The British want their guns back...
- Thread starter billc
- Start date
:grins: Thank you for the consideration :tup:. I am, of course, only one 'data point' and there are others (usually non-country folk) who buy into the "Guns are evil" nonsense and would vote for us all to be helpless because they genuinely believe that makes us all safer :shrugs at the odd things people believe sometimes:.
That's despite it being just as true over here as it is in America that if a villain wants a gun he will have no trouble getting one.
That's despite it being just as true over here as it is in America that if a villain wants a gun he will have no trouble getting one.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #23
I have to say that it is just odd to hear that the first police on the scene had to call for more police...with guns, when those guys killed that soldier. And that woman was extremely lucky they just wanted to "chat," with her instead of racking up a bigger body count...
She would have been much safer armed...
She would have been much safer armed...
Mostly correct. "Allah" is a compound for the word "Al-Ilah". Al meaning the and Ilah meaning "deity/god".
Incorrect. It's historical reference is actually to the Moon God that was worshiped by the Sabean's in Pre-Islamic times. It was his personal title. The Kabah in Mecca was primarily built for him as he was the "Chief Deity". The Moon God was married to the Sun Goddess and the had daughters and son accordingly. So it actually refers to a deity from an ancient polytheistic religion that predates Muhammad's writing in the 7th century.
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
yes that's true, I saw that in Wiki too. But currently, the translation as it is used is correct.
It was an Internet poll and the footnote acknowledges that that particular question may have been skewed by Americans voting. :asian:
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2010
- Messages
- 10,480
- Reaction score
- 1,249
So your saying British citizens couldn't possibly feel this way it must have been Americans
Scott T
Brown Belt
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2009
- Messages
- 421
- Reaction score
- 5
Any non-Briton voting is going to skew results, but the breakdown between nations would have to be made public before being sure. BUT... judging by the responses on this thread alone (including BillC's rather retarded God-given right statement) an American conservative would give no second thought to voting in such a foreign poll, thereby skewing the results.
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
any reputable social researcher who values his professional reputation would consider the results junk once it's been discovered that there are no controls over who the population is, and that there is a good chance the results were contaminated by other sources. At that point, it's time to throw the whole thing away.
The point is that there's no way to tell. The British are pretty heavily surveyed by their govt. Has this question been asked before?
No one has ever directly asked me my opinion, Arni but surveys have been done which suggest an overwhelming majority in favour of laws prohibiting and controlling ownership and use of firearms. They are unthinking in their views in my opinion and are reacting to 'foreign' experiences rather than any actual experience of their own (we didn't really have a problem with gun violence before the laws were changed (knee-jerk style in response to a singular bad event)) but the majority gets to have their way most of the time in a democracy.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/16990/britons-aim-tougher-gun-laws.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/16990/britons-aim-tougher-gun-laws.aspx
First, I think we need to disabuse you of this notion that you must wait for an invitation to comment. You've been on MT since 2006? That's reserved even for the British. And your point is taken. The founding fathers attempted to protect us from the "Tyranny of the majority" with the Senate. Well, the jury may still be out, but I'm guessing that didn't work out like they planned.
No, the footnote to the article says that!'
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2010
- Messages
- 10,480
- Reaction score
- 1,249
Have you asked any?
I notice the soldier wasn't shot. It makes no difference to him but there would likely have been more deaths and injuries had they opened up with gunfire.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #38
That is usually the mistaken response to one of these non-shooting events. That it is better that no one have a weapon, except the attacker, because there might be an accidental shooting...and better to let the criminal go on about his business even though we know that there was for sure one killing on the scene. I don't understand the willingness to rely on the good will of the guys who just used a meat cleaver to kill an innocent man. The people at the scene were lucky these guys didn't go on a further rampage and attack more people. There would have been nothing they could have done to stop it. The first police on the scene couldn't have stopped it either, considering they had to call for "special," police, the ones allowed to use guns. It took them 14 minutes to get to the scene...that is a long time to let a nut job with a meat cleaver run around loose. There are people being brutalized around this country and Britain and it is better for us to just accept their being brutalized because there "might," be a chance someone will be accidentally shot...vs. the people who are unaccidentally being targeted for murder, rape and robbery.
It would probably be better as well if we were to teach classes in schools for witnesses to crimes of a brutal nature. In the class we could teach the school kids to immediately kneel and touch their heads to the ground if they happen to see an attack, that way the authorities can be sure there will be no accidental injuries incurred by anyone other than the brutal attacker. Also, if the attacker decides to attack more people, it will be less chaotic if they simply submit to whatever he decides to do by kneeling and exposing their necks...yeah, I can see that point of view.
I can see it...the woman who "chatted up," the killer should have dropped down and quietly waited for whatever he decided to do next instead of increasing the likely hood that more injuries might be created by her "engaging," the attacker with conversation...I wonder if she was ticketed for aggravating the situation?
If he had had a firearm he would've shot other people.
I must admit we have had no mass killings with meat cleavers in Australia despite us not all running around with guns. We did have mass shootings in the past but 'luckily' none since we got rid of military style weapons.
Similar threads
