"Revenge" in Leytonstone

From: koswix 7 Dec 2015 11:25
To: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX) 12 of 56
That was a simple case of mistaken identity when they shot Charles De Menezes.

They were actually after his brother, Denis.
From: graphitone 7 Dec 2015 13:03
To: koswix 13 of 56
(fail)

It took me a good twenty seconds to get that  :-$
From: graphitone 7 Dec 2015 13:57
To: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX) 14 of 56
I'm not sure the police (employed servants upholding the law) can be classed as terrorists. :C
From: milko 7 Dec 2015 14:55
To: graphitone 15 of 56
Maybe not officially. The summary execution of the wrong man in that case, the killing of Mark Duggan, the protester kettling, and data snooping stuff is all pretty terrifying though!
From: fixrman 7 Dec 2015 15:34
To: milko 16 of 56
Quote: 
the people doing the shooting don't seem to worry too much about that. Perhaps you should make it harder for people to obtain guns? I daresay our Leytonstone nutter would have use a gun if he could.

People doing shooting - mass or whatever - rarely worry about anything but themselves and the voices in their heads.

It should be difficult to buy guns, but you are going to have to get mental health reporting through, and obamacare certainly is a big roadblock to that - and even has created a gap in mental health coverage.

I support tighter gun sales and ownership.

From: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX) 7 Dec 2015 16:09
To: graphitone 17 of 56
I'm not sure executing suspects is part of the police' legal remit. At least, I'd like to think it isn't in syphilized countries.
From: graphitone 7 Dec 2015 16:42
To: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX) 18 of 56
Yeah, I was speaking generally, in that specific case it was a tragic outcome.

Hmm, the fact that I'm terming it a 'tragic' outcome kinda speaks volumes. I expect the police ask questions first and leave the shooting until last.
From: koswix 7 Dec 2015 17:10
To: graphitone 19 of 56
:D
From: milko 7 Dec 2015 17:51
To: fixrman 20 of 56
Apparently about 4% of murders in the US are committed by people with "severe mental illness". Maybe it's the diagnosis that isn't happening, but I assume people charged with murder are evaluated for such things as part of the process. Seems like that is something that needs addressing but it's far from the only thing, then.

Is this info legit?


Y'all need a lot less guns.
EDITED: 7 Dec 2015 18:08 by MILKO
From: Lucy (X3N0PH0N) 7 Dec 2015 18:27
To: fixrman 21 of 56
Criminals, obviously, don't care whether their gun is legally owned. If you have legal and widespread gun ownership then illegal guns are *much* easier to come by and cheaper.

But yeah, if you look at the US's gun crime problem and you think the guns aren't at least a major component of that problem then... I don't know what to say.

I *get* that it's a cultural thing. You are a country born in war and, as such, have an ingrained militaristic bent rarely seen outside of authoritarian regimes. But the constitutional provision is archaic (and frustratingly poorly worded for something so important) - I mean do you really think that hanguns and assault rifles are going to help you if the government becomes tyrannical? Given that they have, y'know, aircraft carriers, assault helicopters, drones, guided missiles and nukes?
From: ANT_THOMAS 7 Dec 2015 19:46
To: fixrman 22 of 56
Ignoring your constitutional right to bear arms, what is your reason for owning guns?
From: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX) 7 Dec 2015 21:55
To: graphitone 23 of 56
It's pushing 10½ hours and I /still/ don't get it...
From: koswix 7 Dec 2015 22:09
To: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX) 24 of 56
Charles de Menezes... Dennis de Menezes... Dennis the Menace... IGMC

 
From: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX) 7 Dec 2015 22:29
To: koswix 25 of 56
 T_T

Alls I managed to google up was this
EDITED: 7 Dec 2015 22:33 by DSMITHHFX
From: koswix 7 Dec 2015 22:39
To: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX) 26 of 56
(fail)
From: fixrman 8 Dec 2015 05:09
To: milko 27 of 56
Quote: 
Y'all need a lot less guns.

Too late for that, best we can hope for is to make it nigh to impossible for whackos to get them, although they still seem to get them  - illegally.

As far as the stories go, they may well be true. I found links to a couple news stories, and if I was a gun shop owner, I wouldn't have sold a gun to the guys in both of the links. But of course, in order not to do that, I would have had to profile people and have listened to cries of discrimination.

Interesting facts from a LEO that I know:

Any person exhibiting any two of the three following traits or behaviours may result in gun (two of those three factors points to a possible future mass, serial, or spree killer) or other violence later in life. Although not entirely definitive, the traits point to patterns of abuse which may make the one abused more prone to violent behaviour.

Bed-wetting after the age of five.
Arson
Animal cruelty

 

From: fixrman 8 Dec 2015 05:21
To: Dan (HERMAND) 28 of 56
No, but then again we don't get a lot of U.K. news here, unless it is high profile.

I know when the last stabbing was though, and those are supposedly on the rise.

Oops! Sorry, Derrick Bird. He used a rifle and a shotgun.



Violent crime recorded by the police soared by 16 per cent last year to nearly 700,000 offences, new figures show.

Data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) covering the 12 months to the end of September last year showed 699,800 recorded incidents of violence against the person compared with 604,100 offences in the previous 12 months.

The data also showed a new record level of rapes recorded by police in England and Wales.

There were 24,043 rapes in recorded crime figures for the year, a rise of 31 per cent on the previous 12 months and 81 per cent higher than a decade earlier.

The figure beat the 22,000 figures recorded in the previous quarter's data and suggests that continuing confidence in police and the courts is leading growing numbers of rape victims to come forward.

Sounds like people, in general, are just more violent today. Why?
 

EDITED: 8 Dec 2015 05:43 by FIXRMAN
From: fixrman 8 Dec 2015 05:24
To: Lucy (X3N0PH0N) 29 of 56
Quote: 
I mean do you really think that hanguns and assault rifles are going to help you if the government becomes tyrannical? Given that they have, y'know, aircraft carriers, assault helicopters, drones, guided missiles and nukes?
 
Sure beats the snot out of fighting them with a fountain pen and some papyrus over a cup of tea...
From: fixrman 8 Dec 2015 05:38
To: ANT_THOMAS 30 of 56
One target pistol I purchased years ago to - target shoot. I was given an old Italian rifle by a friend after his father died. It is debatable whether it is a serviceable firearm or not.

I decided to buy a larger bore pistol with which to target shoot, so purchased a 9mm. My son has expressed an interest in hunting, so I may buy a shotgun. We have a dearth plethora of deer around here, so we may take up the sport, requiring rifles. I won't shoot animals just to shoot them, rather, they must be used for food by us or it isn't going to happen.

Why do you care whether or not I own guns or not, living over there as you do? Just because you can't own a gun doesn't mean that I should not.

** As kos alertedly brought to my intention, I indicated that we have few horned automobile stoppers (see strikethrough); this is not true as Pennsylvania has many more deer actually than available land can realistically support due to human beings spreading like a virus.
EDITED: 8 Dec 2015 13:26 by FIXRMAN
From: graphitone 8 Dec 2015 09:43
To: fixrman 31 of 56
Quote: 
Sounds like people, in general, are just more violent today. Why?

Maybe it's because, as you allude to in your post, more crime is getting reported. We could be just as violent as we've ever been, but more people have more faith in the prosecution and support systems, so feel they can speak out.

The statistics are only as good as the figures they're based on.

Course, it could all be violent movies and video games. Let's just blame Doom and have done with it. :C