British terrorist attackers obvious lack of firearms.... Take note America!

originally posted by: Gatexan
a reply to: GraffikPleasure

I own a pistol for home protection , a compound bow for hunting, a recurve for bow fishing and a spear for hunting feral hogs. They are all deadly weapons that could be used in a public attack , should we ban them all?

P.s. I would rather be gut shoot with my pistol than stabbed with my spear , it does a devastating amount of damage.

Banning objects are not the answer, because they are not the cause of the problem.

Bad people are. Let's all start there.

a reply to: GraffikPleasure

I agree 100%

I did take note.

LONDON CITIZENS Had to THROW CHAIRS at Terrorists Because UNARMED POLICE RAN AWAY

Russia has VERY restrictive gun laws and over twice the murder rate of the USA. Why has no European ever brought up the plight of the Russia people? Maybe some residual cultural arrogance from past colonial eras that presumes we need to listen to or follow Europe. My argument is if everyone in my country always listened to the UK and the EU oligarchs ID be a tobacco farmer sweating way harder than the OP.

So spare the preaching and watch this video of 30 UK Police vs man armed with machete in the street on youtube and realize that a machete holding up a whole towns police more or less you can keep man lol, one machete.

If Europe actually cared about saving lives from gun violence they would criticize Russia before the US. This is something else entirely it seems




.a reply to:



PerfectAnomoly

hijacking a semi truck is way deadlier than a .22 LR
a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

Fine that's how UK does things, yet it didn't stop UK from registering 35% more deaths attributed directly to terrorism acts than the US since roughly 1975.

When people don't have guns they use whatever they can find, don't tell me a gun is more dangerous than a 2 ton pickup truck plowing through a crowd...

You can run out of bullet fast but not gas, my point is a gun is simple a tool if someone wants to kill in mass they will find a way to do it, cars, trucks, gas tanks...

Hell they could severe high voltage power lines near water supplies and throw the live wires in the water, if my memory is right in water you'd only be safe from a 120v live wire at 110m or more... Imagine how several hundred times the same current from a high power line would travel far and mess people up around 9pm when people get ready to bed...

My point is there's alot of deranged people on this earth and as much as I would want to stop them all to prevent any further loss as this crap is really starting to plague our world. Removing the tool isn't the problem, remove a man a tool he'll just find another...

We have to stop looking for ways the fix the problem and start looking at what is causing in first place, why in the last 20 years people are going mad in masses and feel the urge to take it upon other people openly. If as a society we don't face the fact that we've pushed workers and people too far for what the human mind can take and doesn't address this problem soon. I don't foresee peaceful future for the next couple of generations...

Think u dont take one thing into acount ... mexico ban guns i can guy them from mexico .... stop making them mexico will make them prime example ...They made it alsomt inposible to get ingrediance to make drugs in america... a week later guess who was geting it over hear bye the truckload

So unless u can show me some lawless contry ran bye drugloars with more fully armed members than most armys ... that will sell u a gun for cheap with ammo ... u just cant compare ...

originally posted by: Gatexan
a reply to: GraffikPleasure

I agree 100%

I've said this in other threads... And it doesn't get picked up...

Nobody wants to argue that, and seemingly fix it either.

a reply to: MisterSpock

I believe this is the main point people miss, and I couldn't agree more with MisterSpock.
Taking away guns my make people less likely to be shot by a gun, but it does not make them any more safe.

If someone plans to harm me, then they will harm me by and means available to them.
But it by gun, truck, knife or spoon.

At least if I am armed, I have an equalizer that puts us on common ground.

I am sure all the dead victims in the UK from terror attacks are so comforted that they weren't killed by guns.

Brit here, long time lurker first post.

I think that we should be allowed to arm ourselves if we want. The government can't prevent these attacks from happening. Think about it. If you suddenly went mad and decided to go on a stabbing spree you would more than likely hurt a lot of people before you got taken down. If we had a system where you could arm yourself, lives would be saved. Imagine if a barman in the first place that the knifemen entered had a shotgun. Less people would have died.

It would need to be heavily regulated. For example, make it so that it has to be self financed. Anyone who wants a gun has to attend a mandatory 6 months training course, again, self financed (offer payment plans so as not to price out people with less money from owning a firearm). Copy other government systems, such as the passport process, where you need references to apply. Make it so that you need 2 x employer references and a character reference from someone who knows you personally, who is in good professional standing (e.g someone with something to lose if you decide to go off and attack people).

I don't think our government can protect us, so why shouldn't we be able to protect ourselves and others?

I know the chances of this happening are next to zero, and of course more firearms makes it more likely that a gun could fall into the wrong hands, so there are downsides. However, criminals will still find guns if they want them and if citizens could arm themselves then I do think lives could be saved. I don't think there is any other solution really, as I stated earlier, the government can't stop all of these attacks, just clean up afterwards.

The alternative is to give up more freedoms (which will never be reinstated), in the hope that our gov can keep us safe (they can't).

I'm not proposing we open up gun shops all over the place, it would be a government sector like passports and driving licences. Perhaps they could limit it to handguns of a specific type.

Dangerous times call for drastic changes.

a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

In the interests of full disclosure, I'm not a "Republican" and I'm not a Trump supporter. I haven't supported a US President since Ronald Reagan and because of the political landscape in my State, I'm forced to either abstain from voting altogether some years, or splitting the ticket between Republicans, Libertarians and Democrats.

I will never change my mind about the 2nd Amendment and that's the case for the vast majority of people who both support Trump or who voted for him because of their disgust with Hilary. And that's precisely why the Australian solution of removing guns from the general public will never work. I'd have to add as well, although I don't have time to look up the links, an increasing number of "centrist" Democrats are increasingly coming to support the 2nd Amendment. Instead of leaning further toward the Australian solution, the US population is increasingly leaning AWAY from draconian gun control measures, particularly in fly-over-country. And fly-over-country is increasing in population as rational people flee the Leftist dominated States such as California and New York.

As far as the "right to bear arms" being a foolish right, I can only hazard a guess to the effect that you really don't quite understand the Framers of the Constitution major distrust of a strong centralized government. And as far as being foolish in the context of the political and social environment in the US today, that's a ridiculous concept. The "Right to Bear Arms" is the only thing that makes staying in the US a reasonable option for many if not most of us. This country, (its barely even a genuine "country") is in the midst of the cold stage of a Civil War that could go hot at any place at any time. Every Presidential election takes the country closer to the "hot" stage.

Rather than worrying about US 2nd Amendment rights, my recommendation to Brits would be that its more appropriate to worry about the ability or "will" of the US to continue to offer defense support of its Nuclear umbrella.

Oh, and no.......I have no delusions about Trump securing the border. I live on the border; it will never be secure.

a reply to: Lab4Us

Thanks for the thanks...........I don't understand the foreigners hostility to the US in general or the 2nd Amendment either. However, I'd suggest that of late, I am beginning to detect a bit of jealousy from the more rational of them as they observe their unarmed "Bobby's" attempt to deal with knife wielding crazies. I'd have to guess the major difference is that while the general ethos of US "fly-over-country" is something along the lines of "when seconds count, the cops are only several long minutes away", the Brits and the Europeans, generally speaking, look to their governments to protect them.

But hey, lets be honest, considering the size of the UK v. the US, its probably hard for them to imagine that while I live near the US border in West Texas, I'm 300 miles from the nearest large Metropolitan area. And I have friends who live in El Paso Texas.........I kinda don't think the average European/Brit can mentally model just how remote El Paso is from ......................anything of note.

originally posted by: PerfectAnomoly

In Australia for instance, after the Port Arthur massacre, there was an amnesty...... A large percentage of guns were handed in, the people understood that a society is safer if people don't have hand held killing tools in their homes. The cost of obtaining the same gun used in the Port Arthur Massacre went from 250 Dollars to 40,000 dollars.... See what happened?

I posted this in an Australian terroist attack thread, a poster queried how a terroist obtained guns in Aus?

Reported gun crime statistics have not changed that drasticaly after the weapons buy back scheme of 1997. (Noted change considering the population increase, I did not take into account in previous post, although I would suggest stats are not completly right as gun crimes happen here every few days, homicides a few a month....)
Australian Institue of Criminal Homicide
Guns are still available legally with a license and specified purpose of ownership, just not fully and semi-automatic weapons.

There are plenty of guns available in Australia to those that really want to obtain them for a reasonable price sourced from illegal shipments, local robberies of individuals and gun wholesalers, or the thousands of weapons still around pre dating the buy back. Crims have stockpiles of illegal weapons, gun ownership/use and sport shooting post weapon buy back is not as prevalent amongst the general populace. The populace are easier to controll and dependant on goverment protection, if invaded.

At the end of May in rural Queensland an individual with a hatred of the police went nuts with a machine gun shot up police cars, an armoured tactical vehicle and killed a police officer who gave his life to protect his colleague.
Queensland Police Killer
Gun crimes are actually quite prevalent here, it's quite normal for you average low level drug dealer to be packing heat and doing drive buys on there competition.......

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
On 2nd thought I think you were being sarcastic.....

Very.

originally posted by: GraffikPleasure

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: GraffikPleasure

originally posted by: crazyewok
Let the stupid yanks have there boom boom sticks.
If it makes them feel better about there insecuritys good for them.

Its of no concern to the UK.

And yet, the worst terror incident to date was accomplished by knives...why are we talking about guns?....

So?

As I said you yanks can have all the guns you want.

US gun control (or lack of) is non of the UK buisness same way as UK gun control is none of the USA buisness.

Both countrys have a way that works for them.

Sssoo I was triggered I guess by "stupid yanks", minus that, we agree.

Bad people are the cause, not inanimate objects.

Dont take it personally.

Us brits have viewd you as uncouth, uneducated , uncultured and uncivilised since the first colonies where established and no matter how big your armed forces or how many bombs you drop we will always think the same

a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

So you are basically saying that if all non terrorists have guns, we will be able to stop the attackers?
Like never bring a knife to a gunfight?

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: network dude

To be fair, they could have stopped them with riot shields and nightsticks, and stopped them hard.

The decision to deploy firearms units, although sensible in this instance, was probably not made because the attackers had knives, but in case they had guns or bombs.

Yes, they could have thrown a big net on them like in the cartoons, or spilled some glue on the ground so they couldn't move. They didn't, they shot them.
I like guns, I enjoy collecting and shooting, but I have no desire to kill anyone. at what point do MY guns become dangerous?
answer is the daily double: when they are in the hands of a bad person.

I absolutely agree.
1. I like the mechanical art the goes into a firearm.
2. I like the way you can dress one up by painting or adding color patterns to the furniture.
3. I like the feeling of security that it brings.
4. I like practicing with it the way I practice golf or fishing.
5. I don't want too, but if I feel threatened or my life in danger, I will use it to protect myself.
6. Don't mess with an old man with a gun permit.

such things just point out how pointless gun control is when people wish to kill others badly enough, how laws are useless in the face of human nature and humans themselves determine what they do.

in the end it's about responsibility and the state of mind of the individual and those around them.

laws exist to persuade people on a proper course but people decide whether to follow them or not.

Why use a knife over a gun in a terror attack...

Hacking someone to death with a machete takes longer yes, it also inspires terror.. it is an intensely personal thing to do, it removes the sterility of the situation (being shot) and will leave lasting marks on the victims that survive, and any that were just witness to the attack. (something a terrorist would want to do)

If you are looking to terrify people, chopping them up is a great way to do so... possibly the only thing that might inspire more fear would be feeding them to some animal while the victim is still alive.