If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Or do murderers apologise after killing you over there?
No, but then no-one claimed that ours is a polite society.
Exactly.
Cannot consider the US an "armed society" yet. It will take time to reverse the effects that the liberals and gun-grabbers have had upon this nation.
Ever notice the corollary between the gun-grabbers, and those who run their mouths in the most inflamitory manner? Guess they do not want to be held responsible/accountable. When the Bill of Rights was penned, men were presumed to have the freedom of speech, then the freedom of choosing their weapon for the consequential duel. Generally more polite during that time frame...
Well, it doesn't have hooligans or riots over football matches....
Hmm,
Have you ever been to Yankee Stadium during a Red Sox-Yankees game? (For the Englishman: Batteries thrown at players, fron the upper deck of the stadium- happens all the time)
Or were in Los Angeles in 2000 when the Lakers won their first championship? (Again, for the English: RIOT, police cars burned, Millions in damage done)
You are just being ridiculous. American sports fans can be just as violent, we just don't have a reputation for it.
And, um, that doesn't really answer the homicide rate point. I''d say hooliganism is a little less important than murder, wouldn't you?
(but I am not going to get into this one again... unless someone says something really bonkers
Apologies, a comparative population ratio of 4:1 and a homicide rate that is 17:1 ...you are right 4 times.
Like that made a huge difference didn't it? Inspite of your guns your are still more likely to be murdered in the US than in the UK...
Bet that's a big relief to you :rolleyes:
Especially in those locals with anti-gun laws on the books... :rolleyes: Least likely to be murdered in thos locals which allow concealed weapons to the general populace...
Really so logical, isn't it?
Game, and set. Ready to concede the match point, yet?
Yes, but you are female. Most females tend to cower instead of getting pissed.
And getting shot by that same gun if you were being attacked is better? I would rather kill my attacker before he did it to me first.
Why run away and let the person that beat you run amok to do it to someone else? Where is the sense in that? I would do everything in my power to make sure the jerk never did it to anyone again, may it beat him to death, or close to it. :mad:
You ask what would happen if you or everyone owned a gun. I doubt that no one would ever leave their homes. On the contrary, I'm sure they would feel much safer and people would leave each other alone to live their lives. I carry only a knife on me and I feel much safer, though I know how to take someone out with my bare hands. Keep in mind I am a FEMALE. I have beaten up guys as big as Thanatos, but I still carry a knife.
Soon I too will be carrying a .45.
You have every right to defend yourself if you are being harmed. Where is the sense in doing nothing if someone is breaking into your house while you are asleep or trying to rape you in a dark alley. Screams of help are not often effective and the police are not Superheros that can be to the scene of a crime in five seconds flat. You could be dead by then already and the attacker long gone.
Nope
You said yourself that because guns are available, the attacker doesn't know if you are armed or not...
Before someone breaks into a house, does he know if there are firearms (and someone prepared to use them) inside?
I'm a New Yorker and have attended hundreds of games at Yankee stadium, and dozens against the hated Red Sox. At its worst it doesn't come close to the violence of English fans. And the violence of L.A., Chicago (yes, I remember the Bulls victories, too) has been property damage, not hundreds hospitalized. The closest I have ever seen to the violence of English fans is Ranger hockey fans, and even there the fights are controlled and limited to a few, a very few.
Ah, so it's not their fault? Just young men doing what young men do? You might want to look into who are the spectators at American college sports.
Not when discussing a question of the violence or politeness of a society. Also, would find it useful to find out what actually gets counted in those statistics, and what doesn't. Are they actually the same?
Depends on the location. In the places with the strictest gun control laws (and the highest crime rates), it is a pretty safe bet that the homeowner is not armed. Of course, those are the jurisdictions with the high homicide rates...the Washington DCs, the Detroits, Miamis, etc...
But crime still exists in the other areas, does it? Or are the crime figures there minimal?
Can you tell use which states have gun control laws?
*I am open to alternative aruments*
As for your comments about rioting football fans, don't you have rival gangs in the US (The Crips perhaps?). That is all this is, petty tribal rivalry, in this case based on fandom, mainfested with violent disorder. And a tiny minority of fans at that...
Of course, just imagine what would happen if they were armed...
Crips/Bloods rivalry has its basis in a turf war over drugs, primarily crack cocaine. Have you now become an advocate of crack?
As a side note? Are you aware that the whole of the baggy pants culture is to establish a "brotherhood" of the revered little gang bangers in their ill fitting prison garb? Impressive, is it not?
As UK's homicide rate continues to rise, and the US continues to drop (especially in the areas that legislate in concealed weapons permits!!!), in the relative near future, UK will surpass the US as home of the homicide elite. What will you say then?
Does the wolf hunt for the sheep, or the Rottweiler?
Preditors go for the easy prey, not the ones which fight back. Burglars are by nature cowards, and the probability of their pursuing their "craft" is greater in those areas where guns have been outlawed, as they will have a MUCH greater probability of not being met by an ARMED combatant...
Something along the lines of, "Plane tickets for one, please... USA... no, one-way will do nicely."
Violent crime is far lower in areas without gun control laws. It is virtually nonexistent in the areas that have mandated firearm ownership.
California and Massachusetts are the States with the most stringent gun control laws. It is municipalities that are the most stringent users of gun control legislation, however, including New York City; Dade County, Florida (Miami); Chicago, Illinois; Detroit, Michigan; Los Angeles, California; and Washington, District of Columbia. Look up their murder rates.
Yeah, I can imagine what it would be like if they were armed. A much politer group of people. It's a whole lot easier to gang up on someone or attack someone when you figure that all you have to deal with is their fists. It's a much different story when they might be able to defend themselves. I realize that is an alien idea to most on this board. Armed people have a tendency to be more aware of what their situation is and make more of an effort to avoid confrontations and violent resolution. It's people who don't see violent resolution as life threatening who are more willing to pursue a violent solution.
Precisely!
Carrying a firearm on my person 24/7/366 means that I must avoid all violent encounters - AND the confrontations which might lead to them - until the moment when they cannot be walked away from.
That's what a lot say about rapes against women. *Boys will be boys*
So that makes it right huh?
You can't even begin to comprehend what females should pass off to innocent behavior.
Edited to remove expletives :mad: :mad:
Squinty (Moderator)
Folks,
Mind the language and the insults.:mad: :mad:
I thinks Dom's little rant at the top of this board is clear about acceptable behaviour on the boards.
:cool: :cool:
If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns
Straight to the point, i think.
And then you will have no way of defending yourself, if you consider yourself to be a law-abiding citizen. Dumb idea isn't it?
edit~ and I would like to say that editing my post was a poor show of God-eration.
Sorry, Jane... you obviously forgot that it is both considered immoral AND illegal to defend yourself in the UK. As posted earlier, the attacked individual who defends himself goes to prison, while the attacker gets probation (if that).
"Law abiding citizens" do not defend themselves... :rolleyes:
You try to justify our homicide rate with yours. MOK said ours was 17 percent or something to that extent. Though I want to know how much of that is with guns?
There are other ways of killing someone.
How many of those homicides were REALLY someone defending themselves and got screwed over by the system? There are many factors.
And what is this about putting yourselves in areas that keep you away from the risk of being attacked? Where are you getting these ideas? Most crimes happen in public areas, public garages, public streets, banks...not private homes.
You are all so blind, its not even funny. Then you wonder why your attackers are smarter than you are and your government is getting the best of you.
Oh, self-defence is allowed. There's this notion of "reasonable force" -- which basically amounts to being allowed to do too little, too late. Any kind of pre-emptive strike would almost certainly fall outside British law's idea of "reasonable force."
To be quite frank, I'm not sure what worries me more about the prospect of being attacked on Britain's streets: the violence of the attack itself or the screwed-up consequences of self-defence.
Did I advocate 'pre-emptive strikes'? No. My exact words were, 'Any kind of pre-emptive strike would almost certainly fall outside British law's idea of "reasonable force."' That is a brute fact, not an opinion or a suggestion about what I think the law should allow.
It makes no sense, if one wishes to save 'innocent lives,' to say that only the 'bad guy' may strike first. Next you will be saying that the victim must wait until the bottle strikes his head before he may so much as raise an arm in defence. The doctrine of no pre-emption quickly leads to reductio ad absurdum -- as does total pre-emption, which would quite likely be driven by instinct.
Imagine you could really get the 'sheeple' point of view there...just a reality check...don't get in a huff over the observation.
btw, gi-jane is the real deal...a US lady in the US military doing all those things you only hear about...and digging the sh** out of it all the way...seting an example that you could only hope to follow....