GStwin.com GS500 Message Forum

 :icon_confused:

Ed, I know you are well versed but I like to point this out anyway.
Hell, look at LA, NYC, DC as well as England........disarm the citizenry!

For the life of me I can't understand WHY our Congressmen and Facist Liberals want us defenseless unless there is a plan with ulterior (sic?)
motives.

Gee, sure seems like it.

And of course as with all of their other failures that involved raping the working taxpayer, they want us to just "lie down on the floor and take it in the ass" and not say anything. Just like good little sheeple (sheep people for the uninformed).

(http://www.afcd.gov.hk/fisheries/PortSurvey01-02/VesselPhoto/HangTrawl.jpg)

Recalibrate your fishfinder.

(http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/gay8.jpg)

 :icon_rolleyes:

Ed,
Old Bill challenged this guy and ordered him to stop, he chose to run, jump over a turnstile barrier and onto a crowded tube train. Given that such trains have been the main target it was not unreasonable to shoot. It is alleged he was wearing a heavy bulky coat and it was a hot day. There was the possibility of a "body bomb" like those all to common in Israel and used by the tamil Tigers in Sri-Lanka, hence the reference.

Very sad for him and his family, a dreadful thing to be sure. Had he not run things may well have had a different outcome. It has emerged that his permit to work in UK as an electrician expired a couple of years ago so in effect he was in UK illegally, this does not make the shooting more acceptable but it may explain why he ran with such devastating consequences. Collateral damage, is the term used when western bombers have hit wrong targets in Serbia, Afghanistan & Iraq. Sad but almost inevitable. Would you see US pilots on trial for collateral damage, I don't think so.

 ;)

So what is the answer and how is it relevant to guns being outlawed?

How should Police deal with a person they suspect, rightly or wrongly, might be a suicide bomber, it's a whole new ball-game for western police.

If every citizen in London packed a pistol would anything have been different?  if no-one carried, not even criminals how would it have been different? In all honesty I don't see your point.

I would be the last person to support the Police shooting people willy-nilly but under present circumstances what would we have them do?

 :dunno_white:

:bs:  :bs:  :bs:
I love this ed... you are for profiling but when somebody that fits the profile, exits a building known to have terrorist connections and runs from cops into a subway that has been the target of more than one attack.... What are they supposed to do... it is sad, but the guy should have had more sense than to run from the cops especially on to the latest target of terrorist attacks.

Quote from: Ed_in_AzOur police can't execute people for running.

They can if they have probable cause to believe that the person committed a violent felony or if they have a reasonable belief that the person is threatening the police or others with deadly force.

(http://www.trimpe.org/jr/pictures/stupidchart.jpg)

 :icon_confused:

Quote from: VTNewb

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

Quote from: Ed_in_AzPlease post an example of EXECUTION BY POLICE performed AND SANCTIONED BY POLICE, in the USA. :roll:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/05/10/cincy.shooting/

 :icon_confused:

For the record, I agree that the shooting in the UK is evidence of a lurching toward facism that often results when a free society feels threatened.

HOWEVER, I don't see how gun ownership would have changed anything in this situation. Would bystanders shoot the police first? Would the victim pull a gun on the police?

This was the result of a policy that has nothing to do with gun ownership.

No shaZam!.  I've never understood what the hell owning a gun had to do with that Brazilian guy getting shot.

Unless he is like a Commando or something.

If I had a gun, Ed and I totally would have started a gun battle to protect the brazilian guy.  Then someone would use the fact that we had guns and started a gun battle to justify the legalization of guns, because someone with a gun would have been able to stop us madmen.

Quote from: Cal Price<snippage>
"body bomb" like those all to common in Israel and used by the tamil Tigers in Sri-Lanka, hence the reference.

<snippage>

Small correction ... Not just in SL, In India as well ... Rajiv Gandhi assasinated by a body bomb in 1989.
Cool.
Srinath.

 :icon_rolleyes:

Ah.  If they all took guns to work with them on the subway, they could have spotted the bombers, shot them, and continued on with their commute!  

Then there would have been no need to shot the Brazilian guy!  

So simple when you put it like that.

I was in the airport Sunday, and I saw this guy, that looked like a bomber, and I didn't have a gun, so I just ran away from him.

He wasn't a bomber though.  So I'm glad I didn't have a gun.

 :icon_rolleyes:

Sorry Ed, can't follow your logic. If everyone in the world was armed, bombers who leave devices and wander off would still succeed as would suicide bombers. Some guy walks out of a Cafe, forgets his briefcase, You going to shoot him?

Our Police made a mistake, a dreadful mistake with the Brazilian guy. There were circumstances in mitigation, not the least was 56 dead people from 14 days before. Neither the country nor the Police have given-in or rolled over, in fact the Police have been quite good at catching bombers since the 70s and the last few days in particular.

You don't like our gun laws, fine, quite a few people here don't either but they are the result of democratic decisions which are a matter for our electorate and our representatives. Unless directly asked I would not offer an opinion on US domestic policy. Foreign policy yes, because it, or the results of it, can directly affect me. Which is why people abroad have very different ideas about "best" US presidents, for me that would be Clinton & Nixon, very different politically but good, foreign policy-wise from my standpoint.

 ;)

OK Ed, I totally accept your point about having the right to personal defence, we have decided democratically not to allow it and you have a constitutional right to it.

Not right, not wrong just different.

You also say that some people are not capable of handling a gun properly, I accept that as well. It's the who and how of the decision to allow some but not others that slightly bothers me, also the the constitutional "Well ordered militia" defining "Well ordered" in this day and age may well prove very tricky but they are your issues not mine so as I have said before I'll keep out of U.S. domestic politics.

I take all the points you raised, I may or may not embrace them but I see where you are coming from.

I still don't understand the implied linkage that our society in general not being armed somehow made terrorism more likely, or the tragic mistaken shooting less likely but I think I'll call it a day on that one.

Personally I see terrorism as an UNWINABLE situation.  If people are so determined to hurt/kill you that they are willing to give up their own life in order to complete the "mission" I don't see ANY way to stop them.  The only way to stop them is to stop the source and that unfortunately is their religion.  So, what are we to do?  DON'T shoot and let a few through?  SHOOT and kill a few innocents?  Simply adding up the numbers I'd say shoot and stop potential carnage.  Be on your BEST behaviour on public transit.  Take off all coats/jackets while approaching?

The problem is that when you "secure" one area the terrorists simply go after something that isn't secure.  We CAN'T live in fear of terrorists and we shouldn't.  We are in a VERY difficult time now because of the infrequency of terror attacks and I'm sure the terrorists know that.  They will keep us "on-edge" and "off balance" for as long as it takes.  They KNOW that if there are too many attacks that the citizenary will revolt against them and the government, demanding an end to the terrorizing and then they will be hunted by everyone.

I DO know that the root of ALL these problems is religion and one in particular.  So, what do we do about it?

Joe,
BlahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahBlahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahBlahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah