[pittbug]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4703777.stm

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07 ... index.html

 

[jc71corvette]

Sounds like a crappy attempt eah

 

[brian.phinney]

i just saw on the news that Prime Minister Blair is "asking the public to remain calm." WHAT!? yes people, thats only twice in two weeks that the british people have been targeted by terrorists in their nation's capitol city. we'll just pass a few dozen more gun laws and this will NEVER happen again. i'm sorry gentlemen, but this sickens me to death. i don't know how to say what i want to say so i'll do what my mother taught me to do and that is to keep my mouth shut till i know exactly what is going to come out of it.

Brian

 

[Recoil]

I'm with you 100% Brian.

The English do not enjoy the protection of a constitution, charter or any legislation of rights like we do. Their "government" is free to impinge upon their freedoms at will.

Take heart though: this is the second time in the last 100 years the English have heavily legislated firearms. After the first time, they begged both the American government and civilians to supply them with any guns so they could arm themselves against the Nazis. I have seen the ads in old gun mags asking for donations of any shotgun, rifle or handgun an American could spare to send to England. The stories of us backwards, gung-ho, cowboy Yanks (who supposedly embody all that is wrong with the world) helping the Limeys are legendary.

Funny thing is, even though we're supposedly the world's bastards, the British (or just about anyone else for that matter) haven't paid a single cent of their multi-billion dollar debt to us. And no, Tony Blair being Bush's little "Yes Man" doesn't count. To add more comedy, were it not for American military and civilian guns, or ammunition, tanks, ships or even airplanes, die Englische wurde Deustsche sprechen.

In light of increasing world turmoil, I am confident that someday the British will again see the light.

At least, for their sake, I hope. :?

 

[pittbug]

This isn't about gun control, it's about terrorism. Let's not knock an allie when he's down.

 

[Recoil]

I know it's about terrorism. I was addressing Brian's concerns.

Even so, terrorism and gun control go together. Remember the Second Amendment?

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.

The Second Amendment was specifically designed to help us fight all enemies, foreign and domestic. That most especially includes terrorists.

The only thing they understand is force.

And even though terrorists don't mind being killed, there's a saying for that too:

This is the Perfect War. They want to die, and we want to kill them.

I was not kicking our ally while they're down. There is nothing they could have done to prevent this, and there never will be. The only hope people have of protecting themseleves, no matter where they live, is to be prepared/equipped for a terrorist act, and by being armed. If you saw a Muslim turd laying bombs in the subway, wouldn't you want to take care of business immediately? Or would you rather wait 5 mintues for the cops to show up, long after the train is down the tube?

A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

With all due respect, Sir, whether you like it or not crime of any kind is always about gun control to a certain degree.

 

[GunTotingLiberal]

I find it interesting that people on thew web are already blaming al qaida for this one. I have my doubts. While the bombing was carried out in a similiar fashion, the bombs were drastically smaller and not nearly as well made. A witness on a bus said that they watched a back pack "explode." It just blew off the front of the pack. Also, the timing seemed pretty haphazard. If previous al qaida bombings set the precident, this one just doesn't fit. I hate to say it, but they're better than this.

 

[pittbug]

Actually I don't remember the second amendment, it wasn't part of my English schooling

If you saw a Muslim turd laying bombs in the subway, wouldn't you want to take care of business immediately? Or would you rather wait 5 mintues for the cops to show up, long after the train is down the tube?

Yes of course I'd take action, but terrorists don't usually walk around carrying a box with a ticking clock taped to it

I think most people would prefer to wait the 5 minutes for trained LEO's to handle the situation than face the possibility that they just took down an innocent person.

 

[brian.phinney]

thanks for backing me up, Recoil. you explained what i was thinking in better words than i could have thought of at the time. i wasn't meaning to kick the queen while she's down, either. no intentions of that whatsoever. i'm sorry if my comment seemed that way.

Brian

 

[Recoil]

Actually I don't remember the second amendment, it wasn't part of my English schooling

Haha, okay fair enough. But regardless, you know it now.

The beauty of the Second Amendment, the rest of the Constitution and indeed, the United States of America herself, is that we (theoretically at least :?) recognize that all humans have rights, equally. It matters not that you're English by birth, or even in residence...You're still a man and as such you have the natural right to defend yourself.

Are firearms going to save you should a terrorist blow your train or building up? Likely not. But one of the many things that people fail to understand about the Second Amendment is that it isn't saying that you will be victorious over all who dare to destroy your life. This concept is part of the anti-gun movement. Rather, the Second Amendment is about giving you a fighting chance. If I could poll the entire membership of SC, I'm sure all would say that they'd rather die on their feet proudly, as men and women of the world and Creation, than cowered in a dark place, fraught with fear.

If you saw a Muslim turd laying bombs in the subway, wouldn't you want to take care of business immediately? Or would you rather wait 5 mintues for the cops to show up, long after the train is down the tube?

Yes of course I'd take action, but terrorists don't usually walk around carrying a box with a ticking clock taped to it

Undercover London Armed Police shot a man today while he was attempting to commit yet another terrorist act. This is proof positive that terrorists do in fact "walk around carrying a box with a ticking clock taped to it." Silly jokes aside, when someone is acting suspiciously, it's usally pretty obvious if you're paying attention. And when that someone pulls something out of a bag and affixes it to a train or a bus, you can bet your sweet behind that he's not circumventing the postal service by delivering a package to grandma across town who will pull it off the side of the vehicle at another station. :?

I will not assert it as the sole reason or even a major reason, however I suspect that one of the many factors that the United States doesn't see as much terrorism as other nations do is because of our largely liberal gun laws. Look at England for example. I've said before, to Yimmy, that the English are top-notch terrorism fighters. The best even! But there is absolutely no deterrance for terrorists there. None! They know that providing they keep their mouths shut, don't do anything utterly retarded like go 40 km over the speed limit with tail lights out, or talk about blowing up Buckingham Palace over the phone, they'll get away with whatever they're planning. No technology exists that can read minds and detect intent.

Look at airplanes...There is a reason they're big targets. They're full of people and they are utterly defenseless! They'd have to be for people to take them over with one of these:

Now, make some predictions as to where the United States will come under terrorist attack...New York City, obviously, and where else? The government claims that in addition to NYC, Washington D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco and Chicago are the big targets. There are clearly large populations there to kill, but doesn't it seem at least a little odd that the cities on the terrorist hit list are all anti-gun cities?

Granted, terrorists like to kill surreptitiously, but if they knew that 1 in every 2 Americans were packing and that if they were seen they'd undergo a wrath greater than that of Allah at the hands of a righteous citizenry, it would up the stakes and give them a serious thing to consider before carrying out their plan. It's called "deterrence" and it works. How much it works is unknown since there's no way to measure it. But there have been many surveys in prisons where the convicted felons indicated that they didn't do something or changed their plan to avoid certain penalities, such as execution or being shot by an armed citizen.

I think most people would prefer to wait the 5 minutes for trained LEO's to handle the situation than face the possibility that they just took down an innocent person.

This keenly illustrates the difference between American culture and the soft culture you were indoctrinated with from birth. We Americans are a culture that mostly embraces personal responsiblity (even though our legal system is screwed up and doesn't adequately punish criminals, don't measure our society by that). We are not the kinds who like to sit idly by as bad things happen. When we are faced with a situation like that, we feel desperate.

Let me tell you a story about domestic terrorism and desperation...

Last year, a couple from Miami, Florida moved to the State of Iowa, some 100 miles south of where I'm living now. They moved to escape the woman's deranged ex-boyfriend and start a new life in peace. Within a few months, the ex-boyfriend tracked them down and visited their new home here in Iowa, insisting that she owed him money and that they had to talk. They got a restraining order, but to no avail. They called the police, but of course, you can't catch a man when you don't know where he is. So they moved.

Earlier this year, they took up residence two blocks from where I'm sitting right now as I type this. Only a few hundred feet away. One day, at approximately 4:30 PM in the afternoon, in broad daylight, the ex-boyfriend waited in a white Astro van a block from the couple's new house for them to come home. When they arrived home and exited their vehicle which they parked on the street, he ran them down. As they ran, he jumped from his van with a 9mm in hand and shot his ex-girlfriend in the back. She fell to the pavement, still quite alive. He then proceeded to chase the new boyfriend up the road, shooting at him as he ran.

A couple of bullets found their mark and a block from his home, the man fell, collapsing against someone else's truck. The crazy ex emptied an entire magazine into the man's face. As the man sat up against the truck tire, his face now caved in, the psycho calmly walked a block back to where his ex-girlfriend was desperately trying to crawl to safety. He kicked her over, so he could see her and double tapped her in the chest. He stood there, admiring his work for nearly 5 minutes before the police arrived. When he saw the first squad car come around the corner, he hopped into his van and a chase ensued.

His van's tires were blown out using a spike strip by a rookie female cop who was still on probation. Fortunately, her timing and aim was perfect and the chase ended a few miles down the road after he crashed his van into the front of an elementary school...

While he was shooting, twelve residents simultaneously called 9-1-1 and gave our police dispatcher a second-by-second play of what was going on right outside their homes. These people watched, helpless, in horror as two of their fellow neighbors were murdered in cold blood before their very eyes.

I arrived at the muder scene less than 10 or 15 minutes after it happened. It was a sad scene indeed, the man's face gruesomely erradicated from his body, and the woman appeared to be peacefully sleeping in the middle of the street, her head turned to the side, an arm over her chest, and the other extended out. But I have both witnessed and seen the aftermath of violent death, so it wasn't all that shocking. However, a week or two later, I heard the 9-1-1 dispatch tapes. I heard the desperation in the frantic voices of my damn neighbors begging for the cops to come. "Hurry hurry hurry!" one woman pleaded. "Oh my God, please come quick!" another screamed. You could hear family members in the background screaming and sobbing. You could hear the shots being fired, and I knew those were the moments that two souls had been terminated.

Never before have I felt so emotional about a murder. To this day, and as I type this, my eyes want to well up with tears. It fills my heart with sadness as I think about the sheer terror the victim's felt. But I realize that their pain is over. What tears my guts up more is knowing that my fellow neighbors--American citizens and creations of God--now have to live with the pain of watching that unfold before them, knowing there was nothing they could do but wait for the police to arrive.

Even I am left with the regret that this did not happen in front of my house while I was home because I know that as an armed and righteous citizen, a man independent, I could have potentially stopped this travesty from happening.

I pray that you never have to be a part of such a thing, but God help you if you do because the cops wont be there to.

 

[pittbug]

Undercover London Armed Police shot a man today while he was attempting to commit yet another terrorist act. This is proof positive that terrorists do in fact "walk around carrying a box with a ticking clock taped to it."

The terrorist walked out of a house which was under surveilance wearing a bulging coat and either carrying a handgun or had something under his coat with wires sticking out (there are varying reports) then didn't respond to Police commands. This one was pretty obvious, but look at the pictures that have been released of the other people which need to be tracked down:

It's a shame terrorists aren't issued uniforms.... that'd make it a lot easier for us to spot them

Silly jokes aside, when someone is acting suspiciously, it's usally pretty obvious if you're paying attention. And when that someone pulls something out of a bag and affixes it to a train or a bus, you can bet your sweet behind that he's not circumventing the postal service by delivering a package to grandma across town who will pull it off the side of the vehicle at another station. :?

If someone pulled a device out of a bag that would be obvious... but these were regular looking backpacks probably left under a seat. On the London underground it gets quite crowded during the morning rush, as you can imagine, so people with bags either stowe them on overhead shelves, on laps or under their seats. When the train pulls to a stop and people ready themselves to get out, everyone is so focussed on picking which door to exit through and then which is the fastest way out of the station that noone would noticed if a backpack was left under a seat. This is what makes the London underground an ideal target for terrorists. You have a confined space crowded with people, no quick/easy exits and relatively no security or baggage screening.

I will not assert it as the sole reason or even a major reason, however I suspect that one of the many factors that the United States doesn't see as much terrorism as other nations do is because of our largely liberal gun laws.

I believe certain crimes are deterred through the public owning/carrying guns, but I really don't think this is the case with terrorism. By nature it is cowardly and non confrontational and the culprit is either nowhere near the incident or dies onsite in the case of a suicide bomber. This makes it much more difficult to get into any form of confrontation and take action.

Look at England for example. I've said before, to Yimmy, that the English are top-notch terrorism fighters. The best even! But there is absolutely no deterrance for terrorists there. None!

I think today's shooting certainly made a point

Now, make some predictions as to where the United States will come under terrorist attack...New York City, obviously, and where else? The government claims that in addition to NYC, Washington D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco and Chicago are the big targets. There are clearly large populations there to kill, but doesn't it seem at least a little odd that the cities on the terrorist hit list are all anti-gun cities?

So if these cities are top terrorist targets and you say the public having guns would be a deterrant, why are they anti-gun cities?

(BTW That isn't meant to be a loaded/sacrcastic question at all)

Granted, terrorists like to kill surreptitiously, but if they knew that 1 in every 2 Americans were packing and that if they were seen they'd undergo a wrath greater than that of Allah at the hands of a righteous citizenry, it would up the stakes and give them a serious thing to consider before carrying out their plan. It's called "deterrence" and it works. How much it works is unknown since there's no way to measure it. But there have been many surveys in prisons where the convicted felons indicated that they didn't do something or changed their plan to avoid certain penalities, such as execution or being shot by an armed citizen.

I don't argue that point, but look further into those planned crimes and I'm sure most if not all involved some form of confrontation, bank robbery, car jacking, burglary, etc.

 

[Recoil]

It's a shame terrorists aren't issued uniforms.... that'd make it a lot easier for us to spot them

Haha, indeed.

If someone pulled a device out of a bag that would be obvious... but these were regular looking backpacks probably left under a seat.

Suspicious behavior nonetheless. Plus, as you said, the guy who was killed was wearing clothing not appropriate for the weather.

On the London underground it gets quite crowded during the morning rush, as you can imagine, so people with bags either stowe them on overhead shelves, on laps or under their seats. When the train pulls to a stop and people ready themselves to get out, everyone is so focussed on picking which door to exit through and then which is the fastest way out of the station that noone would noticed if a backpack was left under a seat. This is what makes the London underground an ideal target for terrorists. You have a confined space crowded with people, no quick/easy exits and relatively no security or baggage screening.

Well, unlike England, the Fourth Amendment protects our rights to searches and seizures. As you may have seen on the news, New York City is now searching people's backpacks, and I hear Washington D.C. is considering the same. This is thoroughly un-Constitutional and blanket searches have been stricken down in the past. Normally, I would expect legal action would shut down this occurance, but with our civil rights being infringed upon daily because of terrorism, I suppose it's just one more step we've taken towards the police state we're destined to become.

However, as I say over and over and over, the only people responsible for your security is you, not the police. Even the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled so (which is irony defined: the Court ruled that no one is obligated to help you, but some states/cities don't think you have the right to arm yourself). If people had the right to arms everywhere, and people paid attention instead of being in their own little world all the time, terrorists would have a ton to worry about.

The key is to take people off the target list. Most terrorists prefer targets of opportunity. If the people are a virtual army unto themselves, the risk in attacking them escallates and they become a much harder target.

I believe certain crimes are deterred through the public owning/carrying guns, but I really don't think this is the case with terrorism. By nature it is cowardly and non confrontational and the culprit is either nowhere near the incident or dies onsite in the case of a suicide bomber. This makes it much more difficult to get into any form of confrontation and take action.

Quite right, I agree almost completely, except I maintain that an armed citizenry is one more layer of security that terrorists need to worry about. Indeed, if they're busted by a citizen or a group of them, they're supremely screwed because they'll probably be executed on the spot. Just like hardened criminals, terrorists are well aware of the inefficiency of our legal system and don't really fear it. There is no deterrent. Again, if a terrorist was sitting on a bus and was aware that 25% to 50%, or even 75% of the people around him were packing heat, he might think twice about dropping his payload, lest someone there notice him.

I think today's shooting certainly made a point

Indeed. I'm really quite proud of the English anti-terrorism forces. I just wish the American government would take some lessons and pull their heads out. Heck, even though the UK doesn't provide the same civil liberty protections as we do in the States, the Brits still aren't searching bags like we are now. That just further illustrates that there are better ways to get things done than crap like the Patriot Act.

So if these cities are top terrorist targets and you say the public having guns would be a deterrant, why are they anti-gun cities?

Anti-gunners buy into the idea that more guns = more crime. It's the same unfortunate wool that has been pulled over the British eyes. :? The problem lies with the fact that a lot of Americans (and English) don't have experience with firearms, so when the media asserts their liberal opinion, they just don't know better. The truth behind why bans exist, is becuase the government in some places doesn't trust the citizens with arms (which the Founding Fathers warned us would happen here someday).

Your implication is exactly right though: it doesn't make sense.

(BTW That isn't meant to be a loaded/sacrcastic question at all)

I know. But I would have addressed it regardless. :wink:

I don't argue that point, but look further into those planned crimes and I'm sure most if not all involved some form of confrontation, bank robbery, car jacking, burglary, etc.

You're right: the surveys cover all sorts of felonies, including the ones you listed. But sexual assault, rape, muder, etc., are also included. In my opinion, all crimes are acts of terrorism, just perhaps on a smaller, or individual scale. Regular crime and terrorism share many aspects and after-effects, and certainly no one would disagree that terrorists are criminals! Terrorists have to take the same precautions as someone planning a serious felony, and neither criminals nor terrorists want to be caught.

It has statistically been proven that areas where firearms are abundant in homes and there are high rates of concealed carry, crime is reduced or all but eliminated. I believe it is fair to expect similar results with terrorism considering the congruity between the two.

Again, I want to stress that I'm not suggesting that it's the "silver bullet." But bullets would indeed discourage. Fighting terrorism is just like fighting crime: you have to employ multiple tactics towards the same strategy; an armed population is just one small tactic in the big picture.

 

[dead_I_5_0]

Seattle should definitly be on the watch list. Think of how much freight comes from the pacific rim through Seattles ports...

-Brian Shields

 

[Scatch Maroo]

I'm really quite proud of the English anti-terrorism forces.

I don't know if it's been pointed out elsewhere, but the 'bomber' who police shot on the subway... he was a Brazilian electrician who simply lived din the same building as one of the suspected bombers. I'm not arguing with the police's actions, but it is definitely NOT a testament to the quality of their service.

Scatch Maroo

 

[Recoil]

I don't know if it's been pointed out elsewhere, but the 'bomber' who police shot on the subway... he was a Brazilian electrician who simply lived din the same building as one of the suspected bombers. I'm not arguing with the police's actions, but it is definitely NOT a testament to the quality of their service.

Indeed. I did not want to bring this up myself because I didn't want to seem like I was "kicking an ally while he was down."

Personally, from what I know I believe the police were justified in their use of force. Despite being wrong about the victim, the English anti-terrorism program is quite effective; much moreso than ours. In fact, much of our terrorist intel comes from the Brits.

 

[Caban]

I've read about that too, Scatch :? I've also read that the guy was shot, seized and then finished with a headshot. Sounds, say, crazy! (must say that the paper I had was not really trustworthy, and I've found no info in the Web). I just hope it was stupid pun, or I'll never deal with English cop without having a pair of SR1's ready!

 

[Recoil]

The victim was shot 8 times. I haven't heard about the placement of the shots, but I can assume center mass and head.

This seems surprising to a lot of people, but where I'm from, we are instructed that it is not exceedingly unwise to shoot (handguns) until the magazine or cylinder is empty. I know that other LE agencies and states have the same policy. The concept is to make sure the hostile is down.

I will again assume that the English armed police are under similar instructions, even though it wouldn't surprise me if they were ordered to fire a warning shot first, then if necessary, fire a single shot into the individual's non-vitals then ask them how they feel and if they wish to surrender. Upon reception of a negative response, they are then allowed to open fire at will. :wink:

 

[muzzleblast]

"sure ya don't wanna give up, or we might have ta shoot real close to ya again, eh dar?"

Nah, it wouldn't suprise me if Canuck law enforcement handled the situtation in a similar way that the English did. Those Mounties don't fool around. Situation where a guy might have a bomb on him, and he is running to a subway, well, it's saving a lot of lives if he does have an IED on him.

 

[madgunsmith]

And who knows if they shoot enough innocent people, sooner or later they will bag the odd thief. And maybe even a terrorist.


Mad.

 

[Caban]

Think I'd never punch a target with 15 rounds of 9x19 just to make sure victim is dead. But, headshots left aside, 4-5 shots could be really necessary to incapacitate the suspect.

Cant say I'm knowledgeable about English police MO's, but - i remember that, at least in some parts of England, police officers are not supposed to carry lethal weapons on patrol duty - only stick and CS spray. Say you arm such an officer with handgun and put him in stressfull situation :?: I dont mean that English police is basically comprised of irresponcible persons who treat handgun as CS can - spray and pray, but they do have certain attitude about LE (Arresting sub-15 children, for example).