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
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin
From what I gather it has been quite recently that your Handguns were banned.
Very few Assault weapons are used by individuals for self defense. Or are they used in crime.
The stats that I have seen show that the Violent crime rate is climbing in your country. Don't remember exact quotes but some have posted 40% climb in violent crime.
The proliferation of guns has more of a deterent effect in this country. Don't believe the Liberal press. They never post any stats on crimes prevented by armed citizens.
In my opinion if someone wants to kill,
say their spouse for instance they will do it one way or another. Sure a gun is easier. But knives, Ballbats, etc. Kill just as dead.
If someone breaks into your home you have no idea of their intent.
Supose they wish to kill your wife and kids.
Would you not wish to shoot them first ?
Suppose they DON'T want to kill you, or steal anything? Bit late isn't it?
Just a minor point but as we are selectively quoting the Bible i'd say that "Thou shalt not kill " is pretty unequivocal, isn't it?
But the police carry guns (even in the UK) to protect themselves from getting shot, stabbed, clubbed etc. Guns can and are used to keep folks from being killed, raped, or grievously harmed. In the vast majority of cases, its just the threat of reactive defensive force (the use of the firearm) that deters the attacker, and in only a tiny percentage (about 0.5% of defensive uses) the attacker is shot. In a subset of those, the attacker is killed.
Your right to personal safety is NOT upheld by the police, as they have no legal responsibility to do so, nor the logistic ability to do so. In the US, and Canada for that matter, its a matter of both specific law, and common law, that the police or any emergency service have no legal obligation to protect you or come to your aid.
I strongly suspect that that is the same in the UK.
You can't sue or prosecute the police for failing to protect you, and if they had the logistic ability to do so then no one would be a victim of violent crime.
No you don't get it.
If they are openly showing a firearm as they enter my home. They die. If not they get held at gunpoint until police arive.
I geuss you would just die willingly.
Thou shalt not kill comes behind watching my family die. I will never understand someone like you willing to die so that some criminals rights don't get violated.
Do you have a wife and Kids ? I would geuss not. if you did you might just understand. But somehow I doubt it.
You are a very good Subject arn't you. Sheeesh
Freedom rocks !
While laws vary, generally shooting a thief who is not threatening bodily harm is not considered self defense, folks can and are prosecuted for that.
Making guns unlawful has not been shown to reduce the number of guns. It has been shown to reduce the number of legally owned guns obviously, but the number of guns in unlawful (and violent criminal) hands has increased. The UK has shown this, as well as in Canada and in Australia, and in the cities in the US that have restricted the lawful ownership of firearms (Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Washington DC)
Your illustration in the manner of"Why the sky is blue?" followed by an explanation of light diffraction in the atmosphere. You do realize that the diffraction explanation is also dependent on first principles?
If you break into my home...I do not care why you are doing so. I will act as the laws of my state allow. The best thing for both of us is to not break in.
I am not a scholar of Biblical languages by any means but I have been told by a minister who is a Biblical languages scholar that the actual Hebrew is closer to "Thou shalt not murder" rather than "Thou shalt not kill." Apparently, the differences between types of homicide as defined by the ancient Hebrews is not exactly equivalent to what Anglo-Saxon culture developed. Also there are sections of the Talmud that state you have a duty before God to defend yourself. And in the New Testament where Jesus enjoins people who are both poor and unarmed to sell the shirt off their backs and buy a sword.
I work in an emergency department. I've seen many people survive being shot and I've seen many people survive being stabbed. I've yet to see anyone survive a serious bludgeoning to the skull with a club. Correction, I had one patient who is permanently comatose on a ventilator...if you can call that survival.
quote:
Originally posted by Byron Quick:
Self defense is a basic human right.
Why?
It is the basic human right of free men.
Britains first of all should know this.
Only someone who is utterly conditioned to
his status as a slave would even ask why.
(Unless merely as a rhetorical exercise)
Diesel
88888888
Actually, only someone utterly conditioned to being a slave would FAIL to think to ask why.
I've said this in one of the other N topics around here, and I'll say it again: America was founded by men who asked 'Why?' America was founded by men who were not willing to take at face value the assertions that the King of England was God's chosen representative on Earth, carried absolute power etc. etc. It seems to me that you and your fellow newly-arrived American posters, while you may know the letter of your history, have failed to understand the spirit of it.
Of course, if you think the objective of making you think is a "rhetorical exercise," then I suppose it was.
Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin
stretched aweful thin.
I wonder why your moderators have deleted this
twice? Are they afraid Brits will learn the
truth about their own heritage?
USA- 2nd Ammendment to the Constitution does
not "give" Americans the right to keep and
bear arms. It simply confirms a right which
predated the creation of the "United States of
America" and which predated the Constitution
thereof.
George Washington knew he was a free man, and had the right to keep
and bear arms, long before the independance of
the States, because he was and considered
himself a freeborn Englishman. When the States
became independant from G.B., naturally the
free men therein designed to protect and preserve
the freedoms which they already possesed.
Once again this freedom comes from English tradition and
English common law (which y'all should know
more about than I do?)
If the American Constitution or the BIll of Rights (Containing UA the 2nd Amm) should be
repealed or voided, it would be automatically
a tyrannical act, therefore by an illegitimate
government, and therefore it would alter or effect in
no way our right to keep and bear arms,
we would merely need to alter the rogue government.
You see,
we are free. And it's not easy to take away a
free man's guns. (I heard people have died trying though?)
I will never understand how you can believe yourself free whilst you live in fear of your own Govt, and you obviously cannot understand why we freely give up our 'right' to bear arms.
But I think on VERY important point has been made here. Whilst the US seems happy to allow a huge proliferation of guns within it's borders, it fails to ensure that education of gun control is maintained at the same level.
Gun control isn't just about owning a gun, but ensuring that the owners use them wisely.
Everytime we hear of a massacre, of hear about the huge number of gun related deaths in the US we will wonder why you appear not to do anything about it. I think that is the hardest thing to understand, we learned at Hungerford and Dunblane that innocent lives (including tweleve children) are far too important to be placed in the hands of a gun nut (NB - not every gun owner is a nut, I know that) and that we needed exercise some control over proliferation. I guess we were brave enough to face up to our responsibilities as a society.
I can see you have been well brainwshed
about this issue. We all read "the Economist" magazine
and we all know about the particularly egregious articles
in your newspapers, and we read them,
I will address your post, when I have time,
and I hope I don't come accross as too insulting.
Remember this: You are the ones who taught
America about freedom, and about resistance to
tyranny and arbitrary government, and especially
about the importance of keeping the right to
keep and bear arms.
George Washington was a freeborn Englishman,
and he proudly wore the Military Red Coat,
He took it off only with great melancholy.
Just for one example- after your leaders told
you all how much better it would be if you
gave up your pistols and accepted tight new
rules etc etc, YOUR CRIME SPIKED UP!|!!
Do you see a trend here? Is the logic getting through?
If a couple of kids drown in a swimming pool do you want to ban swimming pools ???
Almost all gun owners are responsible. But becase of a few that ain't and because of criminals that wont obey gun laws anyway you would punnish all that are. That is Stupid.
Besides Gun Bans are about Controling the people. Not guns.
We want our Nation to remain free, that is why we fear our Goverment.
And because of the Murders at Ruby ridge and Waco.
Are these points that are being made here really that hard to understand ?????
Freedom rocks !
If a couple of kids drown in a swimming pool do you want to ban swimming pools ???
Almost all gun owners are responsible. But becase of a few that ain't and because of criminals that wont obey gun laws anyway you would punnish all that are. That is Stupid.
Besides Gun Bans are about Controling the people. Not guns.
We want our Nation to remain free, that is why we fear our Goverment.
And because of the Murders at Ruby ridge and Waco.
Are these points that are being made here really that hard to understand ?????
Freedom rocks !
"I will never understand how you can believe yourself free whilst you live in fear of your own Govt, and you obviously cannot understand why we freely give up our 'right' to bear arms."
There you go again with that Socialist minded royal "We" stuff. As if you can speak for all your fellow countrymen.
You cannot "freely " give up your right, or your fellows right to bear arms, no more than you could give up any other essential human rights. Those English gun owners were not freely giving up anything a few years ago, their rights were abbrogated, by force.
The Parliment was full of Arrogant morons who thought they had invented a new solution to the problem of human violence (Simply ban weapons), never before thought of in the 800(+) or so years of English common law. (BTW isolated freak incidents aside, Britan has never had high gun violence rates.)
Your government however, threatened to use force against anyone who would not comply to the new laws they created while exploiting isolated tradgedy for political gain.
This use of mass coersion is the nature of power and government. It is why most U.S. citizens are wary of such accumulated power.
We do not have to fear our government when it fears us. You Brits however, should be quaking in your European boots.
any Euro-facists should go to
www.geekswithguns.com
Ali baba and da forty ounces
Where, pray?
Come on, are you seriously saying that it is the mark of the slave that he QUESTIONS things???? Are you really saying that to take nothing for granted is the sign of a CONSTRAINED mind???
Per-lease!
What he's saying is that it is a mark of an enslaved mind to seriously question it's own right to self presevation. After all, a self aware human being knows they are an equal, and individual part of humanity. A person who wonders if or believes their life is intrinsically worth less than anyone else, or is indoctrinated to believe that the arbitrary will of the group is more important than the human rights of a single person, is a slave.
I disagree. I would say that it is the mark of the free mind that it can seriously question anything.
No, a wise human being operates daily on the assumption that s/he is equal, individual etc. but recognises that those assumptions may or may not be right.
I'm not quite sure where you're going with the 'will of the group' bit. I'd say that although the 'will of the many' is not paramount, the 'good of the many' is.
I maintain that a slave questions nothing; a 'free man' is capable of questioning anything.
There is nothing SOCIALIST about using the term WE. It is about the MAJORITY decisions, in a democracy majority rules. in this case a MAJORITY decided that a reduction in the proliferation of a potentially life threatening weapon was a good thing, hence it became law. We don't feel the same a car related death, swimming pools accidents (the term ACCIDENT is an important difference) etc, which is why owniong a car, swimming pool etc is legal.
You can freely give up anything, it is a matter of free will, no-one can dictate what you THINK.
The gun owners were forced to give up their guns because it became unlawful to keep them. They were the minority, who lost an argument to the majority - democracy working.
You have drug control laws don't you? Don't you have the right to snort cocaine if you want to? Or is this an issue if govt interferrence? Or is it an issue of the majority of your countrymen deciding that free drug abuse is not in your countires interest (a view I agree with)?
And I'm sure that you would argue that this has NOTHING to do with the fact that the proliferation of guns had never been very high in this country.
The PEOPLE decided and forced the Govt to act. The Govt were actually anti the ban, but listened to the people.
This is also why we still have our own currency and not the Euro. It is also why the 'Poll Tax' was abolished. Not because we threatened the Govt with guns, but in each case the will of the people has prevailed.
The govt you are so afraid of is elected by your own population.
We have survived hundreds of years without the need to arm the population against each other, why should we change that?
You defended my position better than I could!
(But let me take a wack at this newspeak anyway)
Perhaps nothing elucidates your status as
brainwashed slaves as much as this last comment,
where you confuse the act of disarming yourselves,
adn thereby making yourselves easy/easier victims
for the next wacko who flips out, with "courage"
I must say, this last comment must be the
manifesto of the confirmed sheep, demanding
he be shorn:
"I guess we were brave enough to face up to our responsibilities as a society."
Over the past few days I seem to have irked the ire of many of our American friends by my questioning of many of their assertions: the 'right to life', 'right to self-defence', 'right to bear arms' and so on.
At least one poster has effectively called me a slave (to whom/what?) for my questioning of the 'right to life.' I take no offence at this: in point of fact I laughed when I read the post.
My reply to this statement was, and continues to be, that it is the mark of the slave that he questions nothing: he thinks precisely what his master tells him to think. It is the very tendency to question that breaks the bonds of slavery, I would argue. I am sure that our American friends, well-versed as they are in the philosophy of the American Revolution, will be able to confirm for us that the founders of their state agreed that free thought was/is an essential characteristic of a free man.
Note, though, that questioning the 'right to life' (or any other 'right') does not automatically entail the conclusion that it is wrong or does not exist. It is merely the failure to mindlessly assume that it exists and is correct.
There is another ground on which my questioning has been attacked: that it represents an attempt to invalidate others' arguments by showing that they rest on statements assumed without proof. This analysis is only partly correct: while my questions do aim to unearth axiomatic foundations they do not seek to invalidate the arguments per se. I concede freely (as others have pointed out) that all arguments are based on certain assumed statements; my aim is to elucidate both their existence and content. Why should I wish to do this?
Existence: If we recognise that all arguments (both our own and our opponents') are based on statements which are unproved we may foster a more lively debate of a more questioning (and, ultimately, revealing and satisfying) nature. This is desireable because if no questions are asked no answers will be reached, and so we will have been wasting our time here.
Content: Quite simply, is we do not all start from the same agreed point then we shall, again, achieve nothing, for we shall be talking at cross purposes the entire time.
This is by no means a call for complete philosophical rigour in our discussions: that would be overkill, I think. It is, however, a plea for an atmosphere of calm and reasoned debate and the prerequisites of it. If we are to discuss 'rights' (by their nature, highly philosophical objects) then some degree of such would appear to be in order.
Mac
(If anyone would prefer to discuss these things with me by e-mail rather than clogging up the boards here, my address is listed.)
Sure , I'd love to discuss the whole Freedom versus Society issue with you in private e-mail. Please excuse the short message this time around, but I have to go to work in a bit. I will send more later.
Whereas you question everything, and my mind seems closed to certain possiblities where my core principles have already been decided upon. I will attempt address your statements, as well as I can, in the hopes that I can change your mind, open as it is.
Douglas
Ali baba and da forty ounces
I admit I have no idea what McKenie's getting at.
I think that one of his suggestions is that we assume that our point of view is the only right one and consequently have a closed mind to what the truth might actually be.
A slave would not question what he is told is the truth - a free man will.
I still think that he could explain himself better though <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/biggrin.gif">