Should the American system of citizens carrying guns be applied to the UK, the ever so slight possibility of the murderers being shot by a citizen before the police shot them would be offset by approximately 1650 more murders on top of the approximate annual 550 based on the 400% difference in the murder rate. The problem with being an internet tough guy is that the numbers simply do not add up, for the more guns, the more gun deaths.
they add up just fine. The same person who kills with a gun will kill with something else. It’s not the gun that kills. In this case a gun existed and was never used. The first weapon used was a car. Would you care to guess how many people they could have run over and killed with a car without [del]reloading[/del] refueling?
…I’m sorry: were you there? You seem to be awfully confident about stomping their asses. Do you really think you could get the jump on someone who’s holding a pistol and a knife?
That wasn’t a caveat. If you would have attempted to stop them they would have attempted to stop you. They wouldn’t let you try and stomp their ass. If they didn’t shoot you they would have whacked you on the head with the machete. The “Stomping their asses” is simply a fantasy you’ve invented. The incident happened so quickly the soldier didn’t have a chance. The interviews of the witnesses makes it clear that it took a while before anyone figured out exactly what was happening: and by then it was too late. What happened after the soldier was fatally wounded was the best of all possible outcomes: noone else was hurt, and the two suspects are still alive having been shot by a female police officer.
As to what this has to do with you breaking up a fight: I’m still left wondering. But it has absolutely nothing to do with the OP.
You haven’t done your homework before accusing me of inaccuracy. But I’ll give you a pass and back up my statements. Next time you can refute them first with specifics rather than saying “so many inaccuracies.”
The cite of eleven people arrested comes from Newsvine but can be found on several other sites. http:/ www.newsvine.com/
The comments regarding British gun control come from an article by Joyce Lee Malcolm and are from the December 26, 2012 Wall Street Journal. The article, entitled, “Two Cautionary Tales of Gun Control” is worth a read by everyone. It, as my post, doesn’t advocate gun control but states a few of the problems involved in thinking that gun control provides a solution to violent crime.
You will notice that my paraphrasing mirrors it accurately. And I consider the WSJ a reputable source worth considering.
I don’t know what you’re getting at regarding my neighbors. Reread that one please for comprehension. You’ll notice I said I didn’t know for sure what they would do and that I know no one who would take pictures. Given that I’ve lived in this neighborhood since 1978 my guess is about as accurate as anyone else’s I’d say.
Now, after reading, please list the “so many inaccuracies” and the “so much wrong” in my post and we’ll tackle them all next. If they are Ms. Malcolm’s please contact her directly. 
First you say it happened so fast nobody had any time to react and then you said it took awhile before anyone figured out exactly what was happening. Nothing you said had anything to do with the op so I don’t really understand all your angst. Read the title of the thread.
If you want to know what would happen in my neighborhood I can pretty much guarantee the police would arrive to a scene with 3 dead bodies. I live around a relatively friendly ethnic group that doesn’t put up with any crap. You screw with one of them and a flash mob would show up (with guns if need be).
It’s falling in the states too. But if you want to look at gun related deaths in the United States you’ll find a single demographic group driving the numbers. It’s not a gun problem, it’s a social problem.
I’d like to make a historical comment on this little dogwhistle of a post also.
I have never thought of the British as hiding behind locked doors in fear. I was born right after WWII and American soldiers came home with considerable admiration for their British counterparts and their self-discipline and sturdiness. Most of us are aware of your courage and stoicism during those many long nights while you were being bombed.
So, as I remember, you were also very glad when the Americans and all their guns finally showed up to help you out. They brought along considerable violence as well which saved many English lives at the cost of American lives.
And all of that I’m sure shaped attitudes seen in British culture today. For one thing there was a shortage of males after the war your losses being so great relative to our larger numbers. And that played out in a more female-dominated society. (Some of Pink Floyd’s music references this loss and the difficulties in culture shift.)
It’s not difficult to believe that that plus the tradition of the genteel English peacekeeper including first hand witness of what guns and shooting can do would contribute to a greater resistance to making them available to the general populace.
I think they called PTSD “shell shock” in those days and certainly most of Europe must have been suffering with it to some extent. If you know anyone who has to deal with the condition you know what an aversion they develop to loud noises or any kind of social disruption. Guns would represent something pretty horrible to most of them, I’d guess.
Incidently, because of the differences in our cultures, not only were you glad to see us come but were also glad to see us leave. I don’t suppose we see you as any more timid and fearful than you see us as uncouth and violent. Both are exaggerations and have a long-standing historical background. As with most extremes it’s best not to go there.
…I think I have. Lets start with the one I started with.
“For the first time British police are beginnning to arm themselves.”
You are aware this is not true, correct?
No need to give me a pass.
Hilarious! Okay, lets see what you’ve got then.
I didn’t dispute the number. I disputed the relevance. People in the United States get arrested for posting on Twitter as well.
And as I stated: simply claiming a “doubling” of crimes is meaningless without the primary data. Joyce also misuses statistics from the Australian Institute of Criminology that I absolutely know are wrong: so I’m not gonna take him/her at his/her word for the doubling. Show me the primary stats.
What problems did you point out? Lets pretend for a minute that the “doubling of gun crime” statistic is indeed accurate. It is entirely possible that without the introduction of gun control laws the “gun crime” statistics could be ten times as bad as they were ten years ago. But we don’t even know how “gun crime” has been defined in the article. If it includes possession of a gun, then wouldn’t you expect “gun crime” to increase in that area?
You cited an opinion piece that, in my humble opinion, isn’t worth me wiping my butt with. But YMMV.
You are guessing at what they would do. But I bet if a crazy man covered in blood holding a pistol and a machete said to them “take my picture” It wouldn’t surprise me if some of them would. Because taking a picture is an infinitely better outcome than getting a machete to my face.
No need to contact Ms Malcolm. She isn’t a member of these message boards making claims. The person on these boards making claims I’m disputing is you.
…come on, give me a break. Nothing I said contradicts the other. Yes: it happened fast. Yes, it took a while for people to figure out what was happening. And???
It sure has more relevance than breaking up a bar fight.
Your ability to read minds and to predict the future is impressive. I’m sure you are a candidate for the Randi 1 million dollar prize.
In my crystal ball for your neighbourhood I predict an additional 2-3 people dead. I see the whole area locked down and one of the suspects getting away and hiding in a boat. I see the police shooting at random dark-colored Nissan pickup trucks. And I bet no-one gets their asses stomped. Because, as you know, we are just guessing here: and my guess is as good as yours.
This incident was resolved with one dead body and two people in custody. The people that confronted these terrorists were brave and saved lives. And we’ve got two people who will stand trial and that we can get actionable intelligence from.
Indeed. Don’t the Swiss have more guns per capita than anyone else? Ah, wait, Wiki says not as many households as in the US (29% vs. 43%), but all Swiss men have to do army training at 20 then are part of the militia (standing army) until aged 30, to get those guns.
Magiver, that single demographic group wouldn’t happen to be ‘males’, would it?
Ah, so that’s what a well-regulated militia necessary to the security of a free State looks like. And, for reasons which possibly have nothing to do with ten years’ responsible militia experience, Swiss gun crime is virtually non-existent.
Banquet Bear, you little rascal. You have serious reading comprehension problems.
You haven’t provided me with any facts to disprove my (nor Ms. Malcolm’s) statements other than your opinion and rude remarks. Neither flies.
If you’d like to know more about the firearms training and units in all police forces of the United Kingdom and the three forces which are routinely armed, refer to Wiki.
The arming of British police has been a slow and gradual process in response to a rise in the level of threat.
Sorry, but you haven’t accommodated my criteria for further discussion. I don’t have the patience.
…hey mate: I’m simply challenging your assertions. You know, the points you bought up. I’ll simply take this post as a concession that I am right. You stated “For the first time British police are beginnning to arm themselves.” This is not true. I can tell you rushed off to wiki to try and back up your assertions then found out you couldn’t. That isn’t my problem. If asking you to provide proof for some wild allegations that you have made is "not accommodating your criteria for discussion, well I’m sorry to say it looks like we will never see your proof.
Here’s the thing: you haven’t provided any “facts” at all for me to debunk. You made several claims. When asked for a cite you’ve cited an opinion piece where the writer also made several claims but with no source material. It is not unreasonable for me to ask for that source if you wish to stand by your assertions. The reasonable thing for you to do if you can’t back up your assertions is to withdraw them.
I’m not running going to go around and back up the assertions you have made. If you have figures that show gun crime has doubled since the laws changed it shouldn’t be very hard for you to 1) provide those statistics and 2) show the relevance to this incident.
You want me to back up my assertions? Sure. Which assertion do you want me to back up?
Uhm… This is rather offensive. The Americans and the British were allies in WWII. (Hence “the Allies”, you might’ve heard of them.) They were soldiers, fighting together. So yes, both armies were armed and violent. Both armies liberated countries on the continent. Other armies too, like the Canadians. We were glad of them too and they don’t have a violent handgun-loving population.
Recently on this board there was a question about a cracked article that was meant to surprise its readers with the amount of British soldiers landing on the beaches of Normandy. I guess you were one of those who was surprised.
“Shell shock” is a WWI term, referring to soldiers coming from the horror of the trenches.
I’m not sure this is true. The idea of Americans as rude and uncouth may have existed, but I think the association with violence is a later thing. The experience at the time was with soldiers, who were likely exactly as violent as the British soldiers, and fighting on the same side as well.
That doesn’t sound like it would really help.
Great. So how would her having pepper spray or a taser improved the situation, then?
Hi gracer.
Drifting off into nitpicky zone here but I’ll reply briefly.
I guess my first comment could offend some despite it’s veracity. I was blunt.
Well educated about the war having been born so soon after it ended, I do know that the British were at Normandy. I guess you missed my comments about how American view British bravery.
The concept of shell shock did, indeed, originate with WWI and was in common psychiatric use until it was replaced sometime in the 1970s.
You claim the Americans and their guns showed up to heroically save the British, and that this “shaped attitudes seen in British culture today.”
But you are talking about an army, fighting alongside another army. It’s not like the British army didn’t have guns 
About the influx of American soldiers into the UK, and how that influenced perceptions: the accounts I’ve read show the exact opposite. Brits expected cowboys to come in shooting Indians, or gangsters shooting the police. Instead they got a nice lad teaching the local girls to jitterbug, spending their comparatively huge salaries having a good time. Not about the population suddenly for the first time seeing lots of guns and then deciding they didn’t like them.
Unless there is some credible evidence, I really doubt that American soldiers of WWII made Brits uninterested in guns.
Your first comment
[QUOTE=Tethered Kite]
So, as I remember, you were also very glad when the Americans and all their guns finally showed up to help you out. They brought along considerable violence as well which saved many English lives at the cost of American lives.
[/QUOTE]
It isn’t particularly blunt, and any veracity is uninteresting. It is merely an arrogant interpretation. The Allied Powers consisted of three major powers. The British Commonwealth, one of the major powers, included Canada “and their guns”. They also brought along violence, so did the English army. It wasn’t some big American surprise.
may or may not be but these immigrants don’t seem to suffer fools well. An outright attack would invite an immediate response. If they caught someone red-handed I don’t think they would wait for the police. I could be wrong.
Now me personally, I think there’s a case for dispatching a murderer who just delivered a manifesto for further killings given that nothing is stopping them from doing it again right there.