Ben

Firstly, the Territorial Defense is the paramilitary groups you speak of, they are literally categorised on the Wikipedia page as a 'militia', I have tried looking for alternative militias that are not within this force and I cannot find them. Secondly, have you got any proof that every family has a gun in Poland, because from the site I presented, it states that the per 100 ownership of guns in Poland is 2.50, the overall amount of firearms in Poland is ' 2017: 968,0001 ', so saying that the population of Poland is 37 million, either you are severely incorrect, or Polish families are very large.

You really haven't proven anything about it working in Poland, they are trained by the military because they form the 'Territorial Defence Force' - they are a militia which opperates as a reserve force in the event of an invasion by Russia, they are reserve military personal, they are funded by the government and are given weapons and anti-tank weapons and training, this is similar to the British Army Reserves here in the United Kingdom who used to be referred to as a the Territorial Army. So, the people who get paid are volunteer members of the Polish defences forces, they are directly under the command of the Polish Ministry of Defence who pay to equip them, they are not average civilians who get to keep guns in their home. The fact still remains, Poland has tighter gun laws than the United Kingdom a lower gun ownership and a lower gun-related homicide rate, no normal civilians who are not part of the military of reseve defence forces get training in weapons, so you really haven't proven that it can work over here.

Poland has some of the strictist gun laws in Europe, they are far more stricter than the gun ownership laws in the United Kingdom. Gun ownership per 100: United Kingdom: 3.79 Poland: 1.49 It also, based on the lower gun ownership rate has a lower Total Number of Gun Deaths. http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/poland http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom So your evidence proving that it works in Poland is incorrect, because Polish people are more restricted in access to firearms and also cannot purchase automatic firearms: "In Poland, civilians are not allowed to possess automatic firearms, firearms disguised as other objects, and armour-piercing, incendiary and expanding ammunition78 79"

It hasn't been proven time and time again - this article goes to show that sinces 1997 academic studies have contiously countered each other on whether or not having a populace that is legally armed reduces violent crimes, so nobody actually has an answer, so it would be stupid to take action when none of the studies in the past two decades have ever agreed with each other. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/right-to-carry-gun-violence/531297/ I'm sure the study which is referenced within that post will be debunked soon, and then someone will debunk the debunk and we'll end up in a loop until someone provides a study that people agree with. Of course violent crime is going to still be a thing after guns are banned, but it's easier to kill someone with a gun than a knife, I can likely outrun someone with a knife, or fight and attempt at disarming them, but with a gun before I make a move to do either, I am likely already shot.

Now let's break down what you just said. You quoted statistics of gun crime in America, you presented one city with no murder and 100% gun ownership, I acknowledged that, yet there are many variables that contribute to that. You continously compare America to the United Kingdom, and you can bring up as many statistics from America as you want, but we banned guns because of mass-shootings in schools, there hasn't been one since, that within itself is proof that gun control saves lives. Now onto police wanting guns - through surveys within the police and the public, it is known that on the large part they do not want to be armed, and of those that do, the majority only want to be armed when necessary and are opposed to routinely being armed on patrol. People here don't want their guns back, and the public still majorly backs the banning and limiting of firearms, so no, they really don't want their guns back, so please stop making it up. I don't care about the average citizen? I am an average citizen and shown by the fact that the majority of this country democratically chose that we do not want to own or have the ability to own weapons, you are once again wrong. You cannot force police officers to carry guns, and you cannot overrule the democratic decision of the people, that is how it works, this isn't just my opinion, this is the opinion of the majority, so stop trying to make out as if I am the Prime Minister and I am trying to get people killed, it just detracts from any of the points you do have. Back onto it, I am an average citizen once again and I agree with the other majority of 'average citizens' who still believe that gun ownership should be limited if not banned. The government has constant security because political figures are more likely to be attacked, that is just simple logic, nothing to do with treating people as second-class citizens, because under that logic unless there was a cop providing personal security for every citizen in the UK, someone would be a second-class citizen.

It's worth noting that you are still comparing a country with minimal gun crime to the United States, it's a completely different culture and you first need to acknowledge that. The police here have shown them more than capable of dealing with the gun crime, so why you'd think there is any reason to try and alter the national opinion on gun control with statistics relating to the United States is concerning. Also, no, just no. The people in the UK don't want their guns back, there are few, but no, not a majority of people. Nobody thinks the Government has failed in protecting them and nobody thinks that they are taking away our freedom. It's funny that in a post where you tried to complain about me pointing out issues with the statistics you are quoting, you continue your post by making something up, that's mildly amusing.

We banned guns because of two mass-shootings in schools here, the people decided that guns weren't needed and so they where banned. There hasn't been a mass-shooting at a school since, that in itself is reason enough for keeping gun ownership limited to the 0.2% who own shotguns in the UK. It doesn't just affect legal gun owners, if there are more guns on the street it is easier to get access to a gun, you can talk about correct implementation and so onwards, but I have not seen one person provide a sensible format which would keep guns in the hands of 'legal gun owners' and ensure that criminals could not get their hands on them and use them. Until someone provides a plan which shows that criminals will not gain access, there is no need to change them as our currently our gun control whilst not being perfect are still enough to keep people safe.

Why would you need to implement it at all, it's harder to get access to weapons if you need a license to own them, and the types are heavily limited, which is how it works in the United Kingdom, we have low rates of firearms related crime, I don't see any logical reason for giving more people access to firearms. If you don't want people to have firearms (like we don't in the United Kingdom) we simply do not let people have them.

Working what you just said back into what we was discussing, giving private citizens in the UK a wider access to weapons will only result in a more increased chance of criminals getting access to said firearms, this may work all well and good in America, but when you have so little firearms in your country, introducing more is counterproductive to a situation.

I don't want to get into a gun control debate on this matter saying as there is about eighty topics over the past four years which have covered both sides of the arguement, I was merely pointing out that the statistics you presented does not prove anything, there could be numerous variables in place which would result in such a low murder rate.

It's interesting to see such a low crime rate overall, especially with a population of 30k+ that being said, this really doesn't prove anything, there could be numerous variables which play into such a low crime rate and there is no evidence at all to prove that simply owning a firearm makes an area safe. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/

Again, you are comparing a country with more guns than people to a country with barely any firearms ownership. There simply isn't enough gun crime in the United Kingdom to warrant such wide distribution of firearms to police officers, police here go through 2 years of regular police work before they can even attend firearms training, this two year period gives the chance for officers who eventually want to apply to become an Authorised Firarms Officer to learn how to handle situations without the need for firearms. I checked around for the open-carry thing in Texas, and I could only find stuff regarding how it wasn't working, which of course is the complete opposite of what you said, would you be able to find the article that mentions that.

I am fully aware of the thing you mention, there is a difference however. In America you can get access to long-ranged and deadily weaponary like that, here in the United Kingdom you can't, we use tasers on people wielding knives all the time in this country, I personally am hoping that the government expand the usage of tasers so that all police officers in the United Kingdom are trained and carry tasers, that would begin to address an issue within the United Kingdom. That being said, it still doesn't mean that all cops need to be armed. It would be a vast overreaction and in an attempt to limit rare terrorist attacks, you'd end up making more problems.

Of all the plots stopped, most of them relate to government officials or government locations (Downing Street, Buckingham Palace and Parliament). I never said that it isn't bad that people are being stabbed, but there have been three attacks where armed officers where needed and only one where they had to respond to a location they was not already at (the same one you mentioned where the cop was stabbed), I again go back to the point of, most cops do not want to be armed and you cannot force them to be, you can not also take one incident and use it as a reason that all 126k police officers across the country should be armed. It's also confusing that you thing having armed police would resolve this issue, either terrorists would feel the need to gain access to firearms or they would just go to alternative places where there are no cops. So to solve a problem where on rare occassions somebody commits a terrorist attack in this country, your solution is to place 126k firearms trained officers onto the street, it really doesn't make sense to me.

The queen and government officials get armed police because they are targets, they are in everyway more likely to be attacked by terrorists or pretty much anyone who disagrees with them, the same cannot be said for an average citizen. One Police Officer got stabbed, sad situation I must admit but he survived. However one stabbing does not justify the need to equip all 126 thousand cops with firearms, there was a call for more highly trained Armed Officers since the past terrorist attacks and they are currently working on that. Also, stop calling people selfish, most police here don't want to be armed, and those who do can easily begin the application process to become an armed officer, you can't just call people selfish because the policing is done differently to your country.

Let's go to the first video - perfect police work, nobody is dead, suspect is arrested and the job is done. I don't see how anyone could argue that the situation was handled incorrectly. In order to fly the baloon the protestors had to have 2 months of discussions with the Mayor in order to get it approved. I don't see any news articles at all stating that any group was denied the right to protest, so if you could post in an article regarding this I would appreciate it, as it currently seems you are just making it up. On to your last point, the release Tommy Robinson rally was not shut-down, police simply made sure that opposing protestors did not clash with each other, both sides where able to protest, both sides made their point heard and there was no violence, in the eyes of normal people this is perfect policing. That is unless of course you are trying to push some sort of agenda. As someone who lives in in a city of 552, 267 with a police force that covers a population of 1.38 million people, I can assure you that my 'local police' have seen more shootings, more stabbings and pretty much any other form of crime in a year than you will personally see in your entire life. You may consider 2-3 units a waste of resources, however we don't. This country has more than enough experience in dealing with agressive and hostile people and the police have shown themselves more than capable of dealing with an incident without the need to kill people. You may think that because someone broke the law that it is okay to kill them, but thankfully we don't allow that to happen here.

Protests between those on the right and left are often violent, they simply relocated him from the middle of opposing protestors in order to ensure that there is no violence, he was still able to protest, and show his opinion. This is so not an issue, so the fact the poster of this thread is trying to insinuate he was banned from protesting is unbelievable.

That first post was... a segway of an opinion. Whether you agree with it or not, the Police are in place to prevent disorder and violence, this guy has clearly gone out of his way, to mix in with protesters that have differeing opinions, in order to keep everyone safe the police chose to move him along. Having watched the video, the police where respectful to him whilst trying to resolve the issue and pointed out where he could be when he was protesting. Disorder was prevented, protests where held, and as such there is no issue here, unless you are trying to an agenda.

Must be the first time a tourist has been attacked in the country they are visiting in the history of the world. You got us, we are savages, overrun by muslims, kneeling to our overlords. 🤦‍♂️

I'm sorry, but your response is laughable. You don't want to argue with what I said, because it made sense so you chose to just chock it up to me not reading the correct stuff? At this point, I really couldn't care who you think is the 'proper' source for news and information (I'd gather you'd think Alex Jones and his fellow cuckoo crazy friends are factual and real news), I come from the United Kingdom, I live in one of the diverse areas in the United Kingdom so when people from countries like America quote right-wing news sources, and when I say news I mean YouTube channels and try and tell me what happens in my country, I get a little confused. Based on my experience as a citizen in the United Kingdom I can tell you with 100% confidence that we have free speech, there are no daily terrorist attacks and that generally most things you say within your post in this forum section are completely incorrect or utterly misleading. As for triggering the politically correct Community and Dev team, I really don't get your point. I merely pointed out that what you said was untrue, unless being politcally correct means simply pointing out 'fake news'.

He is in prison because he broke the law, I'm not sure how it works in the United States but trials here are meant to be fair, regardless of what happened. He was told not to report on the case because it could influence the jury and in do so result in the courts having to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds retrying the case. Adding on the person who is in jail is nothing more than an arrogant hypocritical racist, the guy has no problems throwing facts out the window to push his own agenda... he was the person who founded the EDL (English Defence League). As for the whole no freedom stuff, I think you should do as you have said above and read/inform yourself by viewing other sources of information, because what you are reading right now is completely untrue.

I have this issue because my controller wire is slightly broken although it seems to be happening in the same manner to other people I know. If your controller is wired and the wire is what is disconnecting it wiggling the wire usually disconnects and puts it back onto P1.

That's all guessing at best - the United States are having problems with China where they are putting tarrif's on each others exports such, also around 90% of North Koreas external trade comes from China. Yet we are meant to believe that Trump has solved the most difficult continuing conflict in the world, whilst also acting rather undiplomatic and rudely towards Kim Jong Un and partaking in a trade-war against China....

I'd put this more down to China - they all but behind the scenes control what North Korea does, they've clamped down on North Korea's ability to trade and I gather the instability is bad for business, there was also reports that there has been some kind of accident at the facility where North Korea develops and tests its Nuclear Missiles which could be another reason, maybe they came to the conclusion it's far too much effort.

No he isn't, the ban is relating to things such as Zombie Knives and knuckledusters - the purpose of which is to cause halm towards people. The actual law is that you can't carry a knife in public without a reason, that is known as carrying an offensive weapon, but yeah... go ahead and make out that he is banning equipment that cooks need to carry out their job.