Muslim Madmen Strike Again

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think that it should be pointed out that given the will to cause bodily harm or death the outcome can be greater (France truck) or less (UK van & knife) depending on the ingenuity and luck of the perpetrator. If someone wants to kill, it doesn't matter what the weapon is. I would be much happier possessing a gun if something happened than depending on the response of law enforcement. 5 to 10 minutes is a lifetime.
 

Keith

Moderator
Just for the record and I'm mentioning this politely even though I am only armed with a stray Profiterole, if this thread teeters any closer to the Gun Control etc abyss then please continue (if you must) on the Politics Thread.
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
I see a disturbing trend that I'm concerned will result in reduced accountability for gun use if, for example, a bystander is injured or killed during a gunfight. Getting wounded or killed by a careless, but well intentioned CCW carrier, should not be any different than any other careless use of a weapon...
Yeeeup. 'Far better we all go around unarmed, do nothing, offer no resistance whatsoever to terrorists in case we might kill/injure an 'innocent' if we did, and take our chances that the terrorists will choose to kill somebody else rather than us in situations like those above.

It's interesting to note that you seem to automatically assume the total number of INTENTIONAL victims rung up by unopposed terrorists in any given incident is somehow likely to be less than the number of innocent bystanders who might accidentally be injured/killed by a "careless" CCW holder who takes action to stop it.............and that you'd be ALL FOR said CCW holder being boiled in oil 'after-the-fact' if his actions DID accidently result in a bystander being injured/killed by, say, a 'through-and-through' round.

Really?
 

Keith

Moderator
C'mon Larry, the animal rights people will be after you if you flog that horse any more.

We get it. Arming the populace is totally the answer to urban terrorism...

Except... It really isn't. The Answer.
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
C'mon Larry, the animal rights people will be after you if you flog that horse any more.

We get it. Arming the populace is totally the answer to urban terrorism...

Except... It really isn't. The Answer.
There you go AGAIN, Keith.

I've never said "arming the populace is totally the answer to urban terrorism"...or anything even close. I have said and will CONTINUE to say that the ability of anyone under attack to employ an instant armed response to that attack affords the best chance to end the attack quickly and thereby limit the number of innocent victims.

Again: At what moment was the London Bridge attack ended and by what means?

Well, there you go...
 
Last edited:
Yet you still don't get it. The police don't want an armed British civilian population, they don't even want to be routinely armed themselves. The emergency services don't want an armed British civilian population. In my opinion the majority of British posters on this thread don't want an armed British population and they are not all tree hugging lovey dovey Liberals as much as you would like them to be.

The friends and families of the victims of the two recent atrocities have not spoken of arming ourselves or revenge or retaliation but of the importance of peace tolerance love for one another and being vigilant but not to live our lives in fear.

It seems to me the only ones talking about British civilians being armed are American civilians. Armed for what purpose so we can feel safe? Doesnt seem to have worked for you guys if you have to walk round with one hand on your concealed weapon and 100 % concentrated on where the next attack may come from. Because God forbid you would even be contemplating drawing and discharging a firearm in a public place without 100% concentration or correct training which in this country has been failed by experienced police officers, and in one recent case for good reason.

Yep keep your right to bear arms and your bloody effing firearms if you want, and good luck to you but don't wish it on us, British citizens don't want them!
 
Last edited:
The people in the US that have guns aren't cowboys looking for an excuse to shoot someone. The shootings that occur here are overwhelmingly committed by mentally unstable people. I've carried a concealed weapon (380 cal Ruger LCP) for 10 years and never had it out of my pocket and hope I never do have occasion to use it. But I would be severely pissed if someone threatened my life or the people I care about and I didn't have it with me. This isn't a friendly world we live in and it is going to get worse and no amount of love and wishing is going to change it. You need to start worrying about those that kill because others don't believe the way they do. We in the US worry about you and the attacks on you, we respect your wish not to be armed, respect our wishes.
 
We in the US worry about you and the attacks on you, we respect your wish not to be armed, respect our wishes.
Exactly why I put you can keep your right to bear arms and your firearms.

Perhaps you could respect those in your country that oppose those views, especially as they may out number you rather than branding them lefties 'who would prefer to die holding their bleeding hearts than offend" etc etc etc
 
Last edited:

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
Yet you still don't get it...
Oh, I "get" your various views, Nick...I just don't happen to endorse/agree with many of them (for reasons I've stated ad nauseam).

I'd simply remind you that when Sir Winston Churchill said, "We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender", he was not suggesting "peace tolerance and love for one another" (as you put it) would be effective weapons to use in that fight.

Given all that, were he posting on this thread (or ones like it) today, 'me' thinks it's likely his view on the topic would far more closely mirror mine than yours. (Of course, admittedly, I might be slightly biased there. ;))
:chug:

('Apologies to Sir Winston for dragging him into this!)
 
Oh, I "get" your various views, Nick...I just don't happen to endorse/agree with many of them (for reasons I've stated ad nauseam).

I'd simply remind you that when Sir Winston Churchill said, "We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender", he was not suggesting "peace tolerance and love for one another" (as you put it) would be effective weapons to use in that fight.

Given all that, were he posting on this thread (or ones like it) today, 'me' thinks it's likely his view on the topic would far more closely mirror mine than yours. (Of course, admittedly, I might be slightly biased there. ;))
:chug:

('Apologies to Sir Winston for dragging him into this!)
You need to do a bit more research on Winston Churchill especially given the title of this thread which we appear to have strayed from

I will agree on the ad nauseam part so I will stop.. will you?
 
Last edited:
Exactly why I put you can keep your right to bear arms and your firearms.

Perhaps you could respect those in your country that oppose those views, especially as they may out number you rather than branding them lefties 'who would prefer to die holding their bleeding hearts than offend" etc etc etc
But the vast majority of gun activists are lefties and that's just the way it is.
 

Keith

Moderator
Hey Larry, with regards to Winnie, of course he was referring to an entirely different enemy using entirely different belligerent tactics. Anyone could have said that given the circumstances and they would have been right.

As Nick says, in the UK we are almost unanimously against 'arming the populace' but we also respect the fact that your society works in different ways. We can't imagine ourselves with guns and you can't imagine yourselves without them. That's a fact, and I have absolutely no interest (as do we all over here in the UK except for a few extremists) in attempting to suggest that y'all need to give up your guns. The problem I think we have is that when anything like this appalling event in Borough Market takes place (God forbid) we quickly get the old "of course, if there were armed citizens present, the perps would have been taken down in short order" or words to that effect.

It's still a theory..

This mantra has yet to be proven here, or in the US. Well, it won't be proven here of course. When, if, it happens in the US (and I am praying it never will) along these lines and there are armed citizens along with LEO's present it will be educational to be able learn exactly what having an armed populace actually means.

Finally, as the thread has moved to overtly political, it is being closed. Please continue on the Politics thread.

You can possibly start (not you personally Larry) by explaining in detail why it is some US people (folks?) correlate gun "activists" (by which I mean those that wish to enhance gun control laws in the US) with being "left wing, liberals, communists, anti-American" etc. I am personally interested in when this started as I can't remember any of this sentiment when I lived in Alabama in the 80's.

Try and keep it polite though. Nobody here wants to take away your candy...:laugh:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top