2 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

So then, wouldn't the solution to that problem be to improve training?

Well, in this situation, the solution would to be improving the training on restraining and person armed with a sword, other than that, this situation shows that a firearm was not needed.

13 minutes ago, Ben said:

Well, in this situation, the solution would to be improving the training on restraining and person armed with a sword, other than that, this situation shows that a firearm was not needed.

So would you say that this was a job well done by law enforcement? Were these outstanding results?

I'd say it was an alright situation, the minor injuries whilst restraining him are something that could probably be resolved with more training, or even tasers in this situation, my point though is that you don't need a firearm for every situation, this is an example of that. Injuries where sustained, but that doesn't mean that the only solution is arming every cop, that does not solve the problem.

15 hours 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.

 

Thank God. Finally someone who realizes that guns cause violence. I don't care what these other people pull out of their ass the basic fact is if you limit weapons in a society the less crime (involving weapons) you'll have. Giving teachers guns (for an example) won't stop school shooters. In fact it will cause more school shootings.

4 hours ago, TheDivineHustle said:

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

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

 

You know that those cops shown in the video are the equivalent of constables and lower, right? They're city cops. Their main duty is to write parking tickets and low degree fines. In no way they are trained to face individuals armed with assault rifles, of course they would try to get to safety; this situation was beyond their abilities. This particular situation is in no way a good example.

24 minutes ago, HomerS said:

 

Thank God. Finally someone who realizes that guns cause violence. I don't care what these other people pull out of their ass the basic fact is if you limit weapons in a society the less crime (involving weapons) you'll have. Giving teachers guns (for an example) won't stop school shooters. In fact it will cause more school shootings.

 

The facts literally say otherwise, not sure what to tell you. It's hard for me to agree with you when I am literally looking at numbers and statistics that prove everything you say as being 100% inaccurate and wrong.

7 minutes ago, Hystery said:

 

You know that those cops shown in the video are the equivalent of constables and lower, right? They're city cops. Their main duty is to write parking tickets and low degree fines. In no way they are trained to face individuals armed with assault rifles, of course they would try to get to safety; this situation was beyond their abilities. This particular situation is in no way a good example.

My point is that if they had been armed, could the situation have turned out differently?

Edited August 27, 20178 yr by TheDivineHustle

Just now, TheDivineHustle said:

My point is that if they had been armed, could the situation have turned out differently?

 

They were armed. 9mm pistols, actually (don't ask me the exact model, I've no idea). The situation was still beyond them, as they were in no way capable of fighting back organized terrorists with assault rifles. Especially since they got assaulted by surprise. It's actually a perfect example of 'arming every cop doesn't make it any better'. They were armed, but still couldn't do anything. One of them died, even.

Just now, TheDivineHustle said:

The facts literally say otherwise, not sure what to tell you. It's hard for me to agree with you when I am literally looking at numbers and statistics that prove everything you say as being 100% wrong.

My point is that if they had been armed, could the situation have turned out differently?

 

I've heard this argument before. Look I used to live in a town with all of 3,000 people. Literally everyone owned a gun or in most cases several. Now I highly doubt these 40 year old plus farmers are interested in shooting people. It's not the guns that were preventing crime. It was the people themselves.

6 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

The facts literally say otherwise, not sure what to tell you. It's hard for me to agree with you when I am literally looking at numbers and statistics that prove everything you say as being 100% inaccurate and wrong.

My point is that if they had been armed, could the situation have turned out differently?

When it comes to firearms, people seem to have this idea that if every cop has a gun, then you eliminate terrorists a lot easier and less people die. In most topics about gun control, it revolves around recent terror attacks, most relate to the ones in the United Kingdom, but if you add together all the major attacks in two years, they still do not add up to the night club shooting in Miami, which shows that firearms does not mean that everyone becomes extremely safe.

Also, as some have pointed out already, the people in that Terrorist Attack in France, they where cops in most cases outnumbered with handguns being attacked by terrorists with AK47's (or similar) nobody in their right mind would not run away from that, a cop or not. 

Just now, HomerS said:

 

I've heard this argument before. Look I used to live in a town with all of 3,000 people. Literally everyone owned a gun or in most cases several. Now I highly doubt these 40 year old plus farmers are interested in shooting people. It's not the guns that were preventing crime. It was the people themselves.

2

If I'm a criminal, am I going to break into a home where I know the owners are unarmed, or am I going to choose the home where I know the owner has guns?

 

If I'm a criminal and I want to target an older lady walking alone at night, would her having a gun change the game? 

 

What happens if I decide to conduct a robbery on a local liquor store, and one of the customers inside pulls a gun from behind?

 

What if someone breaks into my home, and I am a gun owner? What if their intention isn't to steal, but to kill me?  Could a gun save my life?

1 minute ago, Hystery said:

 

They were armed. 9mm pistols, actually (don't ask me the exact model, I've no idea). The situation was still beyond them, as they were in no way capable of fighting back organized terrorists with assault rifles. Especially since they got assaulted by surprise. It's actually a perfect example of 'arming every cop doesn't make it any better'. They were armed, but still couldn't do anything. One of them died, even.

 

So are you saying that these officers being unarmed would have been more beneficial?

Just now, TheDivineHustle said:

So are you saying that these officers being unarmed would have been more beneficial?

 

No, I'm saying that whether they were armed or not, it wouldn't have made a single difference in that situation. Therefore, why arming them anyway, if it doesn't help them? I told you this situation was a bad example altogether.

2 minutes ago, Ben said:

When it comes to firearms, people seem to have this idea that if every cop has a gun, then you eliminate terrorists a lot easier and less people die. In most topics about gun control, it revolves around recent terror attacks, most relate to the ones in the United Kingdom, but if you add together all the major attacks in two years, they still do not add up to the night club shooting in Miami, which shows that firearms does not mean that everyone becomes extremely safe.

Also, as some have pointed out already, the people in that Terrorist Attack in France, they where cops in most cases outnumbered with handguns being attacked by terrorists with AK47's (or similar) nobody in their right mind would not run away from that, a cop or not. 

3

Firearms don't mean that everyone is 100% safe 100% of the time, but they increase the level of safety. It's fact that a criminal is less likely to commit a crime if there are armed people in the vicinity.

 

My point is that there was a flaw in the system. Everyone claims that the European policing system is so glorious, as though there aren't any flaws. This is an example of a flaw in the system in Europe. Armed terrorists were able to slaughter people as police were forced to flee. That's not something that would happen in a perfect or flawless system.

Just now, Hystery said:

 

No, I'm saying that whether they were armed or not, it wouldn't have made a single difference in that situation. Therefore, why arming them anyway, if it doesn't help them? I told you this situation was a bad example altogether.

 

I guess it's a matter of opinion really, but I'd say it is better for them to be armed than unarmed. At least they had the opportunity to defend themselves and anyone in their immediate vicinity in a worst case scenario. As opposed to them being unarmed and totally helpless.

1 minute ago, TheDivineHustle said:

If I'm a criminal, am I going to break into a home where I know the owners are unarmed, or am I going to choose the home where I know the owner has guns?

 

If I'm a criminal and I want to target an older lady walking alone at night, would her having a gun change the game? 

 

What happens if I decide to conduct a robbery on a local liquor store, and one of the customers inside pulls a gun from behind?

 

What if someone breaks into my home, and I am a gun owner? What if their intention isn't to steal, but to kill me?  Could a gun save my life?

So are you saying that these officers being unarmed would have been more beneficial?

 

But here's what I'm saying: Do people really drive an hour or so just to rob a liquor store? Probably not. What I'm saying is maybe a few people if that want to rob a liquor store or break into someone's house. Now sure it's possible for someone to go out of town for crime, but it's unlikely.

Just now, HomerS said:

 

But here's what I'm saying: Do people really drive an hour or so just to rob a liquor store? Probably not. What I'm saying is maybe a few people if that want to rob a liquor store or break into someone's house. Now sure it's possible for someone to go out of town for crime, but it's unlikely.

I'm not a criminal so I can't tell you whether people would drive over an hour for a robbery, but I have no doubt that a significant number of them definitely would if the payout was worth it.

Just now, TheDivineHustle said:

Firearms don't mean that everyone is 100% safe 100% of the time, but they increase the level of safety. It's fact that a criminal is less likely to commit a crime if there are armed people in the vicinity.

 

My point is that there was a flaw in the system. Everyone claims that the European policing system is so glorious, as though there aren't any flaws. This is an example of a flaw in the system in Europe. Armed terrorists were able to slaughter people as police were forced to flee. That's not something that would happen in a perfect or flawless system.

I gather based on you referring to police fleeing you are talking about the Charlie Hebdo video you posted above, those cops where armed, the problem was that they did not have M4 Assault Rifles on hand to counter the terrorists AK47's, clearly he wasn't in his patrol car so got caught up in it and didn't have time. So the comment about them being able to deter a terror attack by being armed is clearly proven wrong in this situation. 

1 minute ago, TheDivineHustle said:

I guess it's a matter of opinion really, but I'd say it is better for them to be armed than unarmed. At least they had the opportunity to defend themselves and anyone in their immediate vicinity in a worst case scenario. As opposed to them being unarmed and totally helpless.

 

 But they -were- totally helpless anyway, even with their 9mm handgun. Because nothing can prepare them to face 2 terrorists armed with AK-47. Anyone would run for their life in front of that and try and evacuate the vicinity while waiting for reinforcement. They didn't have any opportunity to defend themselves because they couldn't do anything to begin with, even with a handgun.

Just now, Ben said:

I gather based on you referring to police fleeing you are talking about the Charlie Hebdo video you posted above, those cops where armed, the problem was that they did not have M4 Assault Rifles on hand to counter the terrorists AK47's, clearly he wasn't in his patrol car so got caught up in it and didn't have time. So the comment about them being able to deter a terror attack by being armed is clearly proven wrong in this situation. 

Maybe they weren't armed enough? If they were unarmed, people are dead. They were armed, people are dead. The system does not work because people are still dead. Which means that there's a flaw, a flaw that needs to be looked at.

1 minute ago, Hystery said:

 

 But they -were- totally helpless anyway, even with their 9mm handgun. Because nothing can prepare them to face 2 terrorists armed with AK-47. Anyone would run for their life in front of that and try and evacuate the vicinity while waiting for reinforcement. They didn't have any opportunity to defend themselves because they couldn't do anything to begin with, even with a handgun.

Would you rather be unarmed versus a terrorist, or armed? I'll take any weapon I can get if people are shooting at me with AK-47's, even if my weapons are practically useless in comparison. It's something, and I have the ability to protect myself at the very least.

Just now, TheDivineHustle said:

Maybe they weren't armed enough? If they were unarmed, people are dead. They were armed, people are dead. The system does not work because people are still dead. Which means that there's a flaw, a flaw that needs to be looked at.

See now I agree with you, but clearly that flaw is not that arming every cop, because it clearly doesn't work. Who knows how we deal with this, it's a difficult issue, but obviously when everyone says that arming cops is the only way to deter it, past attacks across Europe have proven that to be wrong.

1 minute ago, TheDivineHustle said:

Maybe they weren't armed enough? If they were unarmed, people are dead. They were armed, people are dead. The system does not work because people are still dead. Which means that there's a flaw, a flaw that needs to be looked at.

 

Not armed enough? That's a very american way to see things. "Bring more guns to fight guns". Do you want cops to carry FAMAS/G36/M4, just in case a terrorist shows up? That doesn't work like that.

 

3 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

Would you rather be unarmed versus a terrorist, or armed? I'll take any weapon I can get if people are shooting at me with AK-47's, even if my weapons are practically useless in comparison. It's something, and I have the ability to protect myself at the very least.

 

I'd rather not to face a terrorist whatsoever, which implies that the intelligence services do their job, and I'd prefer to give cops less weapons and transfer the fundings to the intelligence services so they make sure I wouldn't have to face a terrorist. And if I ultimately faced one, a gun wouldn't help me, because those guys don't wait for you to draw a gun before shooting you, they'll shoot me immediately either way, and I'll be dead either way.

3 minutes ago, Hystery said:

 

Not armed enough? That's a very american way to see things. "Bring more guns to fight guns". Do you want cops to carry FAMAS/G36/M4, just in case a terrorist shows up? That doesn't work like that.

 

 

I'd rather not to face a terrorist whatsoever, which implies that the intelligence services do their job, and I'd prefer to give cops less weapons and transfer the fundings to the intelligence services so they make sure I wouldn't have to face a terrorist. And if I ultimately faced one, a gun wouldn't help me, because those guys don't wait for you to draw a gun before shooting you, they'll shoot me immediately either way, and I'll be dead either way.

Who's to say they have you in their sights first? It would all depend on their intentions. What if they miss their shot? What if they don't actually know how their weapon works, as evidenced by a lot of the Taliban in Afghanistan who have no idea how their weapon works? If the terrorist has his weapon jammed, does everyone just stand there and wait for him to fix it?

 

You have a chance to draw and fire, as opposed to standing there and becoming another nasty statistic.

Edited August 27, 20178 yr by TheDivineHustle