Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Mars on June 10, 2007, 11:56:15 pm
-
So yesterday I was walking down a residential street, and a brown SUV stops next to me, the passenger pulls out a gun, points it at me, and says "You wanna die?" And they drive off.
WHAT THE ****!
heh... watch the admins lock this as spam.
-
Get the **** out of here. Seriously?
-
Where do you live?
-
Aurora, Colorado.
-
:wtf:
-
the passenger pulls out a gun...
Not to be racist but uh... what color was he? :nervous:
-
heh... watch the admins lock this as spam.
Like saying "Candyman" three times into a mirror, we tend to show up when we're mentioned.
What point are you trying to make here? :wtf:
-
What point are you trying to make here? :wtf:
He probably just thinks you guys have been a bit lock-happy lately. Even though when you actually look past the little padlock icons, anyone can notice that the threads being locked are either being moved or are downright, through-and-through spam with no possible use other than clutter.
Anyway, I shall use this incident to reiterate my vocal opposition to the US gun culture. We could have lost a member of HLP because of it!
-
Meh, looking down the board I see...
2 locked topics as a result of the topic being moved.
2 locked polls as a result of spam.
1 locked topic as a result of spam / flaming.
We're only locking what we have to lock. There's no need to test the system to see if we'll do it some more - we will. But we'd rather not have to bother :)
And on that note, dubious as this topic is, continue.
-
Maybe they were a bunch of punks that had a BB gun and wanted to scare someone. They prolly pulled out laughing their worthless butts off at you. :no: Stupid. If you were an undercover cop, they'd be in serious trouble or dead. :mad2:
-
.....As uninformed in these matters as i like to think i am, SUV + GUN plus random kerb/pavement/sidewalk stops tends to = drug run round my way.
Catford London by the way.
Just count yourself lucky you got away scot-free. :nod: it could have been worse.
-
Anyway, I shall use this incident to reiterate my vocal opposition to the US gun culture. We could have lost a member of HLP because of it!
The Chinese invented gunpowder. The Europeans invented pistols (bluderbuss) and muskets. What are you on about? The fact that the US hasn't illegally banned them?
-
the fact that people seem to be able to freely pull pranks involving firearms just shows how laid back thi9ngs are there. had something like that happened in a place like phoenix there would have been a body count involved.
-
IMHO, it's not weapons that must be banned. It's idiots that must be banned.
However, this would lead to the extinction of humanity. :sigh:
-
the passenger pulls out a gun...
Not to be racist but uh... what color was he? :nervous:
White... but in a way it makes more sense.
IMHO, it's not weapons that must be banned. It's idiots that must be banned.
However, this would lead to the extinction of humanity. :sigh:
*Cheers* at this point I'm definitely getting a gun and conceal carry licence when I turn 21.
-
*Cheers* at this point I'm definitely getting a gun and conceal carry licence when I turn 21.
Good thinking! Next time someone threatens you with a gun, you can reach for yours and give them a reason to pull the trigger! And people say the American school system is failing.
-
I <3 Guns.
Tougher gun laws? Sure. Total ban? No.
The only totally effective way to deal with gun crime is to change the mindset of the people. Good luck doing that in inner-city U S A!
-
There is a difference between allowing people to carry as many semi-autmatic 9mm pistols as they like, and doing psychological and police-record screening to hand out concealed carry permits to people who want guns for self-defense and will actually carry the gun with them for that purpose.
-
I have always felt that the American people should have the rights given in the constitution and no more, in other words, if they are in a well-ordered militia (the stated reason for the right to bear arms), they can carry the weapons that were available when that right was given. In other words they would be allowed to carry muzzle loading, smoothbore, flintlock and and matchlock weapons only.
-
I know where I could get a gun now...
I'm not going to, I want to have both the law and good firearms training on my side.
I very much doubt the person in question was legally registered.
I have always felt that the American people should have the rights given in the constitution and no more, in other words, if they are in a well-ordered militia (the stated reason for the right to bear arms), they can carry the weapons that were available when that right was given. In other words they would be allowed to carry muzzle loading, smoothbore, flintlock and and matchlock weapons only.
What purpose would this serve?
-
Why do you need a purpose? It's in the Constitution.
-
I have always felt that the American people should have the rights given in the constitution and no more, in other words, if they are in a well-ordered militia (the stated reason for the right to bear arms), they can carry the weapons that were available when that right was given. In other words they would be allowed to carry muzzle loading, smoothbore, flintlock and and matchlock weapons only.
What purpose would this serve?
It'd be rather difficult to conduct a drive-by shooting with a musket. Drive a metre, stop, shoot, reload, drive another metre, stop, shoot, reload, drive another metre...
-
I have always felt that the American people should have the rights given in the constitution and no more, in other words, if they are in a well-ordered militia (the stated reason for the right to bear arms), they can carry the weapons that were available when that right was given. In other words they would be allowed to carry muzzle loading, smoothbore, flintlock and and matchlock weapons only.
What purpose would this serve?
It'd be rather difficult to conduct a drive-by shooting with a musket. Drive a metre, stop, shoot, reload, drive another metre, stop, shoot, reload, drive another metre...
I would almost want to see it happen for the comical value.
-
It'd be rather difficult to conduct a drive-by shooting with a musket. Drive a metre, stop, shoot, reload, drive another metre, stop, shoot, reload, drive another metre...
rofl...
the point remains though that people find ways to kill each other, most guns used in violent crime are
<edit>
unregistered :nervous:
-
the point remains though that people find ways to kill each other, most guns used in violent crime are
Sure, but can you start sniping people from the belltower with a hunting knife?
Guns make killing, especially killing en masse, just too damn easy. We're an innovative species, we can kill a man with just about anything smaller than a house, but where's the sense in having a society saturated with objects designed from the ground up to kill people?
-
So yesterday I was walking down a residential street, and a brown SUV stops next to me, the passenger pulls out a gun, points it at me, and says "You wanna die?" And they drive off.
WHAT THE ****!
heh... watch the admins lock this as spam.
Well seeing as how everyone in America has a gun, pull out your gun and just shoot him without even bothering to ask :drevil:.
-
I have always felt that the American people should have the rights given in the constitution and no more, in other words, if they are in a well-ordered militia (the stated reason for the right to bear arms), they can carry the weapons that were available when that right was given. In other words they would be allowed to carry muzzle loading, smoothbore, flintlock and and matchlock weapons only.
What purpose would this serve?
Why to enable the American people to protect themselves from the English of course! Kings gotta have his taxes you know!
-
The point I was trying to make earlier... but I left out a rather crucial word before:
American culture is at fault, on pretty much any station teenagers watch for instance, you see guns next to barely clad women and nice cars. Watch BET and MTV on mute for half an hour, and the extent of this will sink in.
Most gun crimes are committed with unregistered weapons; so banning guns will just restrict the people who obey the law.
-
Most gun crimes are committed with unregistered weapons; so banning guns will just restrict the people who obey the law.
Until you can show me some concrete statistics that demonstrate that people with guns are safer than those without, that argument remains utter bollocks. Honestly, do you think your little brush with disaster would have turned out differently had you possessed a gun? Do you believe it would turned out better had you challeneged their gun with your gun?
-
No, but if they had stopped the vehicle, and gotten out, this would have given him a window of opportunity to draw his weapon. Unless you want to hope that they really won't use theirs.
BTW, all this talk about banning guns reducing crime is rather funny. Crime has been around since just after the start of human existence. The 9/11 hijackers didn't have guns... you don't really need guns, all you need is the will to kill someone and a tool only helps. You could take martial arts and become a killing machine if you wanted to. The only reason that wouldn't work, is, well, the fact that some people have guns, and might decide to stop you. :p
-
Guns make it a hell of a lot easier to kill someone. People always seem to forget that.
Guns can be used for somewhat proactive things in the right hands. The problem being that you can't always tell who intends to use the gun for a criminal act, and who intends to use it for something within the law.
I think it's much too easy to get a gun in the United States today. The shooter at Virginia Tech wasn't even a full citizen. He purchased the weapons he used on a green card. Which I believe shows way too much leniency in gun control.
For me a preferred system would involve a gun owner going through yearly psychological exams, yearly safety classes, and records of all firearms owned. Should a gun with the same serial number as one owned by a registered owner show up in the hands of an uregistered owner the registered owner must show proof the gun was stolen or acquired without their knowledge or face legal action against them.
That's just the tip of the iceberg in my ideal system. Just, a total ban doesn't work with me. I think guns keep a balance between those in power and the people which was I believe intended from the nations founding. Even though it's obvious a 30-06 isn't going to stop a tank, it can do something.
Guns in modern times seem to have almost become a popular culture icon. It's strange, it seems the media attention guns get has given them a stigma causing people to want them.
-
BTW, all this talk about banning guns reducing crime is rather funny. Crime has been around since just after the start of human existence. The 9/11 hijackers didn't have guns... you don't really need guns, all you need is the will to kill someone and a tool only helps. You could take martial arts and become a killing machine if you wanted to. The only reason that wouldn't work, is, well, the fact that some people have guns, and might decide to stop you. :p
You can kill someone with damn near anything, but guns are designed for the sole purpose of killing. Why have objects that serve no other purpose than to kill, circulating freely in a society?
-
It's useless trying to convince the yanks that their guns are dangerous, and that they contribute vastly to the crime and homicide rates in their country. But I'll try, with some statistics!
In 2000, the United States had the sixth highest murder rate per 100000 people in the western world, being beaten out such bastions of law and order as Russia, South Africa, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia. And that wasn't an anololie - it's consistently been in the top ten for years, decades even, and there's no real reason for it. People aren't fighting over resources, or out of any need to fight in the richest country on the planet. So why are there so many murders? I can think of two reasons. Number one is the wide availability of guns making it easy for an argument to escalate into murder. Of course, you might say that if an argument has escalated into murder, then the murderer probably would have found a way to kill the other person anyway, if he's that angry. So we're left with option number two, that the US is just a very angry country. Well, don't you think a country that angry should maybe try to reduce the numbers of guns their people have available to kill each other with?
Australia enacted wide ranging gun control laws after Martin Bryant went ****mix and killed 35 people in Tassie in 1997. Twelve days later, the parliament voted to bring in a huge buy back scheme that saw massive numbers of firearms removed and destroyed between July of 1996 and August of 1998. There was a decrease of almost 30% in the number of homicides by firearms from 1997 to 1998. Total homicides went down by 9% that same year, and gun related deaths by any cause (accident, suicide or homicide) reached an 18 year low. There are four times more gun related deaths per head of population in America than there are in Australia - partly because you're a bunch of crazy pricks, but there'd be a whole lot less if there weren't more guns than people in your messed up country. What can you possibly need that many guns for? And it's not just here, for the record. Canada's gun control laws between 91 and 95 led to a 30 year low for gun deaths. The UK banned handguns in 1998 (I think) and there was a 17% drop in firearm related crime in Scotland, and a 13% drop in England and Wales. And these are western countries, as close an analogue as you can get for the US, though without all the insanity and ridiculous gun culture you people have developed for yourselves. Do you think these figures are coincidence? Is there any evidence - anything at all - which supports the idea that guns prevent violent crime like you people keep saying they do? And if so, does any of it come from, say, Western Europe or New Zealand or somewhere where the crazy ****nuts in the NRA aren't funding it?
There are somewhere in the vicintiy of 300 million guns in the US, and something like 350000 reported firearm thefts every year. Firearm thefts are how guns become the supposedly more dangerous unregistered version of guns. 64% of gun owners own at least one handguns, which are the primary form of firearms used in dangerous, violent crime. Whatt he **** do you need so many handguns for? You can't hunt weith them, they're basically militarily useless, so there's no protection from tyranny or the evil returning English, and only a small percentage of those hanguns are the antique versions people pretend to claim make up the majority of civillian handguns. So what do you need them for? Protection? From the people with guns? That's circular logic, and ridiculous - if you reduced the legality of handguns, you could reduce the overall number of handguns in circulation, making it less ****ing likely that the guy creeping into your house at night would have a gun. And besides, if he has a handgun, and you have a hunting rifle trained on him, you're going to win. So use that to protect your bloody house. Keep it under the bed - it'll be just as accessible as the handgun in your draw, and probably a lot harder for your kids to kill themselves with.
You stupid ****ing yanks with your stupid ****ing guns. Grow the **** up! Dickheads!
-
As for a lack of crime compare the situation of Lisa Potts (teacher of a school class attacked by a man without a gun), and Liviu Librescu (killed trying to protect his students during the recent Virginia tech shootings).
As for my idea about limiting the gun types, a one shot pistol can be used kill a crazed lunatic or a mad dog, but not easily for a large-scale shooting. ( of course, if the lunatic did not have a gun himself you could stop him without a gun).
Black Wolf: the arrogant rudeness of people like yourself does not help the issue at all.
-
Black Wolf: the arrogant rudeness of people like yourself does not help the issue at all.
Arrogant rudeness? He's just pointing out the statistics of the issue and drawing a logical conclusion from them: Guns = Dangerous. Gun-loving Yanks = Ignorant dickheads. If more people could come the same conclusions as Black Wolf, the world would be a much safer place.
Simple as that.
-
:nod:
-
Man i love these moments on HLP.
*relishes the drama*
-
Until you can show me some concrete statistics that demonstrate that people with guns are safer than those without, that argument remains utter bollocks.
Although i'm English to the very core, i must admit, The yanks would've been pWND without their muskets. Independence day is proof of safety with guns.
-
*applauds*
It all comes down to bashing the United States because it's the popular thing to do anymore.
I see people in online games that just scream AMERICA DEVIL BUSH CHILDREN and love trying to act superior. Funny thing is, they never ask you if you support bush or the war, they just ****ING ASSUME. The instant you assume something you are wrong.
When it comes to guns, **** it. People will get guns in the U.S. whether it's legal or not. Mexico has a huge black market that would keep the U.S. constantly supplied should a ban ever be enacted. The routes for drugs are already there, so they would then just be used for trafficking firearms.
A law won't do a damn thing. Just make it a little harder for collectors/hunters to get them. People seem to forget that Britain and Australia are ISLANDS, it's easy to control the movement of guns when it would all have to be done by sea. When you have two countries at your northern and southern borders, one being a pretty crime infested place, it's damn near impossible.
A ban on guns would just result in a prohibition like economy for them. Guns and crime are in the American mindset, in part due to ethnic strife and the image popular culture has stapled onto them.
-
I'm not bashing the USA, i just gave an instance of when being of possesion of a gun was very handy. In fact it helped quite a bit i'd imagine. Not only does the above reference backup the counter statement but it shows an example of america being genuinely victorious.
I dont know why everythings htting the fan :doubt:
-
I'm not bashing the USA, i just gave an instance of when being of possesion of a gun was very handy. In fact it helped quite a bit i'd imagine. Not only does the above reference backup the counter statement but it shows an example of america being genuinely victorious.
I dont know why everythings htting the fan :doubt:
Read through Black Wolf's and Mefustae's posts, and you'll get what me and Swantz are on about.
-
Yeah, it's not you Dekker.
-
*/end obscene post intended to get this stupid ****ing thread locked before it turns into ALL MERKINS ARE DUMB****S!!!!1 like so many threads do. And Rictor hasn't even shown up yet!
Or I can simply delete your entire response forcing you to retype it all without insulting the British. :p
Black Wolf. Calm down and stop insulting the whole of America for the stupidity of some of their people.
-
*/end obscene post intended to get this stupid ****ing thread locked before it turns into ALL MERKINS ARE DUMB****S!!!!1 like so many threads do. And Rictor hasn't even shown up yet!
Or I can simply delete your entire response forcing you to retype it all without insulting the British. :p
Oh, you. :p Methinks karajorma's going a wee bit senile in his old age? :D
-
Not senile at all. You called the British a name earlier on in your rant.
So I removed the entire inflammatory post and told Black Wolf to calm down. I'd rather not lock the topic if people can keep level heads.
-
Not senile at all. You called the British a name earlier on in your rant.
So I removed the entire inflammatory post and told Black Wolf to calm down.
Well, could you at least have just either edited out the offensive parts in both posts, or deleted Black Wolf's too? It's kinda one-sided now.
-
Black Wolf. Calm down and stop insulting the whole of America for the stupidity of some of their people.
Yer, your making us Aussies look bad :drevil:.
Seriously tho, Australia has a diverse culture also, however we don't have nearly as much of a culture tension as America does, perhaps Americans should try to learn this. (This is not designed as a payout, but as friendly advice :nod:).
-
*sigh* Here we go again. Just going to sum it up this time:
1) The United States is very ethnically diverse. 82% white, 13% black, and about 4% Asian. Australia and the UK aren't. (92% and 97% White respectively). Ethnic violence and tension are ingrained in American culture in part through gangster rap and the history of slavery, segregation, and myths about the government purposely "putting the black man down" in the inner city.
2) Gun control doesn't work in the US. Ref: D.C., 1975. Passes Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 to stem the tide of rising violent crime, doesn't work. Those that want to commit violent crime go to Pennsylvania, Virginia, or other states with lax gun control and get guns to commit crimes with in D.C. (See this (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/) for reference). Fortunately, the ridiculous law is declared unconstitutional in Parker v. District of Columbia (March of 2007). That, and a state of emergency declared in 2005 after gun violence was at nightmarish proportions reduced gun violence in the capital.
3) Trying to solve American gun violence issues with Australian and British policies just doesn't work. Apples and oranges. British and Australian citizens were never granted written rights to guns as the US Constitution provides. Concealed carry laws, such as those passed in Texas post-Luby Massacre of 1991, have shown to reduce gun-related crime. If you have a gun and a mugger knows you do, you're less likely to get mugged. Those who carry licenses are much less likely to commit a violent crime than those who don't hold a license. Texans who want licenses have to go through month-long background checks, a long written exam, and a marksmanship course to ensure competent and responsible gun ownership.
4) Everything that Swantz said.
5) It really gets old having the "more civilized" countries in Western Europe and Australia try to tell Americans how their country should be run.
There.
And just in case kara's finger slips again, I copy/pasted this one. Fool me twice... :p
-
Well, could you at least have just either edited out the offensive parts in both posts, or deleted Black Wolf's too? It's kinda one-sided now.
You got "edited" due to the ulterior motive you mentioned more than anything else. :P
-
Black Wolf. Calm down and stop insulting the whole of America for the stupidity of some of their people.
Maybe I overreacted a touch. But this issue annoys me. Sure, it's their country, they can screw it up all they want. But they just act so stupid about the whole issue. And not just a small minority - a very, very large minority or more likely the majority since gun control has never gotten in - act as if guns should be accepted as a normal and neccesary part of life. They aren't. And yes, once again, I know it's their country. But attitudes like that just rile me up - it's the same with creationism and a bunch of other stuff. Willful ignorance. It annoys me.
The only comments on the thread that seem to be of relevance to my stuff:
DC's gun control laws.
Well, your own reasoning shows why this is ineffective - states over there are the size of... well, small big things. They're easy to drive a across, particularly one as small as DC. So of course state based regulations aren't going to work. Change like this needs to be inititated at a Federal level.
International gun trade:
Yes, internationally traded guns would get into America. But they'd also get into Australia and Britain. So we're islands. Australia has one of the largest coastlines of any nation in the world. To the north we have essentially lawless regions of South East Asia, plus we also have drug smuggling problems here, ergo there're entryways. And I'm sure they get in. But in much, much reduced numbers than they would have if they were still being legally imported.
The US has land based international borders. If drugs can get in, guns can get in, granted, but on average, one hit of heroin is considerably smaller than one hit of gun. For that matter, AFAIK, a large chunk of the drugs entering the US come via boat into places like Florida, or, in the case of Marijuana, across he Canadian border, which, when you discount the US border, is also effectively an "island". With their tight gun control laws, you'd be fairly hard pressed to get guns in across in any significant numbers that way. So you're left with limited numbers of guns coming in across the mexican border and by boat/plane/helicopter/whatever from the caribbean and latin/south america in much the same way as cocaine gets in./ Except you'd need ten to one hundred times the volume to make the same profits for the smuggler. So what do they do? Jack the prices up.
This is where the guns/drugs smuggling equivalence gets interesting. One of America's big problem with guns, particularly handguns, stems from inner city/gang violence. So, let's look at what happened with the inner city if the drug smuggling analogy is accurate:
In the seventies and early eighties, the only people who could afford cocaine were the rich. Why? Because, while it wasn't all that expensive to produce, it was extremely risky to get it into the US, since it all had to come through more or less the same trafficking regions (Miami, in this case), which kept supplies low and prices high.
In an illegal gun situation, the same would be true, though in this case, while the entry points might be more spread out, the risk woulds till be immense because of the scale required. It's no good smuggling ten or twenty handguns into the US - you need to bring in hundreds at a time, and shipments that big get caught a lot. So supplies get driven down, and costs up. Thus, illicit handgun availability becomes limited to the rich, those that can afford it, and they get in in limited numbers.
So, let's continue with the analogy. The cocaine importers eventually got pretty good at getting their product into the US - so good, infact, that they ended up with a glut in Miami. The result? Prices plummeted, availability soared, and cocaine spread (as crack) through to the inner city and sparked off the crack epidemic of the late eighties.
The gun situation as it is now is identical. A glut of unregistered handguns being stolen from registered owners are getting onto the streets at very low prices, keeping availabilty amazingly high. That's why Guns are dangerous in America - not only do all the people who have to pass all the licensing checks and written test and marksmanship program have them, but so to do all the dropkick gang members who buy the guns that were stolen from those fine upstanding citizens for twenty bucks on a street corner.
Granted, the analogy's not perfect, largely as you'd both need to eliminate a huge stock of existing guns and the fact that drugs are a single use resource which requires a regular supply, whereas once you have a gun, you're pretty much right, but the ideas of supply, criminal risk and the filter down dynamics of the illicit economy are pretty much spot on I think.
The rest is mostly rubbish:
Australian and British policies not applying to America. Bull****. Australia and Canada both have strong gun hunting cultures - not quite so much here as in Canada and the US, but still, it's there. And claiming that the right to bear arms makes a difference, well, maybe it does, but that doesn't mean that all guns should be available to all people all the time, particularly since the text of your second ammendment makes reference to well regulated militias which simply do not exist under the current gun culture.
As for racial demographics, I'm not sure what you're saying here. Either racial diversity leads to more violent crime, in which case guns should be extracted from the equation wherever possible, or the threat of racially related violence is still strong enough that you feel you need guns to protect yourselves from otehr races, in which case you've got much bigger problems than guns.
And, if you're pissed about more civilized countries telling you how to run yours, well boohoo. If one guy calls you a dickhead, ignore him. If two guys call you a dickhead, start to wonder. If everyone calls you a dickhead, start wearing a condom instead of a raincoat, because you're probably a dickhead. Same with this. Everyone tells you you're doing something wrong because... you're doing it wrong!
-
Well the right to have and use guns should be banned and removed. If no one other then the police and apropriate gouvernment officials and structures would have guns it would be a hell of a lot harder for people to use guns to kill plunder houses etc.
-
I'm glad I live in a good enough neigboorhood to not have to care about guns until I'm 18.
But anyway, if guns were banned in the US, I have a feeling things would head the same general direction that they did with prohibition.
-
Except that you can't make guns in your bathtub.
-
Except that you can't make guns in your bathtub.
We've got lots of gunsmiths. :p
-
By what I said, I meant the corruption and law breaking (you know how spite works). And I'm sure that people could find a way to illigally produce some sort of crude firearm.
You know what? You win.
And actually, you could make guns in your bathtub. It would just be very much easier to do so in a factory.
*imagines someone putting a gun together while taking a bath
-
2) Gun control doesn't work in the US. Ref: D.C., 1975. Passes Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 to stem the tide of rising violent crime, doesn't work. Those that want to commit violent crime go to Pennsylvania, Virginia, or other states with lax gun control and get guns to commit crimes with in D.C. (See this (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/) for reference). Fortunately, the ridiculous law is declared unconstitutional in Parker v. District of Columbia (March of 2007). That, and a state of emergency declared in 2005 after gun violence was at nightmarish proportions reduced gun violence in the capital.
And just in case kara's finger slips again, I copy/pasted this one. Fool me twice... :p
plainly, it didn't work because it was completley undermined....
-
More proof it wouldn't work....
I'd bury my guns. :p
-
And then be arrested when you dug them up.
-
Guns aren't the problem in the inner city. Gangs are the problem in the inner city. Gangster rap and incompetent black leaders (not mentioning any Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson names) who are more interested in blasting white people (Don Imus) than solving their own race's problems are the problems in the inner city. Guns are the instruments that they use to commit most of their violent acts, but just because there's violence there, should we instantly ban the law-abiding citizens from having the ability to defend themselves?
Australian and British policies not applying to America. Bull****. Australia and Canada both have strong gun hunting cultures - not quite so much here as in Canada and the US, but still, it's there. And claiming that the right to bear arms makes a difference, well, maybe it does, but that doesn't mean that all guns should be available to all people all the time, particularly since the text of your second ammendment makes reference to well regulated militias which simply do not exist under the current gun culture.
No, the policies are 100% different.
Despite the gun hunting cultures, American politics and history with guns are totally different than British and Australian histories with guns. Just look at American history and you can understand why there was a need for the average person to armed with a handgun or rifle: the lawless West, Natives, the Revolution, War of 1812... While times have changed, the needs haven't. There's still violent crime, and still a need for the average citizen to be protected against it. AFAIK, gangs and organized crime don't play nearly as high a role in Britain or Australia as they do in the US; again, I reference heterogeneity. Neighborhoods divided among Italians, Asians, and other minorities are the reason people need to defend themselves in the big cities.
See? American, British, and Australian histories are just too different to say "ok everybody drop your guns and let's fix this problem." To do that you'd have to do any of the following:
1) Fix the problem with heterogeneity.
2) Come ridiculously close to equality of condition for those in the inner city.
3) Ban guns outright.
4) Entirely close every border.
1 doesn't work for obvious reasons. You'd have to massively deport every minority in the country, commit genocide to get rid of them, or, over a very long period, breed them out. That's unplausible.
2 doesn't work because equality of condition is just impossible. Social Security is buggy; health care is far too expensive, and other social welfare programs are often cheated, corrupt, or ineffective. See: Social Security.
3 won't work because those who really want to commit a crime with a handgun will get them.
4 is impossible because you'd need every mile of border, land, sea, and air sealed off. Unless you want to build a forcefield to keep them out, that's just plain impossible.
So really, the only thing we can do to stop violence in the inner city is to promote better education and somewhat better conditions (not equal conditions, that's not possible). What needs to be done is fix the social ills, not increase bans. So yes, I agree with you, we do have bigger problems than guns. So let's focus on those problems while in the meantime give our people ways to protect themselves.
And, if you're pissed about more civilized countries telling you how to run yours, well boohoo. If one guy calls you a dickhead, ignore him. If two guys call you a dickhead, start to wonder. If everyone calls you a dickhead, start wearing a condom instead of a raincoat, because you're probably a dickhead. Same with this. Everyone tells you you're doing something wrong because... you're doing it wrong!
Really? And who the hell are you to say what's right and what's not? I'll say it again: What's right for Australia and Europe aren't always what's right for the US. Different countries, different histories, different cultures. That's the exact reason there's failure in Iraq, why democracies don't flourish anywhere else in the world.
And please, please don't act like Western Europe and Australia are by any stretch of the imagination the bastions of enlightenment in the world... because, honestly, they're no better than the US.
Well the right to have and use guns should be banned and removed. If no one other then the police and apropriate gouvernment officials and structures would have guns it would be a hell of a lot harder for people to use guns to kill plunder houses etc.
And the government should always be trusted to do the right thing. We can't cite a single moment throughout history where governments have repressed people who have had no ready access to something that gives them the ability to fight back. :rolleyes:
-
Guns are the instruments that they use to commit most of their violent acts, but just because there's violence there, should we instantly ban the law-abiding citizens from having the ability to defend themselves?
Now, this has always irked me. How do you defend yourself with a gun, against another gun-wielder? How? It seems to me that the only way to "defend" yourself is to pull your gun first, aim first, and shoot first. Which, by definition, is not defending. If the other guy already has a gun trained on you, and you try to pull yours, you're simply making 100% sure that you die instead of simply losing your wallet.
In fact, the only way guns can be used for defense, assuming you don't carry it in-hand, aimed and ready to shoot at anyone who comes within 15 metres of you at all times (something which I think certain people with uniforms and badges might take offense at), is if you assume that your attacker is such a lousy shot that he will miss with his first, aimed, shot while you're good enough to hit the mark with your first, panicked, from-the-hip snap shot. And James Bond movies depite, that just does not happen.
-
They defend because they deter. Criminals that know that their victim more than likely has a gun won't want to chance it. Also, they are most handy in home defense situations.. unless you buy that "divide the room into bullet sized sectors and that's your chance of hitting an intruder" crap. :p Laser sights, weapon lights, knowing the layout of your own house, anyone? :lol:
EDIT: and if you're going to ban guns, you're going to have to ban all ranged weapons... crossbows?
BTW, of note, in our (small) town, a startup gang calling themselves "The Chaos Crew" have started carrying Padlocks wrapped in handkerchiefs. Go figure.
-
This is just a repeat of the V-Tech thread. It will lead to a dead end and nothing will happen.
-
What do you think the internet is for? Where else do you debate politics?
Just curious, Shade, Nuclear1, and the like, what time is it where you live?
-
The rate of gun-crime in the US versus countries that have tough gun laws would seem to indicate that guns do, in fact, not deter, but simply escalate. And as for the home-defense situation? Phone. Police. Get the **** out and let the pros handle it. 2.000.000% safer, more or less.
The thing with guns is it gives a false, that is, false sense of security. You feel cocky, powerful, in control. And so you die, because having woken up in the middle of the night, bleary eyed, wobbly-kneed and practically blinded the moment any lights come on, and going up against 2 armed intruders, you don't stand a chance. Whereas the person without the gun, having gotten the hell out while there was still time, lives. No amount of smilies or silly comments will change that.
Oh, and 11pm.
-
I'd rather be asleep at 11pm. But meh. If HLP debate is your thing.
-
I'm watching a movie. Debating in the commercial breaks ;) Then bed.
-
Interesting thread.
They recently made a survey of guns here, we have something like 5 guns (registered) per capita, though that might have something to do with the hunting culture and of course our Eastern neighbor. Guns are rarely used in violence crimes here, now if only people learned to behave with knives, axes, and any blunt object to mention... especially when they are drunken or divorced.
Some people mugged an electronics shop close my home village a couple of years ago. They hit the guard, but he regained consciousness when they were starting the car. The guard shot something like 18 bullets into that car, which on my opinion, was the correct thing to do. More amazingly, nobody actually got hurt. Then there was this case of fuel station keeper catching the robbers himself with the aid of a shotgun. He did not fire a single bullet, but the police had something to say about taking justice to someone's own hands...
After that brown car case, the best thing to do would have been to take the register number of the car and inform the police immediately of the death threat that was made. If this was a peaceful suburb, I suppose the police would have had a fast response time to catch this particular car and find out what was really going on. And especially if this happened close to someone's own house / lawn. If the law enforcement can't be trusted in these cases, then there is something totally wrong in the law enforcement. That kind of behavior cannot be tolerated even if they were joking.
Mika
-
What do you think the internet is for? Where else do you debate politics?
Just curious, Shade, Nuclear1, and the like, what time is it where you live?
5:04pm. I'm doing nothing with my life right now other than this. :p
Phone. Police. Get the **** out and let the pros handle it. 2.000.000% safer, more or less.
What's quicker, dialing 9...1...1... and waiting while somebody tries to piece together what you're saying or whipping out a pistol and firing, which might just scare the guy ****less whether you hit him or not? A lot quicker than waiting for the police to show up.
-
Well, for one thing, if someone is robbing your house it's most likely that they don't want to attract attention, and as such won't be actively looking for you (and if they are there to kill you, and thus are actively looking for you, then a bang won't scare them off but simply pinpoint your location sparing them the trouble of looking. Worst thing you can do in such a situation is letting them know where you are while you should be putting as much distance as possible between them and you).
And if they're not looking for you, then you have time to grab your cellphone (just as quick as grabbing a gun, in fact), make an escape and then call for help, which will keep you safe, not to mention getting the invaders sent to jail since unlike your preferred course of action, you're not actually tipping them off to the fact that someone is on to them.
-
Curses! Another overgeneralization I don't belong to! First it was me not owning a gun, and now it's me not owning a cell phone! :p
-
Guns are fun.
-
Yes. As long as you use them responsibly, anyways... Now, everyone keeps saying that you should just run away and call the police. From this, I gather that most people posting here are single and live by themselves. ;)
-
Well the first major mistake was to alow US citizens to have guns in the first place . I've seen individual that believe this is a fundemental right for them to have guns to defend themselfs.
Man just increase the spending on the police force get more policemen and keep the guns out of the streets and out the hands of disturbed high school kind colege kinds well disturbed people in general. Make some sort of elaborate pshichiatric evaluation mandatori for those who want to purchase a gun if you cant ban them alltoghether.
Oh and dont give the whole it would be too expensive to get that many policemen on the streets. I believe lives are worth a lot more then a few more dolars on the taxes .
-
Well the first major mistake was to alow US citizens to have guns in the first place . I've seen individual that believe this is a fundemental right for them to have guns to defend themselfs.
...it kind of is a fundamental right, due to a little thing called the Second Amendment. Your level of agreement with said amendment or the level to which you feel it should be applied may vary, but brushing over the fact that it exists is rather silly.
I don't want to touch most of this debate with a 39-and-a-half-foot pole, but I did want to comment on the home invasion scenario that was mentioned earlier. The way I see it, there is no way on this green Earth that I should be forced to run from my own home if someone breaks into it. My home is the one place on this planet where I should be able to be secure in my and my family's persons. If someone enters my domicile without my permission, and they intend to damage it and/or potentially harm myself and my family, then their life is already forfeit. If I had a gun at hand (or any weapon, for that matter), I would attempt to use all practical restraint, but I would have no qualms at all about using lethal force against the intruder.
-
Yeah... great... I'm contributing to the fall of western society, I don't give a damn.
If I EVER get a gun randomly pulled on me again, I might not be as lucky, the next person the same son of a ***** does it to might not be as lucky... I want to make sure that ****er never does it to anyone again, if I get killed in the process, then **** I die... we all do it. Maybe this makes me a violent bastard who should be locked away in a box; but it's me.
Sure, the only purpose of a gun is to cause another person to die, but if you can make the person who's going to make you die, die first, or also, than you've prevented either your death, or any further deaths that individual will cause.
False sense of security my ass, right now I'm scared to leave my ****ing house... I was in front of a friends house when this happened, in plain daylight. It could happen to me... hell to anybody at any time, and it might not be a threat, the ****er could actually shoot the damn thing. If I have the ability to make the ***** either die before he can kill me, or pay for my life with his, then my sense of security is not false.
Oh and dont give the whole it would be too expensive to get that many policemen on the streets. I believe lives are worth a lot more then a few more dolars on the taxes .
Great... we can have a dictatorial ****ing state... just the way I always wanted it to end up... **** you
Yes. As long as you use them responsibly, anyways... Now, everyone keeps saying that you should just run away and call the police. From this, I gather that most people posting here are single and live by themselves. ;)
Yeah... seriously. Although they do have a point about the whole home invasion thing... an alarm system is money well spent IMO
-
Cut down on the personal attacks and swearing, or this gets locked like you predicted it would. Thanks.
-
I think a lot of the swearing & attacks were pent up reactions from having a gun pulled on him. I do imagine it would be quite upsetting. (I, for one, would be wishing to get my hands on the punk, I know that much.) BTW, did you get his license number? Or at least the make / model, and the description? You've reported it already, right?
-
Sure, the only purpose of a gun is to cause another person to die, but if you can make the person who's going to make you die, die first, or also, than you've prevented either your death, or any further deaths that individual will cause.
...But then you realise that it wasn't someone trying to break into your house and kill you, you just accidentally shot a family member. Whoops. Ah well, at least you've prevented future deaths that they may or may not have caused. Small victories, eh?
False sense of security my ass, right now I'm scared to leave my ****ing house... I was in front of a friends house when this happened, in plain daylight. It could happen to me... hell to anybody at any time, and it might not be a threat, the ****er could actually shoot the damn thing. If I have the ability to make the ***** either die before he can kill me, or pay for my life with his, then my sense of security is not false.
Okay, let's backtrack here:
You're walking along the street, suddenly you hear a car screech. You turn, and realise you're literally starting down the barrel of a gun. The gunman taunts you, but you just stand there. The car drives off and you live to write about it on HLP.
Now, let's see what would have happened if you'd had a gun, and would have thus been much safer:
You're walking along the street, suddenly you hear a car screech. You turn, and realise you're literally starting down the barrel of a gun. The gunman taunts you, so you move to pull out your own gun. The other guy sees you reaching for your weapon, and - since he already has his gun trained dead-to-rites on you - shoots you before you can even raise yours. You're dead, and the rest of HLP momentarily wonder why you haven't posted in a while.
Yep, too bad you didn't have a gun. :doubt:
Great... we can have a dictatorial ****ing state... just the way I always wanted it to end up... **** you
You whine about having a gun pulled on you, but when somebody makes a sensible suggestion - more cops on the street - you whine about that and insult the person making the suggestion. What are you, twelve?
-
I apologize... sincerely... to AlphaOne
You're right Mefustae... and sorry about being an ass
it's been an odd week
-
I apologize... sincerely... to AlphaOne
You're right Mefustae... and sorry about being an ass
it's been an odd week
Nah, forget about it. You had a gun pulled on you, that's got to be pretty intense. Jr2 brings up a good point, have you reported it?
-
Yeah... eventually... lol... when I first got home after that.. I wanted to call the police... and my mother actually said "Don't call the police... the house is to dirty." but yes... I did get it reported.
I think the major way that the United States can be a safer place is by having school children learn to memorize licence plates.
I do have my doubts about how effective gun control would be, but I think that if the United State's governments were to effectively enforce their current laws it could be easier to assess.
-
False sense of security my ass, right now I'm scared to leave my ****ing house... I was in front of a friends house when this happened, in plain daylight. It could happen to me... hell to anybody at any time, and it might not be a threat, the ****er could actually shoot the damn thing. If I have the ability to make the ***** either die before he can kill me, or pay for my life with his, then my sense of security is not false.
It is false...your enhanced ability to kill (becosue of a gun) doesn't make you any less likely to die or any less resistant to physical harm.
It does increase the chance that the other guy WILL fire a gun (becouse he will think he is in danger). But granted, if you're lucky you can take him with you (maby even survive) but that doens't make you or any other casualty of that firefight any less dead.
-
Not to mention that we all know that gangs exercise restraint if you kill one of their members. You can sleep easily in your bed knowing that no one will ever come after you for revenge.
-
That.......Is utter tosh. You ever been to brixton?
-
The sarchasm (http://www.langmaker.com/db/Eng_sarchasm.htm) claims another victim.
-
^
The sarchasm (http://www.langmaker.com/db/Eng_sarchasm.htm) claims another victim.
Oh yes it does ;7
-
Yeah... eventually... lol... when I first got home after that.. I wanted to call the police... and my mother actually said "Don't call the police... the house is to dirty." but yes... I did get it reported.
:lol:
Thats the kind of thing my mom would have said.
-
I actually stand by Americans here. Home is a place where you can be safe and relaxed. No-one is allowed to break-in, even when you are not there. And even more so, when you are actually at home, then by law (here) you are allowed to defend it. It is the bugger who actually gave up his rights by forcefully entering your home. And he might be armed so it is either you or him. I personally think that this is something where you don't run away. It might not be even possible, if living in a block of flats.
Criminals are not stopped by running away from them, or letting them get away. I don't even understand how we have ended up with that. Criminals don't think like that. For part of the criminals, it is only the show of force that will teach them, if even that. The current prison system is too forgiving, if you ask me. If they want to get their civil rights back, they have to earn them by hard work - to the point that the rest of the people can actually think the bugger has indeed regained his rights and his crimes are forgiven.
The integrity of the society depends on the people living in it. Criminal activities are something which cannot be tolerated at all. Not even if your friend or family member does that. If you let them get away with it, do you think they will stop it before someone corrects the situation?
By the way, I have never heard of someone actually mistaking family member to a criminal. But I have heard of 12-years-old boys using live ammunition with hunting rifles and shotguns when playing their own mock-up war games. The people of that generation cannot be described as merciful towards criminals, and took part in "citizen activites" much more often than people nowadays. For Americans, it would equal to Tar & Feathers. Type of angry mob justice, basically.
But regarding the situation where someone is actually pointing you with a gun, it is far too late for anything but to hope for the best and give up the wallet. There might be something what you could do afterwards. Like calling the police, for example.
I've been thinking about carrying concealed and carrying the gun visibly, I would go with carrying gun visibly (cannot carry gun here legally unless going to shooting range or hunting, but US is different in this matter). It works better as a deterrent. But this on the assumption you know when to use the gun and when not to. And how to carry the gun also.
It is true that preventative measures are important. I think you did the right thing when you told the police about that incident, Mars. Next time be faster and they might catch them red-handed. Close to home no-one should be afraid of being mugged.
Mika
-
Hey Mars, a few people rightly pointed out that you were no doubt shaken up after your experience. Therefore sorry if I came off harshly in my last post here and thank you for not taking it the wrong way. I need to pay more attention to context :)
And...
I actually stand by Americans here. Home is a place where you can be safe and relaxed. No-one is allowed to break-in, even when you are not there. And even more so, when you are actually at home, then by law (here) you are allowed to defend it. It is the bugger who actually gave up his rights by forcefully entering your home. And he might be armed so it is either you or him. I personally think that this is something where you don't run away. It might not be even possible, if living in a block of flats.
I actually agree with this. It makes me think of a case some time ago where a robber broke into a farm house via the kitchen sky light and fell onto a knife on a kitchen surface - cutting himself. He successfully sued the owners of the house for damages as a result of his injuries, despite the circumstances behind it all. Insanity - if you ask me.
That said I do think it's a dangerous idea, giving the owner of a home a gun. Not with respect of defending yourself from criminals but - although we're all no doubt reasonable people - can we garuntee that every person out there is? I know I know some people out there that I'd really hate to see in possession of a gun, even if it was just for "home defense". The possibility that something might happen one day - perhaps a drunken argument - leading to a shooting is just too easy when you allow such easy access to fire-arms.
It's a catch 22. You could arm everyone and hope they all stay reasonable and nice to eachother and that nothing goes awry. Or you take away that right to self defense - unfortunately the "criminals have guns, so why shouldn't I? fair is fair" argument does hold some water.
-
This thread makes me think of that song Saturday Night Special by Lynard Skynard.
I really don't think there is a full-proof fix for guns. Maybe banning pistols? I mean, it's a hell of a lot harder to carry a rifle onto a school campus and not be noticed. Then when it comes to home defense, the owner doesn't need a pistol, a rifle would do just fine if not better in that case. They are much more accurate and, in my own experience, safer than handguns.
I've never really used anything beyond shotguns and rifles. I mean, I've shot plenty of pistols and own some myself, but I've never "taken a liking" to them. I find them innacurate, dangerous, and easy to lose. There is no real use for a pistol in civilian hands for hunting or any other application other than murder or intimidation.
-
This thread makes me think of that song Saturday Night Special by Lynard Skynard.
I really don't think there is a full-proof fix for guns. Maybe banning pistols? I mean, it's a hell of a lot harder to carry a rifle onto a school campus and not be noticed. Then when it comes to home defense, the owner doesn't need a pistol, a rifle would do just fine if not better in that case. They are much more accurate and, in my own experience, safer than handguns.
I've never really used anything beyond shotguns and rifles. I mean, I've shot plenty of pistols and own some myself, but I've never "taken a liking" to them. I find them innacurate, dangerous, and easy to lose. There is no real use for a pistol in civilian hands for hunting or any other application other than murder or intimidation.
The only problem with that is most rifles and shotguns are cumbersome and take a sec to load, so if someone breaks in your house you better be good at grabbing it and loading it, or keep it loaded at all times.
And secondly, only you are a good shot, a guy with a pistol could kill you. He's got a semi-auto and a 9-10 clip mag, where you have 1 or 2 shots to get him, that is unless you have a auto-shotgun or something.
-
This thread makes me think of that song Saturday Night Special by Lynard Skynard.
I really don't think there is a full-proof fix for guns. Maybe banning pistols? I mean, it's a hell of a lot harder to carry a rifle onto a school campus and not be noticed. Then when it comes to home defense, the owner doesn't need a pistol, a rifle would do just fine if not better in that case. They are much more accurate and, in my own experience, safer than handguns.
I've never really used anything beyond shotguns and rifles. I mean, I've shot plenty of pistols and own some myself, but I've never "taken a liking" to them. I find them innacurate, dangerous, and easy to lose. There is no real use for a pistol in civilian hands for hunting or any other application other than murder or intimidation.
The only problem with that is most rifles and shotguns are cumbersome and take a sec to load, so if someone breaks in your house you better be good at grabbing it and loading it, or keep it loaded at all times.
And secondly, only you are a good shot, a guy with a pistol could kill you. He's got a semi-auto and a 9-10 clip mag, where you have 1 or 2 shots to get him, that is unless you have a auto-shotgun or something.
I was thinking semi-auto rifle myself. Or pump shotgun. Whatever floats your boat. :p I don't have many breech loaders.
-
I'll admit gun control laws need some serious revamping here in the states but to eliminate them would never work. They're just too ingrained in our culture. Proper education and stiffer penalties for the misuse of firearms can help significantly but the big issue is availability. Some states such as my home state of Virginia have lax laws for the purchase of firearms. Any one can purchase a handgun from one of many gun shows that circulate around the state with little to no screening. While the right to bare arms should not be taken away it should be regulated better. All gun owners should be properly trained and schooled to operate and store firearms safely. Making this a requirement for ownership could curb the number of accidental and just plain dumb shootings that occur so often each year. But even stiffer laws will have little effect on the misuse of illegal and unregistered firearms. I'm not even sure if stronger penalties on the possession of illegal firearms would be enough to counter the thug and Hollywood cultures plaguing our cities.
To be honest I don't really understand why the market for hand guns is so high when the handgun is horribly inaccurate beyond close range and it's only real advantages is portability and concealment. Of all the weapons I had to qualify on when I served in the military the pistol was the hardest to learn to use effectively. A short barreled shot gun would be far more effective for the home security argument just for the intimidation factor alone. It's far more accurate and it's stopping power is significantly greater than any but the highest caliber pistols. I guess the only really effective way to reduce the market on handguns would be for the Government to impose limitations on the number of handguns that manufactures can produce for the civilian market. This of course will cause the price of handguns to shoot up.
-
it's only real advantages is portability and concealment
that's why they're so popular.
-
I have always felt that the American people should have the rights given in the constitution and no more, in other words, if they are in a well-ordered militia (the stated reason for the right to bear arms), they can carry the weapons that were available when that right was given. In other words they would be allowed to carry muzzle loading, smoothbore, flintlock and and matchlock weapons only.
That would be awesome! Would they get wheellocks too? Just think about it! You're walking down the street, and some punk pulls a flintlock on you. You smile and whip out the matchlock you've been keeping under your now-ruined coat, and place a round in the guy a couple of feet to his left. He does the same and runs!
-
While the right to bare arms should not be taken away it should be regulated better.
Oh, I fully agree. Some people have no business at all wearing short sleeves.
*slinks away slowly*
-
Damn I do have a tendency to misplace words and some one always picks up on it. But at least they are always funny :lol:
-
I actually agree with this. It makes me think of a case some time ago where a robber broke into a farm house via the kitchen sky light and fell onto a knife on a kitchen surface - cutting himself. He successfully sued the owners of the house for damages as a result of his injuries, despite the circumstances behind it all. Insanity - if you ask me.
That's just an urban legend.
-
Hehe,... watch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-J7HCV3Q8I)
-
That's just an urban legend.
and even if it wasn't you could simply turn around and counter-sue him for twice as much claiming that his claim amounted to harassment and the sheer stupidity of it caused you mental anguish.
Even if you could find 12 morons who'd have given him money for burgling you you'd find it very hard to find another 12 people stupid enough not to let you win the money back no matter how bogus the suit was once they heard how ridiculous the original claim was.
-
I actually agree with this. It makes me think of a case some time ago where a robber broke into a farm house via the kitchen sky light and fell onto a knife on a kitchen surface - cutting himself. He successfully sued the owners of the house for damages as a result of his injuries, despite the circumstances behind it all. Insanity - if you ask me.
That's just an urban legend.
That may be an urban legend, but this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/717511.stm) wasn't. I mean. the poor guy had been burgled numerous times, was old and a bit frail and obviously felt very vulnerable, so when he shot a burglar, defending himself and his home, he was tried for murder! :(
-
That may be an urban legend, but this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/717511.stm) wasn't. I mean. the poor guy had been burgled numerous times, was old and a bit frail and obviously felt very vulnerable, so when he shot a burglar, defending himself and his home, he was tried for murder! :(
Bull****. The man killed a kid, and hence deserves to be punished as much as the burglars would have. There's a difference between shooting someone who has broken into your house with the intent to harm you or your family, and someone who breaks into your house to nick a few quid. You might argue that it's hard to know the intent of someone breaking into your home, so then it might be logical to err on the side that doesn't involve killing someone. ****, it's just money! How can anyone contemplate killing someone over losing their goddamn television?!
"Burglary is without doubt one of the most despicable crimes there is but I would stress to everybody it is up to the police to resolve it and this very tragic case when there has been no winners shows that is the case."
Truer words were never spoken. I hope that guy feels real happy now that his stuff is perfectly safe, all it took was a dead kid.
-
Exactly. If he had shot the kid while he was breaking in and he felt in danger I might have understood it but everything I heard suggested that this was a case of the guy getting sick of being burgled and deciding to shoot the next person that tried it instead of calling the police. He could have simply kept the gun on the kid and then called the police but instead he choose to kill him.
That's what made it murder.
-
Well I for one feel a little sorry for him, I mean I don't know all the circumstances as I wasn't there and I'm sure you'll agree that neither were you. I remember him saying that he thought that the kid had a gun and pointed it at him, granted he was mistaken but what if he hadn't have been, and he did shout a warning before he fired (At least that is what he says).
But it just goes to show why having guns around the home to defend yourself and your property is a bad thing!
-
Tragic, but it is an expected reaction after all.
If I have been mugges 10 times and wake up in the middle of the night with burglars popping around the corner, would I shoot?
Dunno, but I can guess it's hard to see exactly who youre shooting at in the dark. I wonder if the guy knew.
-
That's what made it murder.
No, murder means there's some intent to kill or malice aforethought. The man should have been found guilty of manslaughter with diminished responsibility (which is essentially murder without intent, like he did when he shot the kid breaking into his house to rob him) or manslaughter in the heat of passion. A murder conviction for that situation is just bull****. I don't know how the appellate system works in the UK, but there has got to be a way to overturn that decision or at least lessen the charges from a life sentence.
I mean, sure, he'd been robbed several times, but all that means is that he was reasonably able to respond to a robbery. That doesn't mean he decided "next kid who breaks in I'm gonna pop one."
-
Well to make it short there is never gooing to be such a perfect world where you can walk down the street safely without the threat of beeing shot stabbed raped run over by a car get hit on the head by a pipe or brick.....we just have to keep beleieving we are safe and encourage this false sense of security we are constantly beeing fed and are feeding to others at the same time. If we would start thinking about all the things that can happen to us when we leave our home or even at home we might come to the conlcusion we are safer in the wilderness with the bears and other wild animals then in our concrete cities.
Oh and if someone comes into mi home without mi permision to rob me or anithing that mai pose a threat to me mi home etc. i will bash his head open with an axe without any remorse whatsoever. He is no longer inocent once he entered mi home to rob me or worse. He might be 10 yars old for all i care if i feel mi life or mi families life is in danger i'l split him in 2. Then we can have our day in court if they feel i'm a murderer. I mean it is ridiculous to charge someone of murder just because he was defending his home and family.
-
Yes! Let's hide in the woods my brothers and sisters! Safety for all!
*gets shot by a hunter*
"Dangit Billy Bob...this ain't no deer!"
"But Clem, it had antlers like this...see?" * BOOM*
-
LOL now thats funny!
-
No, murder means there's some intent to kill or malice aforethought.
Which the jury felt he had in order to shoot a man who was on his knees begging for his life.
-
Well to make it short there is never gooing to be such a perfect world where you can walk down the street safely without the threat of beeing shot stabbed raped run over by a car get hit on the head by a pipe or brick...
Huh? I could locate such an area from the map, quite frankly.
-
Well to make it short there is never gooing to be such a perfect world where you can walk down the street safely without the threat of beeing shot stabbed raped run over by a car get hit on the head by a pipe or brick...
Huh? I could locate such an area from the map, quite frankly.
Yeah, I live there. Most people on this forum probably live in places like this. In fact, i'm rather certain the areas where you walk down the street risking being shot, stabbed, raped, run over, or hit in the head would form the vast minority of areas on this planet.
Still, this belief is most likely prevalent in the US given the culture of fear demonstrated in recent times, hence the perceived need for protection in the form of a firearm.
-
Well to make it short there is never gooing to be such a perfect world where you can walk down the street safely without the threat of beeing shot stabbed raped run over by a car get hit on the head by a pipe or brick...
Huh? I could locate such an area from the map, quite frankly.
Yeah, I live there. Most people on this forum probably live in places like this. In fact, i'm rather certain the areas where you walk down the street risking being shot, stabbed, raped, run over, or hit in the head would form the vast minority of areas on this planet.
Still, this belief is most likely prevalent in the US given the culture of fear demonstrated in recent times, hence the perceived need for protection in the form of a firearm.
That belief has been pasted on us by other countries and the news corps for the most part. Remember, good news isn't interesting.
I live in a place where it's usually pretty quiet, but there are lots of pill heads. People that don't care to break into a drug store, which has happened several times, for a buzz and some money. The drug store only being about five or six hundred meters from a police station in fact. Hell, it's only about a hundred to a hundred and fifty meters from the new court house.
-
I watch too much CNN, man. I don't know if you've ever sat around and watched CNN longer than, say, 20 hours in one day? I don't recommend that. Watch CNN 'Headline News' for one hour, it's the most depressing thing you'll ever ****ing do. WAR, FAMINE, DEATH, AIDS, HOMELESS, RECESSION, DEPRESSION. WAR, FAMINE, DEATH, AIDS, HOMELESS . . . Then you look out your window (makes cricket noises).
Where's all this **** happening? Ted Turner is making this **** up, man! Jane Fonda won't sleep with him, he runs to a typewriter! "By 1992, we will all die of AIDS!" Read that on the air. I don't get laid, no one gets laid.
You've got to love the fact that even dead for 13 years the guy is still right. :D
-
Ya.
-
No, murder means there's some intent to kill or malice aforethought.
Which the jury felt he had in order to shoot a man who was on his knees begging for his life.
How do you know that?
If there were only 3 of them in the house, and one is dead, that only leaves the old guy and the second burglar.
So you'd practicly condenm the old man based on the burglars testimony?
EDIT:
I's also pretty quite where I live...there isn't even a police station in the town..it's THAT quiet.
-
Oh and if someone comes into mi home without mi permision to rob me or anithing that mai pose a threat to me mi home etc. i will bash his head open with an axe without any remorse whatsoever. He is no longer inocent once he entered mi home to rob me or worse. He might be 10 yars old for all i care if i feel mi life or mi families life is in danger i'l split him in 2. Then we can have our day in court if they feel i'm a murderer. I mean it is ridiculous to charge someone of murder just because he was defending his home and family.
The point here was that he wasn't defending his home and family. He could easily not have opened fire, but chose to instead, killing a 16-year-old. You would kill a defenceless person because they tried to take your stuff? They tried to take your posessions, so you have to take their life? A human life is a human life, no matter how it is used. Avoid death wherever possible, and maybe the world would be a better place. The burglar may not be innocent, but they do not forfeit their right to life.
-
It's wrong that he killed him, I mean, usually just pointing the gun at someone is enough to make them piss their pants.
-
It is also wrong to come into mi home and steal from me. The moment they entered mi home bent on stealing or dooing harm to me or mi family they forfeited they right to live. Even the most retarted children out there should know that a persons home is his castle his fortress his domain and that if you are tring to do somthing wrong you should be aware that you are risking your life.
I may have gotten a bit carried away there so i wont kill a kid who came to rub me but hell heses going to get a b eating out from me if i catch him he will NEVER EVER forget. Better shoked and traumatised for life then in the grave. That is not to say i'm a violent person . I'm not but once a 16 year old kid gets into rubbing and stuff something is seriously wrong in his own home if he has one and in his head. So if the sistem cant do anithing about it then I will. Also the city i live was also pretty quiet but lately we started seeing more gangs apear on the streets. The police and innefective at best in they work and the judges.....welll.......lets just say they give a 5 year in prison sentece to someone for stealing a pig and 2 chikens but send free a man who killed 2 people in an accident beause the police did a bad job at the scene.
Also in recent years I have seen more and more kids 15-19 year old kids getting pistols and other stuff like that and using it like a toy. And the criminals have them too you can rest asured of that . So in the light of these things tell me how am I suposed to know if a 16 or 17 year old child doesnt have a gun on him? How do I know if he wont shoot me or stab me or something like that?? I guess this is something which is specific to each situation.
-
I hate to agree, but I have to.
Kids are in general getting more violent, especialy when you count in gangs.. It's not hard to kil lsomeone - bare hands, knife or gun.
I really dunno...but I had a gun and burglars were enering my house...if I even for a second thought he had a gun, I'd probably shoot.. maby not to kill (to incapacitate)...but if it's dark and I just woke up chances are my aim isn't gonna be great...
-
How do you know that?
If there were only 3 of them in the house, and one is dead, that only leaves the old guy and the second burglar.
So you'd practicly condenm the old man based on the burglars testimony?
Oh? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistics)
It's pretty hard to claim self defence when shooting two people (one of them in the back) as they tried to climb out of the window to get away.
Oh and before you get all sentimental about Tony Martin lets remember that this man is a supporter of the neo-nazi BNP party, shot the burglars with an illegal shotgun and was himself arrested in 2004 for theft.
-
The point here was that he wasn't defending his home and family. He could easily not have opened fire, but chose to instead, killing a 16-year-old. You would kill a defenceless person because they tried to take your stuff? They tried to take your posessions, so you have to take their life? A human life is a human life, no matter how it is used. Avoid death wherever possible, and maybe the world would be a better place. The burglar may not be innocent, but they do not forfeit their right to life.
IIRC, John Locke said that every human being has a right to "life, liberty, and property." Frederic Bastiat said not too long after that you have "a natural right to defend your person, your liberty, and your property." The kid was on the man's premises, violating his rights to property. Now, unless you can prove that he was coerced into being there by his adult partner, then he just as much forfeited his right to life by violating someone else's right to property.
Of course, that's just what the defense would argue. I in no way condone what he did, as it was excessive force and unnecessary, given that the two were already fleeing when he brought out the shotgun.
Oh and before you get all sentimental about Tony Martin lets remember that this man is a supporter of the neo-nazi BNP party, shot the burglars with an illegal shotgun and was himself arrested in 2004 for theft.
Oh wow.
You know, even a half-assed defense lawyer would've put in a motion to exclude all of that nonsense in a heartbeat based on the fact that it serves no legitimate purpose other than to inflame emotion and violate a man's right to free association. The only thing prosecution can do with any of that is use the theft charge to establish a pattern of behavior. So tell me, if I were a member of the Klan, does that somehow make me more guilty in a murder situation than someone who wasn't?
So I don't know exactly what you're doing by bringing this up, but please, stop the demonizing. Poor character or not, the man deserves every single right to defend himself and his property, and be fairly represented in court without that tosh being thrown in as an accusation.
-
I'm not demonising. None of that stuff has anything to do with the court case and I never said it did.
However AFTER the court case Tony Martin has been portrayed by the media (and by Trashman's post) as some poor old man who should be regarded as a hero by the masses and believed over anything the burglars might have to say. I always think it's important that people realise who this guy is before they climb onto the "poor Tony Martin" bandwagon.
Tony Martin was convicted by a jury of his peers, on the evidence presented before them. They were given the option of returning a manslaughter verdict and instead deliberately decided to ignore that and charge him with murder. That is what matters. Not this constant campaign by some members of the media to portray him as your everyman protecting his home. The fact that he shot the burglars in the back as they tried to run away is rarely mentioned.
The man was found guilty of a crime. There was no miscarriage of justice here. Move on.
-
I agree, could be worse, could be on big brother 26 or whatever it is :nervous:
-
I tend to feel that Big Brother would be greatly improved by the introduction of illegal shotguns.
At the very least it wouldn't drag on quite as long as it currently does. :D
-
Who needs guns anyway? I've been in Southampton for 9 months now, and we've got 4 or 5 murders and one gang rape less than a mile from my place, and none of them involved guns - knives are good enough, and obviously more fun. All of them (excepted one) were perpetrated by kids under 16, though. THAT frightens me more than guns. Mmh, actually, there's worse than that: the very same kids with parents who have guns...
Anyway, my point is: lol at whoever who said earlier that a 16 year old kid was defenseless.
-
Are you living near the docks? Southampton Docks used to have a bit of a nasty reputation, looks like it hasn't changed much.
-
Probably safer for him than those in Hartlepool. You just know that they're looking for a French guy to live down that whole monkey thing.
-
Are you living near the docks? Southampton Docks used to have a bit of a nasty reputation, looks like it hasn't changed much.
Nah, Burgess rd (near the uni). The "flower" district is one nasty bit of place, with many (mostly teenage) people displaying openly their hatred for the "rich" uni studients (some are rich indeed, obviously, but they seem to fail to understand that mosts are ass-deep in loans or, for the foreign students such as myself, we just pay... nothing, basically - and thanks pete, because 3000 quids a year, ouch >< ). Anyway, I'm out of there, uni's over, and I'm just coming back there in three weeks to have a quick tour of england with my g/f, then back one last day at soton to pack up my things and then kiss my ass goodbye, craphole.