English drummer killed in attack.

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's not the middle of London. Woolwich is a suburb and a particularly deprived and Police-poor one at that. Absolutely the are arguments that British Police should be more readily available and perhaps armed but there are also equally valid arguments (that I support) against arming the ordinary Police officers.

The armed Police are a particular unit that are generally quick-response. The truth is that almost anywhere outside of the centres of cities that the Police response time is relatively slow - armed or otherwise. I have no idea what US Policing is like (other than they are armed as a matter of course) and it may be that your standard response times are quicker but in the UK there has been a history of a lack of Police in needed areas. Whether or not they were armed with firearms is irrelevant - most Police officers now have access to non-lethal weaponry like tasers which in this case would have an effective stand-off range to take on an attacker armed with a machete. It just so happens in this case, the armed Police were called. Other Police officers at that time (if present) would have sealed off the area and not confronted the attackers as a matter of procedure. Once the armed Police are there, all other forces take the back seat.

The full details of what exactly happened after the incident and before the Police arrived are not entirely clear. I know there are some frankly shocking images of a member of the public talking to an attacker - which is brave to say the least - but in the UK the Police are very rarely 'just around the corner', especially in deprived areas like Woolwich.

I know Woolwich quite well, incidentally. It's not a particularly bad area of London (Southwark and Tower Hamlets are worse) but there is definitely an issue with a lack of Police presence.

Reading a further news story, the response time was actually 13 minutes, not twenty. For armed Police in the UK - that is quick. For any Police in the UK, that is quick...
 
Yes, but you are 4 times more likely to be a victim of a violent (non gun related) crime. Wait the perpetrators had a revolver, and the citizens had I-phones, nice to see those "strict" gun laws are working out for you. I bet a similar incident like this would never occur in somewhere like Texas.

I'm not going to discuss guns laws any further. This is an exceptional incident and whilst there certainly are guns around in the UK that are owned illegally, to generalise and say that our laws don't work based on a single incident is somewhat disingenuous to say the least.

What about the McKinney homicide? If we want to generalise.

We can all throw around examples of homicide in any country. The fact is that this is an exceptional case and one that I am deeply ashamed of.

An intentional homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000 as opposed to 4.8 per 100,000 in the UK and US respectively says enough to me.

Citation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Reference: United Nations office on Drugs and Crime. (2012)
 
Really not the time or place, especially considering that this particular incident has nothing to do with the United States and rather the United Kingdom, where we have very strict gun control laws and the correspondingly low level of gun-related crime.
Take away the guns what do they do? Hack you to peaces with a butcher knife and a meat clever. not gonna happen to me if i can help it
 
Disappointed (to say the least) that this thread has degenerated into yet another gun control debate.
 
So am I, and I am equally concerned about the hardline backlash. I firmly believe that moderation is the best way to defeat extremism.



What he said.

Moderation may only embolden evil people. Brits may remember Chamberlain in that regard. As for backlash, I am waiting for people to attack Muslim embassies, behead Muslims, call or the murder of Muslims and so on. So far, the people of Britain have reacted with more or less restraint. Scale, scope, frequency and savagery are among reasonable factors to consider.

Anyone who has emigrated from another nation must adopt, believe in and practice the cultural norms of that nation. In the case of mature, stable, tolerant democracies like England, that means any immigrant who protests against the government/society, advocates for the beheading of homosexuals/critics/other religions/etc. should immediately and courteously be expelled to the land from which they came. Anyone seeking to immigrate should sign a declaration saying they will seek gainful employment and conform to the cultural norms and expectations of a liberal democracy, they will abide by its laws, and they will be subject to expulsion if they disagree. I don't at all fault the Muslim nations for practicing this very equivalent thing. Every nation should.
 
I say broadcast nothing.

Yeah, that ones a real Catch 22 situation, hey. The public's right to be informed plays right into the hands of what these two barbarians set out to do in the first place.


nice to see those "strict" gun laws are working out for you. I bet a similar incident like this would never occur in somewhere like Texas.

And yet your laws are working out so swimmingly for you in the States, aren't they? I'd like a piece of that bet.....how much do you wanna lay?

FWIW, I'm neither pro nor anti the gun stance here. But don't sit there and pretend the current US gun laws are all beer and skittles hey. Trying to tell us fundamentalism of this nature could be curbed in the States is a bloody long bow mate. I think your very recent history points markedly toward the fact that it's far from perfect too, no?
I don't want to sound like I'm being a prick here either, you're a nice guy and I enjoy your posts......but I just see a few holes that I thought desperately needed addressing too. :)
 
One of our brothers senselessly slain in the street, an innocuous drummer who just happened to work for the military.

It's a tragedy, and in my mind, a simple lowly hate crime and nothing more. Chicken sh!t...

BTW, I've lived my whole life without a gun. It helps to be bigger, meaner and uglier than most other people too. My dad was from Europe, so maybe that has something to do with it. I've lived in the mid-west for a time, and I was amazed how much guns are a part of the culture there. I never even think about guns myself living over here, so it was quite an eye-opener to realize how deep this gun ownership and gun pride runs in the veins of your average, run-of-the-mill, corn-fed, American redneck.
 
...

Sad that everything in the end somehow boils down to ethnic/racial profiling because, we, the recipients of the grand media buffet have absolutely nothing else to hold on to except a fleeting image or clip of a black person, a brown person, or whomever, associated with our daily diet of gruesomeness.

To quote Bob Marley, I'm not quite sure what " All the Trouble in the World" is but this global fear psychosis based on color and religion is doing a lot of damage that will take generations to undo.

What a frikkin mess.


...
 
My point is that you were safer when you had the right to defend yourselves.

So how safe were 13 military personnel at Fort Hood? Men taken out by a man who was considered to be one of their own? All the guns on the barracks couldn't save them could they?
Looking a little further afield, what about several thousand office workers in Manhattan high rises? On the day, there's not a gun in existence that could have solved that problem.
And although not terror related it still lends itself to the "wouldn't happen in the States because we have a right to defend" argument. What about 20 odd children at Sandy Hook? They all had a right to defend themselves too......as did those around them that managed to survive. Yet it didn't work out too well for any of them though did it?

Again, this is neither pro nor anti firearms.......it's just pro common sense. Sometimes, the right to wave guns around counts for very little at all. It's no guaranteed deterrent and certainly no guaranteed solution.
 
Interesting debate here.

The trouble with the US and its gun legislation is the fact that the general public have the right to 'bear arms' as well as the law enforcement. Which means there is a LOT of guns about. There are guns in the UK, but very little in the grand scheme of things. I do believe that our police should carry guns and keep the law about citizens the same. Those that want to carry guns illegally already do so and I honestly think the number would not rise much with the introduction of Law Enforcement arming.

Most European countries operate in this fashion and it works great. The fact is, there is a different attitude to guns over here compared to the States and it would work differently.


As for the beheading of a British citizen on our own streets, it is essentially bringing war to our front door. The liberals among us may disagree with this next statement but everyone I've spoken to it about (I work in the supply industry and spend a lot of time 'chatting' to people of all ages and races - including Muslims) believe that this is the time to say that enough is enough, shut the borders, declare emergency and scoop up all the extremists, immigrant criminals and people that don't deserve to be here and ship them back to the rat-pit countries they belong too!

I probably spoke to upwards of 60-70 people about this over the last 2 days and EVERY SINGLE ONE agreed that that is the logical step. Even one very 'vocal' Pakistani Muslim customer of mine was FUMING and calling for them to hang - and even said he was 'sick of this country filling up with lunatics'

We are an island and we have the ability, just our government are too soft to do anything affirmative. Th European Court Of Human Rights needs to be abolished due to systematic corruption and misguided loyalties. But then again, I think anyone who breaks the law loses all rights to any rights the moment they break the law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top