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
Yes but why do I the taxpayer have to get into paying for some stupid morons mistake?
My point is its no skin off my nose if we just exterminated them and loaded them off in dumpsters. Noones gonna miss them.
I didn't say all of societies ill will be gone. I said that there would be far less street crime. And I don't consider violent muggers to be petty criminals.
I don't see how you can come to that conclusion. Why would I need to find someone else to blame for muggings if all the muggers were dead?
That doesn't mean that society hasn't got problems which need to be dealt with. I do think that society is better than it was 50 or 100 years ago. But that's no reason to stop improving things.
Like I said, it was covered up. I can give you the address of the web page that gave me this information: http://www.cybersurf.co.uk/johnny/dunblane/conspire.html
This is a link from the following site: http://www.cybersurf.co.uk/johnny/dunblane/
Whether you believe it or not is up to you. And if you'd like to dispute any of the claims made, please do so.
If it was a real, loaded gun, with a cartridge chambered, then you were very lucky not to have been shot. Was it a real gun, or a blank firer/replica?
You were mugged. To be honest, I haven't been. But many of my friends have. Over 1000,000 muggings took place in London during the past year (source: yesterdays Guardian). Are you saying that it isn't a problem?
k-t
The answers to that are evident in the whole gun-control debate. Some of these are that the government don't trust the public with firearms, and would be scared of doing anything too decisive anyway.
Killing people who deserve it is not politically correct. Look at the case of Tony Martin. He shot a pikey scumbag who had broken into his home in the middle of the night. He was jailed as an example to others because the government don't want us to defend ourselves. The people who should be our servants are our masters, and they don't trust us.
That's a very defeatist attitude. And no, the world will never be perfect, but it could be better.
it wasn't written about me because:
1)I dont do drugs or smoke
2)I dont hang around in a gang
3)i'm not in the habit of raping people <IMG SRC="mad.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Apathy, Devilman, Thanatos are saying that those who have transgressed societies laws should have no way back, society should not even try and reintegrate them. There is considered to be something fundamentally wrong with the characters of the people in question that make them a burden to society that ought to be removed....
The rest are saying that those who have strayed should be alloweed a way back in and that society should try and help those who have strayed. It is the circumstances of their life as well as their personalities that have caused tham to break societies rules.
The latter is the option adopted by most societies both big and small and rightly so. I hope that no society ever goes down the route of Thanatos and company......
However the law is the law, nobody has the right to take the life of someone else, it may stink in situations like this, but the law is there.
You may like to remember that his were mitigating circumstances, he has been imprisoned, but not for very long, and certainly not for as long as someone who kills without provocation.
Apathy, I believe the number you quoted for muggins isn't a number, please could you edit it, is it 100,000? 1 million? You've got to remember that there are 8 million people in London, and the majority of people who are robbed are young, black and male. Not old, white and female.
And 1 million spread over the course of a year is relatively small and comparable to any other major city in the Western Hempisphere.
Devilman, how much do you pay in taxes? Forgive me for asking, but as you pay for your healthcare privately, I find it hard to believe that a sizeable chunk of your contributions go to help people with health problems. More likely, the real amount of taxes you pay that will go towards helping drug addicts will be relatively small, in comparison to where the rest of your money goes.
Do you really miss that 10 cents every month?
dude if it was 10 cents I can tell you just the 10 cents would have been better spent. Its NOT 10 cents though. I payed out or had withheld more than 9,000 - Im an EMT and I make just under 35000 without overtime.
Actually on healthcare, my company provides that free due to the high risk nature of my duties. Regardless, my taxes in many ways go back to the ignorant fools who choose to destroy their health. Back to the 10 cents, they dont even deserve that - I work hard, pay my goddamn bills and loans etc - addicts dont, they work hard only in the interest of a fix - just last evening, I worked a street attack where a girl was beaten for her purse and jewelry. It was a drug infested area so I can only guess as to what habit that fed.
Exterminate them, while harsh and unyielding, its for the best.
But I do believe there is something wrong with the characters of these people. Like I said, they are stupid and weak.
</STRONG>
First of all, what difference does it make if the little pikey shit was killed or wounded? Tony Martin acted in self defense by shooting him. And no one was suggesting that he was above the law. As far as I can see, he acted within the law in defending himself. The fact that he was 'made an example of' shows that the government don't want us to protect ourselves.
Six zeros after a one. One million. One in eight Londoners. Or assuming that everybody was robbed twice on average, that would be one in sixteen. Either figure is far too many muggings, don't you think?
What point are you trying to make when you say that the victims are mostly young black men? Are you saying that a young black man is less important than an old white female in some way? Are they legitimate targets for robbery in your opinion?
I chose London as an example because I had the figures to hand. And I don't consider 2700 muggings a day in one city to be a small number. If you're saying that there isn't a problem, then you're delusional.
Let me go get my degree work and we'll sit and chat about the technicalties.
The law states that you cannot use "Excessive force" in self defence as it is not justified.
Therefore, if you shoot someone armed with a stick, you cannot use self defence as a reasonable excuse.
If TM had butted them over the head with his shotgun then he wouldn't have been arrested.
Because his home was being broken into, his sentence was lessened, and I believe he was charged with manslaughter, and has since been relocated to minimum security jail.
The fact of the matter is, he didn't use reasonable force. he used excessive force and he was punished accordingly.
As for robberies and assaults in London, according to the home office, 4.4% of individuals were the victim of a violent assault over the course of a year. In real numbers that is approximately 352,000. that includes petty thefts, assault and wounding. Robberies made up approximately 1%, however that is for central London. All other areas had rates of less than 0.6%
source:British crime survey 2000
[ 19-04-2002: Message edited by: Whowhere ]
That ought to be changed. If someone is in my apartment armed with a stick and takes a run at me - I have the right to plant a pretty 9MM slug or 2 in his chest. Its the "my home is my castle" so long as you can establish there was intent to do harm to your person or a loved one you have the right to open fire - and not neccessarily kill, but stop - hence the term stopping power when referring to a bullets power.
Basically, I go by the idea that if you rob someone and that someone happens to be armed, yo rob at your own peril and risk. That is fair and I think Tony Martin should be knighted.
yes, you have the right, but my point is we don't. I wasn't debating the rights and wrongs of the law, merely stating fact. We have the right to defend ourselves, we don't have the right to kill someone in the process.
If you dont have the right to basic fundamentals of self defense, you need to vote out legislators who in turn, victimize you by disallowing self defense.
Tony Martin in the US would have been subject to an investigation, acquitted and more than likely sued by the assholes family, but its better than jail.
Had it been me, Id probably have hit him with my shotgun but if Im not mistaken, Martin was an older gentleman was he not? That if anything should have been enough of a factor to justify shooting the kid.
You respresent the touchie/feelie/"rehabilitate" the poor victim mentality... <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
That won't happen. People in the UK generally have a high level of faith in the police, which to all intents (certainly with my dealings with the police) is a justified faith.
Events requiring you to act in self defence while someone breaks into your home are thankfully rare in this country, maybe this will lead to complacency, who knows?
Certain parts of the media will report that crime is on the increase. this is nonsense, real crime remains fairly constant. However, numbers of people reporting crime increases/decreases depending on public faith in the police and justice system. If public faith increases, numbers of reported crimes also increase, due to public belief that the crime will be solved quickly. Vice versa a decrease in the numbers of people reporting crime shows the opposite to be true.
In the year 2000 a survey was done by the home office on fear of crime, by ethnic group.
Black and Asians fear crime the most, with crimes like robbery worrying 32% of Black people, and 38% of Asians. Fear of robbery only worries 16% of white people. As you know 96% of the UK's population is white, showing that generally people do not fear violent crime.
Other crimes showed similar trends, with 18% of white people being worried about rape and theft of car, while 34% of Asians and Black people were fearful of this.
This shows, that despite media reports of crimes, people generally do not fear it as much as some might think.
source:British crime survey, home office 2000.
I think the point is that we shouldn't have to defend ourselves to such a level. The 'legislators' are attempting to get rid of gun crime wherever possible - indeed, to get guns out of the wrong hands. Civilian people shouldn't need armed weapons in their homes. I think american law teaches a certain degree of disrespect for life in allowing people to own a licensed gun on their property for means of 'self-defence'.
Surely the definition of 'self-defense' is an incredibly blurred one, and I don't think you can ever justify firing a weapon every time you feel a little threatened.
And I think the point is people would be better off not breaking into someones home thus negating the possibility of being shot.
Equally disrespectful of life is any law that insists you don't have a right to defend yourself with more force than an attacker.
I have luckily never had to fire on anyone but I have used my guns in defense - the most recent being a few mos back - 2 kids armed with crowbars and knives broke into my apartment - I saw them and they approached - all I had to do was rack a shell into my shotgun and they stopped IMMEDIATELY - one of them was 15 yrs old and literally shit himself in my living room.
The police and later the court informed me that not only was I right, but that these kids had records as long as my arm - inclusive as well of one warrant out for attempted murder and another for armed robbery. Thats not firing every time Im threatened - merely and justifiably being prepared.
At the end of the day, I don't think the law in this country really affects the issue (other than preventing gun ownership). Whether you have the 'right' or not, I think anyone in a situation where their life is in danger is going to defend themselves to the exteme. The law doesn't say you can't kill someone who's attacking you - and I think situations have been and will continue to be excused on those grounds.
But using guns? They're cowardly and they sicken me.
dude - did you even read what I wrote? The situation I was in is repeated daily across the US - I keep guns in my home and on my person for reasons of self defense and they worked in this case rather well. I or my girlfriend could easily have been killed if not for wielding the shotgun. The police as a matter of info didnt get there until 15 minutes after she called!
And what makes one so ordinary a citizen theyre not entitled to a weapon? Fear the government cant as easily control them?
Yes I read what you wrote - maybe it IS the case that this happens on a daily basis throughout the US. Do you ever stop to think WHY this is the case? And why gun crime is so much lower in other countries like over here in the UK?
I'm just saying that in my situation it's unthinkable to have a gun in your home for self-defense reasons, and I live in one of the poorest, most crime-infected areas of north-west London - therefore, one of the most dangerous areas of the UK.
If you start handing out guns to people, as they seem to be doing in the US - what do you expect? Harmonious crime-free living?
Dude theres a lot more to our crime problem than the access to guns. these kids didnt even have guns anyway - had I shot them, the court would have justified the killing.
and its not a situation where guns are simply handed out - my license process took nearly 3 mos (of course as I live in Boston, a quazi commie state thats atypical) for the most part people who own guns and are legally able to do so are trustworthy, never committing crimes with their guns.
To ban the possession would be pointless and disallow us to fight back.
That's just fucked up. On what grounds?? They weren't armed - but it you'd killed them it would've been ok PURELY because they were on your property?
***shakes head sadly***
Nearly THREE MONTHS? Goodness me. That's a lifetime. How did you survive for those three months? Tch, tch. Beaurocracy, huh?
<IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
So what the hell do they do with them then? What's the point?
Against what? Unarmed children? I suppose you agree that nuclear weapons are a good thing too. In fact, why don't you grab one for your own front room - after all, you never know when someone might break in weilding a baseball bat..... <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Idiot read carefully - they had a crowbar and a knife. Not to mention a criminal record inclusive of attempted murder.
What do we use guns for? Well other than self defense theres the sporting aspect which I dont care to debate with you.
Point is we're just fine here in the US - get off your high horse "against unarmed children" speech - they break into my home with intent to harm myself or a loved one, they are as criminal as the guy on death row.
hey I call everyone dude - females included.
<IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
dude, baby etc its all good. beleive me I could say far WORSE things.
I agree with the sporting aspects of guns. Personally, I can't use them, because of the laws in the UK, but I shoot rifle and air pistol. I think it to be a fine discipline, not the choice of everyone, admittedly, but a great sport. It's fun, I enjoy it, and it does give skills and co-ordination, not to mention concentration that are otherwise lacking.
And, hopefully, I will travel abroad to shoot properly at some point in the future. So guys, if you have a range, or free land, y'know?
From what I know about the case, he did not use excessive force. There were two pikeys in his house, which was dark. He had no idea how many there were, and if they were armed or not. If he had told them to get out or hit one of them on the head (in which case he could have missed, the pikey could have overpowered him and killed him), there could have been another pikey creeping up behind him with a knife or crowbar.
This brings me back to intent. Tony Martin did not know the intent of the pikeys. He had no idea if they were violent men or not. But it's safe to assume that anybody who breaks into an occupied house is going to be prepared for the owner to discover them. Then what? I think the outcome will depend on who's armed and who is not armed.
That depends on the situation. If someone threatens you with a stick, but doesn't actually attack you, then shooting them without giving them a chance to surrender is excessive force. But if that person's just jumped out of the bushes and is beating you with a stick (and I assume we mean a heavy stick that's capable of cracking somebody's skull), then shooting them is entirely justified and not excessive.
But if this happens in your house, that's irrelevant. If you find a stranger in your house at night, the undisputable fact is that they're not supposed to be there. It's safe to assume that they mean you harm in some way. They may just be trying to steal your property, but they may also be prepared to physically harm you or your family. It would be stupid to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Anyone who breaks into a house should be prepared for the consequences of their actions. Just as anyone who attacks someone on the street should also be prepared for the consequences.
4.4%, = ~1 in 20. My educated guess at 1 in 16 wasn't too far off then. And you're saying this isn't a problem?
Perhaps that's true when it comes to solving major crimes like murders. But the clear up rate for muggings in London (again, an example) is only 14%. That's crap, to be blunt. But even so, the police can't prevent crimes happening in the first place. Do you agree or not?
Again, you bring up race. You didn't answer my question: what has that got to do with anything?
Sconebeast
Are they fuck! They have taken guns out of the hand sof law abiding citizens. The number of guns in circulation that are owned by criminals remains the same, as it always will. If anything, it could be increasing due to weapons being smuggled in along with drugs.
In an ideal society we'd all live in harmony and no one would be violent at all. But we don't live in an ideal society, and criminals have guns. Some of us woul dlike the right to protect ourselves from these scum.
Then don't use them. But don't stop me.
Every anti-gunner in the UK points to the US as an example of what happens when guns are widely available. Funny how no one points to Switzerland, where nearly every man owns a fully-automatic assault rifle. The crime rate is tiny.
gimme a holler - my range is open 24 / 7!
You get near Portland, Oregon > give me an Email, and we shall further your education.
Handguns. Shotguns. Rifles. AK-47's. FAL's.
Better to respect the tool, than have an irrational fear... <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Invitation is tendered...
Fraid not..Tony Martin would have been arrested and charged with murder in the USA.
He shot the little bastard thief in the back as he was running away emptyhanded...Im pretty sure thats illegal in most states.