London Attack June 3, 2017

[nack]

There is also an India -Pakistan Champions Trophy cricket match today at Edgbaston.

Situation would be very tense to say the least.

[Suckfootsoles]

Wow the news said in the Brit constitution, they allow over 100 Sharia law courts.  How in the hell did Britain give into the Muslims?  Its a matter of time they will take over London and spread to Ireland, no more bear or Irish Cream (I like that shit, tell co-workers it coffee creamer).  Man London has these neighborhoods whoops, neighbourhoods, cops do not go in same as Paris I think.  You guys gotta stop these people, especially Manchester the bomber dude was in Libya for 2 weeks. Isn't that a flag for MI6.  Anybody to the Mideast?  Sharia law is the death of freedom, it must be stopped.  And in US these sanctuary city liberal shitheads like San Francisco a five time border crosser kills a cute blond.  The goddamn democrats do not get it, we are try to fight with emboldened conservatives to take back our out of control moonbean fucking governor, just wants to spend, a liberal tax-monster.  Such a fuckhead.

[eagleb1]

7 hours ago, Howard said:

Personally, I am very selective when and to where I go out. Will not go to a baseball or basketball game. Definitely will not go to a concert unless its in a small venue. I will avoid at all costs an area near a tourist attraction (which are many as I'm in SoCal). And as I have family who depend on me, I vowed to do everything possible NOT to become a victim (which is why, although illegal, I carry a concealed firearm with me most of the time).

 

You do realize that this means that the terrorists have won in your world.  Of course their actions cannot be tolerated but do you recognize how tiny the probability is that you will be affected by terrorism.  You are vastly more likely to be killed by a drunk driver crossing your own street, but what are you doing about that?

And, your comment about illegally carrying a gun should remind U.S. people how grateful U.K. people are that the only weapons they had were a car and a knife. In the U.S., they could have had legal automatic guns.  Imagine how much more damage they could have done.

[Howard]

1 hour ago, eagleb1 said:

You do realize that this means that the terrorists have won in your world.  Of course their actions cannot be tolerated but do you recognize how tiny the probability is that you will be affected by terrorism.  You are vastly more likely to be killed by a drunk driver crossing your own street, but what are you doing about that?

And, your comment about illegally carrying a gun should remind U.S. people how grateful U.K. people are that the only weapons they had were a car and a knife. In the U.S., they could have had legal automatic guns.  Imagine how much more damage they could have done.

Anyone who lives is 'a target city' has changed their behavior. If they say they have not they are only fooling themselves. Just as many environmentalists claim brush fires are nature's way of replenishing forests, there are those who feel terrorism is G-ds way of replenishing mankind. Foolish as it may sound, its a theory some believe.

You can turn any sour event into a 'blessing'. That "only" knives and a car were used and not firearms.  I suppose there should now be a ban on cars and cutlery.  You have to go deeper than that and find out why firearms were not used.  My guess is this wasn't a well planned attack (probably done in haste). Possibly a message to those who will soon attend the Ariana Grande concert.  But its early conjecture on anyone's part.

As for more likely being killed by a drunk driver crossing the street, that could be true.  I'm also more likely I would get shot by a Bloods or Crips gang member than by a terrorist action.  But I also don't travel into gang-infested areas of the city and I look both ways before crossing the street.  I also lock the doors to my house after entering/after exiting and sleep with a loaded shotgun near the bed.

You think terrorists have won in my world. The moral and ethical decay of society won long before Muslim extremists on how we all behave. I know what it was like 40+ years ago when my parents would let me play in the front yard after sunset without fear I'd be assaulted or kidnapped. No parent in their right mind would their kids do that today. In fact, even during daylight, in a city as well protected as Beverly Hills I know of parents who only let their kids play in the rear yard - out of sight of the public and within sight of a responsible parent. These same parents who do not let their kids go to a public park without parental supervision. If you're 40 or older, you remember the days you can go it alone on your bike and play in the park.

The world has changed and if you don't change with it, you lose. That's today's reality. 

[eagleb1]

15 minutes ago, Howard said:

You can turn any sour event into a 'blessing'. That "only" knives and a car were used and not firearms.  I suppose there should now be a ban on cars and cutlery.  You have to go deeper than that and find out why firearms were not used.  My guess is this wasn't a well planned attack (probably done in haste). Possibly a message to those who will soon attend the Ariana Grande concert.  But its early conjecture on anyone's part.

 

We each set what level of risk we are willing to take.  In February 1992 we had planned on going to Israel but, because of the Gulf War, we went to Hawaii instead.  I didn't regret it, but statistically, Israel was safer.

As to the weapons they used, you are ignoring the reality that in most western counties, it is nearly impossible for a private citizen to buy an assault weapon or even a side arm.  I'm in favor of making it much more difficult to get firearms but I'm comfortable with the restrictions on getting cars and cutlery.

[Howard]

57 minutes ago, eagleb1 said:

We each set what level of risk we are willing to take.  In February 1992 we had planned on going to Israel but, because of the Gulf War, we went to Hawaii instead.  I didn't regret it, but statistically, Israel was safer.

As to the weapons they used, you are ignoring the reality that in most western counties, it is nearly impossible for a private citizen to buy an assault weapon or even a side arm.  I'm in favor of making it much more difficult to get firearms but I'm comfortable with the restrictions on getting cars and cutlery.

Have you shot a pistol, AR or shotgun previously?  Have you ever taken a firearm safety class? Firearms are not the problem. What happened in London answers that question. The problem is unless you're Israel or the US (the latter in limited capacity), everyone plays defense. It's time to play offense.

California has the strictest laws regarding buying firearms. Has been for 15+ years. Yet statistically, there are more crimes involving firearms year and after year.  But, the state will have you believe different because to save money, they have reduced the penalties regarding committing a crime when using a firearm. Same in regards to imprisonment.  Its more difficult for the state to convict a crime involving a firearm because the prisons are full!  Instead of building more prisons, the state decided to reduce the consequences involving a conviction. They are also releasing felons before their due date (and let's be honest, the vast majority of these assholes will commit a crime within the first few weeks of their release). Prison isn't about rehabilitation. It's just an adult "time out" until they can once again be evil.

I use California as an example not just because I live here, but its also a 'country' in its own right; being the 6th largest economy in the world.

Society needs to be proactive (offense) vs reactive (defense) when it comes to all crimes; especially terrorism (which we forget can easily be classified as your local idiot robbing you at gunpoint). Now, if you don't mind being a potential victim, then we don't see eye-to-eye.  Everyone's life experience is different.

In 2014, Iceland, with its population of 310,000 had only one murder that year (and I think less than 10 home burglaries). Why?  96% of Icelandics have at least one firearm in the house (and the bad guys know it). 

I'm OK with limited laws implemented for firearm ownership (I don't want a known psychotic with a 9mm). But people have to be more offensively minded and local, state and federal governments must have more strict consequences in place to help detour violence. It needs to stop before it can start.  And for me, if that means stopping Syrians, Iranians & other targeted pro-violence countries from having their people fly over to the US - that I see that as playing offense, not defense.  Until these countries get a handle on their own situation, no reason the US, the UK - most other civilized countries have their problems spill over to others.

As for Israel, I've been there numerous times. I recall it was very unsettling the first time there seeing soldiers in the streets and on the bus casually going about life.  Similar feeling I had back in 1994 seeing armed National Guards patrolling the streets of Los Angeles after the Rodney King riots.

Israel does things right. It racially profiles (especially at the airport). It takes the offensive.  98% of the reason terror happens in the streets is because Israel is the only country in the region that respects all nationalities. You might look like a Palestinian terrorist but you can still walk the streets of any city. One can't completely stop terrorism from happening but all countries should look at Israel as an example how it should be done - even if its politically incorrect.
 

[ww_watcher]

On 6/4/2017 at 5:49 AM, eagleb1 said:

You do realize that this means that the terrorists have won in your world.  Of course their actions cannot be tolerated but do you recognize how tiny the probability is that you will be affected by terrorism.  You are vastly more likely to be killed by a drunk driver crossing your own street, but what are you doing about that?

And, your comment about illegally carrying a gun should remind U.S. people how grateful U.K. people are that the only weapons they had were a car and a knife. In the U.S., they could have had legal automatic guns.  Imagine how much more damage they could have done.

These are very weak arguments. No matter where, in the US, a terroristic act occurs, it affects everyone in the US. The reason for being more alert about terrorism than drunk drivers ( although we are always watchful for bad drivers in all their forms) is that a terrorist has a target. Drunk Drivers are stupid and selfish but they aren't targeting anyone. When a drunk driver kills someone it isn't from any form of vengeance. When a terrorist attacks he targets as many people as they can because it is an act premeditated violence. These are not the same things and shouldn't be thought of as such. At least in Texas, our LEOs are very vigilant about intoxicated drivers. But they are too few to watch everyone all the time.

Firstly, automatic weapons are highly restricted and no thug is going to get one "legally". You may be thinking of semi-automatics, such as (most) 9mm handguns, AR-15s, etc. It's a common mistake among those who haven't any real knowledge or experience with firearms.  Secondly, you are delusional if you think that the UKers feel any safer because the terrorists are limited to knives and machetes (London a few years back), or vans, or, and you forgot this one, bombs. Our terrorist "brothers" have killed more people with bombs than they have with guns (bombs are more efficient and don't have to be aimed or reloaded) and more than the nutcases with guns in our society.

[ww_watcher]

On 6/4/2017 at 10:22 AM, Howard said:

 

In 2014, Iceland, with its population of 310,000 had only one murder that year (and I think less than 10 home burglaries). Why?  96% of Icelandics have at least one firearm in the house (and the bad guys know it). 

 

While  agree with most of what you said, Iceland, like most of the Scandinavian countries, are homogeneous societies and generally small well-behaved populations. Their low crime rate is a result of that, not because the average person has a gun. In communities where folks look out for each other, crime rates tend to be lower than in communities who keep to themselves. That also explains the steep rise in violence and violent crimes in the Nordic countries who have opened their doors to uncontrolled immigration (not all Muslim immigrants are refugees from the middle east). 

[Howard]

3 minutes ago, ww_watcher said:

While  agree with most of what you said, Iceland, like most of the Scandinavian countries, are homogeneous societies and generally small well-behaved populations. Their low crime rate is a result of that, not because the average person has a gun. In communities where folks look out for each other, crime rates tend to be lower than in communities who keep to themselves. That also explains the steep rise in violence and violent crimes in the Nordic countries who have opened their doors to uncontrolled immigration (not all Muslim immigrants are refugees from the middle east). 

I don't disagree with you. No matter where you are, most people are good people.  But for those who are bad, no doubt the knowledge that your victim has a gun to defend himself is one helluva deterrent.

[ww_watcher]

1 minute ago, Howard said:

I don't disagree with you. No matter where you are, most people are good people.  But for those who are bad, no doubt the knowledge that your victim has a gun to defend himself is one helluva deterrent.

So is the sound of a shotgun shell being chambered...

[eagleb1]

23 hours ago, ww_watcher said:

These are very weak arguments.

Obviously we have different ideas about how to deal with unexpected dire events.

Yes, there is a difference in intent between a terrorist and a drunk driver.  But the people who care about you will miss you as much whoever caused it.  Of course we should do all we can to prevent terrorism.  But, we will save a lot more lives if we take impaired driving more seriously.  Do you know that there are countries that have ZERO as the permitted blood alcohol level.

Much of life is about weighing risks versus rewards.  My grandson is a Yankee fan and his father and I are Met fans.  Do you think that I would consider the extremely remote chance of a terrorist attack keep me from the lovely shared experience?  There about 60,000,000 people attending major league baseball games in the U.S. every year and there have been no terrorist deaths.  I like the odds.

And, yes, I know the difference between an automatic and semi-automatic weapon.  As a practical matter it's a distinction without a difference.  In reality, semi-automatic is deadly enough.

Yes we should be vigilant, but to rephrase a corny slogan, if we panic, then the terrorists have won.

I'M OUTTA HERE.