british-police-royal-baby-hospital

“Once upon a time, you could get firearms support to somebody within 10 to 15 minutes. There are now occasions throughout the country where the possibility of getting somebody there within 50 minutes is more likely.” – Anonymous retired British police officer in British police still shun guns despite Paris attacks: ‘We are an unarmed force – we’re proud of that’ [at rawstory.com]

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

45 COMMENTS

      • Typical comment on the internet where someone spouts a ridiculous claim like it’s fact. There is.nothing in English, Welsh, Scottish, NI or general UK law which says they must be unarmed. If you had a clue you’d know they are armed by UK law as pepper etc. spray comes under rbe firearms act 1968.

  3. We are an unarmed force – we’re proud of that.

    Translation:

    We are an impotent force incapable of stopping violent scumbags from harming our children, wives, parents, neighbors, and ourselves. Since the resulting guilt and shame is unbearable, we tell everyone that we are “proud of being unarmed” as a salve for the searing pain that we feel in our conscience for choosing to shirk our sacred duty to protect our lives.

    • We also want the bad guys to know we are unarmed, hence not sufficiently threatening to bother shooting at….. We could still rescue your treed cat, though. Back before our lager guts made ladder work inadvisable….

  6. We keep spending most our lives living in a terrorist’s paradise.
    No guns, for the cops,
    no gun for the pops.
    no guns for ma,
    no guns for pa.
    No guns for us today.
    Hey, hey, we’re just being one big target away.
    The muzzies are the thrill.
    Cause they just wanna kill.
    Can’t defend yourself they say.
    So the baddies, they will slay.
    Subjects are unarmed.
    So, the Subjects will be harmed.

  7. “Once upon a time, you could get firearms support to somebody within 10 to 15 minutes.
    I do not know if I would be too proud of that either.
    Evidently my posting is much faster than the police.

  8. After dumping guns and ammo in the Atlantic after WWII, I doubt US citizens will again send them arms when they are in need.

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

  9. “what are we supposed to use, harsh language?”

    “Hey Vasquez, has anyone ever mistaken you for a man”? “No, have you”?

    “Aliens” starts to look more like a allegory of what is going on in England, and Europe right now.

    A group of human beings that might as well be an alien species with the same savage bloody mindedness of a “exomorph” from the Alien universe let loose in the unarmed paradise of Europe and England.

    As he said so well “Game over man! Game over!”

    Hopefully it won’t get to the point of “Nuke it from orbit, it’s the only way to be sure!”

  10. My brain just stops when trying to understand the rational. Deny citizens lawful self defense, while response time increases, however the population is so adverse to handguns that jihadist opportunity successful attacks is exponential increased. And when the bodies bleed out, self appointed experts declare the CCW holder than responds to a mass murder is more dangerous.

    Perhaps that is the goal. Shaming citizens who dare to live…action a anti gunner refuses to understand. V

    • And don’t forget inviting large numbers of Muslim immigrants who have no intention of assimilating into your society to move on in and suck off your welfare state. I think the term you’re looking for is ‘national suicide’.

    • I have nothing against unarmed police, as long as private citizens get to carry. Many dogs will be spared.

  11. Its all tea and crumpets until someone gets their head chopped off.

    I find it rather hilarious the size of the reality distortion field that has formed over the UK.

    I guess they just need a heart attack moment to finally wake themselves up to the reality.

  16. In the comments at Raw Story, I see that the Stalinists there deleted every comment by a gun rights supporter.

  17. I read the article and the comments. It would appear to me that most of the people who commented like the fact that their police are unarmed. So….I guess they are getting what they want. They can have it.

    Steve

  20. In other words, if there’s a Paris-style attack there, it’ll be even worse in places like, say, London.

    Good job, subjects of the Crown.

    • Probably, although they get away with it for longer because being an island nation has its benefits.

      Of course the IRA just went with bombs…

  21. Yep, I cannot fathom that almost all of the posts from UK natives deny that they have a problem, denigrate the US for being so gun crazy and violent, and quote wildly incorrect statistics that show how much better off they are than we are. I would swear they were all Piers Morgan if I didn’t know better. Unbelievable.

  22. What a pathetic country. Brush up on your Arabic language skills -the land of hope and GORY with all the knife attacks…

  23. Could be worse… remember the story about the 3 Washington DC coeds who were held hostage by home invaders and raped for 3 days. One of the girls managed to call 911 as the invaders tried to break in. DC cops drove past, decided there was no need to go to the door. The girls sued in the aftermath, and the courts ruled that police have no obligation to provide protection.

    A precedent to keep in mind as foaming-at-the-mouth Democrats push for gun bans.

    • Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
      By Linda Greenhouse, June 28, 2005

      WASHINGTON, June 27 – The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
      […]
      http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect-someone.html

      Also:

      Just Dial 911? The Myth of Police Protection
      Most Police Have No Legal Duty to Protect Citizens from Criminal Attack
      By Richard W. Stevens Saturday, April 01, 2000

      Underlying all “gun control” ideology is this one belief.” “Private citizens don’t need firearms because the police will protect them from crime.” That belief is both false and dangerous for two reasons.

      First, the police cannot and do not protect everyone from crime. Second, the government and the police in most localities owe no legal duty to protect individuals from criminal attack. When it comes to deterring crime and defending against criminals, individuals are ultimately responsible for themselves and their loved ones. Depending solely on police emergency response means relying on the telephone as the only defensive tool. Too often, citizens in trouble dial 911 . . . and die.
      […]
      http://fee.org/freeman/just-dial-911-the-myth-of-police-protection/

      Just a few other examples:

      Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958)
      Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981)
      Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982)
      DeShaney v. Winnebago County D.S.S., 489 U.S. 189 (1989)
      Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)
      Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995)
      Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998)
      Castle Rock v. Gonzales, (04-278) 545 U.S. 748 (2005)

  25. This is the dystopian vision that Libs have for the USA. They will continue denying that Islam is threatening our western culture right up until the cold steel of the Jihadis knife blade slices through their neck. Why we are allowing the usurper in chief to facilitate our downfall is a national disgrace.

    • I have a slightly different understanding of what’s happening… WE aren’t allowing the Muslim-in-Chief to do this; DEMOCRATS in general are, and Democratic Senators in particular.

  27. We are an unarmed force – we’re proud of that.

    I’m willing to bet ISIS is even more enthusiastic about that than you bobbies could ever be.

  28. The Brits will never let their “Subjects” (I love that description. You’re not a person or a human! You’re not free thinking or even capable of thinking freely. Peon!) have access to weapons, as civilians. Some of those peasant subjects, in that damned colony were armed in 1770’s, 1780’s, and the early 1800’s. They were or once were British “subjects” and things didn’t work out will for the “anointed ones”.

  29. Meh not our problem, thankfully we had lots of guns over here now were not subjects of the crown anymore.

    • True, but the more we’re like this in the UK, the more your politicians will cite the UK as an example and try to make you guys like us. It’s gradually happening e.g CT, CA, NY AR-15 ban, magazine capacities, HPs being illegal in NJ, NY, etc.

      Also, look at some campus PD’s in CA or school resource officers in MA, unarmed but doing a Police role. Stupid logic.

Comments are closed.