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
Diesel
88888888 <IMG alt="image" SRC="eek.gif" border="0">
I still disagree with you though. There is no need for ordinary people to carry guns on the streets in this country (ceteris parabus).
Hey I dont like the idea either - I have met some cops here stateside that frankly scare me because they pack heat. Nonetheless, I dont advocate everyone carrying, merely that everyone has the option to self defence - I mean, can a citizen even have mace or stun guns there in England?
<IMG alt="image" SRC="tongue.gif" border="0">
They are legal throughout the rest of Europe for use in home defence situations...Not here.
Wow. so in England one is totally defenseless against attack? Is anyone fighting this crap? (Ok being naeive here) What happens if one is accosted, can they use say a 2x4 and hit them? a rock? what???
<IMG alt="image" SRC="eek.gif" border="0"> <IMG alt="image" SRC="eek.gif" border="0"> <IMG alt="image" SRC="eek.gif" border="0"> <IMG alt="image" SRC="eek.gif" border="0"> <IMG alt="image" SRC="eek.gif" border="0"> <IMG alt="image" SRC="eek.gif" border="0"> <IMG alt="image" SRC="eek.gif" border="0">
If an attacker comes at you with a brick, you can defend yourself with another brick and any weapon less effective than a brick. If he comes at you with a knife then you may use a knife and any weapon below that. You may not use a gun. If he comes at you with a bat you may not use a knife or a gun. If he comes at you bare handed then you cannot use a weapon unless you are substantially smaller than your attacker.
Its completely insane. Someone attacks me then im not going to play fair. I will do whatever it takes to protect myself. Unfortunately if I step over the line in the eyes of a judge then im going to prison.
I guess it is a cultural thing then as Kentish may suggest - but isn't it already unfair and unreasonable if someone is using force to either harm you or steal from you?
Out of curiousity - do people actually agree with this pile of shiite?
<IMG alt="image" SRC="mad.gif" border="0">
I, too, would like to see the 10 school massacres to which you refer. If you cannot find the number proporionate to the population level, then it might APPEAR that UK is more violent than the US. <IMG alt="image" SRC="wink.gif" border="0">
Oh, goodness GRACIOUS! <IMG alt="image" SRC="eek.gif" border="0"> ANOTHER DELUSION blown away? <IMG alt="image" SRC="eek.gif" border="0"> rotflmfao! <IMG alt="image" SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0">
http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/1997/08/01/intl/intl.4.html
Diesel
88888888 <IMG alt="image" SRC="eek.gif" border="0">
Since the person who commented on owning AK-47's was me, it would be presumed that the "cowering" comment was directed this way...
POINT OF CLARIFICATION... ~ I have never "cowered" in ANY moment in my life, not when engaged in combat, and not when I was sixteen and knifed, nor seventeen and shot while being mugged; in BOTH instances, the assailant was relieved of his weapon AFTER it had been used upon me. "Cowering" would have meant that he would have taken my life...
I AM and always shall be a COMBATANT! In the interest of accuracy, you have misdirected the "cowering" comment.
Ever ride a motorcycle? Wear a helmet?
Drive a car? Use the seatbelt?
Own a home? Pay for insurance?
Carrying a firearm upon my person, or behind the seat of my truck, serves the SAME purpose. It is not because I expect an armed confrontation, because statistically, I have already experienced my fair share, but because of a close and lasting acquaintance with "Mr. Murphy"... if it CAN go wrong, it usually will at the worst moment. The one SINGULAR moment in which I might need to defend myself or another could be the exact same singular moment when I was "lazy" and left the weapon at home.
Responsibility is EVER VIGILENT!
The concept of FREEDOM is based upon an individual being accountable and responsible for HIMSELF. You believe in running to mommie to take care of you, to protect you, and I accept that being a FREE MAN requires that I take care of myself.
THAT is as clear as it gets.
If you believe that you might EVER find me "cowering", then a moment of edification most CERTAINLY awaits you... <IMG alt="image" SRC="wink.gif" border="0">
btw ~ best deterent to crime in THIS country has been arming the individual CITIZENS (as opposed to "subjects"), so you WOULD be accurate to say that I am taking pro-active measures... <IMG alt="image" SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0">
http://www.borderlandnews.com/stories/borderland/20020107-166109.shtml
Diesel
88888888 <IMG alt="image" SRC="eek.gif" border="0">
I wondered how long it would take someone to mention sept 11th.
Tell me how owning a weapon would help there?
As for the last bit "security blanket for grownups" just shows what owning a rifle or pistols is. It is a way of letting the supposed "hard men" of society feel a little bit safer, when in reality if they were confronted by someone with skill, or more than one person they would be dead.
Owning a gun Thanatos, won't stop someone sneaking up behind you and smacking you with a bat.
And as for fair play rules, ok so they are a bit stupid, but don't you honestly think that shooting someone for holding a stick or knife at you is a little bit out of proportion to the event? People who do that deserve to goto prison for being stupid, and endangering their own, and many other peoples' lives. Imagine if the assailant overpowered you and took the gun away? Then what do you do? You're fucked.
If we move onto guns, the criminals will go one step further - battering the victim unconscious from behind.
There are more gun crimes in the US (and thus more fear of gun crime) because there are more guns on the streets. IT IS THAT SIMPLE.
Its fact that a gun will protect you in many circumstances so why not make sure you are armed during those circumstances.
Are you serious? Nobody is talking about holding a stick or knife. We are talking about being attacked. The attacker wants to plunge that knife into your chest, he wants to crack your skull open with that stick..You think shooting him is out of order in that situation? I happen to value my life over the life of anyone who would attack me with the intention of killing me. If you despise yourself enough to side with the murderer then you are beyond hope.
I notice youve moved away from backing up your 10 school massacres since '96 Whowhere. Funny that <IMG alt="image" SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
No, we were talking about a mugger who wants to take your wallet, not a random nutter who wants to batter you to death or stab you. Muggers use the threat of violence, and generally aren't violent, unless you start fumbling around for your gun... It really doen't matter how many there have been. I can remember three: one in Columbine and two in Florida. Plus don't forget all the schools in the cities that have to employ metal detectors and security guards to prevent the kids coming in with weapons. (Also, you will remember that both the Dunblane massacre and the machete attack were committed by adult nutters, not school children, and that makes a difference too).
I shall repeat myself because you're not listening:
You are picking up and taking out of context, arguments I am having with Whowhere. He disputed my claims about the reasonable force laws and my previous post which were about someone trying to kill you.
Of course it matters...He specifically said there had been 10 US school massacres since Dunblane. I want to know if thats true or whether he was speaking shit.
Im not arguing that...If im not listening then you most certainly arent reading.
Lubby's Restaurant in Texas... one of the victims had left her gun in her car... didn't help to be without it in the ONE moment it would have been most helpful.
Having ANY weapon is not a panacea for the lack of requisite skills. The gun is the tool, the weapon is between the ears... Ever try to hammer a nail without the hammer? <IMG alt="image" SRC="wink.gif" border="0">
btw... good luck on sneaking up behind me... <IMG alt="image" SRC="wink.gif" border="0"> ...AND, obviously had your head stuck someplace where light of day cannot get to it. AGAIN, requisite skills were not employed. btw ~ hasn't happened to me in fifty plus years. <IMG alt="image" SRC="wink.gif" border="0">
.45 is on my hip, ALWAYS. I don't use a "cab", ever. I OWN a vehicle. <IMG alt="image" SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> And I don't lard myself up with donuts...
It is only simple for the SIMPLE-MINDED! It is the guns in the hands of criminals, and NOT in their would be victims that causes high crime rates. Criminals will ALWAYS have guns, just like there was ABUNDANT booze sold OPENLY when it was illegal.
THAT perspective of yours is CLASSICAL DELUSION! <IMG alt="image" SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
[ 09-01-2002: Message edited by: Thanatos...AGAIN ]
Fair enough. But see above. </STRONG>
Language misunderstanding: I didn't mean cab as in taxicab, I meant the part of your truck that isn't the trailer, you know the part with the big engine and steering wheel and seat...rig? </STRONG>
More American psychobabble rhetoric. Have you not been reading a single thread? If criminals know their would-be victim is likely to be armed, they will not start the proceedings by asking politely for your wallet whilst giving you a chance to get your gun out. No, they'll shoot, steal and run. Or get you from behind with a baseball bat.
Presently, the US FAA has stated they cannot possibly guarantee the presence of an armed Air Marshall on every flight in the United States. After what happened on 9/11, the concept of a flight originating out of or within the US unarmed is simply unacceptable.
My proposal? If youre not able to guarantee an Air Marshall to all flights, arm the crew - Pilots, a flight attendant etc - they will be highly trained and 100% responsible for the security of the flight.
#2. make the airlines themselves responsible for paying/training/maintaining an active ARMED security presence (with Federal oversight) on each and every flight uniformed or not (Im already seeing some holes in this idea ie bribary, strikes etc which is why Im more for the Federal level oversight)
#3 provide substantial discounts and immediate allowance of firearms of non federal ARMED law enforcement officers to carry firearms on planes. This would create an excellent "security blanket" to the above.
#4 and perhaps most radical: allow certain citizens (frequent flyers) to carry weapons annonymously on each frequent flight they take. This would call for radical restructuring of many state to state laws on firearms transport but with federal training and perhaps a stipend, this would provide for an excellent layer of armed response onboard.
The simple idea that there is a gun on a flight may just be enough to keep terrorist scum from turning our aircraft into crude weapons of mass destruction - to allow a flight to take off without a measure of lethal self defense is not only irresponsible but a huge disservice to the safety and security of flight passengers worldwide. Also - goes back to my original concept - if Presidents, Senators and government officials are afforded armed protection while in flight, why are we as citizens (who for the most part voted them in) asked to fly unprotected? <IMG alt="image" SRC="mad.gif" border="0">
Frequent flyers allowed guns? Have you ever thought that the Al-Qaeda nutcases would simply sign up to these frequent flyer programmes and take an arsenal of weapons on board. Or maybe a copper taking a holiday would want to take his gun with him on the flight. I don't see it happening. And I think you defeated your own first point about sky marshalls - an expensive and risky undertaking (could be distracted and shot from behind).
One of the reasons I believe the hijackers on Sept 11 were able to take the planes so easily is because most of the passengers would have thought the plane would land safely, and then for negotiations to begin. Why? Because thats how most hijackings work.
A repeat could never happen (not in the near future anyway) because if someone was attempting it, there would be 200+ people willing to take them on, knowing that the alternative was to be flown into a building. Richard Reid anyone?
Never?? Hmmm well Im sure bin Laden would love for the world to adopt such careless complacency. Such an attitude would indeed GUARANTEE a repeat. From now on however, we must be on constant guard against radical attacks - indeed such radical attacks do call for radical measures to fight back - which includes and ARMED presence on all flights.
I hope youre right - I hope there is never a repeat of 9/11 but if Im wrong - is that really the humble pie you want to swallow?
<IMG alt="image" SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0"> <IMG alt="image" SRC="mad.gif" border="0">
I will not ever agree to an armed presence on aeroplanes, and I think I explained my reasons clearly enough above (which you have chosen to overlook).
(BTW can you please learn how to quote correctly, because I no longer want your drivel associated with me. Thank you.)
[Edited: grammar]
[ 10-01-2002: Message edited by: Kentish ]
Skill NUMBER ONE: an awareness of the area around you.
Let's put it this way... attempt to sneak up upon me and attack me from the rear. Do it. <IMG alt="image" SRC="wink.gif" border="0">
btw ~ I am NOT responsible for your death. Old reflexes die VERY hard, and yours would be the proof. Follows the adage: if you do NOT want to dance, do NOT call the music. You are used to playing with sheep... I am not another prey, but an experienced preditor, and I will feel you coming. If you doubt it, c'mon and play... <IMG alt="image" SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0">
TO THE MODERATORS!: Please do NOT construe this as a threat directed at ANY individual, but rather a PROMISED consequence to an injudicious choice... <IMG alt="image" SRC="wink.gif" border="0">
Skill NUMBER TWO: ...Unless you can comprehend the validity of skill number one, the rest would be a TOTALLY wasted effort, kinda like teaching a sheep to sing... <IMG alt="image" SRC="wink.gif" border="0">
Never mind.
*Mental note: why do I bother?* </STRONG>
No I definitely meant a-e-r-o-p-l-a-n-e-s. </STRONG>
And you accuse me of immaturity?
I've been thinking through your reasoning and logic but I keep going back to the same flaw: a skymarshall can only respond to an incident in the air and therefore if a hijacker has grabbed an air hostess and is holding a knife to her throat what can a skymarshall realistically be expected to do? I don't think it would be wise to shoot, not only because of the obvious dangers of firing a gun in a pressurised aeroplane, but also because of the danger of injuring the innocent passenger/air hostess caught in the middle. It seems to me that a single armed guard on each flight would be useless against this kind of attack.
Also, on a tangent slightly, don't you think demand for air travel would go down if people knew that the airline had chosen to put an armed guard on each flight?
[Edited for spelling]
[ 10-01-2002: Message edited by: Kentish ]
Understand your perspective, but would suggest that you amend "frequent flyers" to those who have permits for concealed carry of firearms, and thusly have already BEEN extensively checked out by law enforcement. Would make national CCW licensing a step closer to reality... <IMG alt="image" SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0">
<STRONG> American psychobabble rhetoric, caused by you not being able to think of a second skill that you possess.
Exactly - they would have already been extensively cleared and given special clearance to carry on planes - a nationalized CCW would be the absolut best way to do this. Hell, a uniform system would probably cut down on all the Liberal harssment gun owners regularly recieve in this country.
<IMG alt="image" SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0">