tulipandthistle wrote: » See, it worked!
latchyco wrote: » Of course takola , just join the Q there cheque at the ready with refund if not satisfied
starbelgrade wrote: » What would you prefer? Trained army guys with guns or the police? Or even worse, armed private security firms? Or no protection whatsoever? In which case, there'd be a hell of a lot more armed gangs raiding the place... The army seems to be the lesser evil.
takola wrote: » Meaning I'll be dead from a bullet wound if I'm not satisfied!
In fairness though, you have to admit.. There is a bit of a power trip there, isn't there?
starbelgrade wrote: » Thugs are terrified by keys... "Oh no, not the keys --- agggh! They're HOUSE KEYS... RUN! "
Xiney wrote: » I think my main issue was in seeing the large automatic guns, up close. I know different countries have different ways of doing things, but like Magnumlady said, I just kept thinking, "what if his finger slips?" even though I know that his finger is probably not even on the trigger if he's following every police proceedure I know of.
Xiney wrote: » Well, to answer your question, I don't like seeing military personel at all. It's a personal bias, but I don't like soldiers. They scare the crap out of me. And as various scandals (Canada in Somalia, US in Abu Ghraib Prison) have prooved, military training does not a good person holding a gun make. In Canada, the police are armed but the guns are holstered. We have one major private security firm, which is armed with automatic machine guns. However, you don't *see* the guns, you just know there's a guy in the truck who'll shoot you down if you try to knock over the car. But the show of force isn't outright, and they don't have a dozen men for one armoured vehicle. It's ARMOURED. It doesn't need that many people... I think my main issue was in seeing the large automatic guns, up close. I know different countries have different ways of doing things, but like Magnumlady said, I just kept thinking, "what if his finger slips?" even though I know that his finger is probably not even on the trigger if he's following every police proceedure I know of.
Xiney wrote: » if he's not unconcious or on the ground yet, a few steel toed kicks in the kidneys and run away as fast as possible while calling 911!
Xiney wrote: » Maybe I'm just a weird Canadian, but is that ammount of security truly necessary?
walking between the two of them with 60 inches spare between barels,
magnumlady wrote: » They always frighten the bejaysus out of me. I keep thinking what if their finger slips and I'm in the way???!
Xiney wrote: » But the show of force isn't outright, and they don't have a dozen men for one armoured vehicle. It's ARMOURED. It doesn't need that many people...
I think my main issue was in seeing the large automatic guns, up close. I know different countries have different ways of doing things, but like Magnumlady said, I just kept thinking, "what if his finger slips?" even though I know that his finger is probably not even on the trigger if he's following every police proceedure I know of.
latchyco wrote: » His wepon will not be cocked and he will have his safety catch on .The soldier will only cock his wepon and undue safety catch if he is giving order to so or feels he and his comrades are in harms way (civillians duck for cover )
r3nu4l wrote: » Yes, only last week in Lucan a CIT (cash-in-transit) van was robbed and shots fired by the robbers in a supermarket car park. Do you think those boys would have tried that if they saw a load of squaddies with Steyr AUG A1 rifles? I don't! You do know 60 inches = 5 whole feet, right? That's what safety catches and trigger guards are for, to prevent that type of accident. Wow, it's armoured! The poor lads driving it still have to get out of the van with the cash in the casette boxes and his little helmet and stab-vest won't be much protection against a pistol or shotgun! Even being in the van is no gaurantee of protection. Years ago a security van driver was in his van when it was held up, the guys holding up the van knew who he was and told him where his sister went to school. He then told him that his sister had just left the house and was on her way to school and if he didn't open the van his sister would be taken. Needless to say, he opened the van and was told that if he testified in court his family would be 'taken care of'. He didn't testify and got five years in prison for his trouble. Again, having the Army there would have prevented that. That's just an irrational fear really. The safety will be on, the trigger guard protects against slippy fingers and even at that, there will never be a round sitting in the barrel ready to go. On top of that there are known procedures that are drilled into these guys heads that mean they cannot open fire without a very clear cause. Exactly. Finally, our little island had its fair share of trouble over the years and vans carrying money were very tempting for those looking to buy weapons for 'the cause'. Having the army protect these vans became necessary. These days, not a week goes by without at least one attempt on a van somewhere in the country, most thieves wait until the driver has left the van. Some routes carry a lot more money than others and these would naturally be big targets, hence the extra proteciton.
basquille wrote: » You won't get much of a response by dialing '911' over here Xiney!
r3nu4l wrote: » That's just an irrational fear really.
Xiney wrote: » I know it's 999 here
takola wrote: » Is it not 112 or something like that now?
Xiney wrote: » If it is, 999 works too.
sueme wrote: » I'm more nervous about them now. Thanks for that!
takola wrote: » I'd be great in an emergency wouldn't I? :rolleyes: Do you think crime is worse here than in Canada?
latchyco wrote: » Dial 999 in the uk and this is what your likley to hear ' Hello is that the police ? 'Thank you for calling 999.Our business hrs are nine to five ,monday to friday .If you've being stabbed to death ,press 1 and leave a message . If your ringing to report a lorry load of of illegal immigrants tipping out at the end of your street ,please call back after the bank holiday and give three weeks notice . If you are an illegal immigrant and would like to apply for asylum ,legal aid ,health care ,cash benifits ,a council house and a free ID card ,please stay on the line .Our operators are awaiting to take your call 24/7. Pree 3 and ask for Jacqui
Xiney wrote: » Well, to answer your question, I don't like seeing military personel at all. It's a personal bias, but I don't like soldiers. They scare the crap out of me. And as various scandals (Canada in Somalia, US in Abu Ghraib Prison) have prooved, military training does not a good person holding a gun make. .
starbelgrade wrote: » And if ya don't get the football references, it's like attacking an armoured van with a set of keys instead of an automatic machine gun.
starbelgrade wrote: » The difference here is that the Irish military are trained purely as peace-keeping forces & Ireland remains neutral - we are not even part of NATO (whose list of interventions hardly reads as a glorious history: Vietnam, Algeria, Suez, Bosnia, Iraq, and Kosovo.) You cannot compare military training in the States & Canada to that of Ireland. It's like comparing how Man Utd train to how Sligo Rovers train. It's not just a different league - they're worlds apart. And if ya don't get the football references, it's like attacking an armoured van with a set of keys instead of an automatic machine gun.
Xiney wrote: » Canada is actually pretty comprable to Ireland in terms of military, certainly closer to Ireland than it is to the States. Canadian soldiers are mainly peace keepers, although they are currently on combat missions in Afghanistan.
starbelgrade wrote: » The Command-in-Chief of the Canadian forces is the Queen of England & Canada is a member of NATO.. there is NO comparison here.
Xiney wrote: » Yeah, true... she's a bit of a battle axe. Thing is, she doesn't tell us when to go to war, we pretty much decide that for ourselves ever since WWI. Anyway. NATO is also pretty much a peace keeping force. They're not in Iraq, for example... the only major forces there are the US and Britain. Canada's not there. k, we're off topic again
starbelgrade wrote: » . And if you believe that NATO are primarily a peace keeping force, you really know nothing about the organisation. (Not trying to be smart here)
starbelgrade wrote: » She doesn't tell the Brits whether or not to go to war, but like Canada, she has the final say in whether or not they do. The fact that she never says "no" is irrelevant. And if you believe that NATO are primarily a peace keeping force, you really know nothing about the organisation. (Not trying to be smart here)
sueme wrote: » O rly?
