long live NRA - next convention in Mandalay Bay !

[Rob C]

And that's key. Civilized-cops concept might work in a civilized-citizens society. Let the medieval types in and the reality becomes quite different.

Yes, you are right: it was the point I was making. We do not live in a relatively civilized city experience anymore: all that has changed, as have the boroughs where the old, indigenous people were later to become the rare minorities because they had no money to get themselves out.

In parallel, runs the fantasy that the police are doing something that contravenes expectations of "civil rights" by stopping Middle Eastern lookers and Africans, when nobody else in the UK seems to be running around trying to shoot or blow us all to fuckeroo. Should we, instead, ask our fuzz to stop and search the white ruins sleepìng on benches, in city store entrances and under bridges in a search for explosive vests?

Unless one lives in Disneyland with Snow White, one searches those who are deemed likely to be guilty.

For several years after we came to live in Spain, my son and I used to fly back and forth regularly between here and the UK; we both wore jeans... I had long hair (I had hair - did you read that?!!!) and so did my lad. We were always stopped after luggage retrieval. I used to grin and ask the security if it was the jeans; they never replied, of course, just smiled back in non-committed manner, which was fine by us; I think they really secretly wanted to handle Hasselblads for a few seconds. My case told them that's what they'd find. Which of itself, points out how more innocent those days were; today, I would no more openly tout a Hassy or Leica badge than a Rolex one.

;-)

Rob

[Alan Klein]

Yes, you are right: it was the point I was making. We do not live in a relatively civilized city experience anymore: all that has changed, as have the boroughs where the old, indigenous people were later to become the rare minorities because they had no money to get themselves out.

In parallel, runs the fantasy that the police are doing something that contravenes expectations of "civil rights" by stopping Middle Eastern lookers and Africans, when nobody else in the UK seems to be running around trying to shoot or blow us all to fuckeroo. Should we, instead, ask our fuzz to stop and search the white ruins sleepìng on benches, in city store entrances and under bridges in a search for explosive vests?

Unless one lives in Disneyland with Snow White, one searches those who are deemed likely to be guilty.

For several years after we came to live in Spain, my son and I used to fly back and forth regularly between here and the UK; we both wore jeans... I had long hair (I had hair - did you read that?!!!) and so did my lad. We were always stopped after luggage retrieval. I used to grin and ask the security if it was the jeans; they never replied, of course, just smiled back in non-committed manner, which was fine by us; I think they really secretly wanted to handle Hasselblads for a few seconds. My case told them that's what they'd find. Which of itself, points out how more innocent those days were; today, I would no more openly tout a Hassy or Leica badge than a Rolex one.

;-)

Rob

The same thing here in America.  Although the Las Vegas shooter disproves that theory at least once in a while. 

[Rob C]

Rob, do you know the Norwegian shooter was a Norwegian National (and a right wing nut/facist)? Nothing to do with immigration and easterners entering. I like your cristal ball, but only for entertainment value, not for credibility 

And while the 68 death in this mass shooting should be condemned in the strongest possible sense transposing the US statistics on Norway would probably have led to a lot more death then the 68 in this one mass shooting, not all in one time but slowly trickling in and therefore not giving you opportunity to cherry pick one event rather than looking at the big picture.

Um, yes, I did know the guy who shot the kids on the island was white; but then again, so was Hitler and his score was infinitely higher.

So by quoting your island killer, you yourself are using one example in order to crack my "crystal ball". Kinda ironic, that. I wonder if you see it, especially as I never mentioned your home-grown cowboy.

To clarify, and to avoid the need for more of the same later:

a. I am in perfect agreement with an armed police presence; I think they should all be very well trained, and carry the weapons deemed appropriate to stop any fruitcake trying to kill people on the street or anywhere else;

b. I do not believe that Joe Public should be permitted to carry arms;

c. there are times where certain citizens should be permitted to keep a weapon at home;

d. country dwellers with the reality of an immediate access to hunting or farming should also be allowed shotguns; rifles are already sufficiently available to professional gamekeeprs out in the wilds of the glens of wherever.

Rob

[Rob C]

I can understand why Chris locked my tongue-in-cheek gun thread on guns, but I'm sorry he did it immediately after I asked this question:

". . . the Norway massacre only lasted an hour and a half, so there was time to go home and get your sporting gun and stop the attack. And only 68 kids were murdered while everybody waited for the cops or for somebody with a sporting gun to show up."

Nobody seems to want to deal with the implications that arise out of that event, and I'll tell you this: considering the out-migration of people from the Middle East, mass shootings throughout Europe and Scandinavia are going to increase, possibly exponentially. I hope we all can learn to cope with the result.

No, it wasn't culpa tua; it culpa mea: I equated owning a big gun with a possible penis extension. To make it worse, I also quoted a Ferrari rather than a Corvette. Neither the NRA nor GM liked that, so off it flew, back into the ether!

We live in dangerous times, Russ.

;-)

Rob

[pegelli]

Um, yes, I did know the guy who shot the kids on the island was white; but then again, so was Hitler and his score was infinitely higher.

So by quoting your island killer, you yourself are using one example in order to crack my "crystal ball". Kinda ironic, that. I wonder if you see it, especially as I never mentioned your home-grown cowboy.

To clarify, and to avoid the need for more of the same later:

a. I am in perfect agreement with an armed police presence; I think they should all be very well trained, and carry the weapons deemed appropriate to stop any fruitcake trying to kill people on the street or anywhere else;

b. I do not believe that Joe Public should be permitted to carry arms;

c. there are times where certain citizens should be permitted to keep a weapon at home;

d. country dwellers with the reality of an immediate access to hunting or farming should also be allowed shotguns; rifles are already sufficiently available to professional gamekeeprs out in the wilds of the glens of wherever.

Rob

Rob, oops and apologies. I was responding to Russ, not Rob (you). Now corrected (but I can't correct it in the quote of my original post). And actually I think I agree with all 4 points you made

[RSL]

Russ, do you know the Norwegian shooter was a Norwegian National (and a right wing nut/facist)? Nothing to do with immigration and easterners entering. I like your cristal ball, but only for entertainment value, not for credibility 

And while the 68 death in this mass shooting should be condemned in the strongest possible sense transposing the US statistics on Norway would probably have led to a lot more death then the 68 in this one mass shooting, not all in one time but slowly trickling in and therefore not giving you opportunity to cherry pick one event rather than looking at the big picture.

I'm not sure, Pieter, whether you're really missing the point or trying to convert the question to one you'd rather deal with. The point has nothing to do with the nationality of the shooter or with comparisons to mass shootings with continuous fire weapons. In this case the shooter stalked and picked off kids for an hour and a half. The point is that no one but the shooter had a weapon. Had someone else been armed, the whole thing would have ended on a different note. THAT's the big picture, Pieter, and nobody seems to want to tackle it.

[pegelli]

I'm not sure, Pieter, whether you're really missing the point or trying to convert the question to one you'd rather deal with. The point has nothing to do with the nationality of the shooter or with comparisons to mass shootings with continuous fire weapons. In this case the shooter stalked and picked off kids for an hour and a half. The point is that no one but the shooter had a weapon. Had someone else been armed, the whole thing would have ended on a different note. THAT's the big picture, Pieter, and nobody seems to want to tackle it.

No Russ, the big picture is that if you transpose the US statistics of widespread gun use and gun death on Norway (and thereby improve the chances of someone else beeing armed there) a whole lot of more people would have died over time then the 68 that did this time. That's the point you are unwilling to see. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... In this case the shooter stalked and picked off kids for an hour and a half. The point is that no one but the shooter had a weapon. Had someone else been armed, the whole thing would have ended on a different note...

Indeed, Russ.

Consider the latest church shooting (Tennessee)... By the way, in the previous one (Charleston), a white idiot walks into a black church and kills everyone (nine people). The Left is outraged, shrieks about  "white supremacy," etc. As a result, dozens of statutes and flags across the country are removed, damaged or defaced. It is a front page news for weeks.

Change of scenery, a black idiot, a Muslim immigrant, walks into a white church and shoots who he managed to shoot (six people wounded, one murdered in the parking lot prior to entering the church). The result: page 27 news. Not a squeak from the Left.

So, what's different (apart from the hypocritical media)?

Perhaps a quote from the USA Today (bold mine):

A churchgoer, 22-year-old Robert Engle, confronted Samson as he entered the church. Samson pistol-whipped Engle who struggled with him. During the struggle, Samson shot himself.
 
After Samson shot himself, Engle ran out to his vehicle, retrieved his own weapon, went back into the church and subdued Samson until police arrived.

[Rob C]

Indeed, Russ.

Consider the latest church shooting (Tennessee)... By the way, in the previous one (Charleston), a white idiot walks into a black church and kills everyone (nine people). The Left is outraged, shrieks about  "white supremacy," etc. As a result, dozens of statutes and flags across the country are removed, damaged or defaced. It is a front page news for weeks.

Change of scenery, a black idiot, a Muslim immigrant, walks into a white church and shoots who he managed to shoot (six people wounded, one murdered in the parking lot prior to entering the church). The result: page 27 news. Not a squeak from the Left.

So, what's different (apart from the hypocritical media)?

Perhaps a quote from the USA Today (bold mine):

"A churchgoer, 22-year-old Robert Engle, confronted Samson as he entered the church. Samson pistol-whipped Engle who struggled with him. During the struggle, Samson shot himself.
 
After Samson shot himself, Engle ran out to his vehicle, retrieved his own weapon, went back into the church and subdued Samson until police arrived."


But had this Samson had a haircut earlier in the day? It could have ended in a different way.

Rob

[pegelli]

Indeed, Russ.

Indeed, this incident would have ended a whole lot different, but how many other people would have been killed in lieu by widespread gun ownership and use over time? Just transpose the general US statistics on Norway and you'll get a hunch (and it's not less). So stop cherry picking one incident in isolation to defend your point, look at the big picture.

[Robert Roaldi]

Regarding innovative immigrants, I don't understand your point. Maybe you can explain it. The immigrants who came were smart and industrious and risk takers whether the people living here wanted them or not.  These new people helped make America great and were eventually accepted like all other immigrants.

I am catching up on this thread for fun, and I got a really big kick out of your armchair eugenics analysis of immigration.

If you sat in a different armchair, you could argue that it's the people who stayed behind to repair their societies that were the better breeding stock, rather than just leave for greener pastures.

But never mind that. Your position is intriguing. Why are so against immigration now. The people who manage to escape hell hole war zones must be highly selected for ingenuity and drive, you (and Trump) should be welcoming them.

[RSL]

Indeed, this incident would have ended a whole lot different, but how many other people would have been killed in lieu by widespread gun ownership and use over time? Just transpose the general US statistics on Norway and you'll get a hunch (and it's not less). So stop cherry picking one incident in isolation to defend your point, look at the big picture.

Okay, Pieter, let's "transpose the statistics" in the 68 (not 58 as in Vegas) killed in the Norway hunt to the U.S. Norway's population is about 5.33 million. U.S. population is about 323 million. Doing a simple ratio, in the U.S. the Norway hunt would have yielded 4,120 dead instead of 68. That's about the same level of rationality I see in your post. I might also add that in Norway the weapon was a Ruger Mini 14, .223 carbine. It didn't even have a bump stock, so the guy was picking off his vics one at a time. THAT's the BIG PICTURE! And nobody was able to stop it until the cops finally arrived after an hour and a half.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... until the cops finally arrived after an hour and a half.

Because, as the British ones, they probably don't carry arms, so they had to rush back to their police stations and locked safes and retrieve it first. On bicycles, as, you know, they had to worry about their carbon footprint. God forbid they had speedboats or helicopters, but that be irresponsible to the environment.

[Alan Klein]

I am catching up on this thread for fun, and I got a really big kick out of your armchair eugenics analysis of immigration.

If you sat in a different armchair, you could argue that it's the people who stayed behind to repair their societies that were the better breeding stock, rather than just leave for greener pastures.

But never mind that. Your position is intriguing. Why are so against immigration now. The people who manage to escape hell hole war zones must be highly selected for ingenuity and drive, you (and Trump) should be welcoming them.

That's a good question, Bob.  First, I'm not against immigration.  I'm only here because my great grandparents came here.  Also, we need people to help pay for my Social Security benefits.   Also, I don't think I was selective about immigration other than filtering out those who might be terrorists.  Others I wouldn't want are people who really have no incentive to become American.  They come here to sponge off of our largesse and then often return to their own lands.  A century ago, those benefits didn't exist.  You came here because you wanted to stay and made a permanent decision to become Americans.   You wanted to become an American citizen.  America's political and economic freedoms have always been a magnet for people around the world to start over or use their original homeland education and experience for greater reward.  They then stay and their children become patriotic Americans by right and experience of birth. It's been a huge advantage to us as we often get the cream of the crop from other lands.

[pegelli]

Okay, Pieter, let's "transpose the statistics" in the 68 (not 58 as in Vegas) killed in the Norway hunt to the U.S. Norway's population is about 5.33 million. U.S. population is about 323 million. Doing a simple ratio, in the U.S. the Norway hunt would have yielded 4,120 dead instead of 68. That's about the same level of rationality I see in your post. I might also add that in Norway the weapon was a Ruger Mini 14, .223 carbine. It didn't even have a bump stock, so the guy was picking off his vics one at a time. THAT's the BIG PICTURE! And nobody was able to stop it until the cops finally arrived after an hour and a half.

come on Russ, you never get the big picture by cherry picking one isolated incident. Transposing the US homicide rate of 4.88 / 100k (the result of widespread gun use and ownership) on Norway will give you about 260 per year, a whole lot more then the average 30/year they have now and still a lot more then the 68 Breyvik killed. Mass shootings or smaller incidents doesn't really matter, the people killed are just as dead