both of your sources were dealt with by armed police and all individuals are now in prison
You said the last two years the police has increased but then say the reason for it was the Canada terrorist attack which happened less than a month ago. You have a far greater chance of getting stabbed in London than you do getting shot though out the entire U.S. Iâve lived in the U.S my whole life and you are still arguing with me about my own countries laws so thatâs pretty hypocritical of you to say that. If your country really feels the need to have police armed with assault rifles on every corner i would say that means they think its not safe there. So if you are really happy that your country is so unsafe that they need that much police then good for you.
From knives to firearmsâŠ
Weapons donât kill people nor do they commit crimes. Regardless of what weapon someone can obtain, people still commit crimes.
Everyone is trying to ban firearms to stop murder, how about banning murder instead so it wonât happen ever again?
Oh waitâŠmurder is not allowed in any nation, yet people still kill each other.
There are people on this globe that have no place in society and do all sorts of illegal stuff and there are people trying to lock them away. Sadly, those protecting the law are more often than not the victims of law suits in favour of the real criminal. What does that tell you about protecting the protectorsâŠ
Same goes for soldiers. People love their freedom and Apple stores, but are not willing to fight for it. Those who do are treated like murderers and warmongers. They have to rely on guns or be killed. I do not support war, most wars currently are a waste of resources, lives and money. However, who will stop enemies from rushing through the country if not the guys with the guns?
With more guns in the population, owned by responsible, stable and trained civilians, chances are they wonât advance as quickly. With no real draft service in most western nations, disrespect for soldiers and law enforcement, they rather live a life of oppression than fight for their own freedom.
Less-lethal weapons are fine on the paper. Tasers are no fail-safe way to stop someone. Heck, even a handgun is no guarantee to stop an attacker. I support the use of Tasers before using lethal force. However, police force tend to abuse these tools to torture suspects. Without proper rules of engagement that are strictly enforced within a law enforcement agency, the individual officer might shoot too quickly instead of using his weapon as a last resort if all fails.
In the USA the weapon is used way too often by police forces than necessary. In other countries it is used too late.
Armed civilians live under the same rules as any other citizen, so the use of a firearm for self defense does not make them untouchable. The opposite is true. Those armed are looked upon with more scrutiny by the Government and their (unarmed) neighbours.
Switzerland is a good example of how people can live with guns and not end up in an all out rampage, killing everyone. Why is that? Because they are trained early on to use guns responsibly and safely, are trained constantly and without backlash from anti-gun campaigners. In the US you can own a gun without proper knowledge nor training. This is the most dangerous combination, like handing an AK to an ape. Sooner or later something bad will happen. Parents who let their small kids shoot should be persecuted. There is a lack of common sense in some, not just limited to the US, but more common. Many wifes/children/neighbours have been shot in Germany by stupid hunters/competitive shooters while cleaning their gun. This is due to lack of training and responsibility.
2 Likes
right ok let me make this clear ⊠since 2005 bombings in london police in the capital have been stepped up massively , and knife crime has been becoming a problem , so people begun calling for more armed police this set of mass debates and slowly more amred police started to appear then last year .
lee rigby was attacked and killed on the streets of london for wearing a help for heroes jumper ( a charity that supports wounded service men ) he was a british soldier himself . armed response were slow reacting and took around 15 minutes i believe getting there . when they showed up the two terrorists charged the police and were both gunned down by a female armed officer , both men survived as she shot them in the legs rather than shooting too kill .
after this event the question was brought up again of why the police were so slow in reacting . so since last year all major cities london the most have been flooded with armed police . so rail way stations , airports and anywhere that would come under attack is policed by armed police with assault rifles , alongside armed response patrols driving about london and other cities in general .
then recently the attack in canada has flared the question up once more of could this happen in london . the answer is yes but it would be dealt with much quicker , but also action has been taken that any ceremonial guards who are not armed are now guarded by armed troops in fatigues
Only after the victims were long dead. Moreover, the killers DECIDED to kill only one person. If they went on a rampage, there would be probably at least 6-12 murdered people before the police would show up.
It is of no help to me if the cops come to solve my murder.
2 Likes
read my recent postâŠ
Even if there were armed cops on EVERY single corner, the murders would not have been prevented. And if the attackers had more determination, they would still be able to kill 2-3 people even if withing the sight radius of an armed cop. There will never be armed cops on every corner.
agreed but if you make guns easy to obtain for regular people youâre also making a weapon easy to obtain by terrorists . making there attacks more devastating . most illegal guns in the UK come with very very little ammo and are normally only for "flashing " purposes. how do you stop a soon to be terrorist with no criminal record walking into a gun shop buying multiple automatic weapons and letting rip at random on the streets with his legal firearms
Okay i can understand police armed with assault rifles outside government buildings but you said and made it seem like there was a cop in London on every street corner with an assault rifle.
no , not in sight but there are normally an armed response team in a car nearby driving around and can be with you in less than 5 minutes
Terrorist attacks donât usually involve guns 9/11, Boston bombing, Oklahoma city bombing, and we had a Muslim behead a women in Oklahoma for not converting to Islam. Bombs are almost always more effective than using a gun. You can legally buy fertilizer and other materials to build a bomb that could easily kill over 300 people at a local hardware store. How about hardware store regulations!
no you clearly dont keep up with news then , it may not interest you as it does me so fair play .
the days of 9/11 and bombings are gone that was al quadea tactic of large events and massive body counts . now the threat is from ISIS who favour lone wolf attacks as they are untrackble until the attack . of which the US is of most danger because as i said before there is nothing stopping a terrosit not known to the police buying masses of weapons and shooting many people . the idea of an attack is to create fear planning a bombing takes too much time . when they can have the same effect on a freqent level by just having a load of individuals taking guns and shooting people
OK, letâs agree to disagree and come back to the fact that this is a KCD forum 
You are happy to live in a country where the only civilians who carry firearms are criminals (drug dealers, gangsters, etc.). I am happy to live in Prague, with much, much lower crime rate than London, and enjoy my right to be armed and encourage my GF to carry a firearm too. Even if someone pulls a knife on me, I will not wish him a harm, but that is what he will get.
Henry may be a soldier, bard or thief. If you play a thief character and you decide to go around murdering people with a concealed knife in more-or-less covert way, what chances of defense the NPC can have?
Not really if a bunch of terrorists decided they wanted to go buy a bunch of guns and start shooting in the streets they would be fucking shit on. All of our police carry a military m4a1 full automatic assault rifle that packs more punch than pretty much anything you can buy in a civilian gun shop. Good luck concealing all these weapons just walking down a city street. Meanwhile a bomb could be placed in a backpack that could easily kill over 300 people and would go undetected. The most a shooting in America has ever killed was around 30 people. The Oklahoma bombing killed over 168 people and injuring over 500.
you can buy a 50 cal for 14k in a civilian gun shop see a guy do it on sons of guns 
of course they would be shit on but their goal is too die remember. by the time police show up they may have killed 10 people and will have caused mass panic as they did in canada . that is there goal not just killing 300 people . the body count is irrelevant its the panic they are after
ok, I grant you that. you did write actâŠ
Anyway, In the end I donât think guns have much effect on crime ether way.
If I have no reason to commit crime it is not that important if I own a gun or not. It will not be used for a crime.
If my economic situation is so bad that I have to commit crime, I will do so one way or the other.
If I know a person is armed, I just go somewhere else.
So in a place with low crime, guns is not a problem.
In a place with a high crimerate guns will effect how many gets hurt and killed.
1 Like
How expensive the ammo is? Good luck walking around in public with a beret 50 cal you would be seen instantly its like 6 feet long. The barret wouldnât really be a weapon of choice for a mass shooting seeing how its a semi automatic sniper rifle. They would probably buy an automatic and attempt as spree with it. But it has been proven over and over again that terrorists favor bombs over guns. Bombs cause more damage and panic then a gun does. Bombs are way easier to conceal than a gun is because you just stick it in your backpack and can walk into a populated
building/area. 10 people pfft. A 90 pound mentally insane kid managed to kill 26 children in under 10 minutes with record hit to kill ratio. Out of everyone he shot only 1 person survived. Well we all know that was a hoax anyway. What do you think would cause more mass panic 300 people being killed by a bomb or 10 people being killed with guns? I think we both know the answer.
I agree with most of what you said about guns except in America at least areas with stricter gun control laws have higher murder. When guns were banned in Chicago murders skyrocketed and are still climbing. They recently celebrated because they went one hour without a murder. But did you watch the video i linked? It will help you better understand what i was saying about black people.
1 Like
we can just agree the czech is superior haha
FYI there are other relatively safe countries with rather lowest number of firearms per capita in Europe like Sweden. Therefore you assumption and conclusion is purely purpose-built.
The fact is statistics prove more legal firearms donât mean more safety. It rather proves the opposite.
In case I am on the ground being kicked I would not shoot the attacker. Why? Because that mentality of revenge donât solve the problem anyway. It leads to the never ending principle of vendetta (blood revenge). Actually I have a friend - ideologically total pacifist - who was beaten by a group of neo-nazi skinheads while protecting an immigrant. He spent almost two month in hospital. And guess what? He is not afraid of extremists and would defend another immigrant agains them again. Why? Because he knows to be afraid (or have a gun) means to lose. To abandon your principles and conscience and to be afraid of meaningless violence means nothing makes sense anyway. About two thirds of people are altruists. If we lose the belief in humanity, what is to remain?
I donât deny you your legal means of self-defence. I just argue those legal means are meaningless and dangerous. I would prefer to cancel them, thatâs true. I donât want to live in society that forces you to kill your opponent in case you want to survive. The history of Humanity proves that Humankind needs to cooperate to survive, not compete and especially compete by violent means. I positively and conclusively prefer the complex social order based on the rule of law to Wild west kind of tribal society ruled by warleaders blessed by huge dicks - pardonnez-moi - guns.
You miss the point deliberately. Happy and educated society means low crime rates means there would be no robber/junkie to attack me. Thatâs the ideal picture of course. But it works that way somehow. In the most content societies of the world there is usually the lowest crime rate. For godâs sake even in socialist Czechoslovakia (not an ideal or happy state at all) there was about NO CHANCE you would be attacked by a robber or an other criminal. (OK, there was a slight chance.)
Why you would like to make yourself afraid of being the victim of some possible crime? Why do you want your gun in other words?
And are you sure you would use it anyway?
I donât want to enter this debate. Just wanted to offer you another point of view. I do not care about guns at all. Have a gun if it please you. Just donât use it and donât limit my liberties by your bloody gun. Donât be an armed crusader who consider the gun to be the solution of a conflict situation. Sleep well with your gun under your pillow and rest in peace convincing yourself your gun would save your ass in a critical situation. But donât force me to have a gun. And donât claim your gun decrases the chance you would die in a pool of blood by the hand of an armed moron criminal. Statistics (and common sense) prove thatâs not the case. More guns donât mean more liberty or more safety. It just mean - more guns. And more money for Lords of War. Thank you very much.
Edit: One more example: Do you think Romeo and Julia would die in case Mercutio and Tybalt withdrew from using their guns (in fact swords but the principle remains)? Even Shakespeare was aware of dangers particular to the ideology of âguns for your self defenceâ. Why it is impossible for us to learn even 400 years after Shakespeare (or more than 2400 years after the trinity of High Attic playwrights) is beyond me.