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

originally posted by: o0oTOPCATo0o
a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

"Against all enemies, foreign and domestic"
Take away the gov'ts guns first..
then we'll talk.

That's legitimately one of the single dumbest comments I have ever read in my life. I can't even wrap my head around how incredibly stupid it is. yes, by all means, take away the guns from the government and military that are tasked with defending the country. Their right to have guns is somehow analagous to the right of every random shmuck in the country to have them. That seems perfectly reasonable and intelligent.
The fact that so many people were dumb enough to star that comment is sincerely depressing.

a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

I'm sorry but i'm sure it has already been mentioned in this thread but I am going to harp on it again. Sometimes its not in a attack like this it is not about how many people you kill, its about how much emotional damage you can inflict on people (Terrorize) hense why these people are called terrorists. I think that if they really wanted to obtain firearms they would have been able to, through the IRA or various other groups that still run rampant around the Englisg Isles.

originally posted by: PerfectAnomoly
a reply to: stosh64

Your argument is not really relevant... A terrorist attack without guns kills less people, that's just common sense...

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to prove with your post....?

Yes, we had terrorist attacks here, as are happening worldwide at the moment, I would postulate that had the attackers had guns many many more people would have been killed and injured.

I assume you were trying to prove that the UK is still a dangerous country because these attacks have happened, and that if we did have guns they wouldn't have happened....

False logic my friend.... and simple delusion...

PA

Wrong...did you forget about the truck in France on Bastille day that killed somewhere around 85 people. They actually killed more people with a truck then in most attacks with firearms. Your argument is invalid.

originally posted by: PerfectAnomoly
a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o

Governments don't tend to own guns, that would be the army and the police force....

Really?


Because last I checked just about every government entity has armed agents.
Agents use to coerce and intimidate private citizens over stupid rules and regulations.

a reply to: PerfectAnomoly
god help us when they figure out how easily it is to do a mass casualty attack the right way . i could off the top of my head think of over a dozen ways to cause casualties in the hundreds if not thousands very easily without having to worry about dealing with much in the way of guards or cops and no i will not elaborate but it would be fairly easy, aand it would involve no guns or chemicals that are monitored.

a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

and the fact they haven't used guns in attacks in england they could easily acquire them and have them smuggled across channel so far they have been lucky.

a reply to: Aldakoopaand assuualt box cutters

a reply to: PerfectAnomolybecause there have been many times in the past where governments have turned on their peoples so yeah it is something to worry about

originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: PerfectAnomolybecause there have been many times in the past where governments have turned on their peoples so yeah it is something to worry about

Not trying to be contrary but I just cant see having a debate with someone that doesn't understand the 2nd amendment but want to argue about its merits and philosophical justification.

These were noob terrorists. Anyone can get a brand new 9 anywere in the world for about 1k usd.

yes and really they are not going to stop all traffic in london so it makes more sense to use a truck then a gun get a big enough crowd on side walks and there you go. guns run on ammo and sometimes jam or misfire. cars and trucks are more reliable and easier to get close to people why wielding. i you run around london with a gun you will be spotted and reported.
on the other hand a truck or lorry blends into the traffic. yes united states have had alot of firearm death how many knife attacks happen everyday in london how many bombings have they had in last 40 years compared to new york or los angeles for the same period.

"My main point is something I noticed this week, of the 3 terror attacks in the UK in the last month or so NO GUNS were used, that's right, NO GUNS.... This appears to prove my point that a society with less guns is a safer society"

I don't think so...I would not feel safe at all in the U.K. Right now. All this proves is a society with less guns is a society with less guns.

I tend to see this from another angle that you have omitted:

Even without guns the DESIRE TO KILL PEOPLE has won out over your gun control.


Just like all us crazy gun-lovers always said "if people really want to kill others, they will find a way"


Your problems as of late in the UK kinda disproves your own argument. Your gun control isn't stopping anyone from killing anyone.

You ARE aware that murder was a thing long before guns were even invented right ?

a reply to: yeahsurexxx

No where near that much for a good one. More like 500 usd, or you can spend more, but why? Then, of course, there's the black market where you can spend even less.

The attacks in the UK should show you that terrorist don't need firearms to hurt/kill people. They can rent a moving box truck or other large vehicle and drive it into a crowd of people. No way in hell would i be for giving up our 2nd amendment right for a false sense of security.

You do realize not everyone lives in a gated community or the rich part of town, where little to no crimes happen right. Giving up our 2nd amendment right wouldn't make us feel safer. How do you expect people to defend themselves or loved ones if a group of 6 intruders break down your front door to rob, rape or to kill everyone inside. If criminals know people no longer have any firearms to defend themselves with, they will start robbing more homes.

Feel free to be a helpless victim all you want, but don't force other to be one just because you don't like firearms.

Let's see....jhow many terrorist attacks have happened in the U.S. that involved guns? let's see.....3.

1. Orlando
2. San Bernadino
3. Ft. Hood.

How many terrorist attacks on U.S. soil that DIDN'T involve guns? let's see...

1. 1993 WTC bombing
2. OKC bombing
3. 9/11
4. Boston Marathon

Actually, looking at that, the deadliest terrorist attacks on U.S. soil involved not guns, but explosives.

And having lived in the U.K. for a couple years, gun free England is anything but a safer place.

a reply to: Logarock

Excuse me, but clearly I understand the second amendment... It's not hard to grasp you know.... Same old ridiculous argument... "they don't understand it man".... Rubbish, of course I understand it..... I just don't agree with it.... Which is also obvious...

PA

originally posted by: PerfectAnomoly
a reply to: Logarock

Excuse me, but clearly I understand the second amendment... It's not hard to grasp you know.... Same old ridiculous argument... "they don't understand it man".... Rubbish, of course I understand it..... I just don't agree with it.... Which is also obvious...

PA

Honestly, why the hell does it matter to you at all??? Are you one of those people who won't be happy unless your will is imposed on others ? Do you delight in sitting there with your smug self, muttering "those dumb Americans are so mistaken" ??

Seriously what's your deal? You're British, you're in Britain. Enjoy, and save the mental masturbation for your local pub.


Also if you really thought it through you would know that the USA is 3.8million square miles, UK is not even 100,000 sq/mi, and your nation is an ISLAND. The United States shares an unsecured land border with two nations, one of which is all too happy to supply criminals with whatever hardware or substances they desire. So while the UK can somewhat effectively keep firearms out, the US realistically cannot. One shoe does not fit all. The argument that banning weapons leaves only criminals armed might be bollox in the UK, but it's entirely accurate in the USA

So keep pontificating over there Plato, and let us all know when you've got everyone elses lives figured out, we really appreciate that you have so much concern for us all there Goldilocks!!

originally posted by: caf1550

originally posted by: PerfectAnomoly
a reply to: stosh64

Your argument is not really relevant... A terrorist attack without guns kills less people, that's just common sense...

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to prove with your post....?

Yes, we had terrorist attacks here, as are happening worldwide at the moment, I would postulate that had the attackers had guns many many more people would have been killed and injured.

I assume you were trying to prove that the UK is still a dangerous country because these attacks have happened, and that if we did have guns they wouldn't have happened....

False logic my friend.... and simple delusion...

PA

Wrong...did you forget about the truck in France on Bastille day that killed somewhere around 85 people. They actually killed more people with a truck then in most attacks with firearms. Your argument is invalid.

I have been conveniently ignored here... how about the terrorist attack that was able to kill nearly 3000 people with knives and planes? KNIVES

As I said early in this thread. The OP is DISGUSTING because he is saying this terror is better than that terror. Reeeeeaaaally? How about no terror and let's actually get to the root cause.... bad people and start there. I cannot believe this thread is still going.

Terror is terror

Plus not all guns can even kill massive amounts of people. The OPs agenda is false and disgusting. Did I say disgusting?

a reply to: GraffikPleasure

Ideally, of course, the idea would be to prevent terrorism, but no one seems prepared to do the groundwork to bring such a future about.

You cannot simply apply totalitarian rules to people over it, because that would remove ones moral high ground. But we could ban any government from here to eternity, from ever supplying arms to a nation or organisation with less than a perfect human rights record. We could prevent our government from employing proxy armies, paid for by slush funds, through Saudi Arabia and Qatar. We could do a great many things, none of which involve erosion of civil liberties for ANYONE, to prevent terrorism, and the first step is refusing to pay for it anymore, which we are most certainly doing.

That ought to be the first thing on the agenda. What happens with guns, knives and bombs, cars and trucks or chemicals and the like... its all rather pointless debate really, because if the funding is there to create these proxy armies in the first place, their operatives, indirect employees of our own state mind you, will find a way to complete their psyops dressed as terror attacks anyway, no matter whether they use traditional weapons or DIY methods to get it done.