sek510i

That moment when you know the po po is after you so you high tail it whenever there's lights and sirens around.

Lots of arguments to counter there, love it.
 
1v3. You shoot one, the two others get to you and stab you, you lose. Even in 1v1 scenarios sometimes more weapons don't help you, ie just have to look at traffic stops going wrong in the US. So no, I'm not wrong.

Links to all of these would be nice.
 
Here's the link to the Wisconsin software company incident - https://www.channel3000.com/news/crime/police-respond-to-report-of-shooter-at-middleton-commercial-building/797200969
 
Considering they have not named the shooter, either the person is a juvenile, or there is much more to this that the authorities are aware of and investigating. Could be a bullshit article and there's another article names him.
 
Here's the one about the Masontown court house:  https://observer-reporter.com/news/localnews/shooting-at-fayette-county-magistrate-s-office-reported/article_36e7c6a8-bc3a-11e8-8562-73b2c405b567.html
 


 
Just want to point this out.  The court house was not the target, the woman - who was probably the victim from the DV (domestic violence) case - was the target and she just happened to run into the court house for protection.
 


 


 
I'm so shocked he escalated to blatant, out in the open murder! /s
 


 
Okay, I get the woman was scared, but if you're being chased by someone violent who may or may not have a gun (not confirmed if she knew he was armed), don't run into a group of people and make them the targets as well.
 


 
Exactly my point!
 


 
If I had a shot of whiskey for every mass shooting we've had as of recent, I'd probably be dead from alcohol poisoning.  This shit needs to stop.
 
I can't find a link for the last article.

Firstly, don't try and play victim because somebody calls you out on the things you say - I don't hate Americans and I am not the one who reguarly posts anti-uk and europe stuff even though your country is far from perfect, and when I say far I mean like really, really far. Now just to break down that twitter post you quoted - I can bet you for a fact that they are seized from people who have no reason to be carrying them, people who aren't handymen who are likely part of a gang who won't be able to bring up one valid reason on why they need to be carrying them around, you'll probably say it's anti-freedom but I call it great police work.

I don't see how you can complain about a country that actually tries to solve an issue instead of just sitting back and letting it happen time an time again, different cultures I guess.

I guess it's better than other countries approaches of doing nothing and expecting that the outcome will be different.

Yeah, I think they should face UK trail. At least we know its a little more... 'reliable' than one in Russia. 

Right wingers: "Liberals love to play the victim....victim mentality!"
Also right wingers: "Conservatism is under attack! Persecution of white people! Demonetization of straight white males! What about men's rights?  Christianity is under attack!"
 
The people that hold the most power, both politically and culturally, whining about being the victims. Pathetic.
 

I'd just like to point out that owning a firearm is not illegal in the UK. They have never been banned.
 
They are heavily restricted and regulated. You can apply for a license from your local police force to buy and keep firearms which is valid for five years.
 
You need a "good reason" to own one, to provide two character referees, disclose all relevant physical and mental health conditions (verified by police contacting your doctors for the past ten years), disclose all unspent and spent convictions and offences, inspection of the firearm(s) and storage premises, and an interview.
 
5% of our police are armed and only needed to discharge their weapons ten times[2017 stats]. Depending on the force, 5-50%+ of officers are Taser trained.
 
Personally, I am fine with there being more Taser trained police and more AFOs, SFOs & CTSFOs, as long as they remain as highly trained as they are now. Not given a gun after an inadequate period of training like most of the US.

I am a Chinese. I see you are very angry with these comments. We are not allowed to hold guns in China. But can a gun really defend itself? The United States can not help shooting, how many years you have counted the shooting. There are only a few times in China. Do you dare to walk in the United States at twelve at midnight? It can be in China. There are also cases of such cases. It is not common, very few. So you say the Chinese do not have the weapons of self-defense. Think for yourself.

You being an american won't do a thing once you get out of your country. And inside your country nobody will start a knife attack on you, because they're american and americans have guns. 

Really - anyone who disagrees with me is against my country. I mean, I have issues with CNN and I also think they are untrustworthy, but Fox News is as bad. They'll take unstantiated and ridiculous claims and provide a platform to so called experts who are generally supporters of Trump and just let them use Fox as a platform to put out actual 'Fake News' - neither Fox News or CNN are worthy of having the title 'news' within their name.

I would advise you against relying on anything RT broadcasts, as they're experts at shuffling facts and are primarily aimed at Russian viewers to demonstrate the decay of the West.
 
And those guys are paid for by our taxes. What a joy.

Refugees.

Oh yes, it's totally an invasion. A real repeat of Normandy landings, only here boats are filled with migrants and not soldiers. They're all there to invade and replace us to make us become part of the Western Emirates. It's 100% true, I've heard it on Fox News and read it on Info Wars, trust me.
 
/s

But what are the guidelines for labeling someone an extremist? And where is the line? Should we start loc
 
king up Christians who preach on the corner yelling about how soldiers are going to hell? Are they extremists?
 
You can't pool all these people together and throw them in jail for a "suspected extremism". You also can't have spies watching all these people all the time.
Because they are suspected extremists. Imagine if the standard for being an extremist in any other religion was so low. How many Christians, Hassidic Jews, devout Buddhists, Hinduists would be placed on a list. All those groups (With maybe the exception of Buddhists) have killed people. 
 
The real problem is that once you just allow the government to pick and choose who is an extremist and who isn't, the second a new administration comes in they could easily target a religious or political group without evidence.
And you know this how? Are you part of MI5 or MI6? Many of them aren't even under active investigation. They may have simply been suspected for opening an obscure twitter link and then been moved to the closed investigation category that the Manchester bomber was open. The criteria for extremist under MI5 is not public information so we really have no idea.
 
It isn't "justice" when a full 1%(2,200,000 in jail and over 4 million on probation and parole) of the adults in your country are locked up, and there is blatant racism in that system, with Latinos and Blacks being locked up for petty drug offenses even though white people are more likely to be carrying those drugs (politifact source).
 
 
General Address:
 
"On Friday security sources confirmed a further 20,000 individuals were said to have been considered “subjects of interest” in the past, although the period the figures cover is unclear." - The Independent.
 
Now, you might say, "Well the Manchester attacker was part of this 'past' list." This is true, but what many have failed to mention is that 13 attacks were foiled in the past year. It really comes down to the fact that you can't lock up people who you "think" are bad guys. Once you do that, democracy follows suit and goes down the tubes.

Checkpoints won't stop everything from happening anyway because you can always conceal stuff somewhere somehow, but I'll give you another possible reason as of why it's not viable over long periods of time.
 
After the first terrorist attack in France, the government launched the Sentinel operation, which basically consisted into using our army to protect most crowded cities and touristic areas. A decent idea, if it lasted just a few months. As of now, it's been two years our soldiers have been posted around the country like that, just standing on specific spots or walking around areas, with their assault rifle, hand weapon, bulletproof vest and 30 kilos of equipment on their back. Without a single day off. They're exhausted, frustrated, and become easy targets (just last week, a guy rammed into a patrol just as they walked out of their barracks). They can't do their job at optimal efficiency. Worse, they're so disgusted that they don't even renew their contracts and leave the military all together, because they enrolled to fight, and not to stand there and play the role of overseers.
 
Now imagine that, with police officers. Forced to just stand there, on a checkpoint. All day everyday, doing the same thing over and over, for months. This kind of thing works on short period of times when you need an immediate protection in the waiting of a bigger, more structured plan, but becomes liability when it is extended over long periods of time.

Oh, so you can guess if people are religious or not just by how they look? Impressive power you've there. Guess what, not all muslims wear robes and let their beards grow down their bellybutton. Actually, only a minority does that. If you can guess if people are religious or not just by their looks, I'm pretty impressed, really.
 
 
So you've read books and various researches? Well do feel free to quote them then rather than putting biased, hate-mongering Youtube videos, I'm sure we'll all happy to fact-check what those books and studies say. Because so far, based on what you've said, I can confidently said you actually didn't ready any book or researches about this topic, it shows through your pitch. By the way, I'm gay and I haven't been casted off buildings. Get out a little, you'll see the world isn't like what you think it is.

Guess what, this video is filled with wrong information. And I should know: my own father is in the police, motorized brigade of the national police.
 
Dude, I'll repeat myself, but you're basing your judgement on wrong information and biased internet videos. It's really easy to manipulate the image to make it convey a message, positive or negative, and you're falling right into that. Most videos you posted so far couldn't be farthest from reality.
 
 
Do you know why they didn't arrest them and simply monitored? Because you can't prosecute someone based on how much you THINK they'll commit a crime. You can't charge people with thought crime, that's all. It's nothing related to not offending people or anything like that, that's just how the legal system is. You can charge people only if you have concrete proof they were either preparing a crime, or when the crime is committed. So again, you base your judgement on wrong or misinterprated information coming from hate-mongering videos and comment sections. Not the most objective part of the internet.

It's easy really. Because they don't retreat and don't get beaten constantly. If you're basing your opinion on Youtube videos, you should reconsider your judgement really.

One of the founding principles of UK policing is that the police should not bow to public opinion; a police force's success is measured by the absence or presence of crime, and not by the public's perception of it.
 
Regardless of how much of the public want more guns, the police themselves are still voting against routine arming.
 
I do think that the TSG AFO idea might work, but I still don't see what's wrong with just increasing the number of ARVs. If they're spread out and in high enough numbers, they could deal with most incidents fairly quickly.
 
Also, some areas don't seem to have a need for more ARVs. For example, Wales has more of a problem with drugs, and their officers have never fired a shot outside training. I don't see the point in spending more money getting more AFOs in Wales when they could fund people to deal with the drugs problem instead.
 
I'm just thinking that practically, there isn't enough money to arm these quantities of officers, and there's a lot of other stuff that they need to fund properly as a higher priority.

So, you basically allow yourself to judge the whole police forces of entire countries entirely based on biased, hate-mongering and non-objective Youtube videos. I mean, all is said, there's nothing else to argue after that.

Really? Really though? Let me tell you a little story.
 
Let's say a guy comes out of a street with a truck and decides to run over the crowd on the sidewalk. The SECOND medias would happen to know he's of arabic origin, EVERY media on Earth, every single one of them, will spam the "TERRORIST ATTACK", "TERROR IN [CITY]", "ISLAMIST TERRORIST", even though they actually know absolute-freaking-ly nothing of the guy and what actually happened.
 
Now let's take the exact same story. A guy comes out of a street with a truck and decides to run over the crowd on the sidewalk. The SECOND medias would happen to know he's caucasian... nothing. No catchy TERRORIST logo, no TERROR ATTACK band passing on the bottom of the screen, absolutely nothing. They'll just say they don't have many info yet, and that the guy might be mentally unstable, and then they'll start blaming his difficult childhood and shit. It'd take them DAYS to eventually call him a terrorist, if they do it at all.
 
The first scenario was Nice.
The second scenario was Finsbury Park, London, where a white male drove into a crowd of innocent muslims in front of a mosque with a van.
 
Yes, both happened, and medias reacted exactly like this. Medias tell and show us all the time how great Islam is? I don't think so. Another proof that you actually do NOT know what you're talking about, you're just repeating what you hear here and there from alt-news "journalists" and xenophobic politics.
 
 
 
No, you definitely don't, and I can say that because of all the inaccuracies and shortcuts you've been taking so far in every single one of your posts. You absolutely have no idea how they think and how they live. You THINK you know, the difference is there, but your view on them is solely based on biased stereotypes and a very, very small minority of people.

I agree.  There have been plenty of folks illegally detained in these black sites and interrogated as enemies of the state, even though they actually aren't terrorists.  Terrorism changes the playing field entirely.  It's not right, but it does.

People who feel neglected or persecuted by a government will usually try to find ways to oppose it. If somebody's a Muslim in an area with lots of attacks on Muslims, I can see how a small minority of their population might be radicalised.
 
I'm not sure that all countries are doing enough to stop these problems at their source. If Muslim populations were happy, I reckon that far fewer of them would turn to extremes like this. Many countries now seem to be locked into a cycle where a terrorist attack causes persecution of the general Muslim population which feeds terrorist propaganda videos online which inspire more terrorist attacks. Currently most countries are preparing for the attacks themselves, and trying to stop them before they've happened, but they don't seem as capable of dealing with online extremist material. Some areas also seem to be struggling to deal with hate crimes against Muslims, which feed into extremism.
 
I'm glad that these people were stopped before they caused harm to themselves or somebody else, but there will be more like them unless the government takes a more holistic approach to dealing with counter-terrorism operations and stopping radicalisation.
 
Also, detention without trial or time limit? How the heck do they justify that one?
 
 

Well that's one way of looking at it.

Another way would be that it is stupid to army 100,000+ front line police officers to run around with handguns in order to find one of the very, very few illegal guns in this country. The reason this country has such low gun crime and why it is extremely rare to hear about a cop shooting a suspect (excluding during a terrorist incident) is because criminals do not feel the need to use firearms against them - when they are used they are met with extreme force by Specialist Firearms Officers who's training would rival that of some countries military Special Forces units.

If you armed them - against their will I might add. You are looking at hundreds of millions in costs to acquire the firearms and then train the officers with said firearms. You will also most likely lose the quality that Armed Police Officers here are trained to, all resulting in a police force which polices through use of firearms, in which the first thing to do in a situation is rich for a loaded weapon.

It's rather silly if you ask me, to even consider such a thing.