NationStates Jolt Archive

Linkity link link (http://news.uk.msn.com/Article.aspx?cp-documentid=3345947)

Basically, a kid got photographed behind David Cameron doing a gun pose in Manchester. Ironically, Cameron was there to talk about gun culture in youths.


Youth defiant after gun gesture


A teenager who made a gun gesture at Conservative leader David Cameron was still in defiant mood a day later.

Ryan Florence, 17, of Benchill, Manchester, spoke of how he smoked cannabis every day and had spent several months behind bars for a string of violent thefts.

The youngster, dressed in a black tracksuit and hoodie, was on Thursday photographed making a shooting action with his hand behind the back of Mr Cameron, who was visiting Manchester to speak about youth gun culture.

Florence, who was out walking his Staffordshire Bull Terrier with three friends on Friday, said: "I'm not bothered about the stories in the papers about me. They can say what they want about me." He said he was a member of a gang named the Benchill Mad Dogs.

The teenager claimed the area was rife with cheap firearms which could be bought for as little as £30.

He said: "Guns are a way of life around here. Everyone has got them. There are shootings every week here but they don't get heard about because no one wants to grass."

He added: "Drugs are everywhere here. I smoke weed every day and all my friends do as well. There's nothing wrong with it as long as you don't get caught. I have tried sniff (cocaine) a few times but I didn't think much of it so I don't do it anymore."

Florence refused to answer questions about whether he had ever fired a gun but said he did not own one. He added: "Lots of my friends have got them. They need them for protection and in case it kicks off and there's trouble. If we get rival gangs coming round here causing problems then they need to be sorted out.

"You can get a gun for about thirty or forty quid. They're not very good. They are just blank firers which have been drilled through. If you pay a bit more, about 50 quid, you can get something better; all ready to go."

Florence, who sports an electronic tag on his ankle, said he had been in custody three times for multiple charges including burglary, street robbery, stealing cars and breaching parole conditions.

I'm starting to think the guns in this nation are out of control. Even the kid here says "guns for thirty quid." Thirty quid? For a weapon? That's disgusting. What are your thoughts on Britain's gun problem? Do you think there even is a problem?

I'm starting to think the guns in this nation are out of control. Even the kid here says "guns for thirty quid." Thirty quid? For a weapon? That's disgusting. What are your thoughts on Britain's gun problem? Do you think there even is a problem?

If they love guns so much, shoot them. Repeat until they don't love guns anymore.

[/notaseriousproposal]

You have a gun culture? That's weird. Also guns for 30 pouns sounds suspicious. That's like a little less than $60, right? Considering the price of guns bought legally and the markup you'll see when they're sold illegally in a place with strict anti-gun laws that just doesn't make sense.

I'm thinking this kid is just a wannabe gangsta who thinks by saying stuff like that he can make himself and his neighborhood seem tough. I'll bet he'd shit his pants if you drop him off on the corner of Passaic street and Calhoun in Trenton or on Lee street in North Philadelphia when he sees people who actually do walk around with guns and will actually shoot people with them.

Here I can hire a 14 years old assassin armed with a sub machine gun for 30 "quids". Paying a bit more, like 50 "quids", I get him a motorcycle driver.

You don't have a problem. It could be several times worst.

Here I can hire a 14 years old assassin armed with a sub machine gun for 30 "quids". Paying a bit more, like 50 "quids", I get him a motorcycle driver.

Are you putting "quids" in quotes because the correct plural is "quid"?

Wait...

A kid making a gesture of holding a gun means gun crime is out of control???


There have been a few murders in London in the last 2 weeks, all gun-related. All the leading parties are starting up campaigns to tackle the problem, none of which will work.

Linkity link link (http://news.uk.msn.com/Article.aspx?cp-documentid=3345947)

Basically, a kid got photographed behind David Cameron doing a gun pose in Manchester. Ironically, Cameron was there to talk about gun culture in youths.

I'm starting to think the guns in this nation are out of control. Even the kid here says "guns for thirty quid." Thirty quid? For a weapon? That's disgusting. What are your thoughts on Britain's gun problem? Do you think there even is a problem?

Wait...

A kid making a gesture of holding a gun means gun crime is out of control???

Even if you take everything this chap says at face value, which I would advise against, the £30 for a gun is for a fake gun that someone has used a drill on to make a barrel.

I don't think the sky is falling just yet.

And reading what the kid says - basically it sounds like some chav trying to sound hard on TV to impress his mates.

You don't have a problem. It could be several times worst.

Indeed. But it's getting worse.

The sad thing about this is, is that two years ago a high ranking police officer from New York came to Britain to talk about the problem. He described it as small (i presume in relationt to the USA) therefore could be snubbed out quite easily.

Because by any other nations (outside the USA and the 3rd world) the British gun problem is massive his suggestions were dismissed by the police on mass.

Firstly what is important to remember that the gun problem is limited to a few notorious areas and believe it or not the number of gun murders has been going down (slowly i admit see chart in link)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6367273.stm

If anyone is interested the big rise in total murders in 2002 etc is tha affect of Dr Shipman's and the findings of the inquests into his activities.

Unfortunatly I belive what is driving this paticular problem is the free avaliability of cheap guns (thanks to the IRA smuggling and shitty arms companies the world over) combined with the problems in some urban areas of Britain.

Until this government takes a long term social view backed up with short ot medium term enforcement policies then this issue will not be resolved.

Wait...

A kid making a gesture of holding a gun means gun crime is out of control???

Welcome to the UK.

Anyway, I'll agree with the guy who said that this kid is most likely the real-life equivalent of an Internet Tough Guy. He talks big, but if you dropped him off on your local equivalent of our East Side, he'd run away screaming.
The constant 'LOL I SMOK ZZER WEEDZ!' talk doesnt help his case much.

There have been a few murders in London in the last 2 weeks, all gun-related. All the leading parties are starting up campaigns to tackle the problem, none of which will work.

How many total murders have there been in London the last 6 months?

How many of them have been with guns?

What is the murder rate of London?

What is the murder/news coverage ratio for the murders with guns?

What is the murder/coverage ratio for murders through other means?

In the UK as a whole what portion of murders are committed with guns?

Are politicians noted for making mountains out of molehills on issues the public/press go nuts over?

Gun culture? I thought your knife culture claimed more lives on the whole than your gun culture following the gun ban. Of course, I haven't seen any stats on the subject, anyone care to send me some?

Reminds me of when I visited Texas, almost everyone I saw had a gun strapped to their hips (usually revolvers, probably a culture thing.), and a stetson hat on their heads. I didn't feel in danger though. On the contrary, I knew if some crazed gunman burst into the steakhouse I happened to be eating at: He's be peppered like a deviled egg.

Of course, I don't remember movie cowboys being quite so overweight. :p

this kid is my age :eek:

anyway he's from Manchester I think that solves any debate in this thread

You have a gun culture? That's weird. Also guns for 30 pouns sounds suspicious. That's like a little less than $60, right? Considering the price of guns bought legally and the markup you'll see when they're sold illegally in a place with strict anti-gun laws that just doesn't make sense.

I'm thinking this kid is just a wannabe gangsta who thinks by saying stuff like that he can make himself and his neighborhood seem tough. I'll bet he'd shit his pants if you drop him off on the corner of Passaic street and Calhoun in Trenton or on Lee street in North Philadelphia when he sees people who actually do walk around with guns and will actually shoot people with them.http://www.scottcountry.co.uk/products_detail.asp?froogle=true&productID=1779
A blank firing gun for less than £30. A hole is drilled through the barrel so that it can be used as gun. Cheap, not very accurate, very liable to break, and doesn't leave a signature. But that doesn't mean you can't kill someone with it.

How many total murders have there been in London the last 6 months?
First link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6388769.stm)
Second link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6344549.stm)
Three teenagers dead in the last 3 weeks. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6387943.stm)

How many of them have been with guns?

As you can see above, quite a few.

What is the murder rate of London?
I don't know, and I can't find a source.

What is the murder/news coverage ratio for the murders with guns?
I don't know, but it's gotten much higher recently. It's all you see on the news now - war and guns.

In the UK as a whole what portion of murders are committed with guns?
More often than not, it's guns or knives.

Are politicians noted for making mountains out of molehills on issues the public/press go nuts over?
So murders are a molehill? Something's got to be done.

Some of the major cities (and Nottingham) has a small problem of gang culture more than gun culture. Stop gang culture means stopping gun culture.

Other than that theres not really a problem

You have a gun culture? That's weird. Also guns for 30 pouns sounds suspicious. That's like a little less than $60, right? Considering the price of guns bought legally and the markup you'll see when they're sold illegally in a place with strict anti-gun laws that just doesn't make sense.

I'm thinking this kid is just a wannabe gangsta who thinks by saying stuff like that he can make himself and his neighborhood seem tough. I'll bet he'd shit his pants if you drop him off on the corner of Passaic street and Calhoun in Trenton or on Lee street in North Philadelphia when he sees people who actually do walk around with guns and will actually shoot people with them.http://www.scottcountry.co.uk/products_detail.asp?froogle=true&productID=1779
A blank firing gun for less than £30. A hole is drilled through the barrel so that it can be used as gun. Cheap, not very accurate, very liable to break, and doesn't leave a signature. But that doesn't mean you can't kill someone with it.

http://www.scottcountry.co.uk/products_detail.asp?froogle=true&productID=1779
A blank firing gun for less than £30. A hole is drilled through the barrel so that it can be used as gun. Cheap, not very accurate, very liable to break, and doesn't leave a signature. But that doesn't mean you can't kill someone with it.

Most likely yourself.

First link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6388769.stm)
Second link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6344549.stm)
Three teenagers dead in the last 3 weeks. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6387943.stm)

As you can see above, quite a few.
Reporting six murders does not show anything - if these are the only murders committed in London in the last six months then it's the safest city on earth. Actually googling this did show something - the media is FLOODED with reports of these recent gun murders, and nothing else on crime.

I don't know, but it's gotten much higher recently. It's all you see on the news now - war and guns.
Exactly - every time someone gets killed with a gun it gets reported on national news. The ~95% of murders that are not with guns often remain unreported by the media.


More often than not, it's guns or knives.

Woah! Woah!

Guns AND Knives? come on - this is about gun crime being out of control and you're lumping gun murders in with knife killings?!

There were almost 800 (http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page40.asp) murders in the UK last year. How many of them made national news?

How many were with guns? Generally about 40 per year - so only 5% of murders are with guns. And yet they get the vast majority of coverage.

See THIS (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6363713.stm) link from the BBC, about half way down there is a graph showing how many murders are gun related and how many total murders there are.

Now - there are an average of about 15 murders a WEEK in the UK. Why are there not 15 plasterings of the press for all the ones not involving guns?


So murders are a molehill? Something's got to be done.

Addressing one of the smallest causes of murder in a very high profile way in such a manner to make it look like a major cause of deaths relative to other murder weapons is not only making a mountain out of a molehill, it is downright irresponsible as it detracts from much more serious issues.

And gun murder rates are FALLING!

Anyway, I'll agree with the guy who said that this kid is most likely the real-life equivalent of an Internet Tough Guy. He talks big, but if you dropped him off on your local equivalent of our East Side, he'd run away screaming.
The constant 'LOL I SMOK ZZER WEEDZ!' talk doesnt help his case much.

With a name like "Florence" he needs to make himself seem as hard as possible. :D

http://www.scottcountry.co.uk/products_detail.asp?froogle=true&productID=1779
A blank firing gun for less than £30. A hole is drilled through the barrel so that it can be used as gun. Cheap, not very accurate, very liable to break, and doesn't leave a signature. But that doesn't mean you can't kill someone with it.

You need to get some Pinoy folks in there. Some guys in the Phillipines are making decent homemade guns.
http://www.mail-archive.com/firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu/msg00779.html

Why the hell do they grab their genitals? Is it somehow 'hard' to masturbate in public? They just look retarded.

i think any level of gun crime is a problem and there have been several recent cases in the news of gun crimes. most of the country is not that bad, there are certain places where it is a serious problem though. bristol is one of them, as is nottingham (at one time the 'gun capital' of the uk) and glasgow lately as well. i'd be surprised if it wasn't a problem in london also but i know next to nothing about london.

Why the hell do they grab their genitals? Is it somehow 'hard' to masturbate in public? They just look retarded.

They do it to check if their balls have dropped yet.

Guns, drugs, alcohol, sex.

In criminalizing them you promptly lose whatever control, whatever regulation you might have previously had goes out the window.

Of course, the UK's gun laws are not creatures of liberal, societal protection. Instead they're directly descended from the old tradition of only the nobles and the military being permitted to own weapons, in order to cripple the people should they attempt to rebel.

Of course, the UK's gun laws are not creatures of liberal, societal protection. Instead they're directly descended from the old tradition of only the nobles and the military being permitted to own weapons, in order to cripple the people should they attempt to rebel.

Our gun laws are comparativly new, they have only come about in the last few decades. It has nothing to do with nobles or the militar, more down to the IRA I believe.

Our gun laws are comparativly new, they have only come about in the last few decades. It has nothing to do with nobles or the militar, more down to the IRA I believe.

The laws that exist currently are new, yes.

But they are descended from earlier laws designed around this specification.

There has never been a strong gun culture in the UK, unlike in the US where gun ownership has been common since the foundation, as for much of the history of Britain weapons ownership was severely restricted.

Was I the only one that laughed when he said he's part of the "Benchill Mad Dogs"?

Why the hell do they grab their genitals? Is it somehow 'hard' to masturbate in public? They just look retarded.


It was popularized by Michael Jackson.

http://i12.tinypic.com/2dw9dhj.jpg

He's popular because he's been charged with a number of felonies and I'm assuming the kids who grab their crotches want to follow in his footsteps.

Our gun laws are comparativly new, they have only come about in the last few decades. It has nothing to do with nobles or the militar, more down to the IRA I believe.

Early in the 20th due to "Anarchists" and "Communists" following WWII for firearms specific. There had been restrictions on ownership due to poaching on noble land for centuries before that.

of course this has nothign to do with the "police shouldn't have guns" culture

what a load of shit

1. fucking chavs :rolleyes:

2. the problem lies, to me, in the culture of glorifying violence and disrespect for.... just about anybody and anything. somehow that culture and attitude needs to be tackled

Now which "Gun Culture" are we talking about?



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/newspapers/sunday_times/britain/article1290314.ece


Or

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/newmarket/2007/01/06/4bfe60df-4926-4613-b5df-c2b4e42f3779.lpf

of course this has nothign to do with the "police shouldn't have guns" culture

what a load of shit

It's more that the police shouldn't need guns.

Now which "Gun Culture" are we talking about?



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/newspapers/sunday_times/britain/article1290314.ece


Or

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/newmarket/2007/01/06/4bfe60df-4926-4613-b5df-c2b4e42f3779.lpf

Indeed. Classism is back... with avengence.

living in the 19th century? yeah, they didn't
However if the guns in the UK are on the increase, what chances do you think a policeman with a baton and a pen has against a kid with a gun?

I know this is weird for Brits to fathom, but the purpose of the Police is not only to help old ladies cross the street

living in the 19th century? yeah, they didn't
However if the guns in the UK are on the increase, what chances do you think a policeman with a baton and a pen has against a kid with a gun?

I know this is weird for Brits to fathom, but the purpose of the Police is not only to help old ladies cross the streetSo just what ARE they for then, smartass?

living in the 19th century? yeah, they didn't
However if the guns in the UK are on the increase, what chances do you think a policeman with a baton and a pen has against a kid with a gun?

I know this is weird for Brits to fathom, but the purpose of the Police is not only to help old ladies cross the street
our police carry guns when they need to.

its just a shame that they are needing to more and more :(

living in the 19th century? yeah, they didn't
However if the guns in the UK are on the increase, what chances do you think a policeman with a baton and a pen has against a kid with a gun?

I know this is weird for Brits to fathom, but the purpose of the Police is not only to help old ladies cross the street

Talking of armed british police. Anyone seen Hot Fuzz lately?

living in the 19th century? yeah, they didn't
However if the guns in the UK are on the increase, what chances do you think a policeman with a baton and a pen has against a kid with a gun?

I know this is weird for Brits to fathom, but the purpose of the Police is not only to help old ladies cross the street

Gun crime in the UK is on the decrease.

Gun murders in the UK are on the decrease.

Gun crime is a very minor problem in the UK.

Media coverage of gun crime in the UK is on the very rapid increase.

Weapons laws are nothing to do with rebelling. Full-Auto assault rifles were banned in the 70's. Semi-auto assault rifles were banned in the late 80's/early 90's and pistols were banned in 1997. Along with pump action shotguns.

Before WW2 the only weapons restrictions were on Machine Guns, which were banned for the civis just about as soon as they were invented. Otherwise Britain had very little weapons laws. Just about everybody had a British made revolver (which were the best at the time) and a Shotgun (London gun makers are still the best in the world for sporting shotguns, and the most expensive).

Going back even earlier Henry VII made sure all peasants had a longbow and it was the law to do shooting practice on a Saturday.

our police carry guns when they need to.

its just a shame that they are needing to more and more :(

I agree. However, it has nothing to do w/ "Gun Culture" but an ever increasingly violent "Criminal Culture".

I agree. However, it has nothing to do w/ "Gun Culture" but an ever increasingly violent "Criminal Culture".

The British Crime Survey - which reports based on inteviews and sampling of the population, and is widely regarded as being a much better indicator of crime than reported crime rates has shown that violent crime has been falling for 10 years and is now about half of what it was a decade ago.

Linkey (http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page63.asp)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/graphics/2007/02/15/bffuzz115.jpg

See the UK police force is armed. :D

I don't think there is any gun culture, in particular, except for in certain areas and certain sub-cultures. There's definitly the idea of crime being cool, in some groups and gangs, but that has always existed and perhaps we're just becoming more aware of it? Either way, the relatively rare events that are happening shouldn't be blown out of proportion, however being aware of them and preventing a gun culture from existing and preventing the need for armed police should be a priority. And the fact that everyone gets "all worked up about a few gun crimes" is fantastic, in my eyes! I hate the idea of being desensitized against it.

The British Crime Survey - which reports based on inteviews and sampling of the population, and is widely regarded as being a much better indicator of crime than reported crime rates has shown that violent crime has been falling for 10 years and is now about half of what it was a decade ago.

Linkey (http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page63.asp)

Which does not answer my statement at all. Anyway, why is it "widely regarded" as such? Because it shows dropping crime? It also includes assault w/ "no injury".

You might also notice looking at the charts in the PDF's that the seriousness of crimes has increased. Which is exactly what I said.

Talking of armed british police. Anyone seen Hot Fuzz lately?

One of the best films ever! Oh how I laughed at almost every scene.

So just what ARE they for then, smartass?

To protect the lives and property of the government and those individuals wealthy enough to bribe the government, silly.

Question - aren't handguns banned in the UK, and the right of self-defense taken away? With all those handguns taken away, why is it that your violent crime rates, especially those involving break-ins while the occupants are home, are increasing exponentially, while here in the US, states with concealed carry laws are seeing decreasing crime-rates and overall lower crime rates than states without?

Where I live (small community) almost everybody owns a gun, this does not mean that they carry one, and in the last 12 months there have been 3 or 4 murders, none of them involving firearms. In my community this is a fairly high rate. what it tells me is that the weapon doesn't matter nearly as much as the intent. While gun control is extremely important there will always be weapons available (knives, blunt objects, etc.) to threaten people with. What needs to be addressed is the gang culture not the gun culture because gangs don't need guns, a group of individuals that is willing to hurt or kill you isn't any more or less threatening depending on whether or not it has firearms. While a gun might embolden an individual it is a gang that spreads and influences crime most drastically in a community.

Not that anybody will listen, but shooting those guilty of gun crime would act as a fantastic deterrent.

Question - aren't handguns banned in the UK, and the right of self-defense taken away?

In current law, the only handgun one may possess (if in possession of a firearms lisence) is a long-barrelled (at least 12") revolver, and you go through a fairly stringent process to obtain one. Also: no, you can defend yourself just fine. Only you have to use "reasonable force". Also, I like how Chris answered this right after me and we know each other, even if we are 200 miles or so apart at time of posting. :p

Question - aren't handguns banned in the UK, and the right of self-defense taken away? With all those handguns taken away, why is it that your violent crime rates, especially those involving break-ins while the occupants are home, are increasing exponentially, while here in the US, states with concealed carry laws are seeing decreasing crime-rates and overall lower crime rates than states without?

Because the US government has balls, and Britain does not. I am not sure if you are familiar with the case of Tony Martin, however it illustrates the vagaries and wussiness of British law impeccably.

Gun crime in the UK is on the decrease.

Gun murders in the UK are on the decrease.

Gun crime is a very minor problem in the UK.

Media coverage of gun crime in the UK is on the very rapid increase.

Isn't that just the funniest thing though. When this subject first came up about a week or so ago I thought that gun murders would be going through the roof, but in fact we are seeing a slow fall the other way.

Is it possible that our media is 2 or 3 years too slow for this mass hysteria. :D

Because the US government has balls, and Britain does not. I am not sure if you are familiar with the case of Tony Martin, however it illustrates the vagaries and wussiness of British law impeccably.

You mean you can force people from your property then as they run away shoot them in back, then leave them for dead and boast about it with your mates down the pub?

Although I do agree at times British law goes from the stupid to the insaine I assure you Tony Martin was no Tory hero, he was an absolut mad man living in the fens (some would say thing being mad is a pre requisit for living there) who complained of harrassment yet was unable to provide any evidence. Who lived in a slum of a house being he did not have the mental warewithall to look after it.

He was a mad man that went too far, plus side being the Chav population went down by 1 that night.

You mean you can force people from your property then as they run away shoot them in back, then leave them for dead and boast about it with your mates down the pub?

Although I do agree at times British law goes from the stupid to the insaine I assure you Tony Martin was no Tory hero, he was an absolut mad man living in the fens (some would say thing being mad is a pre requisit for living there) who complained of harrassment yet was unable to provide any evidence. Who lived in a slum of a house being he did not have the mental warewithall to look after it.

He was a mad man that went too far, plus side being the Chav population went down by 1 that night.

If people commit a crime against you, provided it is sufficiently heinious, one should have the right to exact vengeance. Tony Martin may have been a fruit-loop, but equally he was morally justified in shooting the burglar. Such people do not deserve the rights and protection of a law they conciously and wilfully break.

I am curious.

In a country where firearms are essentially illegal, and most (if not all) of the people who post here from the UK are absolutely aghast at the mere mention of a firearm of any kind, how in the world do you have a "gun culture" of any kind?

If people commit a crime against you, provided it is sufficiently heinious, one should have the right to exact vengeance

Oh the Dogma. One should, nope, in your opinion one should however as far as I am concerned you have the right to defend your property and your person and others from harm.

This is set out as law in most countries. It's to stop things like this

http://www.iht.com/articles/1994/02/21/edold_55.php

from happening.

As you appear to support Tony Martin and his actions I can conclude that you believe the punishment for Burglary Is death. I'll re quote what you wrote just to double check.

If people commit a crime against you, provided it is sufficiently heinious, one should have the right to exact vengeance. Tony Martin may have been a fruit-loop, but equally he was morally justified in shooting the burglar.

Yep it would appear so....

I am curious.

In a country where firearms are essentially illegal, and most (if not all) of the people who post here from the UK are absolutely aghast at the mere mention of a firearm of any kind, how in the world do you have a "gun culture" of any kind?

because there are things call Illegal guns which concern criminals more. You could call it a gun sub culture to be more pricise i suppose.

Oh the Dogma. One should, nope, in your opinion one should however as far as I am concerned you have the right to defend your property and your person and others from harm.

This is set out as law in most countries. It's to stop things like this

http://www.iht.com/articles/1994/02/21/edold_55.php

from happening.

As you appear to support Tony Martin and his actions I can conclude that you believe the punishment for Burglary Is death. I'll re quote what you wrote just to double check.



Yep it would appear so....



Nice false analogy. Lynching /= killing someone who has invaded your home.

because there are things call Illegal guns which concern criminals more. You could call it a gun sub culture to be more pricise i suppose.

More precise would be Criminal Culture.

As you appear to support Tony Martin and his actions I can conclude that you believe the punishment for Burglary Is death. I'll re quote what you wrote just to double check.

Here in the US, it's not advisable to shoot people in your house in defense of property.

However, most states hold that an unidentified intruder in your house late at night in the dark constitutes a potentially lethal threat.

If you can't see them at all, or if you can see them and they're holding so much as a screwdriver, they're a lethal threat.

Some states, like Delaware, insist that you retreat if possible, including leaving your home, and you may only kill if cornered.

Of course, they can make it easy - if they say they want you to take your clothes off so they can rape you, or if they say they want to tie you up, you're within your rights to immediately empty all of your cartridges into them.

In some states, you are not even required to retreat, or give any warning.

It has nothing to do with defending property in the US.

If people commit a crime against you, provided it is sufficiently heinious, one should have the right to exact vengeance. Tony Martin may have been a fruit-loop, but equally he was morally justified in shooting the burglar. Such people do not deserve the rights and protection of a law they conciously and wilfully break.

QFT, but to bad people of liberal belief will have it otherwise. It's a real shame when you can't properly defend yourself against an attacker who may wish to do you serious harm.

Also, how much is a quid? Is that the same as a pound?

Oh the Dogma. One should, nope, in your opinion one should however as far as I am concerned you have the right to defend your property and your person and others from harm.

This is set out as law in most countries. It's to stop things like this

http://www.iht.com/articles/1994/02/21/edold_55.php

from happening.

As you appear to support Tony Martin and his actions I can conclude that you believe the punishment for Burglary Is death. I'll re quote what you wrote just to double check.



Yep it would appear so....


Not as such. Were the burglar to be tried and prosecuted, I doubt that death would be justified, however, shooting the burglar upon finding him in one's home is right. Why on earth shouldn't one have the right to protect property and person by any means necessary?

The burglar quite manifestly had no regard for the rights either of Tony Martin, or the law itself, hence why should the law, or Tony Martin, care for him?

More precise would be Criminal Culture.

I think that implies that some how Britain is now nothing more than a culture of criminals.

QFT, but to bad people of liberal belief will have it otherwise. It's a real shame when you can't properly defend yourself against an attacker who may wish to do you serious harm.

Also, how much is a quid? Is that the same as a pound?

It's a widely used colloquialism for a pound, yes.

I think that implies that some how Britain is now nothing more than a culture of criminals.

Culture of chavs and irate Muslims, if the papers are to be believed.

Oh, and irate motorists who blow up photoradar boxes.

I think that implies that some how Britain is now nothing more than a culture of criminals.


Just as much as "Gun Culture" implies that anyone who owns a firearm is associated w/ criminals.

Nice false analogy. Lynching /= killing someone who has invaded your home.

I think you missed my point.

If you actually read the story it was about the extraction of vengence (as you put it) to punish some one, and the implications of that sort of thinking.

As I wrote that there are laws in a lot of coutries regarding what you can and cannot do when defending you life or property, to which this all tied into my arguenment in my post.

But as you did not bother to read link (hell it was only like one paragraph) I doubt you bothered to read my post about the implications of you actions and how you thinking has dangerous reprecusions.

I think you missed my point.

If you actually read the story it was about the extraction of vengence (as you put it) to punish some one, and the implications of that sort of thinking.

As I wrote that there are laws in a lot of coutries regarding what you can and cannot do when defending you life or property, to which this all tied into my arguenment in my post.

But as you did not bother to read link (hell it was only like one paragraph) I doubt you bothered to read my post about the implications of you actions and how you thinking has dangerous reprecusions.

That, however, is bollocks. Firstly, you employed such a racist event to extract maximum effect from even such a poor citation. Secondly, you presuppose that all "vengeance" is wrong. The suppositions upon which the citation occurred were alien to those of the Tony Martin case, wherein the conventions flouted by the criminal were universally upheld rights of ownership, not anachronistic racial concerns. However, if you did intend to suggest that the right to private property is akin to such racist concerns, please do.

Not as such. Were the burglar to be tried and prosecuted, I doubt that death would be justified, however, shooting the burglar upon finding him in one's home is right. Why on earth shouldn't one have the right to protect property and person by any means necessary?


But that is the whole point about the Tony Martin case. He did defend his property he had banished two people from whence they came, then decided to shoot them.

If he has shot them in his house I would have no arguement with the case, because sure as damn it if someone was in my house I would do the same. However the moment I had chanced them sufficently from my property that would be the end of it (other than phoning the police) I would not decide to shoot them, stab them, club one of them to death. That for me is the diffenerence.

But that is the whole point about the Tony Martin case. He did defend his property he had banished two people from whence they came, then decided to shoot them.

If he has shot them in his house I would have no arguement with the case, because sure as damn it if someone was in my house I would do the same. However the moment I had chanced them sufficently from my property that would be the end of it (other than phoning the police) I would not decide to shoot them, stab them, club one of them to death. That for me is the diffenerence.

You are, of course, wrong. I daresay the two degenerates would have escaped, or been arrested, given a risable term of imprisonment, and hence consistently re-offended for decades, whereas what transpired saved the state money, and dispensed with two individuals not worthy of society's concern.

I think you missed my point.

If you actually read the story it was about the extraction of vengence (as you put it) to punish some one, and the implications of that sort of thinking.

As I wrote that there are laws in a lot of coutries regarding what you can and cannot do when defending you life or property, to which this all tied into my arguenment in my post.

But as you did not bother to read link (hell it was only like one paragraph) I doubt you bothered to read my post about the implications of you actions and how you thinking has dangerous reprecusions.

The difference is "extracting vengeance" in your home while being invaded and mobing someone days after the fact. It's not a legit comparison. I did read the link, make false accusations somewhere else.

It's being "set out" in the UK that you CAN"T defend your home w/o repercussions unless you use "proportional force" and even if you do you're guilty until proven innocent. A nice little subjective phrase that lets people who have no clue what is occuring determine your fate.

Secondly, you presuppose that all "vengeance" is wrong.

a mind reader now are we just check what I posted above while you posted this too prove how wrong you are lol

The difference is "extracting vengeance" in your home while being invaded and mobing someone days after the fact. It's not a legit comparison. I did read the link, make false accusations somewhere else.


Oh dear it is about disproptions which I have explained twice now clearly you are too drunk on a friday night to realise this....:D

a mind reader now are we just check what I posted above while you posted this too prove how wrong you are lol

Firstly, have you heard of grammar? I always feel it adds tone to a post. Equally, use of such terms as "lol" hardly reinforces an argument.

Secondly, the inference that the repurcussions of "vengeance" are uniformally as heinous as your delightful citation essentially performs the same task as your stating such explicitly.

The burglar quite manifestly had no regard for the rights either of Tony Martin, or the law itself, hence why should the law, or Tony Martin, care for him?

Because the law is meant to be followed. You can't just follow it in some cases. One person breaking it is no excuse for some one else doing the same.

Because the law is meant to be followed. You can't just follow it in some cases. One person breaking it is no excuse for some one else doing the same.
Two wrongs don't make a right (three lefts do).

Fuckwit.:(

Firstly, had you actually read the origins of the discussion, you would stumble upon my dislike for the law itself.

Secondly, why should one blindly follow a law that defies reason?

Thirdly, those who show disregard for the law should hardly be able to then seek protection under it.

Oh dear it is about disproptions which I have explained twice now clearly you are too drunk on a friday night to realise this....:D

Yay! Let's make the insults. They help your arguement.

Howabout the fact that the surviving criminal put a bounty out on Martin's head. The evidence that he shot the 16yr old (w/ a long history of violent behavior) away from his home is weak. And all the criminals involved have since been arrested multiple times more for various crimes.

Seems it wasn't "disproportionate". If you want to assume someone breaking into your home is "only" there to rob you, feel free. If you want to onle be allowed to react to violence after the fact, feel free.

I'll assume someone in my home is there to harm me and/or my family and be as "disproportionate" as I can to stop them from doing so.

Secondly, the inference that the repurcussions of "vengeance" are uniformally as heinous as your delightful citation essentially performs the same task as your stating such explicitly.

Which means on the third attempt, the citation was simply a warning and example as to why we have laws to prevent such mob rule (generally considered a bad thing). This has been tied into to my arguement as to why we had laws which defined how much forced could be used in self defence....

Also you have made a great many assumptions regarding what I do and do not think,(as well as producing dogma by the barrel load by the way) most of which have been disproved as the thread has progressed. Yet you still keep refering to these assumptions as if thay are facts.

You appear to have no arguement here other than to draw assumptions and half truths from this thread I can only conclude that you simply have no arguement and are simply bored on a Friday night

:)

Fuckwit.:(

Firstly, had you actually read the origins of the discussion, you would stumble upon my dislike for the law itself.

Secondly, why should one blindly follow a law that defies reason?

Thirdly, those who show disregard for the law should hardly be able to then seek protection under it.


You may dislike the law, but I don't think its relevent. There are things I don't like about it but that argument doesn't work - the criminals don't like the law either. Saying you don't have to follow the law because you don't like it would give them the excuse to break the law. It may defy reason to you that you can't force a burglar of your property, but they might thing it defies reason for you to have lots of money while they have none or some such arguement (NB/ I don't this think that is a good reason, but some one will think something similar to it.)
People should be able to seek protection under the law as we are not criminals. If we want to take the moral high ground we have to live up to our own rules. If we don't, then how can we expect others to?

Which means on the third attempt, the citation was simply a warning and example as to why we have laws to prevent such mob rule (generally considered a bad thing). This has been tied into to my arguement as to why we had laws which defined how much forced could be used in self defence....

Also you have made a great many assumptions regarding what I do and do not think,(as well as producing dogma by the barrel load by the way) most of which have been disproved as the thread has progressed. Yet you still keep refering to these assumptions as if thay are facts.

You appear to have no arguement here other than to draw assumptions and half truths from this thread I can only conclude that you simply have no arguement and are simply bored on a Friday night

:)



Seems the one w/ the reading comprehension problems is you.

Mob rule /= defending ones home nor do the laws in question have anything to do w/ it.

Which means on the third attempt, the citation was simply a warning and example as to why we have laws to prevent such mob rule (generally considered a bad thing). This has been tied into to my arguement as to why we had laws which defined how much forced could be used in self defence....

Also you have made a great many assumptions regarding what I do and do not think,(as well as producing dogma by the barrel load by the way) most of which have been disproved as the thread has progressed. Yet you still keep refering to these assumptions as if thay are facts.

You appear to have no arguement here other than to draw assumptions and half truths from this thread I can only conclude that you simply have no arguement and are simply bored on a Friday night

:)

Generally, insulting fellow posters isn't considered good practice.

Moreover,explain how the citation is at all relevant, in light of your being so manifestly objective and clear of thought. You presuppose links between mob rule and the right to self-defence, axiomatic to which is the presence of the same mentality and social considerations today as a century previous, whihc is simply illogical.

As for having no argument, I will state this once; read the fucking posts and find one, and I rather think that the contention itself reveals the insecurity with which you yourself argue.

You may dislike the law, but I don't think its relevent. There are things I don't like about it but that argument doesn't work - the criminals don't like the law either. Saying you don't have to follow the law because you don't like it would give them the excuse to break the law. It may defy reason to you that you can't force a burglar of your property, but they might thing it defies reason for you to have lots of money while they have none or some such arguement (NB/ I don't this think that is a good reason, but some one will think something similar to it.)
People should be able to seek protection under the law as we are not criminals. If we want to take the moral high ground we have to live up to our own rules. If we don't, then how can we expect others to?

Submissive much?

Why should something's being legislation oblige me to follow it? Axiomatic to that is a faith and concurrence with those who make the law, neither of which I have.

Once more, I point you to the original discussion. Myself and another poster for whom I have more respect were simply discussing the illogicalities of the law itself, and thus what the law ought to have allowed Tony Martin to do. That you then enter the discussion simply citing extant law is irrelevant, and would render the discussion itself an exercise in submissive acceptance.

Firstly If you were insulted by my little joke and Happy smiliy then I am sorry you are clearly taking this debate far too seriously.



Howabout the fact that the surviving criminal put a bounty out on Martin's head.

I feel the bounty was wrongl but neither does it make Tony Martins actions more correct either, if that is what you are trying to imply, in fact what are you trying to imply or just making a statement?

If fact you could show the dangers of vengence, and it not being supported by law, one mans justice is another mans injustice.


The evidence that he shot the 16yr old (w/ a long history of violent behavior) away from his home is weak.

But somehow stood up in a court of law..I hope you don't mind if I take their word over yours.


And all the criminals involved have since been arrested multiple times more for various crimes.

Which is more the fault of the Prison system etc (and of course the boys themselves) but i feel in no backs up the arguement that killing one of them was somehow correct.


Seems it wasn't "disproportionate". If you want to assume someone breaking into your home is "only" there to rob you, feel free. If you want to onle be allowed to react to violence after the fact, feel free.

Nice conclusion, and yet again wrong,

because sure as damn it if someone was in my house I would do the same.

See I even posted that above of course if you were actually paying any attention you would have seen that.



I'll assume someone in my home is there to harm me and/or my family and be as "disproportionate" as I can to stop them from doing so.

Then that is your prerogative, just don't expect everyone to agree with your actions.

As I said earlier one mans justice is another mans injustice.

Firstly, have you heard of grammar? I always feel it adds tone to a post. Equally, use of such terms as "lol" hardly reinforces an argument.

Secondly, the inference that the repurcussions of "vengeance" are uniformally as heinous as your delightful citation essentially performs the same task as your stating such explicitly.A grammar nazi are we? I suggest you visit the grammar nazi dojo to reduce such urges.
http://www.kwarp.com/animations/grammarninja.html

A grammar nazi are we? I suggest you visit the grammar nazi dojo to reduce such urges.
http://www.kwarp.com/animations/grammarninja.html

I'm having so much fun :p

A grammar nazi are we? I suggest you visit the grammar nazi dojo to reduce such urges.
http://www.kwarp.com/animations/grammarninja.html

I can't be held to account if you don't actually speak English, can I?

I'm having so much fun :pI'd been waiting for a couple of hours for an opportunity to post that link. >.>

I can't be held to account if you don't actually speak English, can I?Just click the damn link.

Just click the damn link.

Already done so. It's like Year 7 Latin, it's soooooo mcuh fun.....:D

I think it should be made fairly clear, unless somebody else got there first, that this "gun culture" seems to be mostly a southern-English thing.

It blows my mind how a few punks, some starter pistols, and a drill think they're hot shit. Hell, for $400 or under you can buy a decent handgun. My weakest one trumps the crap these idiots own. Are drivers labelled as a part of "car culture"? Why should people who own firearms stick out?

Not to mention anyone that grabs they're crotch to act tough is a moron.

I find the idea of a "gun culture" a little puzzling. So many people I know own firearms, I own firearms. Are drivers labelled as a part of "car culture"? Why should people who own firearms stick out?

Almost everyone in this part Michigan owns a gun and there hasn't been a single murder in this county in the several years that I've lived here.

Which does not answer my statement at all. Anyway, why is it "widely regarded" as such? Because it shows dropping crime? It also includes assault w/ "no injury".

You might also notice looking at the charts in the PDF's that the seriousness of crimes has increased. Which is exactly what I said.

Your statement about 'ever increasingly violent criminal culture' was wrong, which is what I was pointing out. Many people believe violent crims is spiraling out of control, when in fact it is falling - however the belief is not unreasonable as the news is reporting violent crime more and more.

The British Crime Survey i regarded as showing a truer picture as it relies interviewing people rather than recorded crime - which is very very subject to how the crime is recorded and reporting rates - and increases are often as much due to people being encouraged to report crime as it is for more crime actually happening. Rape for example has a report rate of between 5 to 10% - the police figures for rape are so innaccurate they are barely worth using, a while ago the government did several campaigns to encourage people to report rape - suddenly the police rape fiures went through the roof - this was not due to an increase in rape rates, just that the pitifuly small portion that are reported grew. Report rates for crime in general are not very high - the only one that really gets reported highly is murder - and the murder rate has been falling for about 6 years now. So rather than see what people have reported they actively interview people to ask them about their own experiences in the last 12 months and about their friends and families experiences. This actually gives much higher crime rates than the police figures - so is not the best from the governments point of view - the survey has also being going for 25 years now, during a lot of which time crime rates rose - and even then it was regarded as being a better measure.

But that is the whole point about the Tony Martin case. He did defend his property he had banished two people from whence they came, then decided to shoot them.

If he has shot them in his house I would have no arguement with the case, because sure as damn it if someone was in my house I would do the same. However the moment I had chanced them sufficently from my property that would be the end of it (other than phoning the police) I would not decide to shoot them, stab them, club one of them to death. That for me is the diffenerence.

He did shoot them in his house.

Or can you provide a source showing he shot them once they were already outside house?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/0,,2020346,00.html

The guy was buying gas pistols for £10 and converting them to fire live ammunition, fitting silencers, and rifling the barrel... and then selling them for £300. They even came with spare barrels just in case the first broke.

His day job was a vet.

so... yeah... wow.

You are, of course, wrong. I daresay the two degenerates would have escaped, or been arrested, given a risable term of imprisonment, and hence consistently re-offended for decades, whereas what transpired saved the state money, and dispensed with two individuals not worthy of society's concern.

How dare you say?

It blows my mind how a few punks, some starter pistols, and a drill think they're hot shit. Hell, for $400 or under you can buy a decent handgun. My weakest one trumps the crap these idiots own. Are drivers labelled as a part of "car culture"? Why should people who own firearms stick out?

Not to mention anyone that grabs they're crotch to act tough is a moron.

I find the idea of a "gun culture" a little puzzling. So many people I know own firearms, I own firearms. Are drivers labelled as a part of "car culture"? Why should people who own firearms stick out?

Almost everyone in this part Michigan owns a gun and there hasn't been a single murder in this county in the several years that I've lived here.

What part of Michigan do you live in? Which county...I'd like to check/reference that.

The UK's gun homicide rate is still nothing like in the US.

0.5 per 100,000 for the UK vs 4 per 100,000 for the US.

So where's the problem?

Are drivers labelled as a part of "car culture"? Yes, they are. In fact even non-drivers are unwilling members of the U.S. "car culture" since so much of our infastructure is based around the automobile. Bad analogy. Almost everyone in this part Michigan owns a gun and there hasn't been a single murder in this county in the several years that I've lived here. I dump my bodies over the county line too.....

The UK's gun homicide rate is still nothing like in the US.

0.5 per 100,000 for the UK vs 4 per 100,000 for the US.

So where's the problem?

Because any murder rate is a bad one. And it's increasing. Also, someone got murdered 2 days ago about 4-5 miles from me - rumours are it was a shooting, but I can't find any sources.

Almost everyone in this part Michigan owns a gun and there hasn't been a single murder in this county in the several years that I've lived here.

I'm finding it hard to believe that NO-ONE has died in your countyfrom murder. If you'd like to provide a source...?

To be honest I'm not entirely sure, between tabloid hysteria and government 'information' I can hardly say one way or the other. There have always been criminal gangs, however, and I would say that one problem is that they are possibly getting younger.

Because any murder rate is a bad one. And it's increasing. Also, someone got murdered 2 days ago about 4-5 miles from me - rumours are it was a shooting, but I can't find any sources.See, that's the difference between the UK and the states. I couldn't tell you how many murders there have been locally in the last week, that sort of thing is so common you stop paying attention. I did notice a story about a woman who almost ran over a body backing out of her driveway yesterday. Rumor has it that young man was the victim of a shooting too.


The two bullet holes in his back probably started those rumors.

The two bullet holes in his back probably started those rumors.

I'd say that's less of a rumour, more of a fact :p

Your statement about 'ever increasingly violent criminal culture' was wrong, which is what I was pointing out. Many people believe violent crims is spiraling out of control, when in fact it is falling - however the belief is not unreasonable as the news is reporting violent crime more and more.

The British Crime Survey i regarded as showing a truer picture as it relies interviewing people rather than recorded crime - which is very very subject to how the crime is recorded and reporting rates - and increases are often as much due to people being encouraged to report crime as it is for more crime actually happening. Rape for example has a report rate of between 5 to 10% - the police figures for rape are so innaccurate they are barely worth using, a while ago the government did several campaigns to encourage people to report rape - suddenly the police rape fiures went through the roof - this was not due to an increase in rape rates, just that the pitifuly small portion that are reported grew. Report rates for crime in general are not very high - the only one that really gets reported highly is murder - and the murder rate has been falling for about 6 years now. So rather than see what people have reported they actively interview people to ask them about their own experiences in the last 12 months and about their friends and families experiences. This actually gives much higher crime rates than the police figures - so is not the best from the governments point of view - the survey has also being going for 25 years now, during a lot of which time crime rates rose - and even then it was regarded as being a better measure.

Now if you would read what I wrote, it said nothing about crime levels. It was about the level of violence in crimes. Your own link stated that that was true. Look at the reports, not just the synopsis.

Realistically, were the "reported crime" dropping and the "survey" showing it increased, they would be touting the exact opposite. It is the Gov't.

Because any murder rate is a bad one. And it's increasing. Also, someone got murdered 2 days ago about 4-5 miles from me - rumours are it was a shooting, but I can't find any sources.

The murder rate in the UK has been decreasing every year for 5 or 6 years now.