Soldier beheaded in streets of london....
Replies
-
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
-
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?
None whatsoever. But I'm not sure how that's related.A responsible, armed citizen could have stopped this attack.
How? Had the offenders had a gun and wished to make a quick kill they could have done so before any armed passer-by known what was going on. Or do firearms power clairvoyance?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.
One person was killed. Until that happened there was no reason for police response. No further casualties took place. There could have been a thousand armed police on the next street there in 30 seconds and the end result would've been the same.
About two hours after this attack, a nationalist right-wing group turned up and faced off with police in the streets. Concrete slabs were thrown, some tried to torch a mosque. There were no further fatalities. If guns were easily available to the general population that soldier would still have been murdered yesterday, probably along with some police officers and some passing Muslims because some angry ignorant people thought they looked too brown to be allowed in London.
I'm quite happy to keep it as it is.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...
Comedy. No, we don't follow any of the 10 planks of communism. You must have studied history and politics at a different place of education than me.0 -
.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:
I saw that! Couldn't she see everyone else was behind her panicking, and there was a guy ranting with bloodied hands and a meat cleaver and other various knives?0 -
Don't know if you have heard of this yet, but me and some friends are trying to get as many people possible on the 22nd june to wear help for heroes t-shirts...
https://www.facebook.com/events/553297091380819/?notif_t=plan_user_joined
Go on this link join the page and share it with your friends! We want this to go viral
Share with your friends. We want this to go viral.
Eh why? This is NOT Entertainment!!!
That is someone's son/brother/father.
Actually quiet disgusted by this post.
Why? Viral means she wants it to be known around the world. She wants to support the charity that he supported, and support the family, friends and anyone else it may have affected by raising awareness.
Viral does not always mean entertainment.0 -
1) Did the police shoot to kill but only wound at such close range?
2) If they didn't shoot to kill, why not?
You have been watching too many cowboy films - there is no such thing as shoot to kill or shoot to wound. Hand guns are incredibly inaccurate in real life against a moving target despite what you may see on TV. The police marksmen are trained to fire at the densest part of the person to maximise the chances of actually hitting them. The police role is to end the danger and not to be an executioner.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.
Some with a properly concealed firearm would have had zero chance to stopping an attack that lead to a death in 30 seconds. By the time the armed person got over the shock, realized what was occurring, and pulled out the weapon guy would have already been dead.
The "people should be armed" argument goes both ways. One man died in this'd knife attack. How many innocent British civilians would have been killed had the terrorists had a gun or two? When guns are permitted, it's not only the good guys who possess them.
Besides, the self-defense argument is disproven and bull. Out of gun uses (homicide, self-defense, hunting, etc), studies have shown that (in America) the majority of guns have been used for...wait for it...suicide.
Founding fathers were smart to allow them blah blah...do you really think there would be a Second Amendment if they had known the types of guns that exist today? God no! And technically, if your argument is the Second Amendment, I can own a nuclear warhead.
Fourth Amendment - we don't have to quarter soldiers. Outdated.
Second Amendment - we're allowed to have muskets to fight the Red Coats. Outdated.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.
wait, what? hmmm.... not sure if dis is serious, or troll lvl: master.
back away slowly people. no sudden moves. dont make eye contact.0 -
Comedy. No, we don't follow any of the 10 planks of communism. You must have studied history and politics at a different place of education than me.
I study history and politics from a different angle now (oh how biased those books and full of hot air those politicians really are), I grew up in Africa, so yes an extremely "different place of education than" you ; )
One last word on this item...the word terrorism has been misused and overused in the last ten or so years. I think this is what we are bumping up against here, for the most part.
Have I been terrorised by this incident...not in the slightest...but then I am used to the mainstream news focusing on the negative.
Anyway, peace out all...have a great Tuesday everyone...the sun is shining again... : )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.
Could you explain what you mean? From your reply I assume you are in a country without a free press. Here in the West we do our best to protect the independent media.0 -
I couldn't look at the front of the newspapers in my local shop today, my heart sank when I heard the news and my eyes filled up with tears when I saw the video of the animal holding a bloody cleaver saying that he was sorry that women and children had to witness this but in "his land" the woman and children have to see it everyday. Sorry but if it is your land then why aren't you there? :noway:0
-
Too bad there was not an armed citizen nearby who could have helped this poor man. Lord have mercy.
Yes because Americans owning guns has been so great for all of us and the children at Sandy Hook.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!
Actually, I found it quite rambling and rather condescending ,so I skimmed over most of it once we got to the kitschy bank robbers. Guess that's just the view from MY saddle.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.
Could you explain what you mean? From your reply I assume you are in a country without a free press. Here in the West we do our best to protect the independent media.
Nope, in America. I don't want a debate at the moment on this particular issue, so I purposely didn't add any details so I don't let on which side I agree with. Feel free to PM me if you'd like to know more of what I mean
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.
The actions of a few do not represent the masses.
^ THIS!0 -
I couldn't look at the front of the newspapers in my local shop today, my heart sank when I heard the news and my eyes filled up with tears when I saw the video of the animal holding a bloody cleaver saying that he was sorry that women and children had to witness this but in "his land" the woman and children have to see it everyday. Sorry but if it is your land then why aren't you there? :noway:
"Michael Adeboloja, 28, born in Lambeth, London. He studied sociology at Greenwich University."
This is his land. He's British, hence the Cockney accent he's shouting about Allah in. He didn't do anything because of being black, Muslim, or because of anything anyone did anywhere in any land ever, he did it because he's a complete mentalist.0 -
Too bad there was not an armed citizen nearby who could have helped this poor man. Lord have mercy.
Hard not to read as "Someone has died! Agenda fuel! What a great opportunity to peddle my views on a completely unrelated topic of gun control!"
This - in the UK we've found that having less people with guns results in less murder. Unfortunately that does mean the occasional murders are subject to bonkers fear mongering in the media. Unlike the US, where murder barely hits the news unless its a high school/college darling or sports star, or an excuse for the NRA to promote wider gun promotion.0 -
We don't want guns here thank you..
The actions of a few do not represent the masses.
What's funny is that what you just said there at the bottom is actually an argument used by a lot of your counterparts, and kind of hypocritical, if I were to play devil's advocate here for a minute.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.
Could you explain what you mean? From your reply I assume you are in a country without a free press. Here in the West we do our best to protect the independent media.
Nope, in America. I don't want a debate at the moment on this particular issue, so I purposely didn't add any details so I don't let on which side I agree with. Feel free to PM me if you'd like to know more of what I mean
Therefore, you don't believe America has a free press. I don't get into private messages with conspiracy theorists, but I would love to hear your arguments in the open forum.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.
The actions of a few do not represent the masses.
This!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions