Two 'corrections' Larry & Doug..
1. The 'perp' was a British citizen born & bred here.
2. You may find this hard to comprehend but the members of the British Police force themselves overwhelmingly voted NOT to carry guns.
I knew the "bobbies" (as we called them when I was young...please let me know if this is now considered a derogatory term so I can quit) did not carry weapons. I had no idea it was the preference of the police force themselves.
Just curious...considering how things have changed since the refugee "invasion", do you think the vote would be the same if it were to be redone?
I must admit, I think that you Brits have the right idea...guns are strictly regulated so that the sporting enthusiast can still enjoy the hobby but not every "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" goofball (it's a line from a Jack Nicholson movie called "The Shining") can carry an AR15 into the local WalMart. The idea that the police could function in a "non-lethal" manner seems to perplex quite a few of our citizens here (as if the 2nd amendment entitled them to go cop hunting, or drunk hunting, or even political protester hunting), but the police in England seem to have been able to manage for a LONG time! It has always been my assertion that not every person who is resistant or rude to a police officer needs to be "punished", and for certain that NO police officer has the right to be judge, jury and executioner and deliver a capital punishment just because they were offended by the way a citizen addressed them or was resistant or ran from them or....well, you get the idea, our police departments
seem to believe that the best way to enforce our laws is to shoot first and then let the lawyers ask the questions...
IF the unlucky autistic individual knew what they were doing or not (yes, we have had autistic individuals here shot and killed by police because they did not follow a command...as if they had the ability to understand and make a decision with a police officer shouting at them and pointing a gun at them).
I'm sure you remember my "Worst thread title ever" thread...I guess I mention this all because if our police would function more like responsible individuals with some self-restraint perhaps we would have no need for weapons, like the population of England feels is adequate.
I realize this might be a changing issue for the European countries, maybe the population of England might feel that weapons ARE the answer...but many times I think they are the problem because they have fallen into the wrong hands. We do have many responsible gun owners who use guns for target practice/competitions as well as for hunting; we just also seem to have that lunatic fringe that believes that just because they believe that the 2nd amendment gives them the right to own guns it also gives them the right to use them in any manner that they feel would be desirable...with disastrous results. Gun ownership brings about responsibility, and one of those responsibilities is, IMHO, to do as little harm as possible if using a weapon is necessary, not to see how many shots you can put into a person's chest within a 2" circle from 75 feet away.
There is no real answer for this dilema as long as our society seems to think that violence is the correct answer to "how do we stop the violence". I really admire England for not allowing these despicable radicalized immigrants change their societal beliefs...you have it right, IMHO.
How to keep a citizen who was born and raised in your country from becoming radicalized is another issue, altogether....and one for which I have little to suggest as I have never been one to believe in violence.
Good lord, I hope this is a trend we can find a way to address without having to give all LEO's an AR15 or a bazooka...but there is validity in the other side's point that the (Jihadist, in particular) violence needs to be stopped!
I still say we deport them all to North Korea, whether or not that's where they came from. Let that goofball deal with them.
Doug