[Archived] Manchester Bombing

[perthblue02]

Just now, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

Like I said earlier, there are no other simple solutions. I can't see any point in using discredited measures that will only make matters worse.

That was not the question.

Your are against internment you have made that quite clear, how about detained for up to 14 days happy with that? or will that upset a tiny minority of people who hate Britain and the Western way of life anyway and  would not take much for them to become a physical danger as is being allowed to happen and escalate NOW with no internment in sight?

Agree there is not a simple solution but there are short term measures that can put a dent into it before the tea and biscuits come out

So the question again

Are you happy to let potential terrorists walk the streets?  

[chaddyrovers]

5 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

Like I said earlier, there are no simple solutions to this. I can't see any point in using discredited measures that will only make matters worse.

so you are very happy to allow Extremists and Terrorists on our streets? instead of detaining them until we can ruled out they are not part of these terror or extremism groups

we need to protect the country and if are of these people are found guilty of being part of these groups or being a terrorist or extremist they should be either jailed under Terror legislation or being deported quick by to their own country or parent's country of birth?

 

[perthblue02]

3 hours ago, joey_big_nose said:

This guy seems to know what he is talking about and has an plan which sounds, on the surface at least, potentially effective.

http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/maajid-nawaz/four-point-plan-to-defeat-islamist-terrorists/?utm_source=Direct

Th Quillam Foundation does not seem to come out well in this persons view

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/five-things-i-realised-muslim-manchester-attacks/

 

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

9 minutes ago, perthblue02 said:

That was not the question.

Your are against internment you have made that quite clear, how about detained for up to 14 days happy with that? or will that upset a tiny minority of people who hate Britain and the Western way of life anyway and  would not take much for them to become a physical danger as is being allowed to happen and escalate NOW with no internment in sight?

Agree there is not a simple solution but there are short term measures that can put a dent into it before the tea and biscuits come out

So the question again

Are you happy to let potential terrorists walk the streets?  

That's just a stupid question.  Of course not. Do you want to see more terrorists ?  That's what you'll get if you bring in internment. It's like throwing a stone into the pond, the ripples spread beyond the " tiny minority " that get pulled in initially.

As I understand it people can already be detained for 10 days now.

That well known lefty Lord Tebbitt just demolished the case for internment on BBC radio 4 using exactly the same arguments I've used  earlier. That must be the first time he's ever agreed with me.

[perthblue02]

Ok you are not happy to let terrorists walk the streets , but do not want them off the streets.

Just seems like carry on converting and killing , and hopefully be shot dead, shrug of the shoulders.

Sounds more barbaric than internment to me, but I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. Will pick it up after the next ones on the   suspected terrorist radar  carry out an attack because they were free to walk the streets.

 

Edit: suspected terror incident over in Melbourne today

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/emergency-crews-responding-to-explosion-in-brighton/news-story/02a8e18f3b12e2746b2cb663b3d447d2

 

[Steve Moss]

5 hours ago, blueboy3333 said:

It's not a video game, Steve. Thankfully, we don't have 'armed citizens' and that's why we don't have mass shootings. Guns often get in to the wrong hands which is why you have regular mass shootings. Surely those shouldn't happen if there are 'armed citizens'?

It's called gun free zones.  Terrorists, serial killers and violent criminals are jackals, not lions.  They habitually target gun free zones so as to get their kill count as high as possible.

As to mass shootings and mass killings, get used to them.  They are becoming a fact of life in the UK and Europe.  France's gun control policies have not prevented jihadis from acquiring weaponry.  You;ll be experiencing those same pains soon enough,

[Batman.]

Just now, Steve Moss said:

It's called gun free zones.  Terrorists, serial killers and violent criminals are jackals, not lions.  They habitually target gun free zones so as to get their kill count as high as possible.

As to mass shootings and mass killings, get used to them.  They are becoming a fact of life in the UK and Europe.  France's gun control policies have not prevented jihadis from acquiring weaponry.  You;ll be experiencing those same pains soon enough,

Nobody agrees with you. The entire world looks at America's gun laws, much like your president, and sniggers. 

Worry about your own smoldering slow motion car crash before you start offering ridiculous solutions to other country's problems, many of which have their roots with your country..

[K-Hod]

3 in 30 years in the UK compared to 72 in the USA since 1982?

Not a fact of life in Britain thank God. It's good to see that human life is more precious than some bizarre notion of the right to bear arms. Which was set over 200 years ago when the world was a much more violent place.....

[Steve Moss]

4 hours ago, joey_big_nose said:

I wasn't debating whether or not armed citizens exist. Of course they do. The point is there is no evidence they decrease murders. Indeed they raise the death toll markedly, as criminals are more likely to be heavily armed themselves as they access the guns through the same channels as citizens.

Wrong.

http://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

http://reason.com/blog/2015/09/02/do-strict-firearm-laws-give-states-lower

And has discussed ad nauseum on other threads, England had a lower murder rate before the 1920s when everyone could own a gun.  

In my opinion, you either trust the citizenry or you don't.  If you don't then your representative form of democracy will gradually morph into something else.  Also in my opinion, gun deaths have far more to do with social cohesion and demographics than they do the rate of firearm ownership.

I sometimes carry a firearm.  It is my hope that if I ever encountered a situation like London or Paris, that I'd go down fighting as opposed to "run, hide and tell".

[Dreyski]

You'd hope to die rather than live? 

[Batman.]

41 minutes ago, Steve Moss said:

Wrong.

http://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

http://reason.com/blog/2015/09/02/do-strict-firearm-laws-give-states-lower

And has discussed ad nauseum on other threads, England had a lower murder rate before the 1920s when everyone could own a gun.  

In my opinion, you either trust the citizenry or you don't.  If you don't then your representative form of democracy will gradually morph into something else.  Also in my opinion, gun deaths have far more to do with social cohesion and demographics than they do the rate of firearm ownership.

I sometimes carry a firearm.  It is my hope that if I ever encountered a situation like London or Paris, that I'd go down fighting as opposed to "run, hide and tell".

You're a true American hero.

Also, "you either trust citizenry or you don't..."

Seriously?

[joey_big_nose]

2 hours ago, Steve Moss said:

Wrong.

http://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

http://reason.com/blog/2015/09/02/do-strict-firearm-laws-give-states-lower

And has discussed ad nauseum on other threads, England had a lower murder rate before the 1920s when everyone could own a gun.  

In my opinion, you either trust the citizenry or you don't.  If you don't then your representative form of democracy will gradually morph into something else.  Also in my opinion, gun deaths have far more to do with social cohesion and demographics than they do the rate of firearm ownership.

I sometimes carry a firearm.  It is my hope that if I ever encountered a situation like London or Paris, that I'd go down fighting as opposed to "run, hide and tell".

Unfortunately this is an example of sky is green thinking. You've scoured the internet for something that aligns to your ideology, which itself cherry picks information.

The US murder rate per head of the population is over three times that of UK, France, Japan, Germany, Spain  etc etc etc . You ask anyone with two brain cells about why that is the easy access to firearms is the number one factor. 

It's just a daft position to take, but you keep on plugging away.

To raise an obvious point - the terrorists on Saturday managed to kill seven people before all being shot themselves by armed police within 8 minutes of the first 999 call. If they had access to automatic weapons as they could have in the US it could easily have been 50 dead or more. That is just rational. Uncomplicated. Easy to visualise and understand.

[JBiz]

1 hour ago, Steve Moss said:

Wrong.

http://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

http://reason.com/blog/2015/09/02/do-strict-firearm-laws-give-states-lower

And has discussed ad nauseum on other threads, England had a lower murder rate before the 1920s when everyone could own a gun.  

In my opinion, you either trust the citizenry or you don't.  If you don't then your representative form of democracy will gradually morph into something else.  Also in my opinion, gun deaths have far more to do with social cohesion and demographics than they do the rate of firearm ownership.

I sometimes carry a firearm.  It is my hope that if I ever encountered a situation like London or Paris, that I'd go down fighting as opposed to "run, hide and tell".

Classic statistic that completely blows any pro-gun argument completely out of the water;

In parts of the US, you are more likely to be killed by a toddler with a gun, than a terrorist attack.

How this debate can still rage on in 2017 is completely beyond my understanding. Batman may be wrong to use the term "unevolved" but I can't help think that this is the perfect way to explain some mindsets! 

[Tom]

2 hours ago, K-Hod said:

3 in 30 years in the UK compared to 72 in the USA since 1982?

Not a fact of life in Britain thank God. It's good to see that human life is more precious than some bizarre notion of the right to bear arms. Which was set over 200 years ago when the world was a much more violent place.....

Was that 72 before or after the slaughter of 5 innocents in Orlando today by gunfire?

[K-Hod]

Just now, Tom said:

Was that 72 before or after the slaughter of 5 innocents in Orlando today by gunfire?

Make that 73...

[Baz]

Just now, K-Hod said:

Make that 73...

That's just mass shootings, once you take single deaths into account it rises exponentially.

[blueboy3333]

3 hours ago, Steve Moss said:

It's called gun free zones.  Terrorists, serial killers and violent criminals are jackals, not lions.  They habitually target gun free zones so as to get their kill count as high as possible.

As to mass shootings and mass killings, get used to them.  They are becoming a fact of life in the UK and Europe.  France's gun control policies have not prevented jihadis from acquiring weaponry.  You;ll be experiencing those same pains soon enough,

Your original point was that  'armed citizens'  could return fire on armed terrorists. Now you're saying terrorists would only open fire in 'gun free' zones. So you agree that 'armed citizens'  don't prevent anything.

As for mass shootings by terrorists, there haven't been any because we thankfully don't have a gun culture here. Guns are hard to get hold of. In your country they are easy to get hold of, hence you have mass shootings. You've had to get used to it and it must be pretty grim.

[Batman.]

19 minutes ago, Tom said:

Was that 72 before or after the slaughter of 5 innocents in Orlando today by gunfire?

The mind boggles...

"But if all of the other employees had guns."

Makes you wonder just how much meat is inside the average American's head.

Maybe their president can tweet us the answer...

[blueboy3333]

Just now, Batman. said:

The mind boggles...

"But if all of the other employees had guns."

Makes you wonder just how much meat is inside the average American's head.

Maybe their president can tweet us the answer...

covfefe meat

[speeeeeeedie]

Just now, Batman. said:

The mind boggles...

"But if all of the other employees had guns."

Makes you wonder just how much meat is inside the average American's head.

Maybe their president can tweet us the answer...

I wouldn't bother arguing.

To Steve and his ilk arming everyone is the answer. This is the main counter measure against shootings promulgated by the NRA. They are the gun industry lobbying group. Who makes more money if more guns are bought? Gun manufacturers. They hide behind the constitution to make profits.

Terrorism is an ideology. It's going to take a long long time to change. Education, training, social well being, stronger communities, and inclusion will all have to play a part. It's not going to be easy, and more innocent people will die until the authorities can get a better handle on it. Interning muslims, Banning them from the UK. Sending some "back to where they came from" even if they are born in Britain won't work.  

 

[JAL]

On 2017-6-4 at 18:03, Pedro said:

 

 

29 minutes ago, speeeeeeedie said:

I wouldn't bother arguing.

To Steve and his ilk arming everyone is the answer. This is the main counter measure against shootings promulgated by the NRA. They are the gun industry lobbying group. Who makes more money if more guns are bought? Gun manufacturers. They hide behind the constitution to make profits.

Terrorism is an ideology. It's going to take a long long time to change. Education, training, social well being, stronger communities, and inclusion will all have to play a part. It's not going to be easy, and more innocent people will die until the authorities can get a better handle on it. Interning muslims, Banning them from the UK. Sending some "back to where they came from" even if they are born in Britain won't work.  

 

The Iman's and other preachers in the mosques of the UK, need to be solely ones with British values at their heart and all others simply kept away. I'm sure we'd then begin to see more positive integration mirrored with an immediate increase in police numbers at all levels.

How's Americas wall progressing fort USA.

May and Johnson out !

[K-Hod]

Just now, JAL said:

 

The Iman's and other preachers in the mosques of the UK, need to be solely ones with British values at their heart and all others simply kept away. I'm sure we'd then begin to see more positive integration mirrored with an immediate increase in police numbers at all levels.

How's Americas wall progressing fort USA.

May and Johnson out !

The main London attacker was expelled from his mosque and reported to police...

[Baz]

So far all mosques and imams have refused to bury any of the terrorists in London or Manchester.

[JAL]

1 hour ago, K-Hod said:

The main London attacker was expelled from his mosque and reported to police...

What's been the polices response to this reporting as it doesn't bode well for their run and tell policy.

[K-Hod]

Just now, JAL said:

What's been the polices response to this reporting as it doesn't bode well for their run and tell policy.

I'll guess that due to the cuts they were under-resourced...