Unfortunately that's how it is otherwise the headlines will be police stop attack from happening. The best intelligence can't prevent everything from happening. Terror attacks rely on the surprise element to inflict the most damage.
What word is missing from all the stories on this incident? Even though he clearly states his racial/political motives, he's a "maniac" not a terrorist. As @jjstraka34 said above, the Westminster killer was labeled a terrorist long before anyone knew anything about his motive or connections.
Two non-sequiters: It's not often you see a spatha used as a murder weapon.
He received a number of medals, including the Good Conduct Medal and Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, an Armed Forces spokeswoman said. He served in Afghanistan between December 2010 and November 2011, officials said.
Do your research, Mr. Parascandola. Those are participation medals, everyone who shows up and doesn't screw up gets one.
Unfortunately that's how it is otherwise the headlines will be police stop attack from happening. The best intelligence can't prevent everything from happening. Terror attacks rely on the surprise element to inflict the most damage.
Regrettably society has generally only been able to be reactive rather then focus on underlying causes for these terrorist attacks.
Unfortunately that's how it is otherwise the headlines will be police stop attack from happening. The best intelligence can't prevent everything from happening. Terror attacks rely on the surprise element to inflict the most damage.
Which is precisely WHY the right to bear arms is so important. The government cannot protect everyone.
"Man arrested trying to drive into crowd in Belgium's Antwerp"
When will people wake up and realize that cars are so easy to kill with? Any 16 year old can get their hands on these death machines.
Unfortunately that's how it is otherwise the headlines will be police stop attack from happening. The best intelligence can't prevent everything from happening. Terror attacks rely on the surprise element to inflict the most damage.
Which is precisely WHY the right to bear arms is so important. The government cannot protect everyone.
"Man arrested trying to drive into crowd in Belgium's Antwerp"
When will people wake up and realize that cars are so easy to kill with? Any 16 year old can get their hands on these death machines.
Because of what happened in London other countries have a heightened security presence as a precaution it's protocol, if London didn't happen I'm sure it'll be a different headline. Arming everyone with guns isn't the solution.
Once again, making guns more readily available "for defense" or whatever also makes them more readily available for criminals. Increasing the number of guns in circulation ultimately makes society less safe.
Once again, making guns more readily available "for defense" or whatever also makes them more readily available for criminals. Increasing the number of guns in circulation ultimately makes society less safe.
Not really. There always have been and always will be ways to circumvent the law. Decreasing the lawful number simply causes a gap that alternative markets will fill. You would end up with same situation we had with prohibition and later with the war on drugs. All it will do is take guns away from already law abiding people.
@ThacoBell Yes, really. A gun that costs $400 in US black market costs $15 000 in Australia. Why? Stricter gun laws. In which country do you think a random criminal is more likely to carry a gun?
@ThacoBell Yes, really. A gun that costs $400 in US black market costs $15 000 in Australia. Why? Stricter gun laws. In which country do you think a random criminal is more likely to carry a gun?
The US's history of attempted bans speaks for itself.
@ThacoBell Yes, really. A gun that costs $400 in US black market costs $15 000 in Australia. Why? Stricter gun laws. In which country do you think a random criminal is more likely to carry a gun?
The US's history of attempted bans speaks for itself.
You don't have to worry, there has never been any serious attempt to ban guns in this country, nor will there ever will be.
@ThacoBell Yes, really. A gun that costs $400 in US black market costs $15 000 in Australia. Why? Stricter gun laws. In which country do you think a random criminal is more likely to carry a gun?
The US's history of attempted bans speaks for itself.
You don't have to worry, there has never been any serious attempt to ban guns in this country, nor will there ever will be.
What we need is a serious effort at gun safety education. As has been said before in this thread, we liscense people to drive cars. There is no good reason why we shouldn't do the same for gun ownership.
@ThacoBell Yes, really. A gun that costs $400 in US black market costs $15 000 in Australia. Why? Stricter gun laws. In which country do you think a random criminal is more likely to carry a gun?
The US's history of attempted bans speaks for itself.
Obviously the bans in the US have not gone anywhere near far enough. Having one state limit guns a tiny little bit while it's bordered by four other states with no gun regulations isn't going to work.
But hey Australia said enough with the damn guns after a mass shooting and they are just fine.
This whole thing of "I need a gun for defense" is ridiculous. As mentioned earlier once you remove rampant guns from society, police can do their jobs with sprays in the UK. Hard to imagine police armed only with a can of mace in the USA. Here they feel the need for bullet proof vest, tanks, and every other thing. You anti-government (er personal liberty) types should be against guns because it's led to an excuse for the militarization of our police.
There is no such thing as "safe", at least not completely. Any nutjob who wants to kill can do so with virtually any object--gun, knife, sword, bat, chain, pipe, stick, fork, pen, set of keys, a candy cane which has been broken into a sharp point, a credit card that you tore in half, etc.
Guns exist; the sooner everyone accepts this reality the easier they will be able to deal with it. Even if someone comes along and outlaws all guns or goes so far as to confiscate them all, then guns will still exist--a few of them will have been missed, someone else can make a gun with access to the correct tools, etc. Putting guns into the hands of more people can lead to increased violence, yes, but if you research the actual Old West and ignore all those crappy movies and TV shows which have been produced over the decades you will find that "gunfights in the street" were actually very rare. This rarity is what made them stand out so much (well, that and the propensity of journalists at the time to embellish stories for the sake of selling papers via sensationalism).
Although the base purpose of a gun is to kill things, they are more often used for sport or hunting. Only those who kill others are misusing their guns just like people who drink and drive are misusing their cars.
The police are not there to protect you. Rather, the police are there to respond either while a crime is occuring or after a crime has already occurred, in which case the role of police becomes "investigate the crime and apprehend the person who committed it". Most criminals, whether armed with a gun or not, are gamblers by nature: they are betting that they can get away with their crime before the police show up.
Violent crime statistics have been going down in the United States in recent years even though the murder rate in Chicago has been going up this year (and has been rising for the last three years, despite having some of the strictest gun laws in the nation).
Finally, FBI crime statistics show that if you are killed the number one suspect will be someone in your same age range and ethnic demographic--the number one killer of young black men is "other young black men". If, however, you are concerned about police-related killings then you may visit the killedbypolice.net site. They offer no spin or analysis, only the facts via the news links.
@smeagolheart I'm not simply referring to gun bans. Look at prohibition, look at the war on drugs. They failed spectacularly. Attempting to do the same our right to bear arms will result in the same failure (probably with far more deaths on both sides).
There is no such thing as "safe", at least not completely. Any nutjob who wants to kill can do so with virtually any object--gun, knife, sword, bat, chain, pipe, stick, fork, pen, set of keys, a candy cane which has been broken into a sharp point, a credit card that you tore in half, etc.
Guns exist; the sooner everyone accepts this reality the easier they will be able to deal with it. Even if someone comes along and outlaws all guns or goes so far as to confiscate them all, then guns will still exist--a few of them will have been missed, someone else can make a gun with access to the correct tools, etc. Putting guns into the hands of more people can lead to increased violence, yes, but if you research the actual Old West and ignore all those crappy movies and TV shows which have been produced over the decades you will find that "gunfights in the street" were actually very rare. This rarity is what made them stand out so much (well, that and the propensity of journalists at the time to embellish stories for the sake of selling papers via sensationalism).
Although the base purpose of a gun is to kill things, they are more often used for sport or hunting. Only those who kill others are misusing their guns just like people who drink and drive are misusing their cars.
The police are not there to protect you. Rather, the police are there to respond either while a crime is occuring or after a crime has already occurred, in which case the role of police becomes "investigate the crime and apprehend the person who committed it". Most criminals, whether armed with a gun or not, are gamblers by nature: they are betting that they can get away with their crime before the police show up.
Violent crime statistics have been going down in the United States in recent years even though the murder rate in Chicago has been going up this year (and has been rising for the last three years, despite having some of the strictest gun laws in the nation).
Finally, FBI crime statistics show that if you are killed the number one suspect will be someone in your same age range and ethnic demographic--the number one killer of young black men is "other young black men". If, however, you are concerned about police-related killings then you may visit the killedbypolice.net site. They offer no spin or analysis, only the facts via the news links.
I absolutely agree with the point of police not being able to "protect" you. 99/100, a cop is not going to be around the block when you are mugged or robbed or assaulted. What they do is almost entirely in response to crimes after they've already taken place.
I agree war on drugs has been a flop. I agree there would be significant push back to ban guns in the US especially from the government hating liberty militia groups (but not only them of course but they are likely the most dangerous.). I still think it's the right thing to do. Just because it's hard doesn't mean we should give up. Australia could do it, are we going to let Australia punk us like that?
Are guns used primarily for sport or hunting? I don't know if that is true or not. How do you compare one guy who hunts and has no problem. Then you have a problem one day and Dick Cheney shoots you. Or compare the responsible gun owner to the people that shoot themselves or their spouse or their kids. Or they leave guns around and their kids have accidents. What's the reality?
Suicide by gun is a major use as well. Would those people suicide themselves if they didn't have guns? Maybe, maybe not but for sure it is really easy to make a permanent end to a temporary problem with a gun.
House vote on ACA repeal postponed. So the great dealmaker, the closer, the businessman who gets shit done, can't even sell his own party with a massive majority to push his first major bill through the House?? When is everyone going to realize his entire persona is a fraud??
By the way, Nancy Pelosi NEVER lost a major vote like this as Speaker. Democrats suck at winning elections, but Republicans suck at governing.
I guess the House GOP wasn't sufficiently threatened (or bought off with changes?). Donald told them he would come for them and they'd lose seats and fear and terror if they didn't vote for the repeal.
I guess they weren't cowed by Donald perhaps they realize their districts are so gerrymandered they have nothing to fear from voters or Donald Trump.
Khalid Masood named as Birmingham terrorist behind London attack The man believed to be responsible for yesterday’s terror atrocity in Westminster has been named as Khalid Masood.
Masood is believed to have worked as an English teacher and to also have been a bodybuilder, according to reports.
It is not known if he was currently employed as a teacher as he had previous convictions for assault and possessing offensive weapons, including possession of a knife. But the Muslim convert did not have any convictions for terror offences.
The married father-of-three, who was originally from Kent before moving to the West Midlands, was not subject to any ongoing terror investigation.
Passed by the Federal Communications Commission under president Obama, the privacy rules require internet providers like Comcast and AT&T to first get your permission before they can sell your private information like browsing history and location data.
“This was a short-sighted decision that puts American consumers at risk of increased identity theft, data breach, and financial fraud.”
"Are guns used primarily for sport or hunting? I don't know if that is true or not. How do you compare one guy who hunts and has no problem. Then you have a problem one day and Dick Cheney shoots you. Or compare the responsible gun owner to the people that shoot themselves or their spouse or their kids. Or they leave guns around and their kids have accidents. What's the reality?" The reality is that people aren't required to be responsible about them. Some education and a practical test could fix a lot of problems. Wanting to ban all guns on the grounds that some people will inevitable hurt themselves is rather weak. We may as well ban steak because your neighbors new toddler cant handle it.
Government has been attacking the freedom of the internet many times, I remember when the internet was in uproar before as well.
An Internet Giveaway to the U.N. When the Obama administration announced its plan to give up U.S. protection of the internet, it promised the United Nations would never take control. But because of the administration’s naiveté or arrogance, U.N. control is the likely result if the U.S. gives up internet stewardship as planned at midnight on Sept. 30. -https://www.wsj.com/articles/an-internet-giveaway-to-the-u-n-1472421165
It seema increasingly clear that the information Devin Nunes claimed he was presented with, and failed to share with the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committe, in yet another unprecedented breach of government norms, likely came from the White House itself, and his trip there was nothing but a dog and pony show for the press.
You want to know why, even more than the mountains of continuing circumstantial evidence, that I believe there is a huge there there with Russia?? Because whenever presented with the subject, everyone in Trump's orbit immediately acts as transparently guilty as humanly possible.
Germany: 3 teenagers convicted in bomb attack on Sikh temple A German court convicted three 17-year-olds on Tuesday of participating last year in a bomb attack on a Sikh temple that was motivated by hatred of other religions. They were given prison sentences ranging between six and seven years.
Some education and a practical test could fix a lot of problems. Wanting to ban all guns on the grounds that some people will inevitable hurt themselves is rather weak. We may as well ban steak because your neighbors new toddler cant handle it.
Steak isn't a weapon.
And people can seem responsible for a time but you can't see their responsibility into the future after they already have the gun. People thought Dick Cheney was a hell of a responsible guy, vice president and all, then he shot a guy while hunting. But a greater problem is divorce, sickness, debt, and life changing events. "Temporary insanity" can cause people to do things they normally wouldn't. When that day comes it's better your guy is armed with a knife than a gun. A gun makes it so easy, just a simple squeeze of the trigger you don't even have to look at your victim in the eyes. Then a temporary problem that you could probably sleep off and reconsider is permanently fixed.
Some education and control? Interesting. Well going back to the cars metaphor I'd like to see licensing and insurance then on guns. Want a gun? Get a license, take tests, pay fees, register with the government. And then maintain insurance to pay for potential damage you do to property or people.
Comments
What word is missing from all the stories on this incident? Even though he clearly states his racial/political motives, he's a "maniac" not a terrorist. As @jjstraka34 said above, the Westminster killer was labeled a terrorist long before anyone knew anything about his motive or connections.
Two non-sequiters:
It's not often you see a spatha used as a murder weapon.
Do your research, Mr. Parascandola. Those are participation medals, everyone who shows up and doesn't screw up gets one.
http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/article/23/03/2017/Man-arrested-trying-to-drive-into-crowd-in-Belgium-s-Antwerp
"Man arrested trying to drive into crowd in Belgium's Antwerp"
When will people wake up and realize that cars are so easy to kill with? Any 16 year old can get their hands on these death machines.
But hey Australia said enough with the damn guns after a mass shooting and they are just fine.
This whole thing of "I need a gun for defense" is ridiculous. As mentioned earlier once you remove rampant guns from society, police can do their jobs with sprays in the UK. Hard to imagine police armed only with a can of mace in the USA. Here they feel the need for bullet proof vest, tanks, and every other thing. You anti-government (er personal liberty) types should be against guns because it's led to an excuse for the militarization of our police.
Guns exist; the sooner everyone accepts this reality the easier they will be able to deal with it. Even if someone comes along and outlaws all guns or goes so far as to confiscate them all, then guns will still exist--a few of them will have been missed, someone else can make a gun with access to the correct tools, etc. Putting guns into the hands of more people can lead to increased violence, yes, but if you research the actual Old West and ignore all those crappy movies and TV shows which have been produced over the decades you will find that "gunfights in the street" were actually very rare. This rarity is what made them stand out so much (well, that and the propensity of journalists at the time to embellish stories for the sake of selling papers via sensationalism).
Although the base purpose of a gun is to kill things, they are more often used for sport or hunting. Only those who kill others are misusing their guns just like people who drink and drive are misusing their cars.
The police are not there to protect you. Rather, the police are there to respond either while a crime is occuring or after a crime has already occurred, in which case the role of police becomes "investigate the crime and apprehend the person who committed it". Most criminals, whether armed with a gun or not, are gamblers by nature: they are betting that they can get away with their crime before the police show up.
Violent crime statistics have been going down in the United States in recent years even though the murder rate in Chicago has been going up this year (and has been rising for the last three years, despite having some of the strictest gun laws in the nation).
Finally, FBI crime statistics show that if you are killed the number one suspect will be someone in your same age range and ethnic demographic--the number one killer of young black men is "other young black men". If, however, you are concerned about police-related killings then you may visit the killedbypolice.net site. They offer no spin or analysis, only the facts via the news links.
Are guns used primarily for sport or hunting? I don't know if that is true or not. How do you compare one guy who hunts and has no problem. Then you have a problem one day and Dick Cheney shoots you. Or compare the responsible gun owner to the people that shoot themselves or their spouse or their kids. Or they leave guns around and their kids have accidents. What's the reality?
Suicide by gun is a major use as well. Would those people suicide themselves if they didn't have guns? Maybe, maybe not but for sure it is really easy to make a permanent end to a temporary problem with a gun.
By the way, Nancy Pelosi NEVER lost a major vote like this as Speaker. Democrats suck at winning elections, but Republicans suck at governing.
I guess they weren't cowed by Donald perhaps they realize their districts are so gerrymandered they have nothing to fear from voters or Donald Trump.
The man believed to be responsible for yesterday’s terror atrocity in Westminster has been named as Khalid Masood.
Masood is believed to have worked as an English teacher and to also have been a bodybuilder, according to reports.
It is not known if he was currently employed as a teacher as he had previous convictions for assault and possessing offensive weapons, including possession of a knife. But the Muslim convert did not have any convictions for terror offences.
The married father-of-three, who was originally from Kent before moving to the West Midlands, was not subject to any ongoing terror investigation.
Masood had a range of convictions spanning 20 years, but had never previously been charged with any terrorism offences.
-https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2017/mar/23/westminster-attack-parliament-resumes-tributes-keith-palmer-live
Explosions were also heard today in Westminster after police found a 'suspicious package', must be sweeping the area for bombs.
Passed by the Federal Communications Commission under president Obama, the privacy rules require internet providers like Comcast and AT&T to first get your permission before they can sell your private information like browsing history and location data.
“This was a short-sighted decision that puts American consumers at risk of increased identity theft, data breach, and financial fraud.”
https://www.buzzfeed.com/hamzashaban/the-republican-controlled-senate-votes-to-strip-internet
The reality is that people aren't required to be responsible about them. Some education and a practical test could fix a lot of problems. Wanting to ban all guns on the grounds that some people will inevitable hurt themselves is rather weak. We may as well ban steak because your neighbors new toddler cant handle it.
An Internet Giveaway to the U.N.
When the Obama administration announced its plan to give up U.S. protection of the internet, it promised the United Nations would never take control. But because of the administration’s naiveté or arrogance, U.N. control is the likely result if the U.S. gives up internet stewardship as planned at midnight on Sept. 30.
-https://www.wsj.com/articles/an-internet-giveaway-to-the-u-n-1472421165
You want to know why, even more than the mountains of continuing circumstantial evidence, that I believe there is a huge there there with Russia?? Because whenever presented with the subject, everyone in Trump's orbit immediately acts as transparently guilty as humanly possible.
A German court convicted three 17-year-olds on Tuesday of participating last year in a bomb attack on a Sikh temple that was motivated by hatred of other religions. They were given prison sentences ranging between six and seven years.
The boys had been radicalized for some time before the April 16 attack in the western city of Essen and had been in contact with ultraconservative Muslims known as Salafists, the Essen state court said.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/germany-teenagers-convicted-bomb-attack-sikh-temple-46271623
It's unfortunate that ancient enmity still persists today.
And people can seem responsible for a time but you can't see their responsibility into the future after they already have the gun. People thought Dick Cheney was a hell of a responsible guy, vice president and all, then he shot a guy while hunting. But a greater problem is divorce, sickness, debt, and life changing events. "Temporary insanity" can cause people to do things they normally wouldn't. When that day comes it's better your guy is armed with a knife than a gun. A gun makes it so easy, just a simple squeeze of the trigger you don't even have to look at your victim in the eyes. Then a temporary problem that you could probably sleep off and reconsider is permanently fixed.
Some education and control? Interesting. Well going back to the cars metaphor I'd like to see licensing and insurance then on guns. Want a gun? Get a license, take tests, pay fees, register with the government. And then maintain insurance to pay for potential damage you do to property or people.