UK politician murdered in broad daylight

[annabenedetti]

I waited..........
But it's 1a.m. now, and I must go to bed.
I'll look to see if you answered, or backpeddled, when I awake.

But you are definitely not the masters of your guns, but they of you. It's so obvious............

I understand and agree with you to a point. I'd like to see more gun control legislation, I don't believe in the threat of incremental disarmament - realistically, that'll never happen, nor would I want to see it happen. The U.S. is a different place than the UK (I know I'm stating the obvious); for example, my sister lives on a huge property in rural, wooded area of her state and she has bears and mountain lions around her house on a regular basis. Being as far out from the city as they are, there's no help that could arrive in time for any threat from man or beast. They have guns for self protection, and I'm glad they do.

 

[CherubRam]

Just a second....... Lots of radical Christians want OT law as well, gender discimination, criminal convictions for homosexuals and transgenders, oppression of various nationalities, races, colours, Creeds and religions. I don't see a massive big difference.

Lying is part of their religion!!!!! Really! You don't know anyuthing about their religion ... is my guess.

Look, radical Christians have written that if a wicked US government tried to control them that they would shoot to kill their owen service-men and women. That's a promise of terrorism and insurrection right there.

There is a huge massive enormous % of Muslims who contribute wholeheartedly to the communities where they live, and who work in a total spirit of service to those communities. You can't try your propaganda with any hope of success. And you use a thread about the death of a wonderful Brit MP to push such views! Disgrace!

OK, so you are anti-christian and pro-muslim.

 

[CherubRam]

Just a second....... Lots of radical Christians want OT law as well, gender discimination, criminal convictions for homosexuals and transgenders, oppression of various nationalities, races, colours, Creeds and religions. I don't see a massive big difference.

Lying is part of their religion!!!!! Really! You don't know anything about their religion ... is my guess.

Look, radical Christians have written that if a wicked US government tried to control them that they would shoot to kill their owen service-men and women. That's a promise of terrorism and insurrection right there.

There is a huge massive enormous % of Muslims who contribute wholeheartedly to the communities where they live, and who work in a total spirit of service to those communities. You can't try your propaganda with any hope of success. And you use a thread about the death of a wonderful Brit MP to push such views! Disgrace!

Islamic Deception: Al-Takeyya or Al-Taqiyya
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...Deception-Al-Takeyya-or-Al-Taqiyya&highlight=


Allah Islam Muslim
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?108238-Allah-Islam-Muslim&highlight=

 

[Tyrathca]

You still have trams?

Yup, quite popular here and they're not like ye olden ones either. They're massive things like if a train and a bus had a baby. Low floors and some stops are even wheelchair accessible whilst still being part of the street (works surprisingly well). That said it's more of a Melbourne thing than an Australia thing, I'm fairly sure our most current fleet was custom made for us.

We have a new type of tram running through South London precincts like Croydon, but it isn't really the same as the old ones which ran in the streets, it's more like a single carriage railway.

Ours do something like that in sections but for the most part they are part of the street still.

But you can keep your spiders and snakes.

Don't forget the jellyfish, octopus and several fish... hell even the platypus is poisonous!

​

Oh and then there is also getting eaten by sharks and crocodiles (both of which have happened recently sadly ) or just getting lost in the outback in general.... (Practically all Europeans and many Americans don't quite comprehend how massive and empty some of it is) It's a lovely place I swear!

 

[eider]

I understand and agree with you to a point. I'd like to see more gun control legislation, I don't believe in the threat of incremental disarmament - realistically, that'll never happen, nor would I want to see it happen. The U.S. is a different place than the UK (I know I'm stating the obvious); for example, my sister lives on a huge property in rural, wooded area of her state and she has bears and mountain lions around her house on a regular basis. Being as far out from the city as they are, there's no help that could arrive in time for any threat from man or beast. They have guns for self protection, and I'm glad they do.

Hello......
Of course your sister should be able to keep a gun, or guns!
Our farmers, hunters, gamekeepers and sporting shots have guns here, you know.... they do.

But they are approved, licensed or certificated, and registered. That's all.

This is certainly not aimed at you or your sister, but I don't know anybody who would use an MP's murder as a cheap angle to prove a point about guns, for instance. Neither do I know any gun owner here who would even think of using it to shoot our brave service men and women in any political dispute.

Neither would they reach for it to kill an attempted intruder, but rather call out a warning to deter. I think that we just think differently to some of the more heated, vengeful and intolerant gun owners that I have read on the internet.

I hope that your sister keeps safe.

 

[eider]

OK, so you are anti-christian and pro-muslim.

Wrong.
I'm just anti people like you, who use a brave MP's death carelessly for a cheap bit of rhetoric.
I just don't like any extremists..... full stop.


Most Christians and Muslims that I know are fine people.

 

[eider]

Islamic Deception: Al-Takeyya or Al-Taqiyya
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...Deception-Al-Takeyya-or-Al-Taqiyya&highlight=


Allah Islam Muslim
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?108238-Allah-Islam-Muslim&highlight=

You don't know diddly about Islam, do you....?!!
But I'm learning a bit about the minority of extremist Christians like you.
What a culture shock that was for me.

Tell me....... which denomination do you belong to?

 

[CherubRam]

You don't know diddly about Islam, do you....?!!
But I'm learning a bit about the minority of extremist Christians like you.
What a culture shock that was for me.

Tell me....... which denomination do you belong to?

I think you are exercising Al-Takeyya.

 

[CherubRam]

Well, it's a good thing they banned all guns. Otherwise she might have been shot.

Police have released limited details, saying only that a 52-year-old man killed Jo Cox, a British member of Parliament.
I wonder why it is a government secret.

 

[annabenedetti]

Hello......

Hi.

Of course your sister should be able to keep a gun, or guns!
Our farmers, hunters, gamekeepers and sporting shots have guns here, you know.... they do.

But they are approved, licensed or certificated, and registered. That's all.

Well, they are here too - to varying degrees depending on the state, and that's apart from federal law.

This is certainly not aimed at you or your sister, but I don't know anybody who would use an MP's murder as a cheap angle to prove a point about guns, for instance.

My condolences to her family and to your country on the death of Jo Cox, and I'm sorry for any crass remarks made here.

Neither do I know any gun owner here who would even think of using it to shoot our brave service men and women in any political dispute.

I can't say I know anyone who would do that either.

Neither would they reach for it to kill an attempted intruder, but rather call out a warning to deter.

On that we differ. I wouldn't want to have to do it, but I would definitely shoot an intruder before I would let him hurt me or my family.

I think that we just think differently to some of the more heated, vengeful and intolerant gun owners that I have read on the internet.

There's such a broad range of people who own guns that it would be impossible to generalize across the whole population.

I hope that your sister keeps safe.

Thank you.

 

[rocketman]

So, do I "want" to see US citizens "disarmed"? Not out of any ulterior motive. Do I want US citizens to die at needlessly high levels due to gun violence? No.

Do you also want to see more regulation of automobiles or those who can & can't drive them? Oh, that's right they already are heavily regulated, as are those can hold a license but, yet we have a higher death rate involving autos as we do guns so are autos a problem? More to the point 2/3rds of all gun deaths in the U.S. are by suicide and suicide not using a gun is higher still by thirty percent which puts to bed the fallacy that a person wanting to end it all would not do it in the absence of a gun. In the end guns will be obtained by those that wish to kill others if it is their intent but, further gun control only makes for a warm fuzzy in the scope of things, the chances of getting Americans to quietly give up their rights or disarm is just nonsense, won't happen.

For your reading... http://crimeresearch.org/2015/01/are-guns-more-likely-to-kill-you-than-a-car-is-no/

 

[eider]

I can't say I know anyone who would do that either.

A number of posts on different threads have mentioned, when asked why anybody would need an AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifle, that they keep them so as to defend against a bad or seriously wicked US government. Of course that descriptive would be their opinion, their subjective viewpoint.

On that we differ. I wouldn't want to have to do it, but I would definitely shoot an intruder before I would let him hurt me or my family.

What did he want to do?
Did you find out before you shot him?
Are you sure it was a man?
I'm not being silly, asking such questions.

It might be legal to kill any person found in your premises, or just outside, where you are, but if you did kill a hire-cab driver (told to bang on the sitting room door loudly) and he picked the wrong property, or a cold vagrant that thought he could get away with snugging in a porch for a wet-night, or even a non-violent cat-burglar specialisiong in jewellery thefts, etc.... you would have to 'go-over' your decision for the rest of your days, wondering if that person was violent or not.

Over here, our courts prefer to hear that a householder called out a warning, that they were armed, that they would defend if attacked, and even repeat it if they had that chance. And householders who kill intruders that are trying to escape have a very hard time in our courts, because we class that as 'manslaughter up to murder' here.

Best to call out a warning and try to deter first. Then, if you had to shoot, your heart might find it easier to rest over it, later on in life?

I know about this...... I have almost certainly called out more warnings than most people, and have never needed to do more than detain/arrest iontyruders. Honest!

 

[eider]

I think you are exercising Al-Takeyya.

Anybody who defends wholesome Muslim families is likely to be so branded by you!

What denomination or church-type do you belong to?

 

[eider]

Police have released limited details, saying only that a 52-year-old man killed Jo Cox, a British member of Parliament.
I wonder why it is a government secret.

Our police do not decide what to tell the public beyond the limits of their responsibilies.
Our Judges make judgements which are then broadcast to all.
There will not be any judgement until there has been a trial, which might not be for some time.

 

[eider]

Do you also want to see more regulation of automobiles or those who can & can't drive them? Oh, that's right they already are heavily regulated, as are those can hold a license but, yet we have a higher death rate involving autos as we do guns so are autos a problem? More to the point 2/3rds of all gun deaths in the U.S. are by suicide and suicide not using a gun is higher still by thirty percent which puts to bed the fallacy that a person wanting to end it all would not do it in the absence of a gun. In the end guns will be obtained by those that wish to kill others if it is their intent but, further gun control only makes for a warm fuzzy in the scope of things, the chances of getting Americans to quietly give up their rights or disarm is just nonsense, won't happen.

More accident deaths per regulated autos than by guns...... right?
But how many murders are committed in autos compared to guns?

Look, it's obvious that with 300 million guns swilling around in your land that no idea will put this right inside a century, but it's your grandchildren that might begin to benefit from legislation that allows for more guns to be taken out of the system and crushed. Right?

Legislation that produces sensible licensing, training and insurance could help.
Imagine iof police could seize/crush any gun found (in a public place) that did not carry insurance?
That's what we do with cars, by the way. no insurance? Seize 'em, crush 'em.

 

[CherubRam]

More accident deaths per regulated autos than by guns...... right?
But how many murders are committed in autos compared to guns?

Look, it's obvious that with 300 million guns swilling around in your land that no idea will put this right inside a century, but it's your grandchildren that might begin to benefit from legislation that allows for more guns to be taken out of the system and crushed. Right?

Legislation that produces sensible licensing, training and insurance could help.
Imagine iof police could seize/crush any gun found (in a public place) that did not carry insurance?
That's what we do with cars, by the way. no insurance? Seize 'em, crush 'em.

Life must be very different in England compared to America. You sound like a liberal city person and a government employee.

 

[eider]

Life must be very different in England compared to America. You sound like a liberal city person and a government employee.

You think that legislation which empowers our policev to seize any uninsured vehicle found on a public road, and crush it.... is a liberal policy?

If you weren't so seriously worrying you'd be funny.

I'll tell you what my work was, if you tell me what Church or denomination you belong to.
Baptist? Mothodist/ Lutheran? Radical? Evangelist? Extremist?
Far-right revolutionary? Which?

 

[CherubRam]

You think that legislation which empowers our policev to seize any uninsured vehicle found on a public road, and crush it.... is a liberal policy?

If you weren't so seriously worrying you'd be funny.

I'll tell you what my work was, if you tell me what Church or denomination you belong to.
Baptist? Mothodist/ Lutheran? Radical? Evangelist? Extremist?
Far-right revolutionary? Which?

I am a Judaic Christian who was baptized as a Baptist. I visit and study with different denominations. A government that exist at the expense of the poor is adversarial and self-righteous. Once upon a time insurance was illegal and thought of as a form of gambling. Now days it is ran by those involved in secret societies. You mud bloods are slaves to the royal elite.

 

[annabenedetti]

A number of posts on different threads have mentioned, when asked why anybody would need an AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifle, that they keep them so as to defend against a bad or seriously wicked US government. Of course that descriptive would be their opinion, their subjective viewpoint.

Yes. I don't think they necessarily represent the majority of gun owners, though I couldn't tell you to what extent they might.

What did he want to do?
Did you find out before you shot him?
Are you sure it was a man?
I'm not being silly, asking such questions.

I think you'd have to admit it would most likely be a man. And if he's a strange man climbing through my window: whatever he wants to do, I'm not going to let him do it. I certainly wouldn't shoot unless I had no other option, in fear for my safety. I've had disagreements in the past here with people who think it's okay to shoot someone in the act of breaking into your car (when you're not inside it) and I wouldn't do that. There's no comparison between property and human life.

It might be legal to kill any person found in your premises, or just outside, where you are, but if you did kill a hire-cab driver (told to bang on the sitting room door loudly) and he picked the wrong property, or a cold vagrant that thought he could get away with snugging in a porch for a wet-night, or even a non-violent cat-burglar specialisiong in jewellery thefts, etc.... you would have to 'go-over' your decision for the rest of your days, wondering if that person was violent or not.

In my state, if someone unlawfully and forcefully enters my residence, I'm legally allowed to defend myself. I can't, though, shoot someone who's banging on my door or on my porch. The cat burglar? Yes, I could. Would I? Not unless he gave me no option. If showing the weapon or getting off a shot was enough to scare him away, I wouldn't chase him and shoot him (I'm a decent shot but I've never had to shoot under duress). I have no moral reason to do so, and it's probably illegal in my state.

Over here, our courts prefer to hear that a householder called out a warning, that they were armed, that they would defend if attacked, and even repeat it if they had that chance. And householders who kill intruders that are trying to escape have a very hard time in our courts, because we class that as 'manslaughter up to murder' here.

Every state has its own laws, and I don't know what they all are from state to state. I'm pretty sure in my state that's illegal.

Best to call out a warning and try to deter first. Then, if you had to shoot, your heart might find it easier to rest over it, later on in life?

I agree, but it would also depend on how much time I had.

I know about this...... I have almost certainly called out more warnings than most people, and have never needed to do more than detain/arrest iontyruders. Honest!

How many intruders have you had inside your house/apartment?

 

[champdefrene]

Police have released limited details, saying only that a 52-year-old man killed Jo Cox, a British member of Parliament.
I wonder why it is a government secret.

As already mentioned, the police only give information when necessary. Also given the sensitivity of her murder during a referendum campaign they've very much taken the approach of giving information when necessary. For example, Jo was pronounced dead at 1.48 PM, but it wasn't until after 5 PM that they announced her death (they were simply saying until then that she was injured).

Another example is reports that Thomas Mair shouted "Britain First" or "Put Britain first" during his arrest, but the police simply said it was a line of inquiry. Subsequent developments have confirmed Mair is a right wing extremist who has mental health difficulties.

Here the biggest question is not about gun crime (almost everyone accepts it was a rare occurrence, and anyway, as I said, she was stabbed seven times) but how her death is related to current politics. Some (most prominently argued in The Spectator) believe her death was caused, or at least made more likely, by the extremely vitriolic nature of the EU referendum debate while others say it was entirely unconnected. It was somewhat coincidental that hours before Jo's murder, Nigel Farage released a poster which was labelled by many as highly similar to Nazi propaganda.

From this stems the debate as where to go next. Both campaign sides have promised to moderate their campaigns this week (the referendum is on Thursday) but a Leave event today was only marginally less vitriolic than previously (although far less anti-immigration). Both sides, but particularly the Remain side (as Cox was ardently pro-EU) have also been accused of trying to capitalise on her death. Polls released yesterday suggest that the two sides are extremely close (the polling was mainly conducted before the attack), after two weeks of polls suggesting Leave was ahead.