Turn on thread page Beta

How to deal with police that carry guns watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    You don't know what you're talking about.

    Handguns are banned in this country for all except the police and military. Rifle clubs exist but you can only use rifles there. Clay pigeon clubs exist but you can only use shotguns. All Handguns are banned. Even people like athletes who use target pistols have to leave the country to practise.

    I believe, though, that air pistols are different.

    No police in this country are routinely armed. This is a distinction you simply don't understand. Yes, some people are armed, but these are either at specific locations, are armed response or are anti terror.

    The Houses of Parliament always has armed police outside, so that argument is entirely bogus, which you'd know if you had an IQ measured in double digits.

    Buckingham palace also has armed guards outside all the time. They're called soldiers.


    This whole thing is about you allegedly feeling uncomfortable around guns, which makes the idea that you've had 'gun training' even more fanciful.


    There is no requirement for all police to be armed. Nobody is calling for it. Nobody wants it. And that includes the police.
    There are approximately 6000 armed police in the UK.
    There are approximately 130,000 police in the UK.

    The suggestion that all police are armed is, therefore, bolleaux.
    The police are regularly armed in Scotland for everyday payrolling on foot. It has been a bone of contention in the national newspapers for over a year. I can provide evidence if you want me to but I really shouldn't have to. I'm sure you can just google it.

    As for the club then I guess I must have been brealing the law then without realising it. Just as well an armed cop didn't turn up or someone would be dead. And why would the Labour MSP say they don't agree with it as if its real? Are MSPs also as clueless as you make me out to be?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by napkinsquirrel)
    You have this assumption that firearms officers in units such as so13 and so19 are somehow inadequately trained on how to use firearms or are too irresponsible to use them. What lead you to this conclusion? Any suspect who has warranted the dispatch of a firearms response unit would surely also warrant lethal force? It's not like constables on the beat are just being given firearms like some militia, they're being issued to units where they feel officers are more at risk of being attacked or there's a higher chance that an attack will occur. They have to requalify at least once a year on each weapon anyway so it's not like they don't know how use them. You seem very misinformed about the extent of firearm usage in the police.
    I am making neither assumption. They are very well trained - to kill. Killing someone is deamed to be responsible. Risk isn't a factor since they are armed as bobbies on the beat. I think visual witnessing of cops with guns trumps information every time. Ok I will get those photos cause you guys still doubt and seem unwilling to load google. Do I have to do everything myself?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    ahhh another rediculous thread on tsr. Armed police in the uk are actually pretty damn good compared to the rest of the world. By that I mean they very rarely make mistakes, they are extremely well trained, and unlike yank coppers, don't shoot the first thing that looks at them funny.

    Reference the "shoot to wound" argument, if you really had done "gun training" (lol) you would know that the shorter the barrel, the less accurate the weapon. Trying to even hit a target with a pistol over 25m away is pretty hard, let alone aiming for a leg. And even then, hit the femoral artery and it's all over.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aaronlowe)
    The police are regularly armed in Scotland for everyday payrolling on foot. It has been a bone of contention in the national newspapers for over a year. I can provide evidence if you want me to but I really shouldn't have to. I'm sure you can just google it.

    As for the club then I guess I must have been brealing the law then without realising it. Just as well an armed cop didn't turn up or someone would be dead. And why would the Labour MSP say they don't agree with it as if its real? Are MSPs also as clueless as you make me out to be?
    From Police Scotland's very own website:
    "Are all Scotland’s police officers now routinely armed?

    Absolutely not. There are only 275 highly trained specialist armed response officers, fewer than two per cent of our entire police service."

    But I'm sure you know that. After all, that only took a few seconds on Google...


    They have changed their policy recently whereby those few officers are seen in the streets more, hence the media coverage, but the idea that all are armed is, like you, simply wrong.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Also, so what if a cop carrying a gun goes to a nursery? Your making the assumption that all armed cops want to do is kill everyone. And by virtue of carrying a gun they pose an immediate threat to you... You need to man up a bit I yhink
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aaronlowe)
    The police are regularly armed in Scotland for everyday payrolling on foot. It has been a bone of contention in the national newspapers for over a year. I can provide evidence if you want me to but I really shouldn't have to. I'm sure you can just google it.

    As for the club then I guess I must have been brealing the law then without realising it. Just as well an armed cop didn't turn up or someone would be dead. And why would the Labour MSP say they don't agree with it as if its real? Are MSPs also as clueless as you make me out to be?
    Police will be armed for a reason, it shouldn't be contentious at all. This is simple fearmongering by cretins who have no clue about police armed response.

    A handgun would have been illegal if you used it after 1996. If you did, you were breaking the law. Otherwise, this "training" of yours will have been roughly 19 years ago. As for "training to wound", you expressed an intention to use the handgun for self defence, implying that this stance of being able to defend yourself would be acceptable yet in this thread you state that police shouldn't have weapons for defence. So you're either lying or being hypocritical.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:


    Two bobbies on the beat on the streets of Strathclyde. Want them to visit your kids school?

    From an English national newspaper.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by napkinsquirrel)
    Police will be armed for a reason, it shouldn't be contentious at all. This is simple fearmongering by cretins who have no clue about police armed response.

    A handgun would have been illegal if you used it after 1996. If you did, you were breaking the law. Otherwise, this "training" of your will have been roughly 19 years ago. As for "training to wound", you expressed an intention to use the handgun for self defence, implying that this stance of being able to defend yourself would be acceptable yet in this thread you state that police shouldn't have weapons for defence. So you're either lying or being hypocritical.
    There you go then. It was before 1996. Case solved lol

    I had no intention to defend myself. Just going through the course as a hobby.

    And there's no need to start throwing insults. We were having a reasonably adult conversation until now.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tim_123)
    ahhh another rediculous thread on tsr.
    Pretty sure aaronlowe is a professional troll. Or maybe he's a cow judging by how much bullsh*t comes from him.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aaronlowe)


    Two bobbies on the beat on the streets of Strathclyde. Want them to visit your kids school?

    From an English national newspaper.
    What point are you trying to make with this picture? Do they look aggressive, do they look like they will shoot you for no reason? No, they dont. Your posts just make you look like your whining for no reason. Grow up
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aaronlowe)
    There you go then. It was before 1996. Case solved lol

    I had no intention to defend myself. Just going through the course as a hobby.

    And there's no need to start throwing insults. We were having a reasonably adult conversation until now.
    You seriously expect us to believe that you're at least 32, if not older (as there's next to no chance any under 13 would have been allowed to use a handgun)?

    You're having a laugh, kid.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    From Police Scotland's very own website:
    "Are all Scotland’s police officers now routinely armed?

    Absolutely not. There are only 275 highly trained specialist armed response officers, fewer than two per cent of our entire police service."

    But I'm sure you know that. After all, that only took a few seconds on Google...


    They have changed their policy recently whereby those few officers are seen in the streets more, hence the media coverage, but the idea that all are armed is, like you, simply wrong.
    This'll be why the chief commissioner is being called to resign by MSPs. Cause cops never lie. Actually cop lie is an anagram of police lol
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    You seriously expect us to believe that you're at least 32, if not older (as there's next to no chance any under 13 would have been allowed to use a handgun)?

    You're having a laugh, kid.
    I'm probably old enough to be your father so who's the kid, kid?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tim_123)
    What point are you trying to make with this picture? Do they look aggressive, do they look like they will shoot you for no reason? No, they dont. Your posts just make you look like your whining for no reason. Grow up
    According to another poster which I will quote if I can find it, the police have a right to use lethal force if they feel threatened. As someone who was brought up in a country without guns does that therefor give me the moral right to behave the same?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aaronlowe)
    There you go then. It was before 1996. Case solved lol

    I had no intention to defend myself. Just going through the course as a hobby.

    And there's no need to start throwing insults. We were having a reasonably adult conversation until now.
    Riiiight... so you paid to do a handgun self defence course but had no intention to use the handgun to defend yourself?

    I don't know of any police training academy, gun club or self defence school which would advocate shooting to wound; clearly armed response units in the UK and US don't. So again, I seriously doubt you anecdotal "evidence".
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aaronlowe)
    I'm probably old enough to be your father so who's the kid, kid?
    In which case you've got good cause to complain about the government - they've grossly misinformed you about the level of your education.

    If I were you - well, if I were you I'd jump off a cliff - but in your position I'd demand that they reimbursed you for any and all costs relating to schooling. You haven't got your money's worth by a long way.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tim_123)
    What point are you trying to make with this picture? Do they look aggressive, do they look like they will shoot you for no reason? No, they dont. Your posts just make you look like your whining for no reason. Grow up
    They always have a reason, like he was threatening me with his back or I didn't know he had a heart condition when I punched him in the back. Or he looked like the other guy so I broke his neck. Or when he said he couldn't breath he was lying thats why he died. Or we were ok to hide the murder weapon we killed him with cause we were under pressure. Or I was right to execute those two civilians for having a noisy car. Etc etc etc etc etc.....
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aaronlowe)
    According to another poster which I will quote if I can find it, the police have a right to use lethal force if they feel threatened. As someone who was brought up in a country without guns does that therefor give me the moral right to behave the same?
    Your taking that wayyyyy out of context.

    The police, and anyone else for that matter, have the right to use reasonable force, when feeling threatened. For example, if you throw your sandwhich at an armed cop in a sandwhich shop, he'll probably nick you. if you were to pull a knife on said cop, or any member of the public, he would probably shoot you, deeming that you posed an immediate threat to innocent by standers. I just dont comprehend how this is a bad thing?!

    I would only agree with you if our cops acted in the way that american cops did, but they dont.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aaronlowe)
    They always have a reason, like he was threatening me with his back or I didn't know he had a heart condition when I punched him in the back. Or he looked like the other guy so I broke his neck. Or when he said he couldn't breath he was lying thats why he died. Or we were ok to hide the murder weapon we killed him with cause we were under pressure. Or I was right to execute those two civilians for having a noisy car. Etc etc etc etc etc.....
    pretty sure these are all problems that happened in America.......
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    In which case you've got good cause to complain about the government - they've grossly misinformed you about the level of your education.

    If I were you - well, if I were you I'd jump off a cliff - but in your position I'd demand that they reimbursed you for any and all costs relating to schooling. You haven't got your money's worth by a long way.
    Why cant you guys converse like adults and tone it down a bit? I'm assuming you're guys because women are usually more mature. Actually I didn't pay a penny for the course as it was funded by the university
 
 
 

2,637

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.