Scene outside Parliament. Source: @nickeardleybbc via Twitter.

UPDATE: London Police have announced that they are treating this incident as a “terrorist attack”.

In addition, Radosław Sikorski, a journalist and former Polish politician posted a video of the aftermath of the attack on Twitter. The attacker apparently mowed down several people with his vehicle on Westminster Bridge before reaching the Palace of Westminster.

A car on Westminster Bridge has just mowed down at least 5 people. pic.twitter.com/tdCR9I0NgJ

There are multiple reports on social media this morning about a shooting that has taken place outside Westminster, the home of the British Parliament. Around 10:50 EDT, British reporter Quentin Letts claimed via Twitter that he “just saw Parliamentary security men shoot a man who had attacked a policeman.”

The Press Association is reporting that there is a “major security alert at the Palace of Westminster” after a knife-wielding man “charged through the gates into the front yard of the parliamentary compound.” The report, quoted in the Guardian, goes on to say:

Amid shouts and screams, sounds similar to gunfire rang out.

Two people were seen to be lying within Old Palace Yard, immediately outside Westminster Hall.

The sitting in the House of Commons was suspended while police officers sealed off the area around the incident.

Immediately before the incident, at around 2.45pm, a crowd of passers-by was seen running from the direction of Westminster Bridge and around the corner into Parliament Square.

Parliament appears to be on lockdown at this moment. Early reports in breaking situations such as these are frequently incorrect. More on this story as it develops.

A Reuters photographer on the scene claims that “a dozen” people were injured in the attack.

UPDATE: Israeli journalist Dana Regev reports that the attack began with a man driving a car into the railings outside the palace.

Britain is often presented as an exemplar of the success of gun control, and indeed its people face restrictions on their right to keep and bear arms far more severe than Europeans do, let alone Americans. It has not, however, stopped violence of this nature. Last year, Jo Cox, a sitting member of Parliament, was stabbed, shot and killed outside a library in England.

Recommended For You

142 Responses to BREAKING: Shooting Outside British Parliament, Building Locked Down

  1. First reports are always wrong. Sounds like security was doing the shooting.

    Aloha snackbar!

    • Perhaps it was an aloha snackbar. I suppose it could be something also as simple as a leftist learning from America’s “protesters” and getting a little too froggy. I would say that no matter what happened we can expect to hear about the need for less than lethal options. Damned if you do and all.

      • You deplorables! Of course he wasn’t a muslim! Islam is the religion of peace! Don’t you hear CAIR? The attacker was a Trump supporter!

    • That is Marxist for “workplace violence”. We joke about this stuff, but damn it is almost too sad to be a joke… Almost.

      • While that has not been confirmed as I’m writing this (gee, I wonder why it’s taking so long?), that’s most likely what happened judging by the latest photo of the alleged terrorist. I’m not sure what’s worse, an attack like this by a single individual or the tacit consent of millions of Muslims? Can’t wait to be lectured on this by that apologist JWT.

        • JWT went native. It’s not his fault that living amongst savages makes you more sympathetic to them when you don’t maintain the proper emotional detachment.

        • If you want a lecture I’ll give you one. Wash your hands, properly, with soap and water, every time you go to bathroom.
          Beyond that, nothing in your comment requires a counterpoint. This attack fits the pattern of “lone wolf” Islamic terrorism.
          Now if you want to go through the whole realm of idiodic ranting about how every Muslim is a terrorist and how the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim, I’ll of course be here to give a reality based counterpoint to paranoid fantasyland.

        • Where did I say any of that? Oh that’s right, I didn’t. Nice try though. I see that you conveniently dodged the fact that millions of Muslims everywhere tacitly approve of this sort of violent behavior. Look up the surveys, they freely admit to it. So that bit about fantasy land is rich, coming from you. You’re the one pretending there’s nothing wrong going on, that Islam is peaceful and all that nonsense.

        • Mr Pierogie, please cite your survey that questioned millions of Muslims in which they said they approve of random killings of innocent people in other countries. Of course, even if you could find a million Muslims to say that, it would only make up barely 1% of the population of Muslims worldwide.
          Use the search function and please point out anywhere that I’ve said Islam is peaceful.
          If you can not find those things, please apologize and be quiet.

        • There’s no such thing as tacit consent. Either you consent to something, or you dont. Assuming you know what others are thinking either makes you Miss Cleo or outs you as an ignorant f***. Muslims are no more complicit in this attack than you are in any city’s “gun violence”. So unless you personally know what every Muslim thinks about today’s attack, or you have that damn survey you think exists, either put up or shut up.

        • “a million Muslims to say that, it would only make up barely 1% of the population of Muslims worldwide.”

          JWT, not to interfere with the current pissing contest, but a million would not quite make up 0.1% of muslims worldwide.

        • JW:

          Mr. Periogie is more right then wrong. How many times do we find out the people knew and said nothing. As far as I know Muslim Communities are not like Ulster or the ghetto where going to police is a death sentence. If they reached that level of insecurity than we really have a problem. Furthermore, CAIR which is a Muslim Brotherhood front, tells Muslims not to cooperate with the authorities and their words seem to be obeyed. Just because most Muslim don’t directly engage in terror attacks does not mean they either don’t support them or are indifferent to attacks on infidels. Like every military organization Islamic terrorists require extensive logistical support. The Muslim community seems willing to provide it.

          Amateurs talk tactics but professionals talk logistics. You need to stop thinking like an amateur.

        • There’s a good line Cmac “put up or shut-up” YA! The silence is deafening. Not enough mooslims are out there protesting against their own kind, much less distancing themselves from it. So are they “scared” or are they like the 97% of original colonial ‘Americans’ that were happy to sit by and claim they were part of the victor-party [as soon as that’s determined who that is].

          No. F dat.

        • Apologize? To you? Hahahaha…. Thanks for the laugh. Here, one of the first things that shows up:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_toward_terrorism

          I’m sure by now the number of Muslims who fall into the “justified” terrorism category (rarely, sometimes, often) has increased since those polls were taken. Add those up, multiply by the total Muslim population and you tell me how many millions it equals to. I don’t know where you got the ‘less than 1%’ nonsense. Can I visit that fantasy land of yours some time?

        • Mr Pierogie, so, in short, you can’t back up anything that you said, you’re too stupid to realize it, and you’re too obstinate to admit it. Got it.

        • tdiinva (now in wisconsin)
          Perhaps you are referring to the San Bernardino shooting, where the shooters’ own mullah turned them into the FBI and started the initial investigation?
          The value of these operations is that they require no logistical support.
          I think like a professional that’s actually been there, killing muslims.
          You…keyboard…and that’s it.

        • Nailed it Serge. Dude is a complete apologist secondary to meeting a few of the women and children in the sandbox. With an Eagle Scout complex that everybody on the Internets need to be fixed.

          Outside of the randomly distributed mentally ill, the only common factor among the terrorists, both domestic and abroad, is Muslim. Add in some Mixico/South American immigrant violence and we got a whole immigration shit storm going on.

        • There’s an almost humorous irony in three idiots who make all gun enthusiasts look bad, arguing that all Muslims are bad because of a few individuals. You are the reason the rest of the world hates us.

        • You are the only one that said all Muslims are bad, cmac. I really don’t worry about the rest of the world. Only one group of people want to kill all infidels, regardless of country.

          America first.

        • Ok… maybe you haven’t been paying attention. Almost all Muslims are bad. At the very least they dogmatically follow an ideology that calls for the murder or subjugation of everyone who is not Muslim. This #notallmuslims bullshit has to stop. The few sane ones do not balance the majority who are not.

          The “bad” Muslim wants to cut off your head and rape your goat.
          The “good” Muslim wants the “bad” Muslim to cut off your head and rape your goat.

        • “Almost all Muslims are bad.”

          Source please. In MLA format. With big colorful pie charts. I love pie charts.

        • Did you read my comment? What percentage of Muslims actually believe in Islam? There’s your answer.

        • cmac890, while I vehemently disagree with Serge, I respect where he is coming from. He isn’t making up false statistics or claiming some kind of false argument period he isn’t making a straw man. His belief is based on pure dogmatic faith that Islam itself is evil. Therefore all Muslims, anyone who believes in any kind of Islam, is evil. No individual act, no statistics, no facts or headlines will do swat him from this core belief.
          Again, I disagree with him, but I respect the faith.

        • JW:
          He turned them in? It must have been ex post.

          You are a professional as far as being a combat medic. That doesn’t make you an expert on terrorist organization and operations.

          FYI: I was there from the first day.

        • @Serge, Pierogie, et al:

          Individual agency, and individual responsibility, are common themes here on TTAG: as in the oft-quoted “play stupid games win stupid prizes”.

          Just as you can point to Muslims who have carried out terrorist acts, I (and presumably also JWT) can point to Muslims who have risked or even lost their lives trying to protect me or other non-Muslims.

          It is just as meaningless for you to conclude from your sample that all Muslims are bad, as it would be for me to conclude from my sample that all Muslims are good.

          Goodness or badness is personal. Surely you have to acknowledge that the notion of individual agency means you can’t pre-judge somebody based on their religion, any more than you can on their skin colour.

          That isn’t to say you shouldn’t profile, when assessing risk, since statistically speaking Islamist terrorism is more likely than Presbyterian terrorism at this point in time…

          But, again, a Muslim man or woman is not an evil person unless they consciously engage in an evil act – and evil acts are not the exclusive preserve of Muslims.

          Have a brief recap of C20th history for a summary of some of the recent evil shit done by non-Muslims.

          Your position is basically analogous to suggesting that all Christians are evil because the Germans who gassed the Jews were Christian, and all atheists are evil because the Communists who enforced slave/death camps were atheists, etc. In short, it’s just not tenable.

          @JWT: I’m with you on this one…!

        • Bullshit. They voluntarily joined or continue to be members of the cult that has been trying to destroy western civilization since the Middle Ages. One that calls for the murder or enslavement of everyone who is not Muslim. One that murders thousands of people on a daily basis for the “crime” of being gay, infidelity, etc…

          Sorry, but if you voluntarily associate with something like that, you are the worst kind of scum. If you defend them, you’re no better.

        • Gabriel, so these “good” Muslims support homosexual rights, actual democracy, equal rights (or even legal standing) for women, support the law of the land not sharia, don’t believe in killing apostates, honor killings, stoning adulterers, raping the host country women, etc? Sure. Just because they helped an Infidel, it is only to confuse you and further the ultimate cause, the requirement for total Muslim domination put forth in the Quran. It is called taqiyya. Islam is not a religion. It is a pre-packaged life, and if you stray from the path, the believers will kill you.

          I have friends who are the nice “cultural muslims” you want to imagine the majority to be. They’d be the first put to death if the actual believers and followers get here in any numbers.

        • @ Serge and 16V:

          I continue to think your logic is flawed on this issue, since the examples you give are all based on the most fundamentalist interpretations, and on that basis any “-ism” can be made into a bogey man: literal and word-for-word adherence to the entirety of the Bible will elicit some pretty worrying behaviour; ditto conservatism, socialism, creationism, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism or whatever. Literal adherence is, I agree, very dangerous – regardless of the “-ism”.

          What you don’t seem to be taking into account is that these people are human beings, and therefore have both human vices and human virtues. Which ones they act upon determines my view of their goodness or evilness.

          Hence my point (and I think JWT’s) that I judge someone by their acts, not the value system which they follow to a greater or lesser extent.

          Feel free to condemn me for associating with Muslims. I do so (and have done for a number of years) because I often work in majority Muslim countries, where some people will try to kill me and others will prove true friends and allies.

          I count myself fortunate in life to add to the number of my friends, and once again I personally feel it’s asinine to think that the Muslim ones are playing a long game of taqiyyah when I see them take huge risks or indeed lose their lives protecting or fighting alongside me or others like me.

          In any case, I accept I’m not going to change your minds, so I won’t persist beyond this point. That’s fair enough: everyone has their own opinion.

        • Gabriel, I get it, You’re a kid who was brainwashed into believing some nonsense that has never been true, but gosh darn, you really want to believe, no matter the facts! The reality is what Pew Research proved years ago – the (generally vast) majority of Muslims believe in sharia, want to kill homos, adulterers, apostates, honor killings, and the rest. The reality of that fact is carried out all day, every day in Muslim s-holes. Yes, 3-5% of them are okey-dokey with violent jihad, which is around 70MM being conservative. The rest? They aren’t in charge of anything, so their opinion is meaningless and changes nothing.

          You obviously have never studied the Quran, or even read it. You apparently don’t have the historical knowledge of what Islam has done to every civilization that it’s infected since it’s creation. Hell, even Neil DeGrasse Tyson will explain that Islam kills all it touches. That some random Muslim helped you is not the basis for anything resembling a conclusion, it’s static, dust. Once again, the salient point is who is in charge of Muslim countries? Is it your warm-fuzzy humanist minority, or is the people who actually know the Quran, and follow it?

          Sure, there were Stormtroopers who did nice things, I guess you’d be defending them too, eh?

        • By that logic we should judge individual Nazis by their actions, not the belief system they follow… let that sink in for a while…

          The “most fundamentalist” version represents the overwhelming majority of Islam and a tiny minority of “all other isms’. Voluntarily joining or remaining in Islam today is like getting a guided tour of Treblinka and then heading right to the Neo Nazi recruiting office.

        • @Serge:

          By that logic we should judge individual Nazis by their actions, not the belief system they follow…

          Of course we should. That’s why the Nuremberg Trials didn’t hang all members of the Nazi Party, but only those judged guilty of the most severe crimes. Your argument is directly comparable to the anti-gunners who want to take away your and my guns because some people do bad things with guns. It doesn’t stand up.

          @16V:

          You’re a kid who was brainwashed into believing some nonsense that has never been true, but gosh darn, you really want to believe, no matter the facts!

          Ad hominem generally means that logic and fact-based reasoning has been abandoned… I am not a kid, and I have formed my judgement based on my own experience working in the Middle East / Afghanistan for most of the past 10 years. Sometimes bad Muslims have tried to harm me and others. Sometimes good Muslims have stood in their way, and sometimes that has come at the ultimate cost to those same good Muslims. I absolutely reject anyone who tells me that a man who dies protecting others is a bad person, regardless of what God that person prays to. Are you seriously arguing this??

          The reality is what Pew Research proved years ago – the (generally vast) majority of Muslims believe in sharia, want to kill homos, adulterers, apostates, honor killings, and the rest.

          Pew didn’t “prove” anything. Polls said Hilary was going to win the election: polls are not always correct, and data collection is an imperfect science. At best, Pew showed evidence that without controlling for nuances in understanding of the questions, a significant number of survey respondents broadly agreed with certain points.

          The reality of that fact is carried out all day, every day in Muslim s-holes. Yes, 3-5% of them are okey-dokey with violent jihad, which is around 70MM being conservative. The rest? They aren’t in charge of anything, so their opinion is meaningless and changes nothing.

          And “the rest” you refer to are, in your view, evil because… their opinion is meaningless and changes nothing? You can’t have it both ways. If they have agency, they may be good or bad depending on their acts. If they are not, they can’t be judged as bad.

          You obviously have never studied the Quran, or even read it. You apparently don’t have the historical knowledge of what Islam has done to every civilization that it’s infected since it’s creation.

          You’re making assumptions again. I’m not claiming to be a Quranic scholar, by any means; nor am I an historian of the Islamic religion. But I do know that however unpalatable the literal written words of the Quran, Hadith etc. may be, and however many wars of conquest and ideological expansion the Muslim world may have waged… plenty of non-Muslims have also done heinous things in the name of religion or other ideology. I don’t rate all Christians as evil because of the Spanish Inquisition. I don’t count all Russians as evil because of Stalin’s death camps. Et cetera.

          That some random Muslim helped you is not the basis for anything resembling a conclusion, it’s static, dust.

          Well, no, it isn’t. It is strong first-hand experiential evidence that not all Muslims are evil – because I and others have seen good Muslims take a brace stand in defence of Christians, Jews, other Muslims, atheists, agnostics and whatever. Sometimes at the cost of their own lives. So again, when you lump an entire group together, I reject your reasoning absolutely.

          Once again, the salient point is who is in charge of Muslim countries? Is it your warm-fuzzy humanist minority, or is the people who actually know the Quran, and follow it?

          Why is that the salient point? Your original argument was that all (or nearly all) Muslims are evil. Why should it matter whether a small ruling minority are good or bad, in that case? But, just to take this one on as well – if the rulers are the particularly bad guys, once again – why would you judge those they rule over?

        • @Serge, 16V:

          Revisiting an old and probably dead thread, but…

          As an example of “good Muslim”, let me draw your attention to Emad El-Rakiby, an Egyptian police officer who on Palm Sunday sacrificed his life while attempting to stop a suicide bomber from attacking Coptic Christians on their way to church.

          Goodness (and evilness) are behaviours to be found in people of all backgrounds.

          It remains my firm belief that people should be judged by their acts, not by the God they choose to pray to.

          My prayers are with Officer El-Rakiby’s family, those injured or killed in the attack, and their families. Can you really condemn him for laying down his life to protect others?

      • Not to make this whole thing worse, but I think both sides of the argument have valid points.

        On the one hand it’s entirely unfair to paint with a very broad brush and say that all Muslims are terrorists. I don’t think I need to expand on that point.

        That said, the polling that we do have of Muslim populations, the best of which was conducted by Pew Research, doesn’t paint a pretty picture of their views of us or the world. It varies enormously from country to country but not matter how you cut it the views espoused by a large percentage of the Muslim world are disturbing when it comes to Sharia and other views commonly associated with radical Islam. OTOH, American Muslims are much more moderate and even in very religious countries there is a great dislike of ISIS (though that may be based more on sect than anything else.)

        The real question is what the answers to the questions asked actually mean. The questions are imprecise. Some of them indicate that people would like Sharia implemented in their own country as “the law of the land” while others would seem to suggest those people might believe it should be spread farther.

        It’s a difficult thing to deal with, especially since some of the larger and more religious Muslim countries haven’t been polled and we all know polling is rather imprecise for a number of reasons. People can lie and questions can be open to interpretation. Either way, I think both sides have valid points and it’s not a good idea to simply say this issue is black and white.

        http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/27/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/

        • Thanks for posting the Pew study, I cited it and apparently have been censored. We may wish to believe it’s not black and white, but in the final analysis here’s the question I would like everyone to answer:

          Which Muslim run country would you move to, and live as you do right now? Which country has ever been improved the more Muslim it has gotten, from the foundation of that religion, to this very second?

          This is nothing less than a cultural battle for Western Civilization and civilization itself. Be very, very clear about that.

        • “Which Muslim run country would you move to, and live as you do right now?”

          None because the more moderate countries (those with better poll numbers and less terrorist assholes) tend to have restrictive weapons laws and strych9 ain’t down with restrictive laws on what his armaments may be.

          To me it’s not a “Muslim only” issue, I look at the country in terms of freedom, laws that govern things I like to do, GDP per capita etc. For example Malaysia is majority Muslim (~61%) and not a terrible place in terms of that religion. It’s economy is alright, with an average income that is low by our standards but not terrible and a GDP per capita of around $27K. All in all not a bad place to be frank. It’s certainly not an extremist hotbed, though it does have it’s issues with some crazy assholes running around in the jungle.

          However, Malaysia has a lot of other drawbacks, particularly on the RTKB and therefore isn’t a place I’d choose to move to.

          But let’s be honest here. There are a lot of Christian dominated countries I wouldn’t move to either.

        • Agreed, there’s plenty of Christian countries I’d want nothing to do with either. As to Malaysia, it’s currently a wee bit more than a few nutters in the jungle, and getting generally worse everyday. The Muslims are doing as the Quran commands, take over, no matter what, no matter how…

          http://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/religion-terrorism-and-threats-to-singapore-the-region

          My point was just that there is not a single Muslim country that hasn’t historically utterly been destroyed by the religion. Islam eviscerates every country/civilization it has even infected, and today is no different. People need to understand that presuming we last another 30-ish years, civilization at it’s very core could well be replaced by the primitive followers of a barbaric 6th century warlord-rapist-child-rapist, who is claimed to be “the perfect man”.

      • Gabriel, you do realize Germany as a whole was curb stomped until the Nazi element was eradicated???

        • @ Gray Poseur:

          So you’re advocating for “kerb stomping” the entire Middle East, much of East Africa, large chunks of the Caucasus, Central Asia, and a good sized chunk of South-East Asia as well… to eradicate Islam?

          Setting aside the practical difficulties of doing this without causing a global nuclear winter – ask yourself seriously whether this is a rational position, or one you can defend?

          It seems to me that if you genuinely are advocating this position, you’re being just as absolutist and extreme as the Islamists…?

  2. I always say this, but…
    When is western society going to rise up against this? Will it ever?
    There are reports now of a vehicle running over numerous people.

  3. Everybody rest easy…FNC is reporting that NYPD sent out a tweet saying they’re monitoring the situation in London.

  4. English authorities now confirm that the attack was an act of Terrorism. Take that as a general hint that it may be Islam related.

    • Well, that’s not bad! The administration which must never again be named would have taken more than a week to surmise that it’s impossible to tell whether terrorism was involved. And then they would have apologized.

  5. Time and Time again.

    This is a rare incident that does not compare to the 10s of 100s of mass shootings that happen everday in the US.

    This will do nothing to change the land of hope and glory’s guns laws as most people don’t want it.

    And the only person that died was the terrorist with a knife.

    Imagine what worse could happen if he was armed.

    http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime

    UK seems to be doing fine with the NRA or other “gun rights” groups telling them that they need to be armed 24/7 to stop imaginary threats.

      • My constitutional right to be an American patriot that supports the freedoms and rights of Americans not to be shot and killed or oppressed by nihilistic nutbars like you does not care for your un-american ideal to kill or enslave us with your fairy tale BS of evil men around every corner and that every tom, dick and jill needs to be armed to stop imaginary mongols from killing us.

        Statistically you or loved one are more likely to commit murder or suicide against each other or yourselves with a gun in the home than stopping a criminal attack.

        The people of the land of hope and glory aka the UK seems to be doing fine without lunatics running the streets of London or Glasgow armed with whatever people like you believe what they should be armed with,

        It’s easier to run, fight back and survive being attacked with a knife or a baseball bat then being attacked with a gun.

        • Where in the Constitution does it say that?

          The,Resistance doesn’t believe in the Constitution anyway. Why else would they be using violence to silence their opponents.

        • You have no such right. I don’t care about your fictional “statistics”. You have no ability to stop me and I was fairly clear on the subject of your fee fees. Now go collect your adult diaper and cry in your safe space. The adults are talking.

        • @The_Resistance:

          There are in fact a number of studies, as well as substantial anecdotal evidence, that being attacked with a knife is less survivable than being attacked with a gun (or more accurately that single stab wounds are more frequently fatal than single GSW).

          Not saying you’re necessarily wrong about everything – but if you’re using a breaking news story about a terrorist attack in the UK to bash gun owners in the States, then I think your behaviour can reasonably be described as trolling…

          First fatality has just been reported, with more possible among the several “catastrophic” injuries; and in this case the attack was indeed stopped by armed force.

          So, as nicely as possible, fuck off somewhere else to play.

        • “freedoms and rights of Americans not to be shot and killed or oppressed”

          *thumbs through Constitution and Bill of Rights.*

          Nope, I don’t see anything in here about a “right to be safe,” especially not one that requires gutting our civil liberties first. Nice try, thanks for playing.

        • nihilistic nutbars?

          Would that be a Snickers bar devoid of peanuts?
          An almond joy with no almonds?

          Or perish the thought: a Payday stripped down to its nougat?

          Oh the inhumanity of it all!

        • “My constitutional right to be an American patriot that supports the freedoms and rights of Americans not to be shot and killed or oppressed by nihilistic nutbars like you does not care for your un-american ideal to kill or enslave us with your fairy tale BS of evil men around every corner and that every tom, dick and jill needs to be armed to stop imaginary mongols from killing us.”

          You don’t know how the Constitution, or rights for that matter, works.

        • Why yes, people who have never before hurt a fly have been known to go utterly insane after purchasing a gun. Sometimes they hardly make it home before they go on homicidal binges. There’s something about the bluing process that makes people go berserk after it touches their skin. I guess that where the ” 10s of 100s of mass shootings everyday” bullshit comes from huh?

        • So brave Internet warrior….what are you going to do about all us gun owners….I’ll be back….going to grab some popcorn.

        • Statistically the cars in my garage and the pool in my back yard are far more likely to kill my family members than my firearms.

          Your risk analysis sucks.

      • In today’s context people who label themselves as “the Resistance” are the very same people who use violence to silence their opponents. That is why he oppose an armed citizenry. All the rest is so much noise. It’s no fun to attack people who can shoot back. Black Bloc won’t be showing up at the University.of Texas.

        • I really wish they would. The gene pool could use a little more chlorine. Also, dead anarcho-commies are easier to deal with than arrested anarcho-commies.

      • But I and the American people do…It’s called the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

        Not the unconstitutional unamerican “right” to grab a gun and kill anyone who disagrees with you.

        The feelings triggered snowflakes like you have does not trump my constitutional rights to disagree and protest against your fascism.

        • The_Resistance, it’s call projection and it’s what you are doing. Displaying your own inadequacies for all to see. You may wish to push back from the key board in your momma’s basement, clean off the Guy Fawkes mask, and shove it up your tightly clenched ass.

        • “The feelings triggered snowflakes like you have does not trump my constitutional rights to disagree and protest against your fascism.” Fascist Snowflakes….?

        • “…right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
          That’s the declaration of independence. The Constitution is the one that guarantees us guns.
          Pro-Tip: Don’t cite to the constitution unless you know what it says, and unless you believe in it.

        • The Declaration of Independence expresses a right to live free from GOVERNMENT oppression, i.e., the interactions between government and the People. That’s it. It has nothing to do with interactions between individuals. Neither the Declaration nor the Constitution guarantee you a right to safety from others, nor happiness at the expense of others, nor any rights vis-a-vis others. The Bill of Rights expresses the limitation of governmental power. So I suggest that you start over with a proper understanding of the purpose and scope of the Constitution before you petulantly suggest that the government owes a duty to disarm its citizens. Under the Second Amendment, it has no power, and under multiple decisions of the Supreme Courts of the various states and of the US Supreme Court, the government has no duty to come to your aid when you are in need, whether your disaster is natural or man-made.

        • Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? In the Declaration of Independence, which isn’t governing law in the US.

          But anyway, then I take it you are pro-life (right to life), a tax protestor (liberty) and just fine with anyone buying and shooting lots of guns (which makes some people happy).

          On the other hand the right to keep and bear arms is, in fact part of the highest governing law in the US.

          Oh … And by the way, I think you’re way off-base in your opinions and I disagree strongly with your conclusions … but unlike many of your fellow Antifas/Resistance/whatever, I support and defend your right to express them. I may ridicule you for them, but I won’t commit physical violence against you for expressing them.

        • Where do you get this stuff?
          BTW I know you only do this to get a rise out of everybody.
          To stop this nonsense it’s time to stop responding to his drivel as I should have done.

        • If somebody had a right to shoot anyone who disagrees with them, there would be no DNC.

      • And hows your life of wasting money on useless armaments, attacking people for exercising free speech, assaulting people, committing voter intimidation, vandalizing cars and buildings and committing hate crimes against minorities and LGBT people doing for you?

        • With exception of attacking gay people, those are the tactics of “the Resistance ” Muslims are the ones attacking gay people and “The Resistance” supports Islam.

        • 1. There is no such thing as a “hate crime”.
          2. If we were “attacking” you, you’d be dead. Right now, we’re at mockery.

        • Vandalizing cars and buildings? Did you not watch the news after Trump was inaugurated? It wasn’t American patriots waving the stars and stripes wreaking havoc in the streets. How fucking dense are you?

        • The woman getting beat by her boyfriend at the bus stop didn’t think they were useless. If my spending on arms infuriates you, I consider that a bonus.
          As for the other things, I’d have to ask you, since those are your hobbies, not mine.

        • Thus far, most of the crimes against minorities and LGBT folk have been made up out of whole cloth. The paranoid folk call it ‘false flag’.

          Fact is, there’s 400+ million firearms in this nation. We have an enumerated right to own and carry them. It’s not a law, it’s a right that we’ve had all along, and it isn’t something you guys and girls can take away with words on paper and some measly hashtags in the tumbleweed land of Twitter.

          Now, if you want to take them away from everyone, that’s where the discussions get a little more pointed. Turning millions of law-abiding citizens into criminals overnight because of your fear of inanimate objects isn’t exactly the tactic I would recommend for a prosperous future. Your kind fight constantly, purportedly against alienation and ostracism – and you always point out the end results of alienation and ostracizing people, i.e. they get mad. But yet, your statements and ideas point to demonizing and alienating gun owners. All because they choose to spend their funds on mere objects.

          TL:DR – mind your own business, it’s the healthiest way to live.

        • Once again, I hate to play the LGBT card, but some of us poofters have suffered enough actual, physical harm from right wing nut-jobs. You conflate right wing nut-jobbery with gun ownership, which is a fundamental mistake that pretty much undermines your whole argument.

          There’s plenty of people on this site with whom I disagree, some mildly, some vehemently. There’s some people on this site who I would like to see go DIAF, because I think they’re jack holes who have no respect for me, my choices, or my feelings on religion, abortion, and/or republicans. Some of them would no doubt like to see me cheerfully burning while nailed to a cross on a cold November morning. But you know what we usually DO agree on? As long as we each have the means to protect ourselves, none of us are going to be lynched by a bunch of “resistance” protestors like yourself.

          So people who, like you, tell us we should just go ahead and let ourselves be beaten, stomped, and stabbed (because at least we aren’t getting shot?) can go attempt to self-copulate in a flattened spherical formation.

    • I think the saddest part of this post and his response is that it actually makes me miss the trolling skill of 2ASux. His trolling was weak but this guy is so bad it trolls itself.

      • That’s my impression too.

        “10s of 100s of mass shootings that happen everday in the US” kind of had me thinking this was just a satire of trolling instead of troll comment. It’s really weak.

    • How about listing for us the first 100 which happened today? That would be enlightening, if anybody believed you were not aware that you are *always* lying!

  6. I hate that my fellow blokes had to be victims, I’m lucky to be in the US currently where I can stay armed to protect me and others

  7. Clearly it’s a developing story, so anything out there at this point must be taken with a pinch of salt… but:

    (1) It appears to have been a lone-wolf vehicle attack, using an SUV, on Westminster Bridge – immediately outside Parliament – resulting in multiple casualties whose status remains unknown at this time;

    (2) It appears the attacker bailed out once the vehicle was immobilised, and attempted to enter the Parliament buildings with a knife, wounding at least one LEO before being shot by security personnel. Attacker’s status and that of the wounded LEO both unknown at this time.

    To say that armed citizens could / would have prevented this is pretty hypothetical. Maybe, maybe not.

    In this case the site of the attack was a pretty heavily secured location, and armed units are on permanent deployment there: the attack appears to have been stopped as quickly as anyone might reasonably expect under those circumstances.

    Given the location and the highly pressurised, unclear, rapidly evolving situation in the heat of the moment… if a hypothetical armed citizen had attempted to intervene, I suspect there is a pretty high likelihood that Police / security would have engaged that citizen as well.

    Equally, although armed units are not normally stationed on the bridge, if they had been at the time of the initial vehicle attack it’s quite possible they may have held off firing on the driver in case (for example) it was a mechanical or medical emergency that caused the vehicle to swerve onto the sidewalk. Tough call to make; but the same would also apply to a hypothetical armed citizenry.

    Having said all of that… I continue to feel, as I have previously said on this site, that the UK’s firearms laws do not serve their purpose effectively; and certainly if I or any of my friends or loved ones were confronted by a determined attacker then I would much prefer I/they had an effective means of self defence available.

    I’m sure more detail will come out soon, but for now my strong impression is that in this specific case the security forces responded quickly and effectively, and an armed citizenry would have made little difference either way.

        • Au contraire! An LEO has died, but not the one attacked with a knife, but one previously run over with the car. Total 4 dead now, including the perp. I think through the heroic efforts of a lot of hard working professionals, they managed to keep him alive and in excruciating pain for several hours. Hopefully, they found a Catholic priest soon enough that he could understand that he was being administered Christian last rites.

        • @Larry: numerous sources still seem to suggest that the LEO fatality was the knife victim (Telegraph, Guardian, BBC), though it’s certainly possible that they are being unclear or that mixed reports are being re-circulated.

          In any case, the key point is that one Police officer has moved from category VSI to KIA… which is a shitty outcome however said officer came by their injuries…

    • Either way, it can be pretty damn difficult to stop a vehicle with a handgun. In many instances, we see a fusillade of bullets before the vehicle is stopped.

      • Very true – which (sort of) ties into my point that in this particular case the attack was stopped as quickly as realistically possible, and the presence / lack of an armed citizenry was moot in the totality of circumstances.

        Scant comfort to those who were mowed down without even the possibility of defending themselves, but still…

        • See my point above: given the very short distances and time-frames involved, the window of opportunity to ID the vehicle as hostile (rather than potentially an accident) was extremely narrow.

          See also Mark N’s comment: stopping a vehicle tends to require high volume of fire.

          Yes, if it was known for certain that the driver was an attacker hell-bent on mass killing then sure, dump mags through the windshield and I’d be lining up to shake your hand. But it just wasn’t that clear, and nor would there have been time to evaluate appropriately even if armed officers had been immediately present when the vehicle first moved onto the sidewalk…

  8. This wasn’t a shooting in the sense the title leads the reader to believe. I am happy the body is as accurate as can be expected while the story develops.

  9. One crazed Muslim with a car & knife shut down the capital city & national government of a nuclear power today

    • Which seems stupid. The Brits didn’t shut down during the Battle of Britain.

      Besides, if their security theater works, the safest place for all the MPs is in the building, not at home or on the streets.

    • To be fair, that’s not really accurate.

      The immediate area was cordoned due to the ongoing evolving incident, and the possibility of further attack(s) and/or secondary devices – that’s pretty much standard protocol wherever you are, and I can pretty much guarantee that a similar attack at the Capitol would have broadly the same outcome.

      Yes, parliamentary proceedings were suspended temporarily, and MPs evacuated in line with SOPs: this was to enable Police to maintain control of the scene and establish whether or not the threat persisted.

      Everywhere else in London, and the rest of the country, life continued as normal.

    • Perhaps because he was not a designated Met Police “Firearms Officer” and thus was unarmed and defenseless when the guy with the long knives showed up?

    • It would appear he was manning one of the static positions on the approach to Parliament buildings, and therefore was directly in the attacker’s path. Some reports suggest he attempted to tackle the guy, which suggests to me he was not one of the armed units. Truly sad.

    • For one, not all officers are necessarily armed in England, unlike the :US, and for two, there is always the Tueller Drill. The officer was likely charged and stabbed before he/she know what was happening.

      • This seems to be accurate, from what’s emerged so far; although several reports suggest that the officer attempted to tackle the attacker.

        It’s quite possible the officer didn’t realise that it was an attack: given the lay of the ground, the attacker would only have been in line of sight for a few seconds before encountering the officer, and could’ve been mistaken for a protester, prankster, or driver fleeing the scene of an earlier RTA…

        Sadly, no matter how fast it is, reaction time is not always fast enough…

        • Thanks for the info update, I was waiting on details to come out on whether the officer had a firearm or not.

          Quite the disservice if the officer was mandated to be unarmed…

        • Officially confirmed that he was not one of the armed officers… As you probably know, the huge majority of Police officers in the UK are unarmed. In this case we don’t yet know enough to say that being armed would have saved PC Palmer; but it might have done, and it is particularly sad that he did not have the opportunity or means to defend himself through force of arms (whatever the ultimate outcome).

          Rest in peace.

  10. Although mocking the trolls seems worthwhile they aren’t worth your time or effort. If you ignore them they will usually get bored and leave. Beyond that, the attack does look to be yet another incoherent scream of hatred by the Aloha Snackbar crowd.

    • If I feel like taking their words seriously, then I find engaging them hones my argument skills and encourages me to seek out new sources for counterpoints.
      Most of the time though, I do it for fun. It’s like a trip to the zoo, but free, and I get a cathartic release out of it.

      • My main point is that most trolls lack the intellectual honesty or capacity to carry on an interesting debate.

    • “The_Resistance” guy is not going away. He has been here at least since 2012 under many different names. If ignoring him would make him go away, then there have been times when no one responded to his posts. Don’t know if he he getting paid to troll or is just looney….

  11. ‘when is the west gonna say enough is enough?’ -um theres 4 dead. We probably killed 200 in air strikes today in syria, iraq, afghansistan, and yemen. Scoreboard.

    I dont understand how everyone gets so excited about these minor death tolls, and forgets we have been killing the shit out of the people living in several nations in the middle east for, well since ww1.

    I like that cops dont carry guns in britian. I wish it was that way here. Thered be 1500 less citzens shot by the polic every year, it would lower our murder rate 17%

    • I tend to agree. If we were really concerned by these pissant attacks, we could pretty easily up those air attack deaths to 20,000 per day, proclaiming loudly that was in retaliation for the knife attack on a Bobby, and our opponents would soon find out what “pressure” really means.

    • Well Chip.

      It doesn’t happen there on a daily basis then it does here.

      So how does requiring psychological & criminal background check and requiring it to keep it in a safe to keep it from getting into the wrong hands is considered “tyranny”.

      It’s easier to get a shotgun cert in the UK if your a farmer, have pests to deal with or a shotgun competition shooter,

      • “So how does requiring psychological & criminal background check and requiring it to keep it in a safe to keep it from getting into the wrong hands is considered “tyranny”.”

        It’s just like supposedly ‘free’ elections.

        It doesn’t matter how many votes were cast for a candidate, the only thing that matters is *who is counting the votes*.

        Psychological examinations are *always* subjective by nature.

        Just like how in ‘may issue’ jurisdictions like San Fransisco or New Jersey as a whole, where the total civilian number of carry permits can practically be counted on one hand, no matter how justified the actual need for armed carry, like domestic violence victims, no permits will be issued.

        You can bet your ass in areas with a required psych evaluation that the list of ‘approved’ shrinks will be chosen based on their ‘political reliability’ to the jurisdiction that wants *zero* permits issued.

        (You know, I sure hope you keep that ‘Resistance’ nick, because it’s been a long damn time since I’ve had a good laugh…) 🙂

      • @The_Resistance:

        A technicality, but psych eval is not required to obtain a Shotgun Certificate or Firearms License in the UK… A medical sign-off from your general practitioner is required to say no known medical / psychological issues.

        You’re going to struggle to make headway if you are consistently inaccurate with your facts.

      • “…It doesn’t happen there on a daily basis then it does here.”

        Disregarding your typos and grammatical errors… It doesn’t happen here on a daily basis either.

        Try harder. Please.

    • “ban motorized vehicles then”

      About a hundred years back the ‘horse and buggy lobby (not to mention the poor schlubs who owned buggy whip manufacturing concerns) tried to do exactly that to Henry Ford and his peers.

      ‘Big Buggy’ lost that battle…

  12. I would be interested to hear the statement from the newly elected Muslim Major of London. Although we have a good idea what he is going to say.
    Meanwhile, the ruling elite will assign themselves more (heavily) armed guards at the Royal subjects expense while thinking about additional “gun control” measures to keep the population “safe”.
    Don’t be surprised if the perp’s Muslim widow will be assigned permanent government pension and additional funds allocated to Muslim causes across U.K. to “educate that part of the oppressed population”.
    It’s an European thing.

    • Sadiq Khan’s statement:
      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sadiq-khan-london-attack-response-westminster-parliament-terror-a7644761.html

      US taxpayers fund the Secret Service and other agencies that protect the state and its elected officials, in exactly the same way that British taxpayers fund the Police and other agencies charged with protecting the state and its elected officials (as well as the hereditary monarchy). If security needs to be increased, or such a need is perceived, then I’m sure it will happen… I’m also sure the same would be true in the States.

      Additional gun control measures? Maybe; I hope not. Given that the only guns used were by Police, I can’t see that making a huge amount of sense.

      Pension for the widow and funding for Muslim charities? Possibly; and to be honest neither of those things bugs me unduly. However much of a schmuck he was, if she’s innocent then she deserves to be supported as much as anyone else who lost a loved one; and if she was involved or had prior knowledge then she should and hopefully will be prosecuted. Muslim charities: well, if you can dissuade them pre-emptively and non-ballistically then I’d call that a plus…

      • “if she’s innocent then she deserves to be supported as much as anyone else who lost a loved one.”

        That’s what a socialist would say. She DESERVES support.

        As a liberty loving American, I ask, what has she done to deserve support? What has she done to EARN it?

        You deserve what you earn. Everything else is a gift. Unless you’re a socialist, then you deserve whatever someone else has.

        • OK, well I’m sorry for my “socialist” tendencies. I think you are mistaken about my politics… but you’ve got to draw the line somewhere.

          If you see an injured child bleeding out on the sidewalk, do they “deserve” your help and assistance in keeping them alive? Or do you walk on by, because they haven’t “earned” your help?

          Seems to me that the decent, moral thing to do is to help people when they need it, if you can – whether or not they have earned it. You seem not to agree, which is fine: it takes all sorts.

          Anyway, since “deserves to be supported” isn’t quite clear enough for you, I’ll correct myself and say:

          “if she’s innocent then she, as much as anyone else who lost a loved one, will be grieving and in pain, and I am proud to be a citizen of a country that strives to help people in those circumstances”…

        • I, as well, am happy to help those in need. Others have helped me in my hour of need. To believe I deserved such help would be an ungrateful response.

          “Deserve” is a word used by Democrats to get votes by creating an attitude of entitlement. Where do you think all the Bernie votes came from?

        • @ Curtis:

          I see your point, and I agree it’s more than just semantics. Fair enough.

          I guess I was looking at the implications of the post preceding mine, which implied that the attacker’s widow ought to be deprived of support. My point (not perfectly expressed) was that unless by her own actions she had deserved to be deprived of the support that would otherwise be afforded, she should in common decency be treated as any other bereaved party.

      • “Additional gun control measures? Maybe; I hope not. Given that the only guns used were by Police, I can’t see that making a huge amount of sense.”

        True, but that’s exactly what tends to happen on this side of the pond when mass violence happens.

        Example – The ‘Sandy Hook’ school shooting. Loud calls for universal ‘background checks’ after that tragedy even though the guns used were bought with a background check by the mother the murderer killed.

        Loud calls for banning AR-platform rifles, even though hands and and feet kill more than all rifles *combined* year-by-year.

        Even though a shooter with a revolver and a pocket full of speedloaders could kill just as many and just as quickly as the rifle. (Practically speaking).

        You hear loud calls for ‘universal background checks’ and mandatory reporting of lost or stolen guns by the Leftists for one reason and one reason only.

        To build that database for the day they will knock on your door to confiscate them or imprison you for ten years to life.

        It’s no exaggeration Mr. Carter, to say we over here are in a mostly bloodless battle (for the time being) for our firearm freedom, the same way we fought against the King in the 1700’s.

        We have zero interest in turning the USA into what Europe has devolved into, and what the Muslim invasion will eventually turn Europe into over there

        The Leftists here want the USA to be a clone of Europe.

        As far as I’m concerned, – Fvck that noise…

        • @Geoff:

          I get what you’re saying, but I think there are a number of cultural differences you have to take into account.

          For starters, the gun / anti-gun debate in the UK is waaaay less acrimonious and indeed less highly polarised than it is in the States. Largely because the anti-gun movement has a strong upper hand, and because we have no 2A codifying the RKBA as a fundamental right.

          In other words, POTG in the UK might disagree with the practical effect of the law, but they can’t argue that it’s unconstitutional. Flip it around, and the anti-gunners might dislike anybody having guns at all, but they can’t argue that firearms crime is a big problem or indeed that firearms ownership is hugely widespread.

          As a result of this, we tend to get a knee-jerk response to the (fairly rare) incidents where a gun is involved, but even the anti-gun media and the slightly less anti-gun politicians recognise that there is a practical minimum: some people genuinely need guns for purposes that have an undeniable social utility… and gun ownership is low enough in the UK that it’s around that minimum level already.

          So, the few shootings we’ve had in the past decade or so (whether with legal or illegal guns) have seen a bit of debate around whether anything needs to be done, mostly concluding that, no, society has done as much as it reasonably can.*

          In cases like this where there was manifestly no gun violence by the attacker, because the whole gun / anti-gun debate is not nearly as charged as it is for you guys, I honestly will be surprised if any further measures to restrict legal gun ownership are even talked about. It’s very possible that further measures will be looked at to reduce the likelihood of criminals / terrorists acquiring illegal firearms, but that is of much less concern.

          * To be clear, I think the steps taken in response to the Hungerford massacre and the Dunblane massacre were (in both cases) excessive knee-jerk reactions that did not substantially achieve their intended goals… But levels of gun crime are, nonetheless, low enough that the whole issue is far less emotive in the UK than it is for you guys.

          I also recognise absolutely that there is a huge political / philosophical debate as to whether the state should have any say regarding the RKBA. I am very much on your side in this debate, I just happen to live on the other side of the Atlantic, and to abide by the laws of my home country, whether or not I find them to make coherent sense.

  13. Meanwhile, there are US police departments that prohibit their officers from firing at vehicles in cases like this.

    The NYPD released a statement that they are looking at ‘refining’ their regulations with regard to that but the spokesman said that “I have no doubt that our officers would fire on someone like this regardless of regulation”

    Another example of how liberal cities like NYC, Chicago, Baltimore, et al love to have their cake and eat it too. You’re expected to break the regulations to do your job. Then you have to wait and see if you are going to lose your job for breaking the regulations.

  14. The British are finished as a society the way they are now. They have imported people who don’t share their liberty thinking processes or their beliefs. They only care about the money and being more physically comfortable than they are in their home country. But they don’t want the western thinking that goes with the money and being physically comfortable.

    The English imported cheap labor in the 20th century. I know they also imported the Irish for cheap labor in the 19th century as well. I think the British will have a civil war with stick or bats or just lead pipes as weapons. And they will not be the only ones. Germany and France are moving in that direction. When terrorist attacks happen monthly and then weekly that’s when the revolts will happen.

    Joyce Lee Malcolm wrote “The right to keep and bear arms the origins of an Anglo American right”. Its a great history of how the British government historically fought against civilians having arms. And what the founders learned from the English experience, and gave us the second amendment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *