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
Technically the class system is non-existent - my arse. It may have changed slightly but it still operates on the same basis. We still have a house of Lords to qhich no-one had been elected. We still have royalty and I have no choice over them. How many princes and princess are on the state payroll? How many Dukes are poor?
As for the royals deserving our respect? Why exactly, when do they show US any respect? It IS a two way street.
If I had buggerall to do all day and recieved several millions from the state every year, I'd do a shit load for charity too. Difference is I have to work just to live, I don't have a staff to lookafter my every whim, I don't get first class medical care free of charge.
Diana was a media savvy manipulator. I KNOW one of the royal bodyguards who said that she was the most two faced person he'd met and that she put on a persona just infront of the public.
As for William's gap year. Big deal, one year from his whole life he had to deal with real people and do a real job.
I don't have a problem with TB becoming PM because he was voted in, in fact all power to him.
I DO have a problem with the assumption that is voiced above (by our US cousin) that only the Conservatives know what is best for this country - the reason we are in such a mess is the direct result of 18 years of mismanagement. A time when the media were on side with the tories, he can't blame the socialists in the press (in fact the only reason they love TB is because of his right wing views).
Oh and TB thinks that he runs the party. He is starting to find out that he may be wrong - he has been beaten twice by his own crowd in the last couple of weeks.
Unfortunately Maggie had alienated a huge mass of the population with her local taxation policy and would never have been voted in, it was only that Major was fairly new that even he was given a chance, but we then discovered that he was an arse too. The tories biggest problem now is that they can't even agree with each other.
As for the ill-informed comments about guns, regardless of what the NRA of Gun lobby in this country might have you believe you CAN own a shotgun or hunting rifle. No assault weapons (AK47 etc) and no handguns. How else do you think that the royals can go shooting (as can Madonna when she's here and even my brother in law - who actually keeps a shotgun in his house!). As for the NRA bias, I was only making the point that you are quoting a biased source and that they may not represent FACT. I am able to make up my own mind based on information from all sources - its a freedom thing. But the NRA is a lobby organisation, they will not see the other side of the argument, in the same way the some on the left cannot see the benefits of capitalism - just the negatives.
There was a HUGE swathe of public opinion after Dunblane that said enough is enough, it was the tragedy that forced the issue - without it we would still have allowed handguns. Public consciousness has a big impact on policies, why else would politicians jump on bandwagons?
And I don't equate hunters with peadophiles. I equate the argument that the minority should be protected from the majority. That is plainly crap. It is a minority who commit crime, it is a minority who abuse children (apparently it was the minority who wanted gun control!) etc.
As for hate crime legislation, I agree that it is a crock. A crime is a crime, whether it is committed against a minority or not.
I didn't have a problem with the fact that he was voted in either. His party made the play, essentially advertized, getting help from the "progressive" media, and the people bought it, hook line and sinker. I merely point out that the Brainwashed English citizens are now stuck with these Leftists in power.
<I DO have a problem with the assumption that is voiced above (by our US cousin) that only the Conservatives know what is best for this country ->
Hey Brother, You don't seem to grasp that what I was saying is there is NO BALANCE in your F-cked up government. There's simply Right and Left of center, extreme Left, and Really Extreme Left. With all of you knuckleheads
thinking you are somehow really "centrist" to moderately Right wing.
Anyone with a Libertarian thought is disregarded as irrelavant. And the "Right wing" is only about religious morality freaks to you. What about a HUGE reduction in your payroll taxes, so you could afford to live like Tony Blair? What about privatising health care so you could afford a top notch DOc when you're wife needs that experimental cancer treatment? and what about getting people off Welfare, so you don't have to pay for every lazy git who's pumping out thirteen chillins and expecting free birthin and housing to boot.
< the reason we are in such a mess is the direct result of 18 years of mismanagement. A time when the media were on side with the tories, he can't blame the socialists in the press (in fact the only reason they love TB is because of his right wing views).>
TB Right wing? MY AUNT FANNIE.
Tony's a Globalist. He'd Like to see a ONE WORLD government. Of course one where he can be in charge. So excuse me If I also consider that to be LEftist, Elitist and Socialist. While you might delight in attributing all sorts of little differences betwixt and between them, To me it's all the same, and he's just an Arsehole. By the way, the Media is on the side of the Media. Once the rhetoric agin MAgs got nasty, they were counting the days until she left office, bunch of vultures.
The Hell I can't blame the Socialists for the problems you Brits face right now. From what I read... After WWII, ENgland, thinking themselves to be "Enlightened" beyond all other Western nations, the Brits nationalized more than Half the English economy. If it wasn't for PM Thachter support for deregulation and Privatization of Business during her term, you guys wouldn't have taken part in ANY of the economic growth of the late 1980's and early-mid 1990's, Heck you guys were in such bad shape at one point in the early 80's, you could have gone THIRD WORLD.
<Oh and TB thinks that he runs the party. He is starting to find out that he may be wrong - he has been beaten twice by his own crowd in the last couple of weeks.>
He still pulls the strings. Yet, if he goes, they'll be someone just like him to replace him.
<Unfortunately Maggie had alienated a huge mass of the population with her local taxation policy and would never have been voted in,>
You'll have to refresh me, I thought she was against over-taxation.
<it was only that Major was fairly new that even he was given a chance, but we then discovered that he was an arse too.>
In the sense that he didn't want to tax you , or did he?
<The tories biggest problem now is that they can't even agree with each other.>
Well, the more they want to tax, and make the public more dependant on the Governments big Nanny Tit, the more they are mimicking Labor. The less they do of that the better off the Torys will be in the end.
<As for the ill-informed comments about guns, regardless of what the NRA of Gun lobby in this country might have you believe you CAN own a shotgun or hunting rifle.>
Yea, but for how long baby? It's not like you have a RIGHT to own them. Tony Blair can simply wave his majik wand and push for a public referendum. Guess what. Most people in England, when asked " Do you think Joe Blow here in Bristol should be allowed to continue to own his special 'Assualt Shotgun'with TWO barrels and a scary wooden 'pistol grip' Buttstock?" tehy'll simply parrot the old Labor line that Guns are evil...and away goes Mr. over-under Berretta.
< No assault weapons (AK47 etc) and no handguns.>
This incipid rhetorical device is SO MISLEADING I have to say something. ALL WEAPONS ARE ASSAULT WEAPONS. Can you think of a freindly weapon? No. HEre in AMerica,like in Switzerland, Assault weapons are especially protected, as they are the ones most likely to be needed to defend against things like a corrupt government, and mob rule. Don't think it's possible? Take a look at the G-8 summit in Genoa. How bout the Rodney King Riots... or more recently the riots in Philiadelphia... the "City of Brotherly Love".
<How else do you think that the royals can go shooting (as can Madonna when she's here and even my brother in law - who actually keeps a shotgun in his house!).>
Dude, . That Guy Ritchie pussy and Madonna will probably go shooting with the Queen when the Police come for your Brother in laws guns, and then you'll see how much the Class system is still in effect. They'd never take the power of the Monarch to own weapons away... it would degrade the crowns majesty... "Oh the Queen can be trusted with a gun... She'd probably just shoot herself". Of course, she's not a subject, and actually has a right to own guns.
<As for the NRA bias, I was only making the point that you are quoting a biased source and that they may not represent FACT.>
The NRA, more than ANY poltical organization has to BACK UP everything they say with legitimate and original sources. Their Constitutional Arguments are IMPECCABLE, and their side has DOctors and Proffessors as reputable as ANY who support the other view.
< I am able to make up my own mind based on information from all sources ->
Since you have already discounted the NRA as an illegitimate source of information, you will most likely ignore anything that jibes with the NRA position, and by doing so you have guaranteed that your conclusions will be biased against guns no matter what the facts are.
<its a freedom thing.>
Yea, you are free to remain ignorant.
<But the NRA is a lobby organisation, they will not see the other side of the argument, in the same way the some on the left cannot see the benefits of capitalism - just the negatives.>
That's a pile of shit from the get go.
The NRA has a principled position. Sometimes you have right and wrong. You , and apparently the other 65 million other English Sophists want us to beleive that there is no Right or Wrong, only opinons, and therefore, their opinon is right for them. This is bullshite. There is only one way, Freedom is that way. You Talk of freedom, yet call someone else your Soveriegn. You say you're free, but only as free as the majority wishes you to be. You are not just wrong, but pittiful as well.
While I may not be perfectly free because of people like you here in the US, at least I know that I should be.
<There was a HUGE swathe of public opinion after Dunblane that said enough is enough,>
Public opinion was CREATED by the media. The Sensationalism promted the questioning as to whether or not innocent people should be allowed to own guns to protect their own lives. There is an entire industry in both countries dedicated to this pro-authoritarian anti-gun propaganda. You will NEVER convince me that EVERYONE just stood up in unision and said "enough" all on their own. You can tell when a group is prompted because they all say the same thing at the same exact moment, don't you know. They were reacting to mass hysteria. A very BAD way to make public policy.
<it was the tragedy that forced the issue>
It was Anti-gun Media and politicians who "forced the Issue" capitalizing on the tradegy, despicably benefiting from horrific events.
<without it we would still have allowed handguns. Public consciousness has a big impact on policies, why else would politicians jump on bandwagons?>
They jump on bandwagons and sometimes help them get rolling to benefit themselves mainly. If cooler heads had prevailed, you would have realized that there was really no epidemic shootings going on in England, and no REAL need to ban weapons because of a freak of nature who wanted to commit suicide and take children with him. It's not like the GUNs made him do it, or that you would be more likely to do such an terrible thing, if you had the right to defend yourself.
Ah, but who listens to reason anyway...
<And I don't equate hunters with peadophiles.>
I'm sorry, was that someone else posting, making that analogy instead of you?
<I equate the argument that the minority should be protected from the majority. That is plainly crap.>
Tell that to the Jews, Blacks and Latinos.
<It is a minority who commit crime, it is a minority who abuse children (apparently it was the minority who wanted gun control!) etc.>
You just don't get it do you. The legitimate minority. Child abusers are not legitimate, and do not deserve consideration. innocent Gun owners ARE legitimate, do not KILL ANYONE, and DO deserve protection from those who would take away their rights arbitrarily, over unfounded fears, or to to "Protect them from themselves".
<As for hate crime legislation, I agree that it is a crock. A crime is a crime, whether it is committed against a minority or not>
Oh, but no... apparently the "minorities" getting together to form a coalition majority which now demands that each offical minority in turn recieve special status so that when a crime is commited against them, the perpatrator is particularly punished for having dared touch a member of the priveledged class.
Yea, things are tough all over.
[This message has been edited by Doubro (edited 26-07-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Doubro (edited 26-07-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Doubro (edited 26-07-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Doubro (edited 26-07-2001).]
first off, let me introduce myself. for all intents and purposes, i'm swiss. although i'm australian by birth, i've been brought up with a lot of swiss values, opinions and ideals.
and so i'm in a position to offer an outsiders perspective that is, more or less, completely unbiased.
Tony Blair is no extremist. He's a moderate politician, like all other prominent politicians. If he was an extremist, why is the UK not under a totalitarian rule? why is there no facist government ruling the isles?
The royal family - as an outside, i think they're nice enough people, just it's a pity they cost so much. having htem around is a form of nation-wide moral support. the queen mother is the nations grandmother, the queen the nations mother, prince charles, the uncle, diana, the sister and so on. whether they are deserve respect or not is totally opinionated, and people will have views that are unlikely to be changed.
the class system - britain is only classless by name, as MOK said.
ok, now a couple of things that got me in Doubro's last post:
much as you seem to discount everything we say as completely biased bullshit? u know what mate...arguing with u is totally useless, because you have decided on ur viewpoint, and no amount of reasoned argument can persuade u to compromise. the fact is, we are not asking u to agree with us, only realise that this whole argument is opinion-based, thus it can never be resolved.
u guys can argue till ur blue in the face, but ur not going to get anywhere...Doubro and the other libretarians insist on seeing the UK as a country still under authoritarian rule with a puppet parliament inhabited by easily-manipulated, braiswashed "subjects" of the crown. ok, so have the viewpoint. in my opinion, and the opinion of the majority of members on this board, you're wrong.
but hey, like i said, no amount of argument is going to convince you otherwise.
I'll be sitting on top when it all goes wrong again
as for saying that we (or at least turtle) are 'quitting the fight', i think it would be fra more sensible to call a truce, and agree to disagree.
i wouldnt say that i have a great many 'preconcieved notions' about gun control. having never owned a gun or been shot, i had never really thought in depth about the issue until the topic was raised (again and again) at thesite. and, i decided that increased gun control is definitely right.
just out of interest - what was it that changed your mind (and i dont mean 'i saw the truth and logic of the libertarian argument' - i mean any particular event, news story or similar.)
finally - i do have my rights intact, just as much as any US citizen, if not moreso. i have the right to argue with a man if he treads on my toes at the bus stop, without fear of him pulling a kalashnikov on me, and shooting my feet off. in short, i feel more secure knowing that society can function without individuals taking the law in to their own hands.
Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
>... Of course not, look who were trying to enlighten.
>... Why don't you question your own beliefs before expecting me to completely re-evaluate mine?
This statement works both ways. You are the one questioning gun control in my country.
>... I will admit however that it helps being in a country where you can experience what it feels like to have most of your rights in tact.
Your arrogance once again shines through in the comments you made in this post.
The fact that we disagree does not show I'm brainwashed, I am simply using my right of free speech. Most of us don't agree with you and this seems to make us automatically wrong. This is where your arrogance shines through.
The laws in this country rerflect how the people majority of people feel. This is the way a democracy works. Do you have problems with democracy? You rave on about our Queen but she has very little political power nowadays. Most people here only think of her like a tourist attraction.
You seem frightened and paranoid by the fact that we have gun control in this country although it dosn't effect you. It seems to me that you dislike or are afraid that gun control can be successful here in Britain.
We all dream of a perfect society. Each of us has view on what that should be. In my view it would be without violence. Guns are essentialy violent so this 'perfect world' would have contain no guns. Due to human nature this sort of society is a long time coming, if indeed it ever will but that shouldn't stop us striving for it.
By all means be rude and offensive as you have previously, but it will only harm your argument more here.
Forward ever
Backward never
I get the feeling that our US 'ally' feels that unless we agree with the 'American' way of life 100% then we are all brainwashed morons.
It isn't this country that forces all it's children to take 'the oath' at school everyday (?) - (didn't facists do something like that) - , we don't have book burning (again something the facists did), we don't have routinely armed police roaming our streets to defend us against the routinely armed criminals, in fact we have a lower crime rate including murder (and, yes, gun related murders too), I have access to health care (whatever my income) and I can stand for parliment without having to spend millions on a campaign (in fact I am limited in the amount I spend).
But then we ARE different, we can make gun control work because we DON'T see it as a birthright (how many babies are born with a gun in their hand?). The ONLY birthright is the right to life, all others are handed down by society, the constitution hasn't existed for eternity (only just over 200 years) and the world managed pretty well without it, and all 'rights' can be withdrawn if said society wishes. But then that's what freedom is all about. Freedom to change, if we want.
Believe it or not there are more ways to live than the US way. In the same way that there are more opinions than just mine, I don't expect anyone to agree with it, but I do expect them to respect my right to it.
P.S. Maggie Thatcher created the 'Community Charge' (aka The Poll Tax) which meant that EVERYONE over the age of 18 had to pay an amount to fund local services. It replaced the original tax (called Rates - which meant that every HOUSEHOLD had to pay approx £500 per annum), with a tax that cost EVERY PERSON approx £300. Most households have more than one adult, so it increased taxes across the board - some (like mine) had five over 18s when the tax was introduced (a bill of £1500). SO much for anti-taxation. She actually stood for anti-taxation of the RICH.
[This message has been edited by Doubro (edited 28-07-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Doubro (edited 28-07-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Doubro (edited 28-07-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Doubro (edited 28-07-2001).]
profiteering and expansionism - c'mon doubro, even you can see that not every business can expand and make profit simultaneously and forever. therefore tax the ones who are doing very well out of the capitalist system, to pay to help the ones who are on the down-slide at that time. common sense really.
as for becoming a professional politician in the US - how many non-Democrat, non-Republican congressmen/senators are there at the mo? none - 'cept that guy who swapped over, but my point is, that to get elected in the US, one has to be a member of one of these two parties. therefore, one must hold either right or centre views (oyu have no left-wing party as far as i can determine, only a few centre-left politicians). therefore, there can be no opinion represented in power that does not conform to one of these two viewpoints. therefore, as both parties tend to get large amounts paid to them by (legitimate) munitions firms, it is highly unlikely that there will ever be the political will to impose full gun control in the US. it is not really a matter of the citizen's choice at all, but a choice made by the senior officials of the major political parties. an over-simplification i know, but its roughly true.
going back to a comment you made on a comment of MOK's, freedom to withdraw rights is an absolutely essential part of government. the withdrawl of the right to raise a private army took place in about the 13th century - stopped numerous civil wars and ridiculous bloodshed. the withdrawl of the right to carry a handgun in the UK following the tragedy of Dunblane was a necessity - the right (and it was not really so much of a right as a non-forbidden thing)was no longer appropriate to modern society. the same thing happened in the US - how come you have so many amendments to the constitution - happened because times changed, and people needed to be given new rights, and others needed to be removed. the US constitution is not the be-all and end-all of legality in your country, so maybe old GW was wrong to say that every man should have the right to bear arms. he did, after all, live a fair old time ago.
your analogy of democracy is quite good actually, but the alternaive to eating the sheep is what - all three animals starve to death?
in defence of public services - perhaps they are a bit inefficient, but i'm pretty happy with the NHS, was a lot happier before the tories privatised rail, gas, electric etc. society functions for the good of everyone, not for the good of thsoe rich enough to pay for it.
it is people who espouse the privatisation of public services who have destroyed thousands of jobs in the third world, have bankrupt governments, and have probably consigned millions to poverty. do you really believe that the south african govt is wrong to be selling cheap AIDS-reduction drugs and contraception to its population - would you rather force those people to pay ten times as much for the same product just so it can make a few people ever richer. yes, this is one of the reasons why i do hate capitalism, but only because i know how it works.
i cant be arsed with this argument any more - its like bashing my head against a brick wall. this topic now has waaaaaay to many posts, and i've probably already repeated the arguments of dozens of other people (and before anyone says it - its not because we're short of arguments to use in favour of gun control, its just because we dont need as much drenching rhetoric). i have better thigns to do with my time than argue with people so entrenched in their own little world that they cannot see the bigger picture of the argument - the morality, the dead people, and so on.
columbine,
thurson,
Lincoln,
Parker,
Heath,
Pearl,
Jonesboro,
where does it end?
evidence enough i think. you cant ask kids to take guns in to school just in case little timmy down the road gets pissed off and wants to kill people today, can you? that is the legacy of being lax about gun control - dead kids. this is not just a theoretical debate - people are actually dying because some others refuse to see the truth.
Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
i agree with you that it is, of course, not the guns that do the killing. but therefore, it acnnot be guns that protect against guns. it must be people protecting against people - society functioning as a group. so, if you take the guns out of the equation, society becomes a lot less prone to the impact of a few individuals (high-school shooters, for example).
you're right, i onyl do consider tragedies that support my position. there may be countless other instances where a security guard has averted such a disaster, but i put it to you that even ONE of the massacres that happen with alarming regularity across the US is ONE TOO MANY. if we cant agree on that then there's no point even being here. my point is, surely it is better (even though its far from an ideal solution) to keep the weapons in the hands of those responsible enough to ensure they are used only to protect others - police, armed forces, and (if so required) security guards. therefore, they will not fall in to the hands of hormonal and unstable teenagers, and therefore one can avoid the next instalment of the high-school shootings saga.
defending oneself with a gun - an interesting point that i'm not sure anyone else has raised here. last year, an elderly farmer was convicted of murder, for shooting a burglar in the back with a 12-bore shotgun after his home was repeatedly broken in to. the burglar was killed. he was only 13 (i think). i dont think the farmer should have shot the boy, but i can bet that you think he was right to do so. my point is, in the UK, the legal system is of the opinion that you have NO RIGHT to take another person's life in this manner, whatever the circumstances. what you seem to be arguing is that you have a right to take another persons life if they pose a threat to you. i can see situaions where self-defence is arguable, and the law over here makes allowances for that. but, you simply cannot have civilians armed to the teeth and trigger-happy, in case they get threatened by a burglar. criminals have rights too.
i cant be arsed to argue with you over the issue of globalisation and capitalism, because i know what i'm talking about, and presumably you believe you do too, so i'll leave that to another thread. i'm off to bang my head against some more walls.
and who the f**k ever heard of a 'limeybean' anyway!!! <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif">
Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
No, but they now have access to Heckler and Koch submachine guns to use to suppress the public when ever they deem it neccessary, while their US counter parts (All but elite Swat teams or counter terrorist "Special services " units ) are mostly resigned to a simple menu of the old fashioned pistol/shotgun combo. Some still use revolvers. The use of Sub-Machine guns brings a decidedly para-militaristic flair to the use of arms in English policing , however limited in it's scope.
<instead, they have them issued to them in a time of crisis, such as a hostage situation. until then, they dont need them, so they wont shoot anybody.>
I wouldn't count on that. The usage of these military weapons is not limited to special small groups, like in the US with different policies between States, but comes with general access to the National police in times of "crisis", which is whenever they deem it...This is much clearer evidence of paramilitarism than the US's patchwork of agencies policy (ALthough, the trend is now universal and undeniable, Here in the US, it's usually with the justification of the "War on Drugs" ).
<i agree with you that it is, of course, not the guns that do the killing. but therefore, it acnnot be guns that protect against guns.>
RIGHT, it must be the PEOPLE who use the guns to defend against OTHER PEOPLE who use guns.
<it must be people protecting against people - society functioning as a group. so, if you take the guns out of the equation, society becomes a lot less prone to the impact of a few individuals (high-school shooters, for example).>
Well, my whole point is that you CANNOT TAKE THE GUNS "OUT OF THE EQUATION" WITHOUT YEARS OPON YEARS OF MARTIAL LAW. Perhaps you would like to live in a Police state. For the rest of us, there is no acceptable alternative to be found in giving our lives and privacy over to para-military of national overseers who have the power of life and death over all.
<you're right, i onyl do consider tragedies that support my position. there may be countless other instances where a security guard has averted such a disaster>
Yes or even PRIVATE CITIZENS. Although I'm sure you do not care to know of those instances.
< but i put it to you that even ONE of the massacres that happen with alarming regularity across the US is ONE TOO MANY.>
If we can agree that there is an equality of one life being worth the same as another, then I submit there is an acceptable cost for the use of arms. If the "cost in lives" is LESS than it would be without legal firearms,meaning... if more people are SAVED by guns than are killed my them, then it is accpetable and rational calculation no matter how distastful is seems to accept the fact that guns are a reality you cannot "uninvent".
But if you wish to deny this "POSITIVE USE CANCELS OUT NEGATIVE USE" postulate I am proposing to you, then how can we determine the acceptable "Cost of Freedom", if as you beleive, there are not enough lives saved by guns to make the equation balance in favor of legal usage? How much is Freedom worth? Do we not send people to fight and die all over the world in the name of Freedom? Freedom from oppression, freedom to speak, to live without constraint... have those lives all been sacrificed in vain? Why do we hold freedom in such high regard?
If there is no acceptable level of criminality, or accident, then why are cars legal? Drunk driving would seem to be a completely unacceptable reason for anyone to lose their life, yet Cars amd alcohol remain legal. Why? Private swimming pools, while at times giving some theraputic value, often take life seen in the result of accidental drownings. Why allow people to own these dangerous luxuries?
What about Smoking? Fast FOOD? BOTH cause heart disease which certainly kills more people than ALL shootings the WORLD OVER combined. Why not BAN ALL grease food and tobacco products...
You see what I'm getting at...? Just because something seems unacceptable, doesn't mean it neccessarily is. Never mind the fact that legal guns are NOT proven conclusively to represent a net LOSS rather than a gain of lives... Even if we conceed the point, WHICH I DO NOT, there is still the matter of SCALE. And it is abundantly CLEAR considering the things I just mentioned, that the social cost gun ownership is COMPLETELY over-estimated. Yet what can I expect from people who admit that they ONLY consider evidence which supports their own biased views.
<if we cant agree on that then there's no point even being here.>
Well, I do not agree that there is any "epidemic" of gun violence to be a cause for true alarm(They always say "Epidemic of gun violence" when trying to whip up "Alarm"). You are over-reacting due to your misunderstanding of the issue and your genteel nature. You simply are not critical of your intuitive responses. If you actually read the definition of the world "Epidemic" for instance the nect time you hear someone using to describe the gun issue, ask yourself if gun killings are "Increasing Exponetially" as is the requirment for it to recieve "Epidemic" status, or are they, even counting the USA, simply at a predictable, and even shrinking levels...(Which is what you'd find if you did a dispassionate study of the offical statistics).
<my point is, surely it is better (even though its far from an ideal solution) to keep the weapons in the hands of those responsible enough to ensure they are used only to protect others - >
There is NO ONE who can ensure that guns will only be used to "Protect Others" for one reason, it's impossible for police to be omni-present. So if police were the only ones to legally own them, the level of protective use would be veritably nil. As it is now in regards to Police intervention. And the fact that police are charged with a duty and the means to carry out such a duty, cannot guarantee that they will not ABUSE their power. In fact, it's a SAFE BET that they WILL inevitably abuse their power, ESPECIALLY if they are given sole purview over the means of coersion in society. This is the entire argument for civilain ownership in a nutshell.
<police, armed forces, and (if so required) security guards. therefore, they will not fall in to the hands of hormonal and unstable teenagers, and therefore one can avoid the next instalment of the high-school shootings saga.>
Sure, and while were at it, lets make Cars illegal accept for the Police/ Security Military, as well as Alcohol/ and Kitchen Knives/ Bathtubs/ and anything else which could represent a precarious physical danger that people might have an oppourtunity to excercise their own human agency over. We could simply pad the walls of every house, and take out the stairs, so that no one ever touches a sharp corner, ot falls down to hurt themselves again. A perfect world...
<efending oneself with a gun - an interesting point that i'm not sure anyone else has raised here. last year, an elderly farmer was convicted of murder, for shooting a burglar in the back with a 12-bore shotgun after his home was repeatedly broken in to. the burglar was killed. he was only 13 (i think). i dont think the farmer should have shot the boy, but i can bet that you think he was right to do so.>
See, the thing here is , I wasn't there. If the kid was threatening the farmers life, then YES, I think he did the right thing. But there's a REASON that people should have the power to make that decision at the time. No one can second guess the situation who wasn't there. That includes you powdered wig laden Justices and Barristers. If the guy made a mistake, it is a tragedy, yet the fault is NOT entirely his and he should be given leinience as the Stupid child put himself in HARMS WAY. Your tendancy to NANNY your fellow man is wrongheaded, and ALL people, young and old, need to understand that there are CONSEQUENCES to actions which are sometimes very final indeed. The Statists need to releive individuals of all meaningful responsibilities to give the state something to do is insideous.
<my point is, in the UK, the legal system is of the opinion that you have NO RIGHT to take another person's life in this manner, whatever the circumstances.>
Then your legal system is WRONG.
You have the right to defend yourself if you have reason to believe your life is in danger. Your legal system is telling you then, that you life is worth LESS than your attackers... when in fact, because the attacker is violating your rights, he is forfeiting his own value to society,putting his own life up against yours. Then you are the one who is moraly correct in using defensive force.
<what you seem to be arguing is that you have a right to take another persons life if they pose a threat to you.>
Not seem to be arguing, indeed I am arguing that very thing. But not simply "Pose a threat" but actually are threatening your life, giving you a reason to fear for your own life.
< i can see situaions where self-defence is arguable,>
No you don't. If you did, then you'd be wondering why you cannot carry a gun for instances when this would apply.
<and the law over here makes allowances for that.>
And no it doesn't, because if it did, people would be allowed to carry to protect themselves.
< but, you simply cannot have civilians armed to the teeth and trigger-happy, in case they get threatened by a burglar. criminals have rights too.>
First of all, there are 31 STATES in the US which allow the carrying of concealed weapons. IN those states, no more than 5-7% of the population actually carries even though they are FREE to do so. It is the mere fact that the criminal cannot predict who will be armed that prevents many attacks in these states, when compared to the inner city violence connected with the "Drug War" where ALL guns are BAnned yet illagal ones predominate. You must have been watching too many "Wild West" tv shows to think otherwise. (The Wild West, by the way is a Myth as the level of killings in the Old West was commensurate with modern levels , except for isolated annecdotal evidence, the rate of US homicide has stayed fairly stable over the country's history)
As for criminals rights...
Criminals are the only class of people who can give up their rights voluntarily... forfieting them by attacking someone else. Once they are in prison they may have rights, but when they are attacking you, they have NONE.
<i cant be arsed to argue with you over the issue of globalisation and capitalism, because i know what i'm talking about, and presumably you believe you do too, so i'll leave that to another thread. i'm off to bang my head against some more walls.>
We can't both "know what we're talking about"... and disagree can we?
and who the f**k ever heard of a 'limeybean' anyway!!!
Thanks, my own little varation on "Limey" and "Bean eater"
(i) the police do not exist solely to 'suppress the population'.
(ii) the British (not English - there is no such thing, remember) police force is not a paramilitary organisation. thats why they DONT CARRY GUNS. they have armed units and access to firearms, yes, because there are times when it is necessary. but i would say that is fra less 'paramilitary' than the always armed (and i dont care with what - handgun, rifle, 75mm howitzer - thats not the point) US police.
(iii) decomissioning of guns does not take yeras of martial law. after dunblane, some 95% of the handguns in the country were handed in VOLUNTARILY or collected by the police without imposition of force. because they obey the law. and if, as you claim, the average gun-toting US citizen is a law-abider, then once guns are made illegal, they too will obey the law in that repsect.
as has been discussed before, how can one claim that more people are 'saved' by guns than are killed. you cant. someone always ends up the victim, and quite often dead.
yes we do send troops around the world to protect 'freedom' - not just our own, either. however, how exactly does making guns illegal limit your freedom of speech, or your freedom from opression?! the US isnt exactly a despotic totalitarian state (although with Bush at the helm we cant be too sure <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif"> )
the question over cars, pools, etc is not one of 'what can we ban because it might injure/kill someone'. it is a question of what society deems to be an UNREASONABLE RISK. ie, the bad points outwiegh the good. swimming pools - the good points (health, entertainment, stress-relief) outwiehg the bad (the odd drowning). guns, on the other hand, the bad points (dead people) outweigh the good (erm, the opportunity to shoot someone/something - cause mindless destruction). as for cigs - i agree, they are an unacceptabel risk. but, political pressure will never be strong enough to see them banned, or at least reduced in toxicity.
when did i quote the word 'epidemic'. i might have called it a 'sudden rash' or something like that, but not an epidemic.
as for that thing about the farmer, depends what you mena by 'threatening'. the kid had broken in to his home (which the farmer perceived as a threat) but was unarmed, and had not even seen said farmer (hence being shot in the back).
perhaps we do look after one another (nanny is a bad phrase) because that is society's function.
calling our legal system wrong is just another example of your plain pig-headedness. perhaps yours is the one thats wrong. after all, not everything has to be 100% all american all around the world, as you are so keen to point out. but saying that my laws are wrong, because oyu disagree with them, is at best idiotic and blinkered.
my life is worth the same as my attackers - he does not forfeit any right to life by violating my rights. so im not gonna kill him. might smack him one over the head with an 8-iron, but i wont ACTUALLY try and kill the bastard. just stopping him is self defence. if he dies, i have to live with that guilt for the rest of my life (ever read any dostoevsky). so its in my best interest to actually not kill him. as far as morals are concerned, thats where i stand.
finally, i do know what i'm talking about, and i believe i'm right, both factually and morally. you evidently reckon the same applies to you, so we're both convinced we're right, and the other is wrong. ergo, disagreement.
limey: slang for englishman (in particular, english sailor)
bean-eater: that one you'll have to explain, as i'm just lost.
but its still quite funny <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif">
NB:
okay, as an aside, here's a possible scenario. a pissed off child (say, a 13 year old boy) is on his way to school, carrying a firearm - call it a 9mm pistol for the moment - with the intention of perhaps shooting some classmates. on his way to school, a man (say you, for example) who is also armed spots the child arming his weapon, and twigs as to what the child will do. as you cross the road to disarm this child, he notices, and pulls the gun on you. do you shoot him?
Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
The difference here is that the US cops carry their guns ALL THE TIME. The UK cops act only in response.
As for 'supression', this is an example of your ignorance and blinkered view. When, if ever, has this happened? A pathetic argument based on your own stupidity and biased view that guns = good.
er...actually it is. not every cop in the UK has access to a firearm.
But then what do you care about truth?
[QUOTE}(They always say "Epidemic of gun violence" when trying to whip up "Alarm"). [/QUOTE]
Who is/are "they"? Is this the manifestation of your paranoia, where everyone that doesn't agree with you is either brainwashed or wants to kill you?
Excellent defence your honour, there were no witnesses, so I must have been right to kill him. Moron.
The reason courts exist is to second guess the actions taken at a particular time. Then a jury of twelve men (good and true) decide upon the guilt/innocence of the defendent. Similar to your legal system I believe.
In this case the shooting (in the back) of an unarmed 'man' was determined to be illegal. Life inside (not the death penalty you note - the right to life etc...)
Wrong for YOU maybe, but don't be so arrogant to presume that you are the only one with the 'correct' answers.
In this country you have the right to defend yourself with 'reasonable force'. This means that if your life is in danger you can kill a man - but you have to prove that your life was in danger.
In this case the convcted man shot an unarmed 'man' in the back (cowardly, wouldn't you say?) using a shotgun (you know, the firearm you claim is illegal). The jury decided that it was not 'reasonable' to kill him. Case closed (until appeal).
Ah, a pathetic attempt to insult us. Along the lines of uneducated redneck moron. But then if we decend to purile insults we get nowhere.
Crazy Poster
Doubro, does 'self defence' always have to mean KILLING your adversary?!
No, sometimes simply brandishing a weapon can save your life.
<(ii) the British (not English - there is no such thing, remember) police force is not a paramilitary organisation.>
Beg to differ
<(iii) decomissioning of guns does not take yeras of martial law. after dunblane, some 95% of the handguns in the country were handed in VOLUNTARILY or collected by the police without imposition of force. because they obey the law. and if, as you claim, the average gun-toting US citizen is a law-abider, then once guns are made illegal, they too will obey the law in that repsect.>
Sure... and all the black market guns will disappear in a matter of weeks.
<as has been discussed before, how can one claim that more people are 'saved' by guns than are killed. you cant. someone always ends up the victim, and quite often dead.>
Really? Then why do police ever use them? Are they there to KILL the public, or merely control them through organized coersion? Seems your argument falls apart at the seams because it seems pretty obvious that guns can be, and ARE used as tools to coerce obediance.
<yes we do send troops around the world to protect 'freedom' - not just our own, either. however, how exactly does making guns illegal limit your freedom of speech, or your freedom from opression?! the US isnt exactly a despotic totalitarian state (although with Bush at the helm we cant be too sure )>
The Right to Bear Arms is a safeguard against depotism and a symbol of freedom serving as a warning to aspiring dictators.
<the question over cars, pools, etc is not one of 'what can we ban because it might injure/kill someone'. it is a question of what society deems to be an UNREASONABLE RISK. ie, the bad points outwiegh the good. swimming pools - the good points (health, entertainment, stress-relief) outwiehg the bad (the odd drowning). guns, on the other hand, the bad points (dead people) outweigh the good (erm, the opportunity to shoot someone/something - cause mindless destruction).>
The "Good" of guns is the many people they protect from violence by being the ultimate equalizer. They deter more violence than people commit with them.
<when did i quote the word 'epidemic'. i might have called it a 'sudden rash' or something like that, but not an epidemic.>
The word "Epidemic" is used consistently in your type of anti-gun rhetoric. Just look at any United Nations statement about small arms proliferation.
<as for that thing about the farmer, depends what you mena by 'threatening'. the kid had broken in to his home (which the farmer perceived as a threat) but was unarmed, and had not even seen said farmer (hence being shot in the back).>
First time I hear of this...
perhaps we do look after one another (nanny is a bad phrase) because that is society's function.
So the Government is your Nanny.
<calling our legal system wrong is just another example of your plain pig-headedness.>
I'm pig-headed because I think your system is wrong?
<perhaps yours is the one thats wrong.
after all, not everything has to be 100% all american all around the world, as you are so keen to point out. but saying that my laws are wrong, because oyu disagree with them, is at best idiotic and blinkered.>
I have to convince you that your life is worth protecting?
<my life is worth the same as my attackers - he does not forfeit any right to life by violating my rights. so im not gonna kill him. might smack him one over the head with an 8-iron, but i wont ACTUALLY try and kill the bastard. just stopping him is self defence. if he dies, i have to live with that guilt for the rest of my life (ever read any dostoevsky). so its in my best interest to actually not kill him. as far as morals are concerned, thats where i stand.>
Dude, screw Dostoevsky. I am not advocating killing anyone who attacks you. What I am saying is...GUNS are the most effective and efficent form of coercive force. More effective than an 8 iron or a MAshie... if your life is in danger, save yourself, and kill ONLY if you have to, but for GOD sake, be PREPARED TO. Live with the guilt, or without it. Just LIVE.
<finally, i do know what i'm talking about, and i believe i'm right, both factually and morally. you evidently reckon the same applies to you, so we're both convinced we're right, and the other is wrong. ergo, disagreement.>
Nah, I disagree. You have no idea what you are talking about.
limey: slang for englishman (in particular, english sailor)
bean-eater: that one you'll have to explain, as i'm just lost.
but its still quite funny
I'll explain in the next post...
<NB:
okay, as an aside, here's a possible scenario. a pissed off child (say, a 13 year old boy) is on his way to school, carrying a firearm - call it a 9mm pistol for the moment - with the intention of perhaps shooting some classmates. on his way to school, a man (say you, for example) who is also armed spots the child arming his weapon, and twigs as to what the child will do. as you cross the road to disarm this child, he notices, and pulls the gun on you. do you shoot him?>
I don't know what to tell you. I mean, you obviously cannot understand the simply concept of self preservation taking precedence over your moral questioning...
The farmer was either wrong or right, I'm merely stating that if he was in danger of losing his life he was justified.
All your arguments are based on conjecture and extrapolation of a statistically insignificant number of isolated and annecdotal accidents and malicious criminal behaviors. You never admit that peoples lives can and ARE saved all the time by a display of force without having to shoot anyone.
There are many documented cases of legal gun owners saving their own lives as well as the lives of others... sadly there are also documented cases of gun owners dying because they were denied access to their guns...
Texas Rep. Suzanna Gratia Hupp watched BOTH her parents die in Luby's Cafeteria, at the hands of a derranged criminal, but her gun was locked away in her car. She said later that if she had had her weapon, the mad man would never have been able to kill her parents, or any more of the other people she watched die that day.
[This message has been edited by Doubro (edited 31-07-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Doubro (edited 31-07-2001).]
<The difference here is that the US cops carry their guns ALL THE TIME. The UK cops act only in response.>
The US Military doesn't carry their weapons all the time either. In fact, it's an indication of Para-military organization to have such strictly controled access with centralized organization.
<As for 'supression', this is an example of your ignorance and blinkered view. When, if ever, has this happened? A pathetic argument based on your own stupidity and biased view that guns = good. >
The Police are there to control deviance though State sanctioned violence. If you can't understand the basics I can't help you. What do you think they are there for? Helping old buggars cross the street?
<er...actually it is. not every cop in the UK has access to a firearm.>
Just wait.
<Who is/are "they"? Is this the manifestation of your paranoia, where everyone that doesn't agree with you is either brainwashed or wants to kill you?>
No simply part of the Juggernaut of Politically "correct" thought which is totally uncritical of overbearing government and the dangers to personal liberty that it represents.
<Excellent defence your honour, there were no witnesses, so I must have been right to kill him. Moron.>
What I said, idiot, was that IF... IF the kid WAS threatening his life, then it was justified self defense.
<The reason courts exist is to second guess the actions taken at a particular time. Then a jury of twelve men (good and true) decide upon the guilt/innocence of the defendent. Similar to your legal system I believe.>
Yes, and we have the tennet of "justifiable homicide" or self defense statutes, precicely because you cannot "second guess" when someones life is truly in danger. Of course, you can also consider the axiom "Better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six"
<In this case the shooting (in the back) of an unarmed 'man' was determined to be illegal. Life inside (not the death penalty you note - the right to life etc...)>
Well, the original post did not make this business about being shot in the back, clear, but then all the arguments you gun haters make are simply rhetorical excercises which are designed to regurgitate the same biased and stupid opinons about guns, gun owners, and the dangers they represent.
<In this country you have the right to defend yourself with 'reasonable force'. This means that if your life is in danger you can kill a man - but you have to prove that your life was in danger.>
Yea, ok. So If you can't prove it, but the danger is real and exists, you should simply let someone kill you because you are worried about being arrested later on?
You think backwards.
<In this case the convcted man shot an unarmed 'man' in the back (cowardly, wouldn't you say?)>
I already told you that this info was withheld from the original statment for rhetorical effect.
<using a shotgun (you know, the firearm you claim is illegal). The jury decided that it was not 'reasonable' to kill him. Case closed (until appeal).>
Well, why appeal, if court can instantly determine TRUTH, what need does the man have for a right to appeal... he's obviously guilty and the State is always right about these things.... I don't suppose the fact that most Englishmen are completely biased against guns has anything to do with him getting a fair trial... especialy if they all think like you.
<and who the f**k ever heard of a 'limeybean' anyway!!!
Thanks, my own little varation on "Limey" and "Bean eater">
<Ah, a pathetic attempt to insult us. Along the lines of uneducated redneck moron. But then if we decend to purile insults we get nowhere.>
Actually it was a tame jab refering to passivist vegetarians. If I wanted to really insult you, you'd know it.
(a) you dont shoot the kid.
result: as you are carrying a gun, the child now feels that YOU are threatening HIS life (perhaps rightly). so he shoots you. fat lot of good your guns do then.
(b) you shoot the kid.
result: he probably dies (he's only s kid, after all). you may not get convicted for murder, but you will have to live your life with the guilt of knowing that you're a child-killer. i know for sure I wouldnt be able to live with that. hence, dostoevsky - you kill yourself.
but, on the other hand, place an unarmed man in the situation, seeing the kid loading up in the street. as unarmed man approaches, kid pulls gun on you. result: you put your hands up (being unarmed), thereby posing no threat to the kid. soon enough, either you cnvince the kid to drop the gun, and everybody lives. or, the police arrive, and (being slightly better shots than you or armed with rubber bullets or similar) incapacitate the child. everyone lives.
perhaps a slight exaggeration, but it is always best for everyone in that sort of situation if you do not pose a threat to the child.
calling the police a paramilitary organisation, and saying that they are there to perpetrate violence on behalf of the government. oh, i get it, so that makes you (honourable gun-owners) the true defenders of civil rights and the population at large. bullshit. YOU are the paramilitary ones, and the police are there to protect the population and the state, from any threat - including YOU. i'd say you've got the basics a bit wrong there.
Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
I think its safe to say he was no longer a kid..Unless of course you use the anti-gun crowds definition which includes pensioners it seems <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif">
Tony Martin made a bad call when he shot the guy. He was running away and so posed no threat to Mr Martin. However, the situation never would have arisin if the police and CPS did their jobs properly and stopped letting criminals run rampant in this country.
I would have much rather had the shotgun and not needed it than to have needed it and not had it.
I happen to believe that a criminal forfeits all his rights when he tries to injure me or my family.
"An Englishman's never so natural as when he's holding his tongue." --Henry James
Perhaps I'm being naive, but I was under the impression that rights were inalienable, and held for all times and places.
Actually, your rights are
inalienable. Only YOU can deny them to yourself... by putting himself in harms way, a 16 year old can give up his rights, AS AN INDIVIDUAL!!!However, it's more like a person having the right to kill them selves.
Not to be confused with a so called "Democracy" alienating EVERYONES rights based on Majority rule. NO Group can take away an INDIVIDUAL'S Rights.
You can't blame anyone but Mr Martin for this one. Nobody forced him to shoot the guy.
The 'kid' (at 16 he was still a minor) in question had been arrested previously by the police, the CPS has prosecuted and the COURTS had allowed him to be free. So the two elements in the chain that you seek to 'blame' (or should that be make scapegoats of) are not the ones who freed him.
"Most of the GUN deaths in the U.S. are Drug/ Gang/ crime related. Their are a few exceptions But not that many."
OOOOOoo, yeah...Just like in the movies...LOL!!!
OK, so this is just a bunch of rants and bitching about the same ol'...
Guns are still legal in the US...And always will be....The style, make, model etc will change and I am sure the caliber will change, but you WILL still be able to kill your neighbor if his dog craps on your lawn if you still want to...god bless america,,,LOL!!
I think you might just wanna read my comment again. I didnt say anyone else was to blame for Mr Martins actions. I said HE made the bad call. He made the choice to shoot a fleeing burglar. I wasnt excusing him of any blame whatsoever, merely stating that the guy should not have been in that position if our justice system did its job properly...The thief wasnt just arrested and prosecuted once. He was a multiple offender.
Sorry but UK laws are straight on this one. If you kill someone in self defence and you use reasonable force then you are unlikely to face any sentance. If a burglar attacks me with a knife and intends to kill me, I can kill him as long as I dont use a gun. If Tony Martin had been faced with a burglar with a gun then he was completely within the law to blow that SOBs head off with his 12 bore.
"An Englishman's never so natural as when he's holding his tongue." --Henry James
I would consider Doubro a kindred spirit for certain.
I chose my name because yesterday I went and purchased a Colt Defender and I am extremely excited to recieve it (August 11).
Much of the discussion has been on the utility or non utility of a given gun in a given circumstance.
I would like to proffer the position espoused in the essay "A Nation of Cowards" by Jeffry Snyder.
The position is not one of pragmatism (we need/don't need guns because they are useful/dangerous) but rather, the article proffers that owning a weapon and defending yourself with it is a duty as a free person.
Check it out - I am curious as to how you Brits will respond.
(Its in my signiture)
Are you a coward or a shirker?
http://www.nerdherd.com/editorials/nationofcowards.html
What is a Colt Defender?
http://www.colt.com/colt/html/a2a5_coltdefender.html
Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
(a) God;
(b) That near-universal self-preservation instinct necessarily implies universal right to life;
(c) That majority opinion always coincides with moral correctness.
Also, I looked up the definition of 'inalienable'. An inalienable right cannot be revoked by ANYONE, including the holder. So there.