London’s murder count surpasses New York’s on jump in knife violence

[ramus]

The New York Post
London’s murder count surpasses New York’s on jump in knife violence

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/londons-murder-count-surpasses-new-yorks-on-jump-in-knife-violence-2018-04-02

Published: Apr 2, 2018 2:05 p.m. ET

Using the same logic as gun control in the U.S., it appears London should out law knives, or register them upon purchase, and a background check . Because we know that the knives are doing the killing not the people. London band guns in 1997 how's that working?

Hint: people kill with whatever they can get there hands on.

( I couldn't resist ) hope i don't get demerit points for this.....

By
Lia
Eustachewich

Londoners are alarmed that their city has seen more murders over the past two months than New York City — as police across the pond deal with a surge in knife crime, according to reports.

In February and March, 37 people were killed in London, compared to 35 in the Big Apple, according to the Sunday Times.

Now local pols are even looking to New York’s Finest for crime-fighting inspiration.

Read: This U.S. city ranks No. 1 for quality of life

“New York has been able to bring down serious violence through a public health approach,” Croydon Central MP Sarah Jones, who chairs a parliamentary committee on knife crime, told the BBC.

“We need a proper strategy that looks at all of the issues.”

The Metropolitan Police has investigated 44 murders so far this year, 31 of which were the result of stabbings. Eight murders occurred between March 14 and March 20 alone.

The total number of murders — even excluding victims of terrorism — in London has skyrocketed by 38 percent since 2014.

“London’s violent traits have become a virus,” former Metropolitan Police Superintendent Leroy Logan told BBC News.

New York City and London are similar in population size. The UK banned handguns in 1997.

In January, London fared a bit better, recording just eight killings — 10 fewer than New York.

London City Hall said it’s “deeply concerned” about the spike in knife crime, but insisted the capital “remains one of the safest [cities] in the world.”

A version of this report appears on NYPost.com.

[pyrangello]

More people die in the US from chemicals under their sink then by guns, With 300 + million guns in this country and maybe a lot more, you'd think we would have mass killings everyday but the majority are law abiding gun owners, our problem here in the states are the psychotropic drugs, I wonder how many of the knife incidents involve people on these drugs?? And yes Ramus, people will do whatever is needed to complete their evil deed.

[Cidersomerset]

I did see this yesterday and at first thought it may have been some
sort of sick April fools prank , but it is real....


http://static.bbci.co.uk/frameworks/barlesque/3.22.39/orb/4/img/bbc-blocks-dark.png

London murder rate overtakes New York's

1/4/18

A spike in violent crime in London saw more murders committed in the
city in February and March than there were in New York, figures show.

So far in 2018, the Met Police has investigated 46 murders, compared
with 50 in the US city.

But, while New York's murder rate decreased from the end of January,
London's rose markedly from that point.Ex-Met Police Ch Supt Leroy
Logan says it is proof that "London's violent traits have become a virus".

Statistics from the New York Police Department (NYPD) and the Metropolitan
Police, reported in the Sunday Times and obtained by the BBC, highlight
narrowing murder rates between the two cities, which have similar population sizes

read more....

https://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/16549/production/_100656419_chart-londonvsnewyorkcitymurderrate2018-rnwao-nc.png
◾In January, the Met investigated eight murders whereas the NYPD looked into 18 killings
◾By February, the NYPD's figures had dropped to 11, while London's rose to 15
◾In March, 22 murders were investigated in London while 21 inquiries were launched in New York
The Met said it was "concerned at the increase in murders in London".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-43610936

=================================================================


http://static.bbci.co.uk/frameworks/barlesque/3.22.39/orb/4/img/bbc-blocks-dark.png

Met Police chief: Social media leads children to violence
31 March 2018

https://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/7DF4/production/_99744223_2chart-rise_knife_crime-nebjt-nc.png

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43603080

[DeDukshyn]

 
Rather than making all these new laws to ban instruments of murder, let's just make murder illegal? Such a perfect and simple solution that surely will get rid of murder. After all, no one ever breaks the law, right? After that we can make black market selling of guns illegal, just to make sure no one has any access. That should work, right?

The real reality is this: Hurt people, hurt people. You'll never reduce murder and "terrorism" until you address this -- it matters not what your laws are.

[Ernie Nemeth]

Dubious claim to fame, sadly.

I suspect that there is a lot less reporting of crime in general now that London in particular has a two-tiered system of justice - the Admiralty law of the west and the Sharia law of the middle east.

[Cidersomerset]

More people die in the US from chemicals under their sink then by guns,

That's a good point and I did a post on it , out of the hundreds of thousands
of people who die each day for all reasons gun crime was not in the top 10
and is probably well down the list. I am not defending gun violence at all just
saying it should be put in context.

This is a worrying one the mainstream put it down to more people living longer
or pollution. I think chemtrails spraying metals in the skies may have something
to do with it as well


Deaths due to dementias more than doubled between 2000 and 2015,
making it the 7th leading cause of global deaths in 2015.


WHO ( World Health Organisation )

WHO updates fact sheet on Top 10 causes of Death (27 January 2017)

Posted on February 1, 2017

The World Health Organization (WHO) has updated its fact sheet
on the Top 10 causes of death worldwide.In addition to providing
the leading causes of death in 2015, it lists the top causes of death
by income category as well. To facilitate comparison, the top 10
causes of death in 2000 are also provided.

http://www.who.int/gho/mortality_burden_disease/causes_death/top_10/en/

https://communitymedicine4asses.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/who-top-10-causes-of-death-worldwide-in-2015.png

read more...https://communitymedicine4asses.wordpress.com/2017/02/01/who-updates-fact-sheet-on-top-10-causes-of-death-27-january-2017/

[ramus]

It is amazing how the media can main stream a topic , guns, alternative life styles , political agendas, and the steeple follow right along. I use to think that the public was asleep but it looks more like they're hypnotized ..... T.V.'s flicker rate, or cadence, that everyone marches to seems to be the vehicle of choice. Maybe we should outlaw it or at lease regulate it, subliminal suggestion is legal why? Psychotropic drugs also need a hard look.

[Cardillac]

@DeDukshyn and all-

a few yrs. ago I was in Dublin and our tour guide (I really enjoy the Irish sense of humor) stated (circumstances behind following too much for an Email):

(following has thick Irish accent and I love it)

"Everyt'ing is legal until you get CAUGHT!"

Larry :-)

[TargeT]

I know you crazy brits love your knives and all, BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

ban all pointythings!

(kinda makes the "gun control" issue a non-issue eh?)

[Cidersomerset]

I know you crazy brits love your knives and all, BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
ban all pointythings!
(kinda makes the "gun control" issue a non-issue eh?)


It a long term communist plot .....First Chinese Take away's....

https://image.dhgate.com/0x0/f2/albu/g4/M00/F6/89/rBVaEVfM37mAVQL4AAFr5KIObgk751.jpg


Still dangerous though we will be back to our fingers next...

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Health/wabc_chopstick_ax3_100105_ssh.jpg


Jackie Chan Funny Chopstick Fight!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNzxc1F3010

[TargeT]

It a long term communist plot .....

It really is.... the 10 planks of communism (http://laissez-fairerepublic.com/tenplanks.html) are a very interesting study in the light of today's society in "the land of the free".....

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Health/wabc_chopstick_ax3_100105_ssh.jpg


OMFG... that's probably not good for future cognitive growth... parents nightmare.

[Mike]

Well it's not that simple of course. Guns are much more effective for mass killings. Think about it..

- Unless you're a ninja, you can't walk into a movie theatre and spray the audience with a whole bunch of knives and hope to really kill anybody.

- You can't go into a school and spray a bunch of knives into a cafeteria and kill a large number of kids.

- You can't throw a few knives into a crowd from a Las Vegas balcony and kill a bunch of people.

In each of these hypothetical scenario's, you may harm or kill a couple people..but you can kill so many more with an automatic weapon.

It's these mass shootings that has everyone in an uproar. Not mass stabbings, mass shootings.:) It's infinitely easier to kill a bunch of people with an automatic weapon than it is with a few knives, okay. I mean, c'mon man!

I don't have any dog in this gun fight really (no pun intended). Guns make me uncomfortable; I don't trust the average person who carries one around, but I think I trust my government less. These mass shootings have 'problem-reaction-solution' written all over them, so I don't let them get me all emotional these days. These are manufactured scenarios designed to polarize, scare, and likely disarm citizens. I get that. But you can't compare guns and knives when it comes to economy of killing. It's just silly.

It's real simple - ask yourself this: If your goal was to kill as many people in a crowd as possible, would you bring an automatic weapon or a pocketful of knives?

[TargeT]

It's real simple - ask yourself this: If your goal was to kill as many people in a crowd as possible, would you bring an automatic weapon or a pocketful of knives?

I'll just say this.

Some things are impossible to explain until experienced. During my training I was taught that anything closer than 30 feet (10 meters) is a problem, the speed a human can close that distance and ease of bladed weapons in setting of pure victims (non combatants, zero resistance) is mind boggling (https://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/25/world/japan-knife-attack-deaths/index.html).

I don't know that your example is the best, guns aren't magic wands that hit anything you point at... but it sure is hard to miss with a knife; and the average citizen of the majority of the western world is woefully unprepared for a situation like that (gun or knife).... well unless your in texas or alaska ;)


also, automatic weapons are already basically illegal, I don't think gun control is working (re: vegas)

[Mike]

I think I get what you're saying there, TargeT (and I'm glad your internet is up and running again:thumbsup:)

No doubt you have way more experience than me in this type of stuff. I've heard it said many times that firing a gun "is not like the movies", where no one ever misses. I don't doubt it.

I certainly can imagine a scenario where a gun owner - who may practice firing now n again but has never fired at an attacker in a live situation - might actually be at a disadvantage against someone wielding a big blade in close quarters.

But in a situation where there's a large crowd of people, and your goal isn't to kill any specific person really, but a bunch of people..spraying bullets in their direction would seem to be the way to go. It's much faster than, say, running around and attempting to stab a bunch of people. The people would have time to react, and flee a man with a knife. The guy with the knife, no matter how skilled, would still have to track people down one at a time, whereas a gunman could spray bullets indiscriminately...and do it from a safe distance so as to avoid being stopped. Also, it would be much easier for a crowd to converge on a man with a knife than a man with a firing gun.

[Desire]

Cider,
I'm curious. Is there a breakdown of how many Englishman virus middle eastern immigrants using knives? Or maybe authorities don't want the answer to that. I'm very curious

[DeDukshyn]

The guy with the knife, no matter how skilled, would still have to track people down one at a time, whereas a gunman could spray bullets indiscriminately...and do it from a safe distance so as to avoid being stopped. Also, it would be much easier for a crowd to converge on a man with a knife than a man with a firing gun.

So you are saying, if you use a knife, you need to really pick and choose your targets, but with a gun, you can be more random. Therefore guns win? Your previous point was that guns are more dangerous because they can kill more, yet the premise of this thread is that knives have killed more.

But I do see where you are coming from - it is probably easier to stand at a distance and pull a trigger than to push a blade through the skin of someone, but I've never done either, so I'm guessing.

Assault rifle sales may need far better vetting of purchasers (and there is the question of why people need to own one, outside of collectors), but at the end of the day, if I want to kill 10 random people, I can still get my assault rifle on the black market - where there's no cool off period or background checks.

Again, we need to look at why people are driven to kill others, and mitigate that scenario. The problem is no one wants to really look there.

[Cidersomerset]

Cider,
I'm curious. Is there a breakdown of how many Englishman virus middle eastern immigrants
using knives? Or maybe authorities don't want the answer to that. I'm very curious

Most serious violence is mainly in the big cities and larger towns either gang or
crime related,youth friction or domestic as with most countries. There is a rise
and fall in knife crime every decadeor so. Ethnic diversity in London is huge
and probably has something to do to it as in the US but I cannot find a chart...

====================================================
====================================================

INDEPENDENT...

Ethnic minorities most likely to be both victims and suspects of crime, UK race report finds

Black, Asian and mixed-raced people more than one and a half times more likely to
be arrested than white people – and considerably more likely to be victims of crime,
race audit reveals
May Bulman Social Affairs Correspondent |@maybulman |
Tuesday 10 October 2017

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ethnic-minorities-crime-victims-perpetrators-uk-race-report-a7993521.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GOV UK

National Statistics

Race and the criminal justice system 2016
This report compiles statistics from data sources across the Criminal Justice System
(CJS), to provide a combined perspective on the typical experiences of different
ethnic groups in England and Wales, 2016.

read more...https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/race-and-the-criminal-justice-system-2016

[DeDukshyn]

...

Ethnic minorities most likely to be both victims and suspects of crime, UK race report finds

Black, Asian and mixed-raced people more than one and a half times more likely to be
arrested than white people – and considerably more likely to be victims of crime, race
audit reveals
May Bulman Social Affairs Correspondent |@maybulman |
Tuesday 10 October 2017

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ethnic-minorities-crime-victims-perpetrators-uk-race-report-a7993521.html


I wonder if the answer to that would be anything like answering the question of muslim terrorists vs white people/westerners. I checked into the stats and actually of all terrorist related deaths in the world, about +90% of the victims are other muslims - not westerners or whites. It amazes me the way our media can make us plain assume certain things that often are not only untrue, but the opposite of reality.

Take the gun violence thing for example. Violent crime in general, while on a slight rise recently, is still waaaay down (like 50-70% down) from where it was in the early nineties, but who would know? Our media paints an entirely different picture, and while we might argue about the details of the picture, very few actually question the picture itself ... so here we are arguing about how bad gun and knife violence is instead of celebrating this vast reduction in violent crime. Why? Because our media makes us do it (hypnosis?), because we don't question the picture.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/191223/reported-murder-and-nonnegligent-manslaughter-rate-in-the-us-since-1990/

[ramus]

Here in the U.S. the only way to have gun control is to confiscate the 300 million + guns already out in private hands. I Never see that happening. I would say that most of that 300 million guns are unregistered. So that would be door to door searches to find them, think about compliance by authorities in different states, how divisive that would be. London outlawed guns in 1997, murder rate went up with knives. People murder people lets ban people.

[Cidersomerset]

I wonder if the answer to that would be anything like answering the question of muslim terrorists
vs white people/westerners. I checked into the stats and actually of all terrorist related deaths in the world,
about +90% of the victims are other muslims - not westerners or whites. It amazes me the way our media
can make us plain assume certain things that often are not only untrue, but the opposite of reality.

Also 99% of muslims are peacefull the main theological dispute is between the two main sects led
by Saudi and Iran which goes back centuries, Israel/Palestine has complicated things. Afghanistan has
always been a difficult place to run centrally with all its tribal groups. Pakistan and Turkey two muslim
countries with internal and external flash points and there are others with various degrees of wars/violence
going on. The same has gone on in the west with Catholic and protestant sects since the 15th century
With Martin Luther in Germany , Henry V111 in England and the Huguenots in France and elsewhere
culminating in the 30 years war.

Most recently was the crazy conflict in Northern Ireland which had flared up off and on since the 15th century.
The province of Northern Ireland, as recorded by the UK Census 2011, has a population of 1,810,863..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Northern_Ireland and for over 30 years there were bombing,
shooting almost daily between white anglo/Saxon/celts a tiny spot on the world map that did spill into
Eire and the UK mainland but on the news everynight.....

Where am I going with this ? ...... Small controlled conflicts play into the NWO plan after WW11 of limited
wars designed to keep fear going ,keep the mil ind budgets up without going global now nuclear weapons
assured mutual destruction . So the manipulation of genuine conflicts and engineering them has been
part of this control meme. Which is why the media does not put the full context and connect the dots
which would lead to much of this being connected understood and put under the spotlight to expose
the various deepstates and hidden hands that run the world and crush them imo...

All that from London overtaking NY in violent crime.....:confused:

[Mike]

Hi Duk, it's like the old saying goes, don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

All I'm saying is, you can't really compare the 2. Apple's and oranges.

While it's true that "people kill people", as gun enthusiasts are so fond of saying, it's guns that make these mass shootings possible. Key word being *mass*.

It's a very complex topic, very layered, and I don't have the time (or desire) to unravel every aspect of it. To be clear: I'm not one of these people who think the public should be disarmed. You wouldn't catch me at an anti gun rally, for example (although I do seriously question the wisdom of any citizen owning a semi automatic weapon).

Honestly, the clamor from gun enthusiasts feels like zealotry to me. See, this is where the dissonance comes in for me, because I do believe an armed citizenship may be the only deterrant against government tyranny (though I do question any chance we might have in such a situation, guns or no guns), but I don't think the average gun owner is even thinking along those lines. Generally, their justifications feel very testosterone fueled and comically cowboy'ish to me.

In short, I have mixed feelings. Like I said, I'm not anti-gun. Nor am I enthusiastically pro-gun. There's a thoughtful middle ground that I think gets lost in the shuffle. I can sympathize with some of the gun enthusiasts' arguments, but where they lose me is when they start acting as though guns are no different than knives...stuff like that. People kill people, yes, but you can't completely exonerate the guns....they're what makes these mass killings possible.:)

[DeDukshyn]

... well unless your in texas or alaska ;)



Let's take this a step further ... Maybe what we need is to train everyone in firearm and knife combat. This is a serious consideration. Then if one person opens fire on a crowd, we won't have to wait 15 minutes fro the police to arrive and try to assess a situation with a bunch of screaming and running out of control babies distracting the police from trying to find the cuplrit, because the shooter will be taken out in about 15 seconds and potentially scores of people's lives will be saved. Does Alaska and Texas have the most violence just because most people in those states are trained / experienced with weapons and personal survival ... I'd say no. So maybe this approach is worth considering as the solution - how counter-intuitive, but its worth thinking about.

[TargeT]

Assault rifle sales may need far better vetting of purchasers

a minor (yet MAJOR) point here:

There is no such thing as an "assault rifle"; that is a propaganda term much like Marijuana was/is for Cannabis.





... well unless your in texas or alaska ;)



Let's take this a step further ... Maybe what we need is to train everyone in firearm and knife combat.

Nah, just guns... it takes a set of physical prowess to use a bladed weapon that a 110lb 90 year old woman doesn't have... but she can squeeze a 2lb trigger ;)

I carried a concealed handgun for almost every day of the 13 years I lived in Alaska; most people did... helps keep everyone honest when the power advantage is always in question.


And this entire thread is really about power advantage and "forced victims"... I bet every stabbing in the UK was in some "knife restricted area" (mostly because I understand the entirety of the UK is knife restricted... haha) much like all our shootings happen in "gun free zones".

Like the drug war, we are doing it wrong... Prohibition NEVER works, it doesn't matter what the item being prohibited is.

[DeDukshyn]

Assault rifle sales may need far better vetting of purchasers

a minor (yet MAJOR) point here:

There is no such thing as an "assault rifle"; that is a propaganda term much like Marijuana was/is for Cannabis.

Ahh yes of course, but it is also a generalized term to mean semi or fully automatic rifles. But I agree, media has a purpose for using it specifically.





... well unless your in texas or alaska ;)



Let's take this a step further ... Maybe what we need is to train everyone in firearm and knife combat.

Nah, just guns... it takes a set of physical prowess to use a bladed weapon that a 110lb 90 year old woman doesn't have... but she can squeeze a 2lb trigger ;) ...

I know a few grannies I wouldn't mess with had they a knife :) ... but let's say martial arts based self defense and gun skills is taught in schools, I can only imagine that all violent crimes would actually go down ... I believe that there is this conspiracy called "civilization", where the main goal isn't to make everyone "civilized" but to make everyone complacent for the art of control. Having to follow a strict set of laws gives us the illusion that this "civilization" is protecting us ...

[TargeT]

Assault rifle sales may need far better vetting of purchasers

a minor (yet MAJOR) point here:

There is no such thing as an "assault rifle"; that is a propaganda term much like Marijuana was/is for Cannabis.

Ahh yes of course, but it is also a generalized term to mean semi or fully automatic rifles. But I agree, media has a purpose for using it specifically.

Most un-gun savvy people would probably say this is an assault rifle, eh?
https://www.oxhuntingranch.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/barrett50-570x300.jpg

but it's bolt action, neither semi-automatic nor automatic.

The name just doesn't work well, you might as well say "scary gun"

Which one of these is an "assault rifle":
https://cbsphilly.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/semi-automatic-weapons.jpg

In reality those are basically the same weapon, both semi automatic magazine fed .22ish caliber (~5.5mm), see how poor the "assault" label is? I'm certain it's a "future bomb" so that the wording of legislation will be ambiguous and later courts can make sweeping UK/Australia like changes.


let's say martial arts based self defense and gun skills is taught in schools,

I imagine "PE" (physical exercise in school, as it was called when i attended) would be much more interesting if it was martial arts / self defense related; I can't see how this is a bad idea; but I don't know what it would take to bring something like that on

[Ernie Nemeth]

There is the conscientious objector to consider but it seems like a good idea to me. Except, it does cause a certain mindset or focus that although arguably pragmatic is possibly harmful to certain types like emotionally sensitive personalities, those with borderline neurosis, youth, and others that might react adversely to compulsory training. I learned boxing and wrestling as a kid to age 15, for example.

Of course we are not talking Bruce Lee level martial arts and I would recommend evasive tactics foremost in almost every situation. But simple and sudden debilitating moves should be known by everyone. The kind that the assailant is not likely to get up quick from...

Guns. I shot a '44 Magnum once - surprising how much kickback they have, heavy gun. I emptied the gun, what six rounds?, and missed the coke can each time. I've used a pellet rifle to more deadly effect. The stats show, I think, that more people are shot by their own guns than by a stranger's.

[TargeT]

The stats show, I think, that more people are shot by their own guns than by a stranger's.

If we want to talk numbers, this whole conversation is just a waste of time then, eh?

How about we cross reference these two lists and work on the top 4 matches?
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-YQQzoaD5_ME/WVrEjqgcODI/AAAAAAAAG8o/bUx0_Ju9eJ0H_cS5fQ4C9vNevCbLl0XNgCLcBGAs/s1600/WHO-data-1.png

(yeah, guns aren't even on there, are they?)

[DeDukshyn]

Assault rifle sales may need far better vetting of purchasers

a minor (yet MAJOR) point here:

There is no such thing as an "assault rifle"; that is a propaganda term much like Marijuana was/is for Cannabis.

Ahh yes of course, but it is also a generalized term to mean semi or fully automatic rifles. But I agree, media has a purpose for using it specifically.

Most un-gun savvy people would probably say this is an assault rifle, eh?
https://www.oxhuntingranch.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/barrett50-570x300.jpg

but it's bolt action, neither semi-automatic nor automatic.

The name just doesn't work well, you might as well say "scary gun"

Which one of these is an "assault rifle":
https://cbsphilly.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/semi-automatic-weapons.jpg

In reality those are basically the same weapon, both semi automatic magazine fed .22ish caliber (~5.5mm), see how poor the "assault" label is?

Well if one is trying to determine "assault rifle" by its appearance, then yes, very deceiving ... but is it really about appearance or function? Sniper rifles are very often bolt action, and so are hunting rifles, so I wouldn't classify those as "assault' rifles no matter how they look -- but I totally agree with you point that un gun-savvy people should NOT (<--added the not - it was missing initially) be trying to use terms on a topic they know little about.

I'm personally indifferent to the labels of rifles and know them by calibre and function; I have a little experience and have used various rifles in my younger days, but never anything full auto, nor a proper sniper rifle, but 7mm magnum, 8mm Mauser (yup it was old - ww2 rifle I think), .22, etc. All good fun - used to go target shooting (pun not intended :)) with my dad and a little hunting. Brings back some memories. Fifty years ago in Canada, almost anyone who didn't live in the big city had at least one and usually several rifles but that number is dwindling very rapidly. It should be noted that even though Canada had a high rate of rifles per capita at that time, it still had a low murder rate per capita. I had a chance to shoot an AK-47 when I was quite young, but turned it down as I felt I was a little too young for that stuff (I was probably 12).

I believe long ago there was an automatic weapon made by some company that they termed as an "assault rifle" - more of a marketing term, but I imagine that is where the term came from originally.

¤=[Post Update]=¤


...

Honestly, the clamor from gun enthusiasts feels like zealotry to me. See, this is where the dissonance comes in for me, because I do believe an armed citizenship may be the only deterrant against government tyranny (though I do question any chance we might have in such a situation, guns or no guns), but I don't think the average gun owner is even thinking along those lines. Generally, their justifications feel very testosterone fueled and comically cowboy'ish to me.
...

I wouldn't disagree, but I would have to say that those who fit this description are those I see being portrayed by the "media" ... I don't actually know anyone like this in real life ...

[Star Tsar]

Where I live in London there are MASSIVE problems with knife crime. The London borough of Lambeth. We have next to no police officers "walking the beat" But we do have a brand new multimillion pound "town hall" & residental development.
A sad fact is that both victims & perpetraitors are young black males under the age of 23. Since the turn of the new year there have been @ least 20 fatal stabbings.
As a father of a young male in this age group I'd don't mind sharing with you that my heart is in my mouth EVERYTIME he walks out the door.
A question that is jarred in my head is where the hell is all the council tax money going that is supposed to pay for police & local services that are being cut to ribbons.

:( :( :(

Reminds me of a song from back in the day...

jxyYP_bS_6s

[Ernie Nemeth]

Sorry T, no this conversation is not at all a waste of time.

Let me try again.
You say that this entire conversation is about power advantage over "forced victims". "Forced" anything brings about its own downfall by that thing. I would say that we are already in a "forced" environment and so its downfall is guaranteed.

Most people should never drive a car, imo, let alone carry a gun. To force gun training on everyone causes a change in mindset because it has to be preceded by the official reason for the mandate. I don't want a paranoid citizen pulling their gun because of some sudden loud noise or a jostle on a crowded subway platform.

There are too many variables, too many possibilities of unintended incidents.

Imagine an incident where a gun toting maniac is on the rampage. What is the best tactic for taking them out? Would it be for every adult to pull out their gun and start shooting away until the perp is down? How many innocents would be caught in that barrage, do you think?

So I ask you, you have the experience, what is the best tactic to eliminate the threat as safely as possible?

[DeDukshyn]

Imagine an incident where a gun toting maniac is on the rampage. What is the best tactic for taking them out? Would it be for every adult to pull out their gun and start shooting away until the perp is down? How many innocents would be caught in that barrage, do you think?
...


If I may barge in :) ... I think if people were properly trained in safe firearm usage, that number may not be as high as you think. Would it be better to have say a couple innocent caught in a situation as you describe, or, to no one have the ability to react while the perp picks off his fleeing victims freely? Which to choose?

But I would also like to hear Target's response (didn't mean to answer for him, I just wanted to throw that out there), from a person well trained in gun use. (I assume)

[Mike]

Hey TargeT, actually if we want to talk numbers, the conversation gets even more interesting, according to the statistics.

The causes of death in the US have been pretty consistent over the last 5 years, according to the first article I linked here. They are as follows (these numbers are calculated on an annual basis per 100,000 of estimated population)

1) heart disease: 614, 346
2) cancer: 591,699
3) chronic lower respiratory disease: 147,101
4) accidents: 136,053
5) stroke: 133,033
6) alzheimers: 93,541
7) diabetes: 76,488
8) influenza/ pneumonia: 55,227
9) kidney disease: 48,146
10) suicide: 42,773


According to the article I've posted here (second link), gun deaths in 2015 came in at 36,252. In 2016 the number was a little higher at 38,658.

While these numbers aren't even close to the top 4 or 5 causes of death, they are very close to the last few. So these aren't insignificant numbers. Guns are coming very close to cracking the top 10 list.



https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/282929.php

https://www.thetrace.org/rounds/gun-deaths-increase-2017/

[Cidersomerset]

I am wary of underlying agendas in reporting these 'spikes'
in any topic. Its how these incidents are spun and if this
is leading to something....

http://static.bbci.co.uk/frameworks/barlesque/3.22.39/orb/4/img/bbc-blocks-dark.png

London violence: Seven more hurt in attacks around city

15 minutes ago..6/4/18

Seven more people have been injured in stabbings in
London as the spate of violent crime in the capital continues.

A boy aged 13 was seriously hurt in an attack in Newham,
eastLondon, and another in his late teens suffered stab
wounds in Ealing, west London.Two 15-year-old boys and a
16-year-old were hurt in Mile End and another 15-year-old
was stabbed in Poplar.

A man, in his 40s, was stabbed in Herne Hill, south-east London,
but his injuries are not thought to be serious.A man has been
held on suspicion of attempted murder in connection with the
assault in Mile End and the injured 16-year-old, who had minor
injuries, was also arrested.


read more....http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-43659952

[Star Tsar]

I am wary of underlying agendas in reporting these 'spikes'
in any topic. Its how these incidents are spun and if this
is leading to something....

A man, in his 40s, was stabbed in Herne Hill, south-east London,
but his injuries are not thought to be serious.


Correction it's Herne Hill, South West London, London Borough of LAMBETH!

:high5:

[ramus]

Taken from Cidersomerset BBC article the stats are unbelievable see below:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-43659952

Over the past two years there have been between eight and 15 "knife crimes with injury" on average each day in London, according to the Metropolitan Police.

There were between 243 and 476 knife crimes with injury recorded in each month between February 2016 and February 2018.

Last April there were 420 such crimes, an average of 14 every day.

[Cidersomerset]

Nigel is in the US doing some debates at universities and he is broadcasting
his show from there as I put in a previous post. He explains that political
correctness and changes in policing policies has led to the current crime
spike in areas of London....

Political correctness has led to rising murder rate in London: Nigel Farage

c744f4bEGd4

Published on 5 Apr 2018
European Member of Parliament Nigel Farage on the rising murder rate in London,
and his tour of the U.S. with former Mexican President Vicente Fox.

===================================================
===================================================

Farage: Political correctness is killing people in London

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtAgUeV-vTA
Published on 6 Apr 2018
Report: London murder rate higher than New York City. Fox News contributor sounds off.

===================================================
===================================================


Political Correctness Blamed For Booming London Murder Rate

The Alex Jones Channel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOdAEPIxsG4
Published on 6 Apr 2018
Paul Joseph Watson presents a video clip from Fox Business of Nigel Farage
frankly putting the blame for London's booming murder rate on law enforcement's
politically correct protocol.

[TargeT]

I don't want a paranoid citizen pulling their gun because of some sudden loud noise or a jostle on a crowded subway platform.

This is a myth though, it just doesn't happen... we have more guns than people in the US (well, almost) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country)... if something like this were to ever happen the anti-gun media would ensure EVERYONE knows.

But it doesn't happen.



Imagine an incident where a gun toting maniac is on the rampage. What is the best tactic for taking them out? Would it be for every adult to pull out their gun and start shooting away until the perp is down? How many innocents would be caught in that barrage, do you think?

Well there's many (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/08/texas-church-shooting-not-first-time-good-guy-with-gun-takes-down-mass-shooter.html) examples (https://www.washingtontimes.com/multimedia/collection/good-guy-gun-stopped-bad-guy-gun/) of (http://concealednation.org/2017/11/mass-shooting-stopped-by-armed-citizens-in-fl-but-you-wont-hear-about-it-in-the-news/) when this did happen, and clearly by saying "start shooting away" you're unfamiliar with guns or gun safety, no responsable owner would ever do this (this relates to why the first situation doesn't happen).

In the majority of cases the shootings are over before the police arrive (and the suspect is dead, or fled, or stopped by civilians or has stopped actively shooting) Civilians, armed and unarmed stop shootings more often than police (https://www.wsj.com/video/mass-shootings-how-often-do-unarmed-citizens-stop-them/BD28EAD3-F82E-4DBF-B9C7-F8BF10EF7E06.html) (even if the shooter is still alive when police confront, the "damage is done" at that point in most cases)


So I ask you, you have the experience, what is the best tactic to eliminate the threat as safely as possible?

Responsible, trained gun owners; like most US gun owners are.


Even though there are some ~300 million guns in the US, the actual ownership is much lower (some individuals have 100+ fire arms), and the "actively carrying" population (that goes around armed all the time) is really small... I think we need it bigger.






According to the article I've posted here (second link), gun deaths in 2015 came in at 36,252. In 2016 the number was a little higher at 38,658.

While these numbers aren't even close to the top 4 or 5 causes of death, they are very close to the last few. So these aren't insignificant numbers. Guns are coming very close to cracking the top 10 list.



https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/282929.php

https://www.thetrace.org/rounds/gun-deaths-increase-2017/

Take suicide by gun out and the number drops drastically


(in 2015)homicide by firearm was the fifth-leading cause (12,979)behind suicide by gun (22,018) (https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/02/28/guns-and-deaths-in-america-the-numbers/)

Most anti-gun outlets combine those numbers to make it more scary.


I just got back from 4 days in Mississippi at the gun range getting the VI guard qualified on the M16, M9, M249 and M2 weapon systems, probably getting gunpowder all over my keyboard as I type; but I don't feel biased on this topic, I don't even own a gun anymore (though I'd like to rectify that lack soon).

[Mike]

22,018 Suicide deaths by gun is scary:). You sort of make it sound like those don't count or something!

The great majority of gun deaths being suicides doesn't exactly bolster the pro-gun case:)

[NancyV]

So I ask you, you have the experience, what is the best tactic to eliminate the threat as safely as possible?

Responsible, trained gun owners; like most US gun owners are.


Even though there are some ~300 million guns in the US, the actual ownership is much lower (some individuals have 100+ fire arms), and the "actively carrying" population (that goes around armed all the time) is really small... I think we need it bigger.

I agree that we need more trained gun owners. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

I like living here in West Virginia, where we moved a little less than 2 years ago. This is an open carry state, so anyone can carry a gun if they choose to. All of my husbands many relatives here in WV carry guns. His preacher brother carries one into the church on Sundays and my sister-in-law carries one to school where she teaches.

I just got a new little gun 3 days ago to carry in my purse. It's a Cobra 380 cal. I had tried carrying our 9mm and 40cal guns but they were too heavy. This one is just perfect! We also have a 38 revolver and of course LOTS of shotguns and rifles, probably about 40-45 guns total. Our next purchase will probably be an AR 15.

We have a lot more knives, well over 100. I wouldn't say we're zealots, we just like good tools....guns, rifles and knives are tools. We like to collect them. Trying to ban guns won't work well here in the US, especially in states like WV. We won't give up our guns....period...and neither will anyone else I know who understands that guns in the hands of good citizens are the best tools to discourage a tyrannical government and to protect yourself and others from bad guys.

[Innocent Warrior]

The gun debate is, well, debatable. What’s not debatable is motive or causes, addressing issues such as drugs, money, domestic disputes, mental illness etc will surely be more fruitful.

[Spindoctor]

Jim jeffries view of Yanks guns. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9UFyNy-rw4

[A Voice from the Mountains]

It's a very complex topic, very layered, and I don't have the time (or desire) to unravel every aspect of it. To be clear: I'm not one of these people who think the public should be disarmed. You wouldn't catch me at an anti gun rally, for example (although I do seriously question the wisdom of any citizen owning a semi automatic weapon).

There are multiple examples even from the 1900's of the American people successfully using firearms to stand up to tyrannical government. That's why we have the 2nd Amendment and that's why it's critical to our freedom.

Three relatively recent examples:

The Battle of Athens, Tennessee <-- WW2 vets overthrew a corrupt town government.
The Coal Miner's Rebellion and Battle of Blair Mountain
The Bundy's armed defense of their ranch

All three of these are 20th/21st century examples of armed American citizens standing up to authorities, even actually engaging in firefights in the first two cases, with real casualties. In the 1800s and 1700s you run into even more examples of this kind of thing. The Unions also were treated terribly by the Pinkertons and their 2nd Amendment rights were a fallback for them as well. Our government rightfully fears our 70 million gun owners.

I always shake my head when people talk about the NRA being "too powerful," because what they are actually talking about is not a small group of elitist gun nuts, but 70 million American citizens who are armed. The NRA represents all 70 million of them. That's nearly a quarter of the entire US population. If a quarter of the entire US population DIDN'T have enormous power then I would be more concerned. (Remember, only about half of our country even bothers to vote in elections.)

Since WW2 the US has ostensibly been the garantor of world peace. Granted the CIA was full of literal Nazis from its very inception and has wreaked havoc, overthrowing governments all over the world. But that aside, the US doesn't get much respect for our protection of worldwide shipping routes from piracy, the use of the US military and US taxpayers' money as well as our own sweat and blood to prop up most of the UN, NATO, and other international arrangements. We've bore the brunt of most of these international programs, and by "we" I mean the taxpaying American citizen and the common American soldier. If we were to lose our freedoms at home and fall to the same kind of tyranny you see in places like China or western Europe, it would have catastrophic consequences on international trade and the global economy. China is a house of cards as it is, as most authoritarian systems tend to be: extremely top-heavy with a lot of pissed off people just waiting for an opportunity to get their foot in the door.


Also, for what it's worth, per-capita mass shootings are actually more common in many European countries than they are in the US. In terms of absolute numbers, sure, the US has more, but we also have a much larger population than any one European country. Look for the per-capita figures and we are one of the least violent nations on Earth. If you remove the cities with gun control like Chicago and Detroit from the equation, and our per-capita crime rate drops to next to nothing. It's the cities that have already enacted gun control laws that have the worst gun violence. That is in no way the responsibility or fault of law-abiding citizens.

[TargeT]

22,018 Suicide deaths by gun is scary:). You sort of make it sound like those don't count or something!

The great majority of gun deaths being suicides doesn't exactly bolster the pro-gun case:)

they don't count when we are talking about mass stabbings / mass shootings ;)

Suicidal people kill themselves, the method doesn't matter, it's never the tool, it's never the drug, it's always the person.

We need to quit focusing on symptoms and focus on the root problem.


addressing issues such as drugs, money, domestic disputes, mental illness etc will surely be more fruitful.

Drugs, money, domestic disputes.... these three seem like symptoms, not problems.

prohabition just doesn't work, we must find a better way or we will continue to spiral through this ridiculousness, if the US didn't have guns we'd have "a knife problem" just like the UK.

It's not the tool that is at issue here, it's the society/culture; if we continue to ignore that these problems will not go away, they will only shift contexts.


Jim jeffries view of Yanks guns. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9UFyNy-rw4

Heavy leftist propaganda and a bit insulting to slaves by comparing them to gun ownership and completely missing the point that the second amendment is in place as a final check to a tyrannical government, at 300 million civilians vs 2 million (rough population of our armed government military and paramilitary forces) makes the argument pretty nil when it comes to types of armaments, that was the whole point of the 2nd amendment in the first place! The final check to totalitarianism.

Plus australia still has it's issues (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia), gun ban or no (yes, he completely lied about not having an issue after the gun ban, 3 mass shootings in 2014, mass vehicular murder, stabbings etc..)... it's just in a slightly different context now and the citizens are FAR less able to protect themselves.

( Didn't the Aussies get their guns taken away after
massive shooting that was highly questionable? (aka, probably a tyrannical government move)??)

All that aside... funny :ROFL:

[A Voice from the Mountains]

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/4f/6f/38/4f6f38e2473b6ad6e199883375ce5798.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1f/ec/8e/1fec8e4f1a5059881b6a9f20c4b44491.jpg

https://thefoundingproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/gun-class-4-326x245.jpg

The guns haven’t changed. The culture changed. For the worse.


https://flashbak.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/GettyImages-3326219.jpg

https://thefoundingproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/07c4faf33f39fc687d38c63e6134c466.jpg

[Mike]

When it comes to suicides, I think the tool does matter, just as it does in mass killings...just for a different reason.

A gun is the quickest, most efficient killing tool there is. It's very convenient.:)

If you were going to kill yourself, or were strongly considering it, would you repeatedly stab yourself in the stomach with a knife, or would you put one quick, painless bullet in your head? Would you slash your wrists and slooooowly bleed out, or would you end it in a snap?

The reason there are so many suicides by gun is because guns make it so easy. And they just happen to be everywhere.

I'd bet a large portion of those suicides were on the fence. I don't care how despondent you are, jumping in front of an 18 wheeler, or sending yourself off a cliff is immensely frightening. Plus, you may live..and face a lifetime of enormous pain and disablity. Guns solve that problem perfectly.

Like I said man, I'm not anti-gun! I'm really not! But I am anti-denial. And gun enthusiasts are clearly in denial about all sorts of things. They are unwilling to move an inch, even on the most obvious of arguments. They will use silly comparisons to knives as justifications, or engage in empty sloganeering ("if all the good guys had guns theyd stop all the bad guys" etc etc etc) rather than admit someone with a slightly different view from them may actually have a point:)

To be fair, the fiecercly anti-gun people have their own set of issues. They're in denial too. They're misguided, and misled by the mainstream narrative.

Everyone has their defense mechanisms up when it comes to guns, regardless of what side you're on. And we'll never be able to have a productive conversation about it all until they come down.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

It's such a hot potato this. I see both sides. A part of me, for a long time, was staunchly anti-gun. Guns barely even exist in the UK, beyond the criminal underground. And instead of guns, as Target says, it's knives over here.

I didn't used to agree with NRA rhetoric, that 'guns weren't dangerous', only people were. To me that was like saying Nukes aren't dangerous, only the people hovering over the fat red 'fire' button were dangerous. I personally would much prefer to live in a world where nukes did not exist. And guns too.

That said, I'm thinking of the bigger picture now. I think of China with its 1 billion+ citizens. They live under a strict code of obedience and silence. They live in a communist, virtual police state. Private citizens don't enjoy the same freedoms we do. And they are certainly not allowed to own a firearm. But what if one day, they suddenly were? Imagine what level of control a totalitarian state like theirs could exert when a large portion of those 1 billion people were armed with a gun. How long before the revolution started? Probably the very next day.

It's a reasonable bet that the deep state looks at the Chinese model of absolute governance and control with a degree of jealousy. The campaign to ban firearms – now in the US – seems no more than a ploy to neutralize the threat of potential uprisings, and to strengthen its stranglehold over the population. They push the narrative every chance they get, and inflame that argument further with false flag mass shootings. Problem, reaction, solution. It all equates to a scam to me.

[Mike]

Hey nice post Star Mariner!

It's clear that guns are on trial, especially in the states...and I'll be the first to admit: unfairly!

It seems quite clear that a deep state element is trying to frame guns in an attempt to disarm citizens.

I get that! And I am absolutely against that.

What's going on, (I think) is that gun folks, being fully aware that guns are being deceptively maligned, won't give an inch (understandably !) when someone even gently suggests they may just not have it quite right in some instances, because they fear the maniacally anti gun folks will then say "A ha, see you've admitted we were right all along!"

So it becomes a battle to control the narrative, no matter which tactics are used...which is disingenuous and unproductive. One side began by playing dishonestly and unfairly, which has kind of forced the other side to do same.

Which leaves us in a stalemate....like 2 cobras with their fangs around each other's neck.

Arguing guns or no guns is kinda like treating the symptoms of disease rather than the root cause itself. And the root cause in this instance are the bastards in power...the creators of all this division.

[Hym]

The narrative has always been the disease. When an incident is left without talking points and without an emotionally integrated, manipulated narrative it is easier to perceive the truth and the intent of a covert operation.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Notice that the same people most loudly calling for taking away guns tend to be the ones saying that Trump is a fascist and literally Hitler. Can you imagine being deathly afraid of your own political leaders and yet still wanting them to take away your last line of defense against them?


There was a movie made about the 1946 Battle of Athens, Tennessee. Here’s part of it. Very instructive on the spirit of te 2nd Amendment.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5ut6yPrObw

[Foxie Loxie]

YeeeHaaaa!! :smokin: I would say this country has a MUCH bigger situation on its hands in order to restore the Rule of Law! Thanks for the video....I had vaguely heard about the incident. Good to hear how it played out!

[sunwings]

The London Mayor has not been to any of the twelve (gang related death) funerals in the last two weeks. I really enjoyed hearing him getting dragged over the coals.

yqsoRsptJhY

[Innocent Warrior]

TargeT, I didn’t argue the gun debate either way.

I’ll illustrate where I’m coming from with a recent example. A work colleague of my BF’s lives at a block of units. A woman was stabbed to death by two men. The work colleague heard her screams for help and called 000 but remained in his unit. The murder was over drugs. The colleague is tormented by the woman’s screams, no longer wants to go home after work, can’t sleep and is getting a job driving a truck at night until he can afford to move.

The woman’s family and friends, the work colleague and all others like these people aren’t assisted by the gun debate. The gun debate won’t address the causes of crimes. I’m suggesting that addressing the more pertinent issues will make a greater and more immediate difference to healing and decreasing crime rates, regardless of what tool is employed.

My post was about considering the effectiveness of our focus, about what works rather than who’s right and who’s not. I’m sorry I bothered, carry on.

[greybeard]

What horrifies me is the number of times a child by accident kills another or shoots a parent.
Like everything else there are responsible gun owners and careless ones.

My thoughts are that the level of violence on TV has escalated--even what were once family viewing soaps in the UK, now have acid attacks, cold blooded shooting, male rape.
There is a place for this but not on what were once family viewing programs
The conditioning element gives the impression that is is almost normal to settle disputes by violence.

Young people carry knives out of fear--thats conditioning.
We are led to believe that the bigger the knife--the bigger the gun the safer I am.
Is this true?
Its down to the human ego---My weapon is bigger than yours--Im The Man. or dominant Woman--the leader of the pack--do as I say and you will be ok.
Get them before they get us.

From an early age children watch killer video games--repetition repetition sets behavior.

Guns are not defensive weapons except in the mind of the owner, guns are designed to shoot.

Follow the money---in who's interest is it to have a fear driven society?

In UK there are adverts to attract the youth to join the army--looks like good fun outplaying games with the boys--its not a game, young soldiers have had their legs blown off.
That is not mentioned in adverts to join the forces. The Trades description act should be applied.--Miss leading advert.

Chris

[MorningFox]

Sorry but your initial point about banning guns not solving the problem is instantly proven false by the answer to your question aimed at the UK 'How's banning guns working out for you?'

It's working really well actually, thanks. Gun crime isn't an issue here. I'd rather defend myself against someone with a knife than a gun, thank you very much.

Knives are incredibly useful for the average human, whereas guns are only designed for killing, and unless you're a farmer or a hunter etc, a very specific kind of human, you have absolutely no need for a gun. None. Those kinds of people can get a license for one here, through strict vetting, and the average person can't. There is no reason why that isn't the best and most sensible way of doing it.

[MorningFox]

The London Mayor has not been to any of the twelve (gang related death) funerals in the last two weeks. I really enjoyed hearing him getting dragged over the coals.



Not that I'm in any way a supporter of this man but why should the mayor have to go to funerals? Really? Do have any idea how many people die in London every day? Frankly I'd rather our tax payers money didn't go on funeral trips but on ways to improve the city.

[sunwings]

Not that I'm in any way a supporter of this man but why should the mayor have to go to funerals? Really? Do have any idea how many people die in London every day? Frankly I'd rather our tax payers money didn't go on funeral trips but on ways to improve the city.

The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 established a Police and Crime Commissioner for each police force area across England and Wales. In London, the elected Mayor – Sadiq Khan, is the equivalent of the Police and Crime Commissioner and is responsible for the totality of policing in the capital (outside of the City of London).


Much like how a Headteacher who is in charge of a School, should attend a funeral involving a death of a student. The mayor of London needs to show leadership, courage and empathy with this knife violence. The first point of business should be to meet the victims families at the least. Even the Queen did that at Greenfell tower:thumbsup:!

JlLruBi-vI8

[Ernie Nemeth]

This gun question is merely a meme. There may have been a time when citizens could have been counted on to rally for a just cause and put their lives on the line for it. Those days are long gone. Now all you would have is a righteous homeowner defending their property, perhaps, or a disgruntled person trying to resist wrongful arrest. There is almost absolutely no chance that all the people could rally under one banner, no matter what it is. Some would question the merits of the leaders, others would argue the premise. In the end the populace would merely turn on each other.

You have to have brains and a knack for discernment to even know the right cause. Both are in low supply these days. Never mind the courage to face bullets, not because someone behind you threatens to shoot you where you stand if you don't, but because you believe enough in the cause to risk and even lay down your life for it.

The type of people who once populated this land are no more. Guns in the hands of millennials, idealists and zealots is just a recipe for disaster.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

This gun question is merely a meme. There may have been a time when citizens could have been counted on to rally for a just cause and put their lives on the line for it. Those days are long gone. Now all you would have is a righteous homeowner defending their property, perhaps, or a disgruntled person trying to resist wrongful arrest. There is almost absolutely no chance that all the people could rally under one banner, no matter what it is.

I take it that you weren't following anything that happened at the Bundy Ranch in 2014.

A bunch of armed ranchers and patriots held off Obama's BLM (Bureau of Land Management) agents, as well as FBI and other agents, from April until May, and saved the ranch.

The Obama administration claimed that the owner of the land didn't have any right to it, and attempted to strong-arm the family off of the land. In response, a bunch of armed patriots showed up and stayed on the land in protest, openly wielding their firearms. The Bundy family still owns their ranch to this day.

[greybeard]

Sub-machine gun and drugs seized in London anti-gang raids

Sky News Mark White, Home Affairs Correspondent,Sky News 8am Wed 12th April


Police have recovered a sub-machine gun and large amounts of drugs in a major overnight operation, aimed at tackling growing levels of violent crime in the capital.

Scotland Yard Commissioner Cressida Dick took part in the raids across west and south west London, targeting a notorious gang whose trade in drugs is, according to police, helping fuel violence.

The raids are the culmination of several months of covert work by members of the Metropolitan Police's Trident gang unit.

More than 200 officers took part, including teams from the Met's firearms command and Territorial Support Group officers.

Cressida Dick said the operation underlined the determination of her officers to go after criminals involved in serious crime and violence.

Dozens of police vehicles left their base in north west London around 2am, heading for eight addresses, which police said were connected to senior members of the "MDP" gang, a long established criminal network which has been linked to several murders.

At one property in south west London, officers found a sub-machine gun, a handgun, a large quantity of what they believe to be class-A drugs and a large amount of money.

A suspect from the property was stopped and arrested a short time later in his car in Acton, West London.

Detective Sergeant Paul Chapman from Trident said: "On initial inspection they look like they found what appears to be a Scorpion sub-machine gun and a large quantity of class-A drugs which are all linked within the gang we are targeting this evening."

A total of nine people were arrested in the raids and held on charges including conspiracy to supply drugs and possession of firearms.

One of those arrested was just 14 years old. Police recovered a large amount of suspected class-A drugs from the boy's home.

Speaking to Sky News, Scotland Yard's Commissioner said the operation was extremely important in going after those who fuel violent crime in the capital.

"Sadly there are too many people who go about in some parts of London feeling that it's sensible, the right thing for them to do, to carry a weapon.

"Obviously it's not, firstly it's against the law, secondly they're very likely to get killed themselves and thirdly we're out there and we're looking for them and we will lock them up if we possibly can."

The Commissioner said the latest operation has been designed to dismantle a long-standing criminal gang.

"The group that we are going out to arrest tonight contains several very violent people. They are suspected of a large scale conspiracy to supply crack cocaine and heroin.

"It appears they've made an enormous amount of money out of that.

"They exploit younger people in their drug dealing, so we need to get them arrested and in so doing we will disrupt the drugs market but more importantly we will get some very violent people locked up and make west London a bit safer."

Across the UK, violent crime is up around 20% on the previous year.

In London, the last few weeks have seen a spike in murders, particularly fatal stabbings.

This month, the murder rate in the capital overtook the rate in New York for the first time since records began.

On top of the number of deaths, many more have been injured in knife attacks.

One of those hurt last week was just 13 years old - many of the victims and perpetrators are teenagers.

Commissioner Dick said the public were fully behind her officers.

"We are getting an awful lot of support from the public and I think people have been shocked by the events of the past few weeks and in particular young lives lost.

"Everywhere my officers go, people come up to them and say 'good to see you here, please carry on, please arrest people who've got knives and guns' and we will do that."

The London operation comes just days after the Government launched its Violent Crime Strategy, aimed at cracking down on offenders and addressing many of the drivers of violent crime.

Home Secretary Amber Rudd vowed to do "whatever it takes" to make Britain's streets safe when she unveiled plans on Monday.

The strategy is led by a new Offensive Weapons Bill that aims to make it particularly hard for young criminals to arm themselves.

Those arrested in this latest police operation have been taken to several London police stations for questioning.



https://uk.yahoo.com/news/sub-machine-gun-drugs-seized-london-anti-gang-044800972.html

[DNA]

What horrifies me is the number of times a child by accident kills another or shoots a parent.
Like everything else there are responsible gun owners and careless ones.

My thoughts are that the level of violence on TV has escalated--even what were once family viewing soaps in the UK, now have acid attacks, cold blooded shooting, male rape.
There is a place for this but not on what were once family viewing programs
The conditioning element gives the impression that is is almost normal to settle disputes by violence.

Young people carry knives out of fear--thats conditioning.
We are led to believe that the bigger the knife--the bigger the gun the safer I am.
Is this true?
Its down to the human ego---My weapon is bigger than yours--Im The Man. or dominant Woman--the leader of the pack--do as I say and you will be ok.
Get them before they get us.

From an early age children watch killer video games--repetition repetition sets behavior.

Guns are not defensive weapons except in the mind of the owner, guns are designed to shoot.

Follow the money---in who's interest is it to have a fear driven society?

In UK there are adverts to attract the youth to join the army--looks like good fun outplaying games with the boys--its not a game, young soldiers have had their legs blown off.
That is not mentioned in adverts to join the forces. The Trades description act should be applied.--Miss leading advert.

Chris

Gun owning in the US has a strong correlation with being able to fight and overthrow your Government.
The UK is being torn apart by the influx of Muslim refugees which is a designed maneuver meant to destroy your country from within. This is true in my opinion regardless of the bleeding heart BS narrative being pushed on your people. If you guys still had guns you could fight and overthrow your traitor politicians.
I'll take violent entertainment any day over the thought of having to defend myself from a tyrannical Government with a knife.

Oh, and by the way I live in a state here in the US where everyone who is not a convicted felon is free to conceal carry a pistol.
I can't imagine the culture shock your people would have coming here and every fourth person you see is wearing a pistol sidearm in a holster.

This violence that you are seeing is not going to be affected by Government legislation, ahem, outlawing freaking knives.

[greybeard]

Almost every country has gone through civil war in its evolution.
Gandhi brought about change through non-violence and this started the dismantling of the British Empire.
There is no easy answer to any of the questions arisen as part of this thread.
What works in one country may not work in another.

Chris

[Bob]

My Sheriff told me, 1) arm myself and my family 2) get trained and understand how to defend oneself against oppressors (that would include perps/thugs/predators) and 3) don't be afraid to kill to defend oneself (keep in mind their intent IS to kill you); be willing to protect one's family and one's neighbors from any armed thugs, or perps that think they have an easy target.. The Sheriff is a LEO (Law Enforcement Officer) or "da government"... That says something doesn't it that to not lump ALL US government representatives, and LEO's into being tyrannical supporters. I am armed as is my family and we are trained in self defence and I am also a first responder, and a healer. One does what is needed to do right. Save life, starting with oneself, one's family and community.. Being able to use a 'tool' to facilitate matching armed oppression is not a difficult concept to understand.

[greybeard]

My Sheriff told me, 1) arm myself and my family 2) get trained and understand how to defend oneself against oppressors (that would include perps/thugs/predators) and 3) don't be afraid to kill to defend oneself (keep in mind their intent IS to kill you); be willing to protect one's family and one's neighbors from any armed thugs, or perps that think they have an easy target.. The Sheriff is a LEO (Law Enforcement Officer) or "da government"... That says something doesn't it that to not lump ALL US government representatives, and LEO's into being tyrannical supporters. I am armed as is my family and we are trained in self defence and I am also a first responder, and a healer. One does what is needed to do right. Save life, starting with oneself, one's family and community.. Being able to use a 'tool' to facilitate matching armed oppression is not a difficult concept to understand.

As said Bob there are responsible gun owners and you obviously are one.
Where I live in Scotland there are very,very few gun events.
Guns are therefore not needed to defend.

In fairness there are possible situations, which hopefully will never happen where I would use any available means to defend family, or others.
Im not sure I would kill to save my own skin, but then im old and not afraid of death.

Ch

[MorningFox]

My Sheriff told me, 1) arm myself and my family 2) get trained and understand how to defend oneself against oppressors (that would include perps/thugs/predators) and 3) don't be afraid to kill to defend oneself (keep in mind their intent IS to kill you); be willing to protect one's family and one's neighbors from any armed thugs, or perps that think they have an easy target.. The Sheriff is a LEO (Law Enforcement Officer) or "da government"... That says something doesn't it that to not lump ALL US government representatives, and LEO's into being tyrannical supporters. I am armed as is my family and we are trained in self defence and I am also a first responder, and a healer. One does what is needed to do right. Save life, starting with oneself, one's family and community.. Being able to use a 'tool' to facilitate matching armed oppression is not a difficult concept to understand.

Sounds like you're on a sure course to attract some violent scenarios in to your reality.

[Bob]

My Sheriff told me, 1) arm myself and my family 2) get trained and understand how to defend oneself against oppressors (that would include perps/thugs/predators) and 3) don't be afraid to kill to defend oneself (keep in mind their intent IS to kill you); be willing to protect one's family and one's neighbors from any armed thugs, or perps that think they have an easy target.. The Sheriff is a LEO (Law Enforcement Officer) or "da government"... That says something doesn't it that to not lump ALL US government representatives, and LEO's into being tyrannical supporters. I am armed as is my family and we are trained in self defence and I am also a first responder, and a healer. One does what is needed to do right. Save life, starting with oneself, one's family and community.. Being able to use a 'tool' to facilitate matching armed oppression is not a difficult concept to understand.

Sounds like you're on a sure course to attract some violent scenarios in to your reality.

Actually Fox it only happened (attracting psychopath/sociopathic 'individuals') when I was fully embracing love and light doing workshops..At that point I showed I was "prime food" a "shmoo" eager to be eaten by any would be opportunist. The crazies appeared in droves. When we followed the Sheriff's instructions the crazies found out they would make the transition they wanted, but not on their terms.. All the neighbors and probably 90% of others in the County are armed. How many are trained? I don't know. Am I into embracing love and light, absolutely, never changed, I only increased one thing, which is the understanding that when one's life is to be harmed deal with it to match the threat/assault level. Many more are now either concealed or open carry. The Sheriff also pointed out many now are arming within their vehicles due to hijacking. If one hesitates one is chipped beef on toast.. I most certainly have an issue with anyone who has a gun and is not trained. It is a tool, nothing more when used to deal with armed assault from a thug, perp, rapist. They don't value your life. They don't respect your life, or your family's. Either hide somewhere in a hole, or deal with it when it happens. That is logical. One doesn't live in fear.

[MorningFox]

My Sheriff told me, 1) arm myself and my family 2) get trained and understand how to defend oneself against oppressors (that would include perps/thugs/predators) and 3) don't be afraid to kill to defend oneself (keep in mind their intent IS to kill you); be willing to protect one's family and one's neighbors from any armed thugs, or perps that think they have an easy target.. The Sheriff is a LEO (Law Enforcement Officer) or "da government"... That says something doesn't it that to not lump ALL US government representatives, and LEO's into being tyrannical supporters. I am armed as is my family and we are trained in self defence and I am also a first responder, and a healer. One does what is needed to do right. Save life, starting with oneself, one's family and community.. Being able to use a 'tool' to facilitate matching armed oppression is not a difficult concept to understand.

Sounds like you're on a sure course to attract some violent scenarios in to your reality.

Actually Fox it only happened (attracting psychopath/sociopathic 'individuals') when I was fully embracing love and light doing workshops..At that point I showed I was "prime food" a "shmoo" eager to be eaten by any would be opportunist. The crazies appeared in droves. When we followed the Sheriff's instructions the crazies found out they would make the transition they wanted, but not on their terms.. All the neighbors and probably 90% of others in the County are armed. How many are trained? I don't know. Am I into embracing love and light, absolutely, never changed, I only increased one thing, which is the understanding that when one's life is to be harmed deal with it to match the threat/assault level. Many more are now either concealed or open carry. The Sheriff also pointed out many now are arming within their vehicles due to hijacking. If one hesitates one is chipped beef on toast.. I most certainly have an issue with anyone who has a gun and is not trained. It is a tool, nothing more when used to deal with armed assault from a thug, perp, rapist. They don't value your life. They don't respect your life, or your family's. Either hide somewhere in a hole, or deal with it when it happens. That is logical. One doesn't live in fear.

Sounds like an awful place. I'm sorry to hear.

[Bob]

My Sheriff told me, 1) arm myself and my family 2) get trained and understand how to defend oneself against oppressors (that would include perps/thugs/predators) and 3) don't be afraid to kill to defend oneself (keep in mind their intent IS to kill you); be willing to protect one's family and one's neighbors from any armed thugs, or perps that think they have an easy target.. The Sheriff is a LEO (Law Enforcement Officer) or "da government"... That says something doesn't it that to not lump ALL US government representatives, and LEO's into being tyrannical supporters. I am armed as is my family and we are trained in self defence and I am also a first responder, and a healer. One does what is needed to do right. Save life, starting with oneself, one's family and community.. Being able to use a 'tool' to facilitate matching armed oppression is not a difficult concept to understand.

As said Bob there are responsible gun owners and you obviously are one.
Where I live in Scotland there are very,very few gun events.
Guns are therefore not needed to defend.

In fairness there are possible situations, which hopefully will never happen where I would use any available means to defend family, or others.
Im not sure I would kill to save my own skin, but then im old and not afraid of death.

Ch

Hia Chris - what I found, a thug will use anything that they can come up with. It could be they would pull out a knife (which is how/what the first perp and their thug used according to the Sheriff's department their car was filled with butcher knives).. One bent on harm would do that, they are not 'knife salesmen'. I had a 11 year old child with me when assaulted. When one is a caregiver, one has a responsibility. No doubt if one is wanting to check out, that is not difficult, the body will comply pretty readily. A thug these days will use any weapon, if a gun is handy they will use that, anything to try to be threatening, or attempt intimidation. That violence mindset is the issue to be dealt with, not disarming the victims or allowing an imbalance to happen. The thug wants the imbalance, thinking they have an edge, and everything and everyone about them are their 'reality' and you are their property in their antisocial mind - total disrespect for life, property, living things.. animals are abused, children are abused, you are their property to be abused - if there is contact, they will state it if they can first, to try to intimidate - they just don't care.. To even consider they have a concept or willingness to look at reason is a fantasy.. One that doesn't get that hasn't experienced the rape from a thug, nor seen one's child traumatized. That's experience speaking. They'll never change, and being willing to deal with it, when it happens is logical I believe.

Bob

[greybeard]

My Sheriff told me, 1) arm myself and my family 2) get trained and understand how to defend oneself against oppressors (that would include perps/thugs/predators) and 3) don't be afraid to kill to defend oneself (keep in mind their intent IS to kill you); be willing to protect one's family and one's neighbors from any armed thugs, or perps that think they have an easy target.. The Sheriff is a LEO (Law Enforcement Officer) or "da government"... That says something doesn't it that to not lump ALL US government representatives, and LEO's into being tyrannical supporters. I am armed as is my family and we are trained in self defence and I am also a first responder, and a healer. One does what is needed to do right. Save life, starting with oneself, one's family and community.. Being able to use a 'tool' to facilitate matching armed oppression is not a difficult concept to understand.

As said Bob there are responsible gun owners and you obviously are one.
Where I live in Scotland there are very,very few gun events.
Guns are therefore not needed to defend.

In fairness there are possible situations, which hopefully will never happen where I would use any available means to defend family, or others.
Im not sure I would kill to save my own skin, but then im old and not afraid of death.

Ch

Hia Chris - what I found, a thug will use anything that they can come up with. It could be they would pull out a knife (which is how/what the first perp and their thug used according to the Sheriff's department their car was filled with butcher knives).. One bent on harm would do that, they are not 'knife salesmen'. I had a 11 year old child with me when assaulted. When one is a caregiver, one has a responsibility. No doubt if one is wanting to check out, that is not difficult, the body will comply pretty readily. A thug these days will use any weapon, if a gun is handy they will use that, anything to try to be threatening, or attempt intimidation. That violence mindset is the issue to be dealt with, not disarming the victims or allowing an imbalance to happen. The thug wants the imbalance, thinking they have an edge, and everything and everyone about them are their 'reality' and you are their property in their antisocial mind - total disrespect for life, property, living things.. animals are abused, children are abused, you are their property to be abused - if there is contact, they will state it if they can first, to try to intimidate - they just don't care.. To even consider they have a concept or willingness to look at reason is a fantasy.. One that doesn't get that hasn't experienced the rape from a thug, nor seen one's child traumatized. That's experience speaking. They'll never change, and being willing to deal with it, when it happens is logical I believe.

Bob

Oh yes I get that Bob.
The thug has no respect for you, your loved ones, your property --their actions are seen as justified, they want- you have-they take.
That is regardless of consequences to the victim.

There was a recent case in England were a man of my age killed a robber with a screwdriver, he, the pensioner, was initially arrested by Police till it was proved to be an act of self defense. The thief's relatives and friends left flowers, cards etc out side the house where he was killed. These were torn down three times by local residents.
The police had to intervene.
The pensioner and his wife had to leave their house because of reprisal threats from dead burglars friends.
The dead burglar had an accomplice identified but not caught.
So there you have two thugs bugling a house with two elderly people in it--not an empty house but an occupied one.
The event could have ended with both pensioners being killed rather than one burglar.

Chris

[Bob]

[.. snipped to save space ]

Oh yes I get that Bob.
The thug has no respect for you, your loved ones, your property --their actions are seen as justified, they want- you have-they take.

There was a recent case in England were a man of my age killed a robber with a screwdriver, he, the pensioner, was initially arrested by Police till it was proved to be an act of self defense. The thief's relatives and friends left flowers, cards etc out side the house where he was killed. These were torn down three times by local residents.
The police had to intervene.
The pensioner and his wife had to leave their house because of reprisal threats from dead burglars friends.
The dead burglar had an accomplice identified but not caught.
So there you have two thugs bugling a house with two elderly people in it--not an empty house but an occupied one.
The event could have ended with both pensioners being killed rather than one burglar.

Chris

The police had to intervene.

I suppose if we got down to the core and I have looked at this so many times attempting to seek a solution, why would anyone value or want "stuff" more than respecting a life (something that could in all logic 'make' stuff).. This thing about stuff goes so far back, where somebody convinced somebody, stuff was important. (obviously it isn't really it is an arbitrary).. But due to those 'wants' or false values, creative spiritual abundance is put down. And a narrow minded focus on wanting "stuff" appears.. An out-of-balance spiritual situation crops up.. A creator creates, and obviously we are all creators here, and in our joy we offer joy and assume most naively that balance will be the result, and when something goes out we'd assume we did something wrong. We didn't we just didn't understand that there are those who don't get or understand balance (karma in other terms)...

Like there should be 'house rules' about when one is alive to not be like a beast.. To me a thug hasn't made the transition. They feel having hands and a smart 'brain' allows them to try to outsmart their victim. Something's wrong there in the social vibe I think that continually allows an aberration to wander around unchecked..

BTW, the Sheriff also said to me here, "we are not your friend" - that programming taught to little kids, that the men in black, or blue with the funny hats are your friend is quite a fairy tale in other words, they do their job if they are ethical and not corrupt. They can easily be made into thugs by some additional 'reward' temptation, seduced to the 'dark side'.. The serve and protect is not really what it is allegedly made out to be.. In another thread, I cited the fictional character Mulder from X-Files.. trust no-one, verify, eyes opened, check and double check..

[Ernie Nemeth]

How does the carrying of guns equate with the police? The way I see it, we were told that from now on we were not allowed to seek our own form of justice. Instead, we were told, as I understand it, that justice would be determined by the state and citizens could petition the government if they sought justice. Then, somewhere along the way, an amendment to the constitution was required because the government could in fact not keep us safe. We were left on our own to protect our property and liberty but without the right to seek justice on our own.

So it seems there is a conflict in premise here. We already had guns to keep us safe. We gave up the right to seek justice and commissioned the government to do it for us. Then we saw that was a mistake so we got the right to bear arms instead but now without the right to use it to its full and logical extent. Vigilantism is illegal. But you can kill a burglar.

I say we, but of course here in Canada they simply took our rights away without a contest. But here, if you shoot and kill an intruder the chances are 50 - 50 you will be charged with murder.

It almost looks as though governments do not want us interfering with their racket, but a small time crook is fair game. And we keep on addressing the symptoms without getting to the causes.

I think my revisiting Ann Rand's philosophy of selfishness, which she calls objectivism, has opened my eyes to the extreme callousness and narrow-mindedness of the elites. They really do believe they have a right to rule.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

My Sheriff told me, 1) arm myself and my family 2) get trained and understand how to defend oneself against oppressors (that would include perps/thugs/predators) and 3) don't be afraid to kill to defend oneself (keep in mind their intent IS to kill you); be willing to protect one's family and one's neighbors from any armed thugs, or perps that think they have an easy target..

People shooting and killing home intruders makes it into the media here from time to time, and the home owners generally aren't charged with any crime. I think the legal standard in my state is that there has to be a perceived threat against the shooter's life or the life of others present, meaning you are even legally allowed to shoot people who are attacking someone else. Law enforcement just looks upon it as saving them work.

There was also a town in Georgia which famously passed a law requiring a hand gun in every home. Home intrusions instantly dropped to nearly zero. I wonder why?

Reading about intruders being killed is a major improvement over reading about home owners being killed by intruders. Too often the government seems to victimize and protect the criminals and I think this is part of the systematic dismantling of law and order in society. Just the chance of the home-owner being armed and allowed to use their weapons is enough to suppress a lot of crime.



Actually Fox it only happened (attracting psychopath/sociopathic 'individuals') when I was fully embracing love and light doing workshops..At that point I showed I was "prime food" a "shmoo" eager to be eaten by any would be opportunist. The crazies appeared in droves.

There's a great lesson in this that many have yet to learn. Many people have good intentions but believe irrational things because of their good intentions. They tend to think that everyone is good at heart and perhaps just misguided or confused. Many also tend to think love and open arms are the answer to everything. The world is not that simple. There are real psychopaths out there who think all this loving and embracing is an invitation to plunder, just as you say, Bob, and they never have any remorse over it, because they are physically incapable of feeling remorse. That's what makes them psychopaths. It is an actual medical condition that affects how different parts of the brain function. That is aside from all the social situations that might make otherwise-good people do evil things.

I've gotten into watching old westerns lately. A Fistful of Dollars, For a Few Dollars More, and The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. An excellent trilogy that showcases in many ways the complexity of motives and morality in the world (and yes I know they're just movies, but they're damned good ones ;) ). Not everything is black and white, and not everything is always nice and soft and fuzzy. Standing up and defending yourself is a prerequisite for not having everyone always walk all over you. But that doesn't mean you can't also have moral principles.

[Ernie Nemeth]

As an example, today I was coming home from work. I was walking along the sidewalk. Now, we all know the civil protocols in place here - we walk on the right. So as I came upon another person and I kindly moved to the right, but I was distracted because I was making a call. Next thing I know I am face to face with some young Muslim boy/man. I say , "We walk on the right." He says, "I break your glasses." And he snatched them off my face (sun glasses) and broke them.

Two thoughts went simultaneously through my mind along with the sudden urge to destroy this kid. The first was, do I want to risk spending the weekend in jail? The second was, you are a sixty year old man - you don't recover like you used to. I made my decision. He kept calling after me but I ignored it.

I said and did nothing further. Instead, I turned and continued on with my own business.

I can't help wondering how this scenario would have played out if I had a knife or a gun - or if he did...

[TargeT]

you have clearly never owned a gun, that situation doesn't involve protecting your life at all.

people take it seriously (owners).


I've gotten in less fights since being trained hand to hand techniques... Gun ownership generally leads to the same decline in confrontation, because you are more confident and rational due to the gravity of your responsibility.

Cars are far more dangerous statistically, you don't see people using them to smash into other cars when someone is cut off, do you?

[A Voice from the Mountains]

As an example, today I was coming home from work. I was walking along the sidewalk. Now, we all know the civil protocols in place here - we walk on the right. So as I came upon another person and I kindly moved to the right, but I was distracted because I was making a call. Next thing I know I am face to face with some young Muslim boy/man. I say , "We walk on the right." He says, "I break your glasses." And he snatched them off my face (sun glasses) and broke them.

I've often wished one of these people would confront me in public because I've had my blood boiling enough times reading stories like this that I would instantly take it out on his face or die trying. But whenever I see sketchy people in public they seem to have no interest in me and I've often heard that they only target the people who think think will give them the least resistance. They are cowards.

If these savages think they can get away with this stuff it just emboldens them to continue doing it. In the culture they are from, the only rule of law they understand is force. Middle Eastern governments typically don't base their public order on some abstract concepts of civil society. They base their system of order on the fact that if you even so much as shoplift, you get your hand cut off. That is the kind of justice they are used to. To them, our jails are better than hotels, and being on welfare is like paradise. We invite them into our countries (and by "we" in my case I mean the leftists, because God knows I wouldn't bring them here) and in return they see us as weak people there for them to take advantage of.

Sooner or later they will have to go, because they will never assimilate in the numbers they have been arriving in, and they were never meant to assimilate. Modern mass migration out of the Middle East and Africa is meant for nothing but destabilizing western societies. Even the US was completely different before the 1960's immigration reform, and when I see what is going on in the UK now it is an unrecognizable country.


Also, agree 100% with TargeT about guns here. Your situation by itself wouldn't be enough to warrant discharging a firearm. But it is why I started lifting weights, I will tell you that much.

[ramus]

Here is the drug side of, suicide, gun violence and mass shootings.


New Study Finds Antidepressants to be “Largely Ineffective and Potentially Dangerous”

Posted on March 18, 2018Big Pharma

By Alex Pietrowski

The first two pharmaceutical antidepressants were clinically introduced in the 1950s, and the conditions they were supposed to treat would have at that time been found in about 50 to 100 persons per million. Today, some 13% of Americans now take antidepressants daily, even though we don’t yet understand the long-term effects of most psychotropic drugs.

As research develops, however, it is becoming clear that the truth about antidepressants is far different from the rosy picture painted by pharmaceutical marketers and biased or corrupt research journals.

In a recent study conducted at Zurich University of Applied Sciences in Switzerland, researcher Michael P. Hengartner came to the conclusion that, “antidepressants are largely ineffective and potentially harmful.”

Due to several flaws such as publication and reporting bias, unblinding of outcome assessors, concealment and recoding of serious adverse events, the efficacy of antidepressants is systematically overestimated, and harm is systematically underestimated. ~Michael P. Hengartner, Researcher at Zurich University of Applied Sciences in Switzerland

Remarking on the methodology of the study and the meaning of the statistical results is Peter Simons of Mad in America:

Hengartner questioned why the “massive increase in antidepressant prescription rates over the last three decades did not translate into measurable public health benefits” in the treatment of depression. Although meta-analyses tend to find a small difference between placebo and antidepressant effect, Hengartner argues that it comes nowhere near the “clinically significant” threshold of at least 7 points on the Hamilton Depression Scale. Instead, a difference of 1 or 2 points is a meaningless numerical difference that would not be considered an improvement to a clinician or the person diagnosed with depression. [Source]

Also noteworthy, the study’s author notes that long-term us of antidepressants actually increases the likelihood that the patient will have a relapse of depressive episodes. This is one of many detrimental known side effects of antidepressants, which were also noted in this recent study, including higher risk of suicide.

A growing body of evidence from hundreds of randomized controlled trials suggests that antidepressants cause suicidality, but this risk is underestimated because data from industry-funded trials are systematically flawed. Unselected, population-wide observational studies indicate that depressive patients who use antidepressants are at an increased risk of suicide and that they have a higher rate of all-cause mortality than matched controls. [Source]

The real story on antidepressants is easier to understand by looking at these easy to read infographics which show eight years of collected data, and give us a more accurate picture of what these medications are doing.

If antidepressants aren’t you’re thing, but you’re looking to boost your mood, there are natural and very effective ways of boosting your mood. Meditation is another method that can help people overcome depression and anxiety.

For more on this recent study, review the following source.

Hengartner, M. P. (2017). Methodological flaws, conflicts of interest, and scientific fallacies: Implications for the evaluation of antidepressants’ efficacy and harm. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 8(275). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00275 (Link)

Read more articles by Alex Pietrowski.

Alex Pietrowski is an artist and writer concerned with preserving good health and the basic freedom to enjoy a healthy lifestyle. He is a staff writer for WakingTimes.com. Alex is an avid student of Yoga and life.

This article (New Study Finds Antidepressants to be “Largely Ineffective and Potentially Dangerous”) was originally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Alex Pietrowski and WakingTimes.com.

[TargeT]

some pretty interesting clips that answer questions raised in this thread

wPXQzAi7jlA

Uwm6XWFc0TM

AQ3YzVmODoo

[Foxie Loxie]

TargeT....do you have a gun? As a teenager I had a 22 rifle, but didn't really hunt much. I remember when I had to go to the shooting range to get my "license"!

When I lived in Mexico I had a small handgun as my husband was gone a lot, but thankfully, never had to use it! ;)

[TargeT]

Some new interesting data relevant to the off-shoot gun-control topic:


Dishonest CDC caught hiding data proving that guns are used FAR more for self-defense than for crime
One of the Left’s biggest knocks on guns is their claim that very few Americans actually use one for self-defense purposes and that firearms are used far more times to commit murder and other crimes.

Not only is that untrue, it’s very untrue. And what’s more, at least one government agency has known it’s untrue for at least 20 years — the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Recently discovered statistics from the CDC dating back to the mid-to-late 1990s that were never released to the public indicate that defensive gun uses (DGUs) are much more common than criminal uses of a firearm, The Daily Wire reported.

According to a new report from Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, the agency conducted the surveys in 1996, 1997, and 1998 but neglected — purposefully, most likely — to make public the fact that Americans use guns in millions of self-defense situations every year on average.

But many people — arguably most Americans — believe otherwise. That’s because they’re treated to a steady diet of naysaying from the Left-wing, gun-hating establishment media arguing that Kleck’s research is inaccurate.

For example, in January 2015 Politico Magazine writers Evan DeFillipis and Devin Hughes (financial industry guys, not researchers with advanced degrees) wrote that such claims are a “tragic myth: that millions of gun owners successfully use their firearms to defend themselves and their families from criminals.” Further, they wrote that such claims have “nearly no academic support in public health literature.” (Related: Why black Americans are demanding their gun rights, even while oppressive liberal mobs are trying to disarm them.)

Well, that’s due in large part because the public health agency that has the correct data never released it.
https://pics.me.me/i-finally-got-my-hands-on-one-of-those-fully-semi-automatic-32051456.png
As noted by Reason Magazine:

…Kleck conducted the most thorough previously known survey data on the question in the 1990s. His study, which has been harshly disputed in pro-gun-control quarters, indicated that there were more than 2.2 million such defensive uses of guns (DGUs) in America a year.

Now Kleck has unearthed some lost CDC survey data on the question. The CDC essentially confirmed Kleck’s results. But Kleck didn’t know about that until now, because the CDC never reported what it found.

Kleck said he found that the agency asked about defensive uses for guns in its Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) during the aforementioned timeframe.

The CDC survey, which Kleck said was of “high-quality,” asked respondents: “During the last 12 months, have you confronted another person with a firearm, even if you did not fire it, to protect yourself, your property, or someone else?”

Reason noted that the survey instructed respondents to leave out “incidents from occupations, like policing, where using firearms is part of the job.” In addition, the survey does not add instances where guns were used to defend against an animal.

Kleck found in the surveys that 79 percent of those who reported a DGJ “had also reported a gun in their household at the time of the [survey] interview.” Only people who admitted to owning a gun were questioned; for that reason, Kleck said the CDC’s final numbers must be rounded up.

The final adjusted prevalence of 1.24 percent of DGU’s implies that in an average year during 1996–1998, 2.46 million U.S. adults used a gun for self-defense.

“This estimate, based on an enormous sample of 12,870 cases (unweighted) in a nationally representative sample, strongly confirms the 2.5 million past-12-months estimate obtained Kleck and Gertz (1995). …. CDC’s results, then, imply that guns were used defensively by victims about 3.6 times as often as they were used offensively by criminals,” The Daily Wire reported.

As to the Politico Magazine article claiming his figures were wrong, Kleck responded (in the same publication) the next month that the writers could not refute any of his or research partner Marc Gertz’s rebuttals, research methodology, or logic in reaching their conclusions.

It’s not like this information is going to get wide play in the gun-hating American Pravda media. But the next time you hear someone say few Americans use guns every year to defend themselves, you’ll know better.
https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-04-23-dishonest-cdc-caught-hiding-data-proving-that-guns-are-used-for-self-defense.html


I always felt like this would be the case, but never had a link to provide..... i guess I now know why.

I wonder if the same can be said about knives, for some reason I doubt it; but I didn't grow up in culture where the knife is your "go-to" weapon for self defense.

[greybeard]

I accept that your in a different situation entirely from my locality TargeT

What occurred to me is the use of guns for defense was probably against a person armed with a gun.
To my mind the need to carry a gun though perceived as essential in USA was borne of the promotion of fear--the whole thing can escalate--my gun bigger more powerful than yours etc.
We need to defend our family property our country.

I smile a little -- The country was taken from the American Red Indians by use of the gun.
We are all immigrants one way or another

Thats another issue

Not saying my opinion is of any worth---as said my situation quite different.
Murders happen here in Scotland obviously but rarely by intruders-- more likely by a relative or mugging gone wrong.

Chris

[TargeT]

I accept that your in a different situation entirely from my locality TargeT

What occurred to me is the use of guns for defense was probably against a person armed with a gun.

It's a very useful defense tool for any situation where your life may be in danger from a mortal threat.

Bears, moose, I've carried for protection against animals or just to exercise the Right far more often than to protect from actual people.


To my mind the need to carry a gun though perceived as essential in USA
But where did you get that idea from?

Do you think its perhaps planted?

Estimates are that 3 million carry daily (https://www.futurity.org/americans-carrying-guns-1581112/) (~1%)


.... was borne of the promotion of fear--the whole thing can escalate--my gun bigger more powerful than yours etc.
We need to defend our family property our country.

at 1% I'd say it's not a very common fear, actually it's a super rare one :)


I smile a little -- The country was taken from the American Red Indians by use of the gun.


And yet, you don't understand why we would want to be armed? Imagine if they HAD guns??


Thats another issue

Not saying my opinion is of any worth---as said my situation quite different.
Murders happen here in Scotland obviously but rarely by intruders-- more likely by a relative or mugging gone wrong.

Chris

murders here are also majority by known assailants (http://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/2016/08/06/americans-mostly-kill-ones-know/ideas/nexus/).

[DeDukshyn]

I think I found the source of where the term "assualt rifle" came from ... most likely the StG44 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44), manufactured in Germany from 1943. Also known as MP44. The StG in the name of the fifle "StG44" is an abbreviation for "Sturmgewehr" - which is German for "Assault rifle". So the rifle's model seemed to actually be named "Assault Rifle 44", in German.

So my earlier indication that this seemed to be more of a "model name" than a designation or category appears correct. It seems that American rifles that were manufactured later with the same capabilities used the already branded term "assault rifle" to describe the rifles, and referring to its similarities to the StG44.

Sources from wikipedia and a few other apparent 'gun history' sites.

Anyway, just a fun fact.

[Nasu]

Its fundamentally different, it's like comparing tomatoes and potatoes.

The UK and US cannot be compared to when it comes to self defense. In the US you may protect yourself with deadly force if you feel that either you or another innocent party is in imminent threat of death. The use of any weapon from a knife to a gun would be the deadly force.

However in the UK you may only use proportional force to the situation. You may use deadly force as in the US even with a weapon but you will have to prove in court that it was proportional to the attack. Furthermore, you may not carry or use anything for the purpose of self defense. For example having your cricket bat beside the bed in your cricket bag and using it in self defense when attacked is perfectly legal, however having the cricket bat beside the bed just in case, is not...

In the US the current argument is about the legality of bump stocks and the use of AR15's and extended magazines, in the UK they are going to tighten knife crime legislation and looking at limiting the sale of sulfuric acid!! Different cultures. The UK government has slowly since the 1940's taken away from the populous it's rights to self defense as well as the personal ownership of firearms in particular and weapons in general.

When we eliminate poverty and desperation from our respective cultures, these discussions on the need for self or state reliance will I hope, become mostly moot....x.... N

[greybeard]

As said my environment is different and therefore colors my perspective.
There is not the challenge to life of wild animals.
I get why people would feel the need to carry a hand gun but there are the few who have an array of deadly weapons---machine guns automatics.

We are fed on violence from an early age by the media---video games -films.

The youths in London who carried knives when interviewed said they carried them out of fear---some had machetes --swords whatever.

Some have lashed out because of fear and killed an unarmed youth,
Drink or drugs can be involved and the use of these takes away a balanced appraisal of a situation.
"I will get you before you get me" is then the uppermost thought.

Fear attracts what you are frightened of.
You become a target.

The use of an appropriate level of "defense" is accepted by law here, but a householder who killed an unarmed burglar might well find himself in prison.

Chris

[Baby Steps]

There is a theory floating about that the Government take-down of the Kid's Company (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33788415) has contributed to this.

This Charity provided large scale assistance to the most disturbed kids. When kids grow up in a love-less home, with violence, economic distress, absent parents, drug problems, etc, they suffer permanent personality and brain damage. This leads to the cycle of violence.

The theory goes that this charity was assisting SO MANY of these victims that it had a significant positive effect on conditions in London, but this support mechanism was removed by HM Government.

There is controversy regarding what happened, mal-practise, poor practise etc, but what is NOT in dispute is that this Charity did receive large sums from both HMG and other donors and did have a very positive or transformitive effect on the lives of many of these disturbed children and young adults.

The Charity was subject to Quarterly Audits on behalf of the Charity Commission, so financial irregularities were hopefully minor, and Camila B has not been charged with any crime, nor have allegations been made.

Getting darker (forgive me) there is the possibility that significant deterioration of social conditions leading to violence and strife is an actual STRATEGY

We are also seeing early indications that the new 'universal credit' system that HMG has implemented is causing increased distress. The indicator is food bank (https://news.sky.com/story/line-18-food-bank-use-four-times-higher-in-universal-credit-areas-11343772) uptake.

[greybeard]

Yes Baby Steps
As I said we are being conditioned to have fear, to take sides, to fight for our rights.
Divide and conquer.

Chris

[TargeT]

As said my environment is different and therefore colors my perspective.
There is not the challenge to life of wild animals.
I get why people would feel the need to carry a hand gun but there are the few who have an array of deadly weapons---machine guns automatics.

When you say "the few" how many do you think that is?

The US has some 325,000,000 people, only ~1% carry daily, and of that how many do you think own "machine guns" ? (terrible nomenclature btw..) or "automatics" (better nomenclature, i suppose; but aren't they the same thing?)?

175,977 in the US (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/03/daniel-zimmerman/atf-reveals-the-number-of-registered-machine-guns/)... so less than .5% of the population.

BTW, I challenge you to find (aside from Vegas, which is highly questionable IMO...) a single incident of an automatic firearm being used in a crime. It just doesn't happen.


We are fed on violence from an early age by the media---video games -films.

But that's propaganda too isn't it? there's not even a slight correlation between increased violence and video games/media (aside from, again, a couple of high profile (MSM SUPPORTED) incidents that are questionable.. possible FF imo).

In fact, the BEST correlation to increased violence is the state of fear that you are expressing, that's the only consistant variable that tracks higher with violence, the fear of violence (manifest reality??)


The youths in London who carried knives when interviewed said they carried them out of fear---some had machetes --swords whatever.

Makes sense to me, take away your self confidence and you start acting irratically.... hell even when I grew up I never locked the doors to my house or cars (still don't, honestly) but I hear that I'm pretty godamn rare in that aspect.


Some have lashed out because of fear and killed an unarmed youth,
Drink or drugs can be involved and the use of these takes away a balanced appraisal of a situation.
"I will get you before you get me" is then the uppermost thought.

I think drugs can confuse the situation, but you're circling around the problem a lot here, our own fear and lack of self worth/confidence is the issue, everything else is a symptom.


Fear attracts what you are frightened of.
You become a target.

Exactly :)


The use of an appropriate level of "defense" is accepted by law here, but a householder who killed an unarmed burglar might well find himself in prison.

Chris

Yeah, I don't agree with those types of laws; california has some crazy ones like that too... but it's california.... haha so i expect illogical laws.


Yes Baby Steps
As I said we are being conditioned to.... to fight for our rights.

Chris

I don't see any conditioning in that.... certainly many other things but not that, I think that's a pretty organic reaction; but still leveraged for divide and conquer.

[greybeard]

Being territorial--which im not really.

There are as many people in Greater London as there is in the whole of Scotland.
Where people are condensed into an area its not healthy.--this can lead to violence.

Im from the Highlands of Scotland --there is plenty of space for all interests, hobbies.

I dont have statistics but I can remember anyone being shot here.

All im saying is different environments lead to different behaviors.

Each to their own.

Chris

Summer sailing --even swimming in the sea, for the brave--sandy beaches, forests--hills--mountaineering--white water rafting.
Winter skiing and other sports.
Freedom--space to be.

[greybeard]

Hi TargeT

In a way Im not disagreeing with your point of view--it works for you.
Mine is related as said to my environment and conditioning.

Chris

[TargeT]

PJW takes a swing at the topic:
3UG_N9H4XYY

I agree, soft and fuzzy policy is a beautiful idea; but not realistic.

[greybeard]

Trump: London hospital a 'war zone' for victims of knife crime


[Sky News]
Sky News5 May 2018

Donald Trump has compared a London hospital to a "war zone" because of knife crime, as he defended the use of guns in America.

Speaking at the National Rifle Convention (NRA) in Dallas, the US president claimed there was blood all over a unnamed hospital's floors while he referenced the knife murders in the capital this year.

"I recently read a story that in London, which has unbelievably tough gun laws, a once very prestigious hospital right in the middle is like a war zone for horrible stabbing wounds," he said.

"Yes, that's right they don't have guns, they have knives - and instead is blood all over the floors of this hospital.

"They say it's as bad as a military war zone hospital. Knives, knives, knives. London hasn't been used to that, they're getting used to it, it's pretty tough."

The President then mimed a stabbing motion.

At least 38 people in London have lost their lives to knife crime so far this year, according to the Met Police.

The President then turned his attention to the Paris terror attacks.

Making a gun gesture with his fingers and shouting "boom", he told the audience that "if one employee or just one patron had a gun… or if one person in this room had been there with a gun" the attackers would have been stopped in their tracks.

He said: "The terrorists would have fled or been shot and it would have been a whole different story."

The attacks in November 2015 left 130 people dead after a series of mass shootings and suicide bombings at packed venues including the Bataclan theatre and the Stade de France football stadium.

President Trump reflected on the number of people murdered, and said: "Nobody has guns in Paris, nobody, and we all remember the more than 130 people, plus the tremendous numbers of people that were horribly, horribly wounded.

"They died in a restaurant and various other close-proximity places. They were brutally killed by a small group of terrorists, that had guns.

"They took their time and gunned them down one by one."

He then simulated lining up and shooting innocent victims, as he said: "Boom, come over here. Boom, come over here. Boom, come over here. Boom."

He added: "If one employee, or one patron had a gun, or if one person in this room had been there with a gun, aimed at the opposite direction, the terrorists would have fled or been shot."

People in the audience at the NRA's annual meeting cheered.

Mr Trump added that "if we're going to outlaw guns" then we are "going to have to outlaw all vans and all trucks, which are now the new form of death for the maniac terrorists".

:: US school shootings: A deadly history
:: March For Our Lives: Global protests for US gun laws

The comments come as the President visited Dallas and urged NRA supporters to back Republican candidates in upcoming congressional elections, warning that Democrats would look to tighten gun laws after a series of mass shootings in the US.



https://uk.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-guns-put-stop-paris-terror-attack-193700327.html

[greybeard]

Being even handed--open minded
Chris

Donald Trump comments on London knife crime branded 'absurd and offensive' by victims' families


Shooting hero: I'm no Superman
James Shaw Jr grabbed a gun from a man who killed four people at a Waffle House…
Sky News

Moment stolen van rams police car
Greater Manchester Police release dashcam footage showing the moment a van…
Sky News
o…
Sky News
'Knives, knives, knives': Trump on London


(Sky News)

Parents of children murdered in knife and gun attacks on British streets have condemned Donald Trump for claiming that the right to bear arms could help tackle gang violence in the UK.
The US president claimed that knife crime in London was so bad that a hospital ward was like a “war zone” due to stab wounds.
He told the National Rifle Association convention in Dallas, Texas, that because Britain has “unbelievably tough gun laws” there was "blood all over the floors" from knife attacks in one of the capital's emergency wards.
It appears Mr Trump may have been referring to comments by Martin Griffiths, a surgeon at the Royal London Hospital, who likened an emergency ward there to an Afghan war zone due to the number of victims of knife attacks.

The surgeon responded to Mr Trump on Twitter with an image suggesting the president had missed the point, adding that he was "happy to invite Mr Trump to my prestigious hospital … to discuss our successes in violence reduction London.”
Meanwhile, Professor Karim Brohi, trauma surgeon at The Royal London Hospital and Director of London’s major trauma system, said hospital staff were proud of the "excellent trauma care" they provide, adding that it was "ridiculous" for the president to suggest guns could be part of the solution.
"The Royal London Hospital has cut the number of our young patients returning after further knife attacks from 45 per cent to 1 per cent. There is more we can all do to combat this violence, but to suggest guns are part of the solution is ridiculous. Gunshot wounds are at least twice as lethal as knife injuries and more difficult to repair."
Bhupinder Iffat Rizvi, whose 20 year old daughter, Sabina, was shot dead in Kent in 2003 after being caught up in a dispute about a car, said she was “horrified and offended” by Mr Trump's comments.
“I found his speech very, very offensive,” she said. “Since he made it I’ve had calls from other mother and fathers affected by knife and gun crime.
“Mr Trump may be a businessman, and the US does see guns as big business and money is important to them, but we are mothers and have lost our children to violence.
“Is he really suggesting we should legalise guns? I couldn’t believe it. Is he really saying people should pick up a gun and go and shoot someone they are in dispute with, and they can try to shoot you back?


https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/donald-trump-comments-on-london-knife-crime-branded-absurd-and-offensive-by-victims-families/ar-AAwMK86?ocid=spartandhp

[greybeard]

Anger in the UK and France over Trump's NRA speech


Thomson Reuters
LONDON (Reuters) - Trauma surgeons in London said U.S. President Donald Trump had missed the point after he linked a wave of knife crime in the British capital to a ban on handguns.
Anger also flared in France after Trump, in a speech to the National Rifle Association (NRA), used his hands in a gesture to mimic the shooting of victims in Paris in 2015.
Trump, who is due to visit Britain on July 13, told members of the NRA in Dallas, Texas on Friday that a "once very prestigious" London hospital, which he did not name, had become overwhelmed with victims of knife attacks.
"They don't have guns. They have knives and instead there's blood all over the floors of this hospital," he said. "They say it's as bad as a military war zone hospital. Knives, knives, knives, knives," he added, making stabbing gestures.
London suffered a spike in knife crime in the early part of this year, and the total number of murders during February and March exceeded that in New York.
Last month, trauma surgeon Martin Griffiths told the BBC that some of his colleagues had likened the Royal London Hospital in east London where he works to the former British military base Camp Bastion in Afghanistan.
"Some of my military colleagues have described their practice here as being similar to being at Bastion," he said. "About a quarter of what we see in our practice is knife and gun injury. And it's now we're doing major life-saving cases on a daily basis."
But on Saturday he implied Trump had drawn the wrong conclusion from his remarks, saying on Twitter that he would be happy to invite Trump to his "prestigious" hospital to discuss London's efforts to reduce violence.
Griffiths posted his comment next to an animation of a stick figure with the phrase "The Point" flying over its head, and also linked to a statement on the hospital's website by a fellow trauma surgeon, Karim Brohi.
"There is more we can all do to combat this violence, but to suggest guns are part of the solution is ridiculous. Gunshot wounds are at least twice as lethal as knife injuries and more difficult to repair," Brohi said in the statement on Saturday.
Britain's government effectively banned handgun ownership in England, Scotland and Wales after a school shooting in 1996.
Diane Abbott, the opposition Labour Party's spokeswoman for home affairs, said she could "hardly see how violent crime in London justifies the licensing of guns in the U.S.".
Trump's comments have caused upset before in Britain, which views itself as the United States' closest ally. Relations with Prime Minister Theresa May cooled last year after she criticized him for retweeting anti-Islam videos by a British far-right group.
Trump's NRA speech also drew anger in France on Saturday, after the U.S. president, using his hand in a gun gesture, acted out how a gunman had killed hostages one by one during an attack in Paris in November 2015.
Trump said a civilian could have stopped the massacre at the Bataclan concert hall, where 90 of the 130 victims of the attack died, had they had a gun.
Former French president Francois Hollande, who was head of state at the time, said on Twitter that Trump's comments and antics were "shameful" and "obscene".
Paris mayor Anne Hidalgo said Trump's portrayal of the 2015 attacks was "contemptuous and unworthy".
(Reporting by David Milliken; Editing by Stephen Powell)

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/anger-uk-france-over-trump-175326033.html

[Carmody]

Oddly enough, I ended up knowing one of the people who committed one of those knife murders. Barely, kinda thing, only a few conversations, but, it is odd nonetheless.