Todd Beamer’s actions and words “Let’s roil” on 9/11 truly have had an impact in America. More than one frightening disruption in an airliner, considered a possible terror attack, has been steamrolled by passengers.
In my opinion (since this is IMHO and I’m OP, it’s about time), in countless neighborhoods in NYC, the perpetrators, in the scene after the crime, standing around and distracted, would have been rushed and crushed. Unarmed, or with make-shift weapons found on the street.
I believe this to be true any urban area I can think of in the USA.
Were IMHO to have more posters from Islamic countries, the answers, for a situation with the ideologies reversed, I hope it also obvious what their truthful response to OP would be.
The conversation has dick-all to do with crime statistics and prison populations and dick-all else. At least, it should. Arguing about those things is a distraction just to argue about those things.
Sounds like you’re less interested in soliciting opinions, and more interested in getting help on drafting the screenplay for your latest bad-ass action flick.
[hijack]
Or perhaps comparing Newton to Woolwich as analogous situations for the purposes of OP is a supreme example of intellectually vapidity rarely seen even for SD. Let me count the ways that the two situations differ…::thinks hard, gives up::
The gist and conclusion of your post reveals an intellectual and rhetorical kinship with many who consider themselves incisive contributors to leftist politics, who with their assumed dagger-like recognition of hypocrisy, condemn people without a son in the Army, but who support some national military action, as chicken hawks.
Internet tough guy here to Internet tough guy.
[/hijack]
Well, thanks, but I feel I must correct your assumption. This is my last word to our mini-dialogue: I’m glad you have no compunctions. Keep up the good work in your ethical decisions as you go about learning English. Do not let that get in the way though of using words in your arguments, as you no doubt will carry on. It’s a free country. Don’t forget to be snarky about how dumb you think Sarah Palin and George Bush are.
Agreed, but it’s a common enough narrative heard in political discourse amongst certain Americans who know nothing about the UK. It’s the idea that we are all huddling defenceless in our homes while the tide of crime crashes against the walls, cursing the government who took away our guns.
Pepper sprays aren’t used solely for self-defense. They’re used to assault too. I’ve been assaulted twice. Once by a guy with a Pepper spray, the other by guys with knives.
It’s much more convenient to assault/steal stuff from someone if you spread him first with a generous dose of pepper spray.
Not that it makes any difference to the argument. I’m very happy guns aren’t legal here. It would make me feel a lot less safe. I think you’re living in the clouds if you think legalising guns would make Britain a safer place. And no-one want them - there is zero appetite for having guns in Britain. even the police, when surveyed, said they preferred not to carry them.
I’d argue that the fact we don’t have guns means the events might have played out very differently than they would have done in the US. I’ve no doubt the criminals could have still killed the soldier. But what would have happened afterwards? It is of course impossible to know. The biggest likelihood is that the result would have been no different. But there is also a small chance that citizens with guns would have turned created more bodies.
False. There, that was easy. Have a look at the trend on page 15:
It is a PDF, so beware.
Would you like to know what is reported as a violent crime in the two completely different jurisdictions with completely different reporting standards? Here’s a hint: no.
Well…I’ll probably have soon an answer to the OP. A copycat tried to kill a soldier this afternoon in Paris. He was wounded but isn’t in danger. The culprit fled. So, I guess there will soon be videos and I’ll be able to tell how people over here react.
By, the way, this was one of the soldiers who roam around sensitive spots carrying weapons when terrorism alert level is high. Which show how pointless those patrols are. Being personally attacked is about the only scenario I can think of where they could do something, and they didn’t/couldn’t. If things haven’t changed since the 90s, their weapons aren’t loaded, and they need to tear off a sewed pocket to access the ammunitions. By which time an attacker would be long away or in the middle of a crowd.
Previously, there were two soldiers+one gendarme. The gendarme being at the same time a military NCO and a police officer, theoretically he could do something in some circumstances (in this case, he would have had an actually loaded weapon, at least). But for a year or so, I noticed they there aren’t gendarmes any more. So, it’s only a pair of soldiers who can’t do anything and don’t have the right to do anything anyway even in a suspicious situation :rolleyes: . It was already obvious that it was only for show and to reassure people (or maybe there was a slight expectation of deterrence), but now it just has become ridiculous.
The fact that the soldiers weapons aren’t loaded and its difficult to even access the ammunition is strange, but what could the police officer do that a soldier or even motivated civilian not do? (if I understand the scenario correctly)
Here at least everyone is legally able to defend themselves and others from a threat, as long as the response is proportinate and necessary and also effect an arrest for a suspected offence. The only real difference is that a soldier/civilian is expected to keep the person at the place of arrest until a warranted police officer can attend the scene and take them into their custody.
And why would it even be common knowledge that the soldiers are effectively unarmed? (for any sort of spontaneous attack of short duration anyway) Surely that entirely defeats the purpose and actually makes them a target.