Yeah I'm in Upstate NY, I'm still grateful i am not in an area such as Chicago or Baltimore. What those people have to endure in their simple day to day living is despicable to me. Saw a great documentary from Baltimore Maryland called " Stray Rounds " , saw it ages ago. Trying to dig it up but no luck. Aside from the stabbings i have also heard that some people are using acid to assault people as well?. Is corrosive material easy to obtain in the UK that could hurt someone such as aside?. Kind of random but semi relevant. 

Edited April 11, 20188 yr by GTALawEnforcer

8 hours ago, Ben said:

I would rather wait the time for the Armed Police here to respond and deal with a situation than having a bunch of jumped up people who have limited firearms training trying to deal with a shooter.

 

I laughed out loud. Nothing but sheer lack of knowledge with this entire statement.

 

I'd like you to come to the United States and live in some of the remote areas of this country. You know, where Police can have upwards of 45 minutes to an hour response time. Americans support the Police, but we're smart enough not to place one-hundred percent dependency on them. Also, I don't know a single firearms owner that doesn't regularly visit the range and conduct maintenance on their weapons.

 

You don't just purchase a gun, lock it up in a cage, and then one day you're miraculously some sort of superhero when you've got to use it.

5 hours ago, Ben said:

 

I'm sorry, but Nevada has open-carry laws, how did that work out for the Americans at the Las Vegas concert shooting, are you just discounting all the events where civilians with the rights to bear arms and where shot up, or are you just being arrogant?

  Are you discounting all the time's that a civilian stopped criminals?, murders?, people attacking innocent civilians? Or police officer's? Kinda like the Arizona State Trooper? 

 

  Law Enforcement official's are not the only hero's or thw only one's that must deal with stopping an individual with lethal or non lethal means.

6 hours ago, TheDivineHustle said:

I laughed out loud. Nothing but sheer lack of knowledge with this entire statement.

 

I'd like you to come to the United States and live in some of the remote areas of this country. You know, where Police can have upwards of 45 minutes to an hour response time. Americans support the Police, but we're smart enough not to place one-hundred percent dependency on them. Also, I don't know a single firearms owner that doesn't regularly visit the range and conduct maintenance on their weapons.

 

You don't just purchase a gun, lock it up in a cage, and then one day you're miraculously some sort of superhero when you've got to use it.

 

A lack of knowledge... you understand that this post is about the United Kingdom and was replying to T J who was referring to the UK citizens losing their rights to own firearms... this has nothing to do with police response times in the US, but hey lets say people have a lack of knowledge whilst completely missing the point.

 

9 hours ago, GTALawEnforcer said:

 

Cheers mate, bridges not walls. Let's see how it shakes out in the long run. 

 

 

That is just pathetic, childish and I am sure some would find it offensive, it'd be as if I posted cartoons of dead children in a school or the Las Vegas concert shooting to prove my point, it is sad and wrong and all but shows you don't have a point.

Come on, really? I know religion and politics sometimes lead to a friends' meeting turning into a murder scene (no joking), but the level of arguments in this thread devolved amazingly quick.

 

Quote

millions died under stalin and millions of jews died under hitler....imagine if they were given firearms to defend themselves we wouldn't be talking about this now would we?

Not sure about the jews but people in the Stalin's USSR did have access to firearms. Helped no one. And when even after his death once city tried to protest, they were countered by the army. Not much you can do against a T-55.

 

Anyway, nothing of it would matter if the world dies in a nuclear fire for the sake of the higher needs of our countries (because apparently countries with dead citizens would still have needs). Which would happen soon.

3 hours ago, Hastings said:

Not sure about the jews but people in the Stalin's USSR did have access to firearms. Helped no one. And when even after his death once city tried to protest, they were countered by the army. Not much you can do against a T-55.

 

The December decree of the CPC of 1918, "On the surrender of weapons", ordered people to surrender any firearms and swords, bayonets and bombs, regardless of the degree of serviceability. The penalty for not doing so was ten years imprisonment.

 

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_Soviet_Union

45 minutes ago, Zerovv said:

 

The December decree of the CPC of 1918, "On the surrender of weapons", ordered people to surrender any firearms and swords, bayonets and bombs, regardless of the degree of serviceability. The penalty for not doing so was ten years imprisonment.

 

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_Soviet_Union

I'm aware of the legislation and history of my country and its predecessors. NKVD met armed resistance as late as in 1933 (accordingly, in this period penalties for firearm ownership were strengthened). And, of course, after the Second World War the amount of firearms only increased. According to the police records, the amount of yearly confiscated rifled firearms (not hunting weapons) in RSFSR alone peaked at 10 000 items in the end of 1950's. 

 

I wasn't talking about legal right to bear arms.

 

Edited April 11, 20188 yr by Hastings

8 hours ago, Ben said:

 

A lack of knowledge... you understand that this post is about the United Kingdom and was replying to T J who was referring to the UK citizens losing their rights to own firearms... this has nothing to do with police response times in the US, but hey lets say people have a lack of knowledge whilst completely missing the point.

 

Friend, you made the following general statement:

 

Quote

I would rather wait the time for the Armed Police here to respond and deal with a situation than having a bunch of jumped up people who have limited firearms training trying to deal with a shooter.

 

 

If you were referring specifically to the United Kingdom, then that's my fault and I apologize for taking your comment out of context. I saw that as being a general statement.

17 hours ago, TheDivineHustle said:

I'd like you to come to the United States and live in some of the remote areas of this country. You know, where Police can have upwards of 45 minutes to an hour response time. Americans support the Police, but we're smart enough not to place one-hundred percent dependency on them.

 

Then the issue resides in the lack of budget towards law enforcement to have enough police departments/police officers to cover a certain area with decent response times. Someone shouldn't have to rely on weapons to defend themselves when there's law enforcement to do that. Police in my area would take a good 10 to 20 minutes to arrive to my home would I need them, more than enough for anyone to break into my home and kill me, yet I don't feel the need to have any kind of weapon other than a faithful dog and a baseball bat. And many europeans feel that way. Saying cops take time to arrive so you need weapons is a poor excuse, and doesn't address the actual problem, which are the response times.

1 minute ago, Hystery said:

Then the issue resides in the lack of budget towards law enforcement to have enough police departments/police officers to cover a certain area with decent response times.

Do you really think the problem is a lack of funds in law enforcement? You do realize the USA is 14 times larger than France right?  You can't have a police officer around every corner.

 

1 minute ago, Hystery said:

Someone shouldn't have to rely on weapons to defend themselves when there's law enforcement to do that

The police has no duty to protect individuals.  So you can either defend yourself or hope that you survive till the police shows up and not everyone wants to take that risk.

13 minutes ago, Zerovv said:

Do you really think the problem is a lack of funds in law enforcement? You do realize the USA is 14 times larger than France right?  You can't have a police officer around every corner.

 

The police has no duty to protect individuals.  So you can either defend yourself or hope that you survive till the police shows up and not everyone wants to take that risk.

 

Yes, if there isn't enough people to cover an area, that means the budget isn't enough to pay those people. And yes, the police as a duty to protect individuals. PROTECT & serve. It's not up to people to defend themselves, the whole law enforcement thing has been created so people wouldn't have to.

Lol.

 

My county is 550+ square miles, ~30,000 people and some nights we have one car on.

 

Budget lol. American LE doesn't function like European LE. Go out west and you'll may have 2-3 Deputies for thousands of square miles.

And you really think it's a good thing to have so few people to cover so much ground and be in charge of making people respect the law for so many people? Not only the officers must be overworked, but it's no wonder they take so long to arrive.

 

There's no real difference between US LE and EU LE. All it comes down to is having enough people to enforce the law, no matter the location. Bigger country means bigger budget. For example, if your police had the budget of your army, I'm pretty sure you'd have enough cops to cover all those large areas.

Edited April 11, 20188 yr by Hystery

15 minutes ago, Hystery said:

And yes, the police as a duty to protect individuals. PROTECT & serve. It's not up to people to defend themselves, the whole law enforcement thing has been created so people wouldn't have to.

 

The police does not have a constitutional duty to protect an individual. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

 

15 minutes ago, Hystery said:

It's not up to people to defend themselves, the whole law enforcement thing has been created so people wouldn't have to.

Lol. That's all I can say.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 11, 20188 yr by Zerovv

2 hours ago, Hystery said:

 

Yes, if there isn't enough people to cover an area, that means the budget isn't enough to pay those people. And yes, the police as a duty to protect individuals. PROTECT & serve. It's not up to people to defend themselves, the whole law enforcement thing has been created so people wouldn't have to.

  How does a Police officer protect you if He/She arrives after the fact?

And law enforcement officials were created to enforce the law, not protect people.  That has never been, and will never be the job of law enforcement officers.  Protect and serve is propaganda designed to make you submit.

Edited April 11, 20188 yr by ToeBius

22 minutes ago, ToeBius said:

  How does a Police officer protect you if He/She arrives after the fact?

And law enforcement officials were created to enforce the law, not protect people.  That has never been, and will never be the job of law enforcement officers.  Protect and serve is propaganda designed to make you submit.

 

That's my point, an officer should be able to arrive on time. To do so, he should be patrolling an area that allows him to reach you on time. Therefore, more officers are needed. To me, it's not normal to have one single officer covering several hundred miles square of land.

 

Also, law enforcement were created to enforce the law, indeed. Who doesn't enforce the law? Criminals. Criminals who might as well be attacking you. Therefore, by enforcing the law, they protect citizens from people not abiding it. I don't see how protect and serve is a propaganda, especially since it's the motto of so many departments.

Edited April 11, 20188 yr by Hystery

21 minutes ago, Hystery said:

 

That's my point, an officer should be able to arrive on time. To do so, he should be patrolling an area that allows him to reach you on time. Therefore, more officers are needed. To me, it's not normal to have one single officer covering several hundred miles square of land.

 

Also, law enforcement were created to enforce the law, indeed. Who doesn't enforce the law? Criminals. Criminals who might as well be attacking you. Therefore, by enforcing the law, they protect citizens from people not abiding it. I don't see how protect and serve is a propaganda, especially since it's the motto of so many departments.

  When it comes to the xxx-miles of land that is being patrolled,  it is mainly rural area's.  A issue is funding, but, another primary issue is people's location.  The surrounding countryside, outside my county, it is not uncommon for 2 people to be 1/2 a mile to a mile or more from there closest neighbor so that makes long response time's.  

 

  I get what you are saying about the Police being the one's that Protect and Serve,  but in reality it is just impossible to have a large enough police force to be every half block from each other.  Protection starts with the indevidual.

 

  I live in the city and always have, the response time's here are 2-5 minutes for a violent incident.  In my first incident of using a gun for self defence, it took 5 mins for the police to arive.  

 

  If police could protect all of us then there would be no murder, assault, or rape.  I will tell you, first hand, that when you have 10 seconds available, you dont want to wait 30+ secs to a minute for them to arive.  I just want to get home alive and safe.

Point taken. I guess that's where the cultural difference comes into play.

15 hours ago, Ben said:

 

A lack of knowledge... you understand that this post is about the United Kingdom and was replying to T J who was referring to the UK citizens losing their rights to own firearms... this has nothing to do with police response times in the US, but hey lets say people have a lack of knowledge whilst completely missing the point.

 

 

That is just pathetic, childish and I am sure some would find it offensive, it'd be as if I posted cartoons of dead children in a school or the Las Vegas concert shooting to prove my point, it is sad and wrong and all but shows you don't have a point.

 

 

Mean, crude and straight to the point. Yes. Pathetic, no. Regardless i apologize for using the grossly offensive image to get my point across. Still though...-..Good stuff real mature. " You offended me , therefore you do not have a valid point on anything any longer. " Grade A debate material.  You should come protest in the United States, you would fit right in with all of our demonstrators. 

Edited April 12, 20188 yr by GTALawEnforcer

9 hours ago, GTALawEnforcer said:

 

 

Mean, crude and straight to the point. Yes. Pathetic, no. Regardless i apologize for using the grossly offensive image to get my point across. Still though...-..Good stuff real mature. " You offended me , therefore you do not have a valid point on anything any longer. " Grade A debate material.  You should come protest in the United States, you would fit right in with all of our demonstrators. 

No, your point was invalid because your point came across as 'people died, so none of the laws work' - like, what is your point. People die in every country, doesn't mean none of the laws here don't work, quite the opposite, the police are extremely effective here and now they have been given their powers back to pro-actively police, the crime rate will most likely drop again.