Ekona Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 Maybe we could arm them with guns too, that would be more effective. And obviously we wouldn't want the terrorists to know who was armed, so we could let them hide the guns on them. They'd need a permit for that, maybe call it a Carry But Conceal permit? Perhaps we could write it into a bill of rights so it's enshrined in law forever. I don't think any other country does that, and I'm sure there wouldn't be any issues letting unpaid volunteers loose with weapons. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay84 Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 Nah, what we need is Batman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strudul Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 Nah, what we need deserve is Batman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 And for the umpteenth time I haven't said that you think its a good idea. Instead of trying to prove everyone wrong why not read what is being written and for once just accept there is merit to it. I said I liked your example, I also said there were many others that are not so positive but equally possible. Like any 'solution' you have to stress test its strengths and weaknesses - any tom dick and harry knows that. To focus on one positive outcome and not consider possible consequences good and bad is just foolhardy and ultimately will lead down one path of failure. There is no 'solution' to terrorism, its not going away, not whilst the ideology exists anywhere in the world that can influence people. Ekona mentioned this way back but no one took any notice. Instead the solution being suggested is not a solution at all. As for psych tests, I have seen them as I worked with the Psychology department at UCL a couple of years back, and believe it or not they do have 150 question surveys that evaluate psychology (as stupid as it seems). The idea that we put all the thousand odd volunteers through extensive psych examinations by psychologists to really understand what is going on - for free - is just ridiculous and not worth comment. Otherwise you are looking at self assessment, which can always be rigged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 ...and in other news, TFL has apologised after traffic wardens put parking tickets on cars that were left in the Borough Market area sectioned off by police 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aashenfox Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 (edited) I don't thin it's an insane idea, have you guys forgotten the conditions? Conditions for my plan of implementing the arming of 10% of the population of London's nightspots with a tazer, which they are under no obligation to take OR USE: One of these attacks is happening once per 2 months (to warrant some kind of martial force in the first place, perhaps this is why you think it's insane, you forgot that the ESCALATION of these events is the scenario under discussion here) People are primarily engaged in hand to hand combat (stabbings etc, as two of the last three major incidents) The usual case is that the vest is fake or not present at all (as two of the last three incidents) The police have not been able to respond fast enough to prevent people being stabbed to death in the street in front of their relatives/friends/the general public (as one of the last three incidents, and the one we're mainly talking about in this topic, 8 minutes is an amazing response time, but to be amazing ENOUGH, you'd need teleporters) That covers pretty much everything you said, right col? We were always talking about a situation where it was no longer safe to go out, or the risk was so high that significant numbers of people stopped doing so. It;s not an insane idea and I feel insulted that you think I would be capable of putting forward and presenting as serious an 'insane' idea. Dan, about those Americans, tell me something. Does it work as a society? Are they living in fear? And please don't come back with 'look how many of each other they kill with their guns', because we aren't talking about anything as lethal as a gun anyway. A spike in tazer crime during a period of heightened terrorist activity is hardly an unbearable price, now is it? Plus anyone can already get their hands on a tazer. Anyway, now I've finished clarifying what was already pretty clear, this is a totally fantastic (meaning fictional) scenario anyway. What would YOU do if these attacks became commonplace, just sit around and get stabbed for 8 minutes while the admittedly excellent police arrive? Edited June 7, 2017 by Aashenfox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strudul Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 And for the umpteenth time I haven't said that you think its a good idea. Instead of trying to prove everyone wrong why not read what is being written and for once just accept there is merit to it. I said I liked your example, I also said there were many others that are not so positive but equally possible. Like any 'solution' you have to stress test its strengths and weaknesses - any tom dick and harry knows that. To focus on one positive outcome and not consider possible consequences good and bad is just foolhardy and ultimately will lead down one path of failure. There is no 'solution' to terrorism, its not going away, not whilst the ideology exists anywhere in the world that can influence people. Ekona mentioned this way back but no one took any notice. Instead the solution being suggested is not a solution at all. As for psych tests, I have seen them as I worked with the Psychology department at UCL a couple of years back, and believe it or not they do have 150 question surveys that evaluate psychology (as stupid as it seems). The idea that we put all the thousand odd volunteers through extensive psych examinations by psychologists to really understand what is going on - for free - is just ridiculous and not worth comment. Otherwise you are looking at self assessment, which can always be rigged. What you say and what you imply are 2 very different things... Considering I've generally addressed each point individually, I'm not sure how you can accuse me of not reading what is written. However, seeing as the discussion is just going round in circles, I'm bored of repeating myself. There's 7 pages of responses that are relevant and can be applied. It's not about proving anyone wrong. This is a problem a lot of people seem to have. It's should simply be about discussing pros / cons. Starting to get emotionally and personally invested leads to the inevitable upset and name calling... Now, if stating that I don't think the suggestion is a good idea doesn't show acceptance of the merit of other peoples points, I don't know what does. However, since it wasn't my suggestion and I don't / didn't agree with it, there is nothing for me to admit I was wrong about... As for psych tests, if you go back to the beginning of this discussion, I said that answering questions alone was not enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 Thing is Fox, terror adapts as mentioned somewhere up top. You can easily defeat a taser with the right clothing. All that effort for nothing. They will simply do something else. I do not agree of course we just sit and wait to be killed and the chances of that happening in London are very remote. But we need proper enforcement, resource etc. to minimise attacks like this. Arming the public seems wrong to me, the headlines I see are innocent people maimed or killed by bad decisions. And still people are killed by terrorists, that does not appear to be a solution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 (edited) For someone who doesn't agree with it, you've done a good job of arguing for it. (Edit, not you Col). It's a silly idea, end of. Try and argue the toss about it all you like, but it's never going to happen and would cause more problems than it solves. Edited June 7, 2017 by Ekona 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aashenfox Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 (edited) Still, it's better to force them to adapt or prevent the one or two it takes them to switch tactics. Picard knew his phasers were ultimately useless against 10 borg, he still used them on the first two. I welcome your viable alternative. Edited June 7, 2017 by Aashenfox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strudul Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 So what about other non-lethal weapons? And just because the terrorists adapt, why can't we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aashenfox Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 For someone who doesn't agree with it, you've done a good job of arguing for it. (Edit, not you Col). It's a silly idea, end of. Try and argue the toss about it all you like, but it's never going to happen and would cause more problems than it solves. I think in an escalation scenario, it would be as viable as martial law. There are many similar examples where citizens are so armed should the need arise, Switzerland is the only one I'm sure of that springs to mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 To prevent terror attacks? More surveillance, more undercover, more help from Muslim communities. That's it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 And for the umpteenth time I haven't said that you think its a good idea. Instead of trying to prove everyone wrong why not read what is being written and for once just accept there is merit to it. I said I liked your example, I also said there were many others that are not so positive but equally possible. Like any 'solution' you have to stress test its strengths and weaknesses - any tom dick and harry knows that. To focus on one positive outcome and not consider possible consequences good and bad is just foolhardy and ultimately will lead down one path of failure. There is no 'solution' to terrorism, its not going away, not whilst the ideology exists anywhere in the world that can influence people. Ekona mentioned this way back but no one took any notice. Instead the solution being suggested is not a solution at all. As for psych tests, I have seen them as I worked with the Psychology department at UCL a couple of years back, and believe it or not they do have 150 question surveys that evaluate psychology (as stupid as it seems). The idea that we put all the thousand odd volunteers through extensive psych examinations by psychologists to really understand what is going on - for free - is just ridiculous and not worth comment. Otherwise you are looking at self assessment, which can always be rigged. What you say and what you imply are 2 very different things... Considering I've generally addressed each point individually, I'm not sure how you can accuse me of not reading what is written. However, seeing as the discussion is just going round in circles, I'm bored of repeating myself. There's 7 pages of responses that are relevant and can be applied. It's not about proving anyone wrong. This is a problem a lot of people seem to have. It's should simply be about discussing pros / cons. Starting to get emotionally and personally invested leads to the inevitable upset and name calling... Now, if stating that I don't think the suggestion is a good idea doesn't show acceptance of the merit of other peoples points, I don't know what does. However, since it wasn't my suggestion and I don't / didn't agree with it, there is nothing for me to admit I was wrong about... As for psych tests, if you go back to the beginning of this discussion, I said that answering questions alone was not enough. You are not a psychologist and have no idea how it works, yet you disagree with someones comments as if your idea is fact. Therein problem lies. And yes we go around in circles, so even when experts disagree with you, you always have to repeat yourself and have to tell everyone you are doing so as if they are idiots. What is happening is that you have no further point to make but feel you have to repeat yourself unnecessarily as if it will make your point more important. Funny how you always have to do this yet the other 1000 members on here never do...strange one huh. I am out of this conversation now. I should be moderating it not getting involved with people all chatting as experts about things they have no clue about. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strudul Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 For someone who doesn't agree with it, you've done a good job of arguing for it. (Edit, not you Col). It's a silly idea, end of. Try and argue the toss about it all you like, but it's never going to happen and would cause more problems than it solves. That's just the thing, I wasn't arguing for it. I made that perfectly clear. Choosing to ignore the fact doesn't change that. I defended a few specific points that had merit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aashenfox Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 (edited) I just don't see how handing a few tazers out would be such a big deal, whereas it would prevent deaths in attacks. There were people hitting the terrorists with chairs and crates and stuff, it's not like you can say that people aren't willing to have a go, and fair play to them. Don't know if I would have, I just wish they had tazers instead of crates and skateboards. Respect. Edited June 7, 2017 by Aashenfox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aashenfox Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 (edited) To prevent terror attacks? More surveillance, more undercover, more help from Muslim communities. That's it. For the time being, I 100% agree. I sincerely hope my escalation scenario never needs to be considered. Edited June 7, 2017 by Aashenfox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 That's just the thing, I wasn't arguing for it. I made that perfectly clear. Choosing to ignore the fact doesn't change that. No, you were arguing for and defending it. Choosing to ignore the fact doesn't change that. I'm not sure you even realise how obtuse some of your posts are, or how blind you argue a dead point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strudul Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 You are not a psychologist and have no idea how it works, yet you disagree with someones comments as if your idea is fact. Therein problem lies. And yes we go around in circles, so even when experts disagree with you, you always have to repeat yourself and have to tell everyone you are doing so as if they are idiots. What is happening is that you have no further point to make but feel you have to repeat yourself unnecessarily. Funny how you always have to do this yet the other 1000 members on here never do...strange one huh. I am out of this conversation now. I should be moderating it not getting involved with people all chatting as experts about things they have no clue about. Not at all, it's a hypothetical discussion based on opinions and very little supporting evidence on either side. I'm not sure how mine can be deemed to be stated as fact anymore than anyone else's... However, going back to falsifiability, to claim it wouldn't work is harder to prove than claiming it could work. I repeat myself and state I'm doing so because people are either not reading or ignoring what was said and it hinders the progression of the discussion, it has nothing to do with their intelligence. If the question has already been answered, then why keep asking it? The irony being you are accusing me of having no further point... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strudul Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 No, you were arguing for and defending it. Choosing to ignore the fact doesn't change that. I'm not sure you even realise how obtuse some of your posts are, or how blind you argue a dead point. You've got to be joking... Never said it was a good idea. I didn't say it was a good idea I don't think it's a good idea at all. it's not a good idea... I don't support it or think it's a good idea. I don't think it's a good idea though... For the umpteenth time, I don't think it's a good idea or feasible... I don't think the suggestion is a good idea I wasn't arguing for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 :lol: Dude, you have proper issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strudul Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 I'd be more concerned about your inability to understand that I wasn't arguing for and defending it after I explicitly said i wasn't 9 times... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dracostan Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 An admin HAS to change Struduls member title to 'I don't think this is a good idea' after that ! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 You were arguing for it. A line here or there saying you weren't doesn't change the essence of thousands of other lines of text you wrote. If you weren't arguing for it, then why does everyone think you were? Are we all wrong, or could it be you? Pretty sure Stu said the same thing to you the other day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strudul Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 Sorry, I didn't know you knew what I was thinking or doing better than I did. all I did was state that I think a psych exam could catch out sociopaths and everyone jumped on me and started making accusations about points I never made... As I said before, I'm not the one making false accusations and trying to argue for the sake of arguing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.