NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/NewsDisplay/tabid/209/articleID/18823/Default.aspx

Knowing England it's probably just a 14 year old kid with a samurai sword watching too much anime.

probably (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=514162) <- linky.

tho I'll wait till the report comes when he tries to deflect bullets off of his sword.

http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/NewsDisplay/tabid/209/articleID/18823/Default.aspx

Knowing England it's probably just a 14 year old kid with a samurai sword watching too much anime.

This is the coolest news ever!! I hope the samurai dude keeps doing this and become a real "spider man" or "true hero". Awesome. Btw, why didnt British police use their guns?

This is the coolest news ever!! I hope the samurai dude keeps doing this and become a real "spider man" or "true hero". Awesome. Btw, why didnt British police use their guns?

They don't carry them.

Im willing to bet that the intention of the police is to charge the man who saved them, or at the very least discourage him from doing it again. Im quite sure that Englands knife legislation covered weapons far more harmless. Besides a good longsword is a better weapon than a Katana anyway.

probably (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=514162) <- linky.

tho I'll wait till the report comes when he tries to deflect bullets off of his sword.

Didn't see it.

They don't carry them.

Ah. Hence their ineffectiveness in this case...

Didn't see it.

I thought so, but I didn't want to post the usual response that tends to be a little insulting. :)

But I am waiting for that article about him deflecting (or trying to deflect) bullets. :p

They don't carry them.
"in England, the police don't have guns and you don't have guns, so the officer says "Stop! or I'll yell 'Stop' again!"
-Robin Williams: Live at the Met-

That is REALLY a stupid rule.
What's the point of law enforcement if they can't, you know, enforce the law?
Really.

That is REALLY a stupid rule.
What's the point of law enforcement if they can't, you know, enforce the law?
Really.

Anti-riot Clubs?

That is REALLY a stupid rule.
What's the point of law enforcement if they can't, you know, enforce the law?
Really.

Enforcing the law doesn't necessarily mean shooting people. In fact, it doesn't mean that at all...

However, considering the propensity of criminals to carry firearms, it seems like they would think it was at least worth considering.

Enforcing the law doesn't necessarily mean shooting people. In fact, it doesn't mean that at all...

But guns and uniforms look sexy anyways so who cares?

Im willing to bet that the intention of the police is to charge the man who saved them, or at the very least discourage him from doing it again. Im quite sure that Englands knife legislation covered weapons far more harmless. Besides a good longsword is a better weapon than a Katana anyway. Which is rather pathetic for the police because if he wasn't there the police might have had a second smile.

Banning guns from the police is really really stupid.

Which is rather pathetic for the police because if he wasn't there the police might have had a second smile.

Banning guns from the police is really really stupid.

Well, I think its just the regular patrols who dont use them. If they really have a situation with a group of armed criminals Im sure they have the English equivalent of a S.W.A.T team, or maybe call in the SAS or something to that effect.

Well, I think its just the regular patrols who dont use them. If they really have a situation with a group of armed criminals Im sure they have the English equivalent of a S.W.A.T team, or maybe call in the SAS or something to that effect.

I don't think they need to call in the SAS.

However, considering the propensity of criminals to carry firearms, it seems like they would think it was at least worth considering.

Perhaps that is the reason why more American criminals carry guns. If they know the coppers 'ave 'em, then they need to level the playing field.

By and large, the lack of armed police has, until recently, stopped the micro-arms race phenomenon between gangs and the law.

We do have some gun wielding policemen though, just for emergencies. I can count the number of times I have seen them on one set of hands, and most of those instances were in July '05.

Which is rather pathetic for the police because if he wasn't there the police might have had a second smile.

Banning guns from the police is really really stupid.

The polices job is to maintain the law, even if that does mean they have to sacrifice their own lives.

Also, no its not.

Perhaps that is the reason why more American criminals carry guns. If they know the coppers 'ave 'em, then they need to level the playing field.

By and large, the lack of armed police has, until recently, stopped the micro-arms race phenomenon between gangs and the law.

We do have some gun wielding policemen though, just for emergencies. I can count the number of times I have seen them on one set of hands, and most of those instances were in July '05.

Please tell me you're trying to be funny/sarcastic...

Please tell me you're trying to be funny/sarcastic...

He's probably not. There have been criminology and sociology studies in the past that have (succesfully) argued that under "normal" criminal circumstances, the "standard" among professional criminals and even ad hoc lawbreakers is to use as much violence as is necessary to get the upper hand (in fact, that is an anthropological and psychological given). Given the fact that there is an unpredictable factor of the amount of force the police will put against the intent of the criminal, this often results in underestimation of the police force, resulting in the apprehension of the fellon. But even with thoroughly planned criminal activities where the criminal manages to escape, the ultimate goal is still attained: lower lethality rate. And in fact, crime figures have shown that the common availability of guns to police officers in no way increases the rate of "capture" of criminals - thus the effectiveness of the police force remains largely unhampered (it requires other strategies, of course...). It does, however, increase the rate of lethality, among criminals, police officers, and innocent bystanders alike.

In light of this, it has also been argued that the widespread availability of guns to the common people to act as a deterrent for criminal activities, in no way alters the amount of criminal activities as a whole, but rather makes them more violent and more lethal. Since most crimes are started out of need (justified or not, that's a matter of perspective and opinion, and not the scope of this post), the means serve the end, and are indeed adapted to the opposition one expects to encounter.

And as stated before, not all UK police are unarmed. If the situation requires it, there's armed units that are on call.

They've all got guns in Northern Ireland... we're just so special!

They've all got guns in Northern Ireland... we're just so special!

Hmm, indeed :( That falls under the "different strategy" part I'm afraid :headbang:

*snip*

Quite so.
*applause*

He's probably not. There have been criminology and sociology studies in the past that have (succesfully) argued that under "normal" criminal circumstances, the "standard" among professional criminals and even ad hoc lawbreakers is to use as much violence as is necessary to get the upper hand (in fact, that is an anthropological and psychological given). Given the fact that there is an unpredictable factor of the amount of force the police will put against the intent of the criminal, this often results in underestimation of the police force, resulting in the apprehension of the fellon. But even with thoroughly planned criminal activities where the criminal manages to escape, the ultimate goal is still attained: lower lethality rate. And in fact, crime figures have shown that the common availability of guns to police officers in no way increases the rate of "capture" of criminals - thus the effectiveness of the police force remains largely unhampered (it requires other strategies, of course...). It does, however, increase the rate of lethality, among criminals, police officers, and innocent bystanders alike.

In light of this, it has also been argued that the widespread availability of guns to the common people to act as a deterrent for criminal activities, in no way alters the amount of criminal activities as a whole, but rather makes them more violent and more lethal. Since most crimes are started out of need (justified or not, that's a matter of perspective and opinion, and not the scope of this post), the means serve the end, and are indeed adapted to the opposition one expects to encounter.

And as stated before, not all UK police are unarmed. If the situation requires it, there's armed units that are on call.

But.. but... but... guns good!
:rolleyes:

Omg U Cnt Inferce Teh Lawz Withut Gunzz!

friendly vigilantes.. Bah! gimme Batman- The dark knight or Spawn, those are vigilantes!

friendly vigilantes.. Bah! gimme Batman- The dark knight or Spawn, those are vigilantes!

But those are non-gun-using pussies, need more Punisher.

But those are non-gun-using pussies, need more Punisher.

granted they don't use guns, but pussies!? I beg to differ!
But I can't disagree with punisher, but my money is still on Batman (the dark knight issues and similar) and spawn but for "normality" and with guns i'd go with punisher.