Soldier beheaded in streets of london....
Options
Replies
-
No, we don't have mass shootings here, kids shooting kids, kids shooting up schools etc and we don't wish to have it either.
We certainly do have mass shootings:
Hungerford
Dunblane
Cumbria
And we certainly do have kids shooting kids within gangland Britain. However if guns were commonplace we'd have more of it.
3 over a long period of time, it's not a regular occurrence was my point.
What pisses me off is that it has been called an "Extremist attack"...when the nutter in Norway (Christian) gunned down a load of people, why wasn't this deemed as "Extreme"? seems pretty extreme to me...
its been called a terrorist attack, by an extremist, because the murderer said he did it in the name of allah.
It is terrorism, irrespective of them being extremists.
Definition of it is;
1) systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal
2) the act of terrorizing
3) the state of being terrorized
Breivik's 2 charges (destablising or destroying basic functions of society' & "creating serious fear in the population') are acts of terrorism under Norwegian law. He was most definitely described and documented as being a right-wing extremist.0 -
^^Will you two just sleep together and get it over with?
^^ right.
There's this thing called FR... use it.0 -
My point is that this is a sad event, incredibly rare in my country and dishing out guns to any old imbecile is an incredibly bad idea, in my opinion of course.
You would be surprised how intelligent some mass murderers are/have been...labelling anyone as an imbecile...oh man this thread is already full of stupid generalisations in any case...it is not guns that kill people, people kill people. If and when any kind of **** hits the fan, what the hell are people going to defend themselves with? I can tell you now, I have weapons, they may not be guns, but if I ever had to use them, they would be used, believe me!
I am not sure what this incident is leading to, but it will lead to some government action. That we the people will nod and say yes to, yet again...*sigh*
My response was to the person who initially said that ALL citizens should be armed. Obviously there will be a mixed back of intelligent, stupid, violent..going to stop now, really can't be bothered today..0 -
Too bad there was not an armed citizen nearby who could have helped this poor man. Lord have mercy.
We don't have any armed citizens - guns (rifles) are only allowed for hunting/sporting purposes, are owned under licence and have to be kept locked in a strong box when not in use.
The best chance would have been one of the motorists who'd passed by to have a crack at running them down.
And this!
Everyone having guns historically isn't a good idea....
You are misinformed. There are many countries where the per capita ownership of guns is very high and the murder rate is extremely low. These two criminals used a car and knives as their weapons. What is your point? A well-armed citizen could have stopped this tragedy.
There are also many countries with moronic gun laws where innocent people including children in SCHOOL are getting gunned down on a scarily regular basis.
My point is that this is a sad event, incredibly rare in my country and dishing out guns to any old imbecile is an incredibly bad idea, in my opinion of course.
Yes, "dishing out guns to any old imbecile" IS an incredibly bad idea. No one who has a history of mental illness or is mentally incompetent, in any way, should have access to weapons of any sort--but how do you keep them from getting access to autos and knives? These men were clearly full of insane blood lust and should have been locked up before they hurt anyone.
The founding fathers knew what they were doing when they insisted that the citizens should have a right to bear arms. In every country where weapons were taken out of the hands of the people, tyranny soon followed. Nazi Germany disarmed the people, the Soviet Union disarmed the people, Communist China disarmed the people.0 -
3 over a long period of time, it's not a regular occurrence was my point.
What pisses me off is that it has been called an "Extremist attack"...when the nutter in Norway (Christian) gunned down a load of people, why wasn't this deemed as "Extreme"? seems pretty extreme to me...
I'm pretty sure Breivik was widely deemed to be a white supremacist extremist psychopath.0 -
Why was the soldier alone? In my military experience, we were often in pairs or larger groups. What took the police so long? I am so sad for the soldiers family.
It took the police long because they weren't armed, they had to wait twenty minutes for a trained armed response team. Such a tragedy.
It's an eye opener to read anti-gun replies from some Brits. You have become good citizens of the regime, bravo!Do you have a lot of faith and trust in your government? A responsible, armed citizen could have stopped this attack. The terrorists know the streets of London are a target-rich environment. They can hack to death an unarmed HERO and there will be no help forthcoming for at least 20 minutes because even the police are unarmed? Astonishing.0 -
thats not terrorism, thats a guy with a machete.
BAGHDAD — A wave of car bombings and shootings hit cities in Iraq late Sunday and on Monday, killing at least 76 people and wounding more than 250, medical and security officials said. Some news agency reports put the overall toll even higher, at 86 or more dead.
source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/21/world/middleeast/baghdad-basra-iraq-bombings.html
no threads about that tho eh.
Terrorism
noun
1. the use of violence or threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political or religious purposes
2. systematic use of violence or intimidation to achieve some goal or make a point
.....I'm fairly certain what they did is thee literal definition of terrorism-literally. Don't even bring up a silly point like that. However unfortunate it is, collateral damage is a part of war and conflict. It's unavoidable.
In the Middle East, extremists and insurgents intentionally choreograph their attacks and whatnot in areas full of innocents so that when the US/British/etc military go to respond they end up killing civilians. Fact. This is done intentionally to make citizens in the area where the conflict is occurring resentful of said countries/militaries so the citizens will become insurgent/terrorist sympathizers.
Collateral damage in war-torn areas is unavoidable...but a barbaric attack on a citizen whose country is sitting pretty in peace? Inexcusable.
I am deeply offended and disgusted by your post.0 -
Common Sense Doesn’t Require Statistics
I start out amused, then get frustrated, then angry, and finally absolutely resolute when I see these anti-gunners spout statistics here, there and everywhere about the dangers of guns, crime rates and the effectiveness of gun control. Bullchips!
These arguments are then most times followed from the pro-gun side by another set of endless statistics that completely counter the arguments just made by the anti-gun crowd. Unfortunately, these pro-gun statistics will never convince the anti-gunners no matter how obvious the numbers.
Nobody ever seems to believe the other guys’ statistics and there is a sound reason for that—statistics are a liar’s best friend and liars know that better than anyone.
I studied statistics in college and found that I could easily develop a long list of impressive numbers to support any argument on either side of an issue, creating virtually any impression I fancied. Politicians and the media do it all the time.
“So what good are all these statistics Colonel if we can’t use them to prove gun control just doesn’t work?”
Although statistics are good facts to have in your pocket, you really don’t need numbers to prove this point. The founders didn’t have any statistics so all you need is what they had in abundance—common sense. “What do you mean Colonel?”
Here are just 4 common sense points that illustrate why gun control is a myth, not a pathway to crime control—and not one point uses statistics.
Common Sense Point #1: Thugs ignore gun laws. To think that thugs who ignore laws against murder, robbery, rape and assault will, by some stretch of lunacy, obey gun control laws is the purest form of lunacy. Does anyone think that a gang planning a bank robbery will trash those plans because they would first be required to register their guns before the job went down?
Let’s listen in on Mugsy and Bugsy planning…The Big Heist
“Well, Bugsy, there it is. Our plans for robbing the Last National Bank are absolutely fool-proof and dat cool million is just waitin’ on us. It’s just a cryin’ shame we can’t pull it off though.”
“Why Mugsy? What do you mean?” asks Bugsy incredulously.
“Because da law says we can’t carry unregistered guns or we could get into real trouble” says Mugsy as he resigns himself to the life of a law abiding citizen.
“You’re right.” admits Bugsy with a tear in his eye. We’ll just have to forget about dat million smackers. I certainly wouldn’t want to break any gun laws.”
And who really thinks that requiring a solid citizen to register his gun will prevent crime? He isn’t planning The Big Heist—never has, never will. So the point is?
Common Sense Point #2: Thugs prefer unarmed victims and avoid potentially armed citizens. Amazing bit of deductive reasoning isn’t it? Anti-gunners hope you never discover that truth on your own. Think about it though from the shoes of Mugsy and Bugsy. Who would you rather confront, an armed citizen or an unarmed one? Where would you rather focus your life of crime? In areas where guns are outlawed or where guns are prevalent? Who would you rather prey on, the defenseless or the armed? And where is violent crime more prevalent? Washington D.C. where gun laws are strictest or Florida where gun laws are more relaxed? I’ll give you one guess but let’s listen in on Mugsy and Bugsy again.
“OK Bugsy, the bank job was a flop I admit dat, but we can always pull a stick-up like in da ol’ days.”
“Yeah, dats right Mugsy. We can always get a little fast bread dat way.” says Bugsy, his excitement for the old days of street crime growing. “But where do we target da mark Mugsy?”
Well Bugsy, we sure can’t pull stick ups in Florida, too many guns there. We might could get shot by one of dem ol’ southern boys. You know how they are. A lot of ‘em is packin’ these days since Florida OK’d concealed carry—ya just never know down there anymore—a real shame ain’t it?”
“You’re right Mugsy. That could be way too dangerous for us.” “I got it!” says Bugsy, “We’ll hit every schmuck in Washington D.C. None of dem bums got guns…it’s against the law…we’ll be the only ones there what got heaters!”
“Great idea!” says Mugsy, “Let’s load up and git goin’. Easy pickins, here we come!”
Common Sense Point #3: Crime is deviant behavior. A gun is an inanimate tool not deviant behavior and crime is deviant behavior not an inanimate tool. You can’t prevent deviant behavior by regulating tools because tools are incapable of behavior and the number of tools available to the world’s deviants is endless.
Even if you could legislate guns out of existence, deviants could, would and have used other things that gave them a power advantage over their victims—knives, clubs, rocks or even sharp sticks—all of which are very legal and very accessible.
Commons Sense Point #4: The Trump Card. The strongest point of all consists of a mere 27 words and is absolute in its nature. It trumps all statistics ever concocted by man and all arguments ever made—and not one of the 27 words is a number… “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” #4, my friends, is absolute, unambiguous and supersedes all arguments and all statistics.
Now go forth soldier, well armed with common sense, the absolute truth of the II Amendment and ready to fight the good fight.
One last note: If you ever find any staunchly committed anti-gunner actually and honestly willing to listen to common sense or interpret the II Amendment simply as written by our founders, please let me know. I’m still looking for one.
Just the view from my saddle…0 -
It is terrorism, irrespective of them being extremists.
Definition of it is;
1) systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal
2) the act of terrorizing
3) the state of being terrorized
A bit like the USA/UK armies abroad then...oh no she didn't!
On that note, better get back to work, it's amazing how much time I fritter away on here.
Sad state of affairs all round, both here and in the many countries that are getting bombed to pieces on a daily basis.
Why can't we all just get along...dare to dream.0 -
The founding fathers knew what they were doing when they insisted that the citizens should have a right to bear arms. In every country where weapons were taken out of the hands of the people, tyranny soon followed. Nazi Germany disarmed the people, the Soviet Union disarmed the people, Communist China disarmed the people.
All countries led by dictatorships and (debated still today for Hitler) all countries led by communism. Neither UK nor US come under either of these and are not destined to be, no matter which way you look at it. A very misaligned argument.0 -
The founding fathers knew what they were doing when they insisted that the citizens should have a right to bear arms.
Yes. I'm sure they knew that advances in technology would mean that in several hundred years general members of the public would own weapons capable of gunning down a room full of people in seconds. They probably discussed it at the slave market.In every country where weapons were taken out of the hands of the people, tyranny soon followed.
Really? I'm in a country where weapons have been taken out of the hands of the people. There's not much in the way of tyranny. The fact that this one isolated incident is such a massive deal suggests it doesn't happen very often.0 -
Latest news from the BBC
Both suspects in the killing of a serving soldier in London were known to security services, senior Whitehall sources have confirmed to the BBC.
Sources said reports the men had featured in "several investigations" in recent years - but were not deemed to be planning an attack - "were not inaccurate".
They confirmed one of the suspects was intercepted by police last year while leaving the country.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22634468
Nine minutes for local police and 14 minutes for armed officers to arrive (if that's true rather than the 20 minutes originally reported) is far too long for an incident of this type.
What I would like to know is:
1) Did the police shoot to kill but only wound at such close range?
2) If they didn't shoot to kill, why not?
3) Given the likely response time for the armed officers to arrive and the proximity of the barracks, why didn't the emergency services controller place a call to the barracks to get the troops armed and on the streets right away. (Yes, I know we don't want armed soldiers on the streets but this an emergency and it would only have been for a few minutes till the police arrived. The way I see it, that would have been much better than having armed terrorists confront members of the public and apparently even stopping buses and asking people on them to film them.)0 -
We don't want guns here thank you.
We don't need more innocent deaths.
It was a horrific tragedy by a couple of lunatics, we also don't need the likes of the EDL trying to capitalise on this poor mans death to escalate things into a race war.
Indeed. Imagine if the EDL had rocked up to their protest in Woolwich last night all carrying guns. I expect we'd be hearing of a lot more deaths this morning.
You both have the right of it.
I am going to get all stereotypical and shrug at the American love affair with guns. The rest of the first world sees it as an aberration at best and a joke at worst.
I now hesitate to post that as I would really hate this thread to descend into a futile to and fro about gun control, when it is about terrorism. I acknowledge the earlier posts regarding recent murder by terrorists in countries other than the UK.0 -
All countries led by dictatorships and (debated still today for Hitler) all countries led by communism. Neither UK nor US come under either of these and are not destined to be, no matter which way you look at it. A very misaligned argument.
Oh so we do not follow any of the ten planks....hmmm...people seem blind to the fact that we already are pretty much under fascist and communist regimes...they bring it in gently now though, no killing of tens of millions to keep us in line or make us scared anymore, we just accept the crap...0 -
It's an eye opener to read anti-gun replies from some Brits. You have become good citizens of the regime, bravo!Do you have a lot of faith and trust in your government? A responsible, armed citizen could have stopped this attack. The terrorists know the streets of London are a target-rich environment. They can hack to death an unarmed HERO and there will be no help forthcoming for at least 20 minutes because even the police are unarmed? Astonishing.
Just to clarify, you're saying that if all citizens carried guns, when the soldier was hit by the car, someone should have shot the driver, which would then probably have caused the other terrorist to shoot that citizen (as he was armed), which would then mean another armed citizen shot the second terrorist, and then another armed citizen who came across the situation may well have shot the previous armed citizen because they mistook the situation, and thought the innocent citizen was a terrorist.... and so on and so forth....
so far a much better scenario....0 -
If nothing else, this thread has opened my eyes to which people just nod and do and believe whatever their government tells them and which ones question within reason. It's like watching a group of turkeys in a rainstorm. Entertaining, to say the least.0
-
Why was the soldier alone? In my military experience, we were often in pairs or larger groups. What took the police so long? I am so sad for the soldiers family.
It took the police long because they weren't armed, they had to wait twenty minutes for a trained armed response team. Such a tragedy.
It's an eye opener to read anti-gun replies from some Brits. You have become good citizens of the regime, bravo!Do you have a lot of faith and trust in your government? A responsible, armed citizen could have stopped this attack. The terrorists know the streets of London are a target-rich environment. They can hack to death an unarmed HERO and there will be no help forthcoming for at least 20 minutes because even the police are unarmed? Astonishing.
As per the comment above:
No it didn't:
Asst Comm Byrne also addresses the issue of how long it took police to respond to the Woolwich attack. "We first received a 999 call from the public at 14:20hrs stating a man was being attacked, further 999 calls stated that the attackers were in possession of a gun. We had officers at the scene within 9 minutes of receiving that first 999 call. Once that information about a gun or guns being present was known, firearms officers were assigned at 14:24hrs. Firearms officers were there and dealing with the incident 10 minutes after they were assigned, 14 minutes after the first call to the Met."
From the BBC. They don't have firearms officers sat around at every small police station waiting to be mobilsed. 10 mins from alert to attendance is pretty good work (imagine to traffic in the surrounding area)
A person with a gun wouldn't have been able to prevent what happened. The minute the first blow was struck, the victim was as good as dead. All an armed civilian could have only committed an act of vigilantism and that is exactly how situations escalate.
We Brits enjoy a comparatively lower gun crime rate than almost any country in the world. Why on earth would we choose to change that?
There were also bystanders helping the situation.
You can keep your gun laws, we'll keep ours and by public vote too!0 -
If we Brits were allowed guns, wouldn't the terrorists have just done a drive by?0
-
Common Sense Doesn’t Require Statistics
I start out amused, then get frustrated, then angry, and finally absolutely resolute when I see these anti-gunners spout statistics here, there and everywhere about the dangers of guns, crime rates and the effectiveness of gun control. Bullchips!
These arguments are then most times followed from the pro-gun side by another set of endless statistics that completely counter the arguments just made by the anti-gun crowd. Unfortunately, these pro-gun statistics will never convince the anti-gunners no matter how obvious the numbers.
Nobody ever seems to believe the other guys’ statistics and there is a sound reason for that—statistics are a liar’s best friend and liars know that better than anyone.
I studied statistics in college and found that I could easily develop a long list of impressive numbers to support any argument on either side of an issue, creating virtually any impression I fancied. Politicians and the media do it all the time.
“So what good are all these statistics Colonel if we can’t use them to prove gun control just doesn’t work?”
Although statistics are good facts to have in your pocket, you really don’t need numbers to prove this point. The founders didn’t have any statistics so all you need is what they had in abundance—common sense. “What do you mean Colonel?”
Here are just 4 common sense points that illustrate why gun control is a myth, not a pathway to crime control—and not one point uses statistics.
Common Sense Point #1: Thugs ignore gun laws. To think that thugs who ignore laws against murder, robbery, rape and assault will, by some stretch of lunacy, obey gun control laws is the purest form of lunacy. Does anyone think that a gang planning a bank robbery will trash those plans because they would first be required to register their guns before the job went down?
Let’s listen in on Mugsy and Bugsy planning…The Big Heist
“Well, Bugsy, there it is. Our plans for robbing the Last National Bank are absolutely fool-proof and dat cool million is just waitin’ on us. It’s just a cryin’ shame we can’t pull it off though.”
“Why Mugsy? What do you mean?” asks Bugsy incredulously.
“Because da law says we can’t carry unregistered guns or we could get into real trouble” says Mugsy as he resigns himself to the life of a law abiding citizen.
“You’re right.” admits Bugsy with a tear in his eye. We’ll just have to forget about dat million smackers. I certainly wouldn’t want to break any gun laws.”
And who really thinks that requiring a solid citizen to register his gun will prevent crime? He isn’t planning The Big Heist—never has, never will. So the point is?
Common Sense Point #2: Thugs prefer unarmed victims and avoid potentially armed citizens. Amazing bit of deductive reasoning isn’t it? Anti-gunners hope you never discover that truth on your own. Think about it though from the shoes of Mugsy and Bugsy. Who would you rather confront, an armed citizen or an unarmed one? Where would you rather focus your life of crime? In areas where guns are outlawed or where guns are prevalent? Who would you rather prey on, the defenseless or the armed? And where is violent crime more prevalent? Washington D.C. where gun laws are strictest or Florida where gun laws are more relaxed? I’ll give you one guess but let’s listen in on Mugsy and Bugsy again.
“OK Bugsy, the bank job was a flop I admit dat, but we can always pull a stick-up like in da ol’ days.”
“Yeah, dats right Mugsy. We can always get a little fast bread dat way.” says Bugsy, his excitement for the old days of street crime growing. “But where do we target da mark Mugsy?”
Well Bugsy, we sure can’t pull stick ups in Florida, too many guns there. We might could get shot by one of dem ol’ southern boys. You know how they are. A lot of ‘em is packin’ these days since Florida OK’d concealed carry—ya just never know down there anymore—a real shame ain’t it?”
“You’re right Mugsy. That could be way too dangerous for us.” “I got it!” says Bugsy, “We’ll hit every schmuck in Washington D.C. None of dem bums got guns…it’s against the law…we’ll be the only ones there what got heaters!”
“Great idea!” says Mugsy, “Let’s load up and git goin’. Easy pickins, here we come!”
Common Sense Point #3: Crime is deviant behavior. A gun is an inanimate tool not deviant behavior and crime is deviant behavior not an inanimate tool. You can’t prevent deviant behavior by regulating tools because tools are incapable of behavior and the number of tools available to the world’s deviants is endless.
Even if you could legislate guns out of existence, deviants could, would and have used other things that gave them a power advantage over their victims—knives, clubs, rocks or even sharp sticks—all of which are very legal and very accessible.
Commons Sense Point #4: The Trump Card. The strongest point of all consists of a mere 27 words and is absolute in its nature. It trumps all statistics ever concocted by man and all arguments ever made—and not one of the 27 words is a number… “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” #4, my friends, is absolute, unambiguous and supersedes all arguments and all statistics.
Now go forth soldier, well armed with common sense, the absolute truth of the II Amendment and ready to fight the good fight.
One last note: If you ever find any staunchly committed anti-gunner actually and honestly willing to listen to common sense or interpret the II Amendment simply as written by our founders, please let me know. I’m still looking for one.
Just the view from my saddle…
Extremely well said!0 -
Did anyone see that video of one of the murderers? Right after they butchered the poor man, with bloody hands and still holding his machete. And some woman just calmly walked right past him with shopping bags. :huh:0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 996 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions