> Perhaps a strict immigration/travel policy may have saved lives.

Fuckwit.

This saves me typing:

If anyone you know tries to use last night's attacks as a reason to turn away migrants and asylum seekers, please just remind them that most asylum seekers are trying to escape precisely the sort of people who perpetrated the Paris attack. They're not bringing it with them, they're trying to escape it.

Tell that to the dead.

Is it easier to defend against someone with a gun or someone with a knife? 

I expected better from you, Peter. Resorting to base expletives is a rather low form of wit, don't you think?

Try replacing "fuck" with "intercourse" and see how it sounds.

 

I don't want to turn away migrants and asylum seekers, but I do want to prevent illegal immigration and scoundrels from entering anyone's country - just as I want to make sure that guns don't get into the hands of a schizophrenic, psycopath, sociopath, manic-depressive, paranoiac, drug addict or a Methodist.

Doesn't matter, deaths just the same. Guns are necessary because outlaws have guns; our POTUS has seen fit to release 6,000 prisoners from Federal prisons, so who knows where they will end up? Crime generally repeats, particularly for the institutionalised. Our POTUS has pussy-footed with Syria; so then the terrorists come to America

Not all gun crimes are deliberate either, although most are.

What happens when ISIS comes to England in retaliation for airstrikes in northern Iraq? What do you combat them with, the back of a leather glove and refusing them afternoon tea? An ounce of prevention...

A gun. Most people are incredibly bad shots and can't hit the broad side of a barn with one, let alone a moving target. Problem is, most people freeze with panic instead of taking action.

By the way, [Briton] Jihadi John was pretty handy with knife, wasn't he?

> I expected better

Consider what that indicates.

> illegal immigration

What makes a person moving from one free country to another illegal?

> and scoundrels

Violence begets violence.

If you want to stop it, determine what actions combined to cause innocent children to grow into murderers.

Just to go along with your woeful car analogy for a moment, we are moving towards driverless cars and in the not so distant future people will probably be incredulous that we drove them ourselves. "Didn't that cause a lot of deaths?" "Oh yes, millions".

How many of the ludicrously common mass shootings in the USA are ended by a bystander with a gun? It's roughly zero, as far as I know.

Although, to be fair, if almost everybody carried a gun I'm sure that there would be far more mass shootings ended by a bystander with a gun.

Take that how you see fit.

Damn good point. I suspect, though it's not laudable, most people's first reaction would be to get the shitfuck away from someone with a gun, not trying to be a hero and take whoever it is down.

Even with a gun, would you want to put yourself in the firing line? I appreciate there's a certain type of person willing to do that, most likley professional bodyguards and military types.

>>A gun. Most people are incredibly bad shots and can't hit the broad side of a barn with one, let alone a moving target. Problem is, most people freeze with panic instead of taking action.

And yet you advocate arming everyone so they can take a pop at the terrorists.

If we are going to do this, we should acknowledge that for example Canada have their citizens allowed guns and they manage not to shoot each other nearly as much as people do in the USA. So it's not only having guns that is the problem, there's more to it than that. Still, I'm not sure why people like fixrman are often so keen on other nations getting MORE guns. I live in London and. It is not rare to see someone losing their temper at some point during the day. Why would adding guns help? Meanwhile we have armed police for those situations where people are using illegal weapons and it seems to work ok most of the time.

Canada has about the same amount of territory as the USA, but a tenth of the population. There are fewer gun deaths because the bullets just go through the gaps between the people.

There are far stricter controls over gun ownership here. Our previous PM loosened them up quite a bit, but he's gone.

Most occur in urban areas between gangs using smuggled/stolen guns.

I don't want you to own guns if you don't want to. Nobody should be forced to own a gun if they don't want to. But nobody - at least here in the U.S. - should be telling me I have to give up mine as long as I am possessing a firearm legally, obeying the law.

Actually, as bad as drivers are here, driverless cars would be an improvement, especailly those from New Jersey.

I did. My reply remains the same.

Quote: 

Please don't play at being deliberately obtuse, Peter. You know full well the difference between legal and illegal immigration, but if you are unsure, you have the wherewithal to look it up.
 

That's great Pete, but that only helps future children, and only then if one does something after determining the cause. What is your plan for that? What do we do about the ones that are already screwed up? They are young adults or adults, so their behavioural patterns are likely pretty well set in stone. How do we deal with them effectively to prevent violence?



 

Not everyone, just those who want one and are legally allowed to own a gun. Where did I ever say that everyone should carry a gun? You are using words that I have not.

People who own a gun should be proficient in the use of a gun and should know how to handle the gun responsibly. People who have a CCP should be held to a higher standard so that, in the event they need to use the weapon for self-defense - they hit what they aim. It should be ready, aim fire - not fire, ready, aim as it too often is.