Woman killed, 5 hurt in London knife attack; suspect held

[Independent voter]

Here we go again. My thoughts are with the victims and their families.





http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/...eld/ar-BBvenxH

LONDON (AP) — A woman has died and five others were injured in a knife attack in a central part of London, police said Thursday. A suspect was in custody.
A statement from the London Metropolitan Police said the attack happened late Wednesday in Russell Square, which is near the British Museum.
It said six people were treated at the scene, and that the woman later died. The condition of the others was not immediately known.

The statement said one man was arrested and that a police officer used a Taser stun gun.
Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley told reporters the woman was in her 60s, but gave no other details.
He said the arrested man was 19 years old and in police custody in a hospital. "Early indications suggest that mental health is a significant factor in this case and that is one major line of inquiry," Rowley said.
He said the investigation was at an early stage, and that "terrorism as a motivation" was also a line of inquiry for police to explore.

[Cizr]

Nothing to do with Islam,dont you ever dare to suggest such a thing.He was either mentally ill or british nationalist

[Edge-]

Nothing to do with Islam,dont you ever dare to suggest such a thing.He was either mentally ill or british nationalist

Or, before we all draw ideological battle lines, we wait for local law enforcement to provide some information.

[kail]

Tragic for the dead victim but at least the other 5 are still alive.

[Kalis]

A stabbing in Russell Square? Was the suspect armed with a Laguiole knife?

[Cizr]

Or, before we all draw ideological battle lines, we wait for local law enforcement to provide some information.

I agree with you.
Sad thing is that this could be avoided if only knives were banned.


#bintheknife save the life

[Edge-]

I agree with you.
Sad thing is that this could be avoided if only knives were banned.


#bintheknife save the life

So you have no interest in discussion but would rather try to start ideological turf wars by shitposting on the internet.

Righto then, carry on.

[Cizr]

So you have no interest in discussion but would rather try to start ideological turf wars by shitposting on the internet.

Righto then, carry on.

But we are having a discussion. Just because you dont like what I say does not mean we dont.

Your attacks on my person dont bring much to this discussion tho.

[Kalis]

But we are having a discussion. Just because you dont like what I say does not mean we dont.

Your attacks on my person dont bring much to this discussion tho.

Not really a relevant discussion, as there is no need to ban knives, nor any real call for it.

[Venant]

Not really a relevant discussion, as there is no need to ban knives, nor any real call for it.

So can we at least agree that his statement about banning knives is as ridiculous as when, after a terrorist attack involving firearms, people immediately say we need to ban guns?

[PhaelixWW]

Not really a relevant discussion, as there is no need to ban knives, nor any real call for it.

Actually, there is a very real call to ban pointy knives in the UK.

Just sayin'.

[Cizr]

Not really a relevant discussion, as there is no need to ban knives, nor any real call for it.

Not call for it YET but we have to start somewhere. Knife is one of the easiest weapons to obtain despite being one of the most used weapons in homicide. Dont you think that better knife control could prevent a lot of tragic events like this?

[Kalis]

So can we at least agree that his statement about banning knives is as ridiculous as when, after a terrorist attack involving firearms, people immediately say we need to ban guns?

There is no comparison though, so it is a false equivalence.

Knife crime is preferable to gun crime, because knife crime is typically less lethal, so...and this is the shocker...it brings down murder rates, which is the point of gun control. Gun control is not intended to reduce crime, or eliminate murder, simply to reduce the lethality of crime. Guns are brilliant tools for killing people, which is why we give them to our militaries for use as their primary weapon in preference to knives.

The entire "Herp derp if only knives were banned", as some sort of gotcha to gun control advocates, is only ever said by morons who do not understand what gun control is and what it is intended to achieve - bizarrely many people who advocate gun control do not know either, but then again there are a lot of morons in the world.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, there is a very real call to ban pointy knives in the UK.

Just sayin'.

No, that is about carrying knives in public, not banning knives.

- - - Updated - - -

Not call for it YET but we have to start somewhere. Knife is one of the easiest weapons to obtain despite being one of the most used weapons in homicide. Dont you think that better knife control could prevent a lot of tragic events like this?

No realistic level of knife control would prevent something like this, so no.

[Venant]

There is no comparison though, so it is a false equivalence.

Knife crime is preferable to gun crime, because knife crime is typically less lethal, so...and this is the shocker...it brings down murder rates, which is the point of gun control. Gun control is not intended to reduce crime, or eliminate murder, simply to reduce the lethality of crime. Guns are brilliant tools for killing people, which is why we give them to our militaries for use as their primary weapon in preference to knives.

The entire "Herp derp if only knives were banned", as some sort of gotcha to gun control advocates, is only ever said by morons who do not understand what gun control is and what it is intended to achieve - bizarrely many people who advocate gun control do not know either, but then again there are a lot of morons in the world.

If you really want better gun control, you should first advocate for disarming the state. Take all the guns away from the police and the military, since they have a weaker claim to needing them than your average free citizen might. If you argue that the state needs guns to use against the citizens of the state, then is the state not illegitimate? And if you argue that the state needs guns to protect itself from foreign threats, why should the same right not be afforded to individuals?

[Surfd]

If you really want better gun control, you should first advocate for disarming the state. Take all the guns away from the police and the military, since they have a weaker claim to needing them than your average free citizen might. If you argue that the state needs guns to use against the citizens of the state, then is the state not illegitimate? And if you argue that the state needs guns to protect itself from foreign threats, why should the same right not be afforded to individuals?

That is quite literally the dumbest thing I have heard in the past month. I mean, that is stupid, even for most second amendment nutbars. No "free citizen" has any need for a weapon, unless that free citizen is either planning on hunting with it, or planning on using it in a criminal activity. And you can be pretty sure that the second action is severely frowned upon by the authorities of the state, who are the only people who do have a need for said weapons, mostly to enforce the law in regards to said criminal activity.

The individual is not equal to the state, and should not be taking the law into their own hands.

[PhaelixWW]

No, that is about carrying knives in public, not banning knives.

Uh, maybe try reading the article on the link next time?

Because you're wrong.

[Kalis]

If you really want better gun control, you should first advocate for disarming the state. Take all the guns away from the police and the military, since they have a weaker claim to needing them than your average free citizen might. If you argue that the state needs guns to use against the citizens of the state, then is the state not illegitimate?

Our police do not routinely carry guns and our military are not deployed armed within Britain.

Northern Ireland is an exception, they always are.

And if you argue that the state needs guns to protect itself from foreign threats, why should the same right not be afforded to individuals?

What foreign threats would the British citizens be protecting themselves from? Poles?

[Derpleton]

Probably just some workplace violence

[PhaelixWW]

No "free citizen" has any need for a weapon, unless that free citizen is either planning on hunting with it, or planning on using it in a criminal activity.

So, wait, self-defense isn't a thing?

[Kalis]

Uh, maybe try reading the article on the link next time?

Because you're wrong.

No, it was a campaign to get people to stop carrying knives by giving up "unnecessary" knives, there was no real call to ban knives.

Note the "knives from the streets" line...