• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The London Bobbies Still Don't Carry, However The Palace Gurds Do.

BretJ said:
Well said. The question is this, if the Bobby wants to carry concealed for whatever reason, why is he not trusted to do so?
Click to expand...

Aren't you going to yell that in England they don't have rights?
 
Rucker61 said:
What's trophy hunting? And what's wrong with discussing any topic?
Click to expand...



You wouldn't understand and I am kind of hopeless in trying to make you see your actions through Canadian eyes and not get banned.

As politely as I can and the last exchange I want to have with you as I do NOT want to waste my time on this issue.

But imagine a movie, natives and whites are living together peacefully, the clean air, the good life. And in come some Americans, in this movie they all have big belt buckles and like to stand with the butt of thew rifle on their hip, muzzle pointed in the air. And they come to kill our animals for the thrill of killing. They tramp into our pristine wilderness, often leaving a trail of beer cans. They kill some game.

And when all that is done, have an argument with the people who are your host...

That is what's called 'the ugly American."

What's wrong with trophy hunting? Everything. I have no problem killing any animal for food. But to make yourself feel more manly is, or should be a crime. We keep trying to ban it and one day we will. We do not need the tourism. Too many come here now. And we'd prefer those who come to visit who don't tell us how to run a country.

Pardon me if you have felt insulted in all of this. Further, I really don't want to get into it. Our way of life is what makes us Canadian and top of that list is a near spiritual connection with the land. To kill to make yourself feel more a man is wrong. A man never takes that shot, boys do.

The other thing is that we are not Americans, despite the fact most of you come here and insist in telling us how "backward" [I have been told that] we are. More and more people want to come here. We are being overrun, Vancouver has twice doubled since 1965, the metro area is over 5 million. As more and more come it becomes more and more important we only allow those who want our ways as a way of life, not those who simply want to destroy life in our environment for fun.

Please don't come here. Soon it will be banned, but in the meantime please don't come here.
 
Rucker61 said:
Why wouldn't you want to defend yourself against someone with a knife or bat with a gun? If you're in a fair fight, you've done something wrong.
Click to expand...

Oh dont get me wrong, I am not an advocate, but responding to a previous question as to why people in London DONT want firearms and why Bobbies likely dont carry weapons.


I agree in my mind, if they there to enforce the law, then they should be able to do it in the most efficient way. I stated a Firearm is an efficient piece of equipment. I stand behind that. With regards to being using in a good or bad way period.



With that, Why doesnt a Bobby have a concealed one. Good question and this is my "opinion"

1) in a nation that does not have easily accessible weapons/firearms. Their exposure, training and understanding of a weapons is limited.
2) I being an American citizen, have been around firearms my whole life. Being taught how to use it properly, safely and efficiently. The trust worthy factor of employing it responsibly is probably much higher than your normal "Bobby"
3) If the Intent to keep all firearms away, if a "Bobby" should possess one and have it stolen or taken from then, it increase the firearms factor by 10 fold. So the assumption is having NONE period, decrease it to only those that are criminals or authorized personnel.


This works is said country, and will never EVER work in our country (USA). Its part of a constitution, many people have, its become a commonality, it cant be removed. The only way to make it work within our society in my opinion?

1) Proper Education from the ground up, children to adults. Treat the Second Amendment as important as all Amendments. We learn about the 1st, What about the second?
2) Harsh penalties, for improper use of a firearm period. Detract people from even thinking or using a firearm for illegal uses...
 
Last edited:
Manc Skipper said:
Britain didn't ban all guns. That's a failed US gunlover meme.
Click to expand...

Reread "ban all the guns that Britain did". That's not a claim that all guns were banned.
 
Fearandloathing said:
You wouldn't understand...
Click to expand...

I've traveled to over 20 countries. I'm well away of what the "Ugly American" is. One question: who started the discussion about gun laws?

What's wrong with trophy hunting?
Click to expand...

That's not what I asked. I asked "what is trophy hunting?"
 
Rucker61 said:
I've traveled to over 20 countries. I'm well away of what the "Ugly American" is. One question: who started the discussion about gun laws?



That's not what I asked. I asked "what is trophy hunting?"
Click to expand...

I said I didn't want to get into it.

We will definately NOT speak again.
 
Fearandloathing said:
I said I didn't want to get into it.

We will definately NOT speak again.
Click to expand...

Curious that you come to a public discussion forum on a most contentious topic but don't want to actually have discussions.

Just in case you read this before ignoring me - what makes you think that the OP was on a trophy hunt? He'd be a fool to travel all that way and not take the meat. Just because someone take the antlers doesn't mean that the meat is wasted.
 
Exactice said:
Oh dont get me wrong, I am not an advocate, but responding to a previous question as to why people in London DONT want firearms and why Bobbies likely done carry weapons.


I agree in my mind, if they there to enforce the law, then they should be able to do it in the most efficient way. I stated a Firearm is an efficient piece of equipment. I stand behind that. With regards to being using in a good or bad way period.



With that, Why doesnt a Bobby have a concealed one. Good question and this is my "opinion"

1) in a nation that does not have easily accessible weapons/firearms. Their exposure, training and understanding of a weapons is limited.
2) I being an American citizen, have been around firearms my whole life. Being taught how to use it properly, safely and efficiently. The trust worthy factor of employing it responsibly is probably much higher than your normal "Bobby"
3) If the Intent to keep all firearms away, if a "Bobby" should possess one and have it stolen or taken from then, it increase the firearms factor by 10 fold. So the assumption is having NONE period, decrease it to only those that are criminals or authorized personnel.


This works is said country, and will never EVER work in our country (USA). Its part of a constitution, many people have, its become a commonality, it cant be removed. The only way to make it work within our society in my opinion?

1) Proper Education from the ground up, children to adults. Treat the Second Amendment as important as all Amendments. We learn about the 1st, What about the second?
2) Harsh penalties, for improper use of a firearm period. Detract people from even thinking or using a firearm for illegal uses...
Click to expand...

In a recent poll of Police Federation members...

" 2006 survey of 47,328 Police Federation members found 82% did not want officers to be routinely armed on duty, despite almost half saying their lives had been "in serious jeopardy" during the previous three years."
Page not found - BBC News

There's several reasons for this. Should armed agents of the government be patrolling the public? There's a principle called 'policing by consent' that might be hard for many to understand but it matters to British cops. In fact, given that the public are divided on the issue with nearly half wanting more armed cops, it seems that principle is more important to the police than to the people they're policing.

There's a strange attitude coming out in this thread, partly shown by this... " I being an American citizen, have been around firearms my whole life. Being taught how to use it properly, safely and efficiently. The trust worthy factor of employing it responsibly is probably much higher than your normal "Bobby"
Your 'normal Bobby' is at least as capable of being trained in the use of weapons as you are. In fact, most of the horror stories about the misuse of guns in America, kids shooting other kids, kids shooting their parents, adults shooting themselves accidentally, most of those stories probably came from people who grew up with weapons. Right? You disagree?
 
Manc Skipper said:
The Metropolitan police firearms officers carry the H&K MP5SF with a Glock 17 or 24 sidearm, On Dignitary Protection they have the Sig Sauer MCX
Click to expand...

That quick screen shot looked like MP7s, not MP5s?? The different collapsible butt stock, the front vert grip and no banana mag in front of the trigger system seems to imply that the magazine is within the pistol grip?

:2razz:
 
Last edited:
Grand Mal said:
In fact, most of the horror stories about the misuse of guns in America, kids shooting other kids, kids shooting their parents, adults shooting themselves accidentally, most of those stories probably came from people who grew up with weapons. Right? You disagree?
Click to expand...

We have no idea what percentage of those stories involved people who grew up with weapons. Any is purely conjecture, unless you have some data. What we do know is that the rate of unintentional gun deaths is declining. CDC WISQARS tells us that from 1990 to 2015 unintentional firearm deaths fell from 1416 to 489, and the rate fell from 0.55 per 100k to 0.15 per 100k population, a rate decline of 72%.
 
Grand Mal said:
In a recent poll of Police Federation members...

" 2006 survey of 47,328 Police Federation members found 82% did not want officers to be routinely armed on duty, despite almost half saying their lives had been "in serious jeopardy" during the previous three years."
Page not found - BBC News

There's several reasons for this. Should armed agents of the government be patrolling the public? There's a principle called 'policing by consent' that might be hard for many to understand but it matters to British cops. In fact, given that the public are divided on the issue with nearly half wanting more armed cops, it seems that principle is more important to the police than to the people they're policing.

There's a strange attitude coming out in this thread, partly shown by this... " I being an American citizen, have been around firearms my whole life. Being taught how to use it properly, safely and efficiently. The trust worthy factor of employing it responsibly is probably much higher than your normal "Bobby"
Your 'normal Bobby' is at least as capable of being trained in the use of weapons as you are. In fact, most of the horror stories about the misuse of guns in America, kids shooting other kids, kids shooting their parents, adults shooting themselves accidentally, most of those stories probably came from people who grew up with weapons. Right? You disagree?
Click to expand...



Lets try this again.

1) 2006 -2017 pretty big gap, between 11 years for a poll. I wonder how they feel especially now with the threats that have happened 10fold in the last 5 years., with that, While again the nations are much different in how they see weapons. Again the responsibility is how firearms are introduced.
2) My intent is to state familiarity first. Meaning a 16 year old American would likely know more than a 16 year old London in reference to a firearm in front of them.
3) Why do you think the Police feel different, because the public has gotten more violent, again, you meet with equal levels of force, when the pubic begins to increase their force, the ones policing must be 1 step above them, thats how you properly police. The World Has changed... people "challenge" authority now instead of respecting it. I blame society for this directly.
4) Horror Stories of Guns in America. Bill Burr says it best, You build a pool in the back of your house you increase your chances of drowning by 85%, You have guns in your home you increase your chances of a firearms indecent by 85%. How do you fix this? BY being responsible.


Kids shooting other kids? Whos fault is that? Shouldn't the weapon be locked up properly? I know a kid cant go out and buy their own weapon, So the adult is responsible for its safe keeping. With that kid shooting thier parents, adults shooting themselves. All of these can be prevented by being responsible. More so following the very basic firearms rules. WHICH every single event that has happened (in error/not with the intent to kill someone) one of those rules were violated......Its not the firearm, its the person that chose to violate a fundamental safety rule.




4 Fundamentals of Firearm safety

All guns are always loaded. (Treat them so!)
Never point the gun at anything you do not intend to destroy.
Keep your finger straight and off the trigger until your sights are on target (and you have made the decision to shoot).
Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.

You have to violate one of these rules to shoot someone..... VERY BASIC, that should be TAUGHT at the youngest level, So when a child somehow comes into possession of a weapon, they treat it with the utmost respect that it deserves PERIOD.

Unfortunate things happen due to LACK of responsibility of someone, Be it a parent not locking it up properly, not teaching the hazards or an adult not following basic safety guidelines. I have never in my entire life known a gun to go off on its own... EVER.

We have a military armory, with MILLIONS of firearms, you never hear of a firearm ever firing on its own in an armory....I wonder why?
 
Last edited:
BretJ said:
Nope. Read the thread.
Click to expand...

I know what the thread's about, but you usually yell that people who can't carry don't have rights. Or are you admitting that England is smarter then we are about guns?
 
Exactice said:
Lets try this again.

1) 2006 -2017 pretty big gap, between 11 years for a poll. I wonder how they feel especially now with the threats that have happened 10fold in the last 5 years., with that, While again the nations are much different in how they see weapons. Again the responsibility is how firearms are introduced.
2) My intent is to state familiarity first. Meaning a 16 year old American would likely know more than a 16 year old London in reference to a firearm in front of them.
3) Why do you think the Police feel different, because the public has gotten more violent, again, you meet with equal levels of force, when the pubic begins to increase their force, the ones policing must be 1 step above them, thats how you properly policy. The World Has changed... people "challenge" authority now instead of respecting it. I blame society for this directly.
4) Horror Stories of Gins in America. Bill Burr says it best, You build a pool in the back of your house you increase your chances of drowning by 85%, You have guns in your home you increase your chances of a firearms indecent by 85%. How do you fix this? BY being responsible.


Kids shooting other kids? Whos fault is that? Shouldn't the weapon be locked up properly? I know a kid cant go out and buy their own weapon, So the adult is responsible for its safe keeping. With that kid shooting thier parents, adults shooting themselves. All of these can be prevented by being responsible. More so following the very basic firearms rules. WHICH every single event that has happened (in error/not with the intent to kill someone) one of those rules were violated......Its not the firearm, is the person that chose to violate a fundamental safety rule.




4 Fundamentals of Firearm safety

All guns are always loaded. (Treat them so!)
Never point the gun at anything you do not intend to destroy.
Keep your finger straight and off the trigger until your sights are on target (and you have made the decision to shoot).
Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.

You have to violate one of these rules to shoot someone..... VERY BASIC, that should be TAUGHT at the youngest level, So when a child somehow comes into possession of a weapon, they treat it with the utmost respect that it deserves PERIOD.

Unfortunate things happen due to LACK of responsibility of someone, Be it a parent not locking it up properly, not teaching the hazards or an adult not following basic safety guidelines. I have never in my entire life known a gun to go off on its own... EVER.

We have a military armory, with MILLIONS of firearms, you never hear of a fire arm ever firing on its own in an armory....I wonder why?
Click to expand...

I have no beef with anything in this post, except to say that familiarity breeds contempt. Yeah, it's a cliche but it's true to an extent. If both those 16-year-olds enlisted, one in the US Marines and the other in the Royal Marines, there wouldn't be a hair of difference between them after their basic training. Same with police trainees. A Brit who'd never held a handgun in his life is at no disadvantage. In fact, someone training the American teenager might well have to start by getting rid of bad habits.
And I approve of your emphasis on training. Me, I'd require passing a test on basic firearms safety but that statement just opens a can of worms.
 
Rucker61 said:
We have no idea what percentage of those stories involved people who grew up with weapons. Any is purely conjecture, unless you have some data. What we do know is that the rate of unintentional gun deaths is declining. CDC WISQARS tells us that from 1990 to 2015 unintentional firearm deaths fell from 1416 to 489, and the rate fell from 0.55 per 100k to 0.15 per 100k population, a rate decline of 72%.
Click to expand...

I said probably, meaning a guess. Do you disagree? Would you guess most of those cases involve people who have no familiarity with guns?
There being no data, we'd have to look case-by-case.
 
Grand Mal said:
I have no beef with anything in this post, except to say that familiarity breeds contempt. Yeah, it's a cliche but it's true to an extent. If both those 16-year-olds enlisted, one in the US Marines and the other in the Royal Marines, there wouldn't be a hair of difference between them after their basic training. Same with police trainees. A Brit who'd never held a handgun in his life is at no disadvantage. In fact, someone training the American teenager might well have to start by getting rid of bad habits.
And I approve of your emphasis on training. Me, I'd require passing a test on basic firearms safety but that statement just opens a can of worms.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree with you... but validate the basic point.. If proper education is implied then they are all responsible. If no education at all, just because American is tolerant of weapons, the American would likey have a hair more experience and or knowledge of a weapon. that being said... I do agree of the bad habits LOL!


Here is one I wish I was there, Piers Morgan asked Ben Shapiro, why does an American need an AR. No American per say needs an AR, but because its part of the US military, its a common element, so familiarity stands. If our military used AK's likely We would have AK's. It matches replacement parts, ammo, customization its common. Again do they need it? Not really, but familiarity. If an american was given a royal marine weapon they may be confused on how to operate it more so operate it safely. But with an AR, likely operates it in a much safer way due to the familiarly.
 
jet57 said:
I know what the thread's about, but you usually yell that people who can't carry don't have rights. Or are you admitting that England is smarter then we are about guns?
Click to expand...

??????
 
BretJ said:
Weird. As far as I know, it is illegal for anyone to shoot anyone purposefully unless in defense of self or others. Not sure what your point is. No one is expendable as far as I know. Though in the UK, some folks are more valuable than others and warrant a higher degree of protection.
Click to expand...

Illegal perhaps but not unheard of. the british police have far more constraints upon them if they fire a gun than american police do. And considering how the pro gun lobby in america will try to sweep death by guns under the rug, expendable is a good word for their attitude.
 
Grand Mal said:
I have no beef with anything in this post, except to say that familiarity breeds contempt. Yeah, it's a cliche but it's true to an extent. If both those 16-year-olds enlisted, one in the US Marines and the other in the Royal Marines, there wouldn't be a hair of difference between them after their basic training. Same with police trainees. A Brit who'd never held a handgun in his life is at no disadvantage. In fact, someone training the American teenager might well have to start by getting rid of bad habits.
And I approve of your emphasis on training. Me, I'd require passing a test on basic firearms safety but that statement just opens a can of worms.
Click to expand...

My basic firearms safety class was in the 5th grade and took place at school. Don't understand why that ever stopped. So we certainly agree on that point.
 
soylentgreen said:
Illegal perhaps but not unheard of. the british police have far more constraints upon them if they fire a gun than american police do. And considering how the pro gun lobby in america will try to sweep death by guns under the rug, expendable is a good word for their attitude.
Click to expand...

How does the gun lobby try to sweep gun deaths under the rug? Our media does a pretty good job covering firearm homicides and we keep pretty good statistics. Hell if an officer there even pulls a truncheon, there is hell to pay.
 
Exactice said:
That quick screen shot looked like MP7s, not MP5s?? The different collapsible butt stock, the front vert grip and no banana mag in front of the trigger system seems to imply that the magazine is within the pistol grip?

:2razz:
Click to expand...

I couldn't see a pic, I told you what their standard issue is. Sorry it didn't help your attitude. ;)
 
BretJ said:
How does the gun lobby try to sweep gun deaths under the rug? Our media does a pretty good job covering firearm homicides and we keep pretty good statistics. Hell if an officer there even pulls a truncheon, there is hell to pay.
Click to expand...

Yes, and very god at reporting how very little besides media press is done about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom