I'd have used that as an excuse to shoot them in the bollocks if that had been me.
"Sorry, my aim was a bit off."'

My concern is that the government will cave in an arm the police. I have no problems with armed response units, but the majority of police are simply not up to the job.

Every poll of the police has shown the majority of officers don't want to be armed. They're as aware of the risk of having thousands of firearms on the streets just as much as we are.

A bit late to the party but I see some were moaning that reports were quick to state the persons were of 'Muslim appearance.' They were called out as racists basically. As far as I can tell though they were correct in saying they were of Muslim appearance.

ap·pear·ance [uh-peer-uhns] noun
the state, condition, manner, or style in which a person or object appears

On that basis I would suggest shouting Alluah Akbar would grant someone the appearance of being Muslim. No one said it was a beardy guy in a robe did they.

They did not look Muslim.


Or has a wooly hat now got religious?

Just because they are black does not make the muslims.

"ballseye"

Well the EDL have decided to march in Newcastle tomorrow, forcing the organisers of an event in the city centre to cancel. Runied my plans for tomorrow.
http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/nor ... el-4010569

The event? A celebration of Newcastle's ethnic diversity.

ION the horse that got punched by a pissed football lout is back on duty

You might hate the police but why hit a horse?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

Who said they 'looked' Muslim?

Looks like Fox News has a perspective on this event that is, frankly, predictable.

http://mediamatters.org/video/2013/05/2 ... -on/194187

As usual the gun control line is fatuous. They took the guy they killed by surprise, he wouldn't have had time to use a gun. The effect of him having had a gun would be that he would still be dead, but the two nutters would have had another gun. That's much better. They then didn't attack anyone else until the police came along, at which point the police shot them.

So if every single other innocent person on that street had had a a gun, what would the effect most likely have been? The bloke would still be dead, the two nutters would still have been shot. They'd have been shot a bit sooner, but nobody else would have been saved, because nobody else was attacked. There is some likelihood that innocent people would have been injured as a paniced civilians fired at people they thought were terrorists (ref: The attack at the Empire state, where the perpetrator shot the one person he intended to, but nine other people were shot either by the police or armed bystanders).

What would have happened if everyone on the street - including the two nutters - had had guns? Probably much the same. They obviously didn't intend a massacre, they intended to kill someone related to 'the state' they despised so much in a very public way to attract the attention of the police, who they were hoping would then kill them, making the martyrs. The guy who died might have been shot to death rather than stabbed to death. I'm not sure the difference would matter to him. Then we have the same scenario as above - they'd have been shot, possibly along with several innocent bystanders.

So the net result of us having the same gun laws as say Texas? If we take away the things that did happen from our potential scenarios (bloke died, nutters were shot), the only effect of having guns in the scenario is a significant risk of more innocent people being killed. So well done the pro gun lobby, your main argument would have turned a tragedy into a massacre.

As I understand it, a car was used to run the victim over first, so gun or no, I doubt he’d be in much of a state to defend himself.

The points that are missed, and these are important. Firstly, if everyone on the scene had guns, then there would have been a lot more wounded and injured people around. The last ting you want is a load of amateur hot shots turning the place into a shooting gallery. Secondly, whilst the police did bring them down with guns, they shot to injure - not to kill. That’s very important. You won’t get martyrs (which would be used by others as a rallying call) and you want them alive to pump them for information. You won’t get that from a dead guy.

So, whilst we sadly have one person dead, we only have one person dead. We also have two sources for information, and the potential to stop other servicemen and women (and indeed anyone) being attacked.

Sadly, buy publicising the apparent religious foundations of the attack, the majority of Muslims who are clearly shocked by this as anyone else, are now under threat from groups like the EDL. At times, I wonder if it’s right to give voice to the attackers in the way that was done last week. In my mind, the attacks were more indicative of serious mental instability, not religious conviction.

A potentially worrying development...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22669367

I do hope that's just a copycat or coincidence, and not the beginning of a larger change of tactics by terror groups.

It didn't take the IRA long to realise that it gained new members and support by getting it's 'tribe' attacked; those two twats knew exactly what they were doing the other day. And the EDL and every drunk/frightened muppet will help out...

These were not foreigners and so could not be deported, until there is a change in the law that allows governments to strip citizens of their citizenship and rights.