O/T Tommy Robinson Speaks About Manchester Terror Attack

[Ellis_D]

The danger I suppose of killing or deporting anyone who's just a suspect is that that becomes a recruiting message for others and might lead to more threats.

The other question is if they are born in the UK, where do you deport them to? If their family has lived in the country for generations?

And although violent terrorism is immediately shocking and causes great distress and death and injury, it's not the biggest killer. Should we not be considering treating the same those who knowingly cause excessive air pollution (cited as killing thousands a year, VW cheating on their emissions declarations), or aggressively flogging products that cause heart disease and cancer (fast food, alcohol) (ok in this case you could say people choose to use those things but they know how to advertise to essentially make sure people buy lots of them.

No, and it's a ridiculous thing to even suggest. It amazes me that anyone could even mention it, in all honesty. We all choose what we eat and drink and take those risks long term. That is called choice. No-one chooses to be murdered by a terrorist.

[harpo88]

You can't choose what air you breathe in.

People who sell guns don't kill people.

The thing is Ellis is that principle and precedent are important, not least as the basis of our legal system. So if you're advocating far stricter measures against one type of person who makes a choice that harms lots of people, would you not advocate that for others who do it in a different way? If you say that terrorism, or being even slightly or accidentally complicit in it, is a special case then you might well be right, but there's a question as to whether it should be.

[Ellis_D]

You can't choose what air you breathe in.

People who sell guns don't kill people.

The thing is Ellis is that principle and precedent are important, not least as the basis of our legal system. So if you're advocating far stricter measures against one type of person who makes a choice that harms lots of people, would you not advocate that for others who do it in a different way? If you say that terrorism, or being even slightly or accidentally complicit in it, is a special case then you might well be right, but there's a question as to whether it should be.

No, because again, people aren't purposely selling fuel in order to kill people.

Guns is a slightly different issue, but it's very difficult to purchase firearms in this country compared to most others. But again, although I disagree with the legal sale of firearms to any citizens, the people who sell them can quite clearly argue that they don't intend for anyone to kill someone with it. It can be a hobby, or for hunting, or any number of reasons.

And we are changing the subject matter slightly there anyway, because as you say, the people selling guns aren't purposely killing people.

Terrorists ARE trying to MURDER people. So it's a completely different ball game. Do I say lock up anyone where there is a clear danger they are going to try to murder multiple people? Yes. Because that is common sense.

Do I say lock up anyone for selling food, petrol or guns LEGALLY, then no I don't, as they aren't trying to murder people, and it isn't against the law. Again, simple common sense.