British soldier killed in London 'terrorist attack.'

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Seanchaidh:
Isn't "honor-killing" more often descriptive of fathers or brothers killing the women of their families for various reasons, not as much husbands?

Perhaps, but the word gets tossed around rather loosely.

lowhat:
Funny, how some people would choose to distinguish between an act motivated by religious orthodoxy viewed as legitimate by millions, and an act motivated by solo nbuttery. Apples to apples, really. They must be raciss.

Solo? There's a long history of murdering your wife. Also, being a Muslim doesn't mean you can't commit crimes for non-religious reasons, it isn't teh be all and end all of your life.

Imperator_DK:

Realitycrash:
...
Interesting. Got a source? And how much does a western-immigrant cost?

Here's one in Norwegian, with reference to the original article.

According to page 40 of the original article, each eastern European immigrant on average costs Norway $ 135,000 while each western European immigrant on average contributes $ 135,000 during their stay. A lot of this difference is due to both western and eastern Europeans having better educations and countries worth returning to when they retire, but ultimately the cultural differences cost something as well.

And then there's the price that's not in money, but in friction, which isn't even considered in this graph. Nor by those who decide immigration policy, as they live at a comfortable distance from it (...as do I, though I'm not one to dismiss the dismiss the very real concerns experienced by the lower class as them simply being "racist"). There's not reason to actively aim to absorb burdensome people from poor and defunct social contracts into strong and efficient ones, even if they were culturally compatible. To collect poor Muslims is to collect failures.

From a financial perspective, I'd agree with you. These are 'dead-weight' on a society. But from a humanitarian perspective? Many of the immigrants from poorer countries that are accepted by Sweden/Norway/Denmark (and I imagine, UK) are fleeing oppression, disease, war and death - Much of which can be argued was caused directly or indirectly by western-culture involvement (the war in Iraq, for instance, of if you want to be Rawlsian, the overall in-egalitarian distribution of wealth).
Still, even if we ignore causes for this, what do you suppose we do? Close our borders and let people manage as best they can?

(Incidentally, I remember you as being from the UK?)

Desert Punk:

Aside from that, they're more use alive than dead, if they can tell police about their motives and such, we can learn more about these people and how we might be able to fight them in the future.

The death penalty is a whole different kettle of fish, but I'll say it again; it solves nothing, and serves no purpose other than to bring the law down to the same level as the perpetrator just for the sake of some fleeting, bloodthirsty revenge.

I was referring to AFTER their trial/questioning/interrogation ect. it avoids their being a martyr with a public execution if they are just...gone after their trial, no muss, no fuss.

And it serves a much greater purpose than "blood thirsty revenge"

You tell me, what one is cheaper, the 22,000 dollars a year to keep some butcher alive for life? Or 1 dollar for a 9mm bullet (at civilian cost, much cheaper for government purchase).

Then again there are those who whimper over even the thought of a person who hacks someone to death in a street ever being harmed, but I just laugh at those people.[/quote]
I'm fairly certain that when the raving madman yells things about killing soldiers that kill his countrymen then the death penalty is not a good idea. You tend to want to discourage that sort of behaviour instead of encouraging it.

Desert Punk:

So you arrest them, disappear them and put a nice bullet into the back of each of their heads.

Certainly cheaper to spend a dollar on a pair of high calibre bullets than to pay out to keep their useless asses alive.

Unfortunately, in the UK we have these annoying little things called "Human Rights" and "The Rule of Law".

Which is a damn shame, because I'd love it if my government could carry out extra-judicial killings and "disappearances" on its own citizens.

The Plunk:

Desert Punk:

So you arrest them, disappear them and put a nice bullet into the back of each of their heads.

Certainly cheaper to spend a dollar on a pair of high calibre bullets than to pay out to keep their useless asses alive.

Unfortunately, in the UK we have these annoying little things called "Human Rights" and "The Rule of Law".

Which is a damn shame, because I'd love it if my government could carry out extra-judicial killings and "disappearances" on its own citizens.

The rule of law, who lets child rapists walk...huh... But way to not read any of my other posts.

Silvanus:

Desert Punk:

Then again there are those who whimper over even the thought of a person who hacks someone to death in a street ever being harmed, but I just laugh at those people.

That's fine. You carry on laughing at such people, and the law will carry on ignoring you and others who call for capital punishment. I'm happy with that situation.

Well they ignore capital punishment against our criminals anyway...
http://pakistanbodycount.org/drone_attack

Hell, the govt just came out and admitted they droned a few of our own citizens that were terrorist related. Drones are expensive though, if we are going to do capital punishment I would prefer a cheaper method :P

Surely it isn't a terrorist attack if soldiers/military personnel are the targets? This seems more like un-conventional warfare if anything.

BathorysGraveland2:
Surely it isn't a terrorist attack if soldiers/military personnel are the targets? This seems more like un-conventional warfare if anything.

Hmmm...I think for that to count the people have to be citizens of a country Britain is at war with, and preferably to be carrying their weapons openly.

thaluikhain:
Hmmm...I think for that to count the people have to be citizens of a country Britain is at war with, and preferably to be carrying their weapons openly.

Well, the citizen part makes sense, though the open-carry certainly does not. But still, even if all that is true, this seems incredibly underwhelming to be considered terrorism, and at the end of the day, the target is still a military person. No civilians were targeted or harmed. So I can't really see this as terrorism.

Hmm... If this drags on with similar attacks and the emerging trend goes stronger, we will see a rise in English right wing and far-right parties. It's finally bubbling over - From France to Sweden, this have been a concern in large metropolitan areas with high Muslim concentration. The backlash from the general public will hopefully wake it up from its indifference. I hope it won't come to ultra-right wing groups gaining too much popularity.

At the end of the day, Say goodbye to the Euro and hello to Conservative fragmented Europe. Let them come, I say. It will be an interesting read.

MrCollins:
I just hope this doesn't incite more violence either by "inspiring" other radicals to attack or some right wing nutter to randomly attack anyone who "looked dodgy", but was in fact innocent.

.
If this turns into blood in the streets scenario of actual riots then it would diminish the effect of this incident on the right wing trend.

Imperator_DK:
And this counters the notion that a welfare state is incompatible with nigh-unlimited immigration... how?

Your notion is predicated on the basis of something that doesn't exist (i.e. unlimited immigration). As you wanted to compare Norway and the UK - neither of which have nigh-unlimited immigration and open borders - I did you the favour of interpreting the real latter rather than the fantasy former.

Never mind that it's still a valid response to the notion anyway: a welfare state may be compatible with massive immigration depending on the welfare state and the immigrants.

Quite a nationalistic habit you got there too, as it takes little but mentioning the UK in a negative light to grind your gears.

I would admit I have sufficient patriotism to find my country being targetted mildly irritating. However, it is not half as irritating as I find it when people run down any country unfairly: hence why if one bothered, one could find I have stuck up for a lot of other countries in such circumstances too. I would indeed be even more prone to stick up for the unjustly abused when I perceive the abuser is grinding a grubby personal axe.

If this is terrorism, a lot of things are terrorism which the Uk government wouldn't consider to be the case. This isn't so much directly with the UK itself, but more with the USA which is a staunch ally.

The sad story is, these people are holding themselves to a higher moral standard than the USA government. They killed and attacked an soldier in the street while he was off duty. The USA has stated it's soldiers are willing to attack militants anywhere and any time, even if they're asleep in their bed. It's definition of militant is also any combat-aged male who happens to be in a combat operation zone unless there is incontrovertible proof showing they're not a militant (I wonder why people are surprised that 'civilian' casualties are so low!).

This wasn't an islamic attack. This was a political attack based on all the atrocities and horror the West has done.

It might not be right. It might not be fair. That doesn't mean it isn't understandable. You can't go around killing masses of people without people wanting to kill you back.

BathorysGraveland2:

thaluikhain:
Hmmm...I think for that to count the people have to be citizens of a country Britain is at war with, and preferably to be carrying their weapons openly.

Well, the citizen part makes sense, though the open-carry certainly does not. But still, even if all that is true, this seems incredibly underwhelming to be considered terrorism, and at the end of the day, the target is still a military person. No civilians were targeted or harmed. So I can't really see this as terrorism.

.
A "military person" off duty and unarmed is a civilian. Only when on duty does a "military person" count as a soldier. When killed in combat or on duty, it is a soldier. Otherwise, it is a civilian.

TheIronRuler:
A "military person" off duty and unarmed is a civilian. Only when on duty does a "military person" count as a soldier. When killed in combat or on duty, it is a soldier. Otherwise, it is a civilian.

There is a sense to that, but I disagree. I can't really see military personnel as civilians, whether they're on or off duty.

This event isn't the sort of thing one needs to condemn, as condemnation should be taken as a given.

That being said, a sense of perspective is in order and we should be wary of reactionary elements seeking to advance xenophobic agendas off the back of this tragedy.

In the years 2006-2010 less than 1% of terrorist attacks in Europe where carried out by muslims. The majority where carried out by seperatists, with leftwing/anarchist groups taking second place.
https://www.europol.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/te-sat2011.pdf
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/11/updated-europol-data-less-than-1-of-terrorist-attacks-by-muslims/

ClockworkPenguin:
This event isn't the sort of thing one needs to condemn, as condemnation should be taken as a given.

That being said, a sense of perspective is in order and we should be wary of reactionary elements seeking to advance xenophobic agendas off the back of this tragedy.

In the years 2006-2010 less than 1% of terrorist attacks in Europe where carried out by muslims. The majority where carried out by seperatists, with leftwing/anarchist groups taking second place.
https://www.europol.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/te-sat2011.pdf
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/11/updated-europol-data-less-than-1-of-terrorist-attacks-by-muslims/

Well that article is a bit strange as well as the report, first they don't really define what a terrorist attack.
And although both the report and the article show that the number of "Islamist" attacks in Europe was almost non existent the number of arrests is actually quite high.

image

So it's a bit odd that they don't count attacks that fail due to arrests and other counter terrorism operations on their main table that includes both failed and executed attacks.
From 2006-2010 there were quite a few attacks that have been stopped in Europe that were planned mostly by terrorists affiliated with AQ.
This included quite high profile attacks such as:
Multiple bombings on the World Cup Games of 2006 in Germany, bombings in Copenhagan, coordinated attacks on Frankfurt International Airport and the USAF RAFB and a many others.
Not to mention that there have been multiple terrorist attacks in the UK during that period such as the Glasgow International Airport attack[1], the 2007 London Car Bombs[2] and the 2008 Exeter attempted bombing[3].
But i guess since the UK government insists on classifying those attacks as "unspecified" it doesn't count.
In all honesty the report as your post seems to reek of political correctness more than any thing.

[1] Glasgow International Airport attack
[2] 2007 London Car Bombs
[3] 2008 Exeter attempted bombing

Well, the public backlash is unsurprisingly ugly:

I suppose the next question is what can we actually do about this? Aside from the obligatory flow-chart reaction:

Do we crack down on all but the most mild-mannered and westernised European Muslims? Do we admit that Western foreign policy is to blame? What the hell do we do?

Realitycrash:

Imperator_DK:

Realitycrash:
...
Interesting. Got a source? And how much does a western-immigrant cost?

Here's one in Norwegian, with reference to the original article.

According to page 40 of the original article, each eastern European immigrant on average costs Norway $ 135,000 while each western European immigrant on average contributes $ 135,000 during their stay. A lot of this difference is due to both western and eastern Europeans having better educations and countries worth returning to when they retire, but ultimately the cultural differences cost something as well.

And then there's the price that's not in money, but in friction, which isn't even considered in this graph. Nor by those who decide immigration policy, as they live at a comfortable distance from it (...as do I, though I'm not one to dismiss the dismiss the very real concerns experienced by the lower class as them simply being "racist"). There's not reason to actively aim to absorb burdensome people from poor and defunct social contracts into strong and efficient ones, even if they were culturally compatible. To collect poor Muslims is to collect failures.

From a financial perspective, I'd agree with you. These are 'dead-weight' on a society. But from a humanitarian perspective? Many of the immigrants from poorer countries that are accepted by Sweden/Norway/Denmark (and I imagine, UK) are fleeing oppression, disease, war and death - Much of which can be argued was caused directly or indirectly by western-culture involvement (the war in Iraq, for instance, of if you want to be Rawlsian, the overall in-egalitarian distribution of wealth).
Still, even if we ignore causes for this, what do you suppose we do? Close our borders and let people manage as best they can?

(Incidentally, I remember you as being from the UK?)

Being humane isn't about being a bleeding heart towards the random people who happen to show up your doorstep. It's about ensuring a constant development towards more and more people having it better and better. For that, you need to maintain a stable foundation to work from, and not bite over more than you can chew all at once.

I'm not opposed to succesful immigration. If a social contract have solved the problems with/for those it have already absorbed (i.e. insured that the social spread on these immigrants is the same as in its native population), then it can absorb more. To keep absorbing resouceless individuals, without the ability to properlyvintegrate them, is unfair to both them and the native citizens. Social tensions and problems will continously mount, to the point that society is being harmed, with the immigrants still feeling like shit.

And aside from the economic challenges spinning out of control, there's the risk of losing the civil rights and social advancements, if too many immigrants are left frustrated by being a burden. The economic failure halts the cultural integration.

So, in the end, the right thing to do is to remain in a position where you can actually help people. The good sameritan wouldn't have been able be a good sameritan, if he hadn't had the ressources and money to act out his kindness. Staying able is a precursor to doing good. If you try to take on too much at once, not only will you be powerless to help, you risk sacrificing what you've attained in the process.

Imperator_DK:

Realitycrash:

Imperator_DK:

Here's one in Norwegian, with reference to the original article.

According to page 40 of the original article, each eastern European immigrant on average costs Norway $ 135,000 while each western European immigrant on average contributes $ 135,000 during their stay. A lot of this difference is due to both western and eastern Europeans having better educations and countries worth returning to when they retire, but ultimately the cultural differences cost something as well.

And then there's the price that's not in money, but in friction, which isn't even considered in this graph. Nor by those who decide immigration policy, as they live at a comfortable distance from it (...as do I, though I'm not one to dismiss the dismiss the very real concerns experienced by the lower class as them simply being "racist"). There's not reason to actively aim to absorb burdensome people from poor and defunct social contracts into strong and efficient ones, even if they were culturally compatible. To collect poor Muslims is to collect failures.

From a financial perspective, I'd agree with you. These are 'dead-weight' on a society. But from a humanitarian perspective? Many of the immigrants from poorer countries that are accepted by Sweden/Norway/Denmark (and I imagine, UK) are fleeing oppression, disease, war and death - Much of which can be argued was caused directly or indirectly by western-culture involvement (the war in Iraq, for instance, of if you want to be Rawlsian, the overall in-egalitarian distribution of wealth).
Still, even if we ignore causes for this, what do you suppose we do? Close our borders and let people manage as best they can?

(Incidentally, I remember you as being from the UK?)

Being humane isn't about being a bleeding heart towards the random people who happen to show up your doorstep. It's about ensuring a constant development towards more and more people having it better and better. For that, you need to maintain a stable foundation to work from, and not bite over more than you can chew all at once.

I'm not opposed to succesful immigration. If a social contract have solved the problems with/for those it have already absorbed (i.e. insured that the social spread on these immigrants is the same as in its native population), then it can absorb more. To keep absorbing resouceless individuals, without the ability to properlyvintegrate them, is unfair to both them and the native citizens. Social tensions and problems will continously mount, to the point that society is being harmed, with the immigrants still feeling like shit.

And aside from the economic challenges spinning out of control, there's the risk of losing the civil rights and social advancements, if too many immigrants are left frustrated by being a burden. The economic failure halts the cultural integration.

So, in the end, the right thing to do is to remain in a position where you can actually help people. The good sameritan wouldn't have been able be a good sameritan, if he hadn't had the ressources and money to act out his kindness. Staying able is a precursor to doing good. If you try to take on too much at once, not only will you be powerless to help, you risk sacrificing what you've attained in the process.

So in essence, you don't oppose immigration or accepting asylum-seekers, but it's a question about how many a nation can successfully absorb a year? Well, right now, each government feel comfortable that the current rate is sufficient. Sweden accepts 10.000 a year, the UK 80.000, etc. How many would you say are too many? Or do we need to stop altogether now and 'digest' what we have? And for how long? Is there any reason that after a nation has 'digested' for ten years the next eastern-immigrant that comes afterwards WON'T cost another 170.000?

Ryotknife:
I will say that this article makes me appreciate the US muslim population more. They don't pull crazy crap like this (as far as I know).

EDIT: Ah crap I just realized that technically the boston bombing was done by muslims. I have a hard time identifying Chechnians as Muslims.

You do know their are muslims of every race, and are not just limited to arabs right?

thaluikhain:

psijac:

Quaxar:

And cue the "good thing the UK has rational gun control regulations" that is bound to happen.

That's the fucked up part the muslims had a pistol too! A GOD DAMN GUN in ENGLAND! Were guns are banned.

Guns aren't banned in England.

Yeah, but they still are hard to get in the UK. You can't just buy them, and just wait 6 months.

Batou667:
Well, the public backlash is unsurprisingly ugly:

I suppose the next question is what can we actually do about this? Aside from the obligatory flow-chart reaction:

Do we crack down on all but the most mild-mannered and westernised European Muslims? Do we admit that Western foreign policy is to blame? What the hell do we do?

I burst out laughing seeing this. I hope they are not serious.

Gergar12:

I burst out laughing seeing this. I hope they are not serious.

I've seen the same reaction in the comments of Australian media. Clearly killing them in revenge is the reasonable response to them killing us in revenge for killing them.

Dryk:

Gergar12:

I burst out laughing seeing this. I hope they are not serious.

I've seen the same reaction in the comments of Australian media. Clearly killing them in revenge is the reasonable response to them killing us in revenge for killing them.

I'm led to believe that after Steve Irwin died, a number of Australian went to aquariums to harass stingrays.

thaluikhain:

Dryk:

Gergar12:

I burst out laughing seeing this. I hope they are not serious.

I've seen the same reaction in the comments of Australian media. Clearly killing them in revenge is the reasonable response to them killing us in revenge for killing them.

I'm led to believe that after Steve Irwin died, a number of Australian went to aquariums to harass stingrays.

Yeah they do that after shark attacks too. It doesn't even matter if the deceased spent their entire life telling people that they're taking a risk by being in the water and it's not the sharks fault people still get riled up.

Dryk:

thaluikhain:

Dryk:

I've seen the same reaction in the comments of Australian media. Clearly killing them in revenge is the reasonable response to them killing us in revenge for killing them.

I'm led to believe that after Steve Irwin died, a number of Australian went to aquariums to harass stingrays.

Yeah they do that after shark attacks too. It doesn't even matter if the deceased spent their entire life telling people that they're taking a risk by being in the water and it's not the sharks fault people still get riled up.

What happens when a shark attacks a Muslim, though, who do they blame?

thaluikhain:
What happens when a shark attacks a Muslim, though, who do they blame?

Jawsus Christ?

(Sorry, I'll leave...)

TheIronRuler:

BathorysGraveland2:

thaluikhain:
Hmmm...I think for that to count the people have to be citizens of a country Britain is at war with, and preferably to be carrying their weapons openly.

Well, the citizen part makes sense, though the open-carry certainly does not. But still, even if all that is true, this seems incredibly underwhelming to be considered terrorism, and at the end of the day, the target is still a military person. No civilians were targeted or harmed. So I can't really see this as terrorism.

.
A "military person" off duty and unarmed is a civilian. Only when on duty does a "military person" count as a soldier. When killed in combat or on duty, it is a soldier. Otherwise, it is a civilian.

While I don't wish to disagree with people's own thoughts; however I don't think the target or the victim is particularly important in deciding if its terrorism or not. Rather the result, if it is terror inspiring or fear inducing. If two Black English Muslims killed a White English Christian over X Y or Z, I wouldn't give it too much thought. If two black Muslims actively targeted a British Soldier and barbarically murder him because of the British Goverments and her Allies involvement East of Sueze, then that causes fear.

I'm sure the Law of Armed Combat, Geneva Convention that provides the legal definitions between Combatants and Non Combatants is online somewhere (Though only usually observed by Soverign Nations) On a personal note and I'm sure my peers would agree, still a soldier whether im a t work or not

I've been waiting for someone else to do it, but since nobody seems to have picked up on the story, I guess I'll just pass it along.

Recently, a French soldier was stabbed in the neck by a North African man allegedly wearing a white Arab-style garb. Some officials believe they're connected, whether it's just a copy cat or whatever else.

White Wizard:

TheIronRuler:

BathorysGraveland2:

Well, the citizen part makes sense, though the open-carry certainly does not. But still, even if all that is true, this seems incredibly underwhelming to be considered terrorism, and at the end of the day, the target is still a military person. No civilians were targeted or harmed. So I can't really see this as terrorism.

.
A "military person" off duty and unarmed is a civilian. Only when on duty does a "military person" count as a soldier. When killed in combat or on duty, it is a soldier. Otherwise, it is a civilian.

While I don't wish to disagree with people's own thoughts; however I don't think the target or the victim is particularly important in deciding if its terrorism or not. Rather the result, if it is terror inspiring or fear inducing. If two Black English Muslims killed a White English Christian over X Y or Z, I wouldn't give it too much thought. If two black Muslims actively targeted a British Soldier and barbarically murder him because of the British Goverments and her Allies involvement East of Sueze, then that causes fear.

I'm sure the Law of Armed Combat, Geneva Convention that provides the legal definitions between Combatants and Non Combatants is online somewhere (Though only usually observed by Soverign Nations) On a personal note and I'm sure my peers would agree, still a soldier whether im a t work or not

I'm going to have to agree here, I am not a civilian, somedays I may act like one, or just try relax for a day, but I am still a soldier.

thaluikhain:

Dryk:

thaluikhain:

I'm led to believe that after Steve Irwin died, a number of Australian went to aquariums to harass stingrays.

Yeah they do that after shark attacks too. It doesn't even matter if the deceased spent their entire life telling people that they're taking a risk by being in the water and it's not the sharks fault people still get riled up.

What happens when a shark attacks a Muslim, though, who do they blame?

Women, gotta spread the hate.

Gold:

thaluikhain:

Dryk:

Yeah they do that after shark attacks too. It doesn't even matter if the deceased spent their entire life telling people that they're taking a risk by being in the water and it's not the sharks fault people still get riled up.

What happens when a shark attacks a Muslim, though, who do they blame?

Women, gotta spread the hate.

You would be surprised...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel-related_animal_conspiracy_theories

Wadders:

thaluikhain:

psijac:

That's the fucked up part the muslims had a pistol too! A GOD DAMN GUN in ENGLAND! Were guns are banned.

Guns aren't banned in England.

YES, THANK YOU! :D As a gun owner it riles me so much when people say that. We just have strict regulation.

Handguns however, are banned for civilian use. I think it was a handgun which was being brandished in this case.

Do you think these two men had a valid firearms certificate then?

Which would upset you more, If they did have a valid certificate or if they did not?

Realitycrash:
...
So in essence, you don't oppose immigration or accepting asylum-seekers, but it's a question about how many a nation can successfully absorb a year?

Yes. Economically and culturally. Neither wealth nor liberalism are things which'll withstand anything.

Well, right now, each government feel comfortable that the current rate is sufficient. Sweden accepts 10.000 a year, the UK 80.000, etc.

Question is, do the people in the current social contract feel comfortable? The political establishment of both Sweden and the UK have shut down all discussion of the issue, yet people - working class people mostly - see the problems every day, and now and then they become impossible to keep under the rug, such as with this terrorist attack, or the riots in Sweden.

How many would you say are too many?

Enough that the economy and general liberalism of civil society suffers. Which may vary greatly. A country like the US, where there's very little welfare and a very long tradition for a "melting pot", many more people can probably be let in relative to how many can be let in Scandinavia, which has a very extensive welfare state, and whose social capital still rest on monoculturalism.

Or do we need to stop altogether now and 'digest' what we have? And for how long?

Probably, at least in regard to those who aren't highly educated and speak English. Until there's no statistical difference between how immigrants fare economically and socially, compared to the rest of the population.

Is there any reason that after a nation has 'digested' for ten years the next eastern-immigrant that comes afterwards WON'T cost another 170.000?

The $170,000 is over a lifetime, due to them becoming unemployed, having to be educated etc. etc. If there are no Ghetto's to disappear on welfare in, and a higher bar is set regarding who is accepted to begin with, then there's no reason immigration couldn't become profitable.

psijac:

Wadders:

thaluikhain:

Guns aren't banned in England.

YES, THANK YOU! :D As a gun owner it riles me so much when people say that. We just have strict regulation.

Handguns however, are banned for civilian use. I think it was a handgun which was being brandished in this case.

Do you think these two men had a valid firearms certificate then?

Which would upset you more, If they did have a valid certificate or if they did not?

Eh? I was just pointing out that it is a common and frustrating misconception that guns are entirely banned here...

I wasnt actually trying to make a point at all. Although, to answer your question I highly doubt they would have had an FAC, and even if they did it would have allowed them to legally own only a very small range of handguns, such as a black powder pistol, or a long barreled (over 30cm) pistol. Neither of which would be much use to them I imagine, as both are rather impractical and hard to conceal.

I don't really understand your second question, or why it's important. Why would I be more or less upset if they were or were not licensed firearm owners? Both legal and illegally owned guns are used for crime in this country, I'd say it was fairly upsetting if someone gets shot either way.

Imperator_DK:

Realitycrash:
...
So in essence, you don't oppose immigration or accepting asylum-seekers, but it's a question about how many a nation can successfully absorb a year?

Yes. Economically and culturally. Neither wealth nor liberalism are things which'll withstand anything.

Well, right now, each government feel comfortable that the current rate is sufficient. Sweden accepts 10.000 a year, the UK 80.000, etc.

Question is, do the people in the current social contract feel comfortable? The political establishment of both Sweden and the UK have shut down all discussion of the issue, yet people - working class people mostly - see the problems every day, and now and then they become impossible to keep under the rug, such as with this terrorist attack, or the riots in Sweden.

How many would you say are too many?

Enough that the economy and general liberalism of civil society suffers. Which may vary greatly. A country like the US, where there's very little welfare and a very long tradition for a "melting pot", many more people can probably be let in relative to how many can be let in Scandinavia, which has a very extensive welfare state, and whose social capital still rest on monoculturalism.

Or do we need to stop altogether now and 'digest' what we have? And for how long?

Probably, at least in regard to those who aren't highly educated and speak English. Until there's no statistical difference between how immigrants fare economically and socially, compared to the rest of the population.

Is there any reason that after a nation has 'digested' for ten years the next eastern-immigrant that comes afterwards WON'T cost another 170.000?

The $170,000 is over a lifetime, due to them becoming unemployed, having to be educated etc. etc. If there are no Ghetto's to disappear on welfare in, and a higher bar is set regarding who is accepted to begin with, then there's no reason immigration couldn't become profitable.

Immigrants, and sons and daughters of immigrants, for several generations, will see some form of economical and social discrimination. Racism isn't just going to die out because we stop taking in asylum-seekers (in some fashions, it might even increase, as it becomes more 'acceptable' to voice your concern, and then some people go from 'acceptable to voice concern' to 'it's all their fault), so that's going to be a real long time of 'digesting'.

As for the social contract and comfortable levels..It's self-adjusting, you know. Right now, enough people ARE comfortable (though it seems to be changing), because otherwise we'd already have seen a change in immigration-laws. The government is part of the contract, and reflects its populations wishes,if albeit a bit slowly.

A higher bar might be reasonable for normal immigrants, but that still leaves us with those that seek asylum.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked