quote:

It was literally feared that returning servicemen who were accustomed to using guns would pose a danger to society. In addition, that was when there were concerns about the spread of Communism to the country and that if people were armed, they couldn’t be controlled.

SigFreund - it is actually the latter reason, and NOT the former, that made the government of the day bring in the very first restrictions on firearms ownership in the United Kingdom, which, at that time, included the entire island of Ireland.

The 6 million+ ex-soldiers, severely pissed by the fact that they were NOT returning to the promised 'land of milk and honey, but to a nation impoverished by four years of war and over a million dead and five million injured, blamed the government for their lack of jobs and lack of any kind of recognition for their sacrifices over the previous four and a bit years. The sight of little groups of crippled soldiers, or even ex-officers, playing cheap musical instruments in the gutters for a few pennies was as familiar a sight until the late '20's as it had been after the end of the Napoleonic Wars, over a hundred years previously. The newly-Soviet Russia seemed to have gotten around all that that by a violent revolution that took away the royal family, and murdered them, and destroyed the tsarist government, and replaced it with the Soviet. Many here in UK saw that as a very positive way of getting their 'rights' back, and had ready access to arms - the British Army of the day was HUGE - well over a million men still uniform, many of whom were in Germany manning the 'Wacht-am-Rhein', or over in Russia fighting the Reds on the side of the Whites.

The government of the day did not want to see bloody revolution happening here in UK, and among other things, was VERY conscious of the fact that the late tsar and the then-present king were blood cousins.

So began the erosion of the 1689 Bill of Rights, which enjoined 'all good protestant men to bear arms'.

Owning a firearm for self-defence has not been legal here in UK since the late 1940's.

Using one to defend yourself is a matter of getting it out of the secure accommodation, loading it, and shooting it at the BG - THAT, friend, is called premeditation in UK law, and will land you in a world of trouble. Using one that you have taken off the intruder might just tip the balance in your direction, but it's only a might, not a given.

Using a firearm for self-defence is a no-no in most every nation in Europe.

tac

Tac, thanks for the edification, as I'm sure you can gather from being a member here, EU self defense principles (or lack thereof) are so completely foreign (no pun intended) to those of us here in the states.

From the link provided by chellim1:

quote:

The Moderate Muslim
Off and on I've been looking for attempts to combat Wahabism or jihadism, or whatever you wish to call it, from other Muslims. So a couple of weeks ago I came across A Battle for the Soul of Islam: An American Muslim Patriot's Fight to Save His Faith by Zuhdi Jasser.

Among the unsettling social shifts in the wake of 9/11 was a division here in the United States, often sadly along party lines, between those who believed every Muslim was a potential threat and those who believed no Muslim could do wrong. In a compelling and balanced must-read, [Zuhdi Jasser], a recognized expert on terrorism and a patriotic American—lays bare the crucial differences between Islam and the spiritual cancer known as Islamism and persuasively calls for radical reformation within the Muslim community in order to preserve liberty for all.

But reviewers point out some flaws in Jasser's approach:
“My Islam,” he frequently notes, isn’t supremacist, nor intolerant, nor violent. He approaches religion as a spiritual journey and, applying a very American approach, feels free to reject the features of his religion which are illogical, anachronistic, irrelevant, unconstitutional, or absurd.

This sounds about right. That is, there is no such thing as *my* Islam. As Islamic scholars have pointed out, there is only Islam. And as this reviewer notes, picking and choosing what you want and discarding the rest is a very western, actually very American, approach to religion. We are the land of virtually unlimited choice, and we tend to bring this thinking into spiritual matters.

Another thorny point is Islam's relation with non-believers and other religions. Jasser claims that "the Qur’an teaches respect for other’s religious beliefs." Really? Islam is not an aggressive, proselytizing, conquering religion?

Finally, it's not like the jihadists are inventing something foreign or radically different than anything that as ever appeared in Islam before. The jihadists are reading the Quran. They're reading the hadiths. As Jasser (presumably) does. So my question has always been, which interpretation is correct, and why? Christianity has had a nunber of "back to the Bible" movements, perhaps the jihadis are part of a "back to the Quran" movement. In which case it is westernized Muslims like Jasser who are the ones on the outside looking in.

I've watched interviews with Dr. Jasser for several years now and have always been struck by the fact that he is no more muslim than Tim Kaine, Nancy Pelosi, and Crazy Uncle Joe are Catholic.

One cannot believe that islam does not strive for world domination through any and all violent means necessary and still call yourself a muslim any more than you can believe that abortion is perfectly acceptable and call yourself a Catholic. Jasser is no more an authority on islam than Tim Kaine is an authority on Catholicism. He would be well served to change his religious affiliation because he is living a lie.

^^^^^ It has been opined by others (and I agree) that it is not possible to be a "good" Muslim and also a "good" American, because the rules of Islam are incompatible with a free society. Until the Islamic world has a "Jesus figure" who radically alters the rules of the religion, there will be no chance for compatibility between Islam and non-Islam.

flashguy

And therein lies one of the major problems with all religions, they are what people say they are, and it changes. There is no independent governing body who dictates the validity of one versus the other, no clear and irrefutable source of who is right and who is wrong, for any of them, even many Catholics don't agree with their own Pope, for instance.

Like not or not, Islam is as much a recognized religion as any other one, and the vast majority of its followers aren't engaging in any violence, so the idea that any one can just deem it a non-religion like some in this thread have done is ridiculous and futile at best. Why waste our time attempting to declare that the sky isn't blue? It changes nothing.

Not that I don't wish it were that easy. But it's not.

We're stuck with that crazy shit, all of us.

And they'll either evolve on their own, like the rest of the main religions have done - no one in the civilized world burns "witches" at the stake any longer - after all, or we'll just keep killing the crazy and violent ones until they're all dead or the rest have lost their incentive. That's pretty much the only solution, since genocide and redefining it aren't.

It's a testament of will and endurance, not a discussion of which religions are valid.

A slight aside - self defence in UK -

Q and A: Self defence and burglars
By Dominic Casciani
Home affairs correspondent
9 October 2012

The UK Justice Secretary has proposed amending the law in England and Wales on self-defence to protect householders who over-react when confronted by a burglar or intruder. What is the law on self defence in the home - and where do victims stand if confronted?
What force does the law allow?

In England and Wales, anyone can use "reasonable" force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime. Householders are protected from prosecution as long as they act "honestly and instinctively" in the heat of the moment. "Fine judgements" over the level of force used are not expected, says the Crown Prosecution Service.
What this means in practice is that someone can claim they attacked in self-defence if they genuinely believed they were in peril - even if in hindsight they were clearly wrong.
Victims do not have to wait to be attacked if they are in their home and fear for themselves or others. These guidelines also apply if someone, in the spur of the moment, picks up an item to use as a weapon. The law very clearly says that a householder is not expected to weigh up the arguments for and against in the heat of the moment - but they have to show that their actions were reasonable in the moment.

Can the intruder be chased if they run off?
It all comes down to the fundamental question of what was proportionate in the moment and what the householder genuinely believed. If an intruder flees the scene, then at that moment they might not be presenting a threat to the householder any longer. This means that a householder who chases and attacks could no longer be considered to be acting in self-defence. Reasonable force can still be used to recover property or make a citizen's arrest.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has suggested in the past that "a rugby tackle or a single blow would probably be reasonable" because these are designed to stop the criminal, rather than to inflict grievous harm.
What is the situation if the intruder dies?
It is still lawful to act in reasonable self-defence, even if the intruder dies as a result. However, prosecution could result from "very excessive and gratuitous force", such as attacking someone who is unconscious. For instance, the CPS decided not to prosecute one woman who snatched a baseball bat from an intruder and smashed him over the head. Had the woman continued to beat the man to a pulp, after he had already fallen and posed no threat, that would probably be considered as unlawful.
So the law is quite complicated?
It depends which way you look at it. Defenders of the current position argue that self-defence is exactly the kind of debate that should be left up to juries. In each case, the precise facts will be different and may justify a different response.

But that's not very clear, is it?

That's the argument from the other side. The Conservatives have repeatedly argued that the law needs to be shifted in favour of the householder to give them certainty that they will not be prosecuted. Most cases that have come before the courts have tended to divide public opinion.

How likely is prosecution?

There have been very few prosecutions in these circumstances. Between 1990 and 2005 there were 11 prosecutions of people who attacked intruders. Seven of them related to domestic burglaries. One of the cases that was prosecuted involved a man who lay in wait for an intruder and then beat him, threw him into a pit and set him alight.
Buckinghamshire businessman Munir and Tokeer Hussain were jailed in different circumstances. Hussain had returned home to find that three intruders had tied up his family. He escaped and, with the help of his brother, chased one of the intruders, Walid Saleem. Hussain caught Saleem and hit him so hard with a cricket bat that he inflicted permanent brain damage.

Saleem was incapable of entering a plea at trial and received a lesser sentence than the man whose house he broke into. It's important to note that the brothers did not plead at trial that they acted in self-defence when they chased and attacked the intruder. The Court of Appeal reduced their sentences but emphasised that the case was very unusual - and included an eyewitness who pleaded with the men to stop attacking the intruder.

What about if someone shoots?
The most recent case was that of Andy and Tracey Ferrie. They were in bed when two burglars entered their home. Mr Ferrie fired his (legally-held) shotgun at the men. The couple were arrested but then released without charge.

The judge at the intruders' trial said: "If you burgle a house in the country where the householder owns a legally held shotgun, that is the chance you take. You cannot come to court and ask for a lighter sentence because of it."

The most well-known case is Tony Martin. In 1999, the Norfolk farmer shot dead an intruder in his home. He was jailed for life for murder but the Court of Appeal then reduced that to manslaughter. He served three years in jail.

What do top judges think?
Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, said in his 2012 press conference that he thought the law was sound.

He said: "I suspect if any of you have come home to find a burglar in your home, or have been in bed at night -- or indeed having an afternoon snooze and found a burglar in your home - you are not calmly detached. You are probably very cross and you are probably very frightened - a mixture of both -and your judgment of precisely what you should or should not do in the circumstances cannot, as another predecessor of mine, Lord Lane, said, you cannot measure it in a jeweller's scale. You have to face the reality of how people are and how people react to these situations - and justifiably react.

"The householder is entitled to use reasonable force to get rid of the burglar and that in measuring whether the force is reasonable or not, you are not doing a paper exercise six months later. You have to put yourself in the position of the man or woman who has reacted to the presence of a burglar and has reacted with fury, with anxiety, with fear, and with all the various different emotions which will be generated, and who has no time for calm reflection.'

Clear?

I thought not.

tac

quote:

The most well-known case is Tony Martin. In 1999, the Norfolk farmer shot dead an intruder in his home. He was jailed for life for murder but the Court of Appeal then reduced that to manslaughter. He served three years in jail.

An absolute travesty of justice.

http://news.met.police.uk/news...35e86c9e07eec87537c6

Updates: Two men shot dead by police following terrorist attack named



Monday, 5 June at 18:00hrs

The Met’s Counter Terrorism Command has released the names and photographs of two men shot dead by police following the terrorist attack on London Bridge and Borough Market on Saturday, 3 June.

While formal identification has yet to take place, detectives believe they now know the attackers’ identities. They believe two of the men are Khuram Shazad Butt and Rachid Redouane, both from Barking, east London.

All three men were confronted and shot dead by armed officers within eight minutes of the first call.

Khuram Shazad Butt, 27, (20.4.90), was a British citizen who was born in Pakistan. Rachid Redouane, 30 (31.7.86) had claimed to be Moroccan and Libyan. He also used the name Rachid Elkhdar, with a different date of birth of 31.7.91. Inquiries are ongoing to confirm the identity of their accomplice.

Detectives would like to hear from anyone who has any information about these men that may assist them with the investigation. They are particularly keen to hear about places they may have frequented and their movements in the days and hours before the attack.

At 22.08hrs on Saturday, 3 June, a hired white Renault van travelled north to south on London Bridge and mounted the pavement, which collided with pedestrians before they abandoned the vehicle.

The three attackers, armed with knives, continued into the Borough Market area, stabbing numerous people. The attackers were then confronted by the firearms officers and eight police firearms officers discharged their weapons.

Seven people were killed. Work to inform the next of kin of the victims is ongoing. This is taking time because we believe some of the victims are from abroad. Of the 48 people taken to hospital, 36 are currently being cared for in London hospitals with 18 remaining in a critical condition.

The investigation into this horrific attack is fast moving and complex as we piece together a fuller picture of what occurred. So far officers have arrested 12 people – seven women and five men - and searched six properties (four on Sunday and a further two properties today). One of the arrested men and one of the women were subsequently released.

Counter terrorism partners have dedicated intensive effort to developing and improving our counter terrorism response over recent years, as the threat has changed. The more we know, the greater the chance when an attack does happen we will have some information about at least one perpetrator. Our work necessarily involves making difficult judgements about how to prioritise the resources available to us at a time when the UK is facing a SEVERE and high tempo terrorist threat.

There are 500 current terrorism investigations, involving 3,000 current subjects of interest. A small number of the highest priority investigations involve current attack planning, and these investigations command a significant proportion of our resource. The remainder of our investigations focus on other activities relating to active support or facilitation of terrorism.

Khuram Shazad Butt was known to the police and MI5. However, there was no intelligence to suggest that this attack was being planned and the investigation had been prioritised accordingly. The other named man, Rachid Redouane, was not known.

Work is ongoing to understand more about them, their connections and whether they were assisted or supported by anyone else. We cannot say more about them at this stage.

Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley said: “I would urge anyone with information about these men, their movements in the days and hours before the attack and the places they frequented to come forward.

“The police and our partners are doing everything we can across the country to help prevent further attacks and protect the public from harm.

“At any one time MI5 and police are conducting around 500 active investigations, involving 3,000 subjects of interest. Additionally, there are around 20,000 individuals who are former subjects of interest, whose risk remains subject to review by MI5 and its partners.

“The security and intelligence services and police have stopped 18 plots since 2013, including five since the Westminster attack two months ago.”

He added: “We would urge the public to be vigilant and to report any suspicious activity to the police by calling us in confidence on 0800 789321 or in an emergency calling 999.”

Those arrested were:

[A] 38-year-old woman arrested at address 1 in Barking;
[B] 28-year-old man arrested at address 2 in Barking;
[C] 52-year-old man arrested at address 2 in Barking;
[D] 55-year-old man arrested at address 2 in Barking;
[E] 27-year-old man arrested at address 2 in Barking;
[F] 55-year-old man arrested at address 2 in Barking, who has since been released without charge;
[G] 49-year-old woman arrested at address 2 in Barking;
[H] 60-year-old woman arrested at address 2 in Barking;
[I] 19-year-old woman arrested at address 2 in Barking;
[J] 27-year-old female arrested at address 2 in Barking;
[K] 24-year-old female arrested at address 2 in Barking;
[L] 53-year-old woman arrested at address 2 in Barking. Released without charge

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/04/...ttack-new/index.html

Eight officers fired 50 shots at the three attackers

a member of the public suffered a gunshot wound during the shooting. His condition was not life-threatening.

Still better than the NYPD...

Or the PIMA County SWAT force that fired 72 rounds at one victim. 42 hits sustained.

His widow got a HUGE $$$$$$ law suit settlement.

Our local news rag (Memphis paper) finally had something about this in this mornings edition, buried on page 6.

Front page story was about how Trump is destroying the planet by pulling out of the Paris Accord.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

The most well-known case is Tony Martin. In 1999, the Norfolk farmer shot dead an intruder in his home. He was jailed for life for murder but the Court of Appeal then reduced that to manslaughter. He served three years in jail.

An absolute travesty of justice.

I totally agree. I joined the 10,000-strong march in a demand for justice for Mr Martin. The only person of colour in the lumber stack was the fact that Mr Martin was using what for him was an illegal shotgun. We at least got an appeal in progress that reduced his sentence to manslaughter - he actually served less than three years in total.

The POS second burglar, who was reportedly 'crippled for life' was caught showing off his advanced acrobatic mountain-bike skills less than a year later...

I live in hope that his remains will one day be found on a distant hill, having been strangled with a bicycle chain and with a 24-speed Derailleur gear set shoved up his butt.

tac

quote:

At 22.08hrs on Saturday, 3 June, a hired white Renault van travelled north to south on London Bridge and mounted the pavement, which collided with pedestrians before they abandoned the vehicle.

The first person to die was 30-year old Christine Archibald, a Canadian visiting London with her fiancé.

She died in his arms.

Another of the dead from the van attack may be the brother of a young lady who was on live TV this afternoon, begging for news of her older brother who had not been seen since he went outside for a cigarette just before the van hit.

He MAY be one of the so-far unidentifiable bodies.

tac

quote:

Originally posted by tacfoley:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

The most well-known case is Tony Martin. In 1999, the Norfolk farmer shot dead an intruder in his home. He was jailed for life for murder but the Court of Appeal then reduced that to manslaughter. He served three years in jail.

An absolute travesty of justice.

I totally agree. I joined the 10,000-strong march in a demand for justice for Mr Martin. The only person of colour in the lumber stack was the fact that Mr Martin was using what for him was an illegal shotgun. We at least got an appeal in progress that reduced his sentence to manslaughter - he actually served less than three years in total.

The POS second burglar, who was reportedly 'crippled for life' was caught showing off his advanced acrobatic mountain-bike skills less than a year later...

I live in hope that his remains will one day be found on a distant hill, having been strangled with a bicycle chain and with a 24-speed Derailleur gear set shoved up his butt.

tac

I like the way you think.

quote:

The first person to die was 30-year old Christine Archibald, a Canadian visiting London with her fiancé.

She died in his arms.

Another of the dead from the van attack may be the brother of a young lady who was on live TV this afternoon, begging for news of her older brother who had not been seen since he went outside for a cigarette just before the van hit.

He MAY be one of the so-far unidentifiable bodies.

tac

Heartbreaking stories.

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
^^^^^ Until the Islamic world has a "Jesus figure" who radically alters the rules of the religion, there will be no chance for compatibility between Islam and non-Islam.

flashguy

That will never happen. The most fundamental tenant of Islam: There is but one God and Muhammad is his prophet.

A friend who is Islamic explained to this Catholic that what that means and the Koran teaches is that Muhammed is the Last prophet of God and his teachings are the only (last) ones that apply.

It's a little old but still relevant and worth a read.

Militant Islam Reaches America by Daniel Pipes. I had a copy but I loaned it out and the guy disappeared.

quote:

Originally posted by Leemur:
It's a little old but still relevant and worth a read.

Militant Islam Reaches America by Daniel Pipes. I had a copy but I loaned it out and the guy disappeared.

The will of Allah!

quote:

Originally posted by jehzsa:
I'm impressed by the speed with which arrests were made after the attack. That tells me that the British authorities have pretty much their act together.

This guy has the right idea.

Former Israeli special forces officer Aaron Cohen said that if he were leading the U.K. terror probe, "it would be raining warrants."

"If i was leading this operation, I would want it to rain warrants... so i could kick down every door of every possible terrorist," Cohen said on "The Fox News Specialists."

He said that he would seek out every associate, friend and family member of terrorists like those in London and Manchester.

http://insider.foxnews.com/201...rorist-suspects-isis

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:

quote:

Originally posted by jehzsa:
I'm impressed by the speed with which arrests were made after the attack. That tells me that the British authorities have pretty much their act together.

Neat. Now they start feeling like prey. The hunted.

All jihadists have been feeling like hunters for a long time. Glad to see that tables are being turned on them. And that's an important mental consideration for all involved.

Perhaps even better if a determination is made about how accident-prone they are. The beauty of accidents, no one is immune to them.

Time for them to start looking over their shoulders constantly.