The News Thread

[HamburgerBoy]

According to the "Global Terrorism Index" that would seem to be the case.

fwiw I think spree-shooters are the only situation where lack of guns do prevent gun violence, and that more would have died if these guys in the UK were carrying. That being said, spree-shootings make up the tiniest fraction of gun homicides, roughly 0.1% here even though from the news you'd think it would be orders of magnitude greater. Best ways to avoid gun violence are to not be a woman in an abusive relationship, and to not live in a black neighborhood. Do that and you've cut down most of the risk.

 

[Einherjar86]

how often do you hear of attacks in pro-gun-zones?

http://freedomoutpost.com/2-jihadists-killed-attempting-mass-murder-at-muslim-art-contest-in-texas/ -- likely not the best source, but there is an example. and one would think with our much higher muslim population in the U.S. that we would likely have higher amount of attacks (~2.5mil to ~3.5mil), especially ones that use guns as violence.

Also, pretty sure those perpetrators were shot at by a police officer, and eventually killed by SWAT. So much for the gun-toting Texans.

I'm inclined to believe that the locations of terrorist incidents has less to do with whether those locations are "gun free zones" and more to do with population density. Most densely populated urban areas also happen to have stricter regulations for firearms--but this is a coincidence, not a contributing factor.

Terrorists aren't avoiding Greenleaf, Idaho because it's a pro-gun zone. They avoid it because it has a population of under a thousand fucking people. And for that reason, I'll avoid it too.

 

[dwellerINTHEdark]

Stay strong, Greenleaf.

 

[Blind Guardian]

if Londoners are so lucky, why aren't there more gun-violence-led-muslim attacks in the U.S.? Especially with higher body counts? We had the night club shooter. And he wasn't even considered to be part of ISIS

The topic is civilian gun access as public safety vs danger - the identity of the killer is completely irreleveant. The night club shooter alone managed to kill more people than all three British attacks from this year combined, and they include a suicide bombing. A gun just gives a person that much more power.

if you don't think security measures, whether that ranges from civilian handguns to police force armed to the teeth, doesn't effect the plans of attckers, you're being very naive.

You can't even start to compare how many people die in spree killings in America vs the UK on a yearly basis, so no, I don't think they care as long as their targets are civilians, and they want to create attention. That's not the same as saying the police shouldn't be well equipped to respond, but that's beside the point.

Also, remember the Ohio State knife attack from last year? Yet again a terrorist going at it freely until the cops showed up and shot him. Exact same situation as in London.

 

[rms]

Also, pretty sure those perpetrators were shot at by a police officer, and eventually killed by SWAT. So much for the gun-toting Texans.

I was incorrect, thank ya. Thought there was a Texas example of civilian-stopping-violence but maybe not

They avoid it because it has a population of under a thousand fucking people.

there's a large gap in your logic here. No one is suggesting rural areas at all, but there are large urban areas that do not get attacked in the U.S.

In fact, there are a plethora that would get a lot of attention in the U.S., but nothing happens

the identity of the killer is completely irreleveant.

this is a discussion about ISIS influenced (at the least) violence in Western countries, identity is totally relevant and important

A gun just gives a person that much more power.

it gives all persons with a gun power, not just one

Also, remember the Ohio State knife attack from last year? Yet again a terrorist going at it freely until the cops showed up and shot him. Exact same situation as in London.

not sure there is any public university in the U.S. that allows handguns, let alone open or concealed carry. I doubt OSU was any different than England

 

[Dak]

Guns don't work as a deterrent either, since all spree killers have already come to terms with dying, obviously.

That's why mass killers typically target gun free zones, because guns aren't a deterrent. It's not about avoiding being killed, it's about getting a max body count before other guns show up.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

There have been mass shootings stopped by people carrying, but they aren't super common (as expected; mass shootings are rare, the majority of people don't carry, a significant portion of those that do may carry as a last resort and attempt to flee first, etc). Overall defensive uses of firearms hovers in the 20k-40k per year range, though that will largely involve home invasions where the criminal probably isn't seeking to kill someone (not that it means they deserve a bullet any less).

 

[Einherjar86]

there's a large gap in your logic here. No one is suggesting rural areas at all, but there are large urban areas that do not get attacked in the U.S.

In fact, there are a plethora that would get a lot of attention in the U.S., but nothing happens

Hmmm, not sure I follow. A lot of the large urban areas that you're talking about have stricter gun laws, and yet (as you say) they haven't been targeted. All I'm saying is I don't really think that gun regulations plays into their choice of target, I just think that a lot of major urban centers also happen to be "gun-free zones" (or to have many gun-free zones, since cities aren't really "gun-free").

That's why mass killers typically target gun free zones, because guns aren't a deterrent. It's not about avoiding being killed, it's about getting a max body count before other guns show up.

Agreed on this point.

Of course, I think Dak is probably for decreased regulations and increased numbers of persons carrying so as to combat terrorist incidents more effectively; but I have problems with that proposal too.

 

[Dak]

Well, I don't think that more guns in the hands of "good people" is a certain solution. But gun free zones literally only stop the best carriers of guns from having them in the area. Someone intent on committing murder isn't going to care about a gun charge, but may be attracted to the reduced security.

 

[CiG]

Yes, I'm sure their targets have nothing to do with whether the targets may be carrying guns or not. All those terrorist attacks on densely populated police stations or gun shows or pretty much any place in Texas are very common.

How often do you hear about terrorists and spree killers being stopped by armed civilians in the US though? Events would have taken place in the same way if those guys did it in New York - a few dozen people injured or killed before the killers are shot by the cops. If anything, the Londoners are lucky the attackers couldn't acquire handguns, and had to resort to knives.

Guns don't work as a deterrent either, since all spree killers have already come to terms with dying, obviously.

Probably not if they did it in the black areas of New York.
Isn't legal gun ownership rather uncommon in New York? They may as well be attacking London.

aren't there less muslim attacks in the US in general, regardless of method?

Yes because America has a better control over its immigration compared with Europe and the United Kingdom.

Hence Brexit.

 

[CiG]

Khayre, from Roxburgh Park in Melbourne's north, was charged along with four other men with conspiring to do acts in preparation for or planning a terrorist act, in relation to a plot to attack Holsworthy Army base in New South Wales in 2009.

Khayre was alleged to have to travelled to Somalia in order to obtain a fatwa, or permission from a Muslim cleric, for the attack. However, he and another man were acquitted.

The three others, Wissam Mahmoud Fattal, Saney Edow Aweys and Nayev el Sayed, were convicted and sentenced to 18 years each in prison.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-...Organic&WT.tsrc=Facebook_Organic&sf85570177=1

He traveled to Somalia to get permission from a cleric for an attack he had planned with some other guys.

 

[Satanstoenail]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-06/brighton-siege-gunman-yacqub-khayre-had-criminal-history/8592560?smid=Page: ABC News-Facebook_Organic&WT.tsrc=Facebook_Organic&sf85570177=1

He traveled to Somalia to get permission from a cleric for an attack he had planned with some other guys.

Surely he could have got a local fatwa.

 

[CiG]

Honestly, he probably had to go to some Somali scumbag because Australian Muslims are overwhelmingly decent people. Though there are a few well known turds in Australia.

 

[Satanstoenail]

Honestly, he probably had to go to some Somali scumbag because Australian Muslims are overwhelmingly decent people. Though there are a few well known turds in Australia.

Especially around that area. I used to work in a warehouse near there and one of the Muslim guys that worked there got arrested and was charged with planning a terrorist incident with a bunch of other people from that area.

 

[CiG]

Especially around that area. I used to work in a warehouse near there and one of the Muslim guys that worked there got arrested and was charged with planning a terrorist incident with a bunch of other people from that area.

Fucking hell.

 

[Dak]

Surely he could have got a local fatwa.

Isn't it sad that that's where we are? Whether in jest or not, this is a ridiculous situation that falls in the lap of the COEXIST crowd.

 

[CiG]

Roughly 50% of British Muslims, via poling, say if they knew someone who was involved in Islamic radicalism they wouldn't report them to the police.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Roughly 50% of Catholics are content to have their children diddled by priests.

 

[CiG]

100% of you wants to be diddled by a priest.

 

[Einherjar86]

Roughly 50% of British Muslims, via poling, say if they knew someone who was involved in Islamic radicalism they wouldn't report them to the police.

What exactly are you implying here? That this 50% is sympathetic to radical beliefs because they won't report it? There are many, many reasons why someone might be too scared to report others in their community, especially when the general sentiment of the Western world toward Islam is one of suspicion.

An innocent Muslim reports his neighbor, and suddenly the police are at his door: "So, how exactly did you know that your neighbor had been radicalized?" It's a fucking awful situation to be in.