT a terrorist attack, only that it might help to minimise the number of casualties if there is one. The Police say they don't see the need for it because they don't have the money to finance it. It's all politics and money, I'd have expected you to know that.

Exaggerating your argument is doing you no favours. As far as I know the alien invasion and lion attack threat level isn't sitting at severe. 

Intelligence gathering in this country is of a high standard but it can't possibly prevent everything.

If its minimising casualties you're after, the 1140 people killed by the US police last year, should point you towards the most effective way of doing it. And in my experience public bodies tend to play-up potential risks rather than saying they don't need something, when it comes down to money. Those budgets wont increase themselves without a bit of political pressure. 

Ps did you miss former defence minister and now chancellor of the exchequer saying Scotland would be under threat from attacks from space if we became independent?  I don't know if he thought the threat level was severe though. Anyway, the Martians may take our deep fried mars bars, but they'll never take our FREEDOM!!!  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Two armed men who took hostages at a church near Rouen in northern France are dead and one hostage has been killed, police and media have said.

The hostage-takers were reported to have been holding between four and six people at the church in Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray.

A priest and two nuns, as well as churchgoers, were among those held, local media said.

France 3 television said a number of shots had been heard."

 

Fancy that - innocent hostages' lives saved by armed policemen!

Sadly, the poor priest had his throat cut.

Too bad we couldn't have had a reasonable discussion on the subject without it descending into ridicule.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...