Re: London has had another possible terror attack

Porcelain · ‎02-19-2014

@occasionalrain wrote:
Well he could have had a bomb.
I believe knives are prohibited to be carried on the streets of London. Acid attacks are happening there as well. Then there are vehicles running people down.

Aha. So if they legalized open carrying acid, knives, and bombs, as well as making it legal to drive on the sidewalks, all the law abiding good citizens could protect each other from criminals, completely eliminating violent crime from London.

When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.
"Power without love is reckless and abusive, and love without power is sentimental and anemic." - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr

cherry · ‎03-09-2010

I found out a bit more. The person that did this was only 19. He had been released 2 days ago from prison/jail ,for distributing extremist material

esmerelda · ‎03-10-2010

Where there’s a will there’s a way.

*********************
Keepin' it real.

occasionalrain · ‎03-10-2010

@Porcelain The point is that a gun is an obvious threat that a person can defend against, a concealed bomb, like in the Oklahoma bombing, gives no warning so no chance for a defense.

That shooting in the London club was accomplished by people with illegal weapons. Had those attending been armed, they could have defended themselves and there would have been fewer deaths.

Recently, an armed gunman entered a church, could have been Texas, only the gunman was shot because parishioners were armed and took him out.

An average sized unarmed woman has little, to no, chance against an average sized unarmed man.

Anonymous032819 · ‎03-29-2019

@occasionalrain wrote:
@Porcelain The point is that a gun is an obvious threat that a person can defend against, a concealed bomb, like in the Oklahoma bombing, gives no warning so no chance for a defense.

That shooting in the London club was accomplished by people with illegal weapons. Had those attending been armed, they could have defended themselves and there would have been fewer deaths.

Recently, an armed gunman entered a church, could have been Texas, only the gunman was shot because parishioners were armed and took him out.

An average sized unarmed woman has little, to no, chance against an average sized unarmed man.

The parishioners (as in plural, as in, more than one) did not take him out.

It was ONE man that shot and killed the gunman.

ONE.

He was the church security officer.

The church had appointed him to provide security.

The Sky looks different when you have someone you love up there.

occasionalrain · ‎03-10-2010

@Anonymous032819 Did you see the video of the incident? Only one of them needed to shoot but two or three other parishioners had their weapons out as backup.

The person who shot him was a parishioner as well and, I believe, an unpaid volunteer.

Drythe · ‎07-09-2011

@occasionalrain

”If those attending the London Club had been armed there would have been fewer casualties.” ???

Those attending should have been armed

in a darkened, crowded pub

with alcohol being served -

So they could defend themselves “take out”

other (unknown to them) people

in the crowd who were

Also armed with “illegal weapons”

That thought Simply does Not fill me with thoughts of fewer deaths.

"Animals are not my whole world, but they have made my world whole" ~ Roger Caras

DJP · ‎03-09-2010

None of this surprises me when we have an open door policy worldwide.

esmerelda · ‎03-10-2010

@Anonymous032819 wrote:
@occasionalrain wrote:
@Porcelain The point is that a gun is an obvious threat that a person can defend against, a concealed bomb, like in the Oklahoma bombing, gives no warning so no chance for a defense.

That shooting in the London club was accomplished by people with illegal weapons. Had those attending been armed, they could have defended themselves and there would have been fewer deaths.

Recently, an armed gunman entered a church, could have been Texas, only the gunman was shot because parishioners were armed and took him out.

An average sized unarmed woman has little, to no, chance against an average sized unarmed man.

The parishioners (as in plural, as in, more than one) did not take him out.

It was ONE man that shot and killed the gunman.

ONE.

He was the church security officer.

The church had appointed him to provide security.

@Anonymous032819 What is your point?

*********************
Keepin' it real.

occasionalrain · ‎03-10-2010

@Drythe Those shooters in the London club were easily identified since they had assault weapons while the club attendees were running and screaming. Telling the difference wouldn't be a challenge.

Everyone would be strangers to police as well but seems they are expected to sort them out.