June 8th General Election

[denphone]

No surprise as politicians will lie through their teeth for their own ends..

Originally Posted by Damien

The reason the terrorists yesterday, and the one who attacked Westminster, used knifes is because it's hard to get guns in the UK.

Its very easy for criminals to get them, and any organised terrorist group would have no difficulty at all. (The IRA never had any difficulties).

Originally Posted by Damien

Does anyone really think this country would be safer if there were more guns?

Overall, Yes.


As has been shown multiple times now, banning guns has little effect on terrorist activities, driving a lorry into a crowd can kill and injure as many people as a gun, in fact probably more since you will run out of bullets, you dont tend to run out of fuel so quickly. Should we ban cars and lorries ?

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by Paul M

Its very easy for criminals to get them, and any organised terrorist group would have no difficulty at all. (The IRA never had any difficulties).


Overall, Yes.


As has been shown multiple times now, banning guns has little effect on terrorist activities, driving a lorry into a crowd can kill and injure as many people as a gun, in fact probably more since you will run out of bullets, you dont tend to run out of fuel so quickly. Should we ban cars and lorries ?

em USA is less safe than here like

Originally Posted by Paul M

Its very easy for criminals to get them, and any organised terrorist group would have no difficulty at all. (The IRA never had any difficulties).

The IRA operated largely before the Dunblane shooting when gun control became much stricter.

As has been shown multiple times now, banning guns has little effect on terrorist activities, driving a lorry into a crowd can kill and injure as many people as a gun, in fact probably more since you will run out of bullets, you dont tend to run out of fuel so quickly. Should we ban cars and lorries ?

No we shouldn't ban cars and lorries because their primary usage is not to kill people. The benefits of these things outweigh their risks. Guns can be used to either kill animals or humans and maybe for sport (i.e clay shooting).

Also it's not either/or. Yesterday they could have run people down and then gotten out and and killed more effectively with guns than knifes. The gang stabbings in London would become gang shootings. Robbers would have guns.

Criminals would have a tool that makes killing easier and quicker. If we legalise these things they would have greater demand for it then the average citizen.

Originally Posted by Damien

The IRA operated largely before the Dunblane shooting when gun control became much stricter.

The IRA, and criminals, and terrorists, did not (and do not) use legally obtained guns, so how strict (or less strict) it was has no relevance.
In fact, aside from the obvious examples of Hungerford & Dunblane, gun crime involving legal guns is so rare that the Police dont keep stats on it.

Illegal guns are, and have always been, the issue.

em USA is less safe than here like

Of course, people always bring up the USA.
I doubt anyone would suggest such lax laws as as they have, they are just one country not a typical example.
(indeed, not all US states have the same laws, they can vary quite a bit).

The laws in Northan Ireland are much more relaxed than the UK mainland, but its hardly the wild west some would have you believe would happen with less strict controls.

Always the second anyone mentions firearms comes "America isn't safer" but given the USA is the number 1 terrorist target they are not having any of these types of attacks curious that especially as firearms are easy to get over so these cowards could do more damage. The answer isn't because of their police forces as many are so underfunded they can barely keep a presence in large areas of the large cities so why aren't they getting hit like we are here and the rest of europe.

Because it's cowards carrying out these attacks on western countries that have made their populations easy targets and secondly because they know damn well that if they tried these type of attacks they are attacking a civilian populace with the means to defend themselves and pulling a knife or a gun is going to end with them facing many more firearms. We have become so politically correct in the west that we have made ourselves an easy target with sections of our populations spewing guilt ridden rubbish and making everyone feel we should atone for past sins and it's a crock that's now coming back to bite us on the behind.

In the west we have for the last couple of decades allowed an army to walk into our countries with no obstacles and tolerated a faith that clearly has many problems and issues that it has little to no interest in resolving. We have been idiots and it is now time to stop.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Always the second anyone mentions firearms comes "America isn't safer" but given the USA is the number 1 terrorist target .

The US is either super-efficient at preventing terrorist attacks or it's not the number one target terrorist. I suspect the latter.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by gba93

Thank God! Before you use that argument look at the USA - their "good men with guns" have done little to protect their citizens from the "bad men with guns".

I'd rather be armed if I could be. Even if everyone else can be as well if they choose to.

---------- Post added at 20:40 ---------- Previous post was at 20:39 ----------

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Always the second anyone mentions firearms comes "America isn't safer" but given the USA is the number 1 terrorist target they are not having any of these types of attacks curious that especially as firearms are easy to get over so these cowards could do more damage. The answer isn't because of their police forces as many are so underfunded they can barely keep a presence in large areas of the large cities so why aren't they getting hit like we are here and the rest of europe.

Because it's cowards carrying out these attacks on western countries that have made their populations easy targets and secondly because they know damn well that if they tried these type of attacks they are attacking a civilian populace with the means to defend themselves and pulling a knife or a gun is going to end with them facing many more firearms. We have become so politically correct in the west that we have made ourselves an easy target with sections of our populations spewing guilt ridden rubbish and making everyone feel we should atone for past sins and it's a crock that's now coming back to bite us on the behind.

In the west we have for the last couple of decades allowed an army to walk into our countries with no obstacles and tolerated a faith that clearly has many problems and issues that it has little to no interest in resolving. We have been idiots and it is now time to stop.

---------- Post added at 20:42 ---------- Previous post was at 20:40 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

The US is either super-efficient at preventing terrorist attacks or it's not the number one target terrorist. I suspect the latter.

erm, remember 9/11? The USA is the archetypal number one target

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

In the west we have for the last couple of decades allowed an army to walk into our countries with no obstacles and tolerated a faith that clearly has many problems and issues that it has little to no interest in resolving. We have been idiots and it is now time to stop.

What do you propose then?

An immediate halt to any immigration from muslim countries until such time as we can adequately vet applicants and a halt to family members coming here after one of their family gets citizenship. The ability to close down mosques that do not tackle radicals within them and for the police to act on hate speech by muslim clerics powers they already have but are reluctant to use. Personally I'd support citizen ownership of firearms with a good system in place to ensure that not just anybody can obtain one.

Biggest change is an end to the free pass that islam has had whereby we spend more time worrying about not offending islam and start highlighting the issues that are not compatible with the western world they choose to live in and demanding change no more asking nicely and then just skulk off when they do jack to change a thing.

It's worth noting that the Manchester bomber had his mosque report him multiple times. I don't think taking an agonistic approach to the Muslim community is the answer as it only increases the sense of us vs them which is exactly what the terrorists want.

If we did have citizen ownership of firearms how would we stop them getting into the hands of terrorists?

Damien it's easy to setup a system for gun ownership a mandatory training period with an accredited facility for a minimum of three months to cover all aspects of firearm use and handling, full registration of all firearms with both a case and round fired from each weapon on record, letter of charector from someone who has known the applicant for ten years minimum and is qualified to make such a document. Lets not forget cost which between the course, charector recommendation and actual firearm wouldn't make it a casual spur of the minute matter.

Also it really isn't hard to get hold of a firearm if you really want one there are numerous ways available on the dark net or local dealers.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

erm, remember 9/11? The USA is the archetypal number one target

More than 15 years ago, I'm talking about 2017.

America is no longer by any measure a soft or easy target and a part of that is an armed populace with the ability to defend itself and despite their religious fervour these are utter cowards we are talking about much better to hit the vastly unarmed and unprepared population of western europe. But you still haven't answered why there are no attacks like this happening in the USA if armed citizens are not a factor and you cannot with a straight face tell me we are a bigger target then the USA.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

America is no longer by any measure a soft or easy target and a part of that is an armed populace with the ability to defend itself and despite their religious fervour these are utter cowards we are talking about much better to hit the vastly unarmed and unprepared population of western europe. But you still haven't answered why there are no attacks like this happening in the USA if armed citizens are not a factor and you cannot with a straight face tell me we are a bigger target then the USA.

These terrorists seem to favour attacking the countries they were born in. We need to stop them being radicalised in the first place and maybe the US has been better at this than Europe has.
The Labour Party, UKIP and Liberal Democrats are all keen to see a vital report on the funding of extremists published. Theresa Maybe and her rich establishment chums seem content for it never to see the light of day.

The Guardian reported on Wednesday that an investigation into funding of Jihadi groups, authorised by David Cameron, may never be published.
The Home Office said the report had not been completed, but that the contents were “very sensitive.”
In a letter to Mrs May, Lib Dem Tom Brake called on her to publish the report.
He wrote: “It is no secret that Saudi Arabia in particular provides funding to hundreds of mosques in the UK, espousing a very hardline Wahhabist interpretation of Islam. It is often in these institutions that British extremism takes root.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politic...watch-10560047