Texas synagogue siege: Teens held in UK as Briton named as hostage-taker

[Colonel_Klinck]

I mean, not "fine" but, you know whats the best way to defend yourself against someone with a gun?.... by having a gun yourself.

Like this one.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Freeway_Church_of_Christ_shooting

Luckily it turned out alright for the people inside this time but thats more luck than anything.

Right so you let everyone in with a gun. Someone has mental health issues or just wants to kill some people. They open up from the back of the church etc, shoot several people before someone finally gets a shot off at them. You still have dead people.

Now no one has a gun.... no dead people.

 

[ianh]

Right so you let everyone in with a gun. Someone has mental health issues or just wants to kill some people. They open up from the back of the church etc, shoot several people before someone finally gets a shot off at them. You still have dead people.

Now no one has a gun.... no dead people.

Because knifes, swords, bats etc don't exist?

3 Dead in French Church stabbing - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-54729957

5 injured in Machete attack in Synagogue - https://abcnews.go.com/US/start-her...hooting-inside-texas-church/story?id=67850878

1 Dead in UK Church Stabbing - https://eu.usatoday.com/videos/news...wmaker-killed-church-knife-attack/8472191002/

3 dead in US Church Stabbing - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-church-stabbing-san-jose-today-b1760170.html

etc etc etc.

If people want to kill people they'll always find a way. Firearms make it easier obviously but they don't create the desire to kill and removing them won't remove the desire to kill, it just moves the weapon to something else.

 

[Johno please?]

Right so you let everyone in with a gun. Someone has mental health issues or just wants to kill some people. They open up from the back of the church etc, shoot several people before someone finally gets a shot off at them. You still have dead people.

Yea, so like the example I posted then? still, 2 people dead is better than 20. So why not have people conceal carry if they wish to.

 

[Jean-F]

"My view be my view 'n tha's the ways I like it"

From your reply you are definitely of the old mindset and potentially ignorant of your own beliefs.

I'm not arguing with you, I simply wondered why you said what you said and tried to articulate how offensive it was.

Yes, being offended doesn't mean anything yadda yadda yadda but in today's world ignorance must be challenged else we succumb to it and allow it to envelop our progressive society.

“My view be my view ‘n tha’s the ways I like it.”
Is this your attempt to categorise the way I speak, i.e. I probably suffer from cognitive dissonance, so I speak like an ill educated person of the lower orders?
Maybe you’re really not categorising me, but if you are, then aren’t you being just a tiny bit ignorant too?
At my age I can’t deny being of the old mindset, but I’m not ignorant of my beliefs, my much younger wife, with a much more modern outlook has been determinedly making me aware of my failings.
She’s been chipping away at my politically incorrect utterances for a long time now and has made sterling progress, I’m way better than I used to be, I occasionally think before I speak now, maybe I’ll never be totally accepted in modern society, but I’m getting there.
Unfortunately I think that I’ll run out of time before I become a model citizen of righteous thought, but be assured CB, your comments are nudging me in the right direction.

 

[Angilion]

Right so you let everyone in with a gun. Someone has mental health issues or just wants to kill some people. They open up from the back of the church etc, shoot several people before someone finally gets a shot off at them. You still have dead people.

Now no one has a gun.... no dead people.

It's impossible to ensure that no one has a gun. Making guns illegal wouldn't do that. Especially not in the USA.

Guns aren't the only weapons that exist, so in your scenario people would be killed even if guns had somehow ceased to exist. It's very hard for untrained and unarmed people to overpower someone armed with a melee weapon, especially a bladed one. The inside of a church would be large enough for a polearm to be used and that's very hard to counter even with a melee weapon of your own. Which leads to the question of whether people should be allowed to carry melee weapons for defence in your hypothetical world without guns. Sword and buckler, maybe, as a trade-off between practicality in daily life and effectiveness in combat.

Fewer dead people, maybe. But not none. And maybe more dead people than would happen if there were people in place with guns who could shoot the shooter. Or maybe not. It's not as simple as "Now no one has a gun.... no dead people".

 

[edscdk]

Because knifes, swords, bats etc don't exist?

3 Dead in French Church stabbing - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-54729957

5 injured in Machete attack in Synagogue - https://abcnews.go.com/US/start-her...hooting-inside-texas-church/story?id=67850878

1 Dead in UK Church Stabbing - https://eu.usatoday.com/videos/news...wmaker-killed-church-knife-attack/8472191002/

3 dead in US Church Stabbing - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-church-stabbing-san-jose-today-b1760170.html

etc etc etc.

If people want to kill people they'll always find a way. Firearms make it easier obviously but they don't create the desire to kill and removing them won't remove the desire to kill, it just moves the weapon to something else.

I bet a of sucessfull murders using a gun would not have happened if another weapon was used.. Its way easier, less personal and faster to kill someone with a gun..

 

[Rroff]

Its way easier, less personal and faster to kill someone with a gun..

More often than not people don't just drop dead instantly when shot with a gun (though it can happen).

Though it is why I support firearms regulations where semi or fully automatic capable weapons are very heavily regulated.

 

[ANDREW GREEN]

Because knifes, swords, bats etc don't exist?

3 Dead in French Church stabbing - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-54729957

5 injured in Machete attack in Synagogue - https://abcnews.go.com/US/start-her...hooting-inside-texas-church/story?id=67850878

1 Dead in UK Church Stabbing - https://eu.usatoday.com/videos/news...wmaker-killed-church-knife-attack/8472191002/

3 dead in US Church Stabbing - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-church-stabbing-san-jose-today-b1760170.html

etc etc etc.

If people want to kill people they'll always find a way. Firearms make it easier obviously but they don't create the desire to kill and removing them won't remove the desire to kill, it just moves the weapon to something else.

Yes sure if you want to kill you can kill. But like you say guns make it far easier. They are far more efficient at slaughtering a large group of people. To someone who's perhaps narcassistic they will feel all the more esteem from massacring a large group in return for their own life because they will feel all the more powerful. They also make it easier to have an easy somewhat pain free suicide because you're almost certain to be shot dead rather than have a depressing life in prison for the rest of your days.

For all those reasons killings from guns in America by far outweight killings in other countries.

 

[NVP]

Is this your attempt to categorise the way I speak

I assure you it was not, it was said in jest in regards to your stubbornness

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

Yea, so like the example I posted then? still, 2 people dead is better than 20. So why not have people conceal carry if they wish to.

How many more cases can you cite? The best scenario is no guns in there full stop. If it means metal detectors at the doors, well the US has crazy gun laws that mean crazy people have easy access to guns.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

It's impossible to ensure that no one has a gun. Making guns illegal wouldn't do that. Especially not in the USA.

Guns aren't the only weapons that exist, so in your scenario people would be killed even if guns had somehow ceased to exist. It's very hard for untrained and unarmed people to overpower someone armed with a melee weapon, especially a bladed one. The inside of a church would be large enough for a polearm to be used and that's very hard to counter even with a melee weapon of your own. Which leads to the question of whether people should be allowed to carry melee weapons for defence in your hypothetical world without guns. Sword and buckler, maybe, as a trade-off between practicality in daily life and effectiveness in combat.

Fewer dead people, maybe. But not none. And maybe more dead people than would happen if there were people in place with guns who could shoot the shooter. Or maybe not. It's not as simple as "Now no one has a gun.... no dead people".

You have metal detectors at the doors. Shooting someone is far easier and less personal than stabbing them. No you aren't always going to stop everyone, so yes no dead was just for effect, someone could break someone's neck but US gun laws have got them in this situation, I'm not sure more guns is the answer. The more guns you allow in somewhere the greater the chance they are going to get used one day.

 

[The Running Man]

And they say the right is the fastest growing threat.

It seems once again Islam is THE threat.

 

[potatolord]

It's impossible to ensure that no one has a gun. Making guns illegal wouldn't do that. Especially not in the USA.

Guns aren't the only weapons that exist, so in your scenario people would be killed even if guns had somehow ceased to exist. It's very hard for untrained and unarmed people to overpower someone armed with a melee weapon, especially a bladed one. The inside of a church would be large enough for a polearm to be used and that's very hard to counter even with a melee weapon of your own. Which leads to the question of whether people should be allowed to carry melee weapons for defence in your hypothetical world without guns. Sword and buckler, maybe, as a trade-off between practicality in daily life and effectiveness in combat.

Fewer dead people, maybe. But not none. And maybe more dead people than would happen if there were people in place with guns who could shoot the shooter. Or maybe not. It's not as simple as "Now no one has a gun.... no dead people".

Reducing is never going to result in zero. That does not mean it is meaningless to reduce.

Polearms are difficult to hide, unless you're a stilt walker.

Against a large cornered mob, a blade fails. You'll just get stuff chucked at you until you get tripped or go down.

Guns are different in one key respect: you cannot run from a gun.

To be fair, a halberd vs sword and buckler man face off would make Sunday service more exciting. My money's on halberd man.

 

[Jean-F]

I assure you it was not, it was said in jest in regards to your stubbornness

Stubbornness?
You have me there CB, my middle name is ‘contumacy.’
I take your jest in good part, and wish you well, J-F.

 

[deuse]

But was he known to U.K. police?
This was in the BBC report on the incident,
“There has been no confirmation yet of whether Akram was already known to the UK authorities but he had no prior police record in the US.”
If he had no criminal convictions he wouldn’t need a visa to get into the U.S., he could have travelled on ESTA.
As for the gun, if you’re prepared to go to sketchy areas and take a chance on asking questions of the right people you’ll be able to lay your hands on a weapon over there.
He must have been very persuasive to get into the synagogue, a Jewish friend in New Jersey told me that it’s easier to get into Fort Knox with all the security that synagogues have these days.
The same friend sent me a screenshot of the New York Times with a piece naming British Citizen Malik Faisal Akram.
I told her that it wasn’t a fine old Anglo-Saxon name, and that he might be British born, but it was an absolute lock that his ancestors weren’t Vikings, nor did they come over with William the Conqueror in 1066.

He was known to the MI5
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60038207

Another known terrorist left to walk about.

 

[deuse]

How many more cases can you cite? The best scenario is no guns in there full stop. If it means metal detectors at the doors, well the US has crazy gun laws that mean crazy people have easy access to guns.

Door metal detectors don't always work.
There is nothing anyone can do. If it was not a gun, then it would have been a big knife.

 

[deuse]

You have metal detectors at the doors. Shooting someone is far easier and less personal than stabbing them. No you aren't always going to stop everyone, so yes no dead was just for effect, someone could break someone's neck but US gun laws have got them in this situation, I'm not sure more guns is the answer. The more guns you allow in somewhere the greater the chance they are going to get used one day.

If one was to get rid of guns then there would be 60,000+ unemployed and the US gov would lose $20 billion in tax's.
Then you have the knock of effect.

The UK is an island. But no one can stop guns coming here.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

If one was to get rid of guns then there would be 60,000+ unemployed and the US gov would lose $20 billion in tax's.
Then you have the knock of effect.

The UK is an island. But no one can stop guns coming here.

You realise the exact same excuse was used for cigarettes and cigarette advertising.

Maybe the US just needs a personality transplant. Lots of countries have liberal gun laws but refrain from using them on each other in such numbers.

 

[deuse]

You realise the exact same excuse was used for cigarettes and cigarette advertising.

Maybe the US just needs a personality transplant. Lots of countries have liberal gun laws but refrain from using them on each other in such numbers.

You're talking about the UK and not the US where they pay $700 billion in tobacco revenues and US$250 billion in tax revenues in the US.

And my daughter has told me that my gun that's in a Pasco gun range.
Has still killed no one.

 

[Terminal_Boy]

He was known to the MI5
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60038207

Another known terrorist left to walk about.

At least the U.K. taxpayer has been spared the cost of keeping this mostly peaceful holidaymaker in prison for life.