Paris Pandemonium!

[Hamradioop]

Taken from the Huffington post but makes interesting reading if we are comparing the response in France to what a UK response would look like.

"The populations of France and of England and Wales are roughly the same; France however has 155,000 National Police (Police Nationale) and 105,000 Gendarmerie, all of whom are armed. In addition there are 18,000 generally unarmed municipal police which gives a grand total of 278,000.

Compare this to the police strength in England and Wales where there is a shrinking force of 128,000 officers with just over 6,000 of those armed. Even adding Police Scotland's 17,500 officers which include 275 who carry firearms, does little to balance the equation."

When you think there were 88,000 armed officers responded to the incident in Paris I don't know how on earth we would be able to cope if it happened in the UK. Add to that the fact they want to reduce police numbers to 80,000 in the UK and our ability to respond looks even bleaker. Unfortunately there is no appitite from the public and therefore government to routinely arm police so its unlikely to happen anytime soon. That might change however if we are attacked and there are lots of deaths, perhaps then the public might demand it but if I'm honest even then I don't think it will happen.

Don't not forget 2,600 mod constable all of which are armed and a percentage will be available for a major incident plus the Civil Nuclear constabulary who could also field a percentage of AFOs

[Plymtom]

I'd feel more comfortable if we trained all our police in firearms tactics and armed them full time in all honesty, if the bad guys could get in this country armed.. . I shudder to think, firearms have been demonized to the extent that even law enforcement aren't trusted with them, I know this is Britain and we hadn't felt the need to have armed police but times have changed, we should at least train them all, in case it turns out the only way to go, plus I'll throw this into the hat here too http://10news.dk/interpol-allowing-citi ... r-attacks/

Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble said today the U.S. and the rest of the democratic world is at a security crossroads in the wake of last month’s deadly al-Shabab attack at a shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya – and suggested an answer could be in arming civilians.

Incredible as it may seem could events be driving us where we have not really been in the UK? I mean crikey I'd like handguns back for sporting purposes, but to be encouraged to carry for self defence by our own government surely not? Does this Interpol Secretary General have some intelligence pointing to these events being the tip of an iceberg or something?

Back to the main theme I'd always felt relatively safe down this way, even though we have military bases a plenty in the town and they considered themselves a target, I thought it much more likely elsewhere, these days I am not so sure we have had an influx of folk from that part of the world seeking refuge from the troubles, we have a university, a large migrant population, I'm not getting paranoid but I'm not as comfortable, I actually think when I'm in the city center now and I live very close to it, "if something starts kicking off right now whether it be unrest or an incident of sorts how will I react?" would I detour out of the nearest way out, and circle around at a distance to get home? I suppose it would depend, as my lot would be buggered without me, there would be no heroics that's for sure.

[Holomon]

It's two sided, as I said before, the only way anyone could have prevented the terrorist attacks in Paris would be if someone had managed to shoot the terrorist the minute he walked into the Supermarket and started to pull a gun.
But, that isn't to say that I think an armed citizenry is the solution to terrorism, it wouldn't stop terrorists from carrying out their attacks for two reasons;

1. They mostly want the martyrdom so don't care if they survive, although some change their minds later and take hostages.
2. They'd just change tactics and either plant bombs, attack places like schools where chances of armed opposition are low, or randomly shoot people at a distance with a rifle.

Terrorism is a hard thing to fight, but it has to be through means like intelligence, immigration clamp downs, detainment, deportation and all round prevention. The minute you give Joe Public the chance to tote a concealed Desert Eagle you'll find poor old Ahmed, innocently getting the train to the mosque, trying to untangle the headphone wires caught in his backpack gets his head blown off by a jumpy drunk.

[Plymtom]

It's two sided, as I said before, the only way anyone could have prevented the terrorist attacks in Paris would be if someone had managed to shoot the terrorist the minute he walked into the Supermarket and started to pull a gun.
But, that isn't to say that I think an armed citizenry is the solution to terrorism, it wouldn't stop terrorists from carrying out their attacks for two reasons;

1. They mostly want the martyrdom so don't care if they survive, although some change their minds later and take hostages.
2. They'd just change tactics and either plant bombs, attack places like schools where chances of armed opposition are low, or randomly shoot people at a distance with a rifle.

Terrorism is a hard thing to fight, but it has to be through means like intelligence, immigration clamp downs, detainment, deportation and all round prevention. The minute you give Joe Public the chance to tote a concealed Desert Eagle you'll find poor old Ahmed, innocently getting the train to the mosque, trying to untangle the headphone wires caught in his backpack gets his head blown off by a jumpy drunk.

Yes I agree with all of that, even as a shooting enthusiast I would not be comfortable with firearms for self defence in the UK ( it's different if you go elsewhere you can adopt their attitude ) I'm not sure I'd feel safer myself ( because I could be attacked for my weapon) and I would definitely not like the prospect of incompetent or trigger happy others being around, as you've pointed out a recipe for tragedy, probably more so here.

[unsure]

ive stayed out of this one up to now .

just my opinion and it could ramble a bit .

we all know the old chestnut ` guns don`t kill people , people kill people `.
i`m not up for any old tom , dick and harry to be armed to the teeth , but every one has the right to defend them selves .
so if the right to open carry a gun helps to cut down on the chance of any thing like this happening over here then i`m all for it , maybe a course of evening class`s to explain your rights and responsibilities and the consequences of their actions may help to open the eyes of those that think that taking a life is going to be easy , not much different to the laws about killing an intruder in your home . you have to prove you used reasonable force and had a genuine fear for your life or that of a loved one .
the down side is as you say , mistakes can and will be made , theres no getting away from that . it in human nature to either fight or flight . but if we are seen as a soft target with no means of real self defence against a armed person or persons , then there`s no stopping it is there .
you can`t rely on the police or army to be every were to protect the whole population all of the time and at present that is what we as a population expect , we have that right to be protected by those enpowered to do so .
unfortunatlely we have also as a nation all but given up the right to self defence with our gun laws , most that have been brought in as a knee jerk reaction to one atrocity or another . i think it was hungerlford , happened and they banned automatic asault rifle type of guns for the most part http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/date ... 534669.stm , dunblane and they banned hand guns http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/ ... nd-killing. both terrible events but both helped strip away more rights for country . you can still own these type of guns , but not keep at home , but only with a hard to get licence .why because the power that be just do not want an armed population .imo that makes us all easier to control

[Hamradioop]

a little know fact is that the Bill of Right of 1668 guarenteed the right of self defense:

The Bill of Rights dealt with constitutional matters and laid out certain basic civil rights. The Act stated that there should be:

no royal interference with the law. Though the sovereign remains the fount of justice, he or she cannot unilaterally establish new courts or act as a judge.
no taxation by Royal Prerogative. The agreement of the parliament became necessary for the implementation of any new taxes
freedom to petition the monarch without fear of retribution
no standing army may be maintained during a time of peace without the consent of parliament.[5]
no royal interference in the freedom of the people to have arms for their own defence as suitable to their class and as allowed by law
no royal interference in the election of members of Parliament
the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament
"grants and promises of fines or forfeitures" before conviction are void.
no excessive bail or cruel and unusual punishment may be imposed.

so our politicians have taken our rights from us during the 20th century

[grenfell]

I dare say that if the people at Charlie Hebdo had been armed then they would have fought back and perhaps not all of them would have been killed. However , that said I still think the comment from Interpol about arming the population is at best naive . Firstly if we had an armed population attacks such as just happened won't happen , but the terrorists would simply revert to IEDs . Then there is the question as to who should have the weapons. An armed population to prevent such attacks assumes those people are all trained , responsible and to put it simply "one of the good guys" . Terrorists aren't born as terrorists , they start off " normal " and become radicalised . Does that mean we wouldn't arm certain sectors of the population ( and I'm referring here to the Muslim population) because they may change their minds? How well do we arm people? The attackers at Charlie Hebdo had automatic rifles , are we suggesting the law abiding population are armed in a similiar manner. A pistol is a poor weapon to go up against an AK 47 .
Don't get me wrong I believe we should be able to defend ourselves , I just don't believe having the streets full of potential Rambos is the answer. Properly trained police and possibility the military too seems a much better method rather than some huge vigalanty force.

[ForgeCorvus]

a little know fact is that the Bill of Right of 1668 guarenteed the right of self defense:

The Bill of Rights dealt with constitutional matters and laid out certain basic civil rights. The Act stated that there should be:

no royal interference with the law. Though the sovereign remains the fount of justice, he or she cannot unilaterally establish new courts or act as a judge.
no taxation by Royal Prerogative. The agreement of the parliament became necessary for the implementation of any new taxes
freedom to petition the monarch without fear of retribution
no standing army may be maintained during a time of peace without the consent of parliament.[5]
no royal interference in the freedom of the people to have arms for their own defence as suitable to their class and as allowed by law
no royal interference in the election of members of Parliament
the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament
"grants and promises of fines or forfeitures" before conviction are void.
no excessive bail or cruel and unusual punishment may be imposed.

so our politicians have taken our rights from us during the 20th century

Not so, the Bill of Rights basically says what the Monarch can't do..... The people who took our rights away are supposed to be our Elected Representatives

In the case of an 'Active Shooter Incident' your only real options are run and/or hide.

[Plymtom]

Rich Wyatt makes me wince at times https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK4HO-T ... ture=share As ForgeCorvus says- In the case of an 'Active Shooter Incident' your only real options are run and/or hide. It took the USA with it's second amendment to get to such a level of firearm ownership in relative safety, I could happily go and live there with their rules, but I couldn't condone having similar rights here, don't get me wrong it does not fill me with joy that running and/or hiding are our only real options but we have to be realistic.

[Holomon]

Not so, the Bill of Rights basically says what the Monarch can't do.....

True, but technically any Act has to have Royal Assent to become law...which means it's the Queen's fault. Or more specifically as the first Firearms Act was something like 1920, her grandfather's.

No point saying the US model of arming everyone helps, we'll be here till the end of time arguing the fact that they suffer the most horrendous gun crime figures - including active shooter incidents at a constant rate. How many school shootings recently? For the most part those weren't illegal guns they were using either.