Two police officers from the Metropolitan Police of London were injured in a possible terrorist attack. A man crashed a car into a bollard outside Buckingham Palace at around 22:30 last night. The officers saw a large machete/possibly sword in the car and moved into arrest the suspect. The two officers were injured and were taken to hospital but later discharged. The suspect was also knocked out/injured and was later released from hospital, now in custody. Was originally arrested for GBH and offensive weapon, now under the Terrorism Act 2000. 

 

UPDATE: The suspect crashed a Toyota Prius towards officers. When the officers confronted him, he pulled out a 4 foot sword and shouted "Allah Akbar" before being pepper sprayed. Thank God the two officers were not killed.

Edited August 26, 20178 yr by qwertyK

Another brilliant proof that you don't need guns to fight terrorists. A bit of pepper spray and the dude was neutralized. Good job to the police officers, UK police is truly to be looked up to.

1 hour ago, Hystery said:

Another brilliant proof that you don't need guns to fight terrorists. A bit of pepper spray and the dude was neutralized. Good job to the police officers, UK police is truly to be looked up to.

Hmmm, could have been a very different story if the spray was ineffective. You could have been reading here instead "three police officers killed in London due to terrorist attack". If you look back at Nice, if you can imagine that the police didn't have guns, you would be looking at 100+ dead instead of 86. You can't use them with every terrorist, take London Bridge, and the 2015 Paris attacks. I'm just glad they weren't seriously injured. 

6 hours ago, Hystery said:

Another brilliant proof that you don't need guns to fight terrorists. A bit of pepper spray and the dude was neutralized.

 

Very naive comment... Would have been a totally different story if he'd gotten out of that car with a firearm. Plus, even now the officers received injuries- unacceptable complacency.

Edited August 26, 20178 yr by Albo1125

2 hours ago, Albo1125 said:

Very naive comment... Would have been a totally different story if he'd gotten out of that car with a firearm. Plus, even now the officers received injuries- unacceptable complacency.

 

Would have been a totally different story if he'd gotten out of that car with a rocket launcher. Might sounds silly, but it's that kind of thing where we can remake the whole world with 'IF's, mate. In that particular case, UK police officers proved their skills to resolve a problematic and dangerous situation without having to use a firearm, and I respect and applaud that. There's nothing naive about it.

Edited August 26, 20178 yr by Hystery

16 minutes ago, Hystery said:

 

Would have been a totally different story if he'd gotten out of that car with a rocket launcher. Might sounds silly, but it's that kind of thing where we can remake the whole world with 'IF's, mate. In that particular case, UK police officers proved their skills to resolve a problematic and dangerous situation without having to use a firearm, and I respect and applaud that. There's nothing naive about it.

What about that case where French police were running away from terrorists as they sprayed down innocent civilians on a public street? Pepper spray would have been more effective?

 

Two officers are injured, that's not a win in my book.

Edited August 26, 20178 yr by TheDivineHustle

10 hours ago, Hystery said:

Another brilliant proof that you don't need guns to fight terrorists. A bit of pepper spray and the dude was neutralized. Good job to the police officers, UK police is truly to be looked up to.

Piss poor tactics such as combating a lethal threat with shitty OC spray is not an approach that should be idolized. They made due with what they had, but it definitely isn't the end-all-be-all solution. Deadly force and the potential of is met with deadly force in America.

6 hours ago, Hystery said:

 

Would have been a totally different story if he'd gotten out of that car with a rocket launcher. Might sounds silly, but it's that kind of thing where we can remake the whole world with 'IF's, mate. In that particular case, UK police officers proved their skills to resolve a problematic and dangerous situation without having to use a firearm, and I respect and applaud that. There's nothing naive about it.

a rocket launcher? what kind of drugs are you on? id like to remind you that terror means fear, just thought id clarify that and if you think you don't need guns to fend off criminals or as what you would call a "terrorist" then you obviously haven't been confronted in that way yet nor do you live in the real world, whether they wield a gun or a rocket launcher either way you are screwed...you can call the police but they will take 5 to 10 minutes to arrive and by that time you would be dead but I wish you the best of luck using pillows for self defense

8 hours ago, TheDivineHustle said:

Two officers are injured, that's not a win in my book.

"The suspect was also knocked out/injured and was later released from hospital, now in custody."

 

Don't know, seems like a win in my book.

1 hour ago, J T said:

a rocket launcher? what kind of drugs are you on? id like to remind you that terror means fear, just thought id clarify that and if you think you don't need guns to fend off criminals or as what you would call a "terrorist" then you obviously haven't been confronted in that way yet nor do you live in the real world, whether they wield a gun or a rocket launcher either way you are screwed...you can call the police but they will take 5 to 10 minutes to arrive and by that time you would be dead but I wish you the best of luck using pillows for self defense

I think what he's saying is, guns aren't the only option and it's possible that good and quick thinking can make a situation end out well in plenty of ways.

2 hours ago, J T said:

if you think you don't need guns to fend off criminals or as what you would call a "terrorist" then you obviously haven't been confronted in that way yet nor do you live in the real world.

 

True Hystery probably hasn't, but British police have, every single day.  You don't need a gun to fend off criminals, armed or not.  Would having a gun make things easier? Yes it would, but BP has proven they are more than capable of defusing situations either verbally or with other tools at their disposal.  I'd also like to remind you that compared to places such as the US, the UK arguably has less armed individuals running about and causing trouble.  It's the difference of culture.  In the US cops pretty much have to have a gun because of how stupid and crime-prone our people are.  This is not the case in the UK.  Crimes still happen there, yes, but their people are much more civilized and respectable.

35 minutes ago, Kallus Rourke said:

 

True Hystery probably hasn't, but British police have, every single day.  You don't need a gun to fend off criminals, armed or not.  Would having a gun make things easier? Yes it would, but BP has proven they are more than capable of defusing situations either verbally or with other tools at their disposal.  I'd also like to remind you that compared to places such as the US, the UK arguably has less armed individuals running about and causing trouble.  It's the difference of culture.  In the US cops pretty much have to have a gun because of how stupid and crime-prone our people are.  This is not the case in the UK.  Crimes still happen there, yes, but their people are much more civilized and respectable.

2

Statistically speaking, the UK really isn't any better than the US with crime in general. The difference in culture does cause crime to vary, but both countries have their respective issues with crime. No country is better or more civilized than the other when you factor in the per capita statistics and the fact that the US is nearly five times larger than the UK in population.

 

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime

Edited August 27, 20178 yr by TheDivineHustle

8 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

Statistically speaking, the UK really isn't any better than the US with crime in general. The difference in culture does cause crime to vary, but both countries have their respective issues with crime. No country is better or more civilized than the other when you factor in the per capita statistics and the fact that the US is nearly five times larger than the UK in population.

 

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime

 

I know the UK is still going to have its fair share of crimes, but compared to the US, how many shootings go on over there? How many gun related deaths happen? (Yes, I saw the link, I'm just making a point).  We, the US, seem to solve all of our problems with gun violence. 

33 minutes ago, Kallus Rourke said:

 

True Hystery probably hasn't, but British police have, every single day.  You don't need a gun to fend off criminals, armed or not.  Would having a gun make things easier? Yes it would, but BP has proven they are more than capable of defusing situations either verbally or with other tools at their disposal.  I'd also like to remind you that compared to places such as the US, the UK arguably has less armed individuals running about and causing trouble.  It's the difference of culture.  In the US cops pretty much have to have a gun because of how stupid and crime-prone our people are.  This is not the case in the UK.  Crimes still happen there, yes, but their people are much more civilized and respectable.

uk has more crime then a state such as texas where they have less restrictive gun laws.....an armed society is a polite society the only violence there is are ones that have strict gun laws, law abiding gun owners are not going around shooting people its the criminals who steal guns and commit crimes like in Chicago for example, not to mention the uk have less freedom then we do they have surveillance cameras all over the place and that is the result of an over bearing  government who use terrorism as an excuse to take away liberties

10 minutes ago, J T said:

an armed society is a polite society

 

So to prevent crime, lets just arm everyone?  That doesn't solve the problem, nor is that how life works.  Guns don't solve problems, they cause them.  Do you know why we have so many PSAs and safety videos on guns and not knives, swords, or other lethal weapons?  Because guns are the worst kind of weapon and cause the most problems.

37 minutes ago, Kallus Rourke said:

 

I know the UK is still going to have its fair share of crimes, but compared to the US, how many shootings go on over there? How many gun related deaths happen? (Yes, I saw the link, I'm just making a point).  We, the US, seem to solve all of our problems with gun violence. 

I'd say because they're available. If I've got some sort of hardcore gripe with someone and I'm crazy, and there's a gun readily and easily accessible, I'm going to obtain it and solve my problem. If a gun is not available, I'm going to grab a knife or another similar tool and proceed the same. The crime will still happen, but the resources available to me will determine how exactly I go about committing the crime. According to the sources that I've read, the US has more crimes committed with guns than knives. Five years ago, a majority of gun related crimes were suicides, not murders. I doubt that fact has changed since then. The U.K. has a higher crime rate with knives altogether when compared to the US.

 

We commit crime with guns, they commit crime with knives. Based on what I'm researching, there is little difference in frequency. It appears that the U.K. actually has more crime with knives than we do with guns. So following the logic that a minority of Americans have, the U.K. should look into banning knives. 

 

 

22 minutes ago, Kallus Rourke said:

 

So to prevent crime, lets just arm everyone?  That doesn't solve the problem, nor is that how life works.  Guns don't solve problems, they cause them.  Do you know why we have so many PSAs and safety videos on guns and not knives, swords, or other lethal weapons?  Because guns are the worst kind of weapon and cause the most problems.

It won't solve the problem, but it's absolutely how the American way of life works; hence the whole 2nd amendment thing. It's the people causing problems, which is why Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates with the number of guns they have. It's the culture, not the gun. That's why a majority of Americans are against banning guns, but they do favor more gun control under certain circumstances. Most Americans see that it's not the gun that's the problem.

 

Targeting the tool is naive. The criminals will just find another tool, as evidenced by the U.K. and their knife crimes. We need to target the sources of crime. Why would someone commit crime? Why did it get to that point? What's happening in their life to where they felt they needed to steal or kill? How can we prevent that? Just taking the tool won't solve the problem, it only hurts those that had no problem to begin with. I wonder why 64% of Americans believe that loosening state laws to allow more people to concealed carry would help prevent mass shootings. 

 

I understand what you're saying, but the statistics just aren't adding up to the statements that you've made so far. 

Edited August 27, 20178 yr by TheDivineHustle

2 hours ago, Kallus Rourke said:

 

True Hystery probably hasn't, but British police have, every single day.  You don't need a gun to fend off criminals, armed or not.  Would having a gun make things easier? Yes it would, but BP has proven they are more than capable of defusing situations either verbally or with other tools at their disposal.  I'd also like to remind you that compared to places such as the US, the UK arguably has less armed individuals running about and causing trouble.  It's the difference of culture.  In the US cops pretty much have to have a gun because of how stupid and crime-prone our people are.  This is not the case in the UK.  Crimes still happen there, yes, but their people are much more civilized and respectable.

Not sure if I agree with what you said about people in the UK lol...

Banning guns would proabably make gun crime decrease, but as we've seen with terrorists, they will use different weapons. Knives and vehicles. I read about them wanting to do checks on people hiring vans. This won't solve anything however. It will simply lead to more people getting hurt with people's cars being hijacked etc. The USA is a massive, massive country and I think people to need to consider that before looking at the UK. The UK is an island, so it is harder to get illegal weapons in to. However, people in the UK need to start getting over their fear of guns; at the end of the day, it is the person behind them that makes the descion. I do however see no need why someone would need to own something to the likes of an M60 or fully automatic AK-47. I'm happy for people to have rights to bear arms, providing those people are vetted, and there are limits to the sorts of weapons a regular person can access. But I think things like school shootings do seem to be an American problem. Look at France, for example. Less restrictive gun laws than the UK, and they rarely have school shootings. The UK only had one, and it illegalized handguns. It just seems guns in the UK are not widely accepted unlike the US, where it is simply the culture. Police officers in the US have to respond with deadly force to some situations due to the situation with the guns; 300 million guns (and more), then chances are, the car you've stopped proabably has one. Look how many officers have been killed in the USA this year alone. The UK has lost two this year, one off duty, and one on duty, both as the result of terror attacks. Let's consider the circumstances of a country before we judge its police force. 

12 hours ago, TheDivineHustle said:

What about that case where French police were running away from terrorists as they sprayed down innocent civilians on a public street? Pepper spray would have been more effective?

 

Two officers are injured, that's not a win in my book.

 

You'll have to provide me a reliable source for that, because I have never heard of such things happening anywhere in my country (and I prefer to warn in advance, sites like InfoWars and BreitBart are - not- reliable sources). 

 

As for the win, the terrorist has been neutralized and no civilians were injured, sounds like a win in my book. 

8 hours ago, Hystery said:

 

You'll have to provide me a reliable source for that, because I have never heard of such things happening anywhere in my country (and I prefer to warn in advance, sites like InfoWars and BreitBart are - not- reliable sources). 

 

As for the win, the terrorist has been neutralized and no civilians were injured, sounds like a win in my book. 

I'd say actual footage beats any source of writing out there.

Spoiler

 

 

 

Again we come to the discussion about gun control, the never ending, forever returning topic on gun control.

Are guns really needed here in the United Kingdom in order to stop terrorists, yes they are and we have teams trained to the level of the military, sometimes receiving training from Special Forces and the British Security Services. You can give every cop you want a gun in the United Kingdom, there will still be terrorists, all you do is open up the possibility of some poorly untrained cop unnecessarily using his firearm and then you've got an unarmed person dead.

Guns do not solve all problems, most definitely this one. 

2 hours ago, Ben said:

You can give every cop you want a gun in the United Kingdom, there will still be terrorists, all you do is open up the possibility of some poorly untrained cop unnecessarily using his firearm and then you've got an unarmed person dead. 

So then, wouldn't the solution to that problem be to improve training? Just train them better and said officer won't unnecessarily shoot an unarmed person, right?

Edited August 27, 20178 yr by TheDivineHustle