Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

Well, 1934 was a significant year when it came to 2nd Amendment issues. That was the year the National Firearms Act went into effect. The prospect of serious infringement on the right of the people to keep and bear arms had become a reality and opposition to that intrusion on a key fundamental right became an imperative.

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

Sorry for the late reply, the double post feature means that I always wait between replies ; never like doubling up as my posts may not render well, when it comes to formatting purposes.

In this instance I truly think that the possibility of armed officers would have been enough of a deterrent ; not sure that the guy would have necessarily been hit by an officer's bullet when in a car but I think the likely tendency that he wouldn't have gone ahead and driven a car into pedestrians in the area (given that he clearly didn't want to die) would have been far higher.

So, for example (as Luther says) you can't protect everyone all the time, so the likely chance of pushing him elsewhere would have been higher but in a high target area (like the HoP for example) surely that security is warranted even if it does just squeeze terror / whatever this was into more civilian areas...no?

Unless we put armed guards everywhere but that won't work so driverless cars may indeed fix some of this. (At least for vehicular based crimes).

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

On the contrary hacked driverless cars may be an even more sinister menace as the malefactors don't even have to commit suicide to perpetrate their atrocities.

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

See, this is why I need you here, to make these kinds of points!!! I can argue from heart / ideologically as to why we need guns etc but I don't have the history of armed insurrections / the founding of the NRA etc - you do that part.

I am the gun nut who is crazy, you are the balanced one who doesn't opine on the prevalence of the issue. ;)

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

You are going way over the top here: "Sickens", "Irritates", "Cowardly"? There is a compromise and that is where we are now. This can and will be adjusted in light of the moving threat: one such accomodation is the rolling out of Tasers as a option. More armed police may follow if appropriate but it would be a measured response and not a knee jerk one.

I think, ironically, the main reason the UK does not want armed police everywhere is the US. They see what happens there and politely decline.

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

I thought that I was going easy / kind. The comments do anger me some, but I try keep it civil. I thought that I was being polite to her!!

I totally agree on that last line, I would have wanted this years ago. Long before the attacks of the last year or two....before 7/7. Before 9/11, too. I always thought that it was absurd that growing up in a household with guns (pre ban), that we were more armed than the average police officer on the street.

Kind if messed up, no?

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

That may be so, but the original premise was that the NRA was the oldest "civil rights" organisation in the USA, which was not the case.

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

It is. It is the same organization is it not?

Founded before the NAACP and didn't go through an Acorn style "rebranding" so it is still the same organization, IMO.

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

But until 1934, it wasn’t in the "civil rights" arena - it’s like me saying I have been in the RAF all my life, even though I didn’t join until I was 17 and a half - one can’t pre-date activities from when before one started them..

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45236971

Charged with attempted murder and it is being treated as terrorism

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

Sorry, that was on me.

Hugh I see what you mean and yes you are correct, it is an issue that probably doesn't fit into the category that I was trying to mold it into. (Round hole / square peg etc).

My larger point that this event could have been stopped if there were armed policemen / women present and that seems to be of some dispute. (As most things should be if just an opinion, not a fact).

I will leave it be, though.

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

From the original link in the original post.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/45180945

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-451...ter-crash-site

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

After...

There were no armed guards protecting the building in front or behind the gates at the time of the incident...

---------- Post added at 22:06 ---------- Previous post was at 21:56 ----------

So much for this by the way:

http://observer.com/2017/04/armed-gu...rorist-attack/

(Though as I understand it they are not there when parliament is not in session).

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

I'll take a wild guess that your white and middle class.

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/18/u...ses/index.html

---------- Post added at 22:46 ---------- Previous post was at 22:41 ----------

. Forget about this guy as he isn't even a terrorist. But if you think armed police will deter fanatics you're an idiot.

How many armed police would have stopped the Manchester bomber?...........Zero that's how many.

Stop snorting Harpic.