Originally Posted by GarryP

It's not a strawman when you explicitly state that it's an example of a daft move - and then explain why it's a bad idea. It was never ascribed to you.

The point as to what you can do, and the rationale, was described a number of pages back, at the beginning.

Obviously arming the police is a stupid move. If the terrorists can get close enough to injure them without either having guns, all you are doing is making the police more of a target and gifting the terrorists weapons. And it's not even the point - if they have attacked then it's too late anyway. There are multiple ways in which they can have the scale of effect they want, without guns having the faintest chance of making any difference.

You have to break the idea if you want to break the back of the terrorism. Ridicule of the hate preachers by other muslims is much more effective. As is acting to divert teenagers along other paths before they reach 20-25.

Hell, one idea that was described before was to set up a construction project in Italy somewhere, and hire specifically the targeted terrorist types you'd identified to provide manpower for it. Easy to monitor them, they are a long way from home, and you can find a reason to jail them in a foreign country. Sneaky does it.

Originally Posted by stevenglish1

You were associating my stance with tagging all Muslims and you know it.

Originally Posted by carcajou

Meanwhile, here at home, the attack in Melbourne yesterday was done by a refugee who was on parole for, among other things, nearly a dozen violent crimes including a previous failed terrorist attack on an armed forces base in Sydney.

Daniel Andrews, what does one have to do to be denied parole in Victoria?

Fake refugees should have their protection visas revoked. Refugees, fake or genuine, who commit violent crimes in Australia should have their protection visas revoked. We also should not be allowing in suspected terrorists, refugee or not.

Those are common sense positions, why can no politician come out and say that?

Originally Posted by Beoz

And recently, there was the Iranian refugee, who claimed refugee status because his life was in danger in Iran, who has gone back to Iran 4 times for holiday, to visit family, etc, since his refugee migration.

All cool though. Not related to Islamic terrorism. Just another hypocritical episode.

Originally Posted by Amazulu

And Man Monis was a refugee from Iran too - and Iran warned Australia that he was a crook and that they wanted him back to try him but our wonderful government let him stay

Happy days

Originally Posted by carcajou

Well, of course. If refugees started getting deported for committing violent crimes, the politicians signing the orders might get sneered at by some celebrity at a cocktail party.

Originally Posted by Amazulu

This is what I believe - in bullet-points so that even you can understand - nothing more, nothing less. Anything else you read into it is in your head only:

I'm saying arm all police now

If Keith Palmer had a sidearm he would probably be alive today

If the cop at LB taking on those muslim assholes with a truncheon had a Glock as well, more innocents would be alive today

All police are armed in virtually all countries apart from the UK and a few others. They are armed for a reason - to kill bad guys and to protect the public

Unarmed police cannot protect innocent people from terrorists hell-bent on causing death and destruction. Only armed police can

The UK government is failing its citizens by not arming all police

I'm sick and tired of seeing innocent people and decent police officers dying in order to comply with some outdated, jumpers for goalposts, pwoper Bwitish notion that armed police are in someway undemocratic, unnecessary and counterproductive

Business as usual is no longer an option - it's time for assholes to die before they kill innocents

Originally Posted by carcajou

Meanwhile, here at home, the attack in Melbourne yesterday was done by a refugee who was on parole for, among other things, nearly a dozen violent crimes including a previous failed terrorist attack on an armed forces base in Sydney.

Daniel Andrews, what does one have to do to be denied parole in Victoria?

Fake refugees should have their protection visas revoked. Refugees, fake or genuine, who commit violent crimes in Australia should have their protection visas revoked. We also should not be allowing in suspected terrorists, refugee or not.

Those are common sense positions, why can no politician come out and say that?

Originally Posted by ozzieeagle

Consensus on this one is, he was heading for a violent showdown with the cops, with or without a religious reason. It will full under the terrorism banner because of the innocent party. However his main aim was revenge on the cops. Ice Addict, with violent robbery as a way of life for the past 12 years or so.

Originally Posted by OzTennis

Armed police CANNOT always prevent terrorists hell bent etc! Are you telling me incidents in France, Belgium, Germany etc, etc (some worse than what's happened so far in the UK) where they have armed officers haven't happened?

The status quo in the UK is that officers aren't armed routinely.

Originally Posted by Amazulu

Of course armed police cannot stop all terrorists, but they can stop some of them. Your argument is ridiculous - basically cops with guns cannot prevent all terrorists from killing, so therefore why bother. Pathetic

The status quo in the UK is wrong and innocents are dying because of it. I know you don't want it, but it's time for the cops to tool up

Originally Posted by OzTennis

I'll give you some reading on some of the arguments for not arming all officers in the UK and some explanations about the British method of policing. It's interesting to note in one article the officer who objects to arming all officers because with the cuts which had happened then (before May's 20,000 cuts) he says we can't even get enough bobbies on the beat let alone pay for the serious costs of firearms training for all officers. I assume with your MBA (Management By Authoritarianism?) that you don't instantly dismiss arguments because they are in a particular paper!

Why British police don’t have guns - BBC News

Should all our police be armed? The arguments for and against cops with guns - Tony Long - Mirror Online

After London terror attack - should all police be armed? Arguments for and against - Mirror Online

British police officers asked if they want to carry guns in wake of terror attacks

"police chiefs say they have struggled to recruit firearms officers, claiming that many fear they could spend years under investigation if they used their weapon in the line of duty."

I know, you'd hold a Glock to their head and tell them what they will do!

Originally Posted by GarryP

Nope.

Just the kind of dumb move that someone like trump would come up with, as I said.

Originally Posted by stevenglish1

Really? I got the impression you were drawing parallels to discredit me as a far right racist. You need to work on your delivery to avoid confusion pal.

Originally Posted by stevenglish1

I noticed you didn't comment on the ridicule business, would that be because ridicule doesn't work with hate preachers?

Originally Posted by stevenglish1

At the moment, moderate Muslims are generally quiet, even to the point of refusing to condemn hate preachers because they know that the toothless authorities will leave them free to roam the streets