On 17/08/2011 07:30 a.m., Adam Buckland wrote: > As a general rule the police are not armed. > > Exceptions include diplomatic close protection and for perceived > terrorist targets such as airports etc. There are backup firearms units > in every force and it is these that may have been deployed. > > If the looters had been armed and the police how many would have died... > and how would being armed have prevented a car knocking down three > innocent people... guns have no use in general policing...
Down here years ago police started killing (illegally) thieves. They used to take them to the country, to isolated places, and shoot them. The result was that once thieves caught up, they would just kill any cop in view even before doing the crime. The thing was they had nothing to loose killing them (if police caught them they would be killed anyway) and everything to win (less risk of the cop interfering). If you up the stakes (by taking guns to every fist fight) then the most probable thing is the other side will catch up and next time they will be armed too. I think the Brit strategy of non armed police works and has worked through the years, regardless of anecdotal exceptional situations. _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
