The British want their guns back...

OP
B

billc

Grandmaster
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2007
Messages
9,183
Reaction score
85
Location
somewhere near Lake Michigan
I thought about mentioning you Sukerkin, but didn't want to drag you into my play time...without your approval...
 

Sukerkin

Have the courage to speak softly
MT Mentor
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Sep 15, 2006
Messages
15,318
Reaction score
481
Location
Staffordshire, England
:grins: Thank you for the consideration :tup:. I am, of course, only one 'data point' and there are others (usually non-country folk) who buy into the "Guns are evil" nonsense and would vote for us all to be helpless because they genuinely believe that makes us all safer :shrugs at the odd things people believe sometimes:.

That's despite it being just as true over here as it is in America that if a villain wants a gun he will have no trouble getting one.
 
OP
B

billc

Grandmaster
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2007
Messages
9,183
Reaction score
85
Location
somewhere near Lake Michigan
I have to say that it is just odd to hear that the first police on the scene had to call for more police...with guns, when those guys killed that soldier. And that woman was extremely lucky they just wanted to "chat," with her instead of racking up a bigger body count...

She would have been much safer armed...
 

Takai

Senior Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2006
Messages
2,189
Reaction score
73
Location
PNW
...since Allah does work out to be "The God," in English,...

Mostly correct. "Allah" is a compound for the word "Al-Ilah". Al meaning the and Ilah meaning "deity/god".

Do you all realize that Allah is simply the Arabic name for God, the same god of Judaism and Christianity? In fact, it is the same name used by Arabic Christians, for...drumroll please...GOD.

Incorrect. It's historical reference is actually to the Moon God that was worshiped by the Sabean's in Pre-Islamic times. It was his personal title. The Kabah in Mecca was primarily built for him as he was the "Chief Deity". The Moon God was married to the Sun Goddess and the had daughters and son accordingly. So it actually refers to a deity from an ancient polytheistic religion that predates Muhammad's writing in the 7th century.
 

Flying Crane

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Sep 21, 2005
Messages
14,801
Reaction score
4,322
Location
San Francisco
Mostly correct. "Allah" is a compound for the word "Al-Ilah". Al meaning the and Ilah meaning "deity/god".



Incorrect. It's historical reference is actually to the Moon God that was worshiped by the Sabean's in Pre-Islamic times. It was his personal title. The Kabah in Mecca was primarily built for him as he was the "Chief Deity". The Moon God was married to the Sun Goddess and the had daughters and son accordingly. So it actually refers to a deity from an ancient polytheistic religion that predates Muhammad's writing in the 7th century.

yes that's true, I saw that in Wiki too. But currently, the translation as it is used is correct.
 

K-man

Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
6,193
Reaction score
1,221
Location
Australia
Who? The people that answered the poll? I must have missed that part
It was an Internet poll and the footnote acknowledges that that particular question may have been skewed by Americans voting. :asian:
 

ballen0351

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Dec 25, 2010
Messages
10,480
Reaction score
1,245
It was an Internet poll and the footnote acknowledges that that particular question may have been skewed by Americans voting. :asian:

So your saying British citizens couldn't possibly feel this way it must have been Americans
 

Scott T

Brown Belt
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
421
Reaction score
5
So your saying British citizens couldn't possibly feel this way it must have been Americans
Any non-Briton voting is going to skew results, but the breakdown between nations would have to be made public before being sure. BUT... judging by the responses on this thread alone (including BillC's rather retarded God-given right statement) an American conservative would give no second thought to voting in such a foreign poll, thereby skewing the results.
 

Flying Crane

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Sep 21, 2005
Messages
14,801
Reaction score
4,322
Location
San Francisco
It was an Internet poll and the footnote acknowledges that that particular question may have been skewed by Americans voting. :asian:

any reputable social researcher who values his professional reputation would consider the results junk once it's been discovered that there are no controls over who the population is, and that there is a good chance the results were contaminated by other sources. At that point, it's time to throw the whole thing away.
 

arnisador

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 28, 2001
Messages
44,563
Reaction score
441
Location
Terre Haute, IN
So your saying British citizens couldn't possibly feel this way it must have been Americans

The point is that there's no way to tell. The British are pretty heavily surveyed by their govt. Has this question been asked before?
 

Sukerkin

Have the courage to speak softly
MT Mentor
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Sep 15, 2006
Messages
15,318
Reaction score
481
Location
Staffordshire, England
No one has ever directly asked me my opinion, Arni but surveys have been done which suggest an overwhelming majority in favour of laws prohibiting and controlling ownership and use of firearms. They are unthinking in their views in my opinion and are reacting to 'foreign' experiences rather than any actual experience of their own (we didn't really have a problem with gun violence before the laws were changed (knee-jerk style in response to a singular bad event)) but the majority gets to have their way most of the time in a democracy.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/16990/britons-aim-tougher-gun-laws.aspx
 

DennisBreene

3rd Black Belt
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2012
Messages
956
Reaction score
19
Location
Illinois
No one has ever directly asked me my opinion, Arni but surveys have been done which suggest an overwhelming majority in favour of laws prohibiting and controlling ownership and use of firearms. They are unthinking in their views in my opinion and are reacting to 'foreign' experiences rather than any actual experience of their own (we didn't really have a problem with gun violence before the laws were changed (knee-jerk style in response to a singular bad event)) but the majority gets to have their way most of the time in a democracy.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/16990/britons-aim-tougher-gun-laws.aspx

First, I think we need to disabuse you of this notion that you must wait for an invitation to comment. You've been on MT since 2006? That's reserved even for the British. And your point is taken. The founding fathers attempted to protect us from the "Tyranny of the majority" with the Senate. Well, the jury may still be out, but I'm guessing that didn't work out like they planned.
 

Riffix

White Belt
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
15
Reaction score
1
You can keep your guns thanks, I don't know anyone personally who would want guns legal in England.
 
OP
B

billc

Grandmaster
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2007
Messages
9,183
Reaction score
85
Location
somewhere near Lake Michigan
You can keep your guns thanks, I don't know anyone personally who would want guns legal in England.


Hmmm...perhaps you could poll some of the people who had to just stand around while those two guys hacked that young soldier to death? Perhaps, they have a different opinion today?
 

arnisador

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 28, 2001
Messages
44,563
Reaction score
441
Location
Terre Haute, IN
Hmmm...perhaps you could poll some of the people who had to just stand around while those two guys hacked that young soldier to death?

I notice the soldier wasn't shot. It makes no difference to him but there would likely have been more deaths and injuries had they opened up with gunfire.
 
OP
B

billc

Grandmaster
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2007
Messages
9,183
Reaction score
85
Location
somewhere near Lake Michigan
It makes no difference to him but there would likely have been more deaths and injuries had they opened up with gunfire.

That is usually the mistaken response to one of these non-shooting events. That it is better that no one have a weapon, except the attacker, because there might be an accidental shooting...and better to let the criminal go on about his business even though we know that there was for sure one killing on the scene. I don't understand the willingness to rely on the good will of the guys who just used a meat cleaver to kill an innocent man. The people at the scene were lucky these guys didn't go on a further rampage and attack more people. There would have been nothing they could have done to stop it. The first police on the scene couldn't have stopped it either, considering they had to call for "special," police, the ones allowed to use guns. It took them 14 minutes to get to the scene...that is a long time to let a nut job with a meat cleaver run around loose. There are people being brutalized around this country and Britain and it is better for us to just accept their being brutalized because there "might," be a chance someone will be accidentally shot...vs. the people who are unaccidentally being targeted for murder, rape and robbery.

It would probably be better as well if we were to teach classes in schools for witnesses to crimes of a brutal nature. In the class we could teach the school kids to immediately kneel and touch their heads to the ground if they happen to see an attack, that way the authorities can be sure there will be no accidental injuries incurred by anyone other than the brutal attacker. Also, if the attacker decides to attack more people, it will be less chaotic if they simply submit to whatever he decides to do by kneeling and exposing their necks...yeah, I can see that point of view.

I can see it...the woman who "chatted up," the killer should have dropped down and quietly waited for whatever he decided to do next instead of increasing the likely hood that more injuries might be created by her "engaging," the attacker with conversation...I wonder if she was ticketed for aggravating the situation?
 

arnisador

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 28, 2001
Messages
44,563
Reaction score
441
Location
Terre Haute, IN
That is usually the mistaken response to one of these non-shooting events. That it is better that no one have a weapon, except the attacker, because there might be an accidental shooting...

If he had had a firearm he would've shot other people.
 

K-man

Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
6,193
Reaction score
1,221
Location
Australia
That is usually the mistaken response to one of these non-shooting events. That it is better that no one have a weapon, except the attacker, because there might be an accidental shooting...and better to let the criminal go on about his business even though we know that there was for sure one killing on the scene. I don't understand the willingness to rely on the good will of the guys who just used a meat cleaver to kill an innocent man. The people at the scene were lucky these guys didn't go on a further rampage and attack more people. There would have been nothing they could have done to stop it. The first police on the scene couldn't have stopped it either, considering they had to call for "special," police, the ones allowed to use guns. It took them 14 minutes to get to the scene...that is a long time to let a nut job with a meat cleaver run around loose. There are people being brutalized around this country and Britain and it is better for us to just accept their being brutalized because there "might," be a chance someone will be accidentally shot...vs. the people who are unaccidentally being targeted for murder, rape and robbery.
I must admit we have had no mass killings with meat cleavers in Australia despite us not all running around with guns. We did have mass shootings in the past but 'luckily' none since we got rid of military style weapons. :)
 
Top