Brit Kills 13 People Without A Gun

Global warming made him do it. He never lived in Arizona. He never heard of Sarah Palin.

He did it because he was mentally ill.



About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to Brit Kills 13 People Without A Gun

  1. M White says:

    I do not know how often members of the US parliament are attacked, but it is not uncomman in Britain

    “Former Labour minister Stephen Timms has been stabbed twice in the stomach at a constituency event in east London”

    “A Liberal Democrat MP has been injured and a colleague was stabbed to death after they were apparently attacked with a sword, police have said.”

    Luckily it not easy to get military assault rifles over here.

  2. Andy Weiss says:

    Unfortunately, there a lot of lunitics out there who are desparate to make a name for themselves.

    • BioBob says:

      Alot ? surely you exaggerate /sarc

      You mean about like the percentage of water vapor in the air or more like the percentage of CO2 in the air ? Perhaps as high as the percentage of Oxygen in air or way low like Argon ?

  3. Byz says:

    But he didn’t kill 13 people in 5 seconds!!!!

    Also when this happened we had very relaxed gun laws, so your point is?

    Maybe relaxed gun laws lead to a devaluation of human life?

    I think this is an own goal, just like Chelsea 🙂

    • Maybe the murder rate here in Colorado is the same as in England? Maybe guns have nothing to do with it?

      A train driver in California killed 50 people in one second by texting.

      • Byz says:


        I have no doubt that the same percentage of people in the US and UK are nutters.

        However it is the rate that they can deliver death that is different.

        Hannibal showed that with 30,000 troops you could kill 80,000 people in 6 hours, however if his troops had been armed with semi-automatic guns they could have done it in 20 minutes 😦

        Throughout history different societies have done things that move civilisation forward, in the late 1980’s the UK decided that you need a very good reason to have a gun in a western democracy, that is a move forward (like the commonwealth and the American revolution) the US is still in the past and one day you will catch up unfortunately from where you are you cannot see that yet, just as the Greeks could not see that the Romans were the next logical revolutionary step (where the Romans perfect no, but they opened citizenship to all, the Greeks did not).

        One day you will see that a society where any idiot cannot easily get a gun is a step forward, but not today (maybe in 100 years) 😦

      • BioBob says:

        It’s well known – Yanks are just more efficient than Brits is all.

    • PhilJourdan says:

      are they any less dead?

  4. Byz says:

    My point is that when I step outside my house and confronted by a nutter (as I recently was) I am 99% sure that he does not have a gun and can just withdraw beyond reach and hide behind a wooden door.

    Whereas when I’ve been in the US (which is a country I really like) I do not have that certainty, so if I disagree with someone I could be gunned down in cold blood even behind my front door 😦

    I live down a narrow footpath so if you were in a car you’d not be able to come after me with the car 🙂

    • We never get confronted by nutters, because we all have guns.

      • Byz says:


        The situation I had was very weird, as we had cleared most of the footpath of snow/ice (as I have done for 17 years) and this bloke that i’ve never seen before decided that I hadn’t done enough 😦

        Most people around here are thankful when you do this, not him 😦

        Anyway all of us now have crampons so next time I won’t bother and he can do it 🙂

      • BioBob says:

        Presumably you could be reached by a small thermonuclear device ?

  5. Byz says:

    Just as an aside I’m listening to Linkin Park, named after a very famous massacre in the US, that just would not be able to occur in the UK as the police are not allowed to carry guns (even though they keep saying they need to!).

    I view the the US attitude to be the same as my 5 year old when I say it’s time for bed, they protest and come out with lots of reasons not to yield. In the end you will just have to grow up 🙂

    • It is called the US Constitution. It has been in place for almost 250 years. Your arrogance is astonishing.

      • Byz says:

        Yes it is 250 years old.

        We had a law that made a capital offence to eat a mince pie on London Bridge on Christmas day! These laws were 350 years old!!

        We got rid of a lot of odd laws 10 years ago as they had no place in a modern democracy.

        Just because a law is old it doesn’t mean that it is good. Don’t forget that the UK has Laws that are over 1000 years old and some that go back to Rome, but we do not throw criminals to the lions or leave unwanted children on mountain tops (like the ancient Greeks).

        Society evolves (oh sorry evolution is banned in the US) so what was good 30 years ago is no longer allowed now, 30 years ago it was acceptable here to be sexist or racist, now it is not we have grown up an moved on. Members of my family 40 years ago were subject to racist abuse in the work place, if that occurred today they would have recourse to the law.

        The US is a great country, however in the last 30 years it has started to decline and it is now doing what the UK did in the 1960’s and 70’s. The UK now realises that we must treasure the good handed down, but get rid of the bad.

        I am not being arrogant I just live in a post empire country, we’ve been there done it and got the teeshirt 🙂

        The US is close behind and needs to get used to not being No. 1 anymore, as the UK did 🙂

        • 1938

          On Nov. 8, The New York Times reported from Berlin, Berlin Police Head Announces Disarming of Jews, explaining: The Berlin Police President, Count Wolf Heinrich von Helldorf, announced that as a result of a police activity in the last few weeks the entire Jewish population of Berlin had been disarmed with the confiscation of 2,569 hand weapons, 1,702 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition.

          Nov. 9, Adolph Hitler, Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels and other Nazi chiefs planned the attack. Orders went out to Nazi security forces: All Jewish stores are to be destroyed immediately . Jewish synagogues are to be set on fire . The Fhrer wishes that the police does not intervene. All Jews are to be disarmed. In the event of resistance they are to be shot immediately.

          Nov. 10: Nazis Smash, Loot and Burn Jewish Shops and Temples, a headline read. One of the first legal measures issued was an order by Heinrich Himmler, commander of all German police, forbidding Jews to possess any weapons whatever and imposing a penalty of twenty years confinement in a concentration camp upon every Jew found in possession of a weapon hereafter.4 Thousands of Jews were taken away.

        • European history is full of ethnic hatred and genocide. We don’t do that in the US.

    • Justa Joe says:

      As with most things you are inccorrect. Lincoln Park is not scene of a massacre in the USA. It’s just a Park in Chicago’s North side. The nearest thing that comes close is The Hay Market Riots, which were created by a bunch of anarchists and collectivists. Ya know, the kinda people that you like.

      The 1886 Haymarket Square Riot in Chicago didn’t feature a lot of shooting. The anarchists killed some people with a bomb though.

  6. Byz says:

    Be UK specific.

    Point one out here, since 1988.

    The rest of Europe still allows guns (hence why our olympic gun team has to train in France).

    We do not just disarm one area of the population we disarm all.

    Are you being arrogant and saying that the UK government is a Nazi state?

    • You guys were perfectly happy to allow the genocide in Sarajevo. A British general was overseeing the operation. As usual, the Americans had to intervene.

      • Byz says:


        you are just dodging the question.

        It was the British and French troops who actually sorted it out in the end, the US would not commit ground troops.

        Guns kill lots of people and ordinary people should not carry them.

        In the UK only the army and specific police squads can have guns, we are the only state in the world with unarmed police officers on the streets and I am very very proud of that. Our police need to use people skills first that means that the police are closer to the people and long may that be the case 🙂

        I’ve enjoyed the discourse, unfortunately it’s nearly midnight here in the the UK so I need some sleep (as I got up at 6 am).

        I enjoy debating these points and luckily no-one pulls a gun 🙂

        • Right. You did nothing to stop the genocide until the US started bombing. Your general used his troops as human shields to protect the perpetrators.

          We got our independence from oppressive British rule because we had guns, and you can’t possibly imagine how irritating it is being lectured by Brits.

          Neville Chamberlain could have stopped Hitler, but he chose to give him the Sudetenland – which had a massive arsenal.

    • suyts says:

      Byz, I think you’re missing an essential part of your equation. We’ve no desire to become like the U.K. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve great respect and admiration for the country and its people. That said, the society present in the U.K. doesn’t work very well here.

      For instance, earlier, you stated, I am 99% sure that he does not have a gun and can just withdraw beyond reach and hide behind a wooden door.
      That doesn’t work well here. True, it does happen here, but, if that becomes the norm as opposed to the exception, we’ll have significant difficulties here. Societal evolution isn’t always for the good. I believe your Gibbons made that abundantly clear. You either ignore or confront the nutter, to wish he passes from you, only passes him toward his next victim.

      In this country, most still relish the right of self-determination over the right of collective security. Your security is nothing but imagined. It isn’t real. If some nutter wanted to, your door would offer very little in the way of protection. In the U.S., we prefer more tangible forms of safety, it comes in the form of an off/on switch with a trigger in close proximity.

      Personally, I believe to eliminate risk from life reduces life to mere existence. That, in my view, isn’t evolving. That’s devolving.

  7. Andy Weiss says:

    The Brits have been our best friends and allies for a long time, thru good times and bad. We have our differences, but would anyone seriously want to destroy the alliance?

    • Obama has been doing his best.

    • suyts says:

      Andy, of course not. We couldn’t if we wanted to. We have too many very significant commonalities. Language being the most significant, but also similar forms of democracy, and heritage.

      I would though, be remiss if I didn’t point out a difficulty with our famed cooperative alliances, not just with the G.B., but also the rest of the Commonwealth and her spawn. So, in the greater context I’m speaking of the U.S., G.B., Canada, Australia, New Zealand,(in no particular order) and to a lesser extent India.

      I ask you and anyone else, were it not for these nations and the climate alarmists of these nations, would there even be a global warming discussion? I really doubt it. It is the contrivance of the English speaking world! Sure there are others that jumped on the bandwagon, but make no mistake, the mess is ours to clean up. Consider the climate discussion with out the likes of Jones, Hansen, Weaver, Suzuki, Salinger, Flannery, and Pachy. Then also consider the media outlets that spew this stuff. While I am aware of the other language speaking alarmists and outlets, I don’t believe any of it would have happened were it not for the lock step of the English speaking alarmist community. This thought, lends to much greater discussions, but that’s the way I see it.

  8. PhilJourdan says:

    Byz says:
    January 14, 2011 at 11:29 pm

    The constitution is not a law. Indeed, it is not even a restriction on us. It is a restriction on the government. You would do well to learn that as it is the fundamental difference between being given rights by your government (as it is in ENgland) and having rights naturally (as it is in the US).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s