No, absolutely not, if you understand anything about me you should know I am more than capable of arguing my point and am willing and able to continue the discussion but not with someone who is attempting to turn it into a mud chucking comp. If you would like to discuss it further or even the previous poster then I would be more than happy to reply to any given points as long as I'm not being drawn into insulting point scoring. If you believe I'm out of my depth then make your case please.
I replied to inform you of the way you are dragging the discussion down. I am more than willing to continue the discussion as long as it's debated on the issue and not dragged into name calling. Up to you!In other words, you don't have an answer or a counter argument so you'll play the "petty insult" card. From someone who refers to someone else on here as an oddball and told that person to "do one", that really is laughable. :rofl:
And you did reply.
I have a view and wish to express it, I assume this is acceptable. Some may have more experience than me with Policing but that does not mean its wrong to question the way things are done and make suggestions on how it could be carried out differently. I have made the case based on the way many other countries in Europe operate and my experience of them is they do it very well and have a different view on why they are armed. I do not accept a cart blanch reply that it's not possible or correct for the UK to arm policemen. I don't have experience or knowledge on the Trident Nuclear Deterrent but I do have an opinion on it and think I am entitled to it.
I did address this point earlier in the thread. I explained that arming police will not stop terrorists but IMO will give additional protection to the officer and his ability to protect others. I also gave information showing the large increase in gun crime in cities like Birmingham where the use of firearms is quite frightening.
I don't need personal experience to form a view on an issue, if this was the case then only the Police would be able to make law and policy on how they operate. People in countries like Germany, Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, France etc are not at liberty to carry firearms and if anything are safer places to be out on the streets than many UK Cities, this has been my experience when living and working in these countries. The first principal of Peelian Policing was to prevent crime, current UK policing methods do not seem to generally do this, it is more a reactionary force that is out of public view and used as a response reaction when crime has been committed. In this case I would suggest being armed would be a precaution allowing the officers to better respond to whatever the situation presents itself with.
Are you suggesting more of them would have lived if they were unarmed in NI?
OK, so if a maniac with a knife or gun was attacking your Joe Public then how would you best defend them?
Is debating a serious subject a new low on the Forum. I fail to understand your post.
I have a different view on the subject and I am making it. BIM and Yourself are at will to disagree and post alternative views. I think it's unfair to suggest I have not backed up my view (It's not a demand by the way)My view may not satisfy you but that's not a problem to me as once again you are entitled to it. I seem to be experiencing Forum members taking the view that it's wrong to disagree with something even if you are doing your best to be polite when doing it.
Nobody is saying it's wrong to disagree, but instead of answering the replies (as you've failed to do to Phil here) you're making out you're being picked on!
