tighter gun laws on the way ?

[Scully]

I believe if you read back you will find several references in posts to the virtues of ccw .and all made before the topic was as you claim hijacked.and then your next sentence extolls the benefits of ccw.

But no reference to Dirty Harry nor Rambo, 'til you showed up that is.

Yes, I have extolled the benefits of CCW, but by selected, vetted, highly trained ex service or Police personnel, and not any Tom, **** or Dirty Harry.

Had no idea **** was censored. How about Spotted Richard? No, that seems ok.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Scully

[poontang]

 

I had suggested the possibility of highly trained and competent ex and serving armed forces personnel / firearms trained police officers carrying concealed firearms at times such as these. Surely even that little concession is better than the alternative?

 

 

I'd go along with that scenario.

 

If we can trust a police officer to be armed on duty I can see no reason he shouldn't be trusted off duty. No reason either that a retired firearms officer couldn't be kept on a retained basis, obviously depending on his fitness to carry out the role.

I suspect the public would feel quite reassured at times like this to see an armed military presence on the streets too. I think the armed forces command a huge amount of respect from the average man on the street at the moment, so it's unlikely there presence would be deemed 'oppressive'.

 

Civilians are not trained or equipped to kill.

[bostonmick]

You would wonder how they manage here with armed civilians, and nothing like the things you seem concerned has happened.

 

 

I know civlians here that have personal protection weapons with no training. The police must think they could be usefull if the person is attacked, maybe you know better than the PSNI.

 

I wouldent bet on that. In the current situation having an unarmed police force pretty is stupid.

 

I have never really wondered about how you manage in the north.lived in the south for many years and even then never gave it much thought,

I am not to sure how those untrained carriers would manage in a true crisis situation but again not my concern.

jut watched a itv programme about paris and the aftermath there was one part where the people laying flowers heard a loud bang and panic set in quite understandable but if there were armed untrained public in the crowd I wonder what could have been.we do have armed police here but they are the ones that apply to be armed.

[ordnance]

 

Civilians are not trained or equipped to kill.

If so why are some civiilans here issued permits for handguns for personal protection from terrorists by the police.

 

 

I have never really wondered about how you manage in the north.lived in the south for many years and even then never gave it much thought,

I am not to sure how those untrained carriers would manage in a true crisis situation but again not my concern.

Its a example of some citizens already armed in the UK and the things you seem concerned about have not happened.

Edited November 19, 2015 by ordnance

[grrclark]

 

I'd go along with that scenario.

 

If we can trust a police officer to be armed on duty I can see no reason he shouldn't be trusted off duty. No reason either that a retired firearms officer couldn't be kept on a retained basis, obviously depending on his fitness to carry out the role.

I suspect the public would feel quite reassured at times like this to see an armed military presence on the streets too. I think the armed forces command a huge amount of respect from the average man on the street at the moment, so it's unlikely there presence would be deemed 'oppressive'.

 

Civilians are not trained or equipped to kill.

A good balance and a sensible solution I think.

 

Personally I don't think we have yet got to the point of that needing to be policy, but then I have absolutely no idea of what the real current threat profile actually is.

[tx4cabbie]

Just out of curiosity, where do armed police and soldiers come from, that they are that much different to the rest of us substandard humans?

Don't get me wrong, I'm hugely respectful of the old bill and squaddies, both get free rides in my cab, and I'm sure most have more guts and moral fibre in their big toe than I have in my oversized carcass.

But the way some of you are writing, it's as though as soon as you pass out of Hendon or "join the professionals ", you undergo a physical change into a combination of superman and Walker, texas ranger!

Was having a chat with a couple of dpg lads outside an embassy the other day, and asked how their morale was, with the lack of backup from their hierarchy, and the attack on the police by Teresa may? They said that morale was in the toilet, with a lot of guys seriously considering handing back their armed role.

I asked why, they said at the moment they're expected to jump into situations involving firearms and explosives, terrorists and gangsters, lying politicians and iffy diplomats; even the ones who've come from a forces background may not have actually been involved in a real battle, and they now know that, in spite of whatever nonsense Intel they've been working to, they themselves will be held to account for something they do in the spur of the moment, reacting in a split second. It's only the training which gives them any edge, as by their very nature they are in a reactive role.

 

Were a "civilian" to be given a degree of training ( obviously it wouldn't need to be as detailed as that of a copper as they are expected to turn their hands to anything and make a good job of it.), surely they would stand a chance of not blowing their own foot off?

Or to look at it another way, would you rather be next to a 17 year old boy soldier just out of training who's high on adrenaline and testosterone, or a fortysomething married bloke whose been shooting most of his life, and has learned through bitter experience to look before he leaps, when things kick off?

[ordnance]

As i have already said civilians x police x soidiers woint be armed in the rest of the UK. They doint even trust armed police to have their firearms of duty.

Edited November 19, 2015 by ordnance

[mossberg-operator]

As i have already said civilians x police x soidiers woint be armed in the rest of the UK. They doint even trust armed police to have their firearms of duty.

WHY not?

[ordnance]

 

WHY not?

You would have to ask the powers that be. If they doint trust armed police or army to carry their firearms of duty, they definitely won't trust or allow civilians x police or x soidiers.

Edited November 19, 2015 by ordnance

[poontang]

Just out of curiosity, where do armed police and soldiers come from, that they are that much different to the rest of us substandard humans?

Don't get me wrong, I'm hugely respectful of the old bill and squaddies, both get free rides in my cab, and I'm sure most have more guts and moral fibre in their big toe than I have in my oversized carcass.

But the way some of you are writing, it's as though as soon as you pass out of Hendon or "join the professionals ", you undergo a physical change into a combination of superman and Walker, texas ranger!

Was having a chat with a couple of dpg lads outside an embassy the other day, and asked how their morale was, with the lack of backup from their hierarchy, and the attack on the police by Teresa may? They said that morale was in the toilet, with a lot of guys seriously considering handing back their armed role.

I asked why, they said at the moment they're expected to jump into situations involving firearms and explosives, terrorists and gangsters, lying politicians and iffy diplomats; even the ones who've come from a forces background may not have actually been involved in a real battle, and they now know that, in spite of whatever nonsense Intel they've been working to, they themselves will be held to account for something they do in the spur of the moment, reacting in a split second. It's only the training which gives them any edge, as by their very nature they are in a reactive role.

 

Were a "civilian" to be given a degree of training ( obviously it wouldn't need to be as detailed as that of a copper as they are expected to turn their hands to anything and make a good job of it.), surely they would stand a chance of not blowing their own foot off?

Or to look at it another way, would you rather be next to a 17 year old boy soldier just out of training who's high on adrenaline and testosterone, or a fortysomething married bloke whose been shooting most of his life, and has learned through bitter experience to look before he leaps, when things kick off?

 

I doubt there are very many serving squaddies who haven't served in Northern Ireland, Iraq or Afghanistan, where they will almost certainly have been involved in some form of direct contact with an enemy intent on killing them.

They're trained day in and day out to function under that sort of pressure. That's not something that can be taught in a classroom. To react quickly and think clearly in those situations has to become instinctive. It's a full time, ongoing job.

 

It's not about gun handling or becoming a superhero. It's about having the best people trained and equipped to react under extreme pressure.

 

Let's put it this way, I live in Colchester, a military town, and if the **** hit the fan I'd much rather a few tooled up squaddies dealing with any threat than the range officer from the local rifle club.

Edited November 19, 2015 by poontang

[spanj]

 

The problem is that the government do not want our help, they fear an armed proletariat more than they fear the terrorists and the accepted propaganda is that the government have the situation under control.

 

Helpless is as helpless does!

yup, this.

[ordnance]

 

It's not about gun handling or becoming a superhero. It's about having the best people trained and equipped to react under extreme pressure.

 

Let's put it this way, I live in Colchester, a military town, and if the **** hit the fan I'd much rather a few tooled up squaddies dealing with any threat than the range officer from the local rifle club.

They woint even arm the police, why would they even consider arming anyone else. Am i missing something.

[poontang]

They woint even arm the police, why would they even consider arming anyone else. Am i missing something.

 

It's a hypothetical argument as to whether it be a good idea to have an armed populace as opposed to the more obvious solution of having those already trained in counter terrorist operations more readily available.

[grrclark]

Just out of curiosity, where do armed police and soldiers come from, that they are that much different to the rest of us substandard humans?

Don't get me wrong, I'm hugely respectful of the old bill and squaddies, both get free rides in my cab, and I'm sure most have more guts and moral fibre in their big toe than I have in my oversized carcass.

But the way some of you are writing, it's as though as soon as you pass out of Hendon or "join the professionals ", you undergo a physical change into a combination of superman and Walker, texas ranger!

Was having a chat with a couple of dpg lads outside an embassy the other day, and asked how their morale was, with the lack of backup from their hierarchy, and the attack on the police by Teresa may? They said that morale was in the toilet, with a lot of guys seriously considering handing back their armed role.

I asked why, they said at the moment they're expected to jump into situations involving firearms and explosives, terrorists and gangsters, lying politicians and iffy diplomats; even the ones who've come from a forces background may not have actually been involved in a real battle, and they now know that, in spite of whatever nonsense Intel they've been working to, they themselves will be held to account for something they do in the spur of the moment, reacting in a split second. It's only the training which gives them any edge, as by their very nature they are in a reactive role.

 

Were a "civilian" to be given a degree of training ( obviously it wouldn't need to be as detailed as that of a copper as they are expected to turn their hands to anything and make a good job of it.), surely they would stand a chance of not blowing their own foot off?

Or to look at it another way, would you rather be next to a 17 year old boy soldier just out of training who's high on adrenaline and testosterone, or a fortysomething married bloke whose been shooting most of his life, and has learned through bitter experience to look before he leaps, when things kick off?

You're spot on, neither being in the police nor armed services confer any sort of super power to the person, they are just human like the rest of us, but with one big difference. They are very much trained to a process and that process has proven success.

 

I know both police and squaddies that I think are numpties, but in a given circumstance they pretty much always respond in a pre-determined and disciplined way and that is simply as a result of repeated training and conditioning. More importantly the training and conditioning regimes that they go through are time tested and proven.

 

There are of course people who are naturally inclined to behave in a certain way, but for the services both armed and civil, if we had to rely on sifting these out of the mix we would never have enough numbers. Instead we have found ways to shape people into behaving in a particular way, which incidentally also gives rise to a lot of problems when we take people out of that regime later in life, but that is a different discussion.

 

Of course there are civvies who could behave similarly, but those who live within a regime of discipline in conformance to a certain process will always perform better then those who drop in and out.

 

They're not superhuman and they most certainly are not all heroes, but by and large they are predictable, that is the biggest single difference.

[scotslad]

While i agree it probably would be a very good thing to have far more ARV cars, with the guns locked away for normal police duties on standby, and possibly some of these firearms cops on an almost permanent standby (for big emergancies) at there homes with guns locked away.

Possibly also some army teams on standby nearby the big cities etc.

 

But just having armed (even well trained) people just wandering the streets is not really going to help anything, the chances of them being in the right place at right time is so tiny.

Yes have a lot of highly trained mobile units that can react quickly, or pre empt anything if there is intellegence. But even that is not perfect but probably the best u can do

 

Bottom line is there will be a terrorist attack sometime which will be successfull (in there eyes) but ur still far more lkey to die in a RTA or off natural causes.

 

Really no point in worrying the chances off anyne being involved or killed is tiny too, far more relevant things to worry about. When ur numbers up ur numbers up, more likely to trip over and fall down the stairs, yet no one is petioning for stair safety which IS more likely to kill u

[Vince Green]

Booking out a weapon at the start of a shift and booking it back at the end of the shift reduces a policeman's time on the street by a half hour every day. Thats why the ordinary rank and file policeman will never be armed.

Edited November 20, 2015 by Vince Green

[grrclark]

Bottom line is there will be a terrorist attack sometime which will be successfull (in there eyes) but ur still far more lkey to die in a RTA or off natural causes.

 

Really no point in worrying the chances off anyne being involved or killed is tiny too, far more relevant things to worry about. When ur numbers up ur numbers up, more likely to trip over and fall down the stairs, yet no one is petioning for stair safety which IS more likely to kill u

Yep, you're more likely to be trampled to death by a coo in a field, but so far no calls for a military coo to prevent that

[Scully]

Ah well, that's ok then. Makes one wonder what all the fuss is about really.

The point I'm trying to make is that if there are uniformed armed personnel on our streets they will either be avoided or targeted. The whole point of having intensely trained covertly armed personnel amongst the general public is that no one amongst the general public knows who or where they are.

The first thing to happen when a bomb goes off or gunfire erupts is gridlock; let's see a speeding ARV get through streets full of abandoned vehicles.

[amateur]

.............. no calls for a military coo ...........

 

Isn't that what they keep having in Africa?

[grrclark]

 

Isn't that what they keep having in Africa?

Yes they have military coups.

 

My reply was very tongue in cheek......

[amateur]

Yes they have military coups.

 

My reply was very tongue in cheek......

 

So was mine

[grrclark]

 

So was mine

Meh!

[bostonmick]

Ah well, that's ok then. Makes one wonder what all the fuss is about really.

The point I'm trying to make is that if there are uniformed armed personnel on our streets they will either be avoided or targeted. The whole point of having intensely trained covertly armed personnel amongst the general public is that no one amongst the general public knows who or where they are.

The first thing to happen when a bomb goes off or gunfire erupts is gridlock; let's see a speeding ARV get through streets full of abandoned vehicles.

Maybe I am missing something here but could you explain what this post has to do with the op of tighter gun laws coming.

[Scully]

Yes, you are certainly missing 'something' Mick.

It's about as relevant to the topic as your input and everyone else's. 😉

[STOTTO]

Maybe I am missing something here but could you explain what this post has to do with the op of tighter gun laws coming.

 

You are right of course but aren’t tighter gun laws as mentioned only designed to restrict the activities of the already law-abiding whilst leaving the criminal/terrorist element among society to operate with impunity until caught/neutralized, and while they are at it what about tightening the law on suicide vests??