Terror attacks again in London (London Bridge)

June 09, 2017, 08:05 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Fenris:
What is little appreciated, is this is not a war between Mohammedans and the West. It is a war between Mohammedans and everybody. They deliberately slaughter people from all countries and all faiths. Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, Atheist, and other Mohammedans. Did I miss anyone or did they? Don't worry. Eventually they will try to kill or convert everybody. It is a central tenet of their faith.

You missed out a good few there, Sir, but I'm sure it's only a matter of time. Thankfully, most moslems are somewhat averse to the generally cold conditions of the Arctic, and the Inuit people of Nunavut have been spared their unwelcome intentions. For some reason, and who can reason with a dog?, dogs in general do not like moslems, and our Inuit brethren have plenty of them.

On a more sombre note, lets agree, all of us, that the UK needs to get its ass in gear, and do something more positive about this very real problem that's here right now. Me, I'm prepping - I don't care who reads this post - GCHQ/NSA - I will not go down for lack of ammunition. While I was away - an often thing during the 'Troubles', mrs tac had a gun and the will to use it. A white paper rectangle was stuck on the inside of our front door to use as an aiming mark if needed. mrs tac could empty her 17 rounds of +P in less than ten seconds through the paper at chest height in a 'Mr Sniper, Sir!' fashion.

Not so easy now, but anything that a 9mm can do, a .357Mag can do, too. And I have one of those if needed, albeit with a long barrel.

I WILL defend myself and my family.

tac

June 09, 2017, 08:36 AM

FiveFiveSixFan

quote:
Originally posted by tacfoley:
quote:
Originally posted by FiveFiveSixFan:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by tacfoley:

...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by FiveFiveSixFan

I was aware that many in the police forces themselves do not wish to be armed prior to this thread. That matters not. Leadership is about making hard decisions and choosing the best course to implement them.

Among the highest priorities of any government should be the protection of its citizens, especially when many of those citizens lack the ability to defend themselves to the degree possible in other locales.

If it is determined that an unarmed constabulary is a concept which should largely be consigned to the dustbin of history, a good start would be to begin training and arming any current officers who don't have an aversion to being armed. All future hires should have no choice in the matter. It would merely be a requirement of the job.

That would at least be a start. Otherwise, you will continue to be dealing with police who, when faced with an opponent who is armed to an extent which they are ill-equipped to deal with, either run away or who, despite being ill-equipped, attempt to deal with the opponent anyway and become casualties themselves suffering totally unnecessary grievous bodily harm as a direct result of their valor.

You might find this odd, but I agree with everything that you have written. However, the sea-change required would be immense - not as immense as the population getting slaughtered on a daily basis by an alien race of murderous shite - but a totally different take on the actual existence of the UK as an entity.

As a former soldier, I take the proactive view - find them wherever they are, and kill them. Not argue with them, not use persuasion to convince them that they are acting irresponsibly, just kill them where they stand or lie, and move on to the next one. Singly or wholesale, I don't care.

Until the government - whoever they are - makes up its mind that there is a very real problem that all the 'watch lists' on the planet cannot deal with, then the UK can expect to suffer the consequences of its government's inaction in dealing with the insidious erosion of the UK way of life.

Poland has it right - no moslems are permitted to enter the sovereign territory.

So does Japan - again, no moslems, apart from embassy staff, are permitted to enter. I worked in Tokyo for almost eight years, and never saw a covered-head-to-toe woman or bearded PJ-wearing moslem, and my offices were less than a hundred yards from the Saudi embassy.

We don't have a problem here in UK with piranas in the rivers, because we haven't let any of them in.

There is a lesson there that any governments needs to learn, and fast.

tac

I don't find it odd in the least that we agree, tac. I rather suspect we'd be likely to agree on more subjects than not.

It would appear that the attitudes of the general public in the UK are beginning to be given more serious consideration and actually reported on as evidenced by this recent Sky poll which asked the following:

Would you support or oppose routinely arming all police officers in the UK with guns?

The results:

72% support
20% oppose
Remaining 8% either 'Neither' or 'Don't know'.

Even Londoners came out in favor of support by 68% to 25%.

There was also some interesting data near the end of the linked article detailing results of an earlier poll in February which asked members of the Metropolitan Police about their views on carrying firearms. It's rather noteworthy that only 12% responded that they would not carry a firearm on duty under any circumstances. Since that poll preceded the terror attacks in Manchester and London, that number could quite conceivably be even lower now. There is hope.

June 09, 2017, 08:36 AM

Hound Dog

quote:
Originally posted by tacfoley:

If you had been reading my posts in this thread, you would realise that it is the police forces themselves who do not want to be routinely armed.

And if the Home Office, that 'owns' the police forces, were to change that policy, then police officers would be resigning en masse.

Well, that goes straight to the crux of the issue. Your nation is literally under attack, and the govt and police WON'T take up arms to defend their land, their people, and their own lives. This attitude (no CCW, no OC, no Tasers, no effective self-defense weapons for the people OR most of the cops) is what makes England such a 'target-rich environment.'

As much as I respect your nation for its rich history, incredible military heritage, and long-time military partnership with the US, things need to change there if this terrorism epidemic is to end.

Your country needs many more men and women like you, Tac.

One could argue, also, that this attitude is a direct and natural result of decades of oppressive gun control. The antis in the US want to demonize firearms; to make people afraid of them (that's why they hate the NRA Eddie Eagle program - they don't WANT children to be 'safe' around guns; they want the kids to fear them). This results in fewer and fewer people growing up around and using guns, and seems to have resulted in the situation now where people would literally rather die than use a firearm for self-defense or defense of others against murdering invaders.

quote:
Originally posted by FiveFiveSixFan:

Among the highest priorities of any government should be the protection of its citizens, especially when many of those citizens lack the ability to defend themselves to the degree possible in other locales.

This is what gets me. The govt refuses to allow citizens (subjects?) the means to defend themselves, so they have an even GREATER responsibility to protect them. Fielding a police force where the vast majority are not armed is NOT the way to do this, IMO. Perhaps this worked in 1950 (Bobbies not 'needing' guns), but those days are long passed.