given what happend in france

And considering our police are in the main unarmed, what do yu think we should do.

After all an unarmed cop in That kind of situation is no more use than the civilian he is supposed to protect, indeed his only recourse is, like the civilian, to run and or hide or be taken hostage (and likey brutally murdered.)

firearms teams are few and thin on the ground, and could require up to 20 mins to arrive, especially if two incidents occur as in paris...

so should we therefor routinely arm all our police (considering 90% of em dont know one end of a gun from the other and would take months to train and cost a fortune) or should we have troops on our streets and billeted in strategic places oround our major cities?

personally I'm in favour of arming and PROPERLY training our police (and perhaps some suitably trained and checked civilians as Auxilliaries, the thought that any one individual JUST may be concealed carrying must act as a deterrent one would think.

dunno...over to you guys...

Shown over and over again doesn't really work
of the 2 innocent deaths in Sydney one was by police bullet.

But in saying that all our police are armed and I don't think it is too bad to have armed police if they are properly trained and there isn't the gun culture of the USA.
Arming Civilians is not a good idea, it is much better the reaction of Aussies where any civilians out and about with a gun is considered a concern and police are notified... Also Armed civilians put police in a tough situation where the odds of the person they are interacting with being armed and potentially dangerous increases dramatically, leading to the unnecessary shootings we see in the USA (really as big an issue as terrorists if going by death toll )


like most things it is about balance, I feel Australia has it pretty right where although armed police are hesitant to draw their weapons because the likelihood of the person they are interacting with being armed is low, a sharp contrast to the USA where they point the gun at whoever they talk to. (we have seen them pointing at enough media to know they are Fucked up)

well giving people guns just means we simply write off more people more often. So While we should do something more guns is NOT the answer unless the goal is more deaths.

And how exactly do you think it would help, Armed Professional Police were at the Charlie Hebdo offices. and they are both dead, cause their guns made no difference in slightest. But in saying that if anyone is going to be carrying a gun it should be a responsible officer of the law.

Concealed carry wont help at all, no deterrent. I know for a fact that legal gun owners are targeted specifically for their guns. (here we had people robbing armed guards for their guns). pretty much all testing has shown the vast majority of civilians will actually make the situation worse by their actions either getting themselves killed and/or killing other innocents in the process.

Also it is only allegedly a ricochet. knowing the limited space in that Cafe, you can see in the video one officer in particular spray the room with bullets there is no way he acted in the professional manner Australians expect of their police. other officers are clearly seen using professional and not rambo tactics, (cover aim brace fire).

And the people with 'overwhelming anger' are exactly the people and the reason why responsible people cant carry guns (not that they would want to), too may dicks that threaten terrorism when they don't get their way. We don't bow to terrorists, or people that threaten it.
Arming people that are threatening a democratic gov't?? sounds pretty silly to me.


Counter question... what should the Pakistan Gov't do about the innocent people blown up by drones? the compensation is pathetic, if a bread winner is killed the rest of the family is even more fucked than the would be in the UK. They are told by western powers to Accept it as it is the price of our freedom (not even their own freedom and they have to accept death drones)

In reality it is it is part of life always has been, and quite frankly Morally I'd prefer innocent people to be killed by terrorists than police empowered and paid by my taxes. Morally Individuals can be held responsible for their actions including what they pay direct financial contributions to.
So I'd prefer my money be spent on benefits than shooting people.