Paris under attack

[pratty]

What about the freedom to assemble, say you want to meet with like minded people and discuss your dissatisifaction with the government, only to have your meetings disrupted by the authorities because the government decides you might be subversive, plotting violence and/or guilty of 'hate speech'.

And that they could arrest you for up to 14 days with no charge under the terrorism act, I would consider wrongful arrest an infringement of freedom.

Even if it doesn't come to that the fear of being watched and under suspicion may be enough to put good people off exercising their freedom of speech and assembly.

I welcome these changes. The government does not decide. The law is the law and it will be put to good use protecting citizens, helping to avoid indoctrination as it currently happens. These proposals don't come from nowhere, they are a direct reaction to threats to our safety.

Of course somebody decides. When the police raids my government dissatisfaction assembly and not the thousands of other legitimate meetings taking place around the country, somebody has to make the determination to do that. I don't think it's just that a person could risk losing 2 weeks of their free life because someone wrongly decided that "Pratty's governemnt disatisfaction coffee morning", may be a potential terrorist cell.

Something is not ethically ok just because it happens to be legal, or reprehensible just because it happens to be illegal. As a general rule we shouldn't define what's right and wrong by whether it's the law or not, but rather we should define the law according to what is right and or wrong. And I think freedom of assembly and speech is just, the abuse of that freedom is the price we pay for it.

[Treguard]

I don't want to be involved in the Rodimus and Sephiroth Show again, but just wanted to say that Switzerland is a stupid example for the NRA to use because the reason for their gun law is that they operate a policy of total national defence and have no standing army. It is required during National Service to which anyone can be conscripted to have your own weapon available, that's why gun ownership is so high. it's not the same as in the US where people decide they need an AR-15 for hunting deer, or phosphorus grenades to hunt bears. Also, ammunition is strictly controlled and can't be purchased and stockpiled as in the US. My mate lives in Basel, so I've got a decent insight into it.

[Sephiroth81]

Either you missed the point or are just dodging it, I only compared them because as a general principle you said

"So any policy about anything has to be entirely changed because of a very very very small minority and a distant possibility?"

Implying that a policy shouldn't be changed because of a small minority. This is your stance regarding refugees but not the second amendment which I found odd and inconsistant.

I've already explained (not that I needed to) that the two are incomparable. The gun laws need to be changed in America because they are losing thousands of lives every year, and have done for decades, because of gun crime (and add more for accidents, suicides etc). The restriction of guns, safety checks, screening, licenses, mental health checks or just limiting them would almost certainly reduce the consistently high death toll. 10k+ a year is a problem. If islamic terrorism (caused by immigration) was causing the deaths of 10k a year in America, then naturally I would be speaking out in favour of a solution to curb it.

The comparison with the US second amendment is very poor, and full of holes. The country has thrived on immigration, as it has the UK - where as it hasn't with guns, which have caused the deaths directly of hundreds of thousands over recent decades. Of course it is entirely down to opinion, but I think we can live without guns (we do already very successfully - do you really yearn for a gun now?), but i feel the country would be a less complete place if we didn't have immigrants. It has made this country rich and culturally diverse and the reason why millions want to live and visit the UK.

Anyway, so far we know of only one of the bombers is from Syria who conveniently left their Syrian passport (that ISIL will be pleased about, as a way to ramp up the fear, and get us talking about closing our borders, which will suit them), The majority were "home grown" or its neighbouring country Belgium where there is free movement anyway and always has been. There is nothing to suggest that without one of the perpetrators, this mass murder wouldn't have happened. It was well organised and this has played into ISILs hands because now we are casting great doubt over our own safety, and whether we should be helping Syrian refugees.

I don't want to be involved in the Rodimus and Sephiroth Show again, .

I agree with the point on Switzerland that you made. But this is the Sephiroth/Pratty show today! Pratty is alright, far less angry and bitter than what I'm used to dealing with on here.

Rodimus is probably not far behind though...

[pratty]

What about the freedom to assemble, say you want to meet with like minded people and discuss your dissatisifaction with the government, only to have your meetings disrupted by the authorities because the government decides you might be subversive, plotting violence and/or guilty of 'hate speech'.

And that they could arrest you for up to 14 days with no charge under the terrorism act, I would consider wrongful arrest an infringement of freedom.

You probably don't fit the current profile of what they are looking for - so you'll be safe! Just don't shout allahu ackbar, otherwise you may get picked up.

But that's just it, they won't be allowed to profile more likely suspects because that's seen as prejudice, they would be ogliged to crack down on all political dissent.

The police could have their cells full of Muslim terrorists and some social justice warrior will come along and say "these cells are too brown, I call racism, get more white terrorists in here to even things out."

[Shinobi]

Do you actually read and understand other peoples comments?

I think so? Did I misinterpret you or something?

So why do you always a question with a question and why are highly selective about the few questions you choose to answer? You won't say how much you give to the Syrian refugee's or refusing to divulge personal information blaming it on Beans wanting to do violence to your person..

Many of your comments are all about outrage at X or Y, but the real world isn't all about polar opposites of emotion....

Are we you at the stage where YOU NOT being outraged at something - especially something that has no bearing on your daily life - gets heads scratching?

I mean if i said that I don't really care about Atari Jaguar, would you assume that I must hate it, have an underlying agenda against Jeff Minter, or had a bad childhood experience with Kasumi Ninja? No. Sometimes not caring about something means just that. I don't care that Right Wing Clarkson called somebody an Irish Tosser 10 years ago.. Besides you've labeled Beans, Hot Rod and Halcyon Daze as knuckle-dragging Neanderthal, educationally subnormal Sun reading guttersnipes and simply dismiss any legitimate concerns over Immigrant as worthless.. As its the god given right for every Syrian in the world who "wants a better life" they should just up sticks and burden themselves on whichever country they fancy and they're justified in doing that? And the people on the receiving end of all that cost and social impact should just soak it up? And scream them down as racist..

Off Topic isn't to read, consider and debate different views like adults; it's a soap box to shout an opinion, and get personal with any dissenting voice. Such as your friend Finbar who's slicker than a barrel of untreated medical sewage and three times as toxic.

I'm still getting to grips with that, so, in the meantime, please accept my apologies, sir.

[pratty]

Either you missed the point or are just dodging it, I only compared them because as a general principle you said

"So any policy about anything has to be entirely changed because of a very very very small minority and a distant possibility?"

Implying that a policy shouldn't be changed because of a small minority. This is your stance regarding refugees but not the second amendment which I found odd and inconsistant.

I've already explained (not that I needed to) that the two are incomparable. The gun laws need to be changed in America because they are losing thousands of lives every year, and have done for decades, because of gun crime (and add more for accidents, suicides etc). The restriction of guns, safety checks, screening, licenses, mental health checks or just limiting them would almost certainly reduce the consistently high death toll. 10k+ a year is a problem. If islamic terrorism (caused by immigration) was causing the deaths of 10k a year in America, then naturally I would be speaking out in favour of a solution to curb it.

The comparison with the US second amendment is very poor, and full of holes. The country has thrived on immigration, as it has the UK - where as it hasn't with guns, which have caused the deaths directly of hundreds of thousands over recent decades. Of course it is entirely down to opinion, but I think we can live without guns (we do already very successfully - do you really yearn for a gun now?), but i feel the country would be a less complete place if we didn't have immigrants. It has made this country rich and culturally diverse and the reason why millions want to live and visit the UK.

No, the comparison is not the pros/cons of gun vs the pros/cons of immigrants/refugees, it was simply the principle of yours that I outlined above being applying to two different situations.

How in that context are they not comparable? The only way you could say they are not would be if the minorities in question (bad refugees and bad gun owners) were vastly different in scale. However as I illustrated earlier using your statistic, the ratio of bad gun owners to good gun owners in America is, to put it generously, about the same as the ratio of bad refugees to good refugees.

we do already very successfully - do you really yearn for a gun now?

We all do very successfully when not confronted with a life threatening threat, but if I was confronted with a life threatening threat such as a gun and bomb weilding terrorist trying to kill me, then yes I would yearn for a gun.

[Sephiroth81]

Shinobi, sometimes I wonder when you post what substance you are using as it sounds like fun.

I tend to answer questions with a combination of words....I'm sorry if they don't come out in the way you wish they would. Sometimes they have question marks at the end, sometimes full stops.

I'll be selective again in answering your questions (I answered the one in the other thread if it makes you feel better, although I think I may have made the heinous crime of throwing in a question in there at one point, so apologies in advance). I may have said some unkind things though in the heat of debates on here in the past to people like Beans/Rod/Hdaze, but I'm quite happy to put those behind us and apologise (and I already have actually on a few occasions). I think I may have used "knuckle draggers" as a general reference, but the others I can't claim credit for! That is from your active imagination i'm afraid

[sscott]

These off topic threads fill me with trepidation and dread these days.

[Sephiroth81]

How in that context are they not comparable? The only way you could say they are not would be if the minorities in question (bad refugees and bad gun owners) were vastly different in scale. However as I illustrated earlier using your statistic, the ratio of bad gun owners to good gun owners in America is, to put it generously, about the same as the ratio of bad refugees to good refugees.

There is no requirement for a society to absolutely need guns though, as demonstrated by many countries around the world. The "statistic" you did was utterly crude and meaningless which is why I ignored it - and surprised you ever tried to bring it up again as if its something you were proud of. Thousands of people aren't dying a year (and consistently so) because of "refugee terrorists", but thousands of people ARE dying because of guns. If we get to the point where thousands are dying in Europe because of Syrians faking their refugee status and are ISIL infiltrators, then naturally this is something security agencies must re-visit, but you can't use it on the basis of 1 suspect Syrian - that doesn't make a statistic valid.

Refugees need help, gun owners don't in relative terms. Its just a hobby or desire to get a sense of protection or empowerment. A good gun owner without a gun, is still going to live in a rich country, and have access to food and healthcare (within reason!). A refugee that is denied entry because of one bad person impersonating a refugee - that could genuinely be a life or death situation. Lets put things into perspective, rather than try to argue for the sake of arguing.

[Shinobi]

Sephiroth.. I came in contact with your semen.. One squirt of Sephiroth semen will dissolve all the compassion in your eggs, making you a clone-oven for his master-race of psychopathic, oddly sexless yobbos who can only cum when their Mail order brides are wearing mirrored glasses. Sephiroth's penis has a single, glowing red eye. He wipes his ass with the promise of a better tomorrow. for Syrian Refugee's..

[Sephiroth81]

How much do you pay for your Thai Bride Seperioth?

Eastern European actually, and none of your business!

I hadn't quite realised how peculiar you are. I'd barely noticed your posts until today in fact, but I think i'm warming to you!

[Shinobi]

How much do you pay for your Thai Bride Seperioth?

Eastern European actually, and none of your business!

I hadn't quite realised how peculiar you are. I'd barely noticed your posts until today in fact, but I think i'm warming to you!

You barely notice my posts because I don't post..

Nothing personal Seph somebody asked me to pull your chain for being a limp wrist-ed veggie burger eating Nancy boy So is your East European girlfriend hot and does she have black hair? Link us to your facebook page I'm sure Beans would love to see what you look like:)

Is this you and Elgin btw..

[RodimusPrime]

I am just wondering how this turned out to be a debate on gun control in America.

And yes, anyone with common sense realises that refugees need to be controlled, no matter how many good people are trying to escape, there is a limit to what we can handle. our benefits system can hardly cope as it is at the moment.

[pratty]

How in that context are they not comparable? The only way you could say they are not would be if the minorities in question (bad refugees and bad gun owners) were vastly different in scale. However as I illustrated earlier using your statistic, the ratio of bad gun owners to good gun owners in America is, to put it generously, about the same as the ratio of bad refugees to good refugees.

There is no requirement for a society to absolutely need guns though, as demonstrated by many countries around the world. The "statistic" you did was utterly crude and meaningless which is why I ignored it - and surprised you ever tried to bring it up again as if its something you were proud of. Thousands of people aren't dying a year (and consistently so) because of "refugee terrorists", but thousands of people ARE dying because of guns. If we get to the point where thousands are dying in Europe because of Syrians faking their refugee status and are ISIL infiltrators, then naturally this is something security agencies must re-visit, but you can't use it on the basis of 1 suspect Syrian - that doesn't make a statistic valid.

Refugees need help, gun owners don't in relative terms. Its just a hobby or desire to get a sense of protection or empowerment. A good gun owner without a gun, is still going to live in a rich country, and have access to food and healthcare (within reason!). A refugee that is denied entry because of one bad person impersonating a refugee - that could genuinely be a life or death situation. Lets put things into perspective, rather than try to argue for the sake of arguing.

You have said in the face of over hundred dead from last Friday that their deaths don't shift your stance on the refugee immigration, which is absolutely fine. Just as the gun deaths in america do not shift my stance on the gun issue either, obviously neither of us condone murder, but I'm no worse than you because the number of gun deaths is greater than this recent terror attack, we both except neither approach to these respective issues is perfect, my point was both negative outcomes of these respective policies are minorities. And as I do acknowledge the plight of legitimate desperate refugees, I would expect you also at least recognise the murders and rapes prevented by firearm ownership in America.

You may or may not have noticed, to my best recollection, that I have not said that one terrorist sneaking in means we should close our doors to all immigrants, I have made my stance on the Syrian refugees long before this attack even happened. It may have been lost in the debate the but I actually agree with the principle that we don't simply throw the baby out with the bath water because of a bad minority. If I had been pro Syrian refugee immigration before ther Friday attack I would still be today.

[pratty]

I am just wondering how this turned out to be a debate on gun control in America.

That would be my fault. But forget America, the concept of armed cilivilans anywhere is hardly off topic when discussing cities under attack.