everyone should just drive a truck

I'm not advocating it , I'm posting it as a question

Given that stopping any large vehicle with a determined driver at the wheel is virtually impossible other than shooting them ( in Nice it was a matter of seconds/a couple of minutes before the police were attempting just that ) it could conceivably be over 30 minutes before an armed response team could be on the scene in the UK

The potential for death and injury is huge

Very scary

Your point being what exactly ?

I posted a response regarding what has happened elsewhere where your suggestion has already been applied. Personally, I do not think arming all the police is the solution, but I respect anyone who wishes to disagree. Even if they are wrong.....

I live in Keighley. It is very, very rare to see police on the streets.
If someone was driving a hgv killing people in Keighley.
It would still take a long time for a reaction.

I thought driving a truck like a maniac was standard procedure of british roads!

This isn't funny

Hope this helps

Insensitive ,

One madman has caused carnage with one truck. Had a squadron of armed police been stationed on every street in the West, unless they were armed with bazookas, how could they have prevented it? Even then, you can't blow up an approaching truck on suspicion, can you, until he ran people down, there was no way to think that was his intention.

The sad fact is that such attacks simply can't be defended against. There are billions of vehicles on the roads, and any one can be used to kill at any moment. It is necessary to rely on the fact that lunatics ready to commit such outrages are pretty rare in the West, because there is literally no way to prevent them. Nor is there any shortage of novel ways to cause carnage, if you have a mind to. Sadly, in the world, there's no shortage of such people. We have so far been relatively insulated from terror, but elsewhere, mass killings are a daily occurrence and as the ratio of nutters increases, so will violence generally and mass killings in particular.

You can offer some protection to your population if you have extensive intelligence networks and surveillance, and to some extent we do, which is sometimes able to prevent plans being carried out, but the problem with that is it doesnt sit well with privacy or civil liberties and freedoms, and there's the difficulty. Nobody wants to live in a police state.

And of course the other side of the propaganda coin of ISIS claiming the Nice job as theirs, when it seems most unlikely, is the inevitable conspiracists who predictably and with relish trot out their favourite phrase, "false flag" claiming that ANY terrorist killing was in reality done by the government, to smooth passing ever more surveillance etc laws by softening up public resistance to the idea. They were at it within minutes of the Nice news.

I don't understand the last paragraph. Are you claiming anyone who questions the official narrative are "conspiracists" rather than open minded ? By your tone I suggest you have a closed mind otherwise you too would be a "conspiracist" and we can't have that can we? So which is it? By the way, who are these people who claim "ANY terrorist killing was in reality done by the government?"
How about instead of "conspirasist" you use the term open minded, especially straight after the event. That after all is the best time to be so minded don't you think? rather than ridicule, which you appear to be doing which seems to be the case with people who use the term "conspiracy theorist" to undermine anyone who thinks.... rather than blindly follows.

To answer the original question ( if anyone can recall the original question ).
The IRA with all their bombing and murder didn't change too much so why should a few Islamist terrorists ?

Briliant. Standard truther counter. Straight in with "questions the official narrative". 3.982421875:10