I dont get how putting soldiers around public places will stop the attacks, care to explain?
22-25, F
Top | Newest First | Oldest First
TheSirfurryanimalWales · 61-69, M
If you are a lone madman having armed soldiers around the place is not going to make any difference.Such attacks are pretty much impossible to stop.If tighter security prevents such people from getting inside concert and sporting venues then they will turn their attention to other crowded places.We can only hope plots are uncovered in time.
Pureblossom · 22-25, F
@Pedromartinez:[c=#7700B2] If you are a lone madman having armed soldiers around the place is not going to make any difference.[/c]
It's true during an attack they might not even want to hide and do it right in front of everyone, for example, the Russian ambassador to Turkey was shot dead on stage for everyone to see.He even had a message to say be for shooting himself.
It's such a shame.
It's true during an attack they might not even want to hide and do it right in front of everyone, for example, the Russian ambassador to Turkey was shot dead on stage for everyone to see.He even had a message to say be for shooting himself.
It's such a shame.
Pureblossom · 22-25, F
firefall · 61-69, M
The thinking is, bombers will be reluctant to approach in case they get shot dead before being able to detonate.
The logic behind it rather escapes me, but it seems to be felt by the elites that it's effective. Or at least that it makes it look like they're doing something, activity being a substitute for achievement in politics.
The logic behind it rather escapes me, but it seems to be felt by the elites that it's effective. Or at least that it makes it look like they're doing something, activity being a substitute for achievement in politics.
Pureblossom · 22-25, F
@firefall: [c=#7700B2]The logic behind it rather escapes me, but it seems to be felt by the elites that it's effective. Or at least that it makes it look like they're doing something, activity being a substitute for achievement in politics.[/c] 👈 Truth.
Pureblossom · 22-25, F
@DeadCowboy: [c=#BF0080]notion is to have a force already deployed, in case need arises[/c]
Yea that makes sense, thanks.
However, that raises concerns of its own are things really that bad, god damn.
Such a pity a country that had no guns in the streets will now do if they do decide to carry out this idea.We all know that will arise some problems too, like people being accidentally shot because they were suspected to be a threat, I can picture it now.
Maybe the soldiers won't be carrying guns?
Yea that makes sense, thanks.
However, that raises concerns of its own are things really that bad, god damn.
Such a pity a country that had no guns in the streets will now do if they do decide to carry out this idea.We all know that will arise some problems too, like people being accidentally shot because they were suspected to be a threat, I can picture it now.
Maybe the soldiers won't be carrying guns?
SW-User
@Pureblossom: I don't know why you'd deploy soldiers without guns; kinda already tried huge networks of cctv and hat didn't seem to help lots. with luck there's something that's been brewing to cause them to deploy. or better yet it's just supposed to reassure everyone that all is under control. although it seems to have the opposite effect for you.
Pureblossom · 22-25, F
@DeadCowboy: Not just me lol.Britain holds firm against issuing guns to officers on the beat, so I can imagine it will be a bit of an adjustment for the people to get used to having guns around them.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Pureblossom · 22-25, F
@GypsyKing: It will kind of seem that way won't it, they is just an uneasiness that comes with being surrounded by armed soldiers.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Pureblossom · 22-25, F
sighmeupforthat · 46-50, M
You wanna cause trouble around soldiers armed with rifles?
Pureblossom · 22-25, F
@Helioskull: The people they are trying to stop don't care about dying.