NationStates Jolt Archive

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

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.
who are the other 2 and where are the rankings listed ?
I forget the weather up there requires a coat. anyone in pants is suspect here it is so hot.

who are the other 2 and where are the rankings listed ?
Finland and Ireland.

http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_determinants/life_style/alcohol/documents/ebs272_en.pdf - page 10
I forget the weather up there requires a coat. anyone in pants is suspect here it is so hot.
Eh, it's actually been pretty warm here, but you could pass it of as people "being ready" if they're walking around in a Macintosh :p

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.

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.

Name a good Republican in your eyes. :D
(Besides a dead one.)

And I will affirm as I said before: of COURSE the armed uprising would be more likely against the Democrats, as they'd probably be trying to take away the guns!

Or knives, or soon to be hammers. Pretty soon the Welsh are going to overturn the Act of Union and take over London with pitchforks. (Or have those been banned too?) :D
I don't understand why you think you NEED something for it to be legal. I could probably outlaw 80% of the stuff in your house as needless.

Alcohol as a crutch? Please. Binge drinking is a problem because it's so restricted in the first place! Last call at 10.30?!? WTF?!?
How about all the violence in places where they don't drink? Like say... Iraq? Afghanistan? Sudan? I'm sure alcohol is a factor in SOME of the crime, but certainly not all of it.
Same with anything else: make it common and accepted, and it'll cease to be a problem. Consider the difference regarding possession of "adult" materials in Copenhagen and Cairo!

Finland and Ireland.


At the top of the country scale is, by a considerable margin, Ireland. Here 36%
claimed to drink 3-4 drinks on one occasion,
Awesome.

Last call at 10.30?!?
Erm, no?

Name a good Republican in your eyes. :D
(Besides a dead one.)
Eh, LG :p
Pretty soon the Welsh are going to overturn the Act of Union and take over London with pitchforks. (Or have those been banned too?
Pitchforks are very much legal, but the Welsh don't own any as they only farm sheep and all that. Also, I think we could have Wales tbqh.
I don't understand why you think you NEED something for it to be legal.
Because I'm British, and we have a very different opinion on What's On to you :p
I could probably outlaw 80% of the stuff in your house as needless.
Having Stuff keeps morale up and funds the economy, hence why it's very much allowed.
Alcohol as a crutch? Please. Binge drinking is a problem because it's so restricted in the first place! Last call at 10.30?!? WTF?!?
Eh, no. We have 24 hour drinking laws nowadays, and outside of small villages, you could always go out and get hammered until about 3am at a club of your choosing.
How about all the violence in places where they don't drink? Like say... Iraq? Afghanistan? Sudan?
Generally motivated by anger, like all violence.
I'm sure alcohol is a factor in SOME of the crime, but certainly not all of it.
Quite, hence why our assault and rape rates are vaguely higher than the first-world average. You get drunk and you get into fights, or shag your vulnerable mates.

On the other hand, our murder rates are pretty low.
Same with anything else: make it common and accepted, and it'll cease to be a problem. Consider the difference regarding possession of "adult" materials in Copenhagen and Cairo!
Aye, not going to happen in the UK regarding personal firearms.

Erm, no?

What? Pubs in London no longer close at 11? :shock:

What? Pubs in London no longer close at 11? :shock:
... even when they did you just went to a club and/or 24 hour supermarket which sells alcohol afterwards if you wanted to get pissed.

Eh, LG :p

Pitchforks are very much legal, but the Welsh don't own any as they only farm sheep and all that. Also, I think we could have Wales tbqh.

Because I'm British, and we have a very different opinion on What's On to you :p

Having Stuff keeps morale up and funds the economy, hence why it's very much allowed.

Eh, no. We have 24 hour drinking laws nowadays, and outside of small villages, you could always go out and get hammered until about 3am at a club of your choosing.

Generally motivated by anger, like all violence.

Quite, hence why our assault and rape rates are vaguely higher than the first-world average. You get drunk and you get into fights, or shag your vulnerable mates.

On the other hand, our murder rates are pretty low.

Aye, not going to happen in the UK regarding personal firearms.
Only a Yorkshireman could do that post:fluffle:

... even when they did you just went to a club and/or 24 hour supermarket which sells alcohol afterwards if you wanted to get pissed.

So: has binge drinking gone down since they repealed the pub's early closings?

So: has binge drinking gone down since they repealed the pub's early closings?

No, because even though they're allowed to, many pubs don't close that much later than they did before. Don't think they'll make a profit on it.

No, because even though they're allowed to, many pubs don't close that much later than they did before. Don't think they'll make a profit on it.

So the Government "prevention" of binge drinking actually caused more binge drinking. Great. :(

Tack onto that the fact that London's seeing a surge in gun crime (what? criminals get weapons illegally? that's illegal!) and has a higher violent crime rate than NYC... and I'll keep my position, thanks. :)

So the Government "prevention" of binge drinking actually caused more binge drinking. Great. :(

Tack onto that the fact that London's seeing a surge in gun crime (what? criminals get weapons illegally? that's illegal!) and has a higher violent crime rate than NYC... and I'll keep my position, thanks. :)

The Government's action did nothing since although they allowed pubs to open longer, majority didn't change their opening hours, or did so by minor amounts. They allowed pubs to open longer, can't force them to.

Source for the 'surge in gun crime'?

Finland and Ireland.

http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_determinants/life_style/alcohol/documents/ebs272_en.pdf - page 10


I see why you legislate weapons so much your full of a bunch of crazy drunks.

We in the US don't drink so much. I vice appears to be Macdonald's.
Weapons do not need to be control as much as in your country.

I think many people grabbed the sticky end of the shit stick here. It seems some individuals have the impression that the Police will stop and search everyone they see. Fact of the matter is, unless they are in a shitty mood and the officers do it deliberately to be a pain in the arse on purpose. (which does happen) They are actually unlikely to search anyone unless prompted. They aren't going to stop every guy in ten. But, if a call comes through, eg, "Caucasian suspect approx 6'2 wearing black jeans on the run after knife point robbery last seen in your area" comes in, and lo and be hold, there's 3 guys, white, about 6'2, in black jeans. Why not stop and see if they have a knife? If you have nothing to hide why worry.

You don't need to carry a weapon in the UK. Besides, I'm a rugby player who's handy with his fists. That's my protection. Useless against a gun, and possibly a knife, but very few people carry them. and the chances of meeting someone who does? Practically Nil, then I would have to provoke them, Unprovoked stabbings/shootings are even rarer. There's been high profile cases recently but its mainly the over exaggeration of the problem by the media.

"Oh my God, 5 people were stabbed last month" Yes ok, its a shame, and shouldn't of happened. but, 5 people, out of 60+ million living here. It's nothing.

Anyway it's legal to carry a knife with a blade of under 3 inches in length if you have a good enough reason. "To protect myself" isn't good enough.

The Government's action did nothing since although they allowed pubs to open longer, majority didn't change their opening hours, or did so by minor amounts. They allowed pubs to open longer, can't force them to.

Source for the 'surge in gun crime'?

I was referring to them putting the early close limits on the pubs in the first place!

London gun crime figures increase
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7191769.stm

I was referring to them putting the early close limits on the pubs in the first place!

London gun crime figures increase
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7191769.stm

Did you read the whole of your source?

It points to an absolute fall in all crime, including gun related, since 2002.

Perhaps weapon controls do work?

Did you read the whole of your source?

It points to an absolute fall in all crime, including gun related, since 2002.

Perhaps weapon controls do work?

Ah, yes, silly me. I can see how "Gun offences have risen slightly, despite an overall drop in crime Gun crime in London rose by 4% last year" means that weapon control works. :rolleyes:

Heck, how about...
A £5m fund to fight knife and gun crime "hot spots" across England and Wales has been pledged by the home secretary.
Jacqui Smith said £4m would go to about 10 knife crime-hit areas, and £1m would go to four areas hit by gun crime.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7414067.stm

...if there's no problem, why spend a million pounds to fix it?

I was referring to them putting the early close limits on the pubs in the first place!

London gun crime figures increase
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7191769.stm

Eh, that's a very selective figure. It's straight police stats which are reported crimes rather than total crimes. And it's London whereas Violent Crime in the UK as a whole has fallen according to the BCS link (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/bcs25.pdf) (governmental link, it's not a survey done by the government but they always have it on their website.)

You choose your argument and pick your stat really.

Ah, yes, silly me. I can see how "Gun offences have risen slightly, despite an overall drop in crime Gun crime in London rose by 4% last year" means that weapon control works. :rolleyes:

So a one year blip disproves a 5 year trend?

You are reaching here.

I note that you didn't point out that London knife crime figures have fallen by 13% in a thread about policing knives.

So a one year blip disproves a 5 year trend?

You are reaching here.

I note that you didn't point out that London knife crime figures have fallen by 13% in a thread about policing knives.

Heck, that trend could be just as easily written off as people doing better due to a strong pound so there are fewer tourists. Or people being better off. Or any one of dozens of reasons, including better policing.

But if citizens were legally armed, the numbers would fall more even more drastically. Policing is good. Laws that remove liberties are not.

Heck, how about...
A £5m fund to fight knife and gun crime "hot spots" across England and Wales has been pledged by the home secretary.
Jacqui Smith said £4m would go to about 10 knife crime-hit areas, and £1m would go to four areas hit by gun crime.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7414067.stm

...if there's no problem, why spend a million pounds to fix it?

It's a political issue at the moment so it can win votes and Labour need every vote they can get.

Also, £5 million total? MPs spend more than that a year on interior design, it's a token gesture.

So: has binge drinking gone down since they repealed the pub's early closings?
Not really, it's stayed about the same, mostly because pubs aren't that interested in opening for much longer, as most people interested at Being At A Pub go home at 11pmish, and having people doing proper night shifts is a bit of a pain in the arse to organise.

...if there's no problem, why spend a million pounds to fix it?
Because most voters are thick and are very much influenced by the Murdoch press, which is generally against New Labour. This is a measure to try to fight back against this.

Heck, that trend could be just as easily written off as people doing better due to a strong pound so there are fewer tourists. Or people being better off. Or any one of dozens of reasons, including better policing.

A few posts after making an argument based on a stat, you say stats are useless due to the impossibility of isolating the effects of an action.


But if citizens were legally armed, the numbers would fall more even more drastically. Policing is good. Laws that remove liberties are not.

And a repetition of your original claim with no further evidence to back it up. Nice Job there.

Heck, that trend could be just as easily written off as people doing better due to a strong pound so there are fewer tourists. Or people being better off. Or any one of dozens of reasons, including better policing.

But if citizens were legally armed, the numbers would fall more even more drastically. Policing is good. Laws that remove liberties are not.
So what you're trying to say is that crime in the UK has only gone down because we're better off, whereas in societies where the population is free to own firearms, that's the basic cause of crime reduction?

Thank you once again for your enlightened views.

So what you're trying to say is that crime in the UK has only gone down because we're better off, whereas in societies where the population is free to own firearms, that's the basic cause of crime reduction?

Thank you once again for your enlightened views.

Absolutely. Because contrary to what you think, GUNS DO NOT CAUSE CRIME! :rolleyes:

You're welcome!

Absolutely. Because contrary to what you think, GUNS DO NOT CAUSE CRIME! :rolleyes:

You're welcome!

Just like ovens do not cause meals. They do make it a damn sight easier though.

Just like ovens do not cause meals. They do make it a damn sight easier though.

Exactly so. And I don't think anybody wants to go back to wood-fired stoves, adding machines, horse & buggies, telegraphs, and all wool clothing, for every day use either! :)

Guns have been around for 500+ years now. You'd think as a species we'd all have grown up by now and realized it's the intent of man and not the object that's the problem. When we get laser guns, will 9mm glocks suddenly be okay as they're as obsolete as a blackpowder pistol today?

A knife. A computer. A gun. A hammer. A car. A credit card. They're tools. Nothing more... sure, you might be able to live without any one of them. What gives anyone the right to say someone else must?

In a free society, NOTHING.

A knife. A computer. A gun. A hammer. A car. A credit card. They're tools. Nothing more... sure, you might be able to live without any one of them. What gives anyone the right to say someone else must?
We've been through this argument above, and shown how silly it is.

You can describe guns as tools, but what are they tools for? Guns such as Uzis, Desert Eagles, which are little use in hunting or pest control, and the like are obviously tools to enable the killing of humans (unless you go down the absurd path of claiming an Uzi is to hunt flocks of birds with...). The question being: do we really want tools specifically designed to destroy human beings freely available?

Your argument that 'guns are simply tools, and it's the way you use them' is all well and good, but your essentially saying that we should have free access to tools specifically designed for the destruction of human life, and that.. what? We should use them improperly? We shouldn't use the tool as it was designed, but use it in an improper way? Sounds rather flimsy to me.

Moreover, you have already in this thread stated reluctance at freely allowing people to get their hands on substances like uranium, directly contradicting your own position. Surely uranium is a tool, and we should only prosecute people who use it improperly?

Exactly so. And I don't think anybody wants to go back to wood-fired stoves, adding machines, horse & buggies, telegraphs, and all wool clothing, for every day use either! :)

Guns have been around for 500+ years now. You'd think as a species we'd all have grown up by now and realized it's the intent of man and not the object that's the problem. When we get laser guns, will 9mm glocks suddenly be okay as they're as obsolete as a blackpowder pistol today?

A knife. A computer. A gun. A hammer. A car. A credit card. They're tools. Nothing more... sure, you might be able to live without any one of them. What gives anyone the right to say someone else must?

In a free society, NOTHING.
Democracy does.

We realise that changing the intent of man is an impractical goal. Tools are defined by their uses. Guns are used for putting bullets into things from a distance. We have laws that permit various types of this activity that are not harmful; and the restrictions we have in place are designed to remove them from situations where they would be used in unlawful ways, namely the putting holes in people thing that they get used for.

Just to have you on record on this, you're totally anti-banning are you? All drugs, nuclear weapons, everything?

Absolutely. Because contrary to what you think, GUNS DO NOT CAUSE CRIME! :rolleyes:

You're welcome!
...

"Ah, crime is reduced in the UK because of a better standard of living etc., in the US, it's all down to guns. Yes. Because your quality of life is irrelevant to crime rates if there are firearms around. Seriously."

Democracy does.

We realise that changing the intent of man is an impractical goal. Tools are defined by their uses. Guns are used for putting bullets into things from a distance. We have laws that permit various types of this activity that are not harmful; and the restrictions we have in place are designed to remove them from situations where they would be used in unlawful ways, namely the putting holes in people thing that they get used for.

Just to have you on record on this, you're totally anti-banning are you? All drugs, nuclear weapons, everything?

That's great, except the people you're keeping the guns from are the ones that WANT to use them legally. If you put the same restrictions on automobiles that are on firearms, there would be riots. Restrictions are fine (ie: convicted felons and the clinically insane should not have the vote, access to firearms, etc), but outright bans are absurd.

Yep. So long as the item is legally possesed. IE: If you own a car, it has to go through safety check, have seat belts, et al. A gun cannot just go off if it's dropped (like some of the cheaper guns of the pre-ww2 era did). Drugs? So long as the taxes are paid ala booze or smokes, should be legal. A nuclear weapon is clearly an extreme example here, but it would have to be held according to whatever the IAEA deems legal posession (and/or subject to local laws, of course).

...

"Ah, crime is reduced in the UK because of a better standard of living etc., in the US, it's all down to guns. Yes. Because your quality of life is irrelevant to crime rates if there are firearms around. Seriously."

Seriously, YES. The British economy has been great for the past several years, the US's has been in the crapper. Though I did not say "all down to guns", I list it as a positive factor, not the factor. The same can be said about the UK being so small that it's easier to secure, has no land borders, etc.
As legally carrying a gun in the UK is nearly impossible, it cannot be a factor in your REDUCED crime rate, only in the RAISING gun crime rate since the guns in question are illegal.

We've been through this argument above, and shown how silly it is.

You can describe guns as tools, but what are they tools for? Guns such as Uzis, Desert Eagles, which are little use in hunting or pest control, and the like are obviously tools to enable the killing of humans (unless you go down the absurd path of claiming an Uzi is to hunt flocks of birds with...). The question being: do we really want tools specifically designed to destroy human beings freely available?

Your argument that 'guns are simply tools, and it's the way you use them' is all well and good, but your essentially saying that we should have free access to tools specifically designed for the destruction of human life, and that.. what? We should use them improperly? We shouldn't use the tool as it was designed, but use it in an improper way? Sounds rather flimsy to me.

Moreover, you have already in this thread stated reluctance at freely allowing people to get their hands on substances like uranium, directly contradicting your own position. Surely uranium is a tool, and we should only prosecute people who use it improperly?

In a word, YES. I know you're Scottish, but I submit that this is the best possible idea in governance:
Article X:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

...as I keep saying, it is the people's, not the government's job to be responsible for their own conduct. In short, the government has no right to say what I can or cannot own, unless the legislation has been so passed. Thus slaves are clearly out (thank goodness) but a big screen TV or an Uzi is the same thing at the end of the day. The law is based on ACTION, not INTENT. I can carry a broken-open shotgun up and down 5th Avenue in NYC all day. Perfectly legal so long as I'm not in possession of ammunition. By the same token, in New Hampsire, I can carry just about anything that doesn't run afowl of federal law. IF I went through the trouble of getting a class 3 license, that would include an Uzi.

If that seems flimsy, I look forward to seeing a knife-free Britain. I suspect you'll be eating a lot more sandwhiches and burritos. :D

I did? When? If you are referring to post #240 on page 16, I suggest you re-read that. I'm SUPPORTING the purchase of uranium, the same way as I support the purcahse of drugs, firearms, et al. There should be a basic test (driver's license, gun safety license...) and proof you're not a felon or insane. Done.

Restrictions are fine (ie: convicted felons and the clinically insane should not have the vote, access to firearms, etc), but outright bans are absurd.
There's no outright bans on firearms in the UK.

There are bans on guns who's* only purpose is to kill or injure human beings, but, providing one has a license of course, guns used for hunting and pest control (such as shotguns, certain rifles and certain hand-guns) are legal.


*Always been confused here, does one use "who's" to refer to an inanimate object?

...as I keep saying, it is the people's, not the government's job to be responsible for their own conduct.
And I broadly agree.

One point I'd make here, is against the idea that the UK government has 'taken away' guns from an unwilling public. I think it's safe to say that the majority of the British public do not view owning a firearm as a right, a requirement, or a necessity to protect oneself or one's property.

In short, the government has no right to say what I can or cannot own, unless the legislation has been so passed.
So you would support a ban on most guns if the government managed to push it through, legally and in line with the constitution?

If that seems flimsy, I look forward to seeing a knife-free Britain. I suspect you'll be eating a lot more sandwhiches and burritos. :D
Once again, there is no move in any way to ban knives from Britain.

There's no outright bans on firearms in the UK.

There are bans on guns who's* only purpose is to kill or injure human beings, but, providing one has a license of course, guns used for hunting and pest control (such as shotguns, certain rifles and certain hand-guns) are legal.


*Always been confused here, does one use "who's" to refer to an inanimate object?

any gun can bed used to protect one from a predatory human being.

any gun can bed used to protect one from a predatory human being.
Of course, but only some are specifically designed to do so, or at least, designed to effectively injure or kill human beings.

One point I'd make here, is against the idea that the UK government has 'taken away' guns from an unwilling public. I think it's safe to say that the majority of the British public do not view owning a firearm as a right, a requirement, or a necessity to protect oneself or one's property.
Yeah, I'd go with that.

My dad used to have a few firearms, can't recall off the top of my head which, although it included a Lee-Enfield, a 9mm pistol of some sort and a bolt-action version of the M16 ('cos I've got a round from each of those on my shelf), and he, as far as I know, voluntarily got rid of the buggers and hasn't really looked back.

I'd be in the same position. It'd be nice to have kept onto some of 'em, but there's no need. There's no real idea in Britain that to have a firearm makes one safer. Indeed, I'd go as far to venture that a lot of people in fact think the opposite, at least that's what my friends think on the situation.

Britain doesn't want guns - so the government not letting us have them is really a no matter.

Of course, but only some are specifically designed to do so, or at least, designed to effectively injure or kill human beings.

it is the ones solely designed to do so that protect the weak most effectively.

it is the ones solely designed to do so that protect the weak most effectively.
Batman, is that you?

There's no outright bans on firearms in the UK.

There are bans on guns who's* only purpose is to kill or injure human beings, but, providing one has a license of course, guns used for hunting and pest control (such as shotguns, certain rifles and certain hand-guns) are legal.


*Always been confused here, does one use "who's" to refer to an inanimate object?

It's damned close. And there are calls for it.

Which is fine if you're not living in an urban area. Are there many deer hunters in Haringey? How about in Southwark? I find that bar absurd as the authorities ASSUME what you're going to do before you do it. Do they make you sign a waver saying you're not going to run someone over before buying a Land Rover?

Who's = Who is. Whose = of or relating to. In your sentance, you want the latter.

it is the ones solely designed to do so that protect the weak most effectively.

And of course these same guns also arm the wicked.

Do they make you sign a waver saying you're not going to run someone over before buying a Land Rover?

No but perhaps they should.

And of course these same guns also arm the wicked.

arm both with said gun and they are equal.

arm both with a bat or knife and the weak are still weaker.
guns are an equalizer.

arm both with said gun and they are equal.

arm both with a bat or knife and the weak are still weaker.
guns are an equalizer.

Thats a synical view if ever I saw one. If nobody had guns, then we would all be equal too.

And I broadly agree.

One point I'd make here, is against the idea that the UK government has 'taken away' guns from an unwilling public. I think it's safe to say that the majority of the British public do not view owning a firearm as a right, a requirement, or a necessity to protect oneself or one's property.


So you would support a ban on most guns if the government managed to push it through, legally and in line with the constitution?


Once again, there is no move in any way to ban knives from Britain.

Nice to see that!

Which is a pity. No wonder you guys still lack a Constitution! :D

They couldn't do that without repealing the Second Amendment, which would probably precipitate major rioting and upheaval. Not to mention that the GOP wouldn't stand for it, never mind the NRA.
That said, no, I would not as it would be as bad a curb on individual liberty as the government nationalizing the press or filtering the Internet, or declaring a state religion. I'm okay with reasonable levels of control (ie: must have a license for concealed carry, must not carry on federal property, in schools, houses of worship, et al), but that's all.

You really believe that?
Doctors' kitchen knives ban call
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4581871.stm
Swords ban to beat violent crime
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west/4788881.stm
UK Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, Calls for Knife Ban in Games
http://news.softpedia.com/news/UK-Prime-Minister-Gordon-Brown-Calls-for-Knife-Ban-in-Games-76368.shtml
...it's coming. It may not happen until 2015 or 2020, but it's coming.

Thats a synical view if ever I saw one. If nobody had guns, then we would all be equal too.

Triple murder, arson and rape in home invasion:
http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?s=6836063
Joshua Komisarjevsky, 26, of Cheshire, and Steven Hayes, 44, of Winsted, went before a judge at Meriden Superior Court Tuesday and were formally charged with kidnapping, sexual assault, arson, and other charges related to the fire and discovery of three bodies at the Petit home on Sorghum Mill Drive in Cheshire.

And that was within 30 miles of my home, in an upper-middle class neighborhood. They were armed with a baseball bat and an air rifle. Had the husband a firearm, they'd very likely be dead and his family would be alive.

Being unarmed =/= equality. Being unarmed just makes you an easier victim.

Thats a synical view if ever I saw one. If nobody had guns, then we would all be equal too.

really? for some reason I think a 200 pound male is capable of raping a 100 pound woman with out the need for weapons.

however a 2 pound pistol makes both equal.

Triple murder, arson and rape in home invasion:
http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?s=6836063
Joshua Komisarjevsky, 26, of Cheshire, and Steven Hayes, 44, of Winsted, went before a judge at Meriden Superior Court Tuesday and were formally charged with kidnapping, sexual assault, arson, and other charges related to the fire and discovery of three bodies at the Petit home on Sorghum Mill Drive in Cheshire.

And that was within 30 miles of my home, in an upper-middle class neighborhood. They were armed with a baseball bat and an air rifle. Had the husband a firearm, they'd very likely be dead and his family would be alive.

Being unarmed =/= equality. Being unarmed just makes you an easier victim.


Yep and the husband in court on charges for killing intruders. If the husband was armed witha stick and the knowledge to use it, the intruders would be in hospital with several broken bones.

If my wife was not so concered with her apperance she would be happier.

If the sky was made out of chocolate, we would all be fat and dead.

Sorry whats the point again?

You obviously don't see that by arming everybody that would bring about more death. I'd rather face a drunk with a knife in his hands than a drunk with a gun in his hands wouldn't you?

Triple murder, arson and rape in home invasion:
http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?s=6836063
Joshua Komisarjevsky, 26, of Cheshire, and Steven Hayes, 44, of Winsted, went before a judge at Meriden Superior Court Tuesday and were formally charged with kidnapping, sexual assault, arson, and other charges related to the fire and discovery of three bodies at the Petit home on Sorghum Mill Drive in Cheshire.

And that was within 30 miles of my home, in an upper-middle class neighborhood. They were armed with a baseball bat and an air rifle. Had the husband a firearm, they'd very likely be dead and his family would be alive.

Being unarmed =/= equality. Being unarmed just makes you an easier victim.
http://wcbstv.com/local/sean.bell.verdict.2.708321.html

Murder and the police got away with it. Him being armed wouldn't have helped anything. What's your point?

Which is a pity. No wonder you guys still lack a Constitution!
The UK does have a constitution, had it much longer than you young whipper-snappers in the Colonies too, it's just not codified.

You really believe that?
Yes, much more than half-baked announcements from the Home Office or bodies not connected with the UK government.

really? for some reason I think a 200 pound male is capable of raping a 100 pound woman with out the need for weapons.

however a 2 pound pistol makes both equal.

Really? I know some females that would tear your head off, are you saying that all of those who are physicaly smaller are not equaly able to defend themselves.

Really? I know some females that would tear your head off, are you saying that all of those who are physicaly smaller are not equaly able to defend themselves.
And I know some males that are pansys

give a male and a female the same amount of training in hand to hand combat skills a male will in general be stronger in fight. mostly because Males tend to have a larger frame and more strength and a larger build. sparring they maybe be equal because the use of pads and awards of points for contact negate the strength advantage. remove the pads and let the fight go until one party or the other is unable to continue and strength and build go a long way.

not to mention a predator isn't going to target the body builder female, he is going to target the weak looking female.

However give two people hand guns and equal training and they are pretty much equals in a fight.

And I know some males that are pansys

give a male and a female the same amount of training in hand to hand combat skills a male will in general be stronger in fight. mostly because Males tend to have a larger frame and more strength and a larger build. sparring they maybe be equal because the use of pads and awards of points for contact negate the strength advantage. remove the pads and let the fight go until one party or the other is unable to continue and strength and build go a long way.

not to mention a predator isn't going to target the body builder female, he is going to target the weak looking female.

However give two people hand guns and equal training and they are pretty much equals in a fight.
Uhu... I think what you're forgetting is that in the UK, rape is much more likely to be Man A takes Long-Term Female Friend B to the pub, gets her very drunk, takes her home and has sex with her without her real consent than Man A takes Random Woman B up against a wall when he thinks nobody's watching.

Uhu... I think what you're forgetting is that in the UK, rape is much more likely to be Man A takes Long-Term Female Friend B to the pub, gets her very drunk, takes her home and has sex with her without her real consent than Man A takes Random Woman B up against a wall when he thinks nobody's watching.

yes and in both cases a gun in the purse would prevent the rape.
unless of course she was passed out drunk.

However give two people hand guns and equal training and they are pretty much equals in a fight.

You also end up with someone dead, and someone being prosecuted for using excessive force.

http://wcbstv.com/local/sean.bell.verdict.2.708321.html

Murder and the police got away with it. Him being armed wouldn't have helped anything. What's your point?

He was armed with a Car. He tried to run over the police. He got shot. Fail to see how the police got away with anything other then their lives while discharging a dangerous duty.

yes and in both cases a gun in the purse would prevent the rape.
unless of course she was passed out drunk.
Quite. Point B utterly destroys point A. People very rarely get raped in the street, it's more "I'll look after you, no worries.", which then leads to a woman getting so drunk she's basically in an alcoholic coma, and then raped.
He was armed with a Car. He tried to run over the police.
He didn't try to run over the police, he was extremely drunk and nearly ran a policeman over. This is not the same.
He got shot. Fail to see how the police got away with anything other then their lives while discharging a dangerous duty.
No need whatsoever to kill him. Absolutely none.

Man A takes Long-Term Female Friend B to the pub, gets her very drunk...


"Gets her very drunk"...

Interesting phrase. Implies a conscious effort on his part, not on hers. Was it forced? Or by Deception? "Don't worry, there's no alchohol in that.". Mental powers? Some sort of Osmosis, alchohol being passed on by close personal contact?

Or did she knowingly over-indulge in a substance that would alter her decision making capabilities, and then blame him for the faulty decisions she made?

"Gets her very drunk"...

Interesting phrase. Implies a conscious effort on his part, not on hers. Was it forced? Or by Deception? "Don't worry, there's no alchohol in that.". Mental powers? Some sort of Osmosis, alchohol being passed on by close personal contact?

Or did she knowingly over-indulge in a substance that would alter her decision making capabilities, and then blame him for the faulty decisions she made?
I'm sure it would vary case to case, and if you're trying to blame her getting raped on 'faulty decisions', err no.

Or did she knowingly over-indulge in a substance that would alter her decision making capabilities, and then blame him for the faulty decisions she made?
Because getting drunk legitimises rape?

I think you need to calm down on the booze, matey.

yes and in both cases a gun in the purse would prevent the rape.

Which presumes that the you haven't changed anybody else's mentality and the rapist doesn't have a gun or that he won't threaten her with it. Which he would since he's going to be the first one to be aware of this situation.

Yep and the husband in court on charges for killing intruders. If the husband was armed witha stick and the knowledge to use it, the intruders would be in hospital with several broken bones.

If my wife was not so concered with her apperance she would be happier.

If the sky was made out of chocolate, we would all be fat and dead.

Sorry whats the point again?

You obviously don't see that by arming everybody that would bring about more death. I'd rather face a drunk with a knife in his hands than a drunk with a gun in his hands wouldn't you?

Um, no. It's perfectly legal to shoot intruders in your own home. His gun would be confiscated until the police inquiry is finished. Given that it would have been self defence/home defense, he'd never have to even set foot in a courtroom.

Drivel.

More drivel.

That you're playing "see-no-evil".

You're saying that allowing people to be armed means more death? LOL! And I suppose flies cause garbage, too?
ALSO: YOU CANNOT LEGALLY CARRY A FIREARM WHILE CONSUMING ALCOHOL! :rolleyes:
And, heck, I'll go one further: NOPE! I'll take the drunk with the gun, thanks. Odds are he'd miss. :p

http://wcbstv.com/local/sean.bell.verdict.2.708321.html

Murder and the police got away with it. Him being armed wouldn't have helped anything. What's your point?

If you followed the case, you'd know it wasn't murder and that Al Sharpton is a tool that PAID several witnesses! Tawana Brawley, anyone?

http://www.nypost.com/seven/04072008/news/regionalnews/shoot_til_safe__cops_instructed_105371.htm
April 7, 2008 -- The NYPD trains its officers to continue firing their weapons until a target no longer poses a threat, an expert will testify this week at the trial of three officers charged in the 50-shot killing of Sean Bell.
The witness, an expert in police training and tactics, will explain when police officers "can use deadly force," said a defense source.
He is also expected to contradict the prosecution's claim that the officers should have fired just three times and then stopped to assess the situation.

It's obvious that you're of the opinion that guns are evil in and of themselves. I find that as irrational as the UK having four possible qualifying World Cup teams. That means very.

I ALSO find it hysterical that you choose an incident of someone with a criminal record (Bell had been arrested three times, twice for drug dealing and once for a firearms possession charge) IN an incident involving drugs, driving while intoxicated, and perhaps illegal firearms possession! What, you're saying that if he'd had a (legal? illegal?) firearm, he should have FIRED ON THE POLICE!?? What the hell kind of arguement is that?

The UK does have a constitution, had it much longer than you young whipper-snappers in the Colonies too, it's just not codified.


Yes, much more than half-baked announcements from the Home Office or bodies not connected with the UK government.

Constitution are like breasts: if you can touch them, they're real. :D

It always starts small. Consider the 1968, 1988, 1994 and 1997 Firearms Acts, which directly ban certain firearms. Then comes swords. It'll happen at some point. (Pardon the pun).

Um, no. It's perfectly legal to shoot intruders in your own home.


Not in the UK, would likely be prosecuted for manslaughter as in the case of Tony Martin.

Not in the UK, would likely be prosecuted for manslaughter as in the case of Tony Martin.

what a backwards country. someone breaks in to do harm to you and your family. and they throw you in jail for defending yourself. in the US you'd get a medal for Yob removal.

Not in the UK, would likely be prosecuted for manslaughter as in the case of Tony Martin.

Another example of the deteriorating rights of the British people. Three years in prison? He should have been made local constable!

what a backwards country. someone breaks in to do harm to you and your family. and they throw you in jail for defending yourself. in the US you'd get a medal for Yob removal.

Our laws have been refined over hundreds of years and we came to the conclusion that we value human life above property.

Our laws have been refined over hundreds of years and we came to the conclusion that we value human life above property.

If that were so, the UK would have abolished debtor's prisons before the US and not 30 odd years later. Being around longer doesn't mean you're any better, just that you have a longer track record.

If that were so, the UK would have abolished debtor's prisons before the US and not 30 odd years later. Being around longer doesn't mean you're any better, just that you have a longer track record.

How is that so then? I don't see how you have reached that conclusion, please explain it to me.

what a backwards country. someone breaks in to do harm to you and your family. and they throw you in jail for defending yourself. in the US you'd get a medal for Yob removal.

He was charged because he used excessive force. He wasn't under any threat when he fired at the intruder.

At least I believe that's what happened.

He was charged because he used excessive force. He wasn't under any threat when he fired at the intruder.

At least I believe that's what happened.

Indeed, he shot them as they tried to flee.

How is that so then? I don't see how you have reached that conclusion, please explain it to me.

If property were less important than people's lives and the UK's laws were so very good since they've been around for so long, they'd have stopped imprisoning people OVER property earlier than the US!

Indeed, he shot them as they tried to flee.

With or without his stuff? Were they armed? Did they have to run past him?

If that were so, the UK would have abolished debtor's prisons before the US and not 30 odd years later. Being around longer doesn't mean you're any better, just that you have a longer track record.

Not sure your logic is particularly sound. But in the human rights/property debate we beat you to outlawing slavery by a good fifty years.

Not sure your logic is particularly sound. But in the human rights/property debate we beat you to outlawing slavery by a good fifty years.

You're the ones that gave it to us in the first place. :p

If property were less important than people's lives and the UK's laws were so very good since they've been around for so long, they'd have stopped imprisoning people OVER property earlier than the US!

So presumably, using your own logic, the USA is all in favour of slavery, because you abolished it later?

Saying 'we respect life over property' is hardly the same thing as saying 'we have had a developed and modern attitude to human rights since time began'.

With or without his stuff? Were they armed? Did they have to run past him?

Without. Unarmed. No.

If property were less important than people's lives and the UK's laws were so very good since they've been around for so long, they'd have stopped imprisoning people OVER property earlier than the US!

Not really, I mean a case can be made for that certianly, but it doesn't nesicarily follow does it. Also isn't a debtors prison a prison for debtors? Umm how many ways for a man to get into debt do not include property I wonder.

With or without his stuff? Were they armed? Did they have to run past him?

Google it man. As far as I remember though, he heard noise, came down with his gun, saw people fleeing, and shoot at them while they run away.

Not really, I mean a case can be made for that certianly, but it doesn't nesicarily follow does it. Also isn't a debtors prison a prison for debtors? Umm how many ways for a man to get into debt do not include property I wonder.

Money IS property.

Google it man. As far as I remember though, he heard noise, came down with his gun, saw people fleeing, and shoot at them while they run away.

If he shot them while they were on his property, he's in the clear.

Money IS property.

Ahhh which explains a lot.

If he shot them while they were on his property, he's in the clear.

Surely in the US just being on someones property isn't enough to get away with shooting them.

So presumably, using your own logic, the USA is all in favour of slavery, because you abolished it later?

Saying 'we respect life over property' is hardly the same thing as saying 'we have had a developed and modern attitude to human rights since time began'.

Reread my post from above:
Being around longer doesn't mean you're any better, just that you have a longer track record.

...and that was my intent. Not to get into some off-topic pissing match.

Surely in the US just being on someones property isn't enough to get away with shooting them.

No, that's just trespass. But inside your house? Shoot him. No jury will convict you.

If he shot them while they were on his property, he's in the clear.

What a crazy system.

If he shot them while they were on his property, he's in the clear.

Well they where still on his land, but he wasn't in the clear he got nicked, and done time for it.

We have this law here that means when you protect yourself you cannot use excesive force, shooting somebody in the back with a shootgun counts as excesive force.

What a crazy system.

...this from a country with TV detector vans because they tax TV watching and still have a seperate rate for b&w sets.

I haven't even SEEN a b&w since 1980! (Except when I was in London a few years back...)

...this from a country with TV detector vans because they tax TV watching and still have a seperate rate for b&w sets.

I haven't even SEEN a b&w since 1980! (Except when I was in London a few years back...)

Man you are full of wrong today!

We don't have to pay tax on TV watching, but one of our channels namely the BBC is paid for by our TV licence fee, so in that respect it is almost a state TV channel.

Man you are full of wrong today!

We don't have to pay tax on TV watching, but one of our channels namely the BBC is paid for by our TV licence fee, so in that respect it is almost a state TV channel.

To be more precise, the BBC is a state-funded but editorially independent media corporation that not only produces very high quality news but also a host of other highly acclaimed programmes.

...this from a country with TV detector vans because they tax TV watching and still have a seperate rate for b&w sets.

I haven't even SEEN a b&w since 1980! (Except when I was in London a few years back...)

I say it's crazy that you can shoot someone without any repercussions, regardless of what they're doing there, and the best you can come up with is that we have black and white tv licences?

To be more precise, the BBC is a state-funded but editorially independent media corporation that not only produces very high quality news but also a host of other highly acclaimed programmes.

I thank ya!

what a backwards country. someone breaks in to do harm to you and your family. and they throw you in jail for defending yourself. in the US you'd get a medal for Yob removal.
We're the backwards country for valuing people's lives over property!?

That's an astounding judgement.

We're the backwards country for valuing people's lives over property!?

That's an astounding judgement.

no your backwards for valuing the intruder's life over the occupants life.

no your backwards for valuing the intruder's life over the occupants life.

We don't. But you are not allowed to claim self-defence unless there is a real and immenent danger of losing your own life.

Constitution are like breasts: if you can touch them, they're real. :D
By all means, feel up our constitution. There's documents all the way back to 1215 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uk_constitution#Key_statutes_and_conventions) (the Magna Carta, which established the right to habeas corpus; which UK citizens still hold) and as recently as this year.

It always starts small. Consider the 1968, 1988, 1994 and 1997 Firearms Acts, which directly ban certain firearms.
As I said before, these statutes banned guns deemed as useless in any pursuit bar killing another human being; something Britain's don't see as a right or necessity.

EDIT> Here's WikiP's well-put summary on the issue of UK firearm legislation:

To obtain a firearm certificate, the police must be convinced that a person has "good reason" to own each gun, and that they can be trusted with it "without danger to the public safety or to the peace". Under Home Office guidelines, gun licenses are only issued if a person has legitimate sporting or work-related reasons for owning a gun. Since 1946, self-defence has not been considered a valid reason to own a gun.

Remembering, of course, that in the UK there's no widely held notion that owning firearms is an inalienable right.


Another example of the deteriorating rights of the British people. Three years in prison? He should have been made local constable!
After shooting a young man in the back with a shotgun? Hardly.


no your backwards for valuing the intruder's life over the occupants life.
That isn't happening; violence used in justified self-defence is not criminalised in the UK.

The law recognises, quite rightly, that a person's life is more important than property, and thus, we can't legally kill someone if we have judged them to be simply interfering with property. However, if someone is attempting to harm you or your loved ones, and the only way you can protect them is to harm your attacker, then violence is legally justified.

no your backwards for valuing the intruder's life over the occupants life.

Again your logic fails and in it's place are a mass of assumptions.

The story in question was about a robbery, the guys that got shoot where in the process of running away. So no question of a threat to the occupants life there.

In fact your words are built on a series of 'what if's'.

This mans life was NOT threatend, he used excesive force on burgulars that where running away, and he got rightfully hit with the law.

Now just where does this idea that the law in this case values the intruders life above the occupants life come from, and how do you manage to stretch that to fit the whole country?

no your backwards for valuing the intruder's life over the occupants life.

You're.

Please. The English language begs you to spell correctly.

That isn't happening; violence used in justified self-defence is not criminalised in the UK.

The law recognises, quite rightly, that a person's life is more important than property, and thus, we can't legally kill someone if we have judged them to be simply interfering with property. However, if someone is attempting to harm you or your loved ones, and the only way you can protect them is to harm your attacker, then violence is legally justified.

Judge them their intentions when they have already broken in ???
Is there some sort of questionnaire thieves fill out as they go in?
check yes if you want to just steal stuff.
check no to raping my teenage daughter.
and suddenly you cant lift a finger to stop them.

Judge them their intentions when they have already broken in ???
No...

If I am in my house and someone breaks in, and I believe that my life or the life of my family/guests is being threatened, and I judge that the only way to fend of this threat is to harm the burglar, then I am legally allowed to use violence.

If, however, I disturbed someone robbing my house, and s/he then ran away from the house, not threatening or attempting to harm me or my family/guests, then attempting to kill them would, funnily enough, not be considered a use of reasonable force.

Man you are full of wrong today!

We don't have to pay tax on TV watching, but one of our channels namely the BBC is paid for by our TV licence fee, so in that respect it is almost a state TV channel.

...and TV licence fee =/= tax on tv watching how? ~$280 a year IS a tv watching tax!! http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/

I say it's crazy that you can shoot someone without any repercussions, regardless of what they're doing there, and the best you can come up with is that we have black and white tv licences?

Listen, I can't just shoot anybody out on the street. But if someone is in my house and they've broken in, THEY are the criminal, not me. QED.

As for the TV licensing, I was pointing out that calling self defense crazy is as crazy as paying a TV tax.

By all means, feel up our constitution. There's documents all the way back to 1215 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uk_constitution#Key_statutes_and_conventions) (the Magna Carta, which established the right to habeas corpus; which UK citizens still hold) and as recently as this year.


As I said before, these statutes banned guns deemed as useless in any pursuit bar killing another human being; something Britain's don't see as a right or necessity.

EDIT> Here's WikiP's well-put summary on the issue of UK firearm legislation:

To obtain a firearm certificate, the police must be convinced that a person has "good reason" to own each gun, and that they can be trusted with it "without danger to the public safety or to the peace". Under Home Office guidelines, gun licenses are only issued if a person has legitimate sporting or work-related reasons for owning a gun. Since 1946, self-defence has not been considered a valid reason to own a gun.

Remembering, of course, that in the UK there's no widely held notion that owning firearms is an inalienable right.



After shooting a young man in the back with a shotgun? Hardly.


While Magna Carta is a great document (no doubt!) it's less a Consitution than it is a limitation on Royal power. That is, it doesn't establish a free government but constrains an existant one. It certainly doesn't establish equality under the law for all.

Right. Which I see as Britons willingly giving up a freedom... it'd be akin to banning a particular religion or newspaper or whatever else because it "isn't necessary".

Nannystate paternalism. And that's bad. I assume this legislation is non-existant for cars? They kill more people than guns in the UK, USA, AND Iraq! (not to meniton most of the 1st and 2nd world countries...)

in the UK there's no widely held notion that owning firearms is an inalienable right.
Which is most unfortunate.

Absolutely. I'd be curious to see if breaking & entering was down after what he'd done made the papers.

As for the TV licensing, I was pointing out that calling self defense crazy is as crazy as paying a TV tax.
It's not a 'tax'; none of the money whatsoever goes to government. A more appropriate term would be 'subscription fee'.

The TV license funds the BBC, ensuring that the UK continues to have a well-funded, independent, public television network that isn't beholden to either the state or the interests of business.

While Magna Carta is a great document (no doubt!) it's less a Consitution than it is a limitation on Royal power. That is, it doesn't establish a free government but constrains an existant one. It certainly doesn't establish equality under the law for all.
Sure, and that's why Magna Carta is simply one of many, many documents, precedents, acts, bills and treaties that make up the UK constitution.

Right. Which I see as Britons willingly giving up a freedom.
Perhaps it is, but note that it is given up willingly. There simply isn't an appetite for a proliferation of firearms, especially in urban communities.

I share some of your misgivings about the criminalisation of certain firearms, but I must say, not having every nutjob and his dog owning a powerful handgun gives one a sense of comfort.

I assume this legislation is non-existant for cars?
You assume incorrectly.

Absolutely. I'd be curious to see if breaking & entering was down after what he'd done made the papers.
I doubt it made any effect.

Any which way, wishing to give authority and power to a man who obviously cannot differentiate between a person threatening his life and a person fleeing from him is utter madness.

Listen, I can't just shoot anybody out on the street. But if someone is in my house and they've broken in, THEY are the criminal, not me. QED.

Not all criminals deserve to be shot.

No criminals deserve to be shot. They're as much victims of circumstance as the people whose homes are being broken into.

No criminals deserve to be shot. They're as much victims of circumstance as the people whose homes are being broken into.
Right on the money (ironically :p ) there.

Right on the money (ironically :p ) there.
Though motivation for crime, including one's environment and other factors out of our control that may move us to break the law, is by no means a thing to dismiss, reducing all criminals to 'victims of circumstance' (if this is actually what Shining Ys is claiming) is far too strong.

Though motivation for crime, including one's environment and other factors out of our control that may move us to break the law, is by no means a thing to dismiss, reducing all criminals to 'victims of circumstance' (if this is actually what Shining Ys is claiming) is far too strong.
No, indeed. Some are victims of their own design.

Not all criminals deserve to be shot.

True. And I'm not advocating shooting every criminal in every circumstance. But home invasion/breaking and entering? Hell yes, the homeowner SHOULD get every benefit of the doubt.

Does that mean that the police should turn a blind eye if Ol' Simon has shot 18 people on his own property this year? No, clearly not.

It's not a 'tax'; none of the money whatsoever goes to government. A more appropriate term would be 'subscription fee'.

The TV license funds the BBC, ensuring that the UK continues to have a well-funded, independent, public television network that isn't beholden to either the state or the interests of business.


Sure, and that's why Magna Carta is simply one of many, many documents, precedents, acts, bills and treaties that make up the UK constitution.


Perhaps it is, but note that it is given up willingly. There simply isn't an appetite for a proliferation of firearms, especially in urban communities.

I share some of your misgivings about the criminalisation of certain firearms, but I must say, not having every nutjob and his dog owning a powerful handgun gives one a sense of comfort.


You assume incorrectly.


I doubt it made any effect.

Any which way, wishing to give authority and power to a man who obviously cannot differentiate between a person threatening his life and a person fleeing from him is utter madness.

SHENNANIGANS! The BBC is state owned. You're still paying a government agency, the same way as when I get my fishing license every year I'm paying money to the Connecticut Department of Environmental Conservation. No, the money doesn't go into the general fund, but it is still funding a state agency!
(NB: I don't need a license for saltwater fishing, only freshwater. So it's not like I buy a fishing pole and I can't use it without paying a tax, which IS the case for TVs in the UK!)

Yes, and that's the problem. :D The point is that the Brits simply can't point somewhere and say "I have X rights". And that's unfortunate in my mind.

The nutjobs are usually not the armed ones: remember that people with felonies and mental deficiencies are not granted licenses. If they want a firearm, they'd get it illegally anyway. All that you're doing is disarming yourselves, which is how you end up with a KNIFE crime epidemic.

Please show the legislation that makes cars as hard to buy as cars in the UK. (Please, you and I both know that doesn't exist.)

Who is giving him anything? He has the RIGHT of self defense and to protect his own property. Just like you or I have the right to speak our minds on this forum.

All that you're doing is disarming yourselves, which is how you end up with a KNIFE crime epidemic.


Hehe yeah coz a GUN crime epidemic is far better thing to have.

This has just essentially turned into a rather tedious game of "spot the cultural differences".

The fact that owning a gun isn't considered a "right" in the UK just means that the UK has a different culture to the US, one in which owning a firearm isn't considered a right.

SHENNANIGANS! The BBC is state owned. You're still paying a government agency, the same way as when I get my fishing license every year I'm paying money to the Connecticut Department of Environmental Conservation. No, the money doesn't go into the general fund, but it is still funding a state agency!
No, no, no, no, and (for novelty's sake) no.

Although, because of it's Royal Charter, the BBC is technically only a semi-autonomous public company, it is run by the BBC Trust (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Trust), a body of non-governmental persons independent not only from government and business, but independent from BBC management as well.

The BBC is thus, according to its charter, "free from both political and commercial influence and answers only to its viewers and listeners".

Yes, and that's the problem. :D The point is that the Brits simply can't point somewhere and say "I have X rights".
Yes we can.

Thanks to documents in the UK constitution such as the Bill of Rights 1689 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689), or the more modern Human Rights Act 1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Act_1998), UK citizens can point to all the rights they have (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_Kingdom#Human_rights_under_English_law) such as:

Right to life
Freedom of expression and conscience
Right to free assembly
Right to personal privacy
No arbitrary searches or seizures
Right to respect for private and family life
Right to bodily integrity
Right to personal liberty
Freedom of association
Right to participate in government
Right to protection of the law
Right to property
Right to minimum wage
Right to strike


All that you're doing is disarming yourselves, which is how you end up with a KNIFE crime epidemic.
You talk as if there was a time in Britain when the majority of people owned a firearm. This has never been the case.

Please show the legislation that makes cars as hard to buy as cars in the UK. (Please, you and I both know that doesn't exist.)
I think you've mistyped here?

Who is giving him anything? He has the RIGHT of self defense and to protect his own property.
He has the right to use 'reasonable force' to protect himself and his property. He does not have the right to kill anyone who steps foot on his property. Shooting someone in the back with a shotgun, when they present no threat to one's personal safety, is not 'reasonable force'.

Just like you or I have the right to speak our minds on this forum.
We have no such right. This is the internet, not the US. The mods, Jolt admins, Max Barry and a few others can easily, and legally, restrict our speech.

Indeed they do so all the time; that's why we can't flame.

Hehe yeah coz a GUN crime epidemic is far better thing to have.

And as I keep pointing out, it's not the weapon, it's the PEOPLE. :p
I can't wait until you have a hammer crime or chairleg crime problem in the UK. :rolleyes:

And as I keep pointing out, it's not the weapon, it's the PEOPLE.

Well if that's the case, I'd rather a crime epidemic of people armed with knives over a crime epidemic of people armed with guns.

Well if that's the case, I'd rather a crime epidemic of people armed with knives over a crime epidemic of people armed with guns.

Here here.

And as I keep pointing out, it's not the weapon, it's the PEOPLE. :p
I can't wait until you have a hammer crime or chairleg crime problem in the UK. :rolleyes:

I'd call that an improvement.

This is an argument that has always amused me. People who say that banning guns doesn't stop people from trying to kill other people, it just means they have to use less effective weapons. That the point - I know that efficiency is usually a good thing but not when it comes to murder.

Well if that's the case, I'd rather a crime epidemic of people armed with knives over a crime epidemic of people armed with guns.

And if there was no gun crime in the UK, I'd say bully for you. But there is.
Please cite how many LEGAL gun owners go out and commit crime with their own guns. Yeah, I know it's a very low number.

I'd call that an improvement.

This is an argument that has always amused me. People who say that banning guns doesn't stop people from trying to kill other people, it just means they have to use less effective weapons. That the point - I know that efficiency is usually a good thing but not when it comes to murder.

I'm more amused that the gun control side of the house are the ones that think people can change on EVERY OTHER issue.

You know, like Catholics are ever going to condone gay marriage. Or that people are ever going to stop drinking, enjoying unprescribed drugs or having premartial sex. Or any one of dozens of other issues.

The fact is that anyone that condones ANY circumsciption of liberty in one arena and lambasts it in another is a hypocrite. It's not guns or knives that are the issue, it's the act of weilding them in a wrongful manner. And the penalty for that is why we have police, courts, and codified laws.

No criminals deserve to be shot. They're as much victims of circumstance as the people whose homes are being broken into.

Excellent arguement, please let everyone go free for committing crime, as they're all victims. Congratulations, you've just destroyed civilization. :rolleyes:

No, no, no, no, and (for novelty's sake) no.

Although, because of it's Royal Charter, the BBC is technically only a semi-autonomous public company, it is run by the BBC Trust (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Trust), a body of non-governmental persons independent not only from government and business, but independent from BBC management as well.

The BBC is thus, according to its charter, "free from both political and commercial influence and answers only to its viewers and listeners".


Yes we can.

Thanks to documents in the UK constitution such as the Bill of Rights 1689 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689), or the more modern Human Rights Act 1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Act_1998), UK citizens can point to all the rights they have (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_Kingdom#Human_rights_under_English_law) such as:

Right to life
Freedom of expression and conscience
Right to free assembly
Right to personal privacy
No arbitrary searches or seizures
Right to respect for private and family life
Right to bodily integrity
Right to personal liberty
Freedom of association
Right to participate in government
Right to protection of the law
Right to property
Right to minimum wage
Right to strike



You talk as if there was a time in Britain when the majority of people owned a firearm. This has never been the case.


I think you've mistyped here?


He has the right to use 'reasonable force' to protect himself and his property. He does not have the right to kill anyone who steps foot on his property. Shooting someone in the back with a shotgun, when they present no threat to one's personal safety, is not 'reasonable force'.


We have no such right. This is the internet, not the US. The mods, Jolt admins, Max Barry and a few others can easily, and legally, restrict our speech.

Indeed they do so all the time; that's why we can't flame.

the BBC is technically only a semi-autonomous public company Yep. Which ALSO gets gov't funds... the World Service gets money from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The BBC had no competition until the 80s.
And... AHEM! The BBC Trust is what, a year old?!? Until LAST YEAR the Corporation was run by a board of governors appointed by The Queen or King on the advice of the government for a term of four years! and how about that Hutton Inquiry?
Also, the cost of a television licence is set by the government and enforced by the criminal law. HMM!
You know, if I'm caught driving a car in the US without paying tax on it, you know what happens? NOTHING in most areas, as places (like, say, NY state) have no automobile taxes after the car is purchased.
Sorry, but if the US had such a channel, people would be screaming "BUSH PROPOGANDA!! US IMPERIALIST DOGMA STATION!!" :rolleyes: The BBC is most clearly a government enterprise. Or at least has been until damned recently and is now changing to be less so.
...all of which is way off the point I made that considering self defense to be looney is really a stretch of a POV for me to take with a country with TV detector vans. :D

And you missed the Settlement Act and the Parliament Acts... and one could even argue for the the Case of Proclamations or dozens of other documents such as A Practical Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament (Parliamentary Practise).
The UK has no single codified documentary constitution along the lines of the Constitution of the United States. Brits can point to MANY places, but not one and say THIS is undeniable. That's why you have things like the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 or the Human Rights Act 1998.

Yes, I know there was never a time where the majority of people owned a firearm in the UK. It's probably never been such a time in the US, either. I'm talking about the RIGHT to, not that everyone must go around carrying one like it's Tombstone, AZ in 1880.
Heck, I keep mine at home most of the time... I can probably count the times I've concealed carried over the past 5 years with two hands.

Nope, that's no typo. You said "You assume incorrectly" when I said that I assumed there was no legislation prescribing the purchase and ownership of cars to people who need them for specific purposes. So: does Britain make you state WHY you need a vehicle or not at time of purchase? No?
Ergo Nannystate.

Oh really? So where then are all the North Korean, Chinese, and Viet Namese posters? How about the Cubans? The very reason why the Internet as a forum allows us to speak our minds is because our governments allow for Freedom of Speech!
And, the mods, just like the police, do so for safety purposes. You can't yell fire in a croweded theatre if there is no fire. You can't libel, etc.

arm both with said gun and they are equal.

arm both with a bat or knife and the weak are still weaker.
guns are an equalizer.

The flip side to this argument is that anyone with a gun can kill - even a small child is capable of killing with a gun.

Excellent arguement, please let everyone go free for committing crime, as they're all victims. Congratulations, you've just destroyed civilization. :rolleyes:

Sorry, were they the only two choices then?
Shoot suspected criminals on sight or let them go?
Is there no middle ground involving ooh I don't know, maybe something like a publicly accountable police force, arrest, due process of the law and a trial with an independant judiciary?

The point is that the Brits simply can't point somewhere and say "I have X rights". And that's unfortunate in my mind.
Only if you're thick and don't know anything about the law.

We have a few different acts, two of which are listed by Chumbly back there. Oh sorry, it's not all in one place, so it doesn't count, eh?
The nutjobs are usually not the armed ones: remember that people with felonies and mental deficiencies are not granted licenses. If they want a firearm, they'd get it illegally anyway. All that you're doing is disarming yourselves, which is how you end up with a KNIFE crime epidemic.
We don't have a knife crime epidemic, knife crime has actually fallen, we have a " slightly more young people are getting stabbed 'epidemic' ".

What's actually epidemic is overblown journalism in the Murdoch press over here.

So: does Britain make you state WHY you need a vehicle or not at time of purchase? No?
Ergo nannystate.
Sorry if I'm getting the wrong end of the stick, but are you saying that because the Government doesn't make us state how/why we need a vehicle, we're a nannystate?

And if there was no gun crime in the UK, I'd say bully for you. But there is.
Please cite how many LEGAL gun owners go out and commit crime with their own guns. Yeah, I know it's a very low number.

Which invalidates my point how exactly?

Given a choice between an epidemic of knife wielding criminals vs. an epidemic of gun wielding criminals - I know which I'd rather.

The flip side to this argument is that anyone with a gun can kill - even a small child is capable of killing with a gun.

That's the point I think... God created all men, Samuel Colt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Colt)made them equal...

The flip side to this argument is that anyone with a gun can kill - even a small child is capable of killing with a gun.

The thing is, there are always going to be some deaths: people get crazy enough or passionate enough that killings will happen. And yes, in these cases, firearms do help defend the victim. The problem lies elsewhere. It is with the dozens of other incidents, those that now lead to bruised knuckles or broken bones, that the presence of firearms in large numbers will turn into fatalities.

Thing is, a gun makes it one hell of a lot easier to kill people. To kill someone hand-to-hand, beating or stabbing, you need to really hate their guts, to be consumed by your actions. Knives make it easier, yes. But guns make it easier still. A society where most people carry guns will probably have a lower rate of muggings than others. But the bar-fights and domestic disputes are a lot more likely to lead to deaths. There are a myriad other similar scenarios, and they all have this in common: without firearms*, we're probably looking at some punches and some kicks, because actually killing someone with your bare hands in a minor scuffle is hard mentally. However, a gun makes it a lot easier. Just point and shoot, and down they go.

The military discovered this as well. It becomes easier and easier to induce someone to kill the farther away they're doing it from. Training grunts to kill effectively with knives and fists is hard, almost impossible, because at that distance you can see the enemy, see that they're another human being just like you. Bombers are much easier --- all you need to do is push a button, you don't have to see the messy stuff. Even shooting is a lot easier than getting someone to, consciously and knowingly, beat and hurt someone until they die. That's why so much combat training in armies is about inspiring aggression, and why so much propaganda is focused on dehumanising the enemy. You need it to have an effective military**. This is also why most street scuffles don't end in death in the UK. They're likely to be bare hands, or knives at the most. If pistols were widespread, you'd see a hell of a lot more shootings come Saturday night.

Okay, to finish off. (It was about 3AM when this was originally written, so please excuse me if I've rambled a little). Yes, guns do make a big difference in some situations***, generally those where one party can and will kill even with their bare hands. But in a lot more situations, they turn what is now simply a scuffle, likely to cause only somewhat minor injuries, into an incident with a very real chance of death, just by making it so much damned easier to do. That is why their widespread possession and use by society is a bad thing. This shouldn't be taken to mean that I'm against all firearms, far from it. But most handguns, machine pistols, etc.? We don't need them, and as a society, we Americans should get over it, just like we Brits have.


*And to get vaguely on topic again, the whole thing applies to knives as well, just to a slightly lesser extent. That's why the UK has the laws it does on carrying knives --- we prefer not needing defense to ending up involved in a fight that risks serious injury or worse.

**One of several very good reasons to oppose the military, in my opinion.

***Intriguingly, these are about the only situations presented by gun advocates. Coincidence?

This has been another of UvV's semi-coherent early morning essays. We now return you to the normal schedule of programming.

The thing is, there are always going to be some deaths: people get crazy enough or passionate enough that killings will happen. And yes, in these cases, firearms do help defend the victim. The problem lies elsewhere. It is with the dozens of other incidents, those that now lead to bruised knuckles or broken bones, that the presence of firearms in large numbers will turn into fatalities.

Thing is, a gun makes it one hell of a lot easier to kill people. To kill someone hand-to-hand, beating or stabbing, you need to really hate their guts, to be consumed by your actions. Knives make it easier, yes. But guns make it easier still. A society where most people carry guns will probably have a lower rate of muggings than others. But the bar-fights and domestic disputes are a lot more likely to lead to deaths. There are a myriad other similar scenarios, and they all have this in common: without firearms*, we're probably looking at some punches and some kicks, because actually killing someone with your bare hands in a minor scuffle is hard mentally. However, a gun makes it a lot easier. Just point and shoot, and down they go.

The military discovered this as well. It becomes easier and easier to induce someone to kill the farther away they're doing it from. Training grunts to kill effectively with knives and fists is hard, almost impossible, because at that distance you can see the enemy, see that they're another human being just like you. Bombers are much easier --- all you need to do is push a button, you don't have to see the messy stuff. Even shooting is a lot easier than getting someone to, consciously and knowingly, beat and hurt someone until they die. That's why so much combat training in armies is about inspiring aggression, and why so much propaganda is focused on dehumanising the enemy. You need it to have an effective military**. This is also why most street scuffles don't end in death in the UK. They're likely to be bare hands, or knives at the most. If pistols were widespread, you'd see a hell of a lot more shootings come Saturday night.

Okay, to finish off. (It was about 3AM when this was originally written, so please excuse me if I've rambled a little). Yes, guns do make a big difference in some situations***, generally those where one party can and will kill even with their bare hands. But in a lot more situations, they turn what is now simply a scuffle, likely to cause only somewhat minor injuries, into an incident with a very real chance of death, just by making it so much damned easier to do. That is why their widespread possession and use by society is a bad thing. This shouldn't be taken to mean that I'm against all firearms, far from it. But most handguns, machine pistols, etc.? We don't need them, and as a society, we Americans should get over it, just like we Brits have.


*And to get vaguely on topic again, the whole thing applies to knives as well, just to a slightly lesser extent. That's why the UK has the laws it does on carrying knives --- we prefer not needing defense to ending up involved in a fight that risks serious injury or worse.

**One of several very good reasons to oppose the military, in my opinion.

***Intriguingly, these are about the only situations presented by gun advocates. Coincidence?

This has been another of UvV's semi-coherent early morning essays. We now return you to the normal schedule of programming.

I like your ideas and would live to subscribe to your newsletter

I know that's a cliche but it was needed here

I like your ideas and would live to subscribe to your newsletter

I know that's a cliche but it was needed here

You'd live for it? So if I deny it you'll go commit suicide?

Slightly more seriously, I'm unable to tell what you actually think of it. It could be you disagree with me entirely, and were just saying that for the hell of it. Alternately, there's a possibility you do actually agree, which would be pretty nifty. If you don't mind, a couple quick questions: What did you think of it as far as putting across my views goes, and, do you agree with me?

Sorry, were they the only two choices then?
Shoot suspected criminals on sight or let them go?
Is there no middle ground involving ooh I don't know, maybe something like a publicly accountable police force, arrest, due process of the law and a trial with an independant judiciary?

Read the thread, Luke. If you actually READ any of what I've been posting these many pages, you'd KNOW that I am FOR due process!

This person stated that criminals are vicitms. That's the arguement of a tool.

Which invalidates my point how exactly?

Given a choice between an epidemic of knife wielding criminals vs. an epidemic of gun wielding criminals - I know which I'd rather.

How? So um, tell me: are these gun weilding criminals going around and getting firearms permits and purchasinge weapons legally? No, I thought not.
The criminals get the guns illegally to begin with. Which, last I checked is why Britain has gun violence even today.

Sorry if I'm getting the wrong end of the stick, but are you saying that because the Government doesn't make us state how/why we need a vehicle, we're a nannystate?

No, you need to reread my post. I'm pointing out that because the government isn't applying the same requirements on cars as on guns/swords/knives that it's a nannystate.

(PS: before someone posts how there is no push to outlaw knives, please go back and read the thread. I've already argued that one.)

Only if you're thick and don't know anything about the law.

We have a few different acts, two of which are listed by Chumbly back there. Oh sorry, it's not all in one place, so it doesn't count, eh?

We don't have a knife crime epidemic, knife crime has actually fallen, we have a " slightly more young people are getting stabbed 'epidemic' ".

What's actually epidemic is overblown journalism in the Murdoch press over here.

Or if one actually enjoys personal freedom.

So you can't even conceed that you lack a written Constitution? Thanks. Checkmate.

And the reason why this thread was started then? HMM.

(PS: before someone posts how there is no push to outlaw knives, please go back and read the thread. I've already argued that one.)
But that wasn't one that was supported by anyone but medical professionals. I'd imagine they often see the rather shitty end of humanity working in the line of work that they do.

I'm sure if I trawled long enough through the interwebz I'd similarly find one in the US. There are enough fringe groups to support damn everything that you can think of in the world.

Banning kitchen knives isn't, and won't, be supported by the general British public.

The banning of firearms after Hungerford and Dunblane was.

.... maybe something like a publicly accountable police force, arrest, due process of the law and a trial with an independant judiciary?

Yah, but I thought we were talking about the UK.

The banning of firearms after Hungerford and Dunblane was.

But not after Monkseaton. (In fact double barrel shotguns are still legal). Which only goes to show the whole thing was media driven in the first place.

Perhaps the real issue is that many of us don't especially mind being nannied by the "nanny-state." I don't particularly. But then again, American and European concepts of liberty seem to be different in more ways than one.

But not after Monkseaton. (In fact double barrel shotguns are still legal). Which only goes to show the whole thing was media driven in the first place.
Well, yeah. But crap like automatic weapons and .357s aren't exactly on the same field as shotguns.

Well, yeah. But crap like automatic weapons and .357s aren't exactly on the same field as shotguns.

Well I don't think that automatic weapons were ever a problem.

Really though, gun crime was never a problem in the UK. It was just a huge media driven frenzy pushed to appease the suburban SE. Like foxhunting.

Now, knife crime I can see as a problem. But that's really a function of the feral animals which forty years of socialist educational theories have produced. I daresay it was just as easy to get a knife when I was a young hoodlum as it is now, but it simply wasn't an issue. (Also, the BBC has a fetish about encouraging these things).

Well I don't think that automatic weapons were ever a problem.

Really though, gun crime was never a problem in the UK. It was just a huge media driven frenzy pushed to appease the suburban SE. Like foxhunting.

Now, knife crime I can see as a problem. But that's really a function of the feral animals which forty years of socialist educational theories have produced. I daresay it was just as easy to get a knife when I was a young hoodlum as it is now, but it simply wasn't an issue. (Also, the BBC has a fetish about encouraging these things).

It's probably true that gun crime was never really much of a problem in Britain in the past, but it probably would have become worse than it is now if we'd failed to impose restraints. I still don't think that allowing everyone to possess lethal firearms is a clever way of controlling crime.

Knives are so popular because they are much easier to get hold of than guns.. we probably need restraints for knives too, rather than legalising guns.

And as for all this hooliganism being the product of "socialist" educational theories, it doesn't stand up. Our education system is far from egalitarian, and just like society, the inequalities within it are what fuels the lack of opportunities experienced by large sections of society. Given that knife crime is not as big a crisis in France, where the education situation is much more egalitarian than ours, you can't blame the comprehensive schools. It's very easy to blame the state education system for everything.

And as for all this hooliganism being the product of "socialist" educational theories, it doesn't stand up. Our education system is far from egalitarian, and just like society, the inequalities within it are what fuels the lack of opportunities experienced by large sections of society. Given that knife crime is not as big a crisis in France, where the education situation is much more egalitarian than ours, you can't blame the comprehensive schools. It's very easy to blame the state education system for everything.

Comprehensive schools are designed specifically not to be egalitarian, they were designed to punish the working class; so I don't know where you get the idea that I'm talking about them from.

No, the problem is the complete collapse of disciplinary standards, and the inculcation of the bogus notion of human rights. "Just beat the little shit now before he grows up to be an axe murderer" is an old saw, but also a truism.

Perhaps the real issue is that many of us don't especially mind being nannied by the "nanny-state." I don't particularly. But then again, American and European concepts of liberty seem to be different in more ways than one.

This is the best post I've seen in this thread in a long, long time.

Well, yeah. But crap like automatic weapons and .357s aren't exactly on the same field as shotguns.

What's the big deal about a .357? It's a small bullet, about 9mm. Nothing special about it.

Now, if you meant magnum rounds (which have triple the powder), it's more impressive, but still not comperable as a 12 gauge shotgun.

Firstly, I find it highly arrogant that some people (I assume american) are stating that British gun laws are the cause of knife crimes.

Quite frankly, I like our gun laws. The streets are not just moderately safer, but extremely so. We don't have 14 year olds shooting 15 year olds over a valentine card, for a start. We don't have anti-social incidents of spurned classmates taking out random targets and going on killing sprees before turning the gun on themselves, for another. There are few incidents of police being shot, and relatively minimal cases of gang shootings.... unlike another country which I could mention.

The knife crimes are mostly committed with kitchen knives, according to a television broadcast a few days ago. This means that kids are not buying the weapons of choice, but instead just grabbing the nearest tool to hand.
Why are they doing this? In my opinion, it is because they are being brainwashed into thinking that gang lifestyles are an acceptable behaviour. ASBO's (anti-social behaviour orders) have become like a badge of honour amongst these teens, instead of a mark of shame. Parents either do not pay enough attention to their children to keep them disciplined, or their hands are tied by the fact that it is now illegal to spank a child.... Lets face it, if all you can do is tell a child 'No', it doesnt matter how many times you say it.

In my teens, I used to carry a knife... so carrying blades is not a new thing. It is the willingness and carefree attitude about using them that is the problem. The violence, the lack of respect and discipline.

So, to all those who point at Britain and mock our gun laws in the belief that your country is better. I have to disagree. I would hate for this country to be anything like yours, which unfortunately it is slowly becoming.

We've been through this argument above, and shown how silly it is.

You can describe guns as tools, but what are they tools for?

To defend one's God given and constitutional sovereignty in the event of a government, foreign or otherwise, suppression of those basic civil rights. And don't give me this nonsense of not being a match for the military. The United States military isn't going to open fire on it's own populace for long even under the most extreme circumstances, and as we've seen in Iraq, a well armed population comes quite handy in resisting an invasion from even the most powerful military powers so we have nothing to worry about there either.

Guns such as Uzis, Desert Eagles, which are little use in hunting or pest control, and the like are obviously tools to enable the killing of humans...

Yes. They do a wonderful job of killing humans. I would put my trust in little else than a well aimed .22 if some one tried to A) Threaten my life or the life of my loved ones or B) Subvert my basic freedoms as an American.

This is why guns ownership was the second amendment of the U.S Constitution, as George Washington put it in his speech to mark his leave of office; "They are the people's liberty teeth.", and it is because of that reason guns will remain in the private possession of citizens, or else as we like to say if your ambitions are otherwise; "Come and take it..."

Our laws have been refined over hundreds of years and we came to the conclusion that we value human life above property.

Yes, I see. I wonder how you would feel though if that intruder were to have threatened the life of the owner of said property? Or do you Brits have a trust policy with your trespassers where you kindly ask them if they are going to harm you? I'm sorry, the next time I wonder if the man breaking into my house is going to stab me to death or pummel me with a blunt object, I'll just ask him kindly not to hurt me.

On second thought I'll just shoot him in the face. What can I say? I like to be sure I'm protected from desperate looters who have already shown me they're not afraid to break the law, or break into my house for that matter.

Firstly, I find it highly arrogant that some people (I assume american) are stating that British gun laws are the cause of knife crimes.

Quite frankly, I like our gun laws. The streets are not just moderately safer, but extremely so. We don't have 14 year olds shooting 15 year olds over a valentine card, for a start. We don't have anti-social incidents of spurned classmates taking out random targets and going on killing sprees bla bla bla.

Uh huh...


The knife crimes are mostly committed with kitchen knives, according to a television broadcast a few days ago. This means that kids are not buying the weapons of choice, but instead just grabbing the nearest tool to hand.
Why are they doing this? In my opinion, it is because they are being brainwashed into thinking that gang lifestyles are an acceptable behaviour. ASBO's (anti-social behaviour orders) have become like a badge of honour amongst these teens, instead of a mark of shame. Parents either do not pay enough attention to their children to keep them disciplined, or their hands are bla bla bla.

Right. So you're saying that we're barbaric because we have fourteen year old gang bangers shooting at one another, but it's not so barbaric when a fourteen year old boy over the other side of the pond stabs someone with a piece from his mother's kitchen set.

Uh huh. Funny. I thought they had some really great schools in Europe.

To defend one's God given and constitutional sovereignty in the event of a government, foreign or otherwise, suppression of those basic civil rights. And don't give me this nonsense of not being a match for the military. The United States military isn't going to open fire on it's own populace for long even under the most extreme circumstances, and as we've seen in Iraq, a well armed population comes quite handy in resisting an invasion from even the most powerful military powers so we have nothing to worry about there either.
If you have that much faith in your military, why do you need them at all?




This is why guns ownership was the second amendment of the U.S Constitution, as George Washington put it in his speech to mark his leave of office; "They are the people's liberty teeth.", and it is because of that reason guns will remain in the private possession of citizens, or else as we like to say if your ambitions are otherwise; "Come and take it..."
Washington's concepts of armies, governments, guns, and the powers each of these could wield were very different to today's realities.



Yes, I see. I wonder how you would feel though if that intruder were to have threatened the life of the owner of said property? Or do you Brits have a trust policy with your trespassers where you kindly ask them if they are going to harm you? I'm sorry, the next time I wonder if the man breaking into my house is going to stab me to death or pummel me with a blunt object, I'll just ask him kindly not to hurt me.

On second thought I'll just shoot him in the face. What can I say? I like to be sure I'm protected from desperate looters who have already shown me they're not afraid to break the law, or break into my house for that matter.

And knowing this the thieves bring guns with them into the house and instead of some property being stolen somebody dies.



Right. So you're saying that we're barbaric because we have fourteen year old gang bangers shooting at one another, but it's not so barbaric when a fourteen year old boy over the other side of the pond stabs someone with a piece from his mother's kitchen set.

Uh huh. Funny. I thought they had some really great schools in Europe.
We're saying that pre-meditated cold-blooded murder is worse than spur of the moment hot-blooded murder. Oddly enough I think many of your states have laws agreeing with that.

Right. So you're saying that we're barbaric because we have fourteen year old gang bangers shooting at one another, but it's not so barbaric when a fourteen year old boy over the other side of the pond stabs someone with a piece from his mother's kitchen set.

I said nothing of the sort. I never used any words that implied I think your nation is barbaric, and in fact I did not name any nation.
I merely raised that we do not have kids shooting kids over here in Britain because, and this might be a shock, we have gun restrictions.

The mention of kitchen knives was to point out that, regardless of how we restrict the sale of knives, kids can always get hold of mummys favorite breadknife.

If you are going to put words in my mouth, then I wish you would stick to some rationality and realism, and refrain from turning a simple statement into something which could be considered flaming or unfairly judgmental. Ideally, I would prefer that you actually stick to what I wrote and not embellish it at all. I would never claim that america is barbaric, but I would certainly raise instances that show America has problems with its easy access to guns.... thus implying that maybe the British Gun Laws are NOT as foolish as many are suggesting.
At least with knives, these kids are only stabbing one person and then being caught. As I said in my earlier post... with guns, kids are committing (in some instances) mass murder and then shooting themselves, thus denying the families any form of justice for the senseless loss of their children.

I must ask myself however, if the frequency of stabbings and knife assaults in Britain ARE on the increase, or if they are simply 'flavour of the month' with the media.

Lastly, I am hoping that the terminology 'gangbangers' is different over there than it is here. Gangbangers here are nothing to do with knife crime or gun crime.

How? So um, tell me: are these gun weilding criminals going around and getting firearms permits and purchasinge weapons legally? No, I thought not.
The criminals get the guns illegally to begin with. Which, last I checked is why Britain has gun violence even today.

Whether a rampage is committed with legal or illegal weapons is quite irrelevant to my point. The point is: If given a choice between suffering an epidemic of crime committed by knife wielding criminals or one committed by gun wielding criminals - a very simple and uncomplicated scenario -I know which one I'd prefer.


So you can't even conceed that you lack a written Constitution? Thanks. Checkmate.
Checkmate to what? Britain doesn't have a codified Constitution. Go check out what the difference is.

Or if one actually enjoys personal freedom.
I, for one, prefer the freedom to walk around without out people quite plausibly having guns with them. If you think you can take on a proper government and replace it with something better by having the general public armed with small arms, you're wrong.
So you can't even conceed that you lack a written Constitution? Thanks. Checkmate.
Aye, we lack a constitution as one, codified document, whoopedy fucking do. We have the Magna Carta and a whole bunch of other items which do the exact same job.
And the reason why this thread was started then? HMM.
Because people are thick and will take the media's rubbish that knife crime is a genuine problem in the UK. It isn't. It's actually gone down over the last year.

I, for one, prefer the freedom to walk around without out people quite plausibly having guns with them. If you think you can take on a proper government and replace it with something better by having the general public armed with small arms, you're wrong.



and what next the freedom to walk around with out the fear someone might have a knife ?

or a bat ???

Or murderous thoughts ???

If your too scared to go out into the real world stay at home on your internet.
what your asking for is not freedom it is security. More over this need for security is rooted in fear of what your fellow man might do if he had the ability, rather then what has already been done to you. Anyone who would trade security for liberty deserves neither security or liberty.

About small arms Versus the goverment, seems those insurgents in Iraq are giving both the US and the UK a pretty good run for their money. Imagine if they were actually targeting us most of the time rather then each other.

and what next the freedom to walk around with out the fear someone might have a knife ?

or a bat ???

Or murderous thoughts ???

If your too scared to go out into the real world stay at home on your internet.
what your asking for is not freedom it is security. More over this need for security is rooted in fear of what your fellow man might do if he had the ability, rather then what has already been done to you. Anyone who would trade security for liberty deserves neither security or liberty.

About small arms Versus the goverment, seems those insurgents in Iraq are giving both the US and the UK a pretty good run for their money. Imagine if they were actually targeting us most of the time rather then each other.

But who in their right mind gives a shit about the freedom for teenagers to walk around with big fuck off knives?

Yah, but I thought we were talking about the UK.
Oh the wit, squire. We have all those things in 99.9% of cases. This detention without charge bullshit is not popular with the majority of people, and I've spoken to policemen who are against it, saying that they should be arrested and charged, then remanded in custody.

and what next the freedom to walk around with out the fear someone might have a knife ?

or a bat ???

Or murderous thoughts ???

If your too scared to go out into the real world stay at home on your internet.
A knife and bat are not going to kill me from any range. If anyone tries it on with me, I can hopefully get away from them, or am at least within distance to strike back.

Murderous thoughts? Don't be a prick.

And I've very much not too scared to go out into the real world. Even if we had guns around I'd be willing to go out, I'd just be none to pleased about it.
what your asking for is not freedom it is security. More over this need for security is rooted in fear of what your fellow man might do if he had the ability, rather then what has already been done to you. Anyone who would trade security for liberty deserves neither security or liberty.
Yeah yeah you guys quote that liberty for security shite all the time. I'll be honest, I'm quite happy to have a struggle ahead against my own government if they start going mental, because at least I'll have no false illusions about it. Saying "hey, we have guns so the government is at our mercy" is absolutely false, and I can't believe you Yanks believe it for a second.
About small arms Versus the goverment, seems those insurgents in Iraq are giving both the US and the UK a pretty good run for their money. Imagine if they were actually targeting us most of the time rather then each other.
Casualty rates in Iraq are about 300 to one against UK and US forces. And those troops are present in relatively small numbers, with an extremely long supply chain.

No reason why it wouldn't be 400+ to one against US forces when they're at home, maybe on base with their families and very easily resupplied, apart from "oh no, I'm shooting Americans", which would affect both sides.

Whether a rampage is committed with legal or illegal weapons is quite irrelevant to my point. The point is: If given a choice between suffering an epidemic of crime committed by knife wielding criminals or one committed by gun wielding criminals - a very simple and uncomplicated scenario -I know which one I'd prefer.


Checkmate to what? Britain doesn't have a codified Constitution. Go check out what the difference is.

AHA! But it's absolutely relevant to mine! I'd rather live in a free society, not a nannystate. The idea that people should be banned anything is anathema.

*ding* Give that man a cigar.

AHA! But it's absolutely relevant to mine! I'd rather live in a free society, not a nannystate. The idea that people should be banned anything is anathema.
Rightio, then. *shrugs* Can't really argue with someone so stubbornly afflicted with that viewpoint

I, for one, prefer the freedom to walk around without out people quite plausibly having guns with them. If you think you can take on a proper government and replace it with something better by having the general public armed with small arms, you're wrong.

Aye, we lack a constitution as one, codified document, whoopedy fucking do. We have the Magna Carta and a whole bunch of other items which do the exact same job.

Because people are thick and will take the media's rubbish that knife crime is a genuine problem in the UK. It isn't. It's actually gone down over the last year.

People quite plausibly have guns on them when you walk around every day. They're just illegal. :rolleyes:

Thanks for actually giving a point. No, not quite. If they did the exact same job, you'd have *one* that said you have X rights. You don't, and they keep getting appended with new documents. The US does add Amendments from time to time, but does nowhere near the tinkering the UK has to. Why? Because we're free from the outset. Who knows? Had Charles II snuffed it and a Republic somehow gotten started, maybe things would be different.

You keep saying that, maybe you'll believe it.

AHA! But it's absolutely relevant to mine! I'd rather live in a free society, not a nannystate. The idea that people should be banned anything is anathema.

*ding* Give that man a cigar.

did i hear free society and nannystate used in the same sentence? oh dear.
As far as i'm aware few societies are what could be described as free.
Nannystate, if compared to the US then yes the UK could be described as such.

People quite plausibly have guns on them when you walk around every day. They're just illegal. :rolleyes:
Not worried about them at all, with them being in a very low concentration outside of Gloucestershire and Greater London tbqh.
Thanks for actually giving a point. No, not quite. If they did the exact same job, you'd have *one* that said you have X rights. You don't, and they keep getting appended with new documents. The US does add Amendments from time to time, but does nowhere near the tinkering the UK has to. Why? Because we're free from the outset.
What the fuck are you actually talking about?

We don't have one place to refer to as a constitution so we're automatically less free? What kind of shite is that?
Who knows? Had Charles II snuffed it and a Republic somehow gotten started, maybe things would be different.
We had a republic and it was utter pish. Seriously.
You keep saying that, maybe you'll believe it.
... knife crime is down. This is an Actual Fact. Unlike media spin which is a way to sell papers to the thick and gullible.

Thanks for actually giving a point. No, not quite. If they did the exact same job, you'd have *one* that said you have X rights. You don't, and they keep getting appended with new documents.


You might want to look up the rather handily named Human Rights Act, and the related European Convention on Human Rights.

What's the big deal about a .357? It's a small bullet, about 9mm. Nothing special about it.

Now, if you meant magnum rounds (which have triple the powder), it's more impressive, but still not comperable as a 12 gauge shotgun.
I know enough about that sort of thing, thank you, sir. I specifically meant the .357 magnum round (hence the term, as opposed to the .38 Special it evolved from) which was developed in response to the body armour used by gangsters in the Prohibition Era, the sort that was used by Thomas Hamilton in Dunblane, a bullet which was developed to kill humans, pure and simple. And, by and large, as were 9mms fired by every other semi-automatic pistol. They aren't bullets which can be claimed to have been developed for the use in hunting, whilst shotgun cartridges can at least be claimed to be so. It's like the other poster in your vein, who tried to claim that Uzis, a gun made by the Israelis to allow their soldiers to kick out a big rate of fire, can be claimed as a hunting weapon. They bloody well can't. They weren't developed as such, and to say otherwise is essentially willful ignorance or wishful thinking that people they're arguing against knows fuck all about this sort of thing.

One thing that appals me is the fact that you, and other posters, are more than happy to gun down someone over a matter of property. Yes, it ain't nice to have your home broken into and someone nab your property (this indeed happened to me recently, although none of my personal stuff got nabbed - one of my housemates got their laptop nicked), but there's no way in hell I'd be happy to kill someone in order to protect what is basically stuff. By and large, at least in the UK, burglars will break into a house when those people are away, therefore avoiding any chance of a confrontation. If they were disturbed, they tend to leg it. Yes, you'll get the odd sort who doesn't give a shit, but then they'll be the sort of person to risk it with or without the risk of being shot - they're too desperate for drugs or just plain fucked up to give a shit. A gun or not won't protect you. Yes, you main gun 'em down before they get a chance to do any harm, but I couldn't do that, personally. I'd attempt to warn them off, and try to do so without hamring myself and preferably them, but I'd never shoot to kill (although one cannot actually shoot to injure - too risky). Killing them would be a last and very, very desperate resort, one I'd never go to. It's a particularly broken human being who'd happily kill an intruder, especially over something as basic as property, considering that by and large it'd be insured.

I, for one, prefer the freedom to walk around without out people quite plausibly having guns with them. If you think you can take on a proper government and replace it with something better by having the general public armed with small arms, you're wrong.


History says he's right.

Because people are thick and will take the media's rubbish that knife crime is a genuine problem in the UK. It isn't. It's actually gone down over the last year.

I dunno know about knife violence, but I know the recent gun control laws in England haven't made a dent in murder rates.

link (http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page40.asp)

History says he's right.
Since the invention of the tank? No.
I dunno know about knife violence, but I know the recent gun control laws in England haven't made a dent in murder rates.

link (http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page40.asp)
Very stable until 02/03, which was mainly Harold Shipman's fault(who killed by giving his patients overstrength drugs, mainly). Fallen non-stop since then.

Incidentally, those figures aren't just for murder, they're also for manslaughter and infanticide.

I know enough about that sort of thing, thank you, sir. I specifically meant the .357 magnum round (hence the term, as opposed to the .38 Special it evolved from) which was developed in response to the body armour used by gangsters in the Prohibition Era, the sort that was used by Thomas Hamilton in Dunblane, a bullet which was developed to kill humans, pure and simple. And, by and large, as were 9mms fired by every other semi-automatic pistol. They aren't bullets which can be claimed to have been developed for the use in hunting, whilst shotgun cartridges can at least be claimed to be so. It's like the other poster in your vein, who tried to claim that Uzis, a gun made by the Israelis to allow their soldiers to kick out a big rate of fire, can be claimed as a hunting weapon. They bloody well can't. They weren't developed as such, and to say otherwise is essentially willful ignorance or wishful thinking that people they're arguing against knows fuck all about this sort of thing.

One thing that appals me is the fact that you, and other posters, are more than happy to gun down someone over a matter of property. Yes, it ain't nice to have your home broken into and someone nab your property (this indeed happened to me recently, although none of my personal stuff got nabbed - one of my housemates got their laptop nicked), but there's no way in hell I'd be happy to kill someone in order to protect what is basically stuff. By and large, at least in the UK, burglars will break into a house when those people are away, therefore avoiding any chance of a confrontation. If they were disturbed, they tend to leg it. Yes, you'll get the odd sort who doesn't give a shit, but then they'll be the sort of person to risk it with or without the risk of being shot - they're too desperate for drugs or just plain fucked up to give a shit. A gun or not won't protect you. Yes, you main gun 'em down before they get a chance to do any harm, but I couldn't do that, personally. I'd attempt to warn them off, and try to do so without hamring myself and preferably them, but I'd never shoot to kill (although one cannot actually shoot to injure - too risky). Killing them would be a last and very, very desperate resort, one I'd never go to. It's a particularly broken human being who'd happily kill an intruder, especially over something as basic as property, considering that by and large it'd be insured.

Well, you have to think about what property represents. My neighbor is a contractor and he recently had a bunch of power tools stolen from his truck. Those tools were not just worth a few thousand dollars to him, they were his sole means of supporting himself and his family. Now, he actually has enough money in savings to take the blow, but what if he didn't? Property is the means by which we live and make due, and when someone steals or vandalizes our property, they are indirectly stealing our life. Now, shooting someone for stealing a bunch of tools may seem unfair, but rationally, so is being stolen from. Would you have the victim be defenseless? or would you have the robber being shot. Both are not ideal circumstances but I would choose the latter.

And insurance may repair costs, but it doesn't prevent crime. Why should someone be forced to get insurance because he/she is not given the option to defend their property.

And also, I am a damn good shot with my pistol I am certain I could hit somebody in the legs if I wanted to.:cool:

Since the invention of the tank? No.


Just wait until I get my tank. :)


Very stable until 02/03, which was mainly Harold Shipman's fault(who killed by giving his patients overstrength drugs, mainly). Fallen non-stop since then.

Incidentally, those figures aren't just for murder, they're also for manslaughter and infanticide.

What? It has not fallen, and neither has violent crime either (http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page38.asp), which has gone up recently. So don't get your knickers in a twist, you cheeky little monkey.

People quite plausibly have guns on them when you walk around every day. They're just illegal. :rolleyes:

Thanks for actually giving a point. No, not quite. If they did the exact same job, you'd have *one* that said you have X rights. You don't, and they keep getting appended with new documents. The US does add Amendments from time to time, but does nowhere near the tinkering the UK has to. Why? Because we're free from the outset. Who knows? Had Charles II snuffed it and a Republic somehow gotten started, maybe things would be different.

You keep saying that, maybe you'll believe it.

Free from the outset? Eh? Have you tried being communist in the USA? You are not free to do that. Have you tried walking up to the house of the man you pay to run your country and ringing his doorbell? You are not free to do that.
Remember that this wonderful constitution you go eagerly harp on about had to have an amendment to give you freedom of speech. It was not even put in first time. Shows you what a wonderful piece of libertarian thinking it was.
In a country where some states do not allow you to consume alcoholic liquor and do not allow schools to teach simple evolution or other scientific principles you come to me and tell me that you are free from the outset.
I think you need to take a look at yourself and consider what the fuck you are rambling on about.

AMK
xxx

What? It has not fallen, and neither has violent crime either (http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page38.asp), which has gone up recently. So don't get your knickers in a twist, you cheeky little monkey.

The British Crime Survey (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb1107.pdf) has violent crime down 41 percent between 1995 and 2007. This is often considered a more accurate set of data than police recorded crime because two of the largest categories of violent crime - domestic and acquaintance violence - often go unreported to police.

People quite plausibly have guns on them when you walk around every day. They're just illegal. :rolleyes:
Not in Sheffield they don't.

Thanks for actually giving a point. No, not quite. If they did the exact same job, you'd have *one* that said you have X rights. You don't, and they keep getting appended with new documents. The US does add Amendments from time to time, but does nowhere near the tinkering the UK has to. Why? Because we're free from the outset.
Oh, please. America was hardly 'free from the outset' for Blacks, Women, Catholics and indentured servants. And communists (or rather, anyone accused of being a communist) in the twentieth century. And for a country is 'free from the outset' your government is good at holding people without trial and spying on your own citizens.

I'm not going to claim that our uncodified constitution is better. It isn't. It can be amended by Parliament at will, hence the government proposing 42 day detention despite the Habeas Corpus Act still being on the statute books. And I would very much like a written constitution and bill of rights limiting the government's power to infringe on basic rights and setting out the rules of the game.

But not having that yet doesn't make us an authoritarian hellhole. We didn't need Row vs. Wade to legalise abortion or homosexuality or freedom of speech because Parliament or the High Court has done it. All's well that ends well, eh?

Who knows? Had Charles II snuffed it and a Republic somehow gotten started, maybe things would be different.
We tried it after we committed regicide with Charles I. We ended up with a military dictator who banned Christmas, butchered Ireland and tried to become King himself.

Not in Sheffield they don't.


Oh, please. America was hardly 'free from the outset' for Blacks, Women, Catholics and indentured servants. And communists (or rather, anyone accused of being a communist) in the twentieth century. And for a country is 'free from the outset' your government is good at holding people without trial and spying on your own citizens.

I'm not going to claim that our uncodified constitution is better. It isn't. It can be amended by Parliament at will, hence the government proposing 42 day detention despite the Habeas Corpus Act still being on the statute books. And I would very much like a written constitution and bill of rights limiting the government's power to infringe on basic rights and setting out the rules of the game.

But not having that yet doesn't make us an authoritarian hellhole. We didn't need Row vs. Wade to legalise abortion or homosexuality or freedom of speech because Parliament or the High Court has done it. All's well that ends well, eh?


We tried it after we committed regicide with Charles I. We ended up with a military dictator who banned Christmas, butchered Ireland and tried to become King himself.

I'm all for everything you just said there apart from bemoaning Cromwell for banning Christmas. I think nowadays it seems like a pretty sound idea. Agreed though. apart from that, the guy was a prick.

AMK
xxx

Yeah our nanny state took away our School Shooting Freedoms...

Let's compare US versus Britain shall we
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shootings

Yeah our nanny state took away our School Shooting Freedoms...

Let's compare US versus Britain shall we
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shootings

Bastards, how dare they, I used to love a good rampage of an afternoon.

On an even less serious note, the tables on that link do show that what the UK lacks in quantity, it makes up for in quality. In the "Media famous" list, we rank at no2 in the number of victims for one attempt. Having said that, Americans at least go for secondary schools generally as opposed to Hamilton who went straight for the primary school kids because he was such a fucking great guy.

No doubt those who use toilet seat covers are going to lambast me for making light of such a horrendous thing. Ah well, if you cant laugh...

AMK
xxx

I'm all for everything you just said there apart from bemoaning Cromwell for banning Christmas. I think nowadays it seems like a pretty sound idea. Agreed though. apart from that, the guy was a prick.

AMK
xxx
Scrooge.;)

I've no opposition to getting rid of Charles I. The Stuarts were mostly nothing but trouble. It's just a shame the Commonwealth couldn't keep the Army in order, really. Otherwise it might just have worked.

Scrooge.;)

I've no opposition to getting rid of Charles I. The Stuarts were mostly nothing but trouble. It's just a shame the Commonwealth couldn't keep the Army in order, really. Otherwise it might just have worked.

The Stuarts were good enough from a Scottish point of view. Being Kafflick they tended to have a slightly more egalitarian view in that direction. But they did like a good bit of pampering.
To be honest, all Kings and Queens back then were a pain in the arse concerned only with their own maintenance, the people they ruled were only to be please so they could get more and more.
Good work if you can get it I guess.

AMK
xxx

The Stuarts were good enough from a Scottish point of view. Being Kafflick they tended to have a slightly more egalitarian view in that direction. But they did like a good bit of pampering.
To be honest, all Kings and Queens back then were a pain in the arse concerned only with their own maintenance, the people they ruled were only to be please so they could get more and more.
Good work if you can get it I guess.

AMK
xxx
I think the Stuarts got on better in Scotland because the Parliament there didn't come into conflict with the monarchy as much. Whether this was because the Stuarts were able to compramise or the Parliament was less active than its counterpartin England I don't know. The monarchs were well and truly interested in themselves, but Parliament was little better. The nineteenth century Corn laws spring to mind.

I think the Stuarts got on better in Scotland because the Parliament there didn't come into conflict with the monarchy as much. Whether this was because the Stuarts were able to compramise or the Parliament was less active than its counterpartin England I don't know. The monarchs were well and truly interested in themselves, but Parliament was little better. The nineteenth century Corn laws spring to mind.

hehe aye but at least the parliament was "democratic" In as much as if you were rich enough for the laws parliament set not to bother you, you got to vote for them. Supoib.
Scotland has a history of the Monarch being more of a leader as a "head of state" if that makes any sense. Scotland has been traditionally a more socialist consciousness than england with property in scotland being seen to be the belonging of the population as opposed to landowners. Hence the monarchy not representing the socially exclusive structure that it did south of the Tweed.

AMK
xxx

Not in Sheffield they don't.


Oh, please. America was hardly 'free from the outset' for Blacks, Women, Catholics and indentured servants. And communists (or rather, anyone accused of being a communist) in the twentieth century. And for a country is 'free from the outset' your government is good at holding people without trial and spying on your own citizens.

I'm not going to claim that our uncodified constitution is better. It isn't. It can be amended by Parliament at will, hence the government proposing 42 day detention despite the Habeas Corpus Act still being on the statute books. And I would very much like a written constitution and bill of rights limiting the government's power to infringe on basic rights and setting out the rules of the game.

But not having that yet doesn't make us an authoritarian hellhole. We didn't need Row vs. Wade to legalise abortion or homosexuality or freedom of speech because Parliament or the High Court has done it. All's well that ends well, eh?


We tried it after we committed regicide with Charles I. We ended up with a military dictator who banned Christmas, butchered Ireland and tried to become King himself.

Wow. With clairvoyance like that, why haven't you won the lottery? :rolleyes:

LOL!! Catholics were most certainly free from the outset, and I challenge you to find proof otherwise.
Indentured servitude was banned upon formation of the country as well, though slavery of course had to wait about 80 years since the South would have never joined the union otherwise, and at the time there was simply no good way to solve the problem. As it was, slavery was not the primary issue of the civil war... that was the ability to leave the Union.
Women were not free anywere in 1787, and most certainly not in the UK! Heck, there were Scottish-born serfs until 1799!
Communists? What about them? As bad/silly as the McCarthy era was, it wasn't like every American Communist was banned from voting and put into servitude. Sheesh.
So please, let's consider freedom in context, eh?

Which I agree with.

Didn't say it did. I was merely pointing out that your rights are subject to frequent change, and that's bad. Americans begin with freedoms, which may later be tweaked by laws (gun control, war on drugs, etc.) but as with Prohibition, it takes a LOT to take away a right... and it hasn't ever worked. The British, by comparison, begin with a Monarchy and are/were GRANTED rights over time.
IMO, the American model is better for personal liberty.

It's hardly our fault that the better elements of Britain were the ones that came here. ;) :D
If only you'd had a Washinton or Jefferson. (Though the Pitts were certainly capable, they were exceptions, unfortunately.)

Rightio, then. *shrugs* Can't really argue with someone so stubbornly afflicted with that viewpoint

Thanks. Yes, it must be horrible to have to deal with someone that wants you to have freedoms, and belives that the government that governs best is the one that governs the least.

did i hear free society and nannystate used in the same sentence? oh dear.
As far as i'm aware few societies are what could be described as free.
Nannystate, if compared to the US then yes the UK could be described as such.

Yep.
Depends on how one wishes to define it, but the number has been growing over time.
Thanks.

Not worried about them at all, with them being in a very low concentration outside of Gloucestershire and Greater London tbqh.

What the fuck are you actually talking about?

We don't have one place to refer to as a constitution so we're automatically less free? What kind of shite is that?

We had a republic and it was utter pish. Seriously.

... knife crime is down. This is an Actual Fact. Unlike media spin which is a way to sell papers to the thick and gullible.

Yesterday. Today. Maybe tomorrow. Everyday? Doubt it.

Already addressed ad nauseum in the thread, esp. a post or two above.

Yep. See a post or two above. And you have been arguing FOR being less free this entire thread with me. QED.

Yes, I know. Unfortunate. :(

You keep saying that, maybe you'll believe it.

You might want to look up the rather handily named Human Rights Act, and the related European Convention on Human Rights.

Yes, I know about it. Nice that it came out a mere 21 decades after the US Constitution/Bill of Rights, but not nearly as encompasing. A nice band-aid, but not a document to live by in my opinion. Eventually, it will be band-aided again.

And you tell me which one is easier for the common man to read?
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1851003
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=144

Markreich, you are still not giving light to why, if the constitution was so good, they had to ADD the part about free speech afterwards? If they were utterly free from the outset and the tweaks have been to curtail that, then brilliant, you are in a country where over time freedom will be eroded, wheras in the UK we are living in a country where over time freedom will be increased.

Secondly do you know the Spanish for republican?

AMK
xxx

I know enough about that sort of thing, thank you, sir. I specifically meant the .357 magnum round (hence the term, as opposed to the .38 Special it evolved from) which was developed in response to the body armour used by gangsters in the Prohibition Era, the sort that was used by Thomas Hamilton in Dunblane, a bullet which was developed to kill humans, pure and simple. And, by and large, as were 9mms fired by every other semi-automatic pistol. They aren't bullets which can be claimed to have been developed for the use in hunting, whilst shotgun cartridges can at least be claimed to be so. It's like the other poster in your vein, who tried to claim that Uzis, a gun made by the Israelis to allow their soldiers to kick out a big rate of fire, can be claimed as a hunting weapon. They bloody well can't. They weren't developed as such, and to say otherwise is essentially willful ignorance or wishful thinking that people they're arguing against knows fuck all about this sort of thing.

One thing that appals me is the fact that you, and other posters, are more than happy to gun down someone over a matter of property. Yes, it ain't nice to have your home broken into and someone nab your property (this indeed happened to me recently, although none of my personal stuff got nabbed - one of my housemates got their laptop nicked), but there's no way in hell I'd be happy to kill someone in order to protect what is basically stuff. By and large, at least in the UK, burglars will break into a house when those people are away, therefore avoiding any chance of a confrontation. If they were disturbed, they tend to leg it. Yes, you'll get the odd sort who doesn't give a shit, but then they'll be the sort of person to risk it with or without the risk of being shot - they're too desperate for drugs or just plain fucked up to give a shit. A gun or not won't protect you. Yes, you main gun 'em down before they get a chance to do any harm, but I couldn't do that, personally. I'd attempt to warn them off, and try to do so without hamring myself and preferably them, but I'd never shoot to kill (although one cannot actually shoot to injure - too risky). Killing them would be a last and very, very desperate resort, one I'd never go to. It's a particularly broken human being who'd happily kill an intruder, especially over something as basic as property, considering that by and large it'd be insured.

Ah! Nice to see you're knowledgeable, as it was unclear from your post what you exactly meant. My apologies, as I don't mean to offend.
Of course an Uzi isn't a hunting weapon. I just don't care what it's used for so long as one owns it legally (paid taxes, licensed, etc). Hang it over the fireplace for all I care.

And I'm more appalled that you and others like you would rather be beaten/raped/killed than fight back. C'est la vie. No, I'd much rather not ever shoot anybody. But if it's his life or my wife? I'm putting three .45 rounds into him. Not that anything after the first one really matters.

Since the invention of the tank? No.

Very stable until 02/03, which was mainly Harold Shipman's fault(who killed by giving his patients overstrength drugs, mainly). Fallen non-stop since then.

Incidentally, those figures aren't just for murder, they're also for manslaughter and infanticide.

Hmm. Cuba anyone? Iran over the Shah? Afghanistan v. CCCP? How about East Timor?
Heck, even North Viet Nam fielded very few tanks.

Ah! Nice to see you're knowledgeable, as it was unclear from your post what you exactly meant. My apologies, as I don't mean to offend.
Of course an Uzi isn't a hunting weapon. I just don't care what it's used for so long as one owns it legally (paid taxes, licensed, etc). Hang it over the fireplace for all I care.

And I'm more appalled that you and others like you would rather be beaten/raped/killed than fight back. C'est la vie. No, I'd much rather not ever shoot anybody. But if it's his life or my wife? I'm putting three .45 rounds into him. Not that anything after the first one really matters.

Just a wee point, but did you really have to digress into a childlike wankathon over the damage a bullet can do to a person. The whole "three .45 rounds" followed by "not that anything after the first one really matters" illucidates the silly gung ho enjoyment you get from thinking you are superior for owning and being knowledgeable about a way to propel metal objects into human flesh.
The use of a gun in any situation shows an innate failure on all parties to deal satisfactorilly with the preceeding problems. And a persons life should NEVER be taken to protect property.

AMK
xxx

Wow. With clairvoyance like that, why haven't you won the lottery? :rolleyes:

LOL!! Catholics were most certainly free from the outset, and I challenge you to find proof otherwise.
Indentured servitude was banned upon formation of the country as well, though slavery of course had to wait about 80 years since the South would have never joined the union otherwise, and at the time there was simply no good way to solve the problem. As it was, slavery was not the primary issue of the civil war... that was the ability to leave the Union.
Women were not free anywere in 1787, and most certainly not in the UK! Heck, there were Scottish-born serfs until 1799!
I couldn't say about Catholics, but shame about the blacks and the Indians eh.




Didn't say it did. I was merely pointing out that your rights are subject to frequent change, and that's bad. Americans begin with freedoms, which may later be tweaked by laws (gun control, war on drugs, etc.) but as with Prohibition, it takes a LOT to take away a right... and it hasn't ever worked.
The peripheral rights are subject to frequent change, the main ones are in the European Convention on Human Rights. Also, surely the requirement of a two thirds majority (I think) to change one of the amendments goes directly against the principles of representative democracy, namely that if the majority of people/their representatives feel a certain way, isn't it undemocratic to refuse it?


The British, by comparison, begin with a Monarchy and are/were GRANTED rights over time.
IMO, the American model is better for personal liberty.
You're making a false comparison, between a country that came together out of other countries developing for a thousand years or more, and one that got jumpstarted in the 18th century. Much of the American Constitution was based on existing common law and the English Bill of Rights.

Yes, I know about it. Nice that it came out a mere 21 decades after the US Constitution/Bill of Rights, but not nearly as encompasing. A nice band-aid, but not a document to live by in my opinion. Eventually, it will be band-aided again.

And you tell me which one is easier for the common man to read?
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1851003
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=144

This one seems pretty clear

http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/005.htm

Thats annoying, i asked 2 questions in 2 seperate posts and have not had an answer to either of them. I guess my face doesn't fit here...

AMK
xxx

They were very good questions, which possibly explains the lack of an answer.

Thats annoying, i asked 2 questions in 2 seperate posts and have not had an answer to either of them. I guess my face doesn't fit here...

AMK
xxx

You keep saying that, maybe you'll believe it.

If I link to the BCS (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb1107.pdf), which shows that knife crime halved between 1995 and the present day maybe he'll continue to believe it and with a small miracle you might believe it as well rather than just spouting a one liner over and over again like a broken record.

Wow. With clairvoyance like that, why haven't you won the lottery? :rolleyes:
Because, strangely enough, if people did carry guns around like loose change I'd know someone with a gun. I don't.

LOL!! Catholics were most certainly free from the outset, and I challenge you to find proof otherwise.
The reaction to Catholic immigration to Massachusetts? Admittedly anti-Catholicism was quickly eclipsed in the North by anti-Slavery (hence the Know-Nothings being replaced by the Republicans) but it remained in the South. Hence the P in WASP.

Indentured servitude was banned upon formation of the country as well, though slavery of course had to wait about 80 years since the South would have never joined the union otherwise, and at the time there was simply no good way to solve the problem. As it was, slavery was not the primary issue of the civil war... that was the ability to leave the Union.
That's quite a long way of admitting that African-Americans weren't free in the USA from the outset, and it took far longer than the years of the civil war to change that.

Women were not free anywere in 1787, and most certainly not in the UK! Heck, there were Scottish-born serfs until 1799!
Have I claimed otherwise? No. Proving Britian was unfree does not somehow prove that America is or was any better.

Communists? What about them? As bad/silly as the McCarthy era was, it wasn't like every American Communist was banned from voting and put into servitude. Sheesh.
Admittedly that was a bad example.

So please, let's consider freedom in context, eh?
Sure. America wasn't free from the outset. Blacks were not free whatever context you put it in. Hell, you didn't get your Bill of Rights until 15 years after independence. And it took longer for it to be applied to the individual States. And longer for loopholes to be closed.

Which I agree with.
And I'm quite sure most Brits would agree. However, despite a lack of a codified constitution, our rights and liberties are well protected. Your average American and your average Briton have and claim almost exactly the same rights which, by and large, are respected. Regardless of the means, the ends are the same.

Didn't say it did. I was merely pointing out that your rights are subject to frequent change, and that's bad. Americans begin with freedoms, which may later be tweaked by laws (gun control, war on drugs, etc.) but as with Prohibition, it takes a LOT to take away a right... and it hasn't ever worked. The British, by comparison, begin with a Monarchy and are/were GRANTED rights over time.
But it makes no difference. Regardless of how our systems evolved, we both have a liberal democracy where individuals have rights that are well respected. Both our countries are free societies.

[QUOTE=Markreich;13754212]IMO, the American model is better for personal liberty.
It's better for protecting personal liberty. Although we have almost identical freedoms, it's easier for our government to take them away, although not as easy as at first glance.

It's hardly our fault that the better elements of Britain were the ones that came here. ;) :D
No, to Canada. ;)

If only you'd had a Washinton or Jefferson. (Though the Pitts were certainly capable, they were exceptions, unfortunately.)
There are parallels, I think, between British Monarchism and American Republicanism in the eighteenth century. Both despised and feared any mention of democracy and wanted a nice gentleman's club of elites in charge, for example. I see them both as Whigs, especially considering many of the factors that drove people like Washington and Jefferson to support independence were, in britian, traditional Whiggish ones.

Thats annoying, i asked 2 questions in 2 seperate posts and have not had an answer to either of them. I guess my face doesn't fit here...

AMK
xxx
Don't worry, it does. ;)

LOL!! Catholics were most certainly free from the outset, and I challenge you to find proof otherwise.
The KKK ring a bell? Or how about "No Irish Need Apply"?

The KKK ring a bell? Or how about "No Irish Need Apply"?
It's just a case of ignoring those inconvenient parts for his argument.

the BBC is technically only a semi-autonomous public company Yep. Which ALSO gets gov't funds...
I get government funds in the form of a student loan. Surprisingly, once the money from the government (which originally comes from the people) pays for my education, I don't suddenly support the government in everything they do, or tell everyone that the government's great.

If you can show otherwise for the BBC then I'd be interested, but if not, we can drop this silly argument about whether the government 'controls' Auntie Beeb.

The UK has no single codified documentary constitution along the lines of the Constitution of the United States.
Yeeeeeesssss.

And?

Brits can point to MANY places, but not one and say THIS is undeniable.
True. We can point to MANY places, and say THESE are undeniable.

Plus, we don't get bogged down in arguments over whether "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" means militias of men carrying flintlocks should not be infringed or that any dude with enough cash to buy the machine-gun of his choice should not be infringed.

Nope, that's no typo. You said "You assume incorrectly"when I said that I assumed there was no legislation prescribing the purchase and ownership of cars to people who need them for specific purposes. So: does Britain make you state WHY you need a vehicle or not at time of purchase? No?
Ergo Nannystate.
I think we'll have to call it crossed wires on this one; the above makes little sense to me.

Oh really? So where then are all the North Korean, Chinese, and Viet Namese posters? How about the Cubans? The very reason why the Internet as a forum allows us to speak our minds is because our governments allow for Freedom of Speech!
How, exactly, does the US government provide freedom of speech on an internet forum hosted in the UK?

I refer you to here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13724099&postcount=11).


To defend one's God given and constitutional sovereignty in the event of a government, foreign or otherwise, suppression of those basic civil rights.
On an international, non-denominational forum, you're going to have to do better than appeals to the US Constitution and the Christian god.

Just a wee point, but did you really have to digress into a childlike wankathon over the damage a bullet can do to a person. The whole "three .45 rounds" followed by "not that anything after the first one really matters" illucidates the silly gung ho enjoyment you get from thinking you are superior for owning and being knowledgeable about a way to propel metal objects into human flesh.
The use of a gun in any situation shows an innate failure on all parties to deal satisfactorilly with the preceeding problems. And a persons life should NEVER be taken to protect property.

AMK
xxx

Not at all. I'm firmly aware of what a bullet does to the human body. I'm saying it with conviction, not glee.
I certainly don't consider owning a gun (also, note that I said "a"!) anything different from owning a Chrysler or a lawnmower. It has it's job, but like my smoke detector or First Aid Kit, I like that it hasn't been necessary.
Not necessarily, considering if the problem is home invasion or assault. You can't reason with people that want to do you harm, only those that MAY want to do you harm.
As for your last sentance, I simply disagree. Everyone's rights stop where someone else's rights start. If someone asks me for $5 for a sandwhich? Fine. If that person tries to kill/mug me for my wallet? Sorry, that's not fine. QED.

I couldn't say about Catholics, but shame about the blacks and the Indians eh.



The peripheral rights are subject to frequent change, the main ones are in the European Convention on Human Rights. Also, surely the requirement of a two thirds majority (I think) to change one of the amendments goes directly against the principles of representative democracy, namely that if the majority of people/their representatives feel a certain way, isn't it undemocratic to refuse it?


You're making a false comparison, between a country that came together out of other countries developing for a thousand years or more, and one that got jumpstarted in the 18th century. Much of the American Constitution was based on existing common law and the English Bill of Rights.

The blacks weren't citizens (by and large) at the time, but the freed ones were enfrancised.
Yes, it's a shame the way the UK handled India. :D

Legality mileage varys per country, of course. But here's a quick primer on US Amenment process: an Amendment must be proposed in Congress and passed by 2/3rds of both the House and Senate. This protects both large and small states, as large states have more House Reps (population based) and all states have 2 Senators.
OR the proposed Amendment is brought to the Federal Government by 2/3rds of the States (at this time, 33).
Both avenues are most certainly Representative, as the bodies of the House, Senate, or State Legislatures are all elected representatives.

Yes, jumpstarted because Pitt couldn't convince the rest of the British Government just how bad their treatment of the American Crisis was!
Yes, as well as many other docuements and ideas from ancient Greece, Rome, and some German elements. Of course it would be, as the majority of Colonials were from British heritage!

This one seems pretty clear

http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/005.htm

And the reason why the UK didn't "Copy & Paste" is... ?

I also like how Article 2 Section 1 bans abortion, and how vague article 3 is: can be read from either POV, just like some claim the US 2nd Amendment is a collective right to be in a militia. LOL!

Anyway, yes, it's a solid document. So, let's get back to the question:
And you tell me which one is easier for the common man to read?
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content...tDocId=1851003
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage....db&recNum=144

: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...

First they came for the guns
and I did not speak out
because I didn't have a gun.
Then they came for the knives
and I did not speak out
because I didn't have a knife.
Then they came for the hammers
and I did not speak out
because I didn't have a hammer.
Then they came for our freedom
and there was nothing left to secure it.

The blacks weren't citizens (by and large) at the time, but the freed ones were enfrancised.
Which I think makes his/her point. They weren't free.

Yes, it's a shame the way the UK handled India. :D
Strangely enough, no country can claim to have been the beacon of freedom in the eighteenth and nineteenth century, and that includes the United States.

First they came for the guns
and I did not speak out
because I didn't have a gun.
Then they came for the knives
and I did not speak out
because I didn't have a knife.
Then they came for the hammers
and I did not speak out
because I didn't have a hammer.
Then they came for our freedom
and there was nothing left to secure it.
We in the UK have been doing well enough with an almost entirely disarmed population for a while now. We started gun control before World War One.

First they came for the guns
and I did not speak out
because I didn't have a gun.
Then they came for the knives
and I did not speak out
because I didn't have a knife.
Then they came for the hammers
and I did not speak out
because I didn't have a hammer.
Then they came for our freedom
and there was nothing left to secure it.

whoever said that forgot he had hands to write that down, fists can still be applied, and if you have to knowing of the ninja skills you can take out most opponents.
not to mention communication is a better means to resolve differences of opinion than the old and nasty, beat each other up until the other is dead method.

Which I think makes his/her point. They weren't free.


Strangely enough, no country can claim to have been the beacon of freedom in the eighteenth and nineteenth century, and that includes the United States.

Greenland?

whoever said that forgot he had hands to write that down, fists can still be applied, and if you have to knowing of the ninja skills you can take out most opponents.
not to mention communication is a better means to resolve differences of opinion than the old and nasty, beat each other up until the other is dead method.

True true true, and while we are citeing platitudes allow me to add, 'The pen is mighty then the sword'

Greenland?
Run by Denmark at the time.

whoever said that forgot he had hands to write that down, fists can still be applied

If they want to take my fists, they will have to pry them from my cold dead hands.

If I link to the BCS (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb1107.pdf), which shows that knife crime halved between 1995 and the present day maybe he'll continue to believe it and with a small miracle you might believe it as well rather than just spouting a one liner over and over again like a broken record.


First, thanks for telling me exactly where to look. :rolleyes: That really helps make your case. So, if you're going to make a point, MAKE A POINT. Don't just throw a link out there with 193 pages and hope I'm not going to bother reading it.

Second, did you read your own souce?!? :o

* The word "knife" comes up only once, in a chart on page 71. Nice proof, chief. It isn't even historical!
* Page 63 (figure 3.7): Firearm violence is has DOUBLED over a 10 year period!!

...and these are POLICE statistics. It doesn't even include all the incidents that were never reported.
Listen, it's great that the police might be there in 5-15 minutes. Pity that you can be raped/killed in less than that. But still, we must stop illegal crime by taking away legal guns and knives!! [/sarcasm]

So please, POST something that makes your case, I'm tired of being told X and being shown... nothing!

True true true, and while we are citeing platitudes allow me to add, 'The pen is mighty then the sword'
reminds me of one of the Indiana Jones films they say that somewhere, and the guy sticks a pen in the guards eyeball. ewww.

Run by Denmark at the time.
ah of course, what about....Switzerland? or or Finland?
If they want to take my fists, they will have to pry them from my cold dead hands.

lol, uh now that's just confusing if you think about it.

ah of course, what about....Switzerland? or or Finland?
The former didn't enfranchise women (in some cantons) until the 1990s and Finland a part of the Russian Empire.;)

The former didn't enfranchise women (in some cantons) until the 1990s and Finland a part of the Russian Empire.;)

what about Iceland...no under Danish Rule right? or Indonesia?
wait a minute if Finland was a part of the Russian Empire why did it give it such a brilliant kicking in the Second world war? oh i suppose it gained independence from it earlier...Portugal that must have been okay. right?

And the reason why the UK didn't "Copy & Paste" is... ?

I also like how Article 2 Section 1 bans abortion, and how vague article 3 is: can be read from either POV, just like some claim the US 2nd Amendment is a collective right to be in a militia. LOL!

Anyway, yes, it's a solid document. So, let's get back to the question:
And you tell me which one is easier for the common man to read?
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content...tDocId=1851003
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage....db&recNum=144

:D

in 18th century english militia refers to every able bodied man.

what about Iceland...no under Danish Rule right? or Indonesia?
Iceland under Denmark, Indonesia under the Dutch, but I can't say when they secured it.

wait a minute if Finland was a part of the Russian Empire why did it give it such a brilliant kicking in the Second world war?
It became independent after 1917 - it wasn't technically integrated into the Russian Empire, but nonetheless a puppet state with the Tsar of Russia being Grand Duke of Finland. Once the Russian monarchy was abolished, the Finns had a pot at independence.

oh i suppose it gained independence from it earlier...Portugal that must have been okay. right?
Likely a semi-absolute monarchy. Doubt they had much truck with protestants.

in 18th century english militia refers to every able bodied man.

..and arms referred to muskets. How about limiting people only to muzzle loading smooth barreled weapons for that eighteenth century authenticity as well?

But still, we must stop illegal crime by taking away legal guns and knives!!

Thats quite a big misrepresentation of the problem though.

There are few legal guns in this country, and the point is to stop kis carrying knifes when they are out and about on the street.

Ask youself, for what legal reason would a teenager carry a knife?

Ask youself, for what legal reason would a teenager carry a knife?
*Is 19, is taking cutlery to another hall tonight*

Thats quite a big misrepresentation of the problem though.

There are few legal guns in this country, and the point is to stop kis carrying knifes when they are out and about on the street.

Ask youself, for what legal reason would a teenager carry a knife?

In case a bear escapes from a nearby Zoo and you need to defend yourself from it's deadly claws and teeth.
Or if you need to break into your own home, knives can be useful there too.
And you might buy a knife as a present for say a chef or someone of similar occupation.

Because, strangely enough, if people did carry guns around like loose change I'd know someone with a gun. I don't.


The reaction to Catholic immigration to Massachusetts? Admittedly anti-Catholicism was quickly eclipsed in the North by anti-Slavery (hence the Know-Nothings being replaced by the Republicans) but it remained in the South. Hence the P in WASP.


That's quite a long way of admitting that African-Americans weren't free in the USA from the outset, and it took far longer than the years of the civil war to change that.


Have I claimed otherwise? No. Proving Britian was unfree does not somehow prove that America is or was any better.


Admittedly that was a bad example.


Sure. America wasn't free from the outset. Blacks were not free whatever context you put it in. Hell, you didn't get your Bill of Rights until 15 years after independence. And it took longer for it to be applied to the individual States. And longer for loopholes to be closed.


And I'm quite sure most Brits would agree. However, despite a lack of a codified constitution, our rights and liberties are well protected. Your average American and your average Briton have and claim almost exactly the same rights which, by and large, are respected. Regardless of the means, the ends are the same.

But it makes no difference. Regardless of how our systems evolved, we both have a liberal democracy where individuals have rights that are well respected. Both our countries are free societies.

It's better for protecting personal liberty. Although we have almost identical freedoms, it's easier for our government to take them away, although not as easy as at first glance.

No, to Canada. ;)

There are parallels, I think, between British Monarchism and American Republicanism in the eighteenth century. Both despised and feared any mention of democracy and wanted a nice gentleman's club of elites in charge, for example. I see them both as Whigs, especially considering many of the factors that drove people like Washington and Jefferson to support independence were, in britian, traditional Whiggish ones.

Whelp, in that case I really can't argue with someone that enjoys being a target.

You mean, as opposed to Catholic immigration to Maryland? Or reaction to Indian immigration to South Africa? Or what? Sure, there was anti-Catholicism in Massachusettes at a time. But they weren't litigated against the way they were in... Britain! Hmm.
(BTW, yes, I am a Roman Catholic.) Heck, there is a strong anti-Catholic bias in Oklahoma even today, but my friend's wife married him anyway.

*Some* blacks were free on the outset, some won their freedom fighting in the Revolutionary War (and later, Civil War). What of it? I never stated that everyone with rights today had them automatically in 1787, just that the citizens of the country did.
As I recall, Swiss women didn't get the vote until the 1990. Millions of veterans after WW1 still didn't have the vote, which brought on the Representation of the People Act 1918.
Let's pause here and consider that: The Representation of the People Act 1918 widened suffrage by abolishing practically all property qualifications for men and by enfranchising women over 30 who met minimum property qualifications.
So let's hold everyone to the same standards, eh? Nowhere in the world had the level of individual freedoms that the US had in 1787, or even 1865, and I'd argue even in 2008.
(Though some do come very close.)

Actually, yes, it WAS better, as proven by the various Reform Acts. Yes, we've had two Amendments on the matter, but that's not five!

Fair enough, you're free to try another example if you'd like.

America was most certainly free on the outset. There were no property requirements for voting in 1787, all free (read: not enslaved) men of majority age were free to vote. For the time, that's everyone.
Even slaves were counted (albeit as 3/5 : 1) for population purposes to determine the number of House seats a state got. And different states banned slavery at different times: Rhode Island in 1774, Delaware in 1789, and Georgia in 1818.
Were there missteps? Of course. Pennsylvania and Mississippi should have never taken away the right of blacks to vote in 1837. Free blacks were denied citizenship in North Carolina in 1844, etc.

I agree, Brits and Americans do enjoy many of the same rights. I'm just against this whole nannystate mindset.

Canada? You mean states 51-63? :D
(PS: Given their British population is about that of Australia, I think it safe to say you made my point again!)

That's a fair assessment. Too many people try to look at history from a modern prism instead of that of the time they're considering.

Thats quite a big misrepresentation of the problem though.

There are few legal guns in this country, and the point is to stop kis carrying knifes when they are out and about on the street.

Ask youself, for what legal reason would a teenager carry a knife?

Is he over 18? He doesn't need any reason.
Is he under 18? He has no reason.

..and arms referred to muskets. How about limiting people only to muzzle loading smooth barreled weapons for that eighteenth century authenticity as well?

You forgot to also bring back horses, carrier pigeons, all wool clothing and ban computers, cars and air conditioning to say the least! :)

Which I think makes his/her point. They weren't free.


Strangely enough, no country can claim to have been the beacon of freedom in the eighteenth and nineteenth century, and that includes the United States.

Your first statment counters your first as well.

My POV is that the citizens of the time were free. Some blacks were, most were not.

We in the UK have been doing well enough with an almost entirely disarmed population for a while now. We started gun control before World War One.

Yes, and we had to arm you for World War Two.

After the fall of Dunkirk, Britain found itself short of arms for island defense. The Home Guard had to drill with canes, umbrellas, spears, pikes, and clubs. When citizens could find a gun, it was generally a sporting shotgun - ill-suited for military use because of it's short range and bulky ammunition.

British government advertisements in U.S. newspapers and magazines asked Americans to 'Send a Gun to Defend a British Home - British civilians, faced with threat of invasion, desperately need arms for the defense of their homes." The ads pleaded for 'Pistols, Rifles, Revolvers, Shotguns, and Binoculars from American citizens who wish to answer the call and aid in defense of British homes.

Pro-Allied organizations in the United States collected weapons; the National Rifle Association shipped SEVEN THOUSAND (emphasis mine) guns to Britain, which also purchased surplus WWI Engield rifles from America's Department Of War.

Prime Minister Winston Churchill's book 'Their Finest Hour' recalls the arrival of the loads of guns. Churchill personally supervised the deliveries to ensure that they were sent on fast ships and distributed first to Home Guard members in coastal zones. Churchill thought that the American donations were 'entirely on a diferent level from anything we have transported across the Atlantic except for the Canadial division itself.

Churchill warned his First Lord that 'the loss of these rifles and field-guns would be a disaster of the first order.' Their Finest Hour recalled: 'When the ships from America approached our shores with their pricless arms special trains were waiting in all the ports to receive their cargos. The Home Guard in every county, in every town, in every village, sat up all through the night to receive them....By the end of July we were an armed nation... a lot of our men and some women had weapons in their hands.'

So 18 is the magic point at which a person ceases to stab people?

Is that your majority age? If you've been reading, I'm advocating civil rights, not lawlessness.

Is he over 18? He doesn't need any reason.
Is he under 18? He has no reason.

So 18 is the magic point at which a person ceases to stab people?

First, thanks for telling me exactly where to look. :rolleyes: That really helps make your case. So, if you're going to make a point, MAKE A POINT. Don't just throw a link out there with 193 pages and hope I'm not going to bother reading it.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought that doing a search for the word knife in the document, looking at the data for knife crimes then going on to compare iot with the time frame of your choice was within your faculties. I apologise, I clearly overestimated you.

Second, did you read your own souce?!? :o

* The word "knife" comes up only once, in a chart on page 71. Nice proof, chief. It isn't even historical!
* Page 63 (figure 3.7): Firearm violence is has DOUBLED over a 10 year period!!

This is where one would realise that knife incidents formed 7% of all viiolent incidents, or 170000 incidents in total. One could then compare that figure with data from other sources, such as this BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7421534.stm). If knife crime forms the same proportion of violent crime that it formed ten years ago, and violent crime has fallen 41 percent then knife incidents must have fallen 41 percent.

...and these are POLICE statistics. It doesn't even include all the incidents that were never reported.
Listen, it's great that the police might be there in 5-15 minutes. Pity that you can be raped/killed in less than that. But still, we must stop illegal crime by taking away legal guns and knives!! [/sarcasm]

Ahahaha! Epic fail. The British Cime Survey is a survey of victimisation - not police reported crime. If you took the time to read the introduction maybe you would have realised that.

So, now that I have clearly shown you that knife crime has fallen substantially, can I assume you will stop claiming it is not falling?

Whelp, in that case I really can't argue with someone that enjoys being a target.
Of course. I don't have an AK-47 in my back pocket, so I stick a sign saying 'shoot me' on the back of my head.

Oh, wait, hang on sec...

You mean, as opposed to Catholic immigration to Maryland? Or reaction to Indian immigration to South Africa? Or what? Sure, there was anti-Catholicism in Massachusettes at a time. But they weren't litigated against the way they were in... Britain! Hmm.
(BTW, yes, I am a Roman Catholic.) Heck, there is a strong anti-Catholic bias in Oklahoma even today, but my friend's wife married him anyway.
Yes. And? I've never claimed that Britian was 'free from the outset'. I know that Britian, like America, strongly discriminated against Catholics until relatively recently. Very recently, in parts of the USA.

*Some* blacks were free on the outset, some won their freedom fighting in the Revolutionary War (and later, Civil War). What of it? I never stated that everyone with rights today had them automatically in 1787, just that the citizens of the country did.
So, to paraphrase, 'all people are free, some just freer than other'. If that's how one defines freedom, i'll have none of it.

-snip-
One piece of historical pedantry first: the Representation of the People Act, 1918 abolished all Property qualifications for men only.

You seem to be betting heavily on suffrage equating to freedom. If that's the case, the Soviet Union was freer than the UK until 1928, when universal suffrage (over the age of 21) was introduced. The USA could have had universal suffrage from 1776, but without prevention of vote rigging, prevention of intimidation, prevention of bribery and prevention of gerrymandering, for example, universal suffrage means very little. I doubt a black man from Alabama could claim that he had universal suffrage in the 1950s, say. The same could apply to immigrants in the pre-Civil War era of nativist politics in New England. Or Communist candidates in the McCarthyite era. (I made it relevant!)

And I seriously doubt that a Mississippi slave would claim to be free because he had the luxury of being counted as three fifths for enumeration for seats in an election where he had no chance of voting. This really is clutching at straws.

And while the Bill of Rights has been amended twice, it still doesn't grant anyone a specific right to vote. That right is eneumerated in State and Federal stautes, just as it is in the United Kingdom statutes.

As a general point, you seem to be prepared to put a great many caveats in your definition of freedom to do with 'missteps' and definitions of citizenship. I don't see this as being consistent with the basic tenets of freedom. In a free society one's rights have to be universal and applied/respected universally. One can't claim to have a free society but claim that those principles of freedom does not apply to a specific minority (or majority), but that's just personal freedom.

I agree, Brits and Americans do enjoy many of the same rights. I'm just against this whole nannystate mindset.
We do. The only right you have that we don't is to keep and bear arms. And whether you like it or not, any government that tried to put that into the British constitution would be voted out of office. If it were entrenched with supermajorities to protect it like in America, it would still be repealed. There is simply no mood for it among any of the British electorate, or a single lobby group for it.

As for the nannystate mindset, that's something else.

Canada? You mean states 51-63? :D
(PS: Given their British population is about that of Australia, I think it safe to say you made my point again!)
I doubt either of us had a point to make...

That's a fair assessment. Too many people try to look at history from a modern prism instead of that of the time they're considering.
Something that I'm guilty of, but I think it's well justified. Would a slavowner in Louisiana considered or a British Governor in Africa consider his society free? Of course. Definitions of freedom, rights and citizenship have changed a lot over the past few years, but in this discussion, we've been discussing freedom on terms relative to today, not the past. If the United Kingdom was to adopt a nineteenth century view of politics and model its constitution on nineteenth century America (even though there were many broad similarities between the ideology of British and American governments, and would both never admit it), neither of us would describe Britain as free.

-snip-
And? When it was necessary to expand our military beyond usual levels, and we lost most of our weapons in the evacualtion, we bought arms from our allies. Can't say it didn't work.

And the reason why the UK didn't "Copy & Paste" is... ?

Because it was setting up exactly how that convention would interact with current law, sovereingty etc. A better comparison would be the constitution with all the explanatory supreme court judgements and interpretations that have had to be tacked on to it over the years.



Yes, and we had to arm you for World War Two.

Firstly we'd just lost a shedload evacuating Dunkirk. And secondly the Home Guard was a complete bluff and morale boosting exercise. Its actual military capabilities and expected capabilities were practically zero.

America was most certainly free on the outset.
Only if, as has been already noted, your definition of 'free' is rather skewed.

Look, this isn't a game of 'who's country has the free-est cock', it's a simple point that arguing that America was a shining beacon of freedom to all in the 18th century is disengenuous at best.

I'm just against this whole nannystate mindset.
Could you explain exactly what you mean by the above, please? 'Nanny State' is such a loose term.

The Home Guard in every county, in every town, in every village, sat up all through the night to receive them....By the end of July we were an armed nation... a lot of our men and some women had weapons in their hands.'
Who would have been efficiently slaughtered if the German Army entered the UK.

I don't see the point of all this guff about WW2. You're trying to suggest... what? That Britain is less free because we don't have guns to die against Nazis with?

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought that doing a search for the word knife in the document, looking at the data for knife crimes then going on to compare iot with the time frame of your choice was within your faculties. I apologise, I clearly overestimated you.



This is where one would realise that knife incidents formed 7% of all viiolent incidents, or 170000 incidents in total. One could then compare that figure with data from other sources, such as this BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7421534.stm). If knife crime forms the same proportion of violent crime that it formed ten years ago, and violent crime has fallen 41 percent then knife incidents must have fallen 41 percent.



Ahahaha! Epic fail. The British Cime Survey is a survey of victimisation - not police reported crime. If you took the time to read the introduction maybe you would have realised that.

So, now that I have clearly shown you that knife crime has fallen substantially, can I assume you will stop claiming it is not falling?

Excuse me, but it is NOT my job to make your arguement for you! You put up a link with a huge amount of information without and references. That's like saying that Evolution is wrong by lazilly pointing towards a Bible. :rolleyes:

I also want to thank you for actually posting something to look at. It's a refreshing change of pace. However, that statistic you cite isn't what you think it is:
You're measuring/quoting PROPORTIONS, not total numbers. Guess what? If there were 40 incidents in 1000 one year and 70 incidents in 2000 another, the proportion is down even if the number of incidents is UP!!! Where's the actual numbers? I don't see them! Nice proof.

Epic failure? On the police's part maybe. Reread what you just said: the report doesn't measure crime.

So far all you've clearly shown that you have questionable research skills and grasp of statistical analysis.

Only if, as has been already noted, your definition of 'free' is rather skewed.

Look, this isn't a game of 'who's country has the free-est cock', it's a simple point that arguing that America was a shining beacon of freedom to all in the 18th century is disengenuous at best.


Could you explain exactly what you mean by the above, please? 'Nanny State' is such a loose term.


Who would have been efficiently slaughtered if the German Army entered the UK.

I don't see the point of all this guff about WW2. You're trying to suggest... what? That Britain is less free because we don't have guns to die against Nazis with?

Nope, my definition of free is historically defined. Comparing 2008 UK vs. 1808 US is absurd, and I'm sure not what you're proposing anyway. By any rationality, one must compare two like things. Or is it okay to take a modern Land Rover back in time and call the ones from 50 years ago crap? C'mon! There's no way to apply modern human rights/soceital acceptances (read: post WW1) to most of the human experience.

Hey, if you want to cast America as first among disenfrancising bastards, that's fine with me. Just keep in mind that every other nation in that era (especially!) fall behind the US in terms of personal liberty.

Nannystate: The government saving you from anything you might do that might possibly be dangerous to oneself. It's all a matter of personal responsibility. People should DECIDE to smoke/drink/take drugs or not, not have crippling taxes put on "sins" or laws enacted banning X. People should DECIDE to use contraception/birth control/have abortions, not have it legislated down to them. Same with weapons, voting, et al.
In short, the people should be free to do whatever they want so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. My having a .45 in my jacket or drinking a whikey is fine. My waving the .45 around in public or drinking and driving are not, as they effect others.

Against a whole Army? Sure. So what did you round up downed Luftwaffe with, pitchforks and hoes? As I recall the home guard was issuing bayonets-on-a-stick due to the lack of firearms. But let's consider what would have happened in Japan had the US had to invade: everyone armed, probably 1 million US casualties and guerilla warfare for possibly years. Same with Viet Nam, Afghanistan v anyone, and even Iraq today (though of course that last situation is a little harder to classify due to the disparite groups).

No, I'm pointing out that you're mostly indefensible against someone trying to do you harm.

And? When it was necessary to expand our military beyond usual levels, and we lost most of our weapons in the evacualtion, we bought arms from our allies. Can't say it didn't work.

Huh? I'm talking about the arming of your populace by American gun drives, NOT arming the British army.

Because it was setting up exactly how that convention would interact with current law, sovereingty etc. A better comparison would be the constitution with all the explanatory supreme court judgements and interpretations that have had to be tacked on to it over the years.

Firstly we'd just lost a shedload evacuating Dunkirk. And secondly the Home Guard was a complete bluff and morale boosting exercise. Its actual military capabilities and expected capabilities were practically zero.

Aha! So they made it impossible to read. And BTW, that reason you cited is one of the many why the US refuses to join certain international treaties. :D
So you're saying that the UK courts don't set any precidents? Wow!

Uh huh. And who rounded up downed Luftwaffe and watched the coasts?

Yes. And? I've never claimed that Britian was 'free from the outset'. I know that Britian, like America, strongly discriminated against Catholics until relatively recently. Very recently, in parts of the USA.

So, to paraphrase, 'all people are free, some just freer than other'. If that's how one defines freedom, i'll have none of it.


One piece of historical pedantry first: the Representation of the People Act, 1918 abolished all Property qualifications for men only.

You seem to be betting heavily on suffrage equating to freedom. If that's the case, the Soviet Union was freer than the UK until 1928, when universal suffrage (over the age of 21) was introduced. The USA could have had universal suffrage from 1776, but without prevention of vote rigging, prevention of intimidation, prevention of bribery and prevention of gerrymandering, for example, universal suffrage means very little. I doubt a black man from Alabama could claim that he had universal suffrage in the 1950s, say. The same could apply to immigrants in the pre-Civil War era of nativist politics in New England. Or Communist candidates in the McCarthyite era. (I made it relevant!)

And I seriously doubt that a Mississippi slave would claim to be free because he had the luxury of being counted as three fifths for enumeration for seats in an election where he had no chance of voting. This really is clutching at straws.

And while the Bill of Rights has been amended twice, it still doesn't grant anyone a specific right to vote. That right is eneumerated in State and Federal stautes, just as it is in the United Kingdom statutes.

As a general point, you seem to be prepared to put a great many caveats in your definition of freedom to do with 'missteps' and definitions of citizenship. I don't see this as being consistent with the basic tenets of freedom. In a free society one's rights have to be universal and applied/respected universally. One can't claim to have a free society but claim that those principles of freedom does not apply to a specific minority (or majority), but that's just personal freedom.


We do. The only right you have that we don't is to keep and bear arms. And whether you like it or not, any government that tried to put that into the British constitution would be voted out of office. If it were entrenched with supermajorities to protect it like in America, it would still be repealed. There is simply no mood for it among any of the British electorate, or a single lobby group for it.

As for the nannystate mindset, that's something else.


Something that I'm guilty of, but I think it's well justified. Would a slavowner in Louisiana considered or a British Governor in Africa consider his society free? Of course. Definitions of freedom, rights and citizenship have changed a lot over the past few years, but in this discussion, we've been discussing freedom on terms relative to today, not the past. If the United Kingdom was to adopt a nineteenth century view of politics and model its constitution on nineteenth century America (even though there were many broad similarities between the ideology of British and American governments, and would both never admit it), neither of us would describe Britain as free.

Discrimination =/= legal persecution. Which was why so many settlers CAME from the UK in the first place, remember? If you can cite any specific US anti-Catholic legislation, I'm all ears. (I will concede the Chinese Discrimination Acts, but they kind of pale in comparison to what the Puritans, Quakers and Catholics in England put up with...)
As for recently... how recently, and compared to what? The until recently shoddy treatment of the Scots, Irish and Welsh? :D

Defines? No. But you must agree that one must be a citizen to be subject to the rights of any country. At the time, nowhere on EARTH considered women or slaves to be citizens equal to freed men (yes, most of whom were white). I'm fine with you "having none of it today", but the fact is you can't rail against yesterday.

Re: PA 1918: Thanks for making my point.
Re: Soviets: Only if you consider Abolute Monarchy freeer (up to 1918), or Civil War to be freedom. I don't. But in terms of Universal Suffrage they did get there quickly.
The US could NOT have had Universal Suffrage in 1787 (that's a correction: 1776 we didn't have a Constitution yet, or for that matter a country!) Simply put, the South woudn't allow Emancipation (and there were MANY debates on that) and society wasn't ready for women's equality.
How did you make the Communist arguement relevant? As discussed before, THERE WAS NO LITIGATION AGAINST BEING A COMMUNIST! Discrimination? Sure. But that's not the same now is it?

Didn't say that that slave in Mississippi would, just that the Emapcipation of slaves was a process, not a Big Bang.

Oh really? Funny, The Bill of Rights most CERTAINLY grants the right to vote:

Amendment XV
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Amendment XIX
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Amendment XXVI
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.


Actually, no. I'm prepared to put a great many caveats in my definition of freedom that one must consider THE TIMES. Complaining about X in the past is going to be like our far future citizens looking back at us today fighting over gay rights or abortion and considering us to be primitive. Consider that for a second: you're arguing about discriminations from centuries ago which were the SOCIAL NORM! As unhappy as I am about how things were back then, I can't change them now can I? No. So we must look at (in this case Freedom) through the prism of the times.

Aha! So we can agree on that after all. :)

There were this huge discussion here in Brazil when UK's police murdered a Brazilian guy in the London subway apparently just because he "looked like a terrorist". No questions asked, no talking, just a shot.

At least that's what Brazilian press said

More here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles

At least that's what Brazilian press said



To our shame that pretty much was what happened.

Could you explain exactly what you mean by the above, please? 'Nanny State' is such a loose term.




Your nannystate is a loose term ;)

I'm just messin' around man, y'all should lighten up. Take things less personally

And all Brazilians are terrorists at heart...

Again, I jest. They aren't. I love my Brazilians.

Discrimination =/= legal persecution. Which was why so many settlers CAME from the UK in the first place, remember? If you can cite any specific US anti-Catholic legislation, I'm all ears.
You don't have to have legal persecution for persecution to happen. Persecution was always illegal but those in government turned a blind eye to violence committed against, in this case, Catholic immigrants. But I'm sure anyone with any knoledge of the history of the American south would know that persecution doesn't have to be legal to happen, and as an afterthought, that what happened there applied to Catholics as well as Blacks.

(I will concede the Chinese Discrimination Acts, but they kind of pale in comparison to what the Puritans, Quakers and Catholics in England put up with...)

As for recently... how recently, and compared to what? The until recently shoddy treatment of the Scots, Irish and Welsh? :D
I'll repeat myself again. Just because the United Kingdom treated people badly in the past does NOT mean that the United States was free from the outset. You can point to all sorts of British inequalities, dictatorships and infringements on liberties, but I'm not the one claiming that the United kingdom was free from the outset. Unlike you, I am aware that my country was not free for a great many people two hundred years ago. Pointing fingers at the UK does not a free America make.

Oh, and when I was thinking of 'recently' I was thinking of more recently than the late nineteenth century.
Defines? No. But you must agree that one must be a citizen to be subject to the rights of any country. At the time, nowhere on EARTH considered women or slaves to be citizens equal to freed men (yes, most of whom were white). I'm fine with you "having none of it today", but the fact is you can't rail against yesterday.
I'm not asking anybody to rail against yesterday. I'm asking you to aknowlege that your country wasn't free from the outset, just like every other country.

Re: PA 1918: Thanks for making my point.
Re: Soviets: Only if you consider Abolute Monarchy freeer (up to 1918), or Civil War to be freedom. I don't. But in terms of Universal Suffrage they did get there quickly.
Which absolute monarchy? We were talking about Britain here, and Britian hasn't been an absolute monarchy since the Civil War, which was caused by a monarch who broke the tradition of Britain not being an absolute monarchy.

The US could NOT have had Universal Suffrage in 1787 (that's a correction: 1776 we didn't have a Constitution yet, or for that matter a country!) Simply put, the South woudn't allow Emancipation (and there were MANY debates on that) and society wasn't ready for women's equality.
Well, you had elected State legislatures in 1776, so the point(whether yours or mine, I can't remember) still stands. And I'd like you to tell me how society not 'being ready' for women's equality waives the parts of the definition of freedom that require women to have rights equal to men. Does the Sudan have the right to exterminate the Darfur based on the argument that the Arab society 'not ready' for equality, or that China is 'not ready' to gove equality to the Faulun Gong, or that Britain was 'not ready' (if you want a period example) to give equality to the Scots and Irish? If America was 'not ready' for Black and Women's equality, and thus free, then you can't claim Britain wasn't because of Quakers and Irish.

How did you make the Communist arguement relevant? As discussed before, THERE WAS NO LITIGATION AGAINST BEING A COMMUNIST! Discrimination? Sure. But that's not the same now is it?
And what do free societies do..? Discriminatation based on political persuasion isn't one of them.

Didn't say that that slave in Mississippi would, just that the Emapcipation of slaves was a process, not a Big Bang.
And how, pray, did that make them free? Oh, right, they weren't citizens. makes it OK, right?

You've shown repeated opposition to the idea of the evolution of British constitutional rights as it makes us less free. Yet now you're claiming that American concepts of rights can incrementally evolve. Why?

Oh really? Funny, The Bill of Rights most CERTAINLY grants the right to vote:

Amendment XV
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Amendment XIX
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Amendment XXVI
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.

Yes. Which part of this grants a right to vote? If this does grant a right to vote, why was the South successfully able to disenfranchsie Blacks until the end of the Civil Rights Era? Just because one cannot discriminate based on race, gender or age over 18 does not mean that other methods can and have been used to achieve something similar. It's a gaping loophole.

The US constitution most certainatly does not grant the right to vote.

Actually, no. I'm prepared to put a great many caveats in my definition of freedom that one must consider THE TIMES. Complaining about X in the past is going to be like our far future citizens looking back at us today fighting over gay rights or abortion and considering us to be primitive. Consider that for a second: you're arguing about discriminations from centuries ago which were the SOCIAL NORM! As unhappy as I am about how things were back then, I can't change them now can I? No. So we must look at (in this case Freedom) through the prism of the times.
There are plenty of people now who would consider American societial attitudes to abortion and gay marriage primitive and unfree. And future observers will likely denounce that kind of society unfree. Just because it was the social norm back then does not make that society in any way free. It was the social norm in Britian to doscriminate aginst Irish, you used that as an argument that Britian was unfree, yet you do not seem to apply the same logic when it comes to blacks or women or Catholics or native Americans, many of whom would have had similar experiences in the United Kingdom and the United States, assuming they were there).

By saying that the United States was 'free from the outset' one is either claiming that the United States was free by our standards, if you use the standard of the 1700s and 1800s, it merely becomes platitudes.

I've no problem with a debate over whether one ought to use the 'modern' or 'historical' definition of freedom. It's good practice for my exams, at any rate. What I do have a problem with is allowing America to use the 'historical' definition while judging the UK with the 'modern' one. If you want to use a yardstick, use the same one for my country as yours, and either both the United Kingdom AND the United States were either both free or both unfree.

Aha! So we can agree on that after all. :)
For all that is holy, can't you work out that I've never, ever in a million years argued that it was?:p

You're measuring/quoting PROPORTIONS, not total numbers. Guess what? If there were 40 incidents in 1000 one year and 70 incidents in 2000 another, the proportion is down even if the number of incidents is UP!!! Where's the actual numbers? I don't see them! Nice proof.

Your inability to see the numbers sounds like a personal problem - they are right there on page 54. 2,471,000 violent incidents. 7% of 2,471,000 is about 170,000. Now, with knife incidents in the same proportion as they were in 1995 (I never said that the proportion changed - I don't know where you got that information) and violent incidents down 41% (thats gross, not proportional) that means that knife crime has also fallen by 41%. When something falls by 41% thats usually considered quite a significant drop and it certainly isn't an increase as you continually claim although I sincerely hope you will stop making that ridiculous claim now.

Epic failure? On the police's part maybe. Reread what you just said: the report doesn't measure crime.

I didn't say that. You made the erroneous claim that this was a measure of reported crime (clearly showing that you did not read the introduction), which as you correctly pointed out would be inaccurate as not all crimes are reported to police. However, as I already said the BCS is a crime survey - conducted by the Home Office, not the police - which allows it to estimate crime which has occurred (by simply asking people) rather than crime that has been reported. You are welcome to try and take issue with the methodology that the BCS uses but I should warn you beforehand that it is a highly respected publication.

People should DECIDE to smoke/drink/take drugs or not, not have crippling taxes put on "sins" or laws enacted banning X. People should DECIDE to use contraception/birth control/have abortions, not have it legislated down to them. In short, the people should be free to do whatever they want so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others.
I'd quite agree, with perhaps some caveats/change of language.

My having a .45 in my jacket or drinking a whikey is fine. My waving the .45 around in public or drinking and driving are not, as they effect others.
My only worry would be that one could argue the very act of carrying a deadly weapon infringes somewhere. It's all well and good talking about 'personal responsibility', 'guns as tools' and all that jazz, but the British public is incredibly reluctant to go down the path of US-style gun legislation, and the gun crime that seems to inevitably follow it. What's interesting are those countries, such as Canada, who have fairly liberal gun laws, yet low numbers of gun crimes.

No, I'm pointing out that you're mostly indefensible against someone trying to do you harm.
The bombings in London in 2007, perpetrated by UK citizens, and all the violence in NI during the Troubles show that to be false.

No, I'm pointing out that you're mostly indefensible against someone trying to do you harm.

You have a serious lack of imagination

Aha! So they made it impossible to read. And BTW, that reason you cited is one of the many why the US refuses to join certain international treaties. :D
So you're saying that the UK courts don't set any precidents? Wow!

No. Just that rather than make a law and let judges interpret it in ways those writing it might not have wished it interpreted, they put it in legal language to make sure it worked the way they wanted it to work.


Uh huh. And who rounded up downed Luftwaffe and watched the coasts?

Chain Home (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_Home)

Then the royal observer corps when inland. It's true that the home guard took over some anti-aircraft guns later in the war, but that was primarily in 1944 when German air raids on Britain were pretty much non-existant.

The Home Guard saw much more service as a sort of wartime police force than as any sort of anti-invasion force. The army generals mostly hated them because they were of very little use but got resources from Churchill to boost morale. They were notoriously badly armed for the majority of the war and had no need to be armed for any real actions they were expected to undertake.

There was within the Home Guard an Army formed group (can't remember the proper military name for it) of guerilla fighters but they were army run and supplied rather than being any sort of civilian defence force.

There were this huge discussion here in Brazil when UK's police murdered a Brazilian guy in the London subway apparently just because he "looked like a terrorist".
He matched the description of one of the 7/7 bombers, surveillance offers mistakenly identified him as checking if he was being tailed and when he boarded a tube train the armed policeman got trigger happy.

Not that I'm condoning it, just trying to be accurate.

You don't have to have legal persecution for persecution to happen. Persecution was always illegal but those in government turned a blind eye to violence committed against, in this case, Catholic immigrants. But I'm sure anyone with any knoledge of the history of the American south would know that persecution doesn't have to be legal to happen, and as an afterthought, that what happened there applied to Catholics as well as Blacks.


I'll repeat myself again. Just because the United Kingdom treated people badly in the past does NOT mean that the United States was free from the outset. You can point to all sorts of British inequalities, dictatorships and infringements on liberties, but I'm not the one claiming that the United kingdom was free from the outset. Unlike you, I am aware that my country was not free for a great many people two hundred years ago. Pointing fingers at the UK does not a free America make.


I'm not asking anybody to rail against yesterday. I'm asking you to aknowlege that your country wasn't free from the outset, just like every other country.


Which absolute monarchy? We were talking about Britain here, and Britian hasn't been an absolute monarchy since the Civil War, which was caused by a monarch who broke the tradition of Britain not being an absolute monarchy.


Well, you had elected State legislatures in 1776, so the point(whether yours or mine, I can't remember) still stands. And I'd like you to tell me how society not 'being ready' for women's equality waives the parts of the definition of freedom that require women to have rights equal to men. Does the Sudan have the right to exterminate the Darfur based on the argument that the Arab society 'not ready' for equality, or that China is 'not ready' to gove equality to the Faulun Gong, or that Britain was 'not ready' (if you want a period example) to give equality to the Scots and Irish? If America was 'not ready' for Black and Women's equality, and thus free, then you can't claim Britain wasn't because of Quakers and Irish.


And what do free societies do..? Discriminatation based on political persuasion isn't one of them.


And how, pray, did that make them free? Oh, right, they weren't citizens. makes it OK, right?

You've shown repeated opposition to the idea of the evolution of British constitutional rights as it makes us less free. Yet now you're claiming that American concepts of rights can incrementally evolve. Why?


Yes. Which part of this grants a right to vote? If this does grant a right to vote, why was the South successfully able to disenfranchsie Blacks until the end of the Civil Rights Era? Just because one cannot discriminate based on race, gender or age over 18 does not mean that other methods can and have been used to achieve something similar. It's a gaping loophole.

The US constitution most certainatly does not grant the right to vote.


There are plenty of people now who would consider American societial attitudes to abortion and gay marriage primitive and unfree. And future observers will likely denounce that kind of society unfree. Just because it was the social norm back then does not make that society in any way free. It was the social norm in Britian to doscriminate aginst Irish, you used that as an argument that Britian was unfree, yet you do not seem to apply the same logic when it comes to blacks or women or Catholics or native Americans, many of whom would have had similar experiences in the United Kingdom and the United States, assuming they were there).

By saying that the United States was 'free from the outset' one is either claiming that the United States was free by our standards, if you use the standard of the 1700s and 1800s, it merely becomes platitudes.

I've no problem with a debate over whether one ought to use the 'modern' or 'historical' definition of freedom. It's good practice for my exams, at any rate. What I do have a problem with is allowing America to use the 'historical' definition while judging the UK with the 'modern' one. If you want to use a yardstick, use the same one for my country as yours, and either both the United Kingdom AND the United States were either both free or both unfree.


For all that is holy, can't you work out that I've never, ever in a million years argued that it was?:p

Ah, but that persecution is then ILLEGAL. For example, the US apology (and reparations) for the internment of Japanese in WW2 or the jailing of Klan members.
And again, I agree, persecution does happen. But I'm still harping that barring the Chinese Exclusion Acts, the US didn't have laws on the books for persecution, unlike the UK. Ergo, the point you're trying to make falls a bit short.

I'll repeat myself again. The United States was much freer than any other country on Earth in 1787, and remained so for quite some time (and arguably into today). Just because I'm pointing out that the United Kingdom treated people badly in the past does NOT mean that the United States was sinless from the outset.
You can point to all sorts of American inequalities and infringements on liberties, but I'm not the one claiming that the United States was a utopia from the outset. Unlike you, I am aware that my country was free for a great many people two hundred years ago. Pointing fingers at the prejudices of the past does not a sensible read make. :)

Never going to happen. My whole POV is based upon the ideal that American was free from the outset for the enfranchised (all free men), and then those freedoms were extended to others as HUMAN SOCIETY changed. It wasn't like the US was founded to keep women down, contrary to whatever Gloria Steinem might say. :D

Imperial Russia was an absolute monarchy, and that was your comparison, yeah? Please re-read, I was talking on your point about the Russian Revolution and early Bolshevism.

The State legislatures were hardly national governments.
Simply, as stated above: since there was no widespread concept/movement FOR universal suffrage or emancipation, the people of a time cannot be held on that account. It'd be like complaining that Newton didn't come up with Special Relativity: there was just no way to get there. Ergo, the US was free by the society norms of the time -- and moreso.
Of course not! But your examples are those of repression of ideals (freedom of religion, life, liberty, et al) that have been around for centuries.
A better example here would be gay rights. There is a movement for it, but most governments frown on it or condemn it outright. (Compare San Francisco to Tehran, for example.)
Now consider if we were to have this same debate in 30 years or so, and you'd lob gay rights into the mix with women's rights and slavery for the 18th century! Society has changed (at least, I hope it has by 2038!), so our prism changed, and we'd be horrified that gays were dragged to death behind pickup trucks in the 1990s or put in stocks in the 1700s!

I wholly agree. Which is why I've been keeping my point up about the US being free far earlier and to a greater extent than any gov't on Earth. QED.

Nope, it does not make it okay. It's makes it HISTORY, it took decades to break slavery, and even then it was a secondary cause in a Civil War. I hear they took a few years to build the rockets to go to the moon, too. That we see things now that were not widely held beliefs then is progress.

All of these Amendments were post US Civil War.
Here:http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html
If you mean the original right to vote? You'll want Article I, Section 2 and Section 3 (hit the hyperlink, as Amendment XVII edits that).
As for the Jim Crow laws (disenfrancisement of blacks in the South):
[urlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws[/url]
It was an very unfortunate regional issue that took basically 1945-1965 to wipe out. :(
You'll note that the Crow laws didn't actually ban black voting, they just set the bar so high that it made it mostly impossible.

The US constitution most certainatly does grant the right to vote, as shown above.

Yes, exactly so. I'm happy to admit that, and say that American society is free today despite that. Funny how we made the same point there, eh? :) Actually, I used the British/Irish arguement only to show that "recent" is a relative term.

BINGO!! I most certainly say that the United States was 'free from the outset' by the standards of THE TIME. As said above, holding the past to modern societal norms is a sophistry or a deceit.

Only if you realize we're arguing two slightly different perspectives.

I'd quite agree, with perhaps some caveats/change of language.


My only worry would be that one could argue the very act of carrying a deadly weapon infringes somewhere. It's all well and good talking about 'personal responsibility', 'guns as tools' and all that jazz, but the British public is incredibly reluctant to go down the path of US-style gun legislation, and the gun crime that seems to inevitably follow it. What's interesting are those countries, such as Canada, who have fairly liberal gun laws, yet low numbers of gun crimes.


The bombings in London in 2007, perpetrated by UK citizens, and all the violence in NI during the Troubles show that to be false.

The act of carrying a weapon (especially concealed) infringes no one unless they're displayed in a hostile manner. Otherwise, the carrying of lighters or matches becomes illegal as they're a threat for arson, and driving a car/motorbike becomes illegal for vehicular manslaugter.

Yes, I agree with the rest, it's a basic societal issue. But your government is doing you no favors by outlawing things and trying to turn you into "sheeple".

Right! So... has the UK yet banned fertilizer and backpacks so those bombs cannot be made again? (ZING!!)

No, I'm pointing out that you're mostly indefensible against someone trying to do you harm.


You have a serious lack of imagination

1 v 1: Fight
1 v 2: Beating
1 v 3: Killing
1 v more: Lyching

... I don't see the need to fight anyone, ever. I go about my business and leave people the hell alone. Have I ever drawn my gun? Nope. Because if it has to leave the holster, I'm firing. And that's not something I really want to do. Am I safer because it's in the house? Hell yes. Heck, I rarely carry, but when I do I hope to never have to use the thing.

No. Just that rather than make a law and let judges interpret it in ways those writing it might not have wished it interpreted, they put it in legal language to make sure it worked the way they wanted it to work.



Chain Home (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_Home)

Then the royal observer corps when inland. It's true that the home guard took over some anti-aircraft guns later in the war, but that was primarily in 1944 when German air raids on Britain were pretty much non-existant.

The Home Guard saw much more service as a sort of wartime police force than as any sort of anti-invasion force. The army generals mostly hated them because they were of very little use but got resources from Churchill to boost morale. They were notoriously badly armed for the majority of the war and had no need to be armed for any real actions they were expected to undertake.

There was within the Home Guard an Army formed group (can't remember the proper military name for it) of guerilla fighters but they were army run and supplied rather than being any sort of civilian defence force.

Ah. So it's for the judges, not for the common man? Thanks, MY POINT STANDS!

Yes, RADAR watched for planes. And the LDV (later Home Guard) did too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Home_Guard ...though I'm sure you're already aware of this. And that they were armed, albeit only by 1943.

Yes, I agree with the rest, it's a basic societal issue. But your government is doing you no favors by outlawing things and trying to turn you into "sheeple".

I wasn't aware that it was. We have no gun culture here, so it being harder to get agun is fine, we have not outlawed them, you just need a bloody good reason to have one.

Knives are not outlawed either but if you are found carrying on on the street you are rightly getting into trouble.

I wasn't aware that it was. We have no gun culture here, so it being harder to get agun is fine, we have not outlawed them, you just need a bloody good reason to have one.

Knives are not outlawed either but if you are found carrying on on the street you are rightly getting into trouble.

See, there's a way of thinking I just can't get my head around :
Britain is essentially a democratic country. The government is elected by the people. Yet some posters will always claim that "the government" will do its utmost to opress, rob, incapacitate, disenfranchise and otherwise mistreat "the people".

Now, if they were talking about some totalitarian regime, I could understand the sentiment. But in a country like the UK? Odd.