Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bri Thai]

I'm a UK Cop that does not carry a handgun.  I have been trained to take tactical and strategic command of firearms incidents over here, and have done so many times.

[spanky]

If you don't carry a gun how are you going to pull a gun and shoot him dead if he doesn't do what your order him to do ? 

"I have been trained to take tactical and strategic command of firearms incidents over here, and have done so many times."

 What does that mean and how are you going to do it unarmed ? Why would you have to do it many times ? Isn't gun ownership banned in the U.K. ? 

[Bri Thai]

I was explaining what I believe I would have done in the cops situation - i.e. me being him, with his equipment etc.  I was expressing support for him.


As for your next questions:

Taking tactical and strategic command means, well.  It means just that.  Armd officers don't wander around as individuals.  They don't come across incidents at random, and then do whatever takes their fancy at the time.  The response to these incidents is in accordance with pre arranged tactics and strategies, and there is a Command strcture in place to facilitate this.

Examples include the follwoing:

Where is the boundary of the inner and outer cordons?  Who staffs these?  Who is given the responsibility of Bronze (Operational) command?  Are officers authorised to draw their weapons?  Are they merely holding the suspects in their current location fofr negotiation purposes, or are they going to go in and get them?  The list goes on.

I can do it unarmed quite easily as, of course, the conductor of the orchestra doesn't have to be able to play all the instruments and, of course, doesn't play one during the recital.

No, gun ownership is certainly not banned in the UK, though their use has some limitations.  Limitations that would be considered strict by many NRA members, but nowhere near strict enough by others.

[spanky]

WOW It sounds to me as the UK officer has alot of restrictions in the performance of his duties.

Are officers authorised to draw their weapons?  Good God why do they have them in the first place if they can't use them ?

 I believe we in the U.S. train and trust our officers to take the appropriate action. We here in Washington D.C. have the first responding officer is the Incident Commander and takes charge until one of the management guys can pry his fat arse of the chair and pretend to make a decision.

No, gun ownership is certainly not banned in the UK, though their use has some limitations.  Limitations that would be considered strict by many NRA members, but nowhere near strict enough by others That is a very cavalier attitude toward personal freedoms a very near total ban is not "some restrictions"

OH and I am a lifetime NRA member #029805708

[Bri Thai]

Now I do try and keep things friendly.  But this really is bordering on the ignorant.

[spanky]

This is a very friendly response and I believe you are the one remarking how others post without answering your questions. I just commented on you attitude toward the exercise of inalienable rights. There is nothing in the above response that is ignorant, maybe humorous but not ignorant. I believe we are two peoples separated by a common language. 

[Bri Thai]

Here are the answers:-

The officers can use their weapons.  If they randomly come across an incident requiring their use, then out they come.
If there is an incident which may require their use?  Something reported to us, and no armed cop is there?  The Commander decides whether or not to send the guys in.  But, to do so, he/she has to "authorise" the use of firearms.

Re "cavalier attitude towards personal freedom"....... this is at the nub of our differences.  When we talk about "freedom" in the UK we often talk in terms of freedom to say what we want, or freedom to vote how we want etc.  99.9999% OF UK RESIDENTS DON'T THINK IN TERMS OF "FREEDOM" TO CARRY A GUN.  It is a connection that we do not make.  OK, on boards like this, frequented by selp protection oriented people, you will see some UK dwellers talking in these terms.  But no-where else.

You sound like fish who cannot get their heads round the fact that land dwellers have no gills.  We don't need them, and we don't want them.  But you're so incredibly insecure and wound up about your issue of guns, that you cannot see outside of the bubble.  You cannot comprehend how it is not an issue to another culture.

Is any of this getting through?

[Kentbob]

  But you're so incredibly insecure and wound up about your issue of guns, that you cannot see outside of the bubble. 

  I'm not trying to pick on you, here, Spanky, but this is one thing that always gets me about people gun control, and candidates who support gun control.  Now, I firmly believe that gun control means hitting the target...and education is still the best policy.  But, if I mention a certain candidate (usually Democrat, but not always), an avid firearms user immediately says, "No, I won't vote for him/her.  He/She supports gun control."  I wonder if people who say this are even really aware of what sort of "gun control" laws the candidate supports.  I think its safe to say that the federal government is never really going to be able to disarm the private citizens.  So, what else could there be?  I would think that anything aimed at reducing violence, without infringing to much on the rights of law abiding citizens, would be a good idea.  But, everyone was all kinds of up in arms over the 7 day waiting period.  And, I'm pretty sure I heard cheering when the assault weapons ban expired.  Now, criminals will always be able to get the guns, if they want them.  But, I think we can safely say that the assault weapons ban made it a little more difficult?  And, although I don't remember the exact figures, but I remember the 7 day waiting period for handguns also cut down on violent crime dramatically.  So, I guess what I am getting at, is that I wish voters would take a closer look at exactly what a candidate stands for, instead of just automatically writing him off.
  This works both ways, too, because the candidate who doesn't support gun control may just be in support of another measure that will have a severe negative impact on the country.  So, anyway...yeah, I think that's about all of what I have to say.  Hopefully I put my thoughts down in a coherent manner...its not that easy sometimes.

Kent

[spanky]

You sound like fish who cannot get their heads round the fact that land dwellers have no gills.  We don't need them, and we don't want them.  But you're so incredibly insecure and wound up about your issue of guns, that you cannot see outside of the bubble.  You cannot comprehend how it is not an issue to another culture.

Is any of this getting through?

[/b]

Bri Thai, I understand European attitude toward freedom and firearms perfectly but you don't seem to understand that you are not free in any sense of the word as you are a subject of your government, you are the U.K. government bureaucrat. If you don't own and have the freedom to carry a firearm then you are not and can never be a free man. A man without skill at arms is not a man but a slave of those that have the weapons. Yes, you may be able to say what ever you want for now but what if the U.K. decides you can't speak about a certain subject what ever it happens to be. Are you going to happily enforce that law without challenge ? 

How do you propose to maintain a ready military if the men of such a military have no skill at arms before they join ? Do you have any idea how long,hard and expensive it is to train men for battle who have no skill at arms ?

Well the next time the U.K. or E.U. gets into a war please do not ask the U.S.A. to help you.
We have fought twice to free you from the communist/socialists/marxist/fascist/nazis and you have twice since embraced their failed political strategy.

You have misread me I am not insecure in the least, what should I fear ? I am the one with the guns 

[spanky]

Kentbob, I hear ya, I don't know about any one else does it but I for one take the totality of the candidate into consideration before voting. I may have the advantage because I work on Capitol Hill and have a little more access (although limited) than an average American. The reaity of voting today is that you may have to vote for someone you do not totally agree with or who doesn't vote 100% your way. You have to vote for the lesser evil, in this country IMHO consider the lesser evil to be the Republican candidate no matter how liberal he is will still be much less lefty than any Democrat.   

[Bri Thai]

Bri Thai, I understand European attitude toward freedom and firearms perfectly but you don't seem to understand that you are not free in any sense of the word as you are a subject of your government, you are the U.K. government bureaucrat. If you don't own and have the freedom to carry a firearm then you are not and can never be a free man. A man without skill at arms is not a man but a slave of those that have the weapons. Yes, you may be able to say what ever you want for now but what if the U.K. decides you can't speak about a certain subject what ever it happens to be. Are you going to happily enforce that law without challenge ? 

How do you propose to maintain a ready military if the men of such a military have no skill at arms before they join ? Do you have any idea how long,hard and expensive it is to train men for battle who have no skill at arms ?

Well the next time the U.K. or E.U. gets into a war please do not ask the U.S.A. to help you.
We have fought twice to free you from the communist/socialists/marxist/fascist/nazis and you have twice since embraced their failed political strategy.

You have misread me I am not insecure in the least, what should I fear ? I am the one with the guns 

I don't judge my freedom on whether or not I can carry a gun.  But I would feel less "free" if I lived in some crazy place where evryone had one (like some African areas where life is cheap).

And what's all this "what if" nonsense about my Government telling me what I can say?  It's your country that championed the lawsuit my friend, not mine.  Though we are following you down that road........ And what are you proposing to do?  Have a Civil War if there are laws you don't agree with?  Didn't David Koresh teach you anything?

Maintaining a ready Military?  Oh yes!  What a great reason to let everyone own guns!  That way they won't need as much training when a tiny percent of them join the Army!  In fact, owning a gun will AUTOMATICALLY ensure that they have high skill levels.......  That has to be the worst reason for gun ownership that I have ever heard.  And, of course, the British Army is well known for being short in the area of skills....... NOT!

Byt the way.  You have NEVER fought to free my country from Communists or Nazi's or etc.  They never took over us.   In fact, in WW2, we were the ones who stood alone in keeping the threat at bay.  Yep, we were going to lose, but we did not give up.  The Americans didn't heroically come to our aid.  They were dragged into it by the Japanese. 

All this "you saved our bacon, you owe us" nonsense is pretty insulting.  We stood up against Fascism, whilst you stayed out of it.  That isn't to imply any insult.  It's just plain History.

You are insecure.  That's why you resort to half truths and put downs.  If it wasn't such an issue, you wouldn't be talking about it, and certainly wouldn't be implying that you'd kill people for this peculiar "freedom."

You need to come up for air.  You've got water on the brain.

[spanky]

WOW I seemed to have upset you, there is nothing funnier than an angry leftist.

I don't judge my freedom on whether or not I can carry a gun.  But I would feel less "free" if I lived in some crazy place where evryone had one (like some African areas where life is cheap).

Feelings have NOTHING to do with actually being a free man. This is the same mistake liberals in the U.S. base their whole political philosophy is based on their "feelings". It is a fact that places where everyone owns and has the freedom to bear arms that crime is very low.

And what's all this "what if" nonsense about my Government telling me what I can say?  It's your country that championed the lawsuit my friend, not mine.  Though we are following you down that road........ And what are you proposing to do?  Have a Civil War if there are laws you don't agree with?  Didn't David Koresh teach you anything?

The "what if" nonsense is called incrementalism it is a common tactic of all left politcal philosophies around the globe. First they restrict gun ownership, then the restrictions get harsher, then they out right ban ownership.
First they restrict free speech etc..

David Koresh taught me that the governments troops are well armed, arrogant but poorly trained and willing to risk their lives for a good show of "we are in charge"


Maintaining a ready Military?  Oh yes!  What a great reason to let everyone own guns!  That way they won't need as much training when a tiny percent of them join the Army!  In fact, owning a gun will AUTOMATICALLY ensure that they have high skill levels.......  That has to be the worst reason for gun ownership that I have ever heard.  And, of course, the British Army is well known for being short in the area of skills....... NOT!

I know very few gun owners who do not practice regularly and most have much better skills than police or most but the very elite military. I served with Royal Marines I nothing but the highest respect for them. The British Army is a whole other animal. I have friends now in Iraq with British Army they tell of there very hoplophobic attitude towards firearms and outright defiance of orders to fight. Now I don't know if these reports are true but that is what these men tell me and I trust their opinions.

Byt the way.  You have NEVER fought to free my country from Communists or Nazi's or etc.  They never took over us.   In fact, in WW2, we were the ones who stood alone in keeping the threat at bay.  Yep, we were going to lose, but we did not give up.  The Americans didn't heroically come to our aid.  They were dragged into it by the Japanese. 

Yes, you are right I am a non-combat veteran but I volunteered to fight, it just wasn't the right timing.
My grandfather and great grandfather did fight in europe. Right the Americans were drug into the war by the japanese and I still beleive if we didn't help England you would have definitely lost as you stated. My point is in both Worlds wars were followed by the same leftist politcs that are rampant throughout europe now. It proves that europe still hasn't learned from history that appeasement doesn't work

All this "you saved our bacon, you owe us" nonsense is pretty insulting.  We stood up against Fascism, whilst you stayed out of it.  That isn't to imply any insult.  It's just plain History.

You are insecure.  That's why you resort to half truths and put downs.  If it wasn't such an issue, you wouldn't be talking about it, and certainly wouldn't be implying that you'd kill people for this peculiar "freedom."

You need to come up for air.  You've got water on the brain.

I beleive you were the first to start the name calling as you didn't want to answer questions in which you were losing the deabate and clearly now you are quite angry over a few words, thank god you are not armed.