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
Not all criminals have guns at the moment. And if someone *is* found with a gun they willl no doubt get into shit for it. Trust me, my ex was found with a gun and put away for it.
If gun laws were relaxed, it would be much easier for anyone to get a gun, and if some people had one, then everyone would want one so they are equal, so to speak. If someone was found with a gun, it would not be a crime. How would you implement the law if people were allowed guns?
My point about shoplifters is this- if someone was shoplifting and had a gun, what is there to stop them shooting a security guard who is chasing them?
With everything, technology and weapons, it is what is done with them and the hands that they are in that is important.
Police and military have to have lots of training in arms and know the correct way to use them.
If ordinary people had guns I fear many more pointless deaths may occur. EG, at the mo, if someone is totally pissed off they might go and kick someones head in and mug them- with a gun, that person could end up dead.
In an equal society, I fail to see how you could justify giving guns to some people and not to others. I am totally opposed to it.
Ok, so the streets of any city are hardly safe places at the moment- but imagine if guns were more available, they would be 100 times more dangerous.
And BTW, how do you know if someone is a law abiding citizen? For a start, I think only 4% of actual crime ends up in a conviction, so many criminals are not caught. Secondly, how do you make a distinction between law abiding citizens and evil criminals. There are just people, people change, where do you draw the line? Anyone who has ever been convicted of a crime is allowed a license? Or just a violent crime?
[ 17-04-2002: Message edited by: * k-t * ]
Yeah. I'm really enjoying this thread (is enjoyment the correct term to use?) and don't want it to be closed. Would like to contribute but not really sure where I stand on the issues any longer. Keep up the good work guys.
Nah don't be daft. We're not trying to silence you. That would be stupid, after all it is a 'discussion' board. I just kind of want to see how Apathy's gonna respond this evening.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/cassandra/
It makes interesting reading, and is quite relevant here methinks.
Thank you Kentish, certainly pertinent.
Okay, so you have rules elsewhere about referring to a ‘nazi’ argument. Fine, you want to live by the rules of that site then feel free to post there. I really don’t care if you don’t like the nazi argument. On this site we believe that we should say it as we see it.
What <STRONG>I</STRONG> see is a ‘man’ who has decided that some people are not worth to live in ‘his’ world. His only suggestion to deal with this problem is extermination. Fine. So you eradicate something you see as a problem, so what happens next. Are we suddenly living in utopia, or do you (as I alluded to earlier) extend your death penalty to another crime. If you believe that all crime would stop then you are as ‘naïve’ as someone who believe that there are no guns in circulation in the UK.
Who will be your next target, who will be the next scapegoat for the ills of the world? It is that mentality that society’s ills can be ended by a system of extermination which our forefathers fought against in 1939-1945. By a strange quirk of coincidence they were fighting the Nazis. So a comparison is justified.
That said, I wouldn’t go as far as to say that <STRONG>you</STRONG> are a nazi, just that you have extreme right wing views.
Until they commit a crime the criminals <STRONG>are</STRONG> law abiding. Thomas Hamilton and Michael Ryan <STRONG>were</STRONG> law abiding citizens right up until the moment they killed.
So how would you have dealt with these men?
In Dunblane proved anything it was that the system of licensing for gun control didn’t work. So we are left with two options – allow anyone to have a gun, or make it illegal. Personally I prefer the latter. <STRONG>Anyone</STRONG> with a handgun is now a criminal.
I don’t actually recall advocating that. All I said was that you have no right to kill someone based on what they <STRONG>might</STRONG> do.
<STRONG> </STRONG>
Probably.
And if I didn’t have a gun would I die? Are you assuming that I couldn’t overpower him physically? Reasonable force doesn’t mean that you <STRONG>have</STRONG> to kill people, it means that you do what you can, with what you have to protect yourself.
Now read what I wrote.
In the hypothetical example I gave, the person wasn’t shouting ‘lookout’ and you didn’t know what there intentions were. You claimed that if you felt you were being attacked, you wouldn’t wait to find out what someone’s intentions were, you would just shoot. My point was that sometimes your perceptions can be wrong and that in this case you would have shot someone who was trying to help you.
This covers many aspects of driving, from being under the influence, to speeding, changing tapes whilst driving, using a mobile phone, ‘boy racers’ (as you like stereotypes)…
And then you wonder why the nazi (right wing) comparisons appear…
No life is worthless, except in your eyes. And <STRONG>that</STRONG> is why you should never have a gun, <STRONG>that</STRONG> is why I suggested that we (society) should be protected from the likes of you. The fact that someone is down, isn’t a reason to remove him or her from existence. You should help them make something of themselves, something which the right wing politicos cannot see. The master race has no foibles do they?
And I guarantee that they didn’t fight so that people like you could decide on who is ‘worthless’ or a burden to society and should be eradicated. In fact I’m pretty sure that is what they were fighting against.
They were fighting for a notion of <STRONG>freedom </STRONG> and that includes the freedom to make mistakes.
Aimed at anyone in particular, or don’t you have the courage to name them?
Of course not. Society FORCED you to take drugs, and soak up alcohol like a sponge. You are not capable of making decisions for yourself, and therefore are not responsible for what you get yourself into...
Kinda like a sheep, right?
So nice to be delusional. Or is it simply "in the bag" with your drugs and alcohol...
Take a look, little boy. Wasn't me that introduced "gunz" into the discussion. I was avoiding the topic until the fecal content reached stealgate proportions.
Feeling brave again, with another "snoot full", aren't you?
Isn't there someone else to get pregnant, so you can pressure her to abort your offspring? Easier to kill with a coat hanger than with a gun, right? Fetus don't fight back, right?
Want to be totally free from the consequences of your actions, don't you?
As usual your post is filled with insults and has the obligatory 'sheep' reference.
I thought you were worth more than that. You certainly appear (in other threads) to occasionally be able to put forward a well argued post. What was it that one of your comrades posted about "Everytime you post something stupid..."
Any chance you can comment on the rest of the discussion, rather than concentrate on the minor refernce to guns?
I accord respect toward men, women, and children, as it is deserved (and YES, I AM so presumtuous as to think that I might make the choice of whom I chose to respect). I do NOT automatically respect those that bumble through the world with no self-discipline, no accuntability, no acceptance of responsibility for self. I have little respect for those who hide within their naive delusions.
I have only contempt for those who would murder their unborn offspring, and yet decry the ending of a life for the safety of the public.
I have only contempt for those who would turn a law-abiding man into an outlaw because he might do an unlawful thing if afforded the ability to protect himself and those under his care from the nefarious agenda of the truly lawless.
Those who are in fear of anyone possessing a firearm would convict a man BEFORE THE FACT of a crime, rather than as a consequence of his actions. And most definitely NO! NO! NO!, possessing a firearm does NOT mean that the peace loving individual will be morphed into a wanton psychopathic murderer...
It is generally the truly primitive, ignorant, and superstitious who would grant an inanimate object the power to control animate beings.
I find an hypocracy within those who would say "MAKE GUNZ ILLEGAL, 'CAUSE WE CANNOT BE TRUSTED", and yet say "MAKE DRUGS LEGAL, 'CAUSE WE CAN MAKE RESPONSIBLE CHOICES FOR OURSELVES!"
Reality avoidance of the highest order...
I really do not care what you (rhetorical "you") do with your life, until your actions intrude upon my life. However ANYONE chooses to defile themselves is not my concern - simply the cause for my disgust - until they want to place the consequences of their delusions upon ME.
Curious, is it not, that "barbaric neanderthal conservatives" like me would have you live your life by your OWN leave, as I would live mine; the "educated supremist/elitest liberal" would tell you how to live YOUR LIFE to THEIR standard, and pass laws to subjugate you to the consequences of their OWN inadequacies...
When the child ceases to bleat nonsensically as a sheep, then I will cease the obvious reference.
AGAIN, it was not ME who brought the evil and demonically possessed GUNZ into the discussion. Look back. Verify. Went on for awhile before I commented.
Simply because you have an irrational fear of firearms does not mean that I am so handicapped and debilitated.
Personally, I am ever so more lethal with edged tools at close range, plus... they do not require a suppressor to quiet them. <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> I am quite able to eviserate you with a plastic credit card.
...and who was it who introduced profanity to the discussion.
Check the mirror...
Too bad "Squinty" cannot recognize humor for what it is.
Was not "propoganda", but a backhanded slap at the "gangsta grip" of them what be "stylin'"...
I didn't say you did. What I pointed out was that it became your focus and was the only reason you joined the discussion - as you have just confimed <IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Firstly, it was a shame that it degenerated into a mainly guns thread, but it was destined to happen from the first page.
Secondly, on the issue of drug addicts and what appears to be the opinion of some people that anyone who takes drugs is defiling themselves, it seems to me that some people are voicing very strong opinions on things which they do not fully understand. Obviously this is a discussion board, and therefore any opinion allowed, but I found it a shame to read some kinda naive comments.
Thats it. I would argue further on the drugs issue, but thats not what this thread is for. Just making myself heard, really.
Whowhere
If you explain to me why my 'class' and race are important to this argument, I will tell you. And no, we shouldn't kill landlords. Alchohol is not a drug that will get you hooked with one pint, as you well know. I don't see how it can be compared to hard drugs like heroin and crack, which will get you hooked pretty soon. For the record, I think alcoholics are retarded idiots too.
Someone who starts taking a drug that they can't even identify is just as stupid as the person who drinks from an unlabelled bottle of liquid in the garden shed. Both are stupid, dimwitted fools.
When their supply of heroin runs out due to their dealers being shot, they can pop along to the methadone clinic. As I said, kill the dealers, then help the addicts.
Everyone has a choice. The girl has the choice to tell the police, assuming she hasn't got an older family member to beat the living shit out of the paedophile. But then this wouldn't happen if there were no heroin dealers.
Vox
He can certainly stop taking drugs. Stopping suddenly is a dangerous and painful way, but that's by no means the only method. He can steadily reduce his dosage, and (in the case of heroin addicts) take methadone as a substitute, again in steadily decreasing dosage.
But I think we're forgetting my original statement that drug addicts are stupid retards for taking the drugs in the first place.
This could get into a very complicated debate. Yes, alcohol impairs reasoning when you've drunk enough. In the quantities I drink, it relaxes me and slows down my reactions, but it doesn't impair my reasoning. My responses to events when I've consumed a moderate quantity of alcohol are the same as they would be if I hadn't drunk any.
He seemed to be implying that I was in a position to help these people. If the police would like my services as a drug dealer exterminator, then I'm willing to help <IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
</STRONG>
Since when has heroin been a popular drug in the sense that alcohol is? Nearly all people try alcohol at least once in their lives, and I'd say that most people regularly drink it. I don't know the figures for heroin addicts, but it's not even 1% of the population at a guess.
Therefor, killing dealers would work. If there was a huge demand for heroin dealers on the street, I wouldn't step in to the 'job' for any amount of money. Would you? The vast majority of people wouldn't dream of it either. Therefor, there is a finite number of people that would be willing to do it. Kill them and you have no more dealers <IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Legalise hard drugs like heroin and there will be even more fuck-ups around than there are already.
DJP
Both the child molestor and and the junkie both start their repulsive habbits at some point. They both make a conscious decision to do what they do, knowing full well the consequences.
So getting back to my original point, I am fully justified in judging the junkie in the same harsh way that I judge the child molestor.
That point was already raised by Whowhere. Weren't you paying attention? Anyway, I have answered it above.
Fair enough. I hope it's clear now.
I'll argue how I damn well want to. If you don't like swearing yourself, then don't. And just because I swear, it doesn't put me on the same level as a pikey. <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> Since silly comparissons seem to be the order of the day, a pikey can insult. I suppose that puts you on the same level?
I think we had better leave it, hadn't we? Seeing as how you can only come up with some kind of vague half-argument.
Taken from the dictionary, for your benefit:
Stupid:
Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake.
Dazed, stunned, or stupefied.
Pointless; worthless: a stupid job.
If we're going to argue the meaning of established English words any further, perhaps a new thread should be started for that purpose.
Anyway, back to the value of human life. You and I obviously value different things (as if it weren't obvious!). I value bravery. I do not value stupidity. You value both. Anyway, we seem to be arguing under the assumption that all junkies are brave. They are not, but all junkies are stupid. So if intelligence and learning can be aquired, that means that not everyone has these attributes. So those who don't are stupid, are they not?
It's not 'universal application of a certain principle', it's a silly twisting of my principle. My parents contribute to society. More to the point, they're not a detriment to society. The junkie doesn't contribute, and he is a detriment. And why do you assume that my parents will be a burden on society when they've retired anyway? Please explain.
k-t
Why did your ex have a gun (and was it a handgun)? How did the police find out about it?
You obviously don't understand anything about gun laws. And I tend to agree with other people who are against this turning into a gun thread, it would get far too complicated and the original subject would be forgotten. Unless gun threads are banned, I suggest someone start one. If no one does, I will.
Man Of Kent
I don't know why you're assuming that I have some 'kill mania' that will cause me to start killing all criminals when one group runs out. I have stated which groups of people should be killed. Don't pretend that I've said differently.
Hamilton was under investigation by several junior police officers, all of whom recommended that he was not fit to own firearms. As I've already stated, the chief of police and some other senior officers were paedophiles, just like Hamilton. They were protecting him.
As for Ryan, the police fucked up. They knew he used to drive around shooting at sign posts, yet they did nothing. I won't mention the fact that the armed response unit took an hour to respond, because Ryan shouldn't have been armed in the first place. But it does provide further proof of how inept the police were.
This raises another point. If the police can't protect us, then who will? The police can pick up the pieces afterwards, and maybe catch the criminal. But the crime's happened anyway.
Now you're being naive and simplistic.
It was you who brought up that rather ridiculous 'falling masonry' scenario. I was quite clear that I would only kill someone if I knew they were attacking me.
So you think we need protecting from ourselves. How repulsive. But let's get into the real world now. In the real world, the mugger will either have a knife/gun, or will pick on somebody who can't overpower him. In this case, the victim is helpless without a weapon. What do you suggest the victim do?
It was a stupid example. If they were far enough away that I would have time to react, they would be too far away to save me. Thus they would shout 'lookout'. If they were close enough to save me by pushing me out of the way, I wouldn't have time to react, thus I would not shoot them. Instead I would either realise what they had done, or I would say 'what the hell did you do that for?', they would explain, and I would thank them.
You just pulled that example out of your arse without really thinking it through logically.
Then it's a huge topic, and deserves a thread of it's own. If you'd like to think up an example, then I will give you my opinion. But make it better than the last one. <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
I'd like to sum up my main points, since they seem to have been forgotten or twisted by some:
I do not wish to kill all drug addicts, as some of you seem to be implying. I only wish to kill the ones who rob me, thus endangering my life.
I do think that an appropriate punishment for heroin and crack dealers is death, for they are in effect killing people for their own greed. For the record, I also think that child molestors, rapists, and murderers should also be given the death sentence.
I do think that drug addicts are stupid.
I do think that pikeys are worthless scum who need to be punished for their crimes, and encouraged to change their ways.
My philosophy in life is 'do as you would be done by', and 'fuck with me, I'll fuck with you'.
Now I'm off to have a cup of tea <IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
The main problem I have with that lot, apart from the fact that I disagree with capital punishment, is that it leaves no room for mistakes. There's no forgiveness, or education, or any kind of helping hand to lift these people out of the metaphorical gutter.
I strongly believe that a society should be able to cope with its undesirables in a more satisfactory manner than simply killing them off. I know you don't include addicts in your death list, but you do write them off as worthless, and that is a bit depressing.
Off topic, but had to be said:-
Oh, and I approve of the falling masonry example. Something like that was used in a TV advert for the Guardian a few years back, and it was quite a powerful illustration of how we can jump to conclusions without knowing the true facts. Something which in your world would result in a death.
RE Gun threads, we got a bit fed up a couple of months ago because the Thanatos twins and Diesel were hijacking every thread with their firearm agendas, so if you want to know what we think about guns, do a search.
Provide a supporting argument.
Are people who really want to take hard drugs going to be deterred by it being illegal? No. So why assume that legalising it would result in greater uptake?
I feel I need to interrupt here. Apathy, you sound like an ignorance selfish twat. Your posts were a bit annoying. You just described those people who you don't understand their lifestyles as stupid or worthless. You didn't show much respect on others, or to the very least you didn't bother to try to understand them better. Thanks goodness there are not many more idiots like you, as we do not want to see a dictatorship.
Criminal punishment aims for educating and changing the 'bads' to the 'goods', not about dumping them or giving up them.
I would rather not go into the specifics regarding my ex.
And no, I do not know about gun laws, I was expressing an opinion not fact. But if you want to start a new thread about that I am sure the American contigent will enjoy arguing about it. It bores me, I know my opinion on it and no one will convince me otherwise.
Yet another person who can't seem to read properly. <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> Re-read my post. I said that drug addicts should be helped. I also said that pikeys should be encouraged to change their ways.
But if neither group wants to be helped, fuck 'em.
Vox
Legalising hard drugs would encourage junkies to carry on taking them. We've already been through the reasons why they're a burden on society. Junkies should be encouraged to get off drugs, not to take more.
NiceK
So you're annoyed by my posts and you think I'm a twat. To be honest, I don't give a shit. To address your pathetic argument, these scum deserve no respect. What's there to respect about a person addicted to drugs, who robs people to support his habbit?
Well it isn't working, is it? Perhaps you don't realise that you can't educate stupid people. Like several other people in this thread, you have attacked my arguments without providing a solution. What is your solution to the problems being discussed?
k-t Then why did you mention it? <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> Your ex could have been charged for having an air rifle capable of greater muzzle energy than the legal limit, or for mowing down a rival gang with an automatic weapon. One is a trivial offense, the other isn't. Making vague references like that serves no point in an argument.
Legalise the drug, and the price drops, dramatically. Much lower price means that more shitheads "experiment" with it. More "experimentation" means more addiction.
Personally? Give them all the candy they want until they OD on it. Give them some really good shit. Let them have the death they seek, by the means of their own choosing.
Fuck 'em.
They chose their path, and I am not going to pay for it, continually, indefinitely.
Fuck 'em.
You mess with "Mother Nature", and she gets really pissed off. The drug addicts are the weak that would not survive outside of artificial means. Let them have precisely what they have earned...
I have wasted entirely too much of my life attempting to deal with people who refuse to deal with themselves. I lost 1/2 million dollars, and most of what I had worked for in my life to just one person's addiction.
A waste of human flesh.
Fuck 'em.
[ 18-04-2002: Message edited by: Thanatos...AGAIN ]
Just a small piece of information, drugs from the opiate family are the safest. They have minimal effects on the brain that are long term, they cause no more damage to the body's cells that alcohol.
Heroin is just a stronger version of a pint of beer, but won't result in liver failure. People die from heroin use because of the things that are ADDED to it. The users have to judge how pure the drug is, if they take too much and the drugs is purer than they thought it will cause them severe damage, much like picking up 30 fags at once, sticking them in your mouth and lighting them.
A little food for thought, if heroin and other opiates were legal, they would be manufactured, probably by a large company i the same way as cigarettes. They would be purified, and harmful additives put there by dealers trying to make more money would be removed.
Cannabis is a lot more harmful to the body that heroin, as is tobacco and alcohol.
I think it's a shame that nobody has carried on trying to answer the main question, what is wrong with society?
I personally feel society has evolved a lot farther than some of you might think. people have always taken drugs, people have always robbed, people have always murdered in the same numbers they do now. The only difference is that certain things, such as drug taking have been made a crime. Cocaine for example was a legal drug, prescribed by doctors until the second world war.
Another reason is the arrival or proffesional police forces, and public confidence in the police as an insitution has increased, resulting in more reports and more convictions.
Crime is not on the increase, the numbers of people feeling confident to report that crime is increasing.
Say for example it is the 19th century. You've had your pocket picked, would you bother telling anyone? Would the police arrest anyone, and would they keep a record of it? No, No and no.
I think the article however said it all, there was never a golden age in the UK, during the second world war, there were still people making a quick bit of cash off other people's misery. People didn't huddle together in the undergrounds singing softly, more likely is that they sat there, suffering from dyssentry, diahorrhea and lack of food, while above ground people were picking over the bombed out shells of buildings seeing what they could steal while the occupants were hiding.
A lot can be said for learning from the past. However I prefer to look forwards to the future.
The only real vice I have with present society concerns a falling standard of morality and an increase in decadence. We do more things for self gain than we used to, we think of ourselves before others. I am unsure as to wether this is an inevitable part of human society once we get to a certain stage of development, or is it unique?