UK Cops Discover Hollow-Point Ammo!

[sevlex]

Whoda Thunk?


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...et-police.html

More than 3,000 firearms officers will be given jacketed hollow-point ammunition after extensive testing showed it provided a 'more reliable standard of bullet performance'.

Good to see they are on the cutting edge of the 20th century.

[1 Patriot-of-many]

Please tell me this from the onion or something?

[gunslinger]

Given the nonchalance with which lately british cops have been shooting innocent citizens, I don't know if that's good news...

[Sidartha]

This made me LOL

The Metropolitan Police is the first force in the UK to fully adopt hollow point ammunition, described by gun experts as ‘unsurvivable’.

Gotta go tell all them folks who survived to get in the ground.

[gpwasr10]

Silly islanders...

[Dr. Gonzo GED]

That settles it. The only way to save Britain at this point is to clone Churchill and Thatcher, and use them to breed a race of super limeys.

[Partisan1983]

That settles it. The only way to save Britain at this point is to clone Churchill and Thatcher, and use them to breed a race of super limeys.

[Schuetzenman]

[Faulkner]

I've trained with constables from the UK and while talking with them I discovered they find many of the US law enforcement procedures barbaric. For example, I had one ride with me on duty and we made a DWI arrest. He was totally surprised when I handcuffed the subject as soon as I placed him under arrest.

He asked me, "why did you just handcuff that man?"

I answered, "because he's under arrest. We are going to transport him to the sheriff's office for a BAC test and when he fails he's going to jail for the night."

He replied, "yes, but why did you have to handcuff him?"

Me, "well, because anybody who I do not know or do not trust that rides in the back seat of my car while I'm taking them to jail is going to be in handcuffs. I'm not very good at driving and fighting at the same time."

Him, "that's barbaric!"

Me, "fine, I'll take 'em off and YOU can sit back there and hold his hand."

[Joey]

I've trained with constables from the UK and while talking with them I discovered they find many of the US law enforcement procedures barbaric.

It's a different culture. Because there's handgun control in the UK, few cops are armed. The Brits don't like seeing armed police strutting about and the cops themselves, via their Federation, vote again and again to stay routinely unarmed. It's a freedom you've given up -- freedom from routinely armed police -- in exchange for your 2nd Amendment.

You can't have it both ways. When millions of handguns are floating about, you can't expect cops to do their duty unarmed. But most freedoms are like that: win one freedom, give one up.

I think the freedoms you've lost due to your 2nd Amendment outweigh those you've gained. Most Brits, including British police, feel the same. But, as I said, it's a cultural difference between the two nations. Your attachment to firearms goes deep and the Brit attachment to largely unarmed cops is equally strong.

Funnily enough, both Churchill and Thatcher felt the same. It's a strong aspect of freedom -- a society free from armed police patrolling the streets. The Brits see armed police as a semi-fascist measure or the sign of a banana republic -- not the sign of a free people.

[romak10/63UF]

It's a different culture. Because there's handgun control in the UK, few cops are armed. The Brits don't like seeing armed police strutting about and the cops themselves, via their Federation, vote again and again to stay routinely unarmed. It's a freedom you've given up -- freedom from routinely armed police -- in exchange for your 2nd Amendment.

You can't have it both ways. When millions of handguns are floating about, you can't expect cops to do their duty unarmed. But most freedoms are like that: win one freedom, give one up.

I think the freedoms you've lost due to your 2nd Amendment outweigh those you've gained. Most Brits, including British police, feel the same. But, as I said, it's a cultural difference between the two nations. Your attachment to firearms goes deep and the Brit attachment to largely unarmed cops is equally strong.

Funnily enough, both Churchill and Thatcher felt the same. It's a strong aspect of freedom -- a society free from armed police patrolling the streets. The Brits see armed police as a semi-fascist measure or the sign of a banana republic -- not the sign of a free people.

I think joey might of been living on that island wayyyy to long...

[AK-J]

It's a different culture. Because there's handgun control in the UK, few cops are armed. The Brits don't like seeing armed police strutting about and the cops themselves, via their Federation, vote again and again to stay routinely unarmed. It's a freedom you've given up -- freedom from routinely armed police -- in exchange for your 2nd Amendment.

You can't have it both ways. When millions of handguns are floating about, you can't expect cops to do their duty unarmed. But most freedoms are like that: win one freedom, give one up.

I think the freedoms you've lost due to your 2nd Amendment outweigh those you've gained. Most Brits, including British police, feel the same. But, as I said, it's a cultural difference between the two nations. Your attachment to firearms goes deep and the Brit attachment to largely unarmed cops is equally strong.

Funnily enough, both Churchill and Thatcher felt the same. It's a strong aspect of freedom -- a society free from armed police patrolling the streets. The Brits see armed police as a semi-fascist measure or the sign of a banana republic -- not the sign of a free people.

If that is all true, then explain why Sir Robert Peel's original London Police force went without firearms at a time when there were no restrictions on firearm ownership in England. Your feel good, Utopian bullshit is based on a the false premise that "cops don't regularly carry firearms" in the UK because "handguns are restricted". That is a lie based on a failure to understand your own history.

Do you even know why they started restricting firearm ownership in the UK? It started at the beginning of the last century because of the fear of anarchists and Marxists. They feared an armed insurrection by those crack pots.

Also explain to me why Japanese police carry pistols in a country has similar restrictions on firearm ownership and use as the UK. Why is it that countries that have a much lower incidence of violent crime in Europe, yet have an armed police force and much less restrictions on firearm ownership?

[ltorlo64]

It's a different culture. Because there's handgun control in the UK, few cops are armed. The Brits don't like seeing armed police strutting about and the cops themselves, via their Federation, vote again and again to stay routinely unarmed. It's a freedom you've given up -- freedom from routinely armed police -- in exchange for your 2nd Amendment.

You can't have it both ways. When millions of handguns are floating about, you can't expect cops to do their duty unarmed. But most freedoms are like that: win one freedom, give one up.

I think the freedoms you've lost due to your 2nd Amendment outweigh those you've gained. Most Brits, including British police, feel the same. But, as I said, it's a cultural difference between the two nations. Your attachment to firearms goes deep and the Brit attachment to largely unarmed cops is equally strong.

Funnily enough, both Churchill and Thatcher felt the same. It's a strong aspect of freedom -- a society free from armed police patrolling the streets. The Brits see armed police as a semi-fascist measure or the sign of a banana republic -- not the sign of a free people.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...of-Europe.html

It seems that the violent crime rate is 5 times higher in the civilized, unarmed UK than in the uncivilized and armed US. While the article mentions some factors for this, for example a higher use of alcohol, it misses the point that Americans rely more on themselves to stop crime. This is because we are armed so when someone breaks into our house we have the freedom to decide whether to stop the crime or be a victim.

Criminals, knowing the likelyhood of encountering a firearm, are less likely to commit crimes in some areas than in others. While there is anecdotal evidence of this, it has not been studied much. Here is a link to one relevant article; http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPag...v=10&id=&page=

For anecdotal evidence, here is another; http://articles.cnn.com/2011-03-08/j...un?_s=PM:CRIME

I prefer to have the option of defending myself. As the old saying goes "God made man, but Colt made them equal." If I am attacked or my house is broken into, I want to have every advantage I can. Since I am not a black belt or a boxing enthusist, I choose to be armed.

[Joey]

If that is all true, then explain why Sir Robert Peel's original London Police force went without firearms at a time when there were no restrictions on firearm ownership in England.

Because what you say is false. From their foundation in 1829 the London police had access to 50 flintlock pistols for use in "exceptional circumstances". From the 1880s they were permitted to carry revolvers on night patrols, if they felt unsafe. The pistols were kept in locked boxes at police stations, and could be taken out only with the permission of a senior officer.

So British opposition to an armed police force has a long history. It's a freedom the poor old Yanks have long surrendered. But, as I said, it's a price you pay for your 2nd Amendment. You can't expect cops to go about unarmed with millions of handguns in circulation.

Your feel good, Utopian bullshit is based on a the false premise that "cops don't regularly carry firearms" in the UK because "handguns are restricted". That is a lie based on a failure to understand your own history.

Do explain sir. You're long on insult but short on argument. But I understand your embarrassment at having surrendered such a fundamental freedom and have, as a result, routinely armed cops strutting about on US streets. For the "Land of the Free" it is embarrassing.

[romak10/63UF]

Tist tist ! tis Tea time ! in jolly old england ! Tea an crumpets any one ?

[alismith]

It's a different culture. Because there's handgun control in the UK, few cops are armed. The Brits don't like seeing armed police strutting about and the cops themselves, via their Federation, vote again and again to stay routinely unarmed. It's a freedom you've given up -- freedom from routinely armed police -- in exchange for your 2nd Amendment.

You can't have it both ways. When millions of handguns are floating about, you can't expect cops to do their duty unarmed. But most freedoms are like that: win one freedom, give one up.

I think the freedoms you've lost due to your 2nd Amendment outweigh those you've gained. Most Brits, including British police, feel the same. But, as I said, it's a cultural difference between the two nations. Your attachment to firearms goes deep and the Brit attachment to largely unarmed cops is equally strong.

Funnily enough, both Churchill and Thatcher felt the same. It's a strong aspect of freedom -- a society free from armed police patrolling the streets. The Brits see armed police as a semi-fascist measure or the sign of a banana republic -- not the sign of a free people.

As you say, it is a difference of culture, but what you view as giving up a freedom (to be armed, or have our police armed), we see exactly the opposite. We view our right, via the 2nd Amendment, as a right that only a free society can have. Those societies that do not premit this are viewed as oppressive and deviod of basic human rights and freedoms.

We did not come to this conclusion on our own. Actually, The British are the ones who provided the reasons for our writing the 2nd Amendment.

Ever since the founding of our country, the American people (or those would become the ancestors of Americans generations later) needed personal firearms to protect themselves and provide food for the table. This concept was taken for granted and was never thought of as something that had to be written down until the latter part of the 1770's. When British troops marched on Lexington and Concord, in an attempt to prevent the Colonists from further arming themselves, the concept that a government could take away a "right" became very apparent. After the Revolutionary War, where we threw out the "civilized society," did we see the need to put this right into words so no future government could make the same mistake the British did.

Since then we have proudly been able to keep this freedom that we fought so hard to protect. Personally, I don't feel the slightest bit "less free" by having the police carry guns, nor do I feel "less free" knowing my shotgun is close to my bed when I turn the lights out.

The state I live in does NOT allow for its citizens to carry personal firearms as a matter of protection when out and about. The only ones, legally, allowed to do so are the police. My state is more like England than I like, but I will still take what I have over what Britain offers its citizens. At least, I have the right and the means to protect my property and life on my own property.

If you feel this "freedom" to protect oneself and the "freedom" of having a police officer armed, is "giving up a freedom," then that is your perogative, but I think you are mistaken in that belief. I would much prefer to have him/her armed than have him/her arrive at the scene and have to rely on talking the perpetrator out of his intended actions. Most of the time, a criminal just won't listen to reason and is intent on hurting, or killing, someone else.

I prefer my beer cold; my women warm; and, my police officers armed, thank-you. If that's giving up freedom, then I would like to give up more freedom by arming myself, too.

[Joey]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...of-Europe.html

It seems that the violent crime rate is 5 times higher in the civilized, unarmed UK than in the uncivilized and armed US. While the article mentions some factors for this, for example a higher use of alcohol, it misses the point that Americans rely more on themselves to stop crime. This is because we are armed so when someone breaks into our house we have the freedom to decide whether to stop the crime or be a victim.

Criminals, knowing the likelyhood of encountering a firearm, are less likely to commit crimes in some areas than in others. While there is anecdotal evidence of this, it has not been studied much. Here is a link to one relevant article; http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPag...v=10&id=&page=

For anecdotal evidence, here is another; http://articles.cnn.com/2011-03-08/j...un?_s=PM:CRIME

I prefer to have the option of defending myself. As the old saying goes "God made man, but Colt made them equal." If I am attacked or my house is broken into, I want to have every advantage I can. Since I am not a black belt or a boxing enthusist, I choose to be armed.

Yep, there's a crime problem, and I live in a high crime area. But, and it's a huge but, there's little fear of getting shot. Result: the murder rate in the UK is five times lower that the US. Funny that your post failed to mention that small matter...

Plus I read people in this forum describe they're so scared of getting shot they sleep with their guns. To an Englishman that's deeply humourous -- big hairy Yanks, shivering in their bedsocks, sleeping next to a pile of guns!



So that's a further freedom you've surrendered due to your 2nd Amendment -- the freedom to go about your daily business, and to climb into bed with the wife, without fear of getting shot.

Tist tist ! tis Tea time ! in jolly old england ! Tea an crumpets any one ?

*Eats bowl of "hominy." Throws up on romak10/63UF*

[Joey]

As you say, it is a difference of culture, but what you view as giving up a freedom (to be armed, or have our police armed), we see exactly the opposite. We view our right, via the 2nd Amendment, as a right that only a free society can have. Those societies that do not premit this are viewed as oppressive and deviod of basic human rights and freedoms.

We did not come to this conclusion on our own. Actually, The British are the ones who provided the reasons for our writing the 2nd Amendment.

Ever since the founding of our country, the American people (or those would become the ancestors of Americans generations later) needed personal firearms to protect themselves and provide food for the table. This concept was taken for granted and was never thought of as something that had to be written down until the latter part of the 1770's. When British troops marched on Lexington and Concord, in an attempt to prevent the Colonists from further arming themselves, the concept that a government could take away a "right" became very apparent. After the Revolutionary War, where we threw out the "civilized society," did we see the need to put this right into words so no future government could make the same mistake the British did.

Since then we have proudly been able to keep this freedom that we fought so hard to protect. Personally, I don't feel the slightest bit "less free" by having the police carry guns, nor do I feel "less free" knowing my shotgun is close to my bed when I turn the lights out.

The state I live in does NOT allow for its citizens to carry personal firearms as a matter of protection when out and about. The only ones, legally, allowed to do so are the police. My state is more like England than I like, but I will still take what I have over what Britain offers its citizens. At least, I have the right and the means to protect my property and life on my own property.

If you feel this "freedom" to protect oneself and the "freedom" of having a police officer armed, is "giving up a freedom," then that is your perogative, but I think you are mistaken in that belief. I would much prefer to have him/her armed than have him/her arrive at the scene and have to rely on talking the perpetrator out of his intended actions. Most of the time, a criminal just won't listen to reason and is intent on hurting, or killing, someone else.

I prefer my beer cold; my women warm; and, my police officers armed, thank-you. If that's giving up freedom, then I would like to give up more freedom by arming myself, too.

Good post, thank you. I fully accept the argument and understand the history. If I lived in the States I'd want to be armed - to defend myself from the effects of the 2nd Amendment. Those effects scare you so much you sleep with a gun. But it's part of your history and your culture and I respect that. But, like all freedoms, they come at a cost, e.g. your eccentric sleeping arrangements.

*Throws a "grit" at romak10/63UF*

[AK-J]

Because what you say is false. From their foundation in 1829 the London police had access to 50 flintlock pistols for use in "exceptional circumstances". From the 1880s they were permitted to carry revolvers on night patrols, if they felt unsafe. The pistols were kept in locked boxes at police stations, and could be taken out only with the permission of a senior officer.

So British opposition to an armed police force has a long history. It's a freedom the poor old Yanks have long surrendered. But, as I said, it's a price you pay for your 2nd Amendment. You can't expect cops to go about unarmed with millions of handguns in circulation.

Allow me to reply. I recognize that I should have said, "normal foot patrols". And so then with that, how does the current police practice differ much from the original tradition of un-armed foot patrol officers (except in special circumstances) at a time when the only thing that prohibited firearm ownership was the cost of the weapon itself? It kind of throws your premise into the realm of logical fallacy.

Do explain sir. You're long on insult but short on argument. But I understand your embarrassment at having surrendered such a fundamental freedom and have, as a result, routinely armed cops strutting about on US streets. For the "Land of the Free" it is embarrassing.

I do believe that I just addressed the issue you raised. Yet, you sir, completely failed to address any of the other issues I brought up that disprove your logical fallacy. Address the question of Japan, and most of the rest of Europe.

And as to embarrassment, I'm embarrassed that a country that spawned mine has fallen victim to the socialist nanny state mentality that embraces big brother and thinks they're free in their cage. If anyone lives in a fascist state it is my brothers and sisters that live in the UK.

[alismith]

Good post, thank you. I fully accept the argument and understand the history. If I lived in the States I'd want to be armed - to defend myself from the effects of the 2nd Amendment. Those effects scare you so much you sleep with a gun. But it's part of your history and your culture and I respect that. But, like all freedoms, they come at a cost, e.g. your eccentric sleeping arrangements.

*Throws a "grit" at romak10/63UF*

There is a slight flaw in your argument here. It is not the "effects of the 2nd Amendment" that I feel the desire to arm myself. I arm myself (have a firearm available should the need arise) because of those who prefer to live a life of crime over living a productive, law-abiding, life. The 2nd Amendment was written for law-abiding citizens. Those criminal elements do not care one whit about the 2nd Amendment, nor any law that is in place to prohibit their chosen lifestyle. The 2nd Amendment gives me the freedom to arm myself against those who flaunt our laws and think nothing of eliminating those who stand in their way to ill-gained fortune. Criminals do not live by the 2nd Amendment, nor do they live by the laws against stealing, raping, or murdering. If anything, criminals don't like the 2nd Amendment, at all. It allows their chosen targets to be armed against them. A criminal would much rather attack an unarmed person than an armed one.

As for my choosing to sleep with a shotgun near my bed, it is the same as sleeping with a police officer near my bed. Should the unthinkable happen, it is there if I need it. If I never need it, I can gladly live with that, too.

I can't imagine having someone break into my house, putting my wife's life and my life in jeopary and having to rely on calling the police and waiting for them to arrive. Where I live (in the country), the average police response time is about 15-20 minutes. I really doubt my talking abilities will keep the intruder occupied for that amount of time.

However, I sleep much better knowing that if an intruder breaks into my house, I have my own personal "police officer" ready to help me. Actually, I sleep the sleep of total peace and contentment. I would have it no other way.