7 killed in London by three people with an automobile and knives

[suncowiam]

While 8 is killed in US by one with a gun.

LOL. Trump can't have all the debates these days.

[Edited]. I probably shouldn't be joking in the same comment concerning a very serious incident. I will leave the original OP and apologize if that was found offensive. Sorry.

 

[Falvlun]

While 8 is killed in US bye one with a gun.

LOL. Trump can't have all the debates these days.

[Edited]. I probably shouldn't be joking in the same comment concerning a very serious incident. I will leave the original OP and apologize if that was found offensive. Sorry.

My fiancé and I were talking about this last night. We were trying to understand why London is suddenly a hot spot for mini-terrorist acts. He was arguing that you don't see this sort of stuff in America because anyone could have a gun to stop these terrorists. I countered with school shootings, Pulse night club, and that movie theatre in Colorado. He re-countered with the fact that guns aren't allowed (legally) in any of those places, thus making them vulnerable.

But then we both considered the gun violence in Chicago. He said that he read a statistic that last month, there were 4x more deaths caused by gun violence in Chicago, than caused by terrorism in Europe. (I couldn't find corroboration online; but it does ring true.)

That pretty much settled our debate. Despite the horrible uptick in terrorism in London, we are ultimately much, much more likely to die because of our guns.

We own a gun, with plans to buy more. So, I am not anti-gun, but I'm not stupid either. As with everything, we need to balance liberty with societal safety.

And it's a bit hypocritical to be ok with stripping away liberty to save us from terrorism, but refusing to give up any little bit of freedom in regards to guns, despite the fact that they are the much larger threat.

 

[icehorse]

Gun proliferation and Islamic terrorism are both problems. Comparing them, doesn't invalidate either as being a problem.

 

[Revoltingest]

Gun proliferation and Islamic terrorism are both problems. Comparing them, doesn't invalidate either as being a problem.

Perhaps ISIS knows that mass killings would be far more noticeable,
& thereby far more effective for them in London than in Chicago, eh?
But I think terrorists have less need to resort to knives & vehicles here,
so they use bombs & guns simply because they can.

A terrorist on a stabbing spree even in my ultra-liberal town would stand
a good chance of being shot dead by a civilian within minutes.

 

[icehorse]

A terrorist on a stabbing spree even in my ultra-liberal town would stand
a good chance of being shot dead by a civilian within minutes.

Sadly, most of these guys think they have an express ticket to paradise, so that's no deterrent

 

[Revoltingest]

Sadly, most of these guys think they have an express ticket to paradise, so that's no deterrent

I suspect that a great many 'believers' still have a natural inclination to survive.
But if one or two fewer innocent victims are knifed, & the jihadi enters paradise
that much sooner, then it's win win.

 

[Notanumber]

Yes but the London losers were wearing dummy suicide vests. That stopped the public from overpowering them and no doubt affected the actions of the police.

Clever these Mohammadens.


EDIT:

 

[Stevicus]

My fiancé and I were talking about this last night. We were trying to understand why London is suddenly a hot spot for mini-terrorist acts. He was arguing that you don't see this sort of stuff in America because anyone could have a gun to stop these terrorists. I countered with school shootings, Pulse night club, and that movie theatre in Colorado. He re-countered with the fact that guns aren't allowed (legally) in any of those places, thus making them vulnerable.

But then we both considered the gun violence in Chicago. He said that he read a statistic that last month, there were 4x more deaths caused by gun violence in Chicago, than caused by terrorism in Europe. (I couldn't find corroboration online; but it does ring true.)

Doesn't Chicago also have pretty tough gun laws, which would make law-abiding people just as vulnerable as they would be in schools, nightclubs, and theaters?

Here in AZ, we've had our share of killings, going all the way back to the Gunfight at the OK Corral. Every so often, I've heard gunshots in my neighborhood, but they're usually personal disputes - nothing that I would feel threatened by. I also don't see international terrorism as much of a threat in my neck of the woods. I suppose anything is possible, but it seems that terrorists go after big, visible targets in major cities.

That pretty much settled our debate. Despite the horrible uptick in terrorism in London, we are ultimately much, much more likely to die because of our guns.

That may be so. I don't worry about it so much, although I recognize that one has to be careful out there. You never know what kind of crazies you might run into.

We own a gun, with plans to buy more. So, I am not anti-gun, but I'm not stupid either. As with everything, we need to balance liberty with societal safety.

And it's a bit hypocritical to be ok with stripping away liberty to save us from terrorism, but refusing to give up any little bit of freedom in regards to guns, despite the fact that they are the much larger threat.

I'm not anti-gun either, but I also don't see stripping away liberty is necessary to save us from terrorism. Besides, how much could terrorism really work on a populace of crazed, heavily armed maniacs? I don't mean to sound flippant, but in some ways, that kind of reputation might be a deterrent to some degree. A lot of people like to make fun of our crackpots and lunatics, but they do have their uses at times.

 

[Falvlun]

Doesn't Chicago also have pretty tough gun laws, which would make law-abiding people just as vulnerable as they would be in schools, nightclubs, and theaters?

It does. But it doesn't ultimately prevent law abiding citizens from owning and carrying guns. So while guns are restricted, they aren't outright forbidden like they are in schools, etc.

Here in AZ, we've had our share of killings, going all the way back to the Gunfight at the OK Corral. Every so often, I've heard gunshots in my neighborhood, but they're usually personal disputes - nothing that I would feel threatened by. I also don't see international terrorism as much of a threat in my neck of the woods. I suppose anything is possible, but it seems that terrorists go after big, visible targets in major cities.

That may be so. I don't worry about it so much, although I recognize that one has to be careful out there. You never know what kind of crazies you might run into.

I'm fortunate too in that I don't overly fear getting shot or killed by terrorists. Probably would be different if I lived in a sketchy neighborhood or worked in the city, which as you say, would be more of a target.

Interestingly enough, the suburb right next to mine is high on the terrorist hit-list because there's a large population of moderate Muslims who live there. But I've never heard of anything actually happening and it doesn't really cross my mind.

I'm not anti-gun either, but I also don't see stripping away liberty is necessary to save us from terrorism. Besides, how much could terrorism really work on a populace of crazed, heavily armed maniacs? I don't mean to sound flippant, but in some ways, that kind of reputation might be a deterrent to some degree. A lot of people like to make fun of our crackpots and lunatics, but they do have their uses at times.

That was in response to things like the Travel ban and the Patriot Act. Terrorism has had an effect on us in that people now support and even justify these restrictions on our privacy and freedom in the name of safety. I agree that we are likely at a lower risk for the sorts of terror attacks we are seeing in London, and our crazies can be partly to thank. But physical threat aside, we are still vulnerable to the psychological threat that is the main purpose of terrorism.

 

[Nakosis]

Perhaps ISIS knows that mass killings would be far more noticeable,
& thereby far more effective for them in London than in Chicago, eh?
But I think terrorists have less need to resort to knives & vehicles here,
so they use bombs & guns simply because they can.

A terrorist on a stabbing spree even in my ultra-liberal town would stand
a good chance of being shot dead by a civilian within minutes.

My Nephew was showing me his ankle holster wear he carries his 45. We were at the wedding of his brother. Actually felt safer knowing there was someone around capable of defending us.

 

[Stevicus]

That was in response to things like the Travel ban and the Patriot Act. Terrorism has had an effect on us in that people now support and even justify these restrictions on our privacy and freedom in the name of safety.

I think the reason might be dependent on how many people are affected by it. Restrictions on firearms would affect many more people than these other things. The biggest thing that bothers people seems to be the security checkpoints at airports and the TSA. But even then, most people seem willing to put up with that - although there are limits as to what people will accept.

But then again, if we're going to accept restrictions and limitations in the name of stopping the dreaded crimes of shoplifting, drug possession, and/or smoking in a "no smoking" area, then how much would people put up with to stop terrorism?

I agree that we are likely at a lower risk for the sorts of terror attacks we are seeing in London, and our crazies can be partly to thank. But physical threat aside, we are still vulnerable to the psychological threat that is the main purpose of terrorism.

It would seem that the best way to deal with the psychological threat of terrorism would be to change our own psychology. For example, the OP had to put in an apology in case anyone found it offensive to make a joke in light of such a serious event. Why can't we, as a society, learn to handle these things better? I'm not saying people should make jokes about it, but we could try toughening up a little better.

 

[suncowiam]

My Nephew was showing me his ankle holster wear he carries his 45. We were at the wedding of his brother. Actually felt safer knowing there was someone around capable of defending us.

Yeah. Well from my perspective... I don't know your nephew. He's probably one of the finest young lads out there but I have no clue of that. Now, extropolate out to every individual that owns and carry a gun.

How am I supposed to know who's the good or bad guy? Are you suggesting I trust everyone that carries?

 

[suncowiam]

I think the reason might be dependent on how many people are affected by it. Restrictions on firearms would affect many more people than these other things. The biggest thing that bothers people seems to be the security checkpoints at airports and the TSA. But even then, most people seem willing to put up with that - although there are limits as to what people will accept.

But then again, if we're going to accept restrictions and limitations in the name of stopping the dreaded crimes of shoplifting, drug possession, and/or smoking in a "no smoking" area, then how much would people put up with to stop terrorism?



It would seem that the best way to deal with the psychological threat of terrorism would be to change our own psychology. For example, the OP had to put in an apology in case anyone found it offensive to make a joke in light of such a serious event. Why can't we, as a society, learn to handle these things better? I'm not saying people should make jokes about it, but we could try toughening up a little better.

IMO, I made the joke in the wrong context, plus the incident just happened. It's subjective but if people felt it offensive or distasteful then I would respect that and offered the apology. I'm not forcing any views of PC or sensitivity in this case.

Although I swing more on the side of too much PC in the world.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

My Nephew was showing me his ankle holster wear he carries his 45. We were at the wedding of his brother. Actually felt safer knowing there was someone around capable of defending us.

If you feel the need for a gun at a wedding, then maybe you should move.

 

[esmith]

Yeah. Well from my perspective... I don't know your nephew. He's probably one of the finest young lads out there but I have no clue of that. Now, extropolate out to every individual that owns and carry a gun.

How am I supposed to know who's the good or bad guy? Are you suggesting I trust everyone that carries?

Do you trust everyone even if they do not carry a firearm?

 

[suncowiam]

Do you trust everyone even if they do not carry a firearm?

That is my point. So let me elaborate...

Why does it matter that we have citizens carry guns to help protect against terrorism?

I don't know the skill level or training these individuals have. I don't know their mentality. There are inherent dangers of citizens owning guns that needs to be addressed before a blanket statement like "if the citizens we're armed then that massacre would not have happened.". Which by the way is a message now coming from Trump. We can't simply make an argument based on guns. It is based on the owners of guns.

I be more confident if all citizens we're required training like they do in Isreal or South Korea.

 

[Stevicus]

IMO, I made the joke in the wrong context, plus the incident just happened. It's subjective but if people felt it offensive or distasteful then I would respect that and offered the apology. I'm not forcing any views of PC or sensitivity in this case.

Although I swing more on the side of too much PC in the world.

I understand, but my only point was that if it's come to the fact that we have to be overly sensitive just to avoid offending people, then no wonder we're so vulnerable to terrorism. If we can't handle a bit of tough talk, then how can we handle anything worse?

 

[tytlyf]

Imagine if there were lax gun laws in the EU? These people wouldn't be using knives.

 

[suncowiam]

I understand, but my only point was that if it's come to the fact that we have to be overly sensitive just to avoid offending people, then no wonder we're so vulnerable to terrorism. If we can't handle a bit of tough talk, then how can we handle anything worse?

Are you implying that terrorism is a byproduct of being overly sensitive?

 

[esmith]

Imagine if there were lax gun laws in the EU? These people wouldn't be using knives.

What "lax gun laws" are you referring to? Please be specific, if you can.