(UK) gunlaws killed London victims

[TheButterZone]

The UK cops are a joke. They are patrolling streets with just plastic batons in their hands. And remember that most of the street gangs in London are armed with sub-machine guns and body armor. No wonder that it took them a lot of time to take down the perpetrators of this attack.

Many police in London are armed, and there are also special units to be used for emergency situations.  Furthermore, extremely few people in the UK have died from guns, so your thoughts about street gangs having machine guns are unfounded.

If a gang member's machine gun was shoved in your face, would you surrender & fear even reporting the incident to police, or would you encourage them to kill you?

The assumptions you've made in your question:

1.  That gangs have machine guns which they use to kill civilians (it's clearly extremely rare considering how much we're discussing this one attack, and this one attack didn't even involve a gun).
2.  That "bad guys" find it much easier to find guns than "good guys".
3.  That "good guys", if holding a gun, would actually be capable of fighting back if a machine gun was pointed at their face (they wouldn't in many cases as the gang would be extremely wary of any movement.
4.  That you wouldn't be able to report the incident to the police at any point.
5.  That a person dying from gun violence at the hands of a gang makes the dangers of ordinary citizens having guns at all times irrelevant.

A loaded question is seldom actually loaded with a cohesive argument.  If you're willing to make a question which has an answer other than answers supporting you, I'll willingly answer it.

^ Ah, the tired "absence of evidence is definitely evidence of absence" argument. ^

1. Most guns do not need to be fired to achieve surrender to whatever the wielder wills. Very few are insane and lack the instinct of self-preservation.
2. Bad guys make their own guns, even in prisons. "Good" guys don't because they follow the law against it.
3. Bad guys don't like taking fire whatsoever, especially fire from people who have already been shot, so their self-preservation instinct & common sense says: select only soft, defenseless targets, who have no choice but to surrender, without any noise to signal authorities or fellow civilians at the highest decibel level short of explosives (when it's already too late). On an effective prison island where all innocents are effectively defenseless, a common murderer as opposed to a terrorist who works with other terrorists to improvise explosive devices that don't prematurely detonate, or someone who wishes to uses their weapon to achieve compliance, will use the quietest lethal weapon so the most noise generated is the victim's scream, which carries far shorter distances than what would be their defensive gunshots, if human rights weren't infringed.
4. You could report to police, but the gang would find you and punish you, as the police cannot instantly roll up the whole gang at once.
5. Ah, the tired "gun violence" trope, as if all unfired gun violence by the violent criminals being the sole beneficiaries of laws, as if they had enacted all the laws themselves, doesn't matter.

https://pastebin.com/raw/r1qpzbpS

/ignore

[Lancusters]

Lately I have noticed that the ISIS is targeting the European Union more, with the United States now a low priority. They might have found out that actually it is very easy to commit terrorist attacks in the EU rather than in the US. Millions of Muslims were allowed to enter without any kind of checks.

The Europeans are not idiots. If they did it was a reason. Try to enter Europe from a third country officially. You will fill a lot of documents to prove that you have the money and explain the purpose of the visit. This is not the fact that you open a visa. Merkel is deliberately allowed the crowd "Neanderthals" in Europe to destroy it from the inside. Another version I have.

[criptix]

@TBZ

Why do nations like japan and south korea where the population has literally 0 guns have nearly no gun or violent crime?

Ok i know east asian übermensch. Bad example.

Lets take the scandinavian nations, swiss, france and germany.
The population there has 1/2 to a bit more then 1/3 the amount of guns in relation to the US.
The amount of gun related deaths/crime are less then 1/10 to 1/30 of that in the USA.

More guns = more safety only works in the delusional US american utopia where muricans are world saviors and police in one.

Get real and wake up you IMC sheep.

/facepalm


/edit

Prison inmates producing guns... jeez what can you say about such astonishing display of knowledge in arms manufacturing. You must be one of the CEO's of lockheed & co

[Sithara007]

Lately I have noticed that the ISIS is targeting the European Union more, with the United States now a low priority. They might have found out that actually it is very easy to commit terrorist attacks in the EU rather than in the US. Millions of Muslims were allowed to enter without any kind of checks.

The Europeans are not idiots. If they did it was a reason. Try to enter Europe from a third country officially. You will fill a lot of documents to prove that you have the money and explain the purpose of the visit. This is not the fact that you open a visa. Merkel is deliberately allowed the crowd "Neanderthals" in Europe to destroy it from the inside. Another version I have.

You are right. Legal immigration to the European Union is extremely difficult, and the formalities itself will take a lot of your time (especially of you are living in a third world nation). But the Mediterranean immigrants don't bother about any of this. It is free entry for them.

[2bfree]

The real law constitution that protects the citizen should be that you can have as much and any kind of guns with no permission from anyone and it should be mandatory that you are armed. If that is not the case then the cryminal has the gun and you don't. Plus it's to keep my tyrant country in check.

Now that's not the case anywhere it use to be once in the land of the free but even there they are removing that freedom and soon we will be on a planet where tyrants and criminals have guns and you are just a sheep hoping not to run into one of the 2.

That's my assesment and I know i'm right and most of you freedomhaters are wrong!

[GreenBits]

I haven't been following this thread, but a question for clarification: if UK did permit guns, which they do already, were kids supposed to be open carrying/concealed carrying at a pop concert? Or were they supposed to be strapped while strolling across London Bridge?

If UK did have weapons, why would anyone have been armed in these circumstances, in public venues, where you can't even take guns? (Try taking a piece into a Taylor Swift concert. You won't get far). Terror tends to happen in public.

So, for all our gun laws over here, has any citizen actually been armed during a terror attack, and had a chance to use their firearm to ameliorate the situation?

No.

Guns are cool, but they don't really solve domestic security problems. And you don't want them to. That's what the cops are for. You don't want enforcement in the hands of citizens. There are people on this forum that I talk to on a daily basis, that I cringe to think might own a firearm.

[DooMAD]

I'm not linking to any of the gutter-rag tabloid publications running the story, but it turns out that Boris "Arseclown" Johnson is at least partially responsible for the deaths of the victims on London Bridge.  Back when he was mayor in 2010, he campaigned for the removal of the "ugly" steel barriers that used to stand between the road and the pavement along the length of the bridge.  This left pedestrians completely vulnerable to attack from vehicles.  Since the attack, they've hastily built a concrete barrier, apparently realising their fatal mistake.

Plus, there's still the ongoing question of whether the attackers themselves had been recruited by Britain's own government to fight in proxy wars in Libya and Syria before being brought home again.

[TheButterZone]

I haven't been following this thread, but a question for clarification: if UK did permit guns, which they do already, were kids supposed to be open carrying/concealed carrying at a pop concert? Or were they supposed to be strapped while strolling across London Bridge?

Law-abiding, mentally-sound, sober adults present were.

If UK did have weapons, why would anyone have been armed in these circumstances, in public venues, where you can't even take guns? (Try taking a piece into a Taylor Swift concert. You won't get far). Terror tends to happen in public.

The dystopia of UK did have weapons, only in the hands of violent criminals, and of course police minutes away. Law-abiding, mentally-sound, sober adult civilians trusted to keep children safe, did not. It would remain a dystopia if the only place law-abiding, mentally-sound, sober adult civilians could legally possess weapons was at home - where they would be burgled safely when the occupants have left.

So, for all our gun laws over here, has any citizen actually been armed during a terror attack, and had a chance to use their firearm to ameliorate the situation?

In the terror attacks that haven't been in "gun-free zones" (almost none of them, because very few are insane & want to be shot before or effectively the same instant that they hurt innocents, so they only select soft, defenseless/undefended targets), yes.

No.

Revisionist history duly noted.

Guns are cool, but they don't really solve domestic security problems. And you don't want them to. That's what the cops are for. You don't want enforcement in the hands of citizens. There are people on this forum that I talk to on a daily basis, that I cringe to think might own a firearm.

They deter them, & "gun-free zones" guarantee them. The human right to self-defense ≠ "enforcement". I cringe to think you're allowed to vote peoples' human rights be infringed & disserve on a jury.

/ignore

[GreenBits]

I haven't been following this thread, but a question for clarification: if UK did permit guns, which they do already, were kids supposed to be open carrying/concealed carrying at a pop concert? Or were they supposed to be strapped while strolling across London Bridge?

Law-abiding, mentally-sound, sober adults present were.

If UK did have weapons, why would anyone have been armed in these circumstances, in public venues, where you can't even take guns? (Try taking a piece into a Taylor Swift concert. You won't get far). Terror tends to happen in public.

The dystopia of UK did have weapons, only in the hands of violent criminals, and of course police minutes away. Law-abiding, mentally-sound, sober adult civilians trusted to keep children safe, did not. It would remain a dystopia if the only place law-abiding, mentally-sound, sober adult civilians could legally possess weapons was at home - where they would be burgled safely when the occupants have left.

So, for all our gun laws over here, has any citizen actually been armed during a terror attack, and had a chance to use their firearm to ameliorate the situation?

In the terror attacks that haven't been in "gun-free zones" (almost none of them, because very few are insane & want to be shot before or effectively the same instant that they hurt innocents, so they only select soft, defenseless/undefended targets), yes.

No.

Revisionist history duly noted.

Guns are cool, but they don't really solve domestic security problems. And you don't want them to. That's what the cops are for. You don't want enforcement in the hands of citizens. There are people on this forum that I talk to on a daily basis, that I cringe to think might own a firearm.

They deter them, & "gun-free zones" guarantee them. The human right to self-defense ≠ "enforcement". I cringe to think you're allowed to vote peoples' human rights be infringed & disserve on a jury.

/ignore

You mad? I'm not even trolling, I wasn't trying to be a dick when I asked these questions.

You can't bring guns in public venues here. You might be from across the pond,  I'm not sure. But in the US, they don't let people, even in open carry States, go into concerts with guns. This is what I was implying. Unless they would pass significantly different gun laws, there would have been no guns in this concert. The thing with allowing people to have guns is that often 'law abiding, mentally sound adults' aren't the one with the guns. And if a person has no priors, they can buy a gun and be a fucking lunatic. I don't want lunatics with guns period, even if that means eroding my rights. Besides, I thought you can have long guns in the UK. Which is a better choice for home defense, a shotgun trumps a handgun indoors in your home, with non combatants. Wouldn't want to deal with the risk of penetration.

How am I revising something that never happened? Please name a terror event where someone used a gun against the terrorist. You won't, because of the very same reason you have mentioned. Terrorist wouldn't attack hard targets. You are absolutely right, the terror attacks will simply target different venues, like a kids pop concert, because if the adults are armed, there are always kids that aren't.

Don't know if you are mad because of something else I wrote, but I'm very pro gun. I was just asking serious questions I didn't understand, and I still don't.

Sorry if I was rude.

Edit: again, still trying to understand. If long guns are legal in the UK, which they are for hunting purposes, is it that you are advocating concealed/open carry of handguns? To the best of my knowledge, there would be few indoor places that would allow you to bring a gun in even with a permit. Thus is why you get metal detected at concerts, I have been to ALOT of concerts. Also happens at theme parks, clubs, basically anywhere the venue doesn't want to accept liability if someone pops someone. So even in America, the land of a million guns, private property rights and state statute (you can't bring guns to schools/gov buildings with a permit) trump citizen amendment rights. Essentially, you cant have guns in places where this type of shit would happen. That's why having the laws there don't do shit.

And it's kind of on security. They should have had guns, or officers with guns should have been provided by the municipal government.

[Sithara007]

Guns are cool, but they don't really solve domestic security problems. And you don't want them to. That's what the cops are for. You don't want enforcement in the hands of citizens. There are people on this forum that I talk to on a daily basis, that I cringe to think might own a firearm.

In theory, it is all good. But it is not always practical. Suppose you are living in a crime infested area with your family. You realize that your house is being invaded by a few criminals. How you are going to react? Will you call the cops and wait until they arrive, or are you going to defend your family using your own firearms? I would prefer the second option.

[GreenBits]

Guns are cool, but they don't really solve domestic security problems. And you don't want them to. That's what the cops are for. You don't want enforcement in the hands of citizens. There are people on this forum that I talk to on a daily basis, that I cringe to think might own a firearm.

In theory, it is all good. But it is not always practical. Suppose you are living in a crime infested area with your family. You realize that your house is being invaded by a few criminals. How you are going to react? Will you call the cops and wait until they arrive, or are you going to defend your family using your own firearms? I would prefer the second option.

I agree with you 100%. I don't have a problem with current US gun laws, for the most part.  You should have a long gun at your house to protect your family and assets. But you can already do this in both the US and UK, I think. Just pistols and assaults are banned, you shouldn't be using either class of firearm for home defence (penetration and bystanders).

In most public cases where firearms are needed, ID rather the professionals be the only armed individuals. I wouldn't want cops coming into a scenario with multiple active shooters, not knowing who is a good guy or a bad guy because everyone with a gun isn't wearing a uniform.They tend to shoot people unarmed, LOL, this could get really, really bad.

And I would rather open carry than concealed. Easier to identify who might start shooting, before they do