This is the lead headline from an AP article posted on August 15, 2008, and you will find the full article here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080816/wl_uk_afp/britainpoliceclothinggermany_080816013748

   The real highlight of this story is what it doesn't say. Why do police in the most heavily regulated "gun control" nation in the "free" Western hemisphere, which prohibits its citizens from owning any and all hand guns and which stringently regulates shotguns (mostly single shot or over-under two shot varieties and the maximum load is birdshot) and I believe the rare single shot rifles, even need bulletproof vests (let alone bras) for it's law enforcement officers? Even the public carrying of "pocket knives" commonly seen in the U.S. of A., is prohibited under British law. Not even members of the British Olympic Rifle Team are permitted to own hand guns.  

   For more than 150 years even Britain’s police were not generally allowed to carry guns. They conducted their patrols armed only with a nightstick. With the huge immigrant influx which began in the 90's and continues even to this day, more and more "regular" police now carry semi-automatic handguns while their ARV's (Armored Roving Vehicles) are able to quickly respond and transport fully automatic machine guns wherever needed.

   Near the end of the last century, Canadian Justice Minister Allan Rock said during his push for new national gun control laws being proposed that "there is no reason to confiscate legally owned firearms." Within one year of the minister's assurances more than 550,000 legally registered handguns were confiscated. Just like merry old England. The only purpose of registration is to tell the government where the guns are.

   I spent 14 months in what was then West Germany, and they do allow handguns, though with very tight registration requirements (you must be a registered member of a shootzenhausen club, of which I was a member with my Sig Sauer P220 .45 cal), and of course they are part of the land locked western Europe, so smuggling all kinds of weapons into and through the country was fairly easy. But Great Britain is just a series of large islands in the Atlantic. 
   The bottom line is this. Picture your family the target of a violent home invasion late one night. Now would you rather pray that the police get there in time to save you and your family, or take your chances at defending yourselves with guns that you legally own and possess? I think the vast majority of people on the left and the right would not have much problem in coming to the same mutual agreement on this situation.
   There is an old joke and it goes something like this. A man hears noises coming from the shed in his back yard. He looks out his window and sees several individuals burglarizing his property. The man calls the police operator and explains his situation to which the operator explains that all current police units are currently engaged in other calls and that an officer will be dispatched just as soon as one is free. The man hangs up and thinks about the dispatchers words for a few moments and then calls the police operator once again. This time he tells the operator that there is no hurry as he has shot and killed all the criminals. Within minutes nearly a dozen police cars are parked all around his home and the burglars are captured. After a few minutes more a patrol sergeant contacts the homeowner and says, "I thought you said you had shot and killed all the suspects?" The homeowner responded, "I thought you were all to busy to respond right away?" 
   If there was ever any real doubt about gun control laws that prevented law abiding American citizens from purchasing and owning guns, there should have been no doubt after the last Los Angeles riots. It should be remembered that California had just passed a 10 day "cool off" period before anyone could pick up any new firearm. It should also be noted what the police did while some of the worst violence (anyone remember Reginald Denny?) was broadcast live to televisions around the world. The police set up a "cordon" a few miles from the violence and stood by and did nothing! I remember seeing some of the officers being visibly upset and at least one female officer was actually crying in her frustration! These images were also captured by the unblinking eye of the news video cameras.

   The frustration and shame these officers felt while being ordered to stand by and do NOTHING should have been such a stigma for America that we would ensure such a despicable act would never again be permitted. Instead, people seemed to merely shrug and say "What do you expect from crazy California." Of course such an event would never happen where THEY LIVE!

   If that single incident didn’t send a wake up call to all Americans then it would seem that nothing will. Nor do I blame the many brave men and women of the LAPD, but rather the spineless leadership that they were then under. The reality has always been that well over 90% of all police arrests of violent criminals are well after these thugs have already raped, beaten, crippled, or killed their victims. Again, it’s not the police officers fault as it would appear that criminals seldom tend to commit crimes where they know the police to be. Criminals can be clever that way.

   Either way as a test case in gun control, Britain proves it to be a total failure. The result is exactly the one predicted by the National Rifle Association: "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”