Nuclear Bunkers

[Scorrie]

I reckon the link on post 65 negates any conspiracy theory quite well.

 

 

Plus no well trained and organised outfit is going to forget to cover the basics in as much that:

 

1: The active troops may be challenged for Id in an unrelated incident (say, minor car bump) before reaching the target area, they'd be hoping to get past that obstacle quietly by having a passport as positive ID.

 

2: The mission could possibly be aborted, the troops may have to leave the country quickly, thus requiring a passport.

 

They'd be pretty piss poor if they hadn't got those basics covered.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Scorrie

[Scorrie]

Only way I would feel any way safer by "arming Joe Bloggs" would be if some competency was built in. Norway still has a compulsory national service, and everyone (so I'm led to believe) is issued with a gun to keep. But more importantly, they are trained in the correct use of it.

The USA model of simply allowing anyone to have guns and no training in their use is a recipe for disaster (albeit a fairly Darwinian recipe - lol)

I've always hated the idea of enforced military training on our youths - I know I would have resisted it  - but as the threat moves from nukes to guerrillas perhaps it is worth revisiting the NS option.  

 

Fair comment, but the fly in the ointment with Nashnul Service is that the UK military are vehemently opposed to it. 

 

They see NS as diluting down a well-motivated and professional fighting force down with reluctant muppets who don't want to be there in the first place.

[Colin]

 

Only way I would feel any way safer by "arming Joe Bloggs" would be if some competency was built in. Norway still has a compulsory national service, and everyone (so I'm led to believe) is issued with a gun to keep. But more importantly, they are trained in the correct use of it.

The USA model of simply allowing anyone to have guns and no training in their use is a recipe for disaster (albeit a fairly Darwinian recipe - lol)

I've always hated the idea of enforced military training on our youths - I know I would have resisted it  - but as the threat moves from nukes to guerrillas perhaps it is worth revisiting the NS option.  

 

Fair comment, but the fly in the ointment with Nashnul Service is that the UK military are vehemently opposed to it. 

 

They see NS as diluting down a well-motivated and professional fighting force down with reluctant muppets who don't want to be there in the first place.

 

Opposed to it myself but, the country couldn't afford NS anyway.

 

Having said that, there is no reason why a form of NS "Lite" couldn't be used at a local level. 

 

At the end of the day, the only protection we have against "nutters" is to be able to deal with them ourselves.  No point in trying to phone the authorities if you are staring down the barrel of an AK47..... 

 

What this country really needs is for the population to have the balls to rip it back from the wishy-washy PC brigade because, despite the rhetoric, government isn't there to "serve" us individually.

[Colin]

In the land of the 'Free' ( a country noted for it's belief that its citizens have the right to bear arms for self defence) there were 33,563 deaths recorded that were caused by firearms in 2012. That's 10.69 per 100,000.

 

In France there were 1856 deaths in 2012, that's 2.83 per 100,000.

 

In the UK there were 146 deaths in 2011 - 0.23 per 100,000.

 

Now, lets rank those three countries in order of weapons in civilian hands and try to work out if arming Joe Bloke leads to greater 'self defence' benefits or just a lot more dead people.......

 

ISIS would have to blow up a hell of a lot more people than they have so far to justify handing out guns to people who struggle to cope with everyday matters such as crossing the road or behaving rationally every time some poor Asian sod walks past them with a rucksack, never mind becoming responsible gun owners. FFS.

Somewhat alarming but, a little disingenuous...

 

I did (presumably) the same quick "google" as you did but, instead of taking the "headline" figure, I looked a little deeper..

 

Yes, the death rate from firearms is high but, you made no attempt at discovering how many were caused by the police or other bodies (no pun intended) or, how many were "black on black" gang related etc....

 

Take another look and you will see what I mean.

[Scorrie]

 

In the land of the 'Free' ( a country noted for it's belief that its citizens have the right to bear arms for self defence) there were 33,563 deaths recorded that were caused by firearms in 2012. That's 10.69 per 100,000.

 

In France there were 1856 deaths in 2012, that's 2.83 per 100,000.

 

In the UK there were 146 deaths in 2011 - 0.23 per 100,000.

 

Now, lets rank those three countries in order of weapons in civilian hands and try to work out if arming Joe Bloke leads to greater 'self defence' benefits or just a lot more dead people.......

 

ISIS would have to blow up a hell of a lot more people than they have so far to justify handing out guns to people who struggle to cope with everyday matters such as crossing the road or behaving rationally every time some poor Asian sod walks past them with a rucksack, never mind becoming responsible gun owners. FFS.

Somewhat alarming but, a little disingenuous...

 

I did (presumably) the same quick "google" as you did but, instead of taking the "headline" figure, I looked a little deeper..

 

Yes, the death rate from firearms is high but, you made no attempt at discovering how many were caused by the police or other bodies (no pun intended) or, how many were "black on black" gang related etc....

 

Take another look and you will see what I mean.

 

 

Sorry, Colin, can't take another look as I'm too busy laughing.

[Rasmie]

When I said arming the populace

"seems to work for the Americans"

Of course I was being facetious

[JGHR]

Is shetlandpeat back under a new guise?

Coming back under a new guise is owerweel we some folk it seems.

[Urabug]

My comments in this particular forum are now becoming true.

 

Never more is there a need for surveillance than there is now in view of the recent terrorist attacks.

 

All these attacks are serious and probably could have been averted if the instigators had someone watching and reporting them to an organisation set up purely to monitor this.

 

I am aware that reports may have been made and not acted on.

 

All those who do not want to live to British values should be thrown out of the country,if that is not possible then put in jail ,and anyone who has been involved with fighting in other countries should be barred from re-entering the UK. unless they are members of our own armed forces.

 

Can we really trust our foreign neighbours  anymore ?  We need to know what they get up to unfortunately.