Is it time for British Police Officers to carry guns?

[Hunka Hunka Burning Love]

I'm constantly amazed that the British police don't carry guns.  What do they do if they encounter bad guys with guns or other weapons?  A baton isn't going to do much!  Wouldn't the police be a more effective force if they carried some firepower?   Maybe even some tazers?

It's so frustrating watching these terrorist attacks on the news.  If times are a changing, shouldn't standards and traditions change with it?  They said witnesses saw the three terrorists stabbing a woman all at the same time.     Or maybe have concealed carry undercover officers in any popular areas?

I admire the British stiff upper lip in times of trouble, but I think there needs to be some radical reponses to these radical attacks to help defend innocent people.  They are bringing guerilla warfare to the public arena so conventional defenses should be rethought and revised.

Maybe arresting immediate family members and seizing assets would be a start.  Extradite the family to their home country so suicide bombers who ruin other people's lives ruin their own family's lives as well.  Issue monetary fines to the church they belong to.  Give them some second thoughts about carrying on with their plans.  If the family / church reports the terrorist in time they get an exemption.  I don't know.  I'm just frustrated seeing the carnage these terrorists are creating over and over again.

[The Fat Unicyclist]

Police officers in New Zealand don't carry guns either. Just recently they have started carrying tazers though. And most patrol cars have a cache in the trunk...

But, not having them a gun on the hip means that there have been about 30 police shootings in the last 60 years. 

[Paddylaz]

46 minutes ago, Hunka Hunka Burning Love said:

I'm constantly amazed that the British police don't carry guns.  What do they do if they encounter bad guys with guns or other weapons?  A baton isn't going to do much!  Wouldn't the police be a more effective force if they carried some firepower?   Maybe even some tazers?

It's so frustrating watching these terrorist attacks on the news.  If times are a changing, shouldn't standards and traditions change with it?  They said witnesses saw the three terrorists stabbing a woman all at the same time.     Or maybe have concealed carry undercover officers in any popular areas?

I admire the British stiff upper lip in times of trouble, but I think there needs to be some radical reponses to these radical attacks to help defend innocent people.  They are bringing guerilla warfare to the public arena so conventional defenses should be rethought and revised.

Maybe arresting immediate family members and seizing assets would be a start.  Extradite the family to their home country so suicide bombers who ruin other people's lives ruin their own family's lives as well.  Issue monetary fine to the church they belong to.  Give them some second thoughts about carrying on with their plans.  If the family / church reports the terrorist in time they get an exemption.  I don't know.  I'm just frustrated seeing the carnage these terrorists are creating over and over again.

It's suprisingly hard to get your hands on a gun in this country - so much so that even the police in general don't favour carrying guns....it can only escalate things. That's just our regular police of course, the armed response section obviously are well-armed but specifically deployed when needed.

Those terrorists the other night were dead within 8 minutes of the police being called, which is pretty decent.

Have to say though, if I was a cop I sure as hell would want a fucking gun.

[Hunka Hunka Burning Love]

I can see the point of trying to not escalate confrontations by not carrying, but what if the bad guy wants to escalate it no matter what?  8 minutes is an eternity to wait for backup while crazies are stabbing people.  One officer tried tackling all three terrorists armed with what?  A baton?  These aren't normal, every day situations that are occuring so shouldn't the response be ramped up?

Back in the day, they probably didn't have metal detectors before boarding flights. Times change.  Are the police thinking that as long as they don't carry guns the bad guys won't carry them either?  I just don't get it.  Stern words and batons aren't going to be enough to enforce the law.

[lizardmech]

Maybe.

 

[Rehab1]

3 hours ago, Paddylaz said:

Have to say though, if I was a cop I sure as hell would want a fucking gun.

Amen!

[Tilmann]

In the wake of such an event, arming up seems like a no-brainer, does it? Being a (legal) gun owner myself, I cringe at the thought of possibly witnessing such a stabbing and not being able to help as my guns are safely locked away at home (as German law requires). After all, the attack on Breitscheidplatz in Berlin happened not a mile away from where I lived.

German police is armed, but your ordinary cop on the street is not exactly known for his precision shooting skills (SWAT teams is a totally different ball game). Fortunately, German police is also not known for being "trigger happy". So, in any typical year, Germany sees less than 10 people shot by police.

Being around for a while, I remember the 70's. Germany had a terror thread then, called the RAF. And all of a sudden, our friendly neighborhood cops carried MP5s. Being a student at the time, I drove a very studently car (if you can call it that):(not exactly this one, but you get the idea). That looked extremely suspicious to police as apparently it fit their concept of what terrorists drive and look like (only later they found out, that the real ones were laughing their butts off as they drove by in posh AUDIs, wearing a suit). So, I was stopped practically at every street corner and looked into the barrel of an MP5 poking through the cars side window in my face. Behind that, a policeman, who was at least as scared, as me. See those side windows? They are flipped up to open. And they are held in this open position by a flimsy wire spring. Or not. They were notorious for flipping down randomly without as much as a gentle brise for a reason. Luckily for me, that did not turn into a test, whether the safety was on with the MP5s.

What I am trying to say: think twice before stepping up the arms race. Unfortunately, I don't see any means of preventing a person accepting his own death to take some randomly chosen innocents with him. We can't ban cars and the attackers proved frighteningly flexible to adapt to any given condition. So, under ideal circumstances, a faster armed response may be able to save lives, but sadly not all of them. In less ideal situations, the increased presence of arms may create a hazard on its own. And with any armed response from civilians, police will go through hell to tell the good from the bad guys. Not all terrorists look like police think they do and civilians wiling to help come in all shapes and colors.

While the risk of becoming a terror victim appears all too present these days, the overwhelming media coverage may also distort our perspective on risks of life a bit. Looking at Berlin, we lost 12 people in 2016 due to the senseless attack on Breitscheidplatz. Also in Berlin 2016, we lost 17 bicyclists in traffic accidents in this city alone. It is not cynical but rational to warn people in Berlin from cycling first and terror second. Don't get me wrong with this seemingly heartless "numbers game" - I am well aware of the tragedy and suffering in any single case behind those numbers. I just find it hard to accept, that one cause of senseless tragedy even makes us second guessing fundamental rights and the other is hardly making it on page 2 of the local news, let alone triggering any activity to prevent it.

The other part that scares me about the way we respond to the present terror threats is, that we focus so much on battling the symptoms. Just as much as the never ending "war on drugs", I am convinced, the "war on terror" cannot be won by means of force alone. Making it next to impossible for terrorists to kill people, sadly also means the end to the free lifestyle we treasure. Albeit oversimplified, this circle needs to be broken:  

What does all that have to do with the simple question of arming British police or not? Well, the unarmed "Bobby" is one of the lighthouse symbols for a world I want to live in. Giving them grenade launchers to stop renegade trucks without any credible plan to break that circle does not make me optimistic for a bright future or feel safer.

[Hunka Hunka Burning Love]

Canada's a pretty safe country for the most part, but we do get our share of shootings.  Someone got killed the other day at some community area here, and it's almost daily you hear about people dying.  Would there be less crime if the police were unarmed?  I'm not so sure of that.

 All of our police carry guns, and they are well trained to use them and on how to avoid using them.  We do have a fair share of shootings by officers which have to be investigated so it's always a double edged sword.  I don't know if Canadians are just rowdier or more dangerous, but guns seem to be out there in the wrong hands.  I can't imagine a police force without guns at the ready.   I'm sure my neighbors to the south in the US would think it quite risky for police not to carry some sort of firearm to protect themselves and the public.  Sure it does add in a whole slew of other problems with accidental and unjustified shootings, but overall I believe it can be an effective deterrent and means to an end.

I don't think of it as an arms race, but more of a possible solution to minimize carnage brought on by others.  Imagine if the terrorists had access to guns.  A police officer with a gun could have made a huge difference.  I don't think there's any easy way to end this cycle of hate, terror, and revenge, but I think there should be some changes made to help reduce the problem.  Maybe install crash proof reinforced concrete bollards along crowded and popular areas to prevent wayward trucks.

Whether Bobbies are armed or not doesn't seem to be an important symbol to me at least for the world I want to live in.  I'd rather have them armed and be able to be an effective force in stopping these awful deaths.  That's the world I want to live in if I was visiting Britain and in the crowd being attacked by knife wielding maniacs.  Quaint traditions are nice to reflect upon, but the bloody reality sometimes has to take precedence I think.

 

[steve454]

1 hour ago, Tilmann said:

In the wake of such an event, arming up seems like a no-brainer, does it? Being a (legal) gun owner myself, I cringe at the thought of possibly witnessing such a stabbing and not being able to help as my guns are safely locked away at home (as German law requires). After all, the attack on Breitscheidplatz in Berlin happened not a mile away from where I lived.

German police is armed, but your ordinary cop on the street is not exactly known for his precision shooting skills (SWAT teams is a totally different ball game). Fortunately, German police is also not known for being "trigger happy". So, in any typical year, Germany sees less than 10 people shot by police.

Being around for a while, I remember the 70's. Germany had a terror thread then, called the RAF. And all of a sudden, our friendly neighborhood cops carried MP5s. Being a student at the time, I drove a very studently car (if you can call it that):(not exactly this one, but you get the idea). That looked extremely suspicious to police as apparently it fit their concept of what terrorists drive and look like (only later they found out, that the real ones were laughing their butts off as they drove by in posh AUDIs, wearing a suit). So, I was stopped practically at every street corner and looked into the barrel of an MP5 poking through the cars side window in my face. Behind that, a policeman, who was at least as scared, as me. See those side windows? They are flipped up to open. And they are held in this open position by a flimsy wire spring. Or not. They were notorious for flipping down randomly without as much as a gentle brise for a reason. Luckily for me, that did not turn into a test, whether the safety was on with the MP5s.

What I am trying to say: think twice before stepping up the arms race. Unfortunately, I don't see any means of preventing a person accepting his own death to take some randomly chosen innocents with him. We can't ban cars and the attackers proved frighteningly flexible to adapt to any given condition. So, under ideal circumstances, a faster armed response may be able to save lives, but sadly not all of them. In less ideal situations, the increased presence of arms may create a hazard on its own. And with any armed response from civilians, police will go through hell to tell the good from the bad guys. Not all terrorists look like police think they do and civilians wiling to help come in all shapes and colors.

While the risk of becoming a terror victim appears all too present these days, the overwhelming media coverage may also distort our perspective on risks of life a bit. Looking at Berlin, we lost 12 people in 2016 due to the senseless attack on Breitscheidplatz. Also in Berlin 2016, we lost 17 bicyclists in traffic accidents in this city alone. It is not cynical but rational to warn people in Berlin from cycling first and terror second. Don't get me wrong with this seemingly heartless "numbers game" - I am well aware of the tragedy and suffering in any single case behind those numbers. I just find it hard to accept, that one cause of senseless tragedy even makes us second guessing fundamental rights and the other is hardly making it on page 2 of the local news, let alone triggering any activity to prevent it.

The other part that scares me about the way we respond to the present terror threats is, that we focus so much on battling the symptoms. Just as much as the never ending "war on drugs", I am convinced, the "war on terror" cannot be won by means of force alone. Making it next to impossible for terrorists to kill people, sadly also means the end to the free lifestyle we treasure. Albeit oversimplified, this circle needs to be broken:  

What does all that have to do with the simple question of arming British police or not? Well, the unarmed "Bobby" is one of the lighthouse symbols for a world I want to live in. Giving them grenade launchers to stop renegade trucks without any credible plan to break that circle does not make me optimistic for a bright future or feel safer.

I agree with everything you wrote, especially the part about the unarmed Bobby.  I always thought it good that the British police did not carry guns.

[steve454]

7 minutes ago, Hunka Hunka Burning Love said:

I'm sure my neighbors to the south in the US would think it quite risky for police not to carry some sort of firearm to protect themselves and the public.

It would be risky for the police to not carry some sort of firearm to protect themselves from the public.  No one would want to be a police officer in a big city without protection.  USA!,USA!

[steve454]

15 hours ago, Paddylaz said:

It's suprisingly hard to get your hands on a gun in this country

One good thing about that is, if someone does appear in public with a gun, it's pretty certain that it is a bad guy.  

[Keith]

@Paddylazand @steve454 are spot on in the immediately above post.

Just to put this into some sort of perspective, my son was a London Police Officer for 10 years - he always said he had no desire at all to carry a firearm. I'm aware of 3 incidents in that time where he came up against someone with a gun as well.

[LanghamP]

Where I live, St Louis, we get about one shooting death per day, higher in the summer, lower in the winter. Recently we've had a few multi-death shootings so expect this year to be the highest since the early 1990's. Most shootings deaths this year are from the ambush position but we had a few odd ones whereby the two parties escalated by accident.

Whenever I hear about gun deaths by escalation then I think many more people are carrying guns than usual, which of course results in more shootings, which in turn causes more people to carry, and so on.

I think guns are beautiful (a remnant of my CounterStrike and Day of Defeat days) and shoot pistols and rifles occasionally. If I ever found myself in the situation of having shot a terrorist then I wouldn't be all modest. I'd be, "hey that was a good shot, wasn't it?"

Apparently London is well on the way to exceeding St. Louis in number of homicides.

I do not know what you can do about terrorism. I know it is very effective; terrorist make the people in the host country angry, who then beat up immigrants, who then retaliate. That's almost the definition of terrorism.

Historically, people of differencing cultures carve out their own countries (eventually) because people aren't very good at making social and fiscal contracts with people who don't look or act like them. For example, I'd probably trust Marty to paint my cellar walls, and he'd trust me to actually pay him to do that job, but a someone from the Middle East probably not so much. We wouldn't speak the same language and the Koran says it's his duty to take my money since I'm not a Muslim. And kill me. Koran's pretty clear on that.

Then again the Old Testament goes genocidal too. I'm not even allowed to suffer the women, children, dogs, and livestock to live. Takes all the fun out of war if I can't even capture the women, but noooo, the Old Testament is pretty explicit on that front.

Throughout human history I think the normal way of working is genocide happens while different cultures carve out borders. This is why I think the present policy of diversity is such a bad idea if you don't want conflict (or a good idea if you do want conflict). Do you know how long it took those European nations to carve out their bloody borders? And now you want to roll all that back?

We are discovering, very quickly and without doubt, what that entails. It is almost comedic in its "well what did you expect to happen" as you empty out these 3rd world ghettos and bring these fine young men into your country. Maybe a tragi-comedy is appropriate.

Interestingly, my personal belief is to make people much more aggressive when acts do occur. During the Paris massacre where something like 170 people were killed, those people just laid quietly on the floor, like sheep, and were shot easily and with no resistance. And that seems to be the common theme. The Virginia Tech massacre also had people laying frozen as Cho (the gunman) walked up to them and shot them, with no resistance at all.

At least run or bum rush the gunman/knifer! You don't even have to be in the first wave ("ok, HHBL, on the count of three let's rush the bum, 1, 2, 3, go!" Start then pause one second then rush).

Kinda like this guy. http://www.ladbible.com/more/uk-daily-ladness-inspirational-lion-of-london-took-on-terrorists-shouting-fk-you-im-millwall-20170606

No, guns are not the answer. An aggressive native population willing to defend both external and internal borders from people not like them is the answer. As it always has been historically.

[Hunka Hunka Burning Love]

With 130 people killed in the Paris attack where the terrorists had guns, I would have thought if the French police carried weapons that number might have been somewhat lower.  It takes time for armed forces to arrive at the scene whereas if the municipal police were armed at least they might be able to slow the attackers down better until help arrived.  Trying to be aggressive against someone with a gun when you don't have a gun is a little one sided.  I'm still not 100% convinced that as a police officer relying on the idea of being unarmed so the bad guys have less reason to hurt you is the best defense to use.  It might work with more typical day to day crimes, but these terrorist attacks are on a whole different level.  When reasoning with someone goes out the door, you really need something to fall back on.  

Say there is a wild, rabid dog wandering around the neighborhood attacking people and children at a playground.  As the first police officer on the scene, what can you do?  It's not a common situation you encounter on a day to day basis, and there is no reasoning with the dog.  Do you call in for animal services / armed forces to come in and patiently wait while it is attacking people?  I just think the primary responders need to be well equipped for any situation at hand to be the most effective even in these unusual circumstances.

I think we all love those hero fantasies where we think yeah if I had a chance I'd be the one to jump in and help defend, but when the guns are firing and knives are blood letting I think the strong self-preservation urge tends to kick in unless it's a family member, friend, or someone close.  Although there are power in numbers, the mob mentality often is flight rather than fight in high stress situations where there is high potential for injury.  It's always nice to hear and read about heroes, but there are also those stories where the good samaritan rushing in gets killed trying to do so.  If those other people in the bar would have backed the Lion of London guy up, they might have made a huge difference.  I just don't think the majority of people are that brave to do that unfortunately.

I like the idea of diversity, but with that you end up with much more complicated issues where the people coming in enjoy the freedoms and benefits yet some won't get along with others.  Should countries be more restrictive as to who they let immigrate in order to reduce the chances of terrorism?  I don't know.  How do you filter out the good from the bad?  It seems to be working for China so far, but what makes countries interesting and vibrant is often their mix of cultures.  Canada and the US have always been welcoming to foreigners at our borders, but that also can be a downfall if those entering have divisive goals rather than ones that contribute to the whole.

[Tilmann]

Dear @LanghamP, I guess it won't surprise you that I beg to differ. Being German, we tried a few of those recipes of separation inside our country with infamous consequence. We're cured from that (at least I desperately hope so).
We also went through the experience of getting rid of a border lately. Before you protest: both East and West Germany were home to an entire generation of peeps growing up in isolation from another. Same language, but considerable differences in social behavior, economic rules and things taken for granted. Happy to say: we're pretty much over that, too, albeit many experienced a bit of "friction warmth" to get there.

When economic conditions required it, Germany saw a highly requested and welcome influx of "imported labor", i.e. Italiens, Portuguese, Greek, Spanish and Turks added to the continued presence of allied military in country after WWII, many of them with family and kids. We have been an immigration country long before it was officially recognized, those "guest workers" came here to stay. Could we have managed integration better than we did? Of course! But I yet have to be robbed or shot at as a result from mixing so different cultures in country. 

Then, with considerable contributions by "The West", Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria were bombed to pieces, displacing millions. About one million of them found their way to Germany. Some dumb like bread, some highly educated and anything in between. Quite a few traumatized and presumably several hundred incurable fanatics. No argument there: that's a risk. Unfortunately, the "German generosity" towards refugees which made news in 2015 trickled away half way in the process. We let'em in, but now we 'administer' them with all the red tape, German bureaucracy has to offer. Most are not allowed to work, constantly threatened with deportation to the countries they fled from, sheltered with little regard for cultural incompatibilities, supported with food and clothing but little cash and pretty much left to wander around and admire our wealth. Yepp, that's asking for trouble. 

The question at hand, what to do with "those people", polarizes all across the west. Surprisingly, with the fiercest reactions from those countries, accepting the least refugees in. When you look at the UK, you'll find negligible numbers of recent refugees, but a large muslim population as a heritage from their colonial ties to Pakistan, often living on the island for generations. Either way, treat'em as second class citizens long enough and some of them will likely start to become trouble. Bomb the countries or religious brothers they feel connected to and you may be breeding militants in your backyard. And if there wasn't a religious book justifying massacre readily at hand, somebody would write one (Germany, remember? Been there, done that).

You guess, what I'm heading to: strengthening borders will lead to fenced in ghettos and I strongly refuse to accept that as progress in civilization. 80 million Germans can afford to integrate 1 million refugees. And the UK has to find its ways to come to terms with all communities inside its population.

@Hunka Hunka Burning Love: for all I know, French police is armed. Your turn 

[Hunka Hunka Burning Love]

Actually I was surprised to find out that the city police don't carry guns.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/698262/French-police-demand-right-carry-guns-nation-faces-Islamic-threat

I'm far from being a gun fanatic as we Canadians don't generally carry guns around, but I guess I just think when there's a need for it, why not have them available?  If I go hiking in the parks where bear attacks have been reported, why not carry bear spray?  Sure bear attacks are rare, but if they become more common shouldn't people carry bear spray?  I've got a hiking trip coming up, and I've already ordered some bear bells and spray so I'll be prepared.  I hope I don't need the spray ever!

[US69]

25 minutes ago, Hunka Hunka Burning Love said:

Actually I was surprised to find out that the city police don't carry guns.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/698262/French-police-demand-right-carry-guns-nation-faces-Islamic-threat

I'm far from being a gun fanatic as we Canadians don't generally carry guns around, but I guess I just think when there's a need for it, why not have them available?  If I go hiking in the parks where bear attacks have been reported, why not carry bear spray?  Sure bear attacks are rare, but if they become more common shouldn't people carry bear spray?  I've got a hiking trip coming up, and I've already ordered some bear bells and spray so I'll be prepared.  I hope I don't need the spray ever!

Actually the real police in France is called "gendarmerie"

Edit: or "police nationale"...

..the municipal police the artical is talking about is a kind of regulatory person/officey.....so this municipal are no real policemen....and the gendarmerie

Edit: and "police nationale"....

is definitely armed!

[LanghamP]

What number of immigrants would you like to see coming to your country?

I always like to ask this question for the reason it allows me to quickly discern the reasonable people from the dogmatics.

For example, if I ask that question and they say zero, well, it's immutable. End of discussion. If they say "a lot", then would Germany be happy to accept 20 million? How about 100 million? 500 million? Even my very socially liberal friends say that is too many.

Somewhere between 0 and one billion immigrants is probably the correct answer.

I wish Germans would stop looking at their own history through the lens of WWII. You guys made a power grab and you lost. There is no moral compass in the winners of WWII. I mean, we Americans had Jim Crow, we wiped out the Injuns with Guns and God, and we gleefully massacred the Philippinos during our colonial adventures. Looking at WWI and WWII as a power grab by new empires versus old empires makes all the pieces fall into place so much better.

What's the benefit to letting these people into your country? Is it some moral obligation? How does that make a German feel better?

I have 10, 000 M&M's but I've coated 20 of them with a deadly poison. Would you like to have a handful? Or two? Keep eating for a couple of years?

By the way, I was in Germany for over a month last year. My girlfriend is German. She has big breasts so I do like Germany but I fear for its future. I would not wish to see it with the insane levels of security and distrust I see here in the USA.

[Tilmann]

4 hours ago, LanghamP said:

What number of immigrants would you like to see coming to your country?

I always like to ask this question for the reason it allows me to quickly discern the reasonable people from the dogmatics.

For example, if I ask that question and they say zero, well, it's immutable. End of discussion. If they say "a lot", then would Germany be happy to accept 20 million? How about 100 million? 500 million? Even my very socially liberal friends say that is too many.

Somewhere between 0 and one billion immigrants is probably the correct answer.

I wish Germans would stop looking at their own history through the lens of WWII. You guys made a power grab and you lost. There is no moral compass in the winners of WWII. I mean, we Americans had Jim Crow, we wiped out the Injuns with Guns and God, and we gleefully massacred the Philippinos during our colonial adventures. Looking at WWI and WWII as a power grab by new empires versus old empires makes all the pieces fall into place so much better.

What's the benefit to letting these people into your country? Is it some moral obligation? How does that make a German feel better?

I have 10, 000 M&M's but I've coated 20 of them with a deadly poison. Would you like to have a handful? Or two? Keep eating for a couple of years?

By the way, I was in Germany for over a month last year. My girlfriend is German. She has big breasts so I do like Germany but I fear for its future. I would not wish to see it with the insane levels of security and distrust I see here in the USA.

I'm way too stubborn to be open to your advise to disconnect myself from recent German history, sorry . As a 1956 model, post war Germany in large part made me what I am. Finding my Grandpa's copy of "Mein Kampf" with all the exclamation marks and "Jawoll!" comments at the most horrific paragraphs surely did not leave me untouched.

I guess, all that does play a role when I vote for accepting refugees from countries our military and our weapons export helped to become inhabitable. So, yes, it does make me feel better when Germany accepts a share of those people. It's my naive belief, that human empathy makes the world a better place, and yes, fueled by a national guilt complex as a jump starter.

How many refugees would I accept in? By gut feeling and sentimentality: too many, over stressing the national acceptance level. So, the most reasonable approach to that which comes to my mind is: how many can we afford? As explained earlier, let'em in and let'em rot is a recipe for disaster. Traumatized people need therapy, uneducated ones need education, almost all need language training and some need to be policed, convicted and jailed. That adds up. Its an investment, which eventually will brake even. But first it costs substantial amounts of money. You probably don't like that approach either, but I would balance that with the military budget. I completely fail to comprehend the concept, that the world becomes a safer place, when Germany suddenly increases it's military spendings. So, instead of ramping up the defense budget to 2% GDP, I'd leave it at 1% and invest the other 1% in refugees. I'm convinced, it will pay itself back in form of taxes and social security funding and all sorts of other contributions to society eventually. In the absence of any aggressive military enemy, that appears a walkable path to me. I'm sorry, I can't do the math on the actual number of immigrants this results in, but by rule of thumb, it should finance the ones already here and probably then some.

Talking about education: It's not only some refugees, who may need learning assistance to come to terms with German reality, some natives show troubling deficits, too. The strongholds of "Ausländer raus!" (kick out foreigners) protest screams are mostly those regions, where you can hardly find any. As always, the most scary is the unknown. I guess, we need to set aside a few Euros to dissolve the fear of those poor souls as well. Where could we find that money? Well, in a secular society with a close to 50% atheist population, the state has no business financing churches of any faith. But we do. Big time. Like, the German equivalent of the IRS collects "church tax" as a free debt collector service. See, I just found another double digit billion budget.  

 

[Rehab1]

6 hours ago, LanghamP said:

Interestingly, my personal belief is to make people much more aggressive when acts do occur. During the Paris massacre where something like 170 people were killed, those people just laid quietly on the floor, like sheep, and were shot easily and with no resistance. And that seems to be the common theme. The Virginia Tech massacre also had people laying frozen as Cho (the gunman) walked up to them and shot them, with no resistance at all.

I totally agree! Unfortunately the message of hiding, running or lying quietly on the floor during any form of attack, terrorist or otherwise, continues to be subliminally indoctrinated into our societal fabric.

Sadly the UK.Gov recently updated their website that continues to impress upon it's citizens the same old 'Run and Hide' paradigm titled 'Stay Safe'.

STAY SAFE : Terrorist firearms and weapons attacks

Firearms and Weapons attacks are rare in the UK. The ‘STAY SAFE’ principles tell you some simple actions to consider at an incident and the information that armed officers may need in the event of a weapons or firearm attack:

3.1 RUN

• Escape if you can
• Consider the safest options
• Is there a safe route? RUN if not HIDE
• Can you get there without exposing yourself to greater danger?
• Insist others leave with you
• Leave belongings behind

3.2 HIDE

• If you cannot RUN, HIDE
• Find cover from gunfire
• If you can see the attacker, they may be able to see you
• Cover from view does not mean you are safe, bullets go through glass, brick, wood and metal
• Find cover from gunfire e.g. substantial brickwork / heavy reinforced walls
• Be aware of your exits
• Try not to get trapped
• Be quiet, silence your phone and turn off vibrate
• Lock / barricade yourself in
• Move away from the door

[Hunka Hunka Burning Love]

4 hours ago, LanghamP said:

...My girlfriend is German. She has big breasts ...

Whoa sorry I got distracted there... but yeah pictures would be nice what were we talking about again?

The flood gates have been open a bit long to try to close them at this point in time.  Even if all countries stopped immigration that wouldn't stop visitors dropping by to create havoc.  People move around.  Canada accepted a huge number of Syrian refugees.  Hopefully they will appreciate the good life we have offered them here and respect the Canadian way, eh?  I'd hate to have Canada be a hidden harbour for terrorists slipping in under the guise of being a refugee.  Limiting immigrants might slow the problem down some, but the bad ones will likely slip through any ways.

[Rehab1]

14 minutes ago, Hunka Hunka Burning Love said:

Whoa sorry I got distracted there... but yeah pictures would be nice what were we talking about again?

So funny!

[Tilmann]

11 minutes ago, Hunka Hunka Burning Love said:

 

 

Challenge accepted!

cuteness–overload:

Horse mounted police woman has carrots instead of a gun in her holster
Source: http://bit.ly/2qZkUnO

[Rehab1]

4 minutes ago, Tilmann said:

 

Challenge accepted!

cuteness–overload:

Horse mounted police woman has carrots instead of a gun in her holster
Source: http://bit.ly/2qZkUnO

Stop a terrorist! Feed them Carrots!  Only kiddin! Cute photo!

[Dingfelder]

I sure wouldn't want to have to tame multiple assailants, or a zonked out druggie, or a guy with a broken bottle or knife with only a baton .... and of course all of Britain is famous for knife crime.  A knife is as good as a gun in many situations.  I think asking police to put themselves in mortal danger for what could otherwise be fairly routine arrests does them a disservice.  

And i wouldn't be surprised if it results in what we see here in America, too, sometimes ... police often don't come to violent scenes for a long time. Safer that way, or just pure coincidence?  And more importantly ... safer for whom?

Don't give people the tools for the job, you can't be surprised if they don't do the job.

On the other hand, police in the USA are so reluctant to engage in a scuffle that tasers and taser use have become ubiquitous.  If you give people a weapon but give them tremendous leeway in how to use it, citizens can become targets and the police an occupying force rather than people who are there to serve and protect ... two enormously important words fundamental to the very concept of policing.  

If the type and severity of violence one can lawfully inflict on the citizenry increases, oversight and accountability should increase in tandem with it.  I don't believe it is in the public's interest to guarantee the police an overly safe job.  It is an inherently risky job partly because of the restraints necessary to keep policing itself under control.  But I don't believe we should give police no option of last resort -- that is, no gun to protect themselves against the situations that they may encounter.

And I think people in general tend to underestimate the deterrent effect of a gun.  It won't always have that effect and shouldn't be used as a crutch in situations that might be more safely defused.  But I believe a gun's threat of serious force is capable of bringing order to some situations without it ever having to be drawn.