There are multiple reports of a shooting outside of the UK Parliament in London.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2017/03/22/breaking-shots-reportedly-fired-outside-of-british-parliament-n2302406
...and then there is this: Car Plows Through Bystanders on Westminster Bridge
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/justinholcomb/2017/03/22/car-plows-through-bystanders-on-westminster-bridge-shots-fired-at-uk-parliament-n2302410
Hopefully all the good guys are OK...
Quote from: steve58 on March 22, 2017, 10:08:58 AM
There are multiple reports of a shooting outside of the UK Parliament in London.
...
Hopefully all the good guys are OK...
+1.
Quote from: bbmike on March 22, 2017, 10:26:34 AM
Quote from: steve58 on March 22, 2017, 10:08:58 AM
There are multiple reports of a shooting outside of the UK Parliament in London.
...
Hopefully all the good guys are OK...
+1.
+2
Being treated as a terrorist incident
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/22/world/europe/uk-westminster-parliament-shooting.html
Prayers to all the victims and first responders.
Reports are stating 2 dead now (https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2017/03/22/breaking-shots-reportedly-fired-outside-of-british-parliament-n2302406) >:( :( Same a**hole responsible for both incidents.
Quote from: NYTPolitical violence is relatively rare in Britain, where gun ownership is seriously restricted.
...I know what those first seven words mean in English, and what they would normally mean used in a sentence in that order, but I'm having trouble synching that claim with history. :-\
Unfortunately these sorts of incidents are going to be the norm in Europe and elsewhere for the foreseeable future.
God bless the victims and their families.
Quote from: JasonPratt on March 22, 2017, 11:51:36 AM
Quote from: NYTPolitical violence is relatively rare in Britain, where gun ownership is seriously restricted.
...I know what those first seven words mean in English, and what they would normally mean used in a sentence in that order, but I'm having trouble synching that claim with history. :-\
Why think too hard about it? Its the NYT. There is an agenda to be pushed.
Quote from: steve58 on March 22, 2017, 11:50:31 AM
Reports are stating 2 dead now (https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2017/03/22/breaking-shots-reportedly-fired-outside-of-british-parliament-n2302406) >:( :( Same a**hole responsible for both incidents.
There may even be people still jammed up on the bridge railing where he slammed the vehicle to a stop.
Go to judgment, whoever you were, and be salted by "the fire the eonian"; until you learn better what "the Merciful and the Compassionate" means. :knuppel2:
(Granted, I'm profiling here, but I expect from recent past experience this guy won't be of Irish descent. Though if he is, the clause before the semicolon would still count. ;) )
Quote from: Bison on March 22, 2017, 12:14:49 PM
Quote from: JasonPratt...I know what those first seven words mean in English, and what they would normally mean used in a sentence in that order, but I'm having trouble synching that claim with history. :-\
Why think too hard about it? Its the NYT. There is an agenda to be pushed.
At least two agendas! ::) :buck2:
Quote from: Bison on March 22, 2017, 12:14:49 PM
Quote from: JasonPratt on March 22, 2017, 11:51:36 AM
Quote from: NYTPolitical violence is relatively rare in Britain, where gun ownership is seriously restricted.
...I know what those first seven words mean in English, and what they would normally mean used in a sentence in that order, but I'm having trouble synching that claim with history. :-\
Why think too hard about it? Its the NYT. There is an agenda to be pushed.
That's typical editorializing by Times. Not surprising at all.
You people still take the NYTimes seriously?
I hope the situation in London calms soon - hate seeing something like this happen there.
Quote from: Gusington on March 22, 2017, 01:09:47 PM
You people still take the NYTimes seriously?
Not in about 25 years.
Ok good.
Latest news; One policeman and two other people confirmed dead, and the attacker now also dead. Around 20 people injured.
Tragic
Quote from: JasonPratt on March 22, 2017, 11:51:36 AM
Quote from: NYTPolitical violence is relatively rare in Britain, where gun ownership is seriously restricted.
...I know what those first seven words mean in English, and what they would normally mean used in a sentence in that order, but I'm having trouble synching that claim with history. :-\
Jason, I generally have a lot of time for what you say, but I'm not happy with this. I can see that this event has fuck-all to do with US v UK gun-ownership laws, but you using this tragedy to make a political point to do so is just doing the same as NYT.
As a Brit I'm proud of our restriction of gun ownership. Even so I don't make a told-you-so post every time legally-bought guns depopulate a US high school.
Sorry guys, just touched a bit of a nerve...
Anyway, BBC now says the terrorist killed three people, including a police officer before he was shot and killed.
Pretty sure Jason was making a comment on the NYT not understanding the history of terrorist attacks in Britain... which as we all know are quite a bit more than "relatively rare" as the article put it. Nothing to do with gun control.
Jason's post had absolutely nothing to do with gun ownership in England. It had everything to do with the NYT writer that is a) ignorant of past political terrorism in the U.K. specifically in regard to the IRA and Northern Ireland and b) injecting a political agenda item into a current and ongoing tragedy that had nothing to with a gun used to kill innocent people. Your words read like someone looking to pick a fight.
I just pray this isn't a new norm in England or anywhere else for that matter.
Reuters is reporting 5 dead, including the terrorist, and about 40 wounded.
Prayers to all of the victims and their families.
Fuck this guy and anyone who attempts to rationalize his cowardly actions.
Quote from: OJsDad on March 22, 2017, 06:33:57 PM
Prayers to all of the victims and their families.
+1 million
I'm afraid this already is a new norm all over the world.
I know. I wish it weren't though.
Me too, believe me.
The vehicle v. pedestrians tactic is certainly becoming a new norm. Not certain there is any solution for that besides festooning all open areas with zig-zagged concrete barriers.
Damned this time its London again
:'(
we have to go to the roots
and outlaw the salafistic/whabistic interpretation of Islam in our countries as the political movement that it is.
and kick out those followers
(wherever that is possible and individuals don't already got granted citizenship as immigrant by our own stupidity)
spooky backyard and garage "mosques" had to be closed, in the 'normal' mosques Imans need a qualification from an university in-country and have to preach there in the language of the nation they live in.
no more spooky traveling guest preachers holding lessons in backrooms of ramshackle garages to flocks of foreigners ("immigrants", so called 'refugees', whatever)
Quote from: Staggerwing on March 22, 2017, 07:43:28 PM
Not certain there is any solution for that besides festooning all open areas with zig-zagged concrete barriers.
in a few years all (newer) vehicles will have permanent collision warning assistance with automatic-break. (as a steppingstone to full automated driving)
With those vehicles you cant hit any objects with some speed above parking-speed even on intention.
actually i am fearing for the fist improvised hobby-drone-abuse terror attack :(
(i already saw looking straight-down on-board IS video footage from probably a quadcopter which released a improvised smallish kind of pipe bomb on top of an (open turreted) stationary Iraqi humvee ...it took out the vehicle ...the Iraqi forces where close approaching outskirts of a city doing leapfrogging-tactics with their cars)
British officials identify the attacker (https://townhall.com/tipsheet/justinholcomb/2017/03/23/british-officials-identify-attacker-as-52yearold-khalid-masood-n2303148). Any guesses? Also, one American (https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2017/03/23/americans-killed-in-london-terror-attack-n2303100) is among the dead. :(
I read a report about the American. Tragic.
...and another rundown attempt (https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/03/23/one-day-after-london-terrorist-attack-man-attempts-to-run-over-people-in-antwerp-n2303139). This time in Antwerp.
Quote
...the suspect is a French national of North African descent, who was wearing "a camouflage uniform" upon his arrest by Belgian police. This person also had more military gear and weapons in the trunk of the vehicle.
Quote from: Barthheart on March 22, 2017, 05:55:05 PM
Pretty sure Jason was making a comment on the NYT not understanding the history of terrorist attacks in Britain... which as we all know are quite a bit more than "relatively rare" as the article put it. Nothing to do with gun control.
Just to clarify, true. In fact I explicitly focused on "those first seven words".
That said, I did intentionally keep the dependent clause at the end of the quote, because clearly the NYT was trying to make a connective point of the first claim resulting from the second claim. I didn't include the author's context to criticize gun restriction laws in Britain, but rather was thinking in terms of the time-frame implied by the restriction in gun-laws. If the reporter had said that "Political violence is relatively rare in Britain the past two years" or since some event in the short range, that would have made more sense (if trivially so perhaps) than the longer timeframe implied by the gun restriction.
I might however have a false impression of how far back the author meant the gun restriction -- my impression is that British gun restriction has been relatively strong compared to the standard of the United States (the usual comparison intended) for literally all my life, i.e. since the early 70s (or even before then in Britain's history), a time when "political violence" was, well, rather more varied than at present. ;) And frequent.
The author probably meant since the total handgun ban in 1997. I'm unsure whether terrorism (i.e. political violence) has reduced since then compared to before then (and compared to what block of time before then).
Quote from: JasonPratt on March 23, 2017, 02:53:57 PM
Quote from: Barthheart on March 22, 2017, 05:55:05 PM
Pretty sure Jason was making a comment on the NYT not understanding the history of terrorist attacks in Britain... which as we all know are quite a bit more than "relatively rare" as the article put it. Nothing to do with gun control.
Just to clarify, true. In fact I explicitly focused on "those first seven words".
That said, I did intentionally keep the dependent clause at the end of the quote, because clearly the NYT was trying to make a connective point of the first claim resulting from the second claim. I didn't include the author's context to criticize gun restriction laws in Britain, but rather was thinking in terms of the time-frame implied by the restriction in gun-laws. If the reporter had said that "Political violence is relatively rare in Britain the past two years" or since some event in the short range, that would have made more sense (if trivially so perhaps) than the longer timeframe implied by the gun restriction.
I might however have a false impression of how far back the author meant the gun restriction -- my impression is that British gun restriction has been relatively strong compared to the standard of the United States (the usual comparison intended) for literally all my life, i.e. since the early 70s (or even before then in Britain's history), a time when "political violence" was, well, rather more varied than at present. ;) And frequent.
The author probably meant since the total handgun ban in 1997. I'm unsure whether terrorism (i.e. political violence) has reduced since then compared to before then (and compared to what block of time before then).
I hereby (sincerely) apologise for my intemperate - and personal - comments.
But...
Yes, restrictions on gun-ownership amongst the general public will not impede political violence, however this guy was armed "only" with a car and two kitchen knives. Perhaps if he had been able to buy guns easily a lot more people would have died?
Quote from: Father Ted on March 23, 2017, 05:54:18 PM
Quote from: JasonPratt on March 23, 2017, 02:53:57 PM
Quote from: Barthheart on March 22, 2017, 05:55:05 PM
Pretty sure Jason was making a comment on the NYT not understanding the history of terrorist attacks in Britain... which as we all know are quite a bit more than "relatively rare" as the article put it. Nothing to do with gun control.
Just to clarify, true. In fact I explicitly focused on "those first seven words".
That said, I did intentionally keep the dependent clause at the end of the quote, because clearly the NYT was trying to make a connective point of the first claim resulting from the second claim. I didn't include the author's context to criticize gun restriction laws in Britain, but rather was thinking in terms of the time-frame implied by the restriction in gun-laws. If the reporter had said that "Political violence is relatively rare in Britain the past two years" or since some event in the short range, that would have made more sense (if trivially so perhaps) than the longer timeframe implied by the gun restriction.
I might however have a false impression of how far back the author meant the gun restriction -- my impression is that British gun restriction has been relatively strong compared to the standard of the United States (the usual comparison intended) for literally all my life, i.e. since the early 70s (or even before then in Britain's history), a time when "political violence" was, well, rather more varied than at present. ;) And frequent.
The author probably meant since the total handgun ban in 1997. I'm unsure whether terrorism (i.e. political violence) has reduced since then compared to before then (and compared to what block of time before then).
I hereby (sincerely) apologise for my intemperate - and personal - comments.
But...
Yes, restrictions on gun-ownership amongst the general public will not impede political violence, however this guy was armed "only" with a car and two kitchen knives. Perhaps if he had been able to buy guns easily a lot more people would have died?
What makes you think its hard to get a gun in the UK ?
for the right people, in the right place at the right time i dont think it would be too hard
however, the fact that the two biggest attacks in the uk have been guys with fertilzer bombs and someone in a 4 x 4 with a kitchen knife or two suggests it isnt that easy
I was about to say, maybe if this guy had been able to get fertilizer, or gasoline and detergent, easy and knew what to do with it... :buck2: I'm glad it didn't occur to him -- or he was so spastic he didn't take an extra day to learn how to make a bomb, make it, and set it for detonation.
Anyway, my point wasn't to criticize gun ownership laws in Great Britain (or on the main island more specifically -- ownership laws in North Ireland for example are a lot more lenient). I was only thinking in terms of a timeframe implied by the statement, and on reflection I most likely had the wrong timeframe in mind.
I was not aware that the gun laws are any different in Northern Ireland than they are in the mainland.
I don't think they are - otherwise there'd just be a queue at seamus o'hooligans gun shop and then back across the water
Exactly.
There's always the guy with the balaclava down the road selling old ak47s
..or is it the guy with the AK47 selling old balaclava's?
Or the Babooshka with the sword
Quote from: bob48 on March 24, 2017, 02:14:35 PM
..or is it the guy with the AK47 selling old balaclava's?
I'll take them all - good sales strategy
I adore Kate Bush.
Can I have thirdsies?
Pfft...of course not
You're no Kate Bush.
Quote from: bob48 on March 24, 2017, 02:14:35 PM
..or is it the guy with the AK47 selling old balaclava's?
Or old Baklava? Mmmm...
^I'd buy that for a dollar!
No...no I am no Kate Bush and for that I am sorry.
Quote from: Gusington on March 24, 2017, 06:22:37 PM
No...no I am no Kate Bush and for that I am sorry.
As you should be.
I 'yam what I yam.'
Quote from: Gusington on March 24, 2017, 06:46:19 PM
I 'yam what I yam.'
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvignette2.wikia.nocookie.net%2Fp__%2Fimages%2Fd%2Fde%2FPopeye_Robin_Williams.jpg%2Frevision%2Flatest%3Fcb%3D20140918125339%26amp%3Bpath-prefix%3Dprotagonist&hash=b9c810e62ce2fa1d9f642eb62ba5fd19511317bd)
Damn I miss Robin Williams too.
Me too. :'(
You're crushing my drunk vibe, BRAH.