Imagine if this happened in America

UK issue, US solution.
US issue, UK solution.

Observe how neither ever has, or ever will, solve the other.

a reply to: havok
Imagine this attack happening in America where anyone can get guns, the death toll would be much higher.

Yep. Imagine good guys with guns killing terrorists before they can wreak havoc on the unarmed

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: game over man


I'm not talking about a rebellion against our government. I'm talking about helping the government. I'm talking about being there when seconds count and law enforcement is minutes away. I'm talking about The People (law abiding citizens as a militia) standing with our government against intrusion, invasion, terrorism.

Careful, you'll further confuse the anti 2A nutters. As someone in this thread pointed out, there have been terrorist attacks where a good guy with a gun didn't stop them. What they disingenuously fail to mention is that those attacks occurred on "soft" targets, where the 2A in infringed upon and no one was legally allowed to carry a gun. They also disingenuously fail to acknowldege that those licensed to conceal carry are the most vetted law abiding citizens in the United States...at least in the states where you submit a multitude of documents and fingerprints as part of the process (for the vetting part). My experience has been that anyone who goes through the process to legally carry does it when legal and follows the rules.

The London attackers did not have guns. Saying so has made you sound like an idiot.

a reply to: Discotech

Maybe the criminals are just being selective on who they sell the guns to because they don't want intelligence agencies sniffing anywhere near them ?

BINGO! Bet you got that right! The gun trade is usually routed through "gangs"/organized crime and is typically caught up in the drug trade, i.e., drugs for money, money for guns to protect gang turf, gangs peddle drugs from organized crime. Its the circle of "DOOM" depending upon your perspective. The drug dealing gangs get desperate for guns, they buy the guns with the drug money from organized crime operations. But the gun dealing organized crime operations are extremely picky about who they market the guns too for fear of blow back.

None of this bunch is going to be dealing with Islamic immigrants. They keep it all too close to the vest and "in the family" so to speak. The terrorists are far removed "outsiders" as far as the organized crime/drug gangs bunch are concerned. And I don't know about the UK, but in the US, the "players" in the guns/drugs/gangs/organized crime business are all known by the Cops and indeed, in many cases, the Cops are directly involved and profiteering from the operations themselves. If a Religion oriented "terrorist" were to try to buy guns, that would immediately alert the cops and if any one sold guns to them, they'd be "sanctioned", (terminated with extreme prejudice).

You folks in the UK should be mighty thankful you don't have the Central American gangs like MS-13 in the UK, they'd steal the guns and sell them to anyone and whoever they used in the process would be hung by their necks to prevent them from ratting out the higher ups. They have no souls whatsoever!

a reply to: caf1550

86 people where killed with a truck, not a gun but a 19 tonne truck. So yes they do in fact use whatever tools they can to commit their atrocities as the other poster put it.

You too have climbed the signpost instead of following it. Both you and that other poster do not understand the context of the OP, nor did you both understand the context of my comment and how it relates. Cool cool...

a reply to: ScepticScot

Exactly! In America and elsewhere.... we can't keep them away from criminals. As long as they smuggle millions in and in tons of different ways and means.... We... myself included will have them.. always. You'll have to kill me first to get it away... and not any of us would let you.....

We have 2 sayings. Just think about them. OK?

1. As long as the criminals have guns... so will we.
2. We'd rather have a gun at the end of our arms... than a cellphone TO the police in a life or death.

It took the Brit "Police" 8...EIGHT minutes to get there and stop the stabbings. It would have took us seconds.. SECONDS.

In the US it would be much less likely that the terrorists would only be armed with knives, and much more likely they would be armed with semi, or even fully, automatic weapons. In those eight seconds the casualties could be just as high, or even higher than they were in London.

a reply to: mysterioustranger

BREAKING: Multiple Shooting Fatalities Orlando

An open carry state and still happened, another tragedy. When someone wants to kill, they will use any means necessary but all I am saying is that if guns are available, those would be the weapon of choice.

They would be the choice due to amount of damage they could do in far less time. I am not anti 2nd amendment but more anti gun nut, I understand that people use guns for protection from criminals, animals or just to feel safer.

These people who think that a gun can solve the problem of mass shooting, those are the idiots. They think they will be the hero and that like the movies, bullets will miss the good guys and their aim will be true.

Stop living in a fantasy world.

a reply to: mysterioustranger

You are, of course, assuming there is someone with a gun present, one who is wiling to put his/her life on the line, etc...

Otherwise, it might as well be a phone.

This ever present dialog that says the cure-all is concealed carry is just wrong. I'm a concealed carry permit holder, who half-assed knows which end it which, but I'll be blunt, unless it's me or mine in that danger, I'm leaving it alone. For someone with little to no training to go rushing into such a situation is going to, more often than not, make the situation even more dangerous.

a reply to: CulturalResilience

Youre talking "could be"...I was addressing what "DID' go down and how-with what.

originally posted by: thetruth2017
BREAKING: Multiple Shooting Fatalities Orlando

An open carry state and still happened, another tragedy. When someone wants to kill, they will use any means necessary but all I am saying is that if guns are available, those would be the weapon of choice.

They would be the choice due to amount of damage they could do in far less time. I am not anti 2nd amendment but more anti gun nut, I understand that people use guns for protection from criminals, animals or just to feel safer.

These people who think that a gun can solve the problem of mass shooting, those are the idiots. They think they will be the hero and that like the movies, bullets will miss the good guys and their aim will be true.

Stop living in a fantasy world.

You the one in la la land here. That incident was in a area thats is restricted to LEGAL guns being carried by their owners. Its a workplace and as such a no gun zone.
So your dig on open carry didnt protect anyone is to start with is Wrong because there are areas where you cannot carry them.

a reply to: seagull

'Shoulda said youre a concealed (licensed I trust as well) daily carrier. That would mean you have some training yourself. Then why are we having this diatribe?

You know we dont carry unless we intend to use it if necessary, we dont draw it unless we intend to FIRE it, we dont fire it unless we intend to SHOOT and that could possibly KILL someone...thats a heavy responsibility to take.

Given all that...I would if I had to...and in London, I would have...and taken full responsibility for my actions....and tried to save some lives and serious injuries.

With that...Im done here. Thanks for playin'............................

a reply to: mysterioustranger

Good for you, I guess. Just make sure, if, or when, you ever do jump into the center of something of this sort you don't make the problem worse. Make sure the cops, when they arrive, don't shoot you by mistake, too...that'd be bad.

a reply to: Involutionist

How did I not understand the context of your comment, you stated that in 3 separate mass killing in the US because firearms were used that the death toll was higher. You said the the other poster to "let it marinate" when he stated that radicals terrorists use whatever means necessary to carry out their acts of terror. I simply showed you an instance when NO firearms were used and that same instance had a higher death toll then all of the mass shooting that you mentioned. I completely understood the context of what you had said and I countered it with facts, and those facts show that you don't need a firearm to kill a large number of people.

a reply to: seagull

I expect if I had to...then I would be taken in, questioned, my weapons taken away...until the prosecutors determined if I acted in self defense for myself, or to save the life or great bodily harm from happening to someone else.

And, I'd need a good lawyer to make sure my rights are protected...even though Im trained, licensed to conceal, acted in self defense....I would be off to jail, prob without the cuffs until the issue is straightened out.

Thats how it works in a self defense case. Even if I was justified....

It is an extrapolation based on likelihoods. In the same way that your 'eight seconds' estimation is.

a reply to: mysterioustranger

a reply to: CulturalResilienceon the

The police response was 8 MINUTES...and though we may be scared crapless doing so...I know most of us legally armed can draw and fire quicker than 8 secs......scared or not.

But its only immediate against delayed response...and that would have saved some lives

a reply to: mysterioustranger

We are going round in circles. Eight seconds or less would only have resulted in fewer deaths in this instance if the terrorists, armed only with knives, carried out the attack where a percentage of the members of the public present were carrying firearms.

As I originally said, it is logical to extrapolate that, in a country that has a high percentage of publicly owned firearms, the terrorists carrying out the attack would be far more likely to armed with firearms.