NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7418134.stm

Metropolitan police expect to be able to stop people with out reasonable suspicion. My question is this, what if a construction worker, Longshoreman, warehouseman...or any man who needs a knife to work is victimized by this lousy new law? Safety for who? The people or the government?

The government should be more afraid of his people, etc.

The UK is an authoritarian hell hole. Discuss.

Well UKians do have freedom to move about the EU now don't they? I say pack the bags and move to a sunnier place if you don't like it. Or you could protest and make sure you vote in some sane politicians.

ZOMG! HE'S GOT A BUTTERKNIFE, DON'T LET HIM ON THE PLANE!

I would bust a gut if I heard that a man got arrested for that in the UK.:p

Less civil rights for ya. :p

Less civil rights for ya. :p

Apparently sharp objects are civil wrongs.

Apparently sharp objects are civil wrongs.
Hmmm. Makes sense. *brings out a large cleaver* :D

Someone carrying a knife because of their job is unlikely to be affected by this (unless they meet and annoy a particularly officious git of a police officer). However gangs of twelve and thirteen year olds who carry a knife 'for their own protection' (remind you of gun nuts?) will. Of course the only people they have to protect themselves from is other stupid twelve year olds with knives.

Metropolitan police expect to be able to stop people with out reasonable suspicion. My question is this, what if a construction worker, Longshoreman, warehouseman...or any man who needs a knife to work is victimized by this lousy new law?

Then they have a lawful excuse for carrying a knife, therefore they are not breaking the law.

take it to court then you can plead your case to a 70 yr old out of touch (out of the cupboard in need of dusting off) judge who will listen to reason and then ignore it, if he stays awake ...:sniper:

Under the Metropolitan Police's plans announced this month, officers can search people without reasonable suspicion under Section 60 of the Public Order Act.

Now, this is misleading for a start. There isn't a section 60 to the Public Order Act. Having looked at the statutes, I'm presuming that they are referring to section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1996 (note the date - this is not a new law).

The section reads as follows:

Powers to stop and search in anticipation of violence

(1) Where a police officer of or above the rank of superintendent reasonably believes that—

(a) incidents involving serious violence may take place in any locality in his area, and

(b) it is expedient to do so to prevent their occurrence,

he may give an authorisation that the powers to stop and search persons and vehicles conferred by this section shall be exercisable at any place within that locality for a period not exceeding twenty four hours.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1994/ukpga_19940033_en_7#pt4-pb2-l1g60

This is the important part - there must be high level authorisation, and the police must believe that it is necessary in order to prevent serious violence. The maximum period it can operate for 30 hours.

This is not a blanket authorisation to stop and search anyone without suspicion. It is a short term, emergency power to try and prevent a serious crime from happening. Given the recent spate of stabbings, I think we can all put up with the risk of being stopped in a random search if it means no one else gets hurt.

I am more than happy to be stopped and search. It tells me that the police is doing something. I need to be alive in order to enjoy my civil rights.

Someone carrying a knife because of their job is unlikely to be affected by this (unless they meet and annoy a particularly officious git of a police officer). However gangs of twelve and thirteen year olds who carry a knife 'for their own protection' (remind you of gun nuts?) will. Of course the only people they have to protect themselves from is other stupid twelve year olds with knives.

Exactly right.

People carrying knives as part of their trade will be unaffected.

I am more than happy to be stopped and search. It tells me that the police is doing something. I need to be alive in order to enjoy my civil rights.

This.

Feeling safe in your own street is a Civil Right.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7418134.stm

Metropolitan police expect to be able to stop people with out reasonable suspicion. My question is this, what if a construction worker, Longshoreman, warehouseman...or any man who needs a knife to work is victimized by this lousy new law? Safety for who? The people or the government?

The government should be more afraid of his people, etc.

The UK is an authoritarian hell hole. Discuss.

If I ever go to London, remind me to carry steel washers in my pockets. :D

Your mistake was letting them take your guns away.

I can't wait to see the next law that'll round up all your hammers...

ZOMG! HE'S GOT A BUTTERKNIFE, DON'T LET HIM ON THE PLANE!

I would bust a gut if I heard that a man got arrested for that in the UK.:p

You would get arrested for that in the US.

[insert founding father quote and tired argument of how it relates to today] :p

seriously though this is aimed at searching teens for weapons and to be honest if your walking around with a butchers knife trouble will follow, however I do agree that its targeting the symptoms and not the source

This rule has been around for years. It's neither a new nor a blanket law. It can only be used in certain circumstances, and isn't directly related to the lawfulness (or not) of carrying a knife at all, merely the right to search for one.

Saying that people carrying the tools of their trade have something to fear is ridiculous, as, as far as I am aware, the law that actually spells out the restrictions on carrying a knife have not changed, and is spelt out in the CJA.

It is an offence for any person, without lawful authority or good reason, to have with him in a public place, any article which has a blade or is sharply pointed except for a folding pocket-knife which has a cutting edge to its blade not exceeding 3 inches.

Criminal Justice Act 1988 section 139(1)

Your mistake was letting them take your guns away.

Yeah, cos then, if they politely asked if we're carrying a knife, we could shoot them. :rolleyes:

Yeah, cos then, if they politely asked if we're carrying a knife, we could shoot them. :rolleyes:

Yea, cos a knife, a gun, a hammer, a car... they're all TOOLS. The idea that someone doesn't NEED something and therefore it should be banned is crazy. The thing isn't the issue. It's how it is USED.

By your thinking, I wouldn't be shocked if in the UK they ban the internal combustion engine. They cause more deaths than knife violence! :p

Yea, cos a knife, a gun, a hammer, a car... they're all TOOLS. The idea that someone doesn't NEED something and therefore it should be banned is crazy. The thing isn't the issue. It's how it is USED.

By your thinking, I wouldn't be shocked if in the UK they ban the internal combustion engine. They cause more deaths than knife violence! :p

Great. So, aside from a blatant attempt at a threadjack to tell us how you like making sweet love to your gun, what good would having guns do in terms of the issue of the police stopping and searching people?

You would get arrested for that in the US.

normally they just make you throw away the butter knife unless your Arab.

Well UKians do have freedom to move about the EU now don't they? I say pack the bags and move to a sunnier place if you don't like it. Or you could protest and make sure you vote in some sane politicians.

"UKians"? It's weird, but it has a nice ring to it. And less irritating than when people refer to us all as English.

"UKians"? It's weird, but it has a nice ring to it. And less irritating than when people refer to us all as English.

Well you don't want to join the EUian club fully. So UKian it is.

Given recent events in London, I'd say this is a fair use of the 1996 law and that If i was stopped and searched i'd be more than happy to co-operate.

It shows the police are attempting to do something to curtail knife crime on the streets of London and i don't see this act being abused in any way shape or form. nor, is it infringing on anyones civil liberties in any way shape or form. If they stop you and you have nothing to hide, the worst it will do is make you a few minutes late arriving at your destination.

Great. So, aside from a blatant attempt at a threadjack to tell us how you like making sweet love to your gun, what good would having guns do in terms of the issue of the police stopping and searching people?

An now that he has you talking about guns the thread has been jacked, hooray guns :sniper::mp5::gundge:

Given recent events in London, I'd say this is a fair use of the 1996 law and that If i was stopped and searched i'd be more than happy to co-operate.

It shows the police are attempting to do something to curtail knife crime on the streets of London and i don't see this act being abused in any way shape or form. nor, is it infringing on anyones civil liberties in any way shape or form. If they stop you and you have nothing to hide, the worst it will do is make you a few minutes late arriving at your destination.

Same here. I'd rather be searched than stabbed, and in some areas (including mine) this isn't an unrealistic fear. The government has the obligation to protect it's people from harm, and that includes street crime as much as it does foreign invasion.

Given recent events in London, I'd say this is a fair use of the 1996 law and that If i was stopped and searched i'd be more than happy to co-operate.

It shows the police are attempting to do something to curtail knife crime on the streets of London and i don't see this act being abused in any way shape or form. nor, is it infringing on anyones civil liberties in any way shape or form. If they stop you and you have nothing to hide, the worst it will do is make you a few minutes late arriving at your destination.

what about the Yob's right to carry bloody huge knives around.

what about the Yob's right to carry bloody huge knives around.

Your sarcasm considering recent events in London is wasted on me. Thats in very poor taste.

Yea, cos a knife, a gun, a hammer, a car... they're all TOOLS.
Yeah, guns are great for hammering in nails.

The government does have an obligation to protect, and I suspect that the law is not only necessary, but also likely to be used only in regard to those whom one would expect to carry a knife.

If I ever go to London, remind me to carry steel washers in my pockets. :D

So when you get searched the detector will go off and they get you to turn out your pockets and discover it's only steel washers and then you... what?

Dance around in fiendish glee at having wasted a little of everyone's time, including your own? Clear victory for you @.@

A law that says for a day and a bit in a specified area, police can search people and if they're carrying a big sharp knife they have to be able to give a decent reason for carrying it.

Oh the authoritarian horror of it.

Your sarcasm considering recent events in London is wasted on me. Thats in very poor taste.

i mean knives can keep people safe. I am sure a lack of knives would only lead to a rise in beatings with baseball Err Cricket bats. so it is a bit totalitarian to search for knives. And I am not just saying this because I happen to be a share holder in Ka Bar

A law that says for a day and a bit in a specified area, police can search people and if they're carrying a big sharp knife they have to be able to give a decent reason for carrying it.

Oh the authoritarian horror of it.
Oh the lacklustre response to violence among teenagers, more's the point.

Civil rights issues are on the backburner here. The issue is whether increased stop-and-search powers for police will actually do anything to prevent knife crime, with the argument being that simply treating teenagers like potential criminals is perhaps not the best way to keep violence down and convince kids that carrying knives isn't necessary/a good thing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7418134.stm

Metropolitan police expect to be able to stop people with out reasonable suspicion. My question is this, what if a construction worker, Longshoreman, warehouseman...or any man who needs a knife to work is victimized by this lousy new law? Safety for who? The people or the government?

The government should be more afraid of his people, etc.
The UK is an authoritarian hell hole. Discuss.

P1) a person who is forced to do something by official control will resent the government who carry out the action
P2) People can carry any number of other objects that can be used violently
P3) this will isolate authority from the people they're supposed to protect
P4) Costs will rise to use police on the streets for the taxpayer
P5) has little psychological effect on those afraid of violence
P6) Increases dependence on government resolution to social problems, where it would be better for people to find ways to formulate methods to communicate effectively
C) This new set of laws in the long term will not work to reduce knife crime, or any other type of crime

Yea, cos a knife, a gun, a hammer, a car... they're all TOOLS.

How perfectly Freudian of you.

Your mistake was letting them take your guns away.

Yea, cos a knife, a gun, a hammer, a car... they're all TOOLS.
Then what's the problem with removing those guns/tools that are designed to kill human beings, and allowing those guns/tools that are designed for hunting, pest control, target shooting?

Not that I necessarily support the way gun legislation is being handled in the UK, but your argument doesn't hold much water.

"So what's the point of just searching the children and not solving the core problems? The kids are carrying knives because they don't feel safe."The kids should be issued with a suit of armour; that way they can feel relatively safe without needing to carry a knife themselves.
And they'd get a bit of exercise walking about in armour.

You would get arrested for that in the US.

YOU WOULD!?!?

I need to get back in touch. *Calls cable company*

i mean knives can keep people safe. I am sure a lack of knives would only lead to a rise in beatings with baseball Err Cricket bats. so it is a bit totalitarian to search for knives. And I am not just saying this because I happen to be a share holder in Ka BarI think I'd rather have people carry bats than knives; at least it's relatively easy to spot from a distance when someone's carrying a bat.
Although they should search for other easily concealed weapons too, of course.

Oh the lacklustre response to violence among teenagers, more's the point.

Civil rights issues are on the backburner here. The issue is whether increased stop-and-search powers for police will actually do anything to prevent knife crime, with the argument being that simply treating teenagers like potential criminals is perhaps not the best way to keep violence down and convince kids that carrying knives isn't necessary/a good thing.

Well, as I see it, if the police stop and search finds some chav with a fine knife just perfect for tearing into someones guts with, charges said person, and in the process deprives them of the knife, then just how will this be counter productive?

We aren't talking about a bit of weed here. We are talking about people carrying concealed weapons in public.

Well, as I see it, if the police stop and search finds some chav with a fine knife just perfect for tearing into someones guts with, charges said person, and in the process deprives them of the knife, then just how will this be counter productive?
Not counterproductive to that certain individual going out to stab someone, perhaps, but the question remains as to why that person felt s/he had to take a knife out with them in the first place.

Not counterproductive to that certain individual going out to stab someone, perhaps, but the question remains as to why that person felt s/he had to take a knife out with them in the first place.

It is simple a lack of enough knives. If everyone had one then it wouldn't be a problem. we need to distribute these to everyone in the UK https://www.kabar.com/product_search.jsp?categoryId=1&mode=category
then the knifing problem will settle down.

Well, as I see it, if the police stop and search finds some chav with a fine knife just perfect for tearing into someones guts with, charges said person, and in the process deprives them of the knife, then just how will this be counter productive?

We aren't talking about a bit of weed here. We are talking about people carrying concealed weapons in public.

so it's ok for a cop to stop a person, find a knife and assume, without any evidence, that the knife found will be used to kill someone yet it's wrong for a cop to stop and search someone who may be carrying contraband material and not assume that the person is selling it to children?

wasn't there several incidents last year when several youths ran from an officer who asked to see their ID's and people on this very forum cried out that the officers had no right to randomly stop and question people?

Yeah, guns are great for hammering in nails.


You'd be surprised. .22 semi autos at close range are quite good at that.

It is simple a lack of enough knives. If everyone had one then it wouldn't be a problem. we need to distribute these to everyone in the UK https://www.kabar.com/product_search.jsp?categoryId=1&mode=category
then the knifing problem will settle down.

don't forget, we need to also pass out the protective, knife proof gear (http://www.unitedmaskandparty.com/Armor/images/italian_knight_armor.JPG) as well. :p

I would rather send an innocent person to prison, than let a guilty one go free.

;) hahaha. That is, assuming the ratio is about 1 Innocent: 1000 Guilty (and, it most likely is)

If I ever move to London, remind me to sign up for martial arts.

In the end, when they have disarmed the populace of all weapons, those who need no weapons will rule.

If I ever move to London, remind me to sign up for martial arts.

In the end, when they have disarmed the populace of all weapons, those who need no weapons will rule.
Why wait till you move to London?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7418134.stm

Metropolitan police expect to be able to stop people with out reasonable suspicion. My question is this, what if a construction worker, Longshoreman, warehouseman...or any man who needs a knife to work is victimized by this lousy new law? Safety for who? The people or the government?

The government should be more afraid of his people, etc.

The UK is an authoritarian hell hole. Discuss.

Similar things led up to the events of 1776. Looks like the English government hasn't learned a lot in the past 200 odd years.

Don't have time in my schedule at the moment.

Similar things led up to the events of 1776.
As futile as the measures may be, it's hardly the Boston Tea Party.

Looks like the English government hasn't learned a lot in the past 200 odd years.
No such thing, old chap.

This is not a blanket authorisation to stop and search anyone without suspicion. It is a short term, emergency power to try and prevent a serious crime from happening. Given the recent spate of stabbings, I think we can all put up with the risk of being stopped in a random search if it means no one else gets hurt.

They said the same thing in Boston in 1775ish time frame.

If I ever move to London, remind me to sign up for martial arts.

In the end, when they have disarmed the populace of all weapons, those who need no weapons will rule.

Better learn before you go, or they might ban it and confiscate anybody that knows it. :p

Better learn before you go, or they might ban it and confiscate anybody that knows it. :p

You already have to declare

"WAIT! Before you hit me, I have to tell you I am an ex soldier/martial artist/rugby player/boxer/etc. So you can't sue me after I kick your arse"

^If you are one of those things, you legally have to declare.

If you don't

They confiscate you!

You already have to declare

"WAIT! Before you hit me, I have to tell you I am an ex soldier/martial artist/rugby player/boxer/etc. So you can't sue me after I kick your arse"

^If you are one of those things, you legally have to declare.

If you don't

They confiscate you!

"Hello Gov. My names Tommy and I'm gonna be the Chav that will be knifing you tonight, before we begin, I would like to know if you are any of the following.

a former Military person
A Maritial Artist (and what belt)
a Rugby player (and what team)
a Boxer
or if you, yourself are armed with a knife similar to this or larger.

Oh... you are... you do... then you need to first sign this form that states you have indeed informed me of your profession/skill/weapon of choice, this is to protect you sir, from legal reprecussions from any bodily harm that might otherwise occure to me.

ok, everything looks in order... here's your copy. then we shall skip the normal line of events and proceed with me running away. have a nice evening and I hope you enjoyed yourself. bye.

You'd be surprised. .22 semi autos at close range are quite good at that.

In all honesty, there is a tool that uses a .22 calibre shell to drive nails.

Powder Actuated Nail and Stud Drivers.http://www.toolbarn.com/category/powdertools/

No such thing, old chap.

Oh I bet you are wanting one, you...SCOT! :D

Metropolitan police expect to be able to stop people with out reasonable suspicion. My question is this, what if a construction worker, Longshoreman, warehouseman...or any man who needs a knife to work is victimized by this lousy new law? Safety for who? The people or the government?
... uhu...

If they need a knife, then their employer can provide one at the site. That simple. If they're self employed, and can prove that its use will solely be as a tool, then they won't get in any trouble.
The UK is an authoritarian hell hole. Discuss.
My response to that would be "don't be a moron".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7418134.stm

Metropolitan police expect to be able to stop people with out reasonable suspicion. My question is this, what if a construction worker, Longshoreman, warehouseman...or any man who needs a knife to work is victimized by this lousy new law? Safety for who? The people or the government?

The government should be more afraid of his people, etc.

The UK is an authoritarian hell hole. Discuss.

The right or the wrong of it how would the government as a whole be threatened enough by some knifes in the hands of citizens to cause a positive consideration in them

Or even by the average firearm

It made a lot of sense in countries where large numbers of people with their own rifles could be a serious threat to the military/government but not really in todays world

Nice use of a "Children of Men" line for the title.

You already have to declare

"WAIT! Before you hit me, I have to tell you I am an ex soldier/martial artist/rugby player/boxer/etc. So you can't sue me after I kick your arse"

^If you are one of those things, you legally have to declare.

If you don't

They confiscate you!

As all of the bolded I can confidently say that you don't.

So when you get searched the detector will go off and they get you to turn out your pockets and discover it's only steel washers and then you... what?

Dance around in fiendish glee at having wasted a little of everyone's time, including your own? Clear victory for you @.@

A law that says for a day and a bit in a specified area, police can search people and if they're carrying a big sharp knife they have to be able to give a decent reason for carrying it.

Oh the authoritarian horror of it.

If I get searched and they find the washers when I turn my pockets out, then they'll let me leave. And that's it. I don't dance, my knees are messed up (too many slip/falls over the years). I might chuckle a little as I'm walking away, but then again, I do have an odd sense of humor. :D

ZOMG! HE'S GOT A BUTTERKNIFE, DON'T LET HIM ON THE PLANE!

I would bust a gut if I heard that a man got arrested for that in the UK.:p

*goes to England*

Don't mess with me! I have a fork and spoon and I'm not afraid to use them!!!

No Blessed Chris yet?

I'd imagine this was his sort of reactionary right-wing thread.

EDIT: Serves I for not looking through the the thread. It'd already happened.

Yeah, guns are great for hammering in nails.

And hammers are wonderful for killing deer.

Great. So, aside from a blatant attempt at a threadjack to tell us how you like making sweet love to your gun, what good would having guns do in terms of the issue of the police stopping and searching people?

Blatent? My opinion is blatent? :p

What good? How about this for a concept: if most/more of you were legally armed, they wouldn't even HAVE that power. Or, for that matter, it would be MOOT since you'd be legal.

For example, I can carry a concealed handgun or knife anywhere I wish in my state (barring the usual: courthouses, inside a school, while drinking in a bar, etc). Go ahead, search me. Unless I'm menacing someone, they have to give it right back.

Then what's the problem with removing those guns/tools that are designed to kill human beings, and allowing those guns/tools that are designed for hunting, pest control, target shooting?

Not that I necessarily support the way gun legislation is being handled in the UK, but your argument doesn't hold much water.

The problem? This is the problem: It's the government's job to ENSURE your liberties, not recind them.

Oh? So you're all for banning everything that might be "unnecessary"? I've got a 286 PC right here for you! :D

Yeah, guns are great for hammering in nails.
I drive my gun to work every day. And I use a 9mm beretta as a fork to eat pasta with.

Oh, and this is rather pertinent for this thread:

Harry Potter Actor Stabbed and killed (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/skynews/20080525/tuk-shock-at-harry-potter-actor-s-stab-d-45dbed5.html)

10

The problem? This is the problem: It's the government's job to ENSURE your liberties, not recind them.
I don't think that's government's 'job', but when a government attempts to remove liberties we should be suspicious, yes.

Oh? So you're all for banning everything that might be "unnecessary"?
No, not in the least. But if you're going to make the case that guns are tools, and as tools we should be able to use them freely, then you've got to answer some questions about why you need a tools designed to take another human's life.

Perhaps another line of argumentation would be more appropriate?

Oh I bet you are wanting one, you...SCOT! :D
If, as it looks, the Scottish Government, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Welsh Assembly will be getting more powers over the upcoming years, then I don't see why England shouldn't have its own local parliament.

I love the subtitle...

New laws to crack down on knife crime could cause increased hostility among young people, the Children's Commissioner for England has said.

Oh no, we're preventing them from stabbing people! THey won't think we're cool anymore!

Oh no, we're preventing them from stabbing people! THey won't think we're cool anymore!
More: we're criminalising young people, and this won't help in any but the smallest way in reducing knife crime.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7418134.stm
The UK is an authoritarian hell hole.

Is this the general feeling in Britain?

I'm over in America-land, but I've been getting that sinking feeling in my stomach every time I read news about the UK. Seems like it's kinda going to shit.

I don't think that's government's 'job', but when a government attempts to remove liberties we should be suspicious, yes.


No, not in the least. But if you're going to make the case that guns are tools, and as tools we should be able to use them freely, then you've got to answer some questions about why you need a tools designed to take another human's life.

Owner ship and use are two different things. Using a fire arm in an inappropriate way is bad, however ownership does not in of its self imply improper use. Ownership of these tools must not be infringed.

Is this the general feeling in Britain?

I'm over in America-land, but I've been getting that sinking feeling in my stomach every time I read news about the UK. Seems like it's kinda going to shit.

Not in this respect. We're not overly bothered about weapons ownership here, it's just not seen as a major right. We're more worried on the infringements re:protesting. See the thread about the kid who got arrested for calling Scientology a cult.

Is this the general feeling in Britain?

I'm over in America-land, but I've been getting that sinking feeling in my stomach every time I read news about the UK. Seems like it's kinda going to shit.
... the UK is going to shit far less than the US, it's just that the Murdoch Media is pessimistic here but optimistic over there.

Owner ship and use are two different things. Using a fire arm in an inappropriate way is bad, however ownership does not in of its self imply improper use.
I quite agree.

However, in Britain, guns which can be legally owned are those such as hunting rifles, shotguns, air pistols/rifles, plus certain guns that are used for target shooting; guns that can legitimately be used for hunting, pest control and target practice. What the government has been clamping down on are those guns which cannot be said to be 'tools of the trade' for hunters, pest controllers and the like. Guns which are simply designed as 'tools' for violence against humans.

Now, we can get into a debate about whether or not folks should have the legal right to defend their person and property with a firearm, but that is a separate argument from Markreich's 'guns as tools' argument.

Not in this respect. We're not overly bothered about weapons ownership here, it's just not seen as a major right. We're more worried on the infringements re:protesting. See the thread about the kid who got arrested for calling Scientology a cult.

and the 'Stop and Search' is ok with you guys also?

and the 'Stop and Search' is ok with you guys also?

In this particular act it doesn't bother me. The conditions seem fairly stringent and is fairly un-invasive. I'm much more annoyed by the Terrorism Act 2000 in regards to that.

I still think we have excellent (speaking relatively) human rights, but New Labour has passed a lot of disturbing legislation recently, trying to be seen as a party tough on crime and terrorrism, where they've traditionally been seen as weak on.

... the UK is going to shit far less than the US, it's just that the Murdoch Media is pessimistic here but optimistic over there.

...is that so? Maybe I'm overreacting, but you guys seem to have spots of neofascism. That trend seems to be picking up speed across the pond.

Britain has me a little worried, France's new president ain't a good guy and as for Russia...what needs to be said?

Maybe it is all just the media coverage, though.

Europe long ago realised that "an armed society is a polite society" simply isn't true, we are just waiting for the US to catch up. An armed society is simply one where those who choose to use violence - whether they are mad, bad or simply drunk - have access to more efficient tools for killing. In the UK we currently have problems with young people stabbing each other, and we are taking the pragmatic step of doing something about it. We don't agree with the US view that it is some kind of fundamental human to be armed to the teeth. We do regard it as a fundamental right to be able to walk down a street safe in the knowledge that you won't get hit by stray bullets because nobody you meet is likely to be carrying a gun. I have lived in a medium sized city in the UK for over twenty years and have never even heard a gunshot there - that is what makes me feel safe.

Europe long ago realised that "an armed society is a polite society" simply isn't true, we are just waiting for the US to catch up. An armed society is simply one where those who choose to use violence - whether they are mad, bad or simply drunk - have access to more efficient tools for killing. In the UK we currently have problems with young people stabbing each other, and we are taking the pragmatic step of doing something about it. We don't agree with the US view that it is some kind of fundamental human to be armed to the teeth. We do regard it as a fundamental right to be able to walk down a street safe in the knowledge that you won't get hit by stray bullets because nobody you meet is likely to be carrying a gun. I have lived in a medium sized city in the UK for over twenty years and have never even heard a gunshot there - that is what makes me feel safe.

I've never heard a gunshot in midtown Manhattan, either. So what?

It's not as if we're advocating the Wild West here, but you must remember that Britain DOES have the advantage of being a nice little island (read: easy to defend/prevent smuggling). The US has a large Mexican border, plus the ease of getting in and out from South America. Even Mediterreanian European countries have an easier time of border control/smuggling control.

I don't think that's government's 'job', but when a government attempts to remove liberties we should be suspicious, yes.


No, not in the least. But if you're going to make the case that guns are tools, and as tools we should be able to use them freely, then you've got to answer some questions about why you need a tools designed to take another human's life.

Perhaps another line of argumentation would be more appropriate?


But I see that many seem to think that the government should create/upkeep a "nanny state". Obviously, this is bad.

A gun is not designed to take someone else's life any more than a knife or a car is. A gun is designed to fire a projectile. It's what you DO with it that makes it dangerous to humans. Heck, let's take it one step further: what gives someone else the right to threaten someone? Nothing. So if someone (or, multiple persons) choose to do so, the individual being threatened has the right to defend themselves. QED.

In this particular act it doesn't bother me. The conditions seem fairly stringent and is fairly un-invasive. I'm much more annoyed by the Terrorism Act 2000 in regards to that.
what do you think those conditions are?

the media made it sound like "youngsters" yet someone posted an article where the stabbing was done by a 21 yr old. so it sounds like the police are targetting teens and doing a search with metal detecting wands.

What about those that are carrying knives for religious purposes?

I ask, because the Sikh religion requires that they carry a sword/knife on them at all times.

And because many pagans have athame's that they need to carry on them when going to rituals out doors.

Neither of these two groups intend to stab anyone, so how will this effect them? Would it be unfair and considered religious persecution?

How can we draw the line and be certain of keeping people safe from those out to hurt people and those that are carrying weapons either for use or ceremonial purposes that are for their jobs or for rules of their belief system.

I've never heard a gunshot in midtown Manhattan, either. So what?

It's not as if we're advocating the Wild West here, but you must remember that Britain DOES have the advantage of being a nice little island (read: easy to defend/prevent smuggling). The US has a large Mexican border, plus the ease of getting in and out from South America. Even Mediterreanian European countries have an easier time of border control/smuggling control.

So why does someone in Midtown Manhattan, which is a good 1000 miles at least from any border other than the Canadian one, need a gun? There is absolutely no connection.

Additionally, what is the problem you have with Latin American countries? If there were no demand in the USA for smuggled goods (be this cocaine from Colombia, Heroin from Afghanistan, or DVDs from China) there would be no smuggling problem. Try putting your own house in order rather than use the fact that you live in an unruly and uncultured place as an excuse to not even try to become more civilized. Guns will never prevent smuggling, and you know that.

...is that so? Maybe I'm overreacting, but you guys seem to have spots of neofascism. That trend seems to be picking up speed across the pond.
Though the UK and other EU countries have passed some worrying legislation in the past few years, 'neofacism' is not exactly the way I'd describe it.

But I see that many seem to think that the government should create/upkeep a "nanny state". Obviously, this is bad.
There's no 'obviously' about it, no matter one's thoughts on the welfare state.

A gun is not designed to take someone else's life any more than a knife or a car is.
Hold on their, son.

This gun (http://www.packrat-toyz.com/images/Pellet%20Guns/Pellet%20B3-1.jpg) certainly isn't designed specifically to take someone's life. It's an air rifle, and (as I'm sure you well know) can be used for target practice, some hunting, etc.

But what about this gun (http://www.gunsforfilm.com/images/spring_uzi_jpg.jpg)? What purpose could an Uzi be possibly designed for, other than the killing of a human being?

I'm not saying that we should have increasingly draconian laws on the ownership of guns, I'm actually not too sure what way on the issue I'd swing, but declaring that a gun like an Uzi "is not designed to take someone else's life" is either woefully naive or deliberately ignorant.

I've never heard a gunshot in midtown Manhattan, either. So what?

That is because of the sensible gun control measures in place in New York City.

Your mistake was letting them take your guns away.

Not really, I have a full cabinet. I'm British, and yet have a Taurus Long Barreled Revolver, Lee Enfield, Mauser 98K, pump ation shotty, any many more. It's just less publicised than in America. It is more difficult to aquire a firearm in this country, but it is possible. Took me about a month to get my firearm certificate.

I can't wait to see the next law that'll round up all your hammers...
Don't Joke, they probably will :P


As for the erosion of personal freedoms.
Yeah, some of the police stuff is okay, feeling safe down your street, however there comes a point when you think "They don't care about us, but filling 'Search Quotas' and such".
Plus, we're no longer allowed to peacefully protest.
Police are usually sent to break it up, even if people fill out the correct forms and get 'Permission'
Right to Freedom? Inncent until Proven Guilty?
Goodness no! Not in the eyes of those cunts Labour.
A bloke from somewhere in Africa is under house arrest for a case that he was found unamously innocent for. Plus he was also suspected for several other crimes, such as the Underground bombs.
ID Cards?
They didn't work in Madrid, they won't work here.
The fucker who hijacked in 11/9 had a valid passport.
Churchill implimented them during WWII, but he hated the idea. So did teh people. Hitler did someting similar, it ended in millions of deaths.

So I spit on Labour and say;
New Labour,
New Nazies.

Not really, I have a full cabinet. I'm British, and yet have a Taurus Long Barreled Revolver, Lee Enfield, Mauser 98K, pump ation shotty, any many more. It's just less publicised than in America. It is more difficult to aquire a firearm in this country, but it is possible. Took me about a month to get my firearm certificate.

<snip the rest of the incoherent rant>


I'm calling you on that revolver, as they've been outlawed for some years. Unless it doesn't work, you can't possess that legally.

Actually, I may be incorrect depending on certain specifics (possibly if it's a blackpowder weapon, etc), but I don't think so. Basically all handguns are illegal here.

As for the questions w.r.t religious needs: From what I understand of the law, you can only carry a knife in public if a) it's a folding pocketknife with an edge of under 3 inches, or b) you have a good reason for it. Most of the cases you mentioned would probably fall under b.

Edit: Or a revolver like that could be possessed because it's large enough, but it would need to be bloody huge --- 12 inches of barrel at least, and 24 inches overall, or something like that.

What's the big deal?

I regulary carry a 4.5 inch lock knife in the UK. Then again I have a good reason for it.

What's the big deal?

I regulary carry a 4.5 inch lock knife in the UK. Then again I have a good reason for it.

Living in Machester? :D

Living in Machester? :D

It's a fair bet.

In any case, I do find it somewhat fitting that New Labour has spent the bast part of a decade legislating against freedom of speech, expression and demonstration so as to stifle those it deems inconsonant to the Rev. Smiler's Albion, whilst permitting a disturbing juvenile culture that manifests itself in regular shootings and stabbings to develop, and, until now, doing bugger all about it.

Living in Machester? :D

Amongst other. :cool:

These knives aren't going out and stabbing people of their own accord. Whilst a crack down will have some benefits, the root cause has got to be addressed.

These knives aren't going out and stabbing people of their own accord. Whilst a crack down will have some benefits, the root cause has got to be addressed.

The root causes will never be addressed. They are far too complex for any govt. policy that can also generate good soundbites.

The thing we need is an unelected body that isn't worried about votes. The police perhaps?

It's a fair bet.

In any case, I do find it somewhat fitting that New Labour has spent the bast part of a decade legislating against freedom of speech, expression and demonstration so as to stifle those it deems inconsonant to the Rev. Smiler's Albion, whilst permitting a disturbing juvenile culture that manifests itself in regular shootings and stabbings to develop, and, until now, doing bugger all about it.

Are you trying to imply that Manchester is a lawless city?

Are you trying to imply that Manchester is a lawless city?

I'm sure the law exists there. Quite how much notice is taken of it in certain areas is a different matter.

The root causes will never be addressed. They are far too complex for any govt. policy that can also generate good soundbites.

The thing we need is an unelected body that isn't worried about votes. The police perhaps?
One of the problems is that a lot of the top policemen are political animals and listed to what Westminster says, lest they loose their jobs. The police can't do much without the Government's say so, I'd imagine.

The root causes will never be addressed. They are far too complex for any govt. policy that can also generate good soundbites.

The thing we need is an unelected body that isn't worried about votes. The police perhaps?

I suspect the measures required to check juvenile violence and delinquincy would be considered unacceptable. In any case, such is the state of the prison service, the prevailing leniency of the courts, and the circumscribed powers available to the police, that precious little will be achieved.

One of the problems is that a lot of the top policemen are political animals and listed to what Westminster says, lest they loose their jobs. The police can't do much without the Government's say so, I'd imagine.

Not the worst of it. In a delightfully Stalinist twist, the police are now expected to meet targets for the recording, arrest and prosecution of crime, reducing their job to little more than providing conveniant and positive evidence of government success, whilst doing precious little to serve the community.

I suspect the measures required to check juvenile violence and delinquincy would be considered unacceptable. In any case, such is the state of the prison service, the prevailing leniency of the courts, and the circumscribed powers available to the police, that precious little will be achieved.

What measures do you believe are required?

One of the problems is that a lot of the top policemen are political animals and listed to what Westminster says, lest they loose their jobs. The police can't do much without the Government's say so, I'd imagine.

The police can use all laws currently in place. This latest news story is about them using a piece of legislation passed in 1996. It all boils down to whether the police have the will to be unpopular for a while.

Not the worst of it. In a delightfully Stalinist twist, the police are now expected to meet targets for the recording, arrest and prosecution of crime, reducing their job to little more than providing conveniant and positive evidence of government success, whilst doing precious little to serve the community.
Ah, the joys of living in a society where we're happily electing governments that are marching down the road to a totalitarian nation.

Good old New "Labour", although I'd be massively surprised if the Tories did anything different, especially since their supposed opponents are putting in policies that they have probably been itching to do. That way, they don't have the negetative publicity of doing them.

What measures do you believe are required?

Personally, I'd restore capital punishment, thus freeing prison cells, lenghten prison sentences, make prisons desperately unpleasant places so as to serve as a detterent, and allow the police, in unpleasant areas characterised by chav/ned/gang violence, to use excessive force when dealing with the little bastards.

In short, restore the prison service to what I believe it ought to be; a deterrent, and then allow the police to address the problem with excessive force for a limited period.

The police can use all laws currently in place. This latest news story is about them using a piece of legislation passed in 1996. It all boils down to whether the police have the will to be unpopular for a while.
I've honestly not read the article in question, which does kind of shoot any argument of mine in the foot.

As bad as it is, my following of the news recently is essentially skim-reading any articles on the BBC website, which is my home page.

Personally, I'd restore capital punishment, thus freeing prison cells, lenghten prison sentences, make prisons desperately unpleasant places so as to serve as a detterent, and allow the police, in unpleasant areas characterised by chav/ned/gang violence, to use excessive force when dealing with the little bastards.

In short, restore the prison service to what I believe it ought to be; a deterrent, and then allow the police to address the problem with excessive force for a limited period.
I'd not go for capital punishment, to be honest.

Excessive force would only lead to bad things, especially if the people in question are innocent and just look like stereotypical "bad" teenagers. Although a lot of the time these people look like they do because they are scum.

But some of my housemates have voiced the rather interesting idea that sentences ought to be measured in power generated, and all criminals have to sit on excercise bikes hooked up to dynamos and then generate electricity. Would be a good solution to the wretched Russian government having as much leverage over us as it does.

Personally, I'd restore capital punishment, thus freeing prison cells,

Unless you bring capital punishment for a hell of a lot of things, you aren't going to be freeing up prison cells.

lenghten prison sentences,

Forgotten your last point already? That was quick.

make prisons desperately unpleasant places so as to serve as a detterent

Yeah, that's always worked before. And works now. San Quentin has a 0% re-offending rate.

and allow the police, in unpleasant areas characterised by chav/ned/gang violence, to use excessive force when dealing with the little bastards.

Makes some of the complaints re: being authoratarian ring a little hollow.

Personally, I'd restore capital punishment, thus freeing prison cells, lenghten prison sentences, make prisons desperately unpleasant places so as to serve as a detterent, and allow the police, in unpleasant areas characterised by chav/ned/gang violence, to use excessive force when dealing with the little bastards.

In short, restore the prison service to what I believe it ought to be; a deterrent, and then allow the police to address the problem with excessive force for a limited period.

So you'd go back to a time when the penal system was just about as effective as now?

There was me thinking you might have some progressive social policies that might actual work to reduce crime...

Ah, the joys of living in a society where we're happily electing governments that are marching down the road to a totalitarian nation.

Good old New "Labour", although I'd be massively surprised if the Tories did anything different, especially since their supposed opponents are putting in policies that they have probably been itching to do. That way, they don't have the negetative publicity of doing them.

Perhaps it is naive, blind love of William Hague and Michael Howard that drives this, but I think not. neither strike me as having quite the same monstrous ambition of Blair or Brown.

However, you have, I suspect, struck the root of the problem; "electing". The "silent majority" and political centre ground for which Labour and the Tories scrabble tend not to be the most cerebreal or politicised of voters; hence the unswerving support for any measure framed in the language of "national security", and the necessity for a government to meet this desire. Take, as an example, the Labour defeat on 90 days detention; despite it meeting criticism from left and right, and from the Guardian to the Telegraph, the Sun reacted to the defeat with the headline (if memory serves), "The Great Betrayal".

Given the majority of the country unthinkingly imbibe the moralistic opinions of the Sun, Mail and their ilk, no government can afford to be more intellectual in its approach to security.

Unless you bring capital punishment for a hell of a lot of things, you aren't going to be freeing up prison cells.

I disagree. I suspect the majority of long term prisoners would qualify for capital punishment.



Forgotten your last point already? That was quick.

No. If I am correct in assuming that capital punishment would free many cells, it would allow those crimes for which it cannot be applied to be given longer sentences.

Yeah, that's always worked before. And works now. San Quentin has a 0% re-offending rate.

It can't be any worse than the rate of reoffence at present.

Makes some of the complaints re: being authoratarian ring a little hollow.

Perhaps. Frankly, however, the problem requires concerted attention and effort, and I suspect little short of such force would have any effect.

So you'd go back to a time when the penal system was just about as effective as now?

There was me thinking you might have some progressive social policies that might actual work to reduce crime...

I'd sooner see those not fit to be released into society dispensed with than costing the state obscene amounts of money to detain them indefinitely.

I'd sooner see those not fit to be released into society dispensed with than costing the state obscene amounts of money to detain them indefinitely.

The point is that capital punishment and long sentences have never reduced crime in the past in the UK, or now in the US. What makes you think it would do anything other than increase the prison population?

The point is that capital punishment and long sentences have never reduced crime in the past in the UK, or now in the US. What makes you think it would do anything other than increase the prison population?

Because if one executes enough people, the prison population would decline.

Given the majority of the country unthinkingly imbibe the moralistic opinions of the Sun, Mail and their ilk, no government can afford to be more intellectual in its approach to security.
Which is a massive shame, really. If a government had the balls to step up and say, well specifically this government, "Yeah, OK, we've kind of fucked up on our policies on crime. We've been hacking away at the branches of a tree of social problems, rather than attacking the roots. We really need, as a country, to sit back and work out the issues and tackle them properly, rather than what we are doing now, which is essentially whacking a sticking plaster on a giant open sore of a problem," if you'd follow my rather mixed metaphor. They'd get slated by damned near every newspaper in the country for daring to say such a thing, and therefore loose the next election, even if their ideas could have worked.

I honestly think we need a massive shake up of the current system we have, but there we go. We need more democracy, rather than the elected dictatorship we currently have.

On the count of the Tories doing the same thing, I reckon they probably would because there's a ridiculous amount of similarity between the two main parties these days, but I imagine we'd be able to spend the rest of the night countering each other childishly over that.

Because if one executes enough people, the prison population would decline.
Yes.

Give some bugger a gun and execute every tenth prisoner. Then every fifth.

Which is a massive shame, really. If a government had the balls to step up and say, well specifically this government, "Yeah, OK, we've kind of fucked up on our policies on crime. We've been hacking away at the branches of a tree of social problems, rather than attacking the roots. We really need, as a country, to sit back and work out the issues and tackle them properly, rather than what we are doing now, which is essentially whacking a sticking plaster on a giant open sore of a problem," if you'd follow my rather mixed metaphor. They'd get slated by damned near every newspaper in the country for daring to say such a thing, and therefore loose the next election, even if their ideas could have worked.

I honestly think we need a massive shake up of the current system we have, but there we go. We need more democracy, rather than the elected dictatorship we currently have.

On the count of the Tories doing the same thing, I reckon they probably would because there's a ridiculous amount of similarity between the two main parties these days, but I imagine we'd be able to spend the rest of the night countering each other childishly over that.


For reasons implict in previous observations, I would tend towards the opposite. Wider democracy would only increase the influence, through it's hold upon the electorate, of the alarmist tabloid press, which I suspect would be counterproductive. However, were the Lords to be given more extensive powers, and filled with more enlightened, academic figures, I imagine the result would be positive.

Agreed about party politics anyway.:D

Yes.

Give some bugger a gun and execute every tenth person. Then every fifth.

Of the prison population?

Of the prison population?
Damn, yes.

But I was being flippant.

in response to the opening post, i dont think this is a case of the police arresting anyone with a knife, im sure if you have it for legitemate reasons (like your job) then they wont take it off you or arrest you. I think tighter controls on weapons can only be good for our country, look at america they have guns legalised, and theyre lucky to go a week without a majour shooting incident, we certainly dont want that here.

Because if one executes enough people, the prison population would decline.

How would you chose what crimes to punish with death? Capital punishment is a bit severe for most crimes and we don't have enough premeditated murders in the UK for it to make an impact on prison populations.

Damn, yes.

But I was being flippant.

Never apologise for being flippant. It's too much fun to be apologised for.:D

Perhaps I'm demonstrating my lack of political humanity, but since a good majority of prisoners consistently reoffend, and are hence inveterately criminal, I'm not sure I'd object to executing the prison population randomly.

How would you chose what crimes to punish with death? Capital punishment is a bit severe for most crimes and we don't have enough premeditated murders in the UK for it to make an impact on prison populations.

I'd go for; murder, rape, repeated petty crime(over a decade or so), attempted murder and attempted terror attacks. All heavily qualified, but as a broad model, see the above.

I'd go for; murder, rape, repeated petty crime(over a decade or so), attempted murder and attempted terror attacks. All heavily qualified, but as a broad model, see the above.

How can you justify taking a persons life for rape, attempted murder or an attempted terror attack? None are pleasant but no one has been killed.

Never apologise for being flippant. It's too much fun to be apologised for.:D

Perhaps I'm demonstrating my lack of political humanity, but since a good majority of prisoners consistently reoffend, and are hence inveterately criminal, I'm not sure I'd object to executing the prison population randomly.
No worries.

I'm always put off by the chance that one might well be blowing away an innocent person, or perhaps someone who actually has seen the error of their ways.

I'm in kind of two minds about capital punishment, to bring it back to that. I'd be more than happy to see the likes of Shipman or Fred West swing, but I'm not too sure about anything else - indeed, if one were to execute some of the worst examples of criminals, why the devil should one then by squeemish about doing it to others?

How can you justify taking a persons life for rape, attempted murder or an attempted terror attack? None are pleasant but no one has been killed.

Because I concern myself more with the benefit to society than any abstract concept of rights. The better proportion of rapists, attempted murderers and terrorists willnever be fit for relaease into society, and hence, will simply leech the resources of the state for an indefinite period unless executed.

The problem is, simply, that I couldn't care less about the rights of the criminal. They forego them when they consciously and intentionally commit, or attempt to commit, a crime.

The problem is, simply, that I couldn't care less about the rights of the criminal. They forego them when they consciously and intentionally commit, or attempt to commit, a crime.
Indeed, but there are crimes of passion and the like. If someone sits there and plots to kill someone they imagined has caused them some injury, real or imagined, physical or not, that person worse than someone who's drunkly swung a punch at someone and been unlucky enough to kill them. One's an accident, although with intent, and the other's monstrous.

Indeed, but there are crimes of passion and the like. If someone sits there and plots to kill someone they imagined has caused them some injury, real or imagined, physical or not, that person worse than someone who's drunkly swung a punch at someone and been unlucky enough to kill them. One's an accident, although with intent, and the other's monstrous.

Hence why my approach would be qualified. I wouldn't dream of executing an otherwise productive, socially beneficial individual who shot a delinquent attacking his property, nor the drunkard you cite, whereas I would somebody who kills simply for money or reasons of gang loyalty.

Because I concern myself more with the benefit to society than any abstract concept of rights. The better proportion of rapists, attempted murderers and terrorists willnever be fit for relaease into society, and hence, will simply leech the resources of the state for an indefinite period unless executed.

The problem is, simply, that I couldn't care less about the rights of the criminal. They forego them when they consciously and intentionally commit, or attempt to commit, a crime.

The idea of rights are abstract but the idea of society isn't?

My main problem with your plan is that capital punishment has never worked, the Bloody Bill saw no reduction in crime in the UK and the only western country to still have the death penalty also has the highest murder rate per capita in the western world.

Hence why my approach would be qualified. I wouldn't dream of executing an otherwise productive, socially beneficial individual who shot a delinquent attacking his property, nor the drunkard you cite, whereas I would somebody who kills simply for money or reasons of gang loyalty.
Ah, I think I misread your posts initially, then. I thought you were advocating a much more random approach and executing these sorts just on the basis of their crime, rather than examining the specifics of their individual cases.

You're one of those sorts, if you forgive me for labelling you quite so blatantly (I don't mean to offend), who doesn't really mind that innocents occasionally get ground up by the wheels of justice so that all criminals are punished for their actions.

Personally, I'd rather that a few criminals got off, so long as people innocent of the crimes with which they're accused are able to escape wrongful punishment.

Admittedly, my way probably does lead to more social unrest :p

The idea of rights are abstract but the idea of society isn't?

My main problem with your plan is that capital punishment has never worked, the Bloody Bill saw no reduction in crime in the UK and the only western country to still have the death penalty also has the highest murder rate per capita in the western world.

The USA cannot, however, be easily compared to Britain in demographic and social terms.

"Society" is only, in any case, an abstraction to the same extent and fashion as is "family". They are immanent in human civilisation and, though abstractions they are, they are indispensible without dismantling civilisation. "Human rights", however, are simply the products of a post-holocaust moral overreaction; society functioned perfectly well without them, predicated upon common sense, and would do so now.

In short, one is indispensible, the other superfluous.

Ah, I think I misread your posts initially, then. I thought you were advocating a much more random approach and executing these sorts just on the basis of their crime, rather than examining the specifics of their individual cases.

You're one of those sorts, if you forgive me for labelling you quite so blatantly (I don't mean to offend), who doesn't really mind that innocents occasionally get ground up by the wheels of justice so that all criminals are punished for their actions.

Personally, I'd rather that a few criminals got off, so long as people innocent of the crimes with which they're accused are able to escape wrongful punishment.

Admittedly, my way probably does lead to more social unrest :p


I suspect you've just hit the crux of the debate, and one which is immovable. :D

Human rights are a good thing.

I can't believe that needed to be stated.

Human rights are a good thing.

Human rights are a good thing.

I can't believe that needed to be stated.

Human rights are a good thing.

Some are, some aren't. An unqualified, unilateral approach to them, as fashionable as it may be, is dangerous.

The USA cannot, however, be easily compared to Britain in demographic and social terms.

"Society" is only, in any case, an abstraction to the same extent and fashion as is "family". They are immanent in human civilisation and, though abstractions they are, they are indispensible without dismantling civilisation. "Human rights", however, are simply the products of a post-holocaust moral overreaction; society functioned perfectly well without them, predicated upon common sense, and would do so now.

In short, one is indispensible, the other superfluous.

Human rights exsisted in the UK long before the Holocaust. The right not to be randomly arrested and punished was first enshrined in the Magna Carta for example.

Human rights exsisted in the UK long before the Holocaust. The right not to be randomly arrested and punished was first enshrined in the Magna Carta for example.

True, but they weren't expressed as "human rights" and unthinkingly brandished. Rather they were simply taken as axiom, and used with common sense.

http://www.kitchenknifedrawer.com/files/1696205/uploaded/K6615D.jpg

This is a fully-automatic assault knife. It can be silenced and is readily available to anyone who wants one. Every home in Britain and the United States has at least one of these and they are almost never secured in a locked knife case. Any child can easily obtain one of these deadly assault knives and become a mass murderer. The knives are evil. You only own them because of tradition and a paranoid fear of your government. Turn your knives in at the nearest police station. It's for your own safety.

True, but they weren't expressed as "human rights" and unthinkingly brandished. Rather they were simply taken as axiom, and used with common sense.

They were not taken as axiom otherwise there would have been no need to express them in law.

What rights do you believe we should have? Which of the ones we have do you believe are pointless?

They were not taken as axiom otherwise there would have been no need to express them in law.

What rights do you believe we should have? Which of the ones we have do you believe are pointless?

I'll get back to you tomorrow. Sorry, but I'm tired, and have to be for 11.

Some are, some aren't. An unqualified, unilateral approach to them, as fashionable as it may be, is dangerous.

Human rights are "The basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled"

How might one pick and choose which human rights are worth their while?

This is a fully-automatic assault knife. It can be silenced and is readily available to anyone who wants one. Every home in Britain and the United States has at least one of these and they are almost never secured in a locked knife case. Any child can easily obtain one of these deadly assault knives and become a mass murderer. The knives are evil. You only own them because of tradition and a paranoid fear of your government. Turn your knives in at the nearest police station. It's for your own safety.
Finally, someone with some sense!

I'll get back to you tomorrow. Sorry, but I'm tired, and have to be for 11.

Cool.

Human rights are "The basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled"

How might one pick and choose which human rights are worth their while?

i agree, human rights by there very definition apply to anyone and everyone, governments would do well to remember this.

Finally, someone with some sense!

Thank you. *bows*

Thank you. *bows*
Touché

:p

http://www.kitchenknifedrawer.com/files/1696205/uploaded/K6615D.jpg

This is a fully-automatic assault knife. It can be silenced and is readily available to anyone who wants one. Every home in Britain and the United States has at least one of these and they are almost never secured in a locked knife case. Any child can easily obtain one of these deadly assault knives and become a mass murderer. The knives are evil. You only own them because of tradition and a paranoid fear of your government. Turn your knives in at the nearest police station. It's for your own safety.

Micheal Meyers for example(in song to ease people of weak dispositions) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3kLI2oyd6I)

A lot of interesting raised points in here, many of which a friend and i debated over many Jager-bombs earlier on. He and I both decided that we were going to vote conservative to see if they really can get us facing back in the right direction both internally and internationally.

We both however agreed that should the next elected Government take away as many civil liberties if not more than already have been we would seriously consider an armed revolution...

I know were not the only ones in the youth (read: under 25's) in this day and age in Britain thinking that although i'm sure that even if you add in the over 25's there still wouldnt be enough interest to make the 'revolution' anymore than a footnote about 'some terrorists' in the history books.

A lot of interesting raised points in here, many of which a friend and i debated over many Jager-bombs earlier on. He and I both decided that we were going to vote conservative to see if they really can get us facing back in the right direction both internally and internationally.

We both however agreed that should the next elected Government take away as many civil liberties if not more than already have been we would seriously consider an armed revolution...

I know were not the only ones in the youth (read: under 25's) in this day and age in Britain thinking that although i'm sure that even if you add in the over 25's there still wouldnt be enough interest to make the 'revolution' anymore than a footnote about 'some terrorists' in the history books.

Armed revolution? How? You have no guns and soon no knives.

Human rights are "The basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled"
That doesn't help in solving the question of:

How might one pick and choose which human rights are worth their while?
We still need to define 'the basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled'. To do this, we need to answer some tough questions. Including, most importantly, the question of whether human rights can be sensibly understood in any way but that of a variant of legal rights; whether they 'exist' at all.

Moreover, assuming we can identify these 'basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled', why would we want to "pick and choose" between rights which we have established as those entitled to all humans?

If everyone is entitled to them, surely we can't deny them?


Perhaps it is naive, blind love of William Hague and Michael Howard that drives this, but I think not. neither strike me as having quite the same monstrous ambition of Blair or Brown.
'Mostrous ambition' for personal power, wealth, or what?

So why does someone in Midtown Manhattan, which is a good 1000 miles at least from any border other than the Canadian one, need a gun? There is absolutely no connection.

Additionally, what is the problem you have with Latin American countries? If there were no demand in the USA for smuggled goods (be this cocaine from Colombia, Heroin from Afghanistan, or DVDs from China) there would be no smuggling problem. Try putting your own house in order rather than use the fact that you live in an unruly and uncultured place as an excuse to not even try to become more civilized. Guns will never prevent smuggling, and you know that.

ROTFLMAO! Wow. That's a good one! Have you ever BEEN to NYC? You can buy knockoff goods *everywhere*. If smugglers can get $15 immitation Vitton handbags onto streetcorners in midtown, exactly how hard do you think it is to get illegal guns into the hands of criminals? :rolleyes:

I totally agree - there should be no war on drugs, just as there should be no infringement on the right to bear arms and never should have been Prohibition! But as there IS a war on drugs, there is crime. And most of the drugs that come into the US come from Latin American points of origin.

No, guns will never prevent smuggling. My point is that they are being SMUGGLED in!

That is because of the sensible gun control measures in place in New York City.

Or because of the massive policing in NYC. Or because gun crime in the US has been falling for years. Who knows?

However gangs of twelve and thirteen year olds who carry a knife 'for their own protection' (remind you of gun nuts?) will

Do you imply that anybody who carries a weapon for his own protection is either a madman or a gang member?

Though the UK and other EU countries have passed some worrying legislation in the past few years, 'neofacism' is not exactly the way I'd describe it.


There's no 'obviously' about it, no matter one's thoughts on the welfare state.


Hold on their, son.

This gun (http://www.packrat-toyz.com/images/Pellet%20Guns/Pellet%20B3-1.jpg) certainly isn't designed specifically to take someone's life. It's an air rifle, and (as I'm sure you well know) can be used for target practice, some hunting, etc.

But what about this gun (http://www.gunsforfilm.com/images/spring_uzi_jpg.jpg)? What purpose could an Uzi be possibly designed for, other than the killing of a human being?

I'm not saying that we should have increasingly draconian laws on the ownership of guns, I'm actually not too sure what way on the issue I'd swing, but declaring that a gun like an Uzi "is not designed to take someone else's life" is either woefully naive or deliberately ignorant.

This has no dietary need. All it does is lead to death. I demand you outlaw it immediately:

http://d3.biggestmenu.com/00/00/32/f74e1290d1437424_m.jpg

Likewise Land Rovers (how many go offroad? <5%?). Your iPhone (why change phones before it dies?). Etc. A good is a good is a good. IT IS NOT ANYONE'S BUSINESS to control someone else's purchases.

That here below is my position on the issue.

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_decision.jpg

Do you imply that anybody who carries a weapon for his own protection is either a madman or a gang member?

Must be. In a country where the regular police even are not carrying firearms, you would have to be slightly derranged to feel the need to carry a weapon for protection.

Must be. In a country where the regular police even are not carrying firearms, you would have to be slightly derranged to feel the need to carry a weapon for protection.

Even assuming perfectly unarmed attackers, who, through some magic, are deprived of the use of even bicycle chains, I am at a disadvantage against any attacker more physically strong than me, or [which is likely] an encounter with multiple attackers.

Even assuming perfectly unarmed attackers, who, through some magic, are deprived of the use of even bicycle chains, I am at a disadvantage against any attacker more physically strong than me, or [which is likely] an encounter with multiple attackers.

Why assume that people will attack you? :confused:

Why assume that people will attack you? :confused:

How is this an assumption?

A chance exists that people will attack/rob me. The degree of how likely this is depends on where you live and who you are.

have a friend who was robbed when he was working at a gas station, and I had a kitchen knife pressed to my chest when I was about 13 (they then figured out I wasn't the guy they wanted and had no money).

Note that carrying a weapon is not a huge exertion of some form.

Had I surrounded myself with five bodyguards over the fear that someone might attack me on my way to, say, the grocery shop, that would have been paranoid - the expense is not comparable with the threat. [Assuming you're not a celebrity.]

Dropping a knife or a pistol on your belt is not anyhow a huuuge expense.

How is this an assumption?

A chance exists that people will attack/rob me. The degree of how likely this is depends on where you live and who you are.

have a friend who was robbed when he was working at a gas station, and I had a kitchen knife pressed to my chest when I was about 13 (they then figured out I wasn't the guy they wanted and had no money).

I would suggest moving to a safer place, then.
The probability of being attacked here is minimal and negligible. To carry a gun around here to protect yourself from attack would equate to wearing a hardhat 24h a day, 7 days a week, since there always is a possibility that bricks or flowerpots might drop onto your head... sure it can happen and does happen now and then, but the form of protection is just totally overboard.

Note that carrying a weapon is not a huge exertion of some form.

Had I surrounded myself with five bodyguards over the fear that someone might attack me on my way to, say, the grocery shop, that would have been paranoid - the expense is not comparable with the threat. [Assuming you're not a celebrity.]

Dropping a knife or a pistol on your belt is not anyhow a huuuge expense.

I would argue that it is...

How much would you pay for a gun? Or a knife, for that matter? Wearing a hardhat all the time certainly is cheaper, and yet I don't see people walking around with them much outside building sites.

I live in a 'safe' community, thank you very much. Please do not assume that I live in a slum.

And I am somehow sure that more people are murdered, assaulted [insert your list of violent acts here] every year than are killed by flower pots.

Besides, we're not arguing gun control, or at least I'm not.

I'm arguing merely that carrying a weapon, on the assumption that the choice is available to you, is a valid choice.

Well UKians do have freedom to move about the EU now don't they? I say pack the bags and move to a sunnier place if you don't like it. Or you could protest and make sure you vote in some sane politicians.

This is brilliant.

So I'll pack up all my bags and goods, and hire a removal company that'll go international. For a short journey, since I'm free to move around Europe, we'll just stick to the continent.

Right, biggest things out the way first. Then I'll sell my house, which might actually get me a lot of money - if I can sell the damn thing, which looks unlikely. Then I'll pay for my own travel there. Then I'll pay all the disconnection charges for my gas, electricity, couple credit cards, and so on and so forth. Then I'll learn another language, if I'm an average citizen - because, to be fair, just that I speak a little German makes me in the great minority.

Then, when I'm over in another country, I'll buy a house. And try to set up all my gas, electricity, couple credit cards, in a completely different language. Then I'll get on the phone to my old bank back in sunny England, and ask them to wire all my money over to another bank account in a different country. Which they'll probably charge me for. And whilst they're at it, could they convert all the money to the currency I'll be using from now on? That'll charge too.

Seriously, engage brain before typing words.

This is brilliant.

So I'll pack up all my bags and goods, and hire a removal company that'll go international. For a short journey, since I'm free to move around Europe, we'll just stick to the continent.

Right, biggest things out the way first. Then I'll sell my house, which might actually get me a lot of money - if I can sell the damn thing, which looks unlikely. Then I'll pay for my own travel there. Then I'll pay all the disconnection charges for my gas, electricity, couple credit cards, and so on and so forth. Then I'll learn another language, if I'm an average citizen - because, to be fair, just that I speak a little German makes me in the great minority.

Then, when I'm over in another country, I'll buy a house. And try to set up all my gas, electricity, couple credit cards, in a completely different language. Then I'll get on the phone to my old bank back in sunny England, and ask them to wire all my money over to another bank account in a different country. Which they'll probably charge me for. And whilst they're at it, could they convert all the money to the currency I'll be using from now on? That'll charge too.

Seriously, engage brain before typing words.

You might want to check out how easy (and inexpensive) all this has actually become by now. I would know, I did it a few years back...

Except for the "buying a house" thing.. only the English and the Irish do that. Most other nations simply rent someplace nice.

I would argue that it is...

How much would you pay for a gun? Or a knife, for that matter? Wearing a hardhat all the time certainly is cheaper, and yet I don't see people walking around with them much outside building sites.

A good knife is certainly cheaper than a hardhat.

And while a gun is not cheaper than a hardhat, don't forget it does last you for the rest of your life, and once bought, does not need replacing. And is much more comfortable to carry than wearing a hardhat.

And yes. Crap falling on people is somehow less likely than a violent attack. The proper analogy is keeping, say, a flame extinguisher in your home. How likely IS a fire in a modern home, after all?

I live in a 'safe' community, thank you very much. Please do not assume that I live in a slum.

And I am somehow sure that more people are murdered, assaulted [insert your list of violent acts here] every year than are killed by flower pots.

Besides, we're not arguing gun control, or at least I'm not.

I'm arguing merely that carrying a weapon, on the assumption that the choice is available to you, is a valid choice.

I never assumed anything. But your insistence that you need to protect yourself did make it sound like you live in a rather unsafe place.

I'll try and find stats, although I don't have very high hopes. But people being killed by falling rooftiles, bricks, etc. isn't that uncommon, really.

Well, I'm argueing that, in the UK and Ireland, it's a pretty loony choice to walk around with a weapon.

A good knife is certainly cheaper than a hardhat.

And while a gun is not cheaper than a hardhat, don't forget it does last you for the rest of your life, and once bought, does not need replacing. And is much more comfortable to carry than wearing a hardhat.

And yes. Crap falling on people is somehow less likely than a violent attack. The proper analogy is keeping, say, a flame extinguisher in your home. How likely IS a fire in a modern home, after all?

A very good deal more likely than being attacked by anyone, so it's not really a very good analogy.

Just out of curiosity, would you also be in the habit of wearing bullet- and knifeproof vests when leaving the house?

Well, I'm sure we can look up accidental death/injury by falling objects.

A very good deal more likely than being attacked by anyone, so it's not really a very good analogy.

Please back up this statement.

Just out of curiosity, would you also be in the habit of wearing bullet- and knifeproof vests when leaving the house?

No. Because said vests usually cost a shitload of money and weigh five to six kilos, IIRC.

Please back up this statement.


I will, when I've got the time.
Until then, feel free to have a look around yourself on the numbers of armed attackes in the UK or Ireland...

Armed? Who said anything about armed?

Armed? Who said anything about armed?

Attacks with fatal outcome or resulting in severe injuries, then.

That here below is my position on the issue.


*orders nuclear weapons*

Do you imply that anybody who carries a weapon for his own protection is either a madman or a gang member?
I am saying that people who feel the need to carry a weapon for 'self-protection' are the people we need protecting from.

I am saying that people who feel the need to carry a weapon for 'self-protection' are the people we need protecting from.

uuuhhhhhhhh........ what? No, people need weapons for self-protection because we should not be at the mercy of those who are gifted with strong bodies and weak minds. Possession of a weapon does not mean intent to initiate violence. Weapons equalize the balance of power between the law-abiding citizen and the criminal. With a knife, I have a chance against a stronger assailant. With a gun I have a chance against 2 or 3 assailants. Maybe not much of a chance, but a hell of a lot better chance than if I'm unarmed.

Attacks with fatal outcome or resulting in severe injuries, then.

So rape doesn't count?


Check Nationmaster. Britain's assault and rape rate is comparatively high when viewed next to other Western countries, murder is low, but still likelier than random crap falling on your head (because random crap falling on your head is BEYOND unlikely).

uuuhhhhhhhh........ what? No, people need weapons for self-protection because we should not be at the mercy of those who are gifted with strong bodies and weak minds. Possession of a weapon does not mean intent to initiate violence. Weapons equalize the balance of power between the law-abiding citizen and the criminal. With a knife, I have a chance against a stronger assailant. With a gun I have a chance against 2 or 3 assailants. Maybe not much of a chance, but a hell of a lot better chance than if I'm unarmed.

No it doesn't equalise the balance, just makes it more likely that the stronger assailant is also armed - maybe with bigger and better weapons than you.

People in threads like this always come out with the argument that "people die in road accidents are you going to ban cars" - well that would reduce he number of road accidents. What we are not going to do is increase the number of cars hoping that that will reduce the number of deaths.

...is that so? Maybe I'm overreacting, but you guys seem to have spots of neofascism. That trend seems to be picking up speed across the pond.
Jesus Christ, man.

Stopping and searching people for illegal weapons does not a fascist country make. Since I'm white enough not to be searched, I care even less about the whole thing.

We don't let people walk around with weapons - oh the horror! Oh the fascism! Soon we'll have book burning rallies, be burying Jews alive with soldier ants or something and roman saluting the New Labour Redshirts... aye...
Britain has me a little worried
Doesn't have me worried in the slightest. Cutting down on knife crime is a good thing, even if it's not particularly common as it is.
France's new president ain't a good guy
Fit wife, though.
and as for Russia...what needs to be said?
"Preved, Medved!", because that's hilarious.
Maybe it is all just the media coverage, though.
Yep...

Well, I'm sure we can look up accidental death/injury by falling objects.
The 2004 figures (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=8986) do not have any figures for that, sadly. Is probably under one of the many vague headings like "other", for which there are thousands of deaths.

Things falling on people and killing them is far from unheard of, mind.

No it doesn't equalise the balance, just makes it more likely that the stronger assailant is also armed - maybe with bigger and better weapons than you.



Which has nothing to do with anything.

A bigger muscular guy carrying a giant AK47 would still be in danger from my pistol.

A bigger muscular guy, unarmed or armed with a large stick (which you cannot ban) would clobber me with casual ease.

Besides, I for one was not talking about gun control.

A bigger muscular guy carrying a giant AK47 would still be in danger from my pistol.
You'd probably get your arse kicked if he had an AK, let's be honest. Also, I was unaware that AKs of any kind came in any particular sizes :p
A bigger muscular guy, unarmed or armed with a large stick (which you cannot ban) would clobber me with casual ease.
... unless you had a longer stick than him, which one also can't ban, so there we go.

Also, I was unaware that AKs of any kind came in any particular sizes

I kid of course. But of course, as I said - I may have a disadvantage, but it's smaller than in the other example.

Especially at the range which most of this stuff occurs at.

I realize I can't persuade anybody on NSG, so I just joke around.

But .308 AK's do exist.

... unless you had a longer stick than him, which one also can't ban, so there we go.

He'd still be stronger. That's the operative term.

He'd still be stronger. That's the operative term.

If you had the longer stick, you could hit him before he hits you...

He'd still be stronger. That's the operative term.
http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/funny-pictures-sarcastic-symphony-cat.jpg

Why assume that people will attack you? :confused:

Because he has a realistic opinion of humanity?

Because he has a realistic opinion of humanity?
Don't be thick, Chris.

Don't be thick, Chris.

Bollocks. Humanity is nasty, selfish, petty and rapacious. Especially those elements of it that live in deprivation relative to the rest of society.

Bollocks. Humanity is nasty, selfish, petty and rapacious. Especially those elements of it that live in deprivation relative to the rest of society.
Uhu...

I'm not at all worried. And I'm not muscle-bound in the slightest. Don't really know why you'd be, either.

Bollocks. Humanity is nasty, selfish, petty and rapacious. Especially those elements of it that live in deprivation relative to the rest of society.

True. Luckily, humanity is also pretty dim, and extremely lazy. And cowardly.

Meaning if you've got 2 braincells to rub together, your chances of not ever finding yourself in a situation where you really have to defend yourself are pretty good indeed.

Uhu...

I'm not at all worried. And I'm not muscle-bound in the slightest. Don't really know why you'd be, either.

Not worried, just conscious that there are certain areas, at certain times, that prudence dictates one stays away.

Not worried, just conscious that there are certain areas, at certain times, that prudence dictates one stays away.
Britain doesn't have any particularly dangerous areas if you're polite, full stop. Even the shittier parts of, say, Motherwell aren't that bad.

I disagree, and I suspect neither of us will change the other's opinion on this.
Aye, probably.

Britain doesn't have any particularly dangerous areas if you're polite, full stop. Even the shittier parts of, say, Motherwell aren't that bad.

I disagree, and I suspect neither of us will change the other's opinion on this.

Britain doesn't have any particularly dangerous areas if you're polite, full stop. Even the shittier parts of, say, Motherwell aren't that bad.

Well... outside a local pub after a football match, dressed in the wrong colours? Mightn't be the safest place on earth, you know. But easily avoidable, as had been said.

here's an idea, just don't look suspicious. Carrying a bible works well. :cool:

Bollocks. Humanity is nasty, selfish, petty and rapacious. Especially those elements of it that live in deprivation relative to the rest of society.

Wrong some of it is, but for the most part we are indeed social animals.

This has no dietary need. All it does is lead to death. I demand you outlaw it immediately.
So, you'd rather not answer my question? Easier to fall back on strawman arguments, I suppose.

If you somehow managed not to deliberately miss my argument, I'll state it again:

I am not necessarily opposed to gun ownership. Nor am I supportive of the criminalisation of any substance/activity purely on the fact that it could potentially harm individuals. If you look at the many threads on drug legalisation (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13701296#post13701296), you'll see this is the exact argument I use; many legal things (such as, as you suggest, fast food and cars) have the potential to do harm, so we shouldn't be criminalising drugs for simply that reason.

However, trying to argue that an Uzi or similar gun is not designed to kill humans is a foolish tack to take.

EDIT: So, although I would agree that we shouldn't outlaw something merely because it potentially could harm someone, I think we can both see how it's a separate argument when we discuss those things which are specifically designed to harm. The difference between a cake and a deliberately poisoned cake, to use a blunt analogy.

Moreover, assuming we can identify these 'basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled', why would we want to "pick and choose" between rights which we have established as those entitled to all humans?

If everyone is entitled to them, surely we can't deny them?


Wait, wasn't that my point?

Wait, wasn't that my point?
After re-reading, it appears so.

I originally thought you were saying, "we can pick and choose between them, but we need a system to do this".

Apologies.

You would get arrested for that in the US.
no... you'd be shot :p

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7418134.stm

Metropolitan police expect to be able to stop people with out reasonable suspicion. My question is this, what if a construction worker, Longshoreman, warehouseman...or any man who needs a knife to work is victimized by this lousy new law? Safety for who? The people or the government?

The government should be more afraid of his people, etc.

The UK is an authoritarian hell hole. Discuss.
True, we do have laws like most other contries in the world.
We don't invite ppl here but expect them to abide by the law if they so choose. Discuss.

However, trying to argue that an Uzi or similar gun is not designed to kill humans is a foolish tack to take.


What if i want to hunt a bunch of things that are close together. and uzi seems to work well for that.

What if i want to hunt a bunch of things that are close together. and uzi seems to work well for that.
That does seem rather foolish.

I want to hunt a shed load of birds. I'll get the Bofors anti-aircraft gun out of storage.

Your mistake was letting them take your guns away.

I can't wait to see the next law that'll round up all your hammers...

Exactly right! Now the British government can do whatever they want to their people.

Exactly right! Now the British government can do whatever they want to their people.
I've always thought that was a bollocks argument for less gun control, to be honest.

"Oh, if you have guns, the government can do x to you!"

Yeah, the government also has guns. And soldiers. And tanks. And aircraft.

I ain't going against a Warrior IFV armed with a elderly Lee-Enfield or whatever else I'd be able to get my hands on in the UK.

Your mistake was letting them take your guns away.

I can't wait to see the next law that'll round up all your hammers...

Obviously you do not understand the threat hammers present. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzsL99OO8_s)

What if i want to hunt a bunch of things that are close together. and uzi seems to work well for that.
Truthfully? I think not.

And besides, it's not as if the Uzi was designed for hunting "things that are close together".

So, you'd rather not answer my question? Easier to fall back on strawman arguments, I suppose.

If you somehow managed not to deliberately miss my argument, I'll state it again:

I am not necessarily opposed to gun ownership. Nor am I supportive of the criminalisation of any substance/activity purely on the fact that it could potentially harm individuals. If you look at the many threads on drug legalisation (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13701296#post13701296), you'll see this is the exact argument I use; many legal things (such as, as you suggest, fast food and cars) have the potential to do harm, so we shouldn't be criminalising drugs for simply that reason.

However, trying to argue that an Uzi or similar gun is not designed to kill humans is a foolish tack to take.

EDIT: So, although I would agree that we shouldn't outlaw something merely because it potentially could harm someone, I think we can both see how it's a separate argument when we discuss those things which are specifically designed to harm. The difference between a cake and a deliberately poisoned cake, to use a blunt analogy.

Ah, the standard pattern of internet debate: attack the source, if not, claim the other person is using a strawman. :rolleyes:

My whole point is that a good is a good and NO GOVERNMENT NANNY should tell anyone what they can and cannot buy (* unless they are insane or a convicted felon).

In short, nothing should be outlawed in a free society. (* SAFE goods are of course expected. However, this assumes that the microwave is sealed, the car's brakes work, the gun has a straight barrel and does not go off when dropped, etc.)

Truthfully? I think not.

And besides, it's not as if the Uzi was designed for hunting "things that are close together".

It's not as if a Hummer H1 was designed to drive down city streets. Irony of ironies, there it is! Or that vodka was designed to mix with Red Bull (or vice versa). Yet people do it, and some like it!

Obviously you do not understand the threat hammers present. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzsL99OO8_s)

Oh, but I do! (ein svi dri... waiting for...the worms!)
http://aphrabehn.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/hamermrch2.jpg

I've always thought that was a bollocks argument for less gun control, to be honest.

"Oh, if you have guns, the government can do x to you!"

Yeah, the government also has guns. And soldiers. And tanks. And aircraft.

I ain't going against a Warrior IFV armed with a elderly Lee-Enfield or whatever else I'd be able to get my hands on in the UK.

Well said, and I totally agree with you. You should also be allowed to own that SA80/M-16A2/AK-74, or whatever new generation rifle you could afford. :)

More seriously though: one man with a rifle is useless against the government. 1 million? That's actually something that would give anyone pause.

Ah, the standard pattern of internet debate: attack the source, if not, claim the other person is using a strawman.
Unfortunately, you were genuinely using a strawman argument, accusing me of arguing against a point I made myself.

For the life of me, I don't know what "attack the source" means in the context of my post, or how I have committed it.

Enlightenment would be appreciated.

My whole point is that a good is a good and NO GOVERNMENT NANNY should tell anyone what they can and cannot buy (* unless they are insane or a convicted felon).

In short, nothing should be outlawed in a free society.
And that's a whole different argument, one which I have a huge amount of sympathy for (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13722128#post13722128). Indeed, it's the argument I've been pushing for quite some time now.

But when I'm freely able to buy anything, don't do me the disservice of pretending that the Uzi I wish to purchase is for hunting grouse.

That does seem rather foolish.

I want to hunt a shed load of birds. I'll get the Bofors anti-aircraft gun out of storage.

You have an Anti Aircraft gun ??Sweet.

right now I only have some WWI artillery pieces. Only get to fire them once a year when I am on my uncles property in Montana (only property big enough not to accidentally kill someone.) I am looking to get some AAA


though on target the bofors Anti aircraft gun is too large of caliber for hunting flocks of birds. however an uzi does it very well with sub machine gun rounds.

though on target the bofors Anti aircraft gun is too large of caliber for hunting flocks of birds.
No shit.

however an uzi does it very well with sub machine gun rounds.
Is it genuinely 'hunting', or more 'indiscriminately turning birds into gore and feathers'?

I mean, what's left of a bird to salvage after you've turned an Uzi onto it?

No shit.


Is it genuinely 'hunting', or more 'indiscriminately turning birds into gore and feathers'?

I mean, what's left of a bird to salvage after you've turned an Uzi onto it?

as long as you properly sweep the Uzi most birds only get one or two bullets. pretty much the same as hitting them with a pistol round.
the uzi comes with the manual "hunting with your Uzi" if you buy from a licensed dealer.

as long as you properly sweep the Uzi most birds only get one or two bullets. pretty much the same as hitting them with a pistol round.
Once again though, what's left of a bird to salvage after one or two sub machine gun rounds have gone through it?

the uzi comes with the manual "hunting with your Uzi" if you buy from a licensed dealer.
The mind boggles...

Once again though, what's left of a bird to salvage after one or two sub machine gun rounds have gone through it?


The mind boggles...

more of the bird then if you had shot it with a rifle actually. use the one that fires .22 caliber rounds. plenty of the bird left.

now the .45 caliber might leave nothing left.

more of the bird then if you had shot it with a rifle actually.
Which is surely why the preferred gun to hunt flocks of birds is a shotgun.

use the one that fires .22 caliber rounds. plenty of the bird left.

now the .45 caliber might leave nothing left.
Which, to me, indicates folks aren't hunting, just killing.

Well said, and I totally agree with you. You should also be allowed to own that SA80/M-16A2/AK-74, or whatever new generation rifle you could afford. :)

More seriously though: one man with a rifle is useless against the government. 1 million? That's actually something that would give anyone pause.
I, for one, would well and truly disagree with this.

Having millions of well-armed citizens in the US hasn't done anything other than mean that any regime which lets them keep their guns will stay in power. When people say "it lets the people decide who to keep", what it actually means is "it lets the people who are into having pretty high-grade weaponry decide who to keep".

A strongly right-wing, conservative government will never be ousted in the US by an armed public. A left-wing, more liberal, pro-gun control government has to be a bit more careful.

Which is surely why the preferred gun to hunt flocks of birds is a shotgun.


Which, to me, indicates folks aren't hunting, just killing.

if getting a full auto Uzi wasn't so difficult these days i am sure more people would hunt with it. Mine was grand fathered in.

if getting a full auto Uzi wasn't so difficult these days i am sure more people would hunt with it.
I think your conception of 'hunting' differs somewhat from mine.

Mine was grand fathered in.
Eh?

if getting a full auto Uzi wasn't so difficult these days i am sure more people would hunt with it. Mine was grand fathered in.
I would be extremely dubious about the merits of hunting with an Uzi. A shotgun can do the same job and leave you with something to actually eat at the end.

I would be extremely dubious about the merits of hunting with an Uzi. A shotgun can do the same job and leave you with something to actually eat at the end.

as someone who has hunted with an Uzi can Say the same is true for the Uzi.
Don't knock something until you try it.

Ah, the standard pattern of internet debate: attack the source, if not, claim the other person is using a strawman. :rolleyes:

My whole point is that a good is a good and NO GOVERNMENT NANNY should tell anyone what they can and cannot buy (* unless they are insane or a convicted felon).

In short, nothing should be outlawed in a free society. (* SAFE goods are of course expected. However, this assumes that the microwave is sealed, the car's brakes work, the gun has a straight barrel and does not go off when dropped, etc.)

Nothing, nothing, including all the nuclear weapons, biological warfare things etc etc.

In actuality the majority of people are in favour of gun control, it's just a question of haggling over how much.

Unfortunately, you were genuinely using a strawman argument, accusing me of arguing against a point I made myself.

For the life of me, I don't know what "attack the source" means in the context of my post, or how I have committed it.

Enlightenment would be appreciated.


And that's a whole different argument, one which I have a huge amount of sympathy for (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13722128#post13722128). Indeed, it's the argument I've been pushing for quite some time now.

But when I'm freely able to buy anything, don't do me the disservice of pretending that the Uzi I wish to purchase is for hunting grouse.

It's not a strawman, as my whole POV is that all goods are equal.

No disservice at all, as there is no need to pretend in a free society. If you're not insane or a convicted felon, you have the RIGHT to buy the Uzi. I don't care if you're a nearsighted duck hunter or looking for the fastest way to turn cheddar into swiss... it's not my business until you use it illegally. :)

I, for one, would well and truly disagree with this.

Having millions of well-armed citizens in the US hasn't done anything other than mean that any regime which lets them keep their guns will stay in power. When people say "it lets the people decide who to keep", what it actually means is "it lets the people who are into having pretty high-grade weaponry decide who to keep".

A strongly right-wing, conservative government will never be ousted in the US by an armed public. A left-wing, more liberal, pro-gun control government has to be a bit more careful.

Oh? That's surprising, since every Democratic President since FDR has passed gun control legislation. If that were true, then how do they keep getting elected? ;)

Any government can be ousted, if only because even if a RWCG did something so stupid as to start really taking away freedoms they have to fight at least half the country. And that's a GAME OVER scenario, since the support of the military becomes questionable (who wants to fire on their home state? town? house?) and the people killed will basically destroy the economy and image of the government.
By the same token, a LPGCG is pretty much the same thing, only they would have it EASIER since they'd have disarmed the populace already.

...and that's why there should never be gun registration in the US until the 2nd Amendment is affirmed (as it should be) to be a personal right (like the 1st, 5th, etc).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7418134.stm

Metropolitan police expect to be able to stop people with out reasonable suspicion. My question is this, what if a construction worker, Longshoreman, warehouseman...or any man who needs a knife to work is victimized by this lousy new law? Safety for who? The people or the government?

The government should be more afraid of his people, etc.

The UK is an authoritarian hell hole. Discuss.

Pretty much why I moved to the Netherlands.

England has turned into chav central both in government but also in its general populace.

Nothing, nothing, including all the nuclear weapons, biological warfare things etc etc.

In actuality the majority of people are in favour of gun control, it's just a question of haggling over how much.

That's actually true. Gun control for me in a nutshell:

* Affirm that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.
* Register all firearms in the US. All non-registered guns after 5 years are subject to seizure unless they are blackpowder.
* All gun control laws by the federal government, the states, cities, etc. are now void barring those that are for safety. (IE: you can't sell a gun made out of tin).
* Concealed carry for citizens is now legal in all 50 states & US territories. (This is not a big jump... police officers can already do this.)
* Gun licenses will be dispensed at the local DMV, which will now have a firing range for your safety test.

It's not a strawman, as my whole POV is that all goods are equal.

No disservice at all, as there is no need to pretend in a free society. If you're not insane or a convicted felon, you have the RIGHT to buy the Uzi. I don't care if you're a nearsighted duck hunter or looking for the fastest way to turn cheddar into swiss... it's not my business until you use it illegally. :)

I want to buy a powerful weapon for self defense purposes, but doing so puts the safety and property of everyone around me in jeopardy. I am neither insane nor a felon, do I still have the right to own it or are you going to come up with a list of exceptions?

Any government can be ousted, if only because even if a RWCG did something so stupid as to start really taking away freedoms they have to fight at least half the country. And that's a GAME OVER scenario, since the support of the military becomes questionable (who wants to fire on their home state? town? house?) and the people killed will basically destroy the economy and image of the government.

So how come Iraqis didn't overthrow Saddam Hussein?

So how come Iraqis didn't overthrow Saddam Hussein?

For what? They were not a free society and had never been so. Guns =/= a free, stable society. You need that first. They only guarantee it.

COULD they have? Possibly, but not likely. Unlike other people's movements, they had no real interaction with any form of government that wasn't a dictatorship or monarchy. This is why (as an example) Switzerland doesn't revolt and go Communist... even though they're so heavily armed.

I want to buy a powerful weapon for self defense purposes, but doing so puts the safety and property of everyone around me in jeopardy. I am neither insane nor a felon, do I still have the right to own it or are you going to come up with a list of exceptions?

Stop. Just stop please.

>I want to buy a powerful weapon for self defense purposes
I don't care why you want to buy it, it is not my concearn unless you're certified insane or a convicted felon. In which case you're not buying it legally to begin with.

>but doing so puts the safety and property of everyone around me in jeopardy.
No, it does not. It does nothing until you use it. Just like that gym membership COULD be used by you to workout 8 hours a day and become a deadly pugilist. But it doesn't do squat until you use it.

Yes, of course you have the right to own it. Or buy 10 kilos of cocaine. Or whatever else you want. So long as you pay your taxes and buy and use it legally, no one should care.

No, it does not. It does nothing until you use it. Just like that gym membership COULD be used by you to workout 8 hours a day and become a deadly pugilist. But it doesn't do squat until you use it.

Ah, so I can buy one, I just can't use it for the purpose that I bought it. That makes so much more sense.

Stop. Just stop please.

>I want to buy a powerful weapon for self defense purposes
I don't care why you want to buy it, it is not my concearn unless you're certified insane or a convicted felon. In which case you're not buying it legally to begin with.

>but doing so puts the safety and property of everyone around me in jeopardy.
No, it does not. It does nothing until you use it. Just like that gym membership COULD be used by you to workout 8 hours a day and become a deadly pugilist. But it doesn't do squat until you use it.

Yes, of course you have the right to own it. Or buy 10 kilos of cocaine. Or whatever else you want. So long as you pay your taxes and buy and use it legally, no one should care.

So essentially you fully support the right of potential terrorists to buy the makings of a dirty bomb and feel that they should only be arrested after they have irradiated Washington?

So essentially you fully support the right of potential terrorists to buy the makings of a dirty bomb and feel that they should only be arrested after they have irradiated Washington?

the essayist to get supplies to get to make a dirty bomb are medical supplies.
So unless you want to arrest and interrogate every doctor in the country best we wait until they show intent.

The problem? This is the problem: It's the government's job to ENSURE your liberties, not recind them.

Surely, as a democratic, representative government, it's their responsibility to enact legislation that reflects the will of the electorate? If the electorate don't like what they're doing, they will vote in another government at the next elections. In the United Kingdom, if the local election results were anything to go by, a change in national government looks fairly likely at the next general election.

the essayist to get supplies to get to make a dirty bomb are medical supplies.
So unless you want to arrest and interrogate every doctor in the country best we wait until they show intent.

To my knowledge they would not just be medical supplies needed, so it is a slightly absurd suggestion to say it would lead to doctors being arrested. Let us take another example, recent terrorist attacks in the UK have used explosives that require large quantities of Hydrogen Peroxide to manufacture. Until now there have been no restrictions on people buying as much as they wanted. What has been brought in is restrictions on who can buy it in quantity. Hairdressers, who use large amounts, are allowed to buy as much as they want. But nobody can just go into a chemical supplier and buy as much as they want. I see that as a perfectly reasonable measure at preventing terrorist attacks (more sensible than the Patriot Act - all those guns in the hands of civilians didn't do much to prevent that particualr erosion of freedoms) - Markreich seems to think that any kind of prevention of terrorism is impossible without individual rights being badly infringed. I personally am quite happy to give up my right to buy some chemicals without a good reason in order to prevent people being killed, our individualist friend is not.

To my knowledge they would not just be medical supplies needed, so it is a slightly absurd suggestion to say it would lead to doctors being arrested. Let us take another example, recent terrorist attacks in the UK have used explosives that require large quantities of Hydrogen Peroxide to manufacture. Until now there have been no restrictions on people buying as much as they wanted. What has been brought in is restrictions on who can buy it in quantity. Hairdressers, who use large amounts, are allowed to buy as much as they want. But nobody can just go into a chemical supplier and buy as much as they want. I see that as a perfectly reasonable measure at preventing terrorist attacks (more sensible than the Patriot Act - all those guns in the hands of civilians didn't do much to prevent that particualr erosion of freedoms) - Markreich seems to think that any kind of prevention of terrorism is impossible without individual rights being badly infringed. I personally am quite happy to give up my right to buy some chemicals without a good reason in order to prevent people being killed, our individualist friend is not.

The attempted dirty bomb incident they were getting the supplies for it via a medical supply company so that methodology would fail since it would have appeared legit on paper.
Instead do what we do anytime someone buys large amounts of such substances have it automatically trigger an investigation. that way not only is it impossible to use the substance for terrorism people get caught for it.

The attempted dirty bomb incident they were getting the supplies for it via a medical supply company so that methodology would fail since it would have appeared legit on paper.
Instead do what we do anytime someone buys large amounts of such substances have it automatically trigger an investigation. that way not only is it impossible to use the substance for terrorism people get caught for it.

Yes that is what I am trying to get at. Not to put words into Markeich's mouth, but from what I gather Markreich's position to be I believe that would be unacceptably infringing someones 'right' to do whatever they wanted.

This is why I regard extreme individualists as the stumbling block to less government, because they simply will not agree to co-operate with anybody else on anything.

So essentially you fully support the right of potential terrorists to buy the makings of a dirty bomb and feel that they should only be arrested after they have irradiated Washington?

Yep. Because if the alleged terrorists want to buy the makings of a dirty bomb, they're not going to buy it legally anyway. Buying bio agents and/or spent uranium is ALREADY tracked, so just enforce the laws on the books.

Surely, as a democratic, representative government, it's their responsibility to enact legislation that reflects the will of the electorate? If the electorate don't like what they're doing, they will vote in another government at the next elections. In the United Kingdom, if the local election results were anything to go by, a change in national government looks fairly likely at the next general election.

Ah, but you're assuming that one issue can drive change. It never does. Abortion, gun control, taxes... XYZ it doesn't matter. At the end of the day everything blends into a party fight. And that means that nothing ever changes, because parties want to keep being elected into power.

The only way to get the desired effect is to protest so loudly that the motion is revoked/placed. That's how the US legalized abortion (illegally with Roe v Wade), or how Prohibion was overturned, etc.

That the British don't do so on the issue of self defense baffles me.

as simply as possible

UK
goverments are there to protect us from guns & danger

USA
guns are there to protect us from governments & danger

Oh? That's surprising, since every Democratic President since FDR has passed gun control legislation. If that were true, then how do they keep getting elected? ;)
Because sometimes you get really bad Republican leaders and people just think "ah bugger it, let's have the other side in for a bit to see how they do".

I would still affirm that were there to be a mass, armed uprising in the US, it would be against a Democratic government rather than a Republican one.
That the British don't do so on the issue of self defense baffles me.
We're doing pretty fine without guns, and because of that people see absolutely no need for them here.

The crime we have essentially related to drinking (assault, rape etc.) is never going to go away, basically because the people of Britain, much like the Finns and the Irish, have trouble surviving without the stuff.

The crime we have essentially related to drinking (assault, rape etc.) is never going to go away, basically because the people of Britain, much like the Finns and the Irish, have trouble surviving without the stuff.

perhaps it is time to look at prohibition in the UK.
I mean no guns or even knives so the mob should really be a problem like here in the US right ???

perhaps it is time to look at prohibition in the UK.
Aye, in which case the government would get its arse kicked out by an angry, torch-wielding, pitchfork bearing public.
I mean no guns or even knives so the mob should really be a problem like here in the US right ???
...

There's not no guns around, they're just not very common at all, and as to knives, it'd be pretty difficult to live without one in your house for cooking etc., so everyone has one around, it's just not legal to carry one without a very good reason.

"UKians"? It's weird, but it has a nice ring to it. And less irritating than when people refer to us all as English.
I agree, I would not like to be refered to as welsh:D

Aye, in which case the government would get its arse kicked out by an angry, torch-wielding, pitchfork bearing public.

...

There's not no guns around, they're just not very common at all, and as to knives, it'd be pretty difficult to live without one in your house for cooking etc., so everyone has one around, it's just not legal to carry one without a very good reason.

Glad to see you brits love your alcohol as much as anyone else.



A kitchen knife is not very effective in combat do to only being one sided, also its shape is not conducive to hiding.

much like the Finns and the Irish, have trouble surviving without the stuff.

*bows*

perhaps it is time to look at prohibition in the UK.

If it didn't work in the US, it sure as hell isn't going to work here. We don't even need guns... there aren't enough bullets in the world to take down every single member of the angry mob that would storm parliament in that particular situation.

Glad to see you brits love your alcohol as much as anyone else.
We're in the top 3 for liking it more than anyone else in the world. We like it much more than almost everyone else :p
A kitchen knife is not very effective in combat do to only being one sided, also its shape is not conducive to hiding.
Depends what you're calling a kitchen knife. You can make a fruit knife pretty wickedly sharp, and if you're wearing a coat you can hide pretty much anything.