NationStates Jolt Archive

I was flipping channels and I caught this news piece that 1000s of stab vests are procured for govt staff...like nurses, teachers etc...because of the increasing knife attacks..

Is it really that bad? I live out in the south-east...but I do visit London on the weekends and roam around...I never imagined that it is this worse..

Although I have to say that when me and my friend were coming back late night on a bus...from somewhere in east ham to central London..quite a few people passed up the opportunity to go past us and sit in a seat near us. My friend later explained that they were "afraid" of us. I still cannot believe that...:p

Yes, it really is that bad. I live in Manchester, and it's like that in certain areas over here.

But not everywhere.

As for the bus thing, a lot of older folks are generally scared of young people by default. It's a shame, but I don't really blame them for it.

You'd have to dig up stats related to stabbings for 15 years in the GL area to get a decent picture.....then compare it to Manchester, Glasgow and Liverpool (or whatever). Theres an unfortunate tendency for media hysteria to trigger "Something Must Be Done!" amongst the politicians.

Absurd... there should be a law against this kind of thing... oh wait, there is... it just isn't being enforced very well. Knife amnesty my arse.

Trouble is, they don't do much about it, they should give the police more powers to stop and search.

soon to be b&.

In other news, banning guns did NOT stop criminals from attacking people, but only replaced guns with knives.

And the sky is blue.

And the Pope is the head of the Catholic church.

And bears crap in the woods.

This has been another episode of obvious facts. Thank you for tuning in fine viewers.

In other news, banning guns did NOT stop criminals from attacking people, but only replaced guns with knives.

And thus they are, by and large, not shooting people any more. So banning guns was a success. :)

If you ban knives, what alternatives would there be? Axes? Sticks?

And thus they are, by and large, not shooting people any more. So banning guns was a success. :)
True, true....
After all, it's not like someone named Jack would go on a stabbing rampage, especially not in London! ;)
If you ban knives, what alternatives would there be? Axes? Sticks?
Crossbows!
http://www.crankyfarmer.com/180crossbow.jpg

Jesus, I thought the US was bad. You see? We don't ban guns and we don't need to pass out Kevlar vests to all of our government workers. Chalk one up for the US of A!

Yes, it really is that bad. I live in Manchester, and it's like that in certain areas over here.

But not everywhere.

hmmm..I haven't witnessed anything violent myself...I have seen some loud groups of young people (chavs?)..but never felt threatened even though my friend kept saying "don't look at them...don't go near there"..etc.


As for the bus thing, a lot of older folks are generally scared of young people by default. It's a shame, but I don't really blame them for it.

Some young people too. Which was really funny...because for the first time..I have seen that kind of reaction from people around me. Friend told me that there are a lot of "Asian" gangs and since I am "Asian" I get this reaction...I was like :eek:

And thus they are, by and large, not shooting people any more. So banning guns was a success. :)

Actually in Britland the entry of hand guns into crime happened after they were banned in private ownership.

Besides, when were hanguns last legal here, for all the difference its making?

Also, this talk of "banning" knives. Ban what knives exactly? The vast majority are domestic knives - shite, cheap pieces of glorified tin with a stabby point, worth less than a quid. Get rid of them and its turn up to the copshop to get your roast meat cut for you.

Jesus, I thought the US was bad. You see? We don't ban guns and we don't need to pass out Kevlar vests to all of our government workers. Chalk one up for the US of A!

They just get shot instead. Along with your school kids, university students etc...mmm maybe not one you should be chalking up.

In other news, banning guns did NOT stop criminals from attacking people, but only replaced guns with knives.
Yes? And? Your point?

Yes? And? Your point?
That they've only disarmed the victims.

Edit: Found the quote:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."-Thomas Jefferson

That they've only disarmed the victims.

Not at all. As you yourself just said: Guns are replaced with knives. And why is that a bad thing?

True, true....
After all, it's not like someone named Jack would go on a stabbing rampage, especially not in London! ;)
Take how many Jack killed, over how long, and compare it to the number killed at Virginia Tech in less than a day. And they're still talking about Jack...

Not at all. As you yourself just said: Guns are replaced with knives. And why is that a bad thing?
Read the edit.

Also, knives are now the weapon of choice. Guns have not been completely replaced. And what chance does a person with a legal knife have against someone with an illegal gun? Or someone with a knife that knows how to use it more effectively?

Take how many Jack killed, over how long, and compare it to the number killed at Virginia Tech in less than a day. And they're still talking about Jack...
Because Jack had a cool name :p.

Or someone with a knife that knows how to use it more effectively?

How is that different than a gun, except that a stray knife is far less likely to 'stab' an innocent bystander?

You really should let your 'gun control' debates be handled by someone better suited, you're doing a terrible job.

Take how many Jack killed, over how long, and compare it to the number killed at Virginia Tech in less than a day. And they're still talking about Jack...


Theres an almost primal fear of being stabbed and gutted (it being, I suppose, akin to being gored by an animal) compared with being shot.....

How is that different than a gun, except that a stray knife is far less likely to 'stab' an innocent bystander?

You really should let your 'gun control' debates be handled by someone better suited, you're doing a terrible job.
To be fair, the victim is an innocent bystander, the only thing is that now he's on the ground, bleeding, because he neither knew how to use a knife, nor had a weapon of any kind.

To be fair, the victim is an innocent bystander, the only thing is that now he's on the ground, bleeding, because he neither knew how to use a knife, nor had a weapon of any kind.

Did he have a knife or didn't he?

Seriously, sit this out, wait for someone better to come along. You're actually convincing me that gun control works, and I'm coming from the position that guns aren't the problem but rather our attitudes about them.

But..but..but..when guns were banned, that was supposed to eradicate violence altogether. How could this possibly be happening? It's like human nature found a way to express itself regardless of the laws or something.

To be fair, the victim is an innocent bystander, the only thing is that now he's on the ground, bleeding, because he neither knew how to use a knife, nor had a weapon of any kind.

Did someone miss with their knife and stab him accidentally?

The only way to solve this to wrap everything and everybody in about a foot of bubblewrap. and remove anything remotely pointy, weighted that can be swung, or anything people can fall from. Then everybody will be safe and they're will be no crime.

Did he have a knife or didn't he?

Seriously, sit this out, wait for someone better to come along. You're actually convincing me that gun control works, and I'm coming from the position that guns aren't the problem but rather our attitudes about them.
Let's put it this way:

1.Jack (not the ripper) has a knife. He has a normal job,say, an office janitor. Walking home one night, he gets stopped by some thug with a knife, who threatens him. Jack pulls out his knife, but as the thug has been doing this for years, Jack gets stabbed several times and left in the gutter to die.

2. John has a knife. He has a normal job,say, an office janitor. Walking home one night, he gets stopped by some thug with an illegal gun, who threatens him. What the heck is he going to do with a knife in a situation like that?

3.Vincent has a gun. He has a normal job,say, an office janitor. Walking home one night, he gets stopped by some thug with an gun, who threatens him. Vincent pulls out his gun. Both of them stand there, afraid to shoot. Finally, several other passerbys come along, who are also armed because guns are not banned in this fairy-land. The thug backs off. Vincent makes it home both alive, and with his wallet intact.

4. Marcus has a gun. The thug has a knife. We can guess how this turns out.

The only way to solve this to wrap everything and everybody in about a foot of bubblewrap. and remove anything remotely pointy, weighted that can be swung, or anything people can fall from. Then everybody will be safe and they're will be no crime.

I've popped all my bubblewrap, what do I do now?

I've popped all my bubblewrap, what do I do now?


Report to your local Nanny State re-wrapping station.

If you ban knives, what alternatives would there be? Axes? Sticks?

As George Carlin says (said:() If you put your mind to it you could beat someone to death with a rolled up (insert large sunday news paper of choice here) Sunday New York Times.

Report to your local Nanny State re-wrapping station.
Big Brother PROTECTS us!

As George Carlin says (said:() If you put your mind to it you could beat someone to death with a rolled up (insert large sunday news paper of choice here) Sunday New York Times.

We must also ban trees, because the branches can be sharpened. Newspapers. Ban them too.

3.Vincent has a gun. He has a normal job,say, an office janitor. Walking home one night, he gets stopped by some thug with an gun, who threatens him. Vincent pulls out his gun, but as the thug has been doing this for years, Vincent gets shot several times and left in the gutter to die.

Fixed.

Report to your local Nanny State re-wrapping station.

Hooray!

Ive heard in the UK careless use of the spoon has resulted in multiple eye injuries. I look forward to the new high fashion antigouging goggles.

Fixed To my particular viewpoint about how guns are teh ebils.
Thy fixed has been fixed.

...

Wait a minute, what?!?

Fixed to one in a million happening, which will then be used as a posterboy for the bleeding heart one cause semi-liberals

Fixed your fix

Fixed your fix

HA! I beat you to the punch!
Although yours is better.

Make mine out of Mithril please :)

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/Mithril.jpg

You are not very good coming up with your hypotheticals, I must say.


1.Jack (not the ripper) has a knife. He has a normal job,say, an office janitor. Walking home one night, he gets stopped by some thug with a knife, who threatens him. Jack pulls out his knife, but as the thug has been doing this for years, Jack gets stabbed several times and left in the gutter to die.

Yes, because knives are so complicated, what with cocking the knife, making sure the safety is off, and what do you do when you run out of ammo! Seriously, the chance of the guy being "more proficient" just because he is a thug is absurd; stabbing people is not combat training. Even if Jack's own experience with knives is only cutting a nice steak, that is probably more than enough for him to get his own knife out quickly enough. At that point, even if the thug still goes for it, the thug will not be dodging or brushing off Jack's attacks, as once again, stabbing people is not combat training!


2. John has a knife. He has a normal job,say, an office janitor. Walking home one night, he gets stopped by some thug with an illegal gun, who threatens him. What the heck is he going to do with a knife in a situation like that?

I'll address why John should probably not resist regardless if he has a knife, gun, or unarmed on the next one.


3.Vincent has a gun. He has a normal job,say, an office janitor. Walking home one night, he gets stopped by some thug with an gun, who threatens him. Vincent pulls out his gun. Both of them stand there, afraid to shoot. Finally, several other passerbys come along, who are also armed because guns are not banned in this fairy-land. The thug backs off. Vincent makes it home both alive, and with his wallet intact.

Actually, as the thug already has his gun ready, he shots Vincent before Vincent gets his gun out. Not to mention that Vincent would not be carrying a gun that is both cocked and with the safety off, unless of course he likes accidentally shooting himself. And those passerby's? Highly unlikely they even noticed the two until either both had gun's out, or one yelled "give me your wallet". Now all they see is two people with guns, so assuming that they do attempt to interfere (which, is unlikely), they have a good chance of shooting the wrong person.


4. Marcus has a gun. The thug has a knife. We can guess how this turns out.

Actually, to be honest, if I were the thug with a knife? I would get in really close before pulling my knife, to make sure you have little room to move. Or just stab you as I'm passing, then mug you. Knives and small guns are easy to hide until that last second. If I had a gun instead of the knife, I would probably make sure it is poking into you, then ask for your wallet; after all, guns are loud and I wouldn't want to draw attention.

I also have the feeling that most thugs don't stand two meters away from their target, wielding their weapon of choice, like they do in the movies. So no, it doesn't matter who has the knife or the gun, the mugger is probably going to win in most instances.

Make mine out of Mithril please :)

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/Mithril.jpg
"It's a pretty thing, isn't it?"
-Bilbo Baggins

Thy fixed has been fixed.

...

Wait a minute, what?!?

Fixed your fix

Ah I see. So it's perfectly believable that a random thug can outmatch a random citizen when both have knives. Of course, the thug has been doing this for years, after all. But when that random citizen has a gun, he gains superhuman speed and reflexes and the thug does not. The random citizen can draw and aim his gun faster than the thug can pull the trigger. It doesn't matter how long the thug has been doing this for.

Because when a law abiding citizen and a criminal are in any kind of armed stand off, the law abiding citizen will always come out on top.

Read the edit.

Also, knives are now the weapon of choice. Guns have not been completely replaced. And what chance does a person with a legal knife have against someone with an illegal gun? Or someone with a knife that knows how to use it more effectively?
You can outrun a knife.
A knife has less range.
A knife has less of a chance to hurt bystanders.

The damage usually done by a knife and a gunshot is also something that can be talked about.

Let's put it this way:

1.Jack (not the ripper) has a knife. He has a normal job,say, an office janitor. Walking home one night, he gets stopped by some thug with a knife, who threatens him. Jack pulls out his knife, but as the thug has been doing this for years, Jack gets stabbed several times and left in the gutter to die.
Why disregard the possibility of running away? After all, you assume he has the time and opportunity to draw a knife.

2. John has a knife. He has a normal job,say, an office janitor. Walking home one night, he gets stopped by some thug with an illegal gun, who threatens him. What the heck is he going to do with a knife in a situation like that?
Give him the money and walk away unharmed?
Try to run?

Or, as the one guy did, attack with the knife and kill the attacker. Not very plausible though.
3.Vincent has a gun. He has a normal job,say, an office janitor. Walking home one night, he gets stopped by some thug with an gun, who threatens him. Vincent pulls out his gun. Both of them stand there, afraid to shoot. Finally, several other passerbys come along, who are also armed because guns are not banned in this fairy-land. The thug backs off. Vincent makes it home both alive, and with his wallet intact.
Your thugs usually give you time to draw your own weapon without shooting you?

4. Marcus has a gun. The thug has a knife. We can guess how this turns out.
a) Marcus shoots the thug.
b) Marcus is stabbed while going for his gun.

The situation is only as clear-cut as your fantasies lets it be.

I also have the feeling that most thugs don't stand two meters away from their target, wielding their weapon of choice, like they do in the movies. So no, it doesn't matter who has the knife or the gun, the mugger is probably going to win in most instances.

Wut? Thugs don't carry their weapons as cowboys from western movies, demanding the wallet while still having their weapons holstered? :eek:


"Draw, pardener!"

Can anyone actually provide evidence that what the OP claims to have seen on some unnamed tv programme is actually true? I understand some community wardens may be issued with them by some Councils, but it is certainly not a national policy, and it is utter rubbish to suggest that every nurse in the UK is wearing a stab proof jacket.

Can anyone actually provide evidence that what the OP claims to have seen on some unnamed tv programme is actually true? I understand some community wardens may be issued with them by some Councils, but it is certainly not a national policy, and it is utter rubbish to suggest that every nurse in the UK is wearing a stab proof jacket.

I'd imagine its something to do with this.....
The growing fear of knife crime in Britain is forcing hospital trusts and local authorities to supply body armour to frontline workers, including A&E staff, hospital porters, teachers, benefits officers and traffic wardens.

Stab and bullet-proof vests are being ordered in their tens of thousands to protect employees from increased levels of aggression, a move described as 'a shameful indictment of violence in Britain today'.

The Local Government Association said councils had started responding urgently to staff who 'need a greater level of protection'. Already more than 20,000 sets of Home Office-approved body armour have been issued to local government staff.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jul/06/knifecrime.ukcrime1

The growing fear of knife crime in Britain is forcing hospital trusts and local authorities to supply body armour to frontline workers, including A&E staff, hospital porters, teachers, benefits officers and traffic wardens.

Stab and bullet-proof vests are being ordered in their tens of thousands to protect employees from increased levels of aggression, a move described as 'a shameful indictment of violence in Britain today'.

The Local Government Association said councils had started responding urgently to staff who 'need a greater level of protection'. Already more than 20,000 sets of Home Office-approved body armour have been issued to local government staff.

The revelations came as Scotland Yard announced that knife crime had eclipsed terrorism as the number one priority for the Metropolitan police.http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jul/06/knifecrime.ukcrime1

Damn, beaten by a minute!

*Shakes stick at*

Clearly the only way to stop knife violence in Britain is to give everyone a grenade launcher.

Is it really that bad?
No, but it makes good headline material to say that it is.

Let's put it this way:

1.Jack (not the ripper) has a knife. He has a normal job,say, an office janitor. Walking home one night, he gets stopped by some thug with a knife, who threatens him. Jack pulls out his knife, but as the thug has been doing this for years, Jack gets stabbed several times and left in the gutter to die.
Uhu... why is this not exactly the same with guns? "Jack has a gun. So does his professional criminal assailant. He dies."
2. John has a knife. He has a normal job,say, an office janitor. Walking home one night, he gets stopped by some thug with an illegal gun, who threatens him. What the heck is he going to do with a knife in a situation like that?
Die if he tries anything. You hand over your wallet, cancel everything in it, and ring the police with a description of your assailant, if you could tell anything about them, and get on with your life in the knowledge that calling the police is a waste of time, because most criminals just look like... well... people.
3.Vincent has a gun. He has a normal job,say, an office janitor. Walking home one night, he gets stopped by some thug with an gun, who threatens him. Vincent pulls out his gun. Both of them stand there, afraid to shoot. Finally, several other passerbys come along, who are also armed because guns are not banned in this fairy-land. The thug backs off. Vincent makes it home both alive, and with his wallet intact.
Uhu. Why would you attack someone in a street with passers by? Seriously, if you're going after someone, do it in an alley where they're not going to get anyone's attention or run away?
4. Marcus has a gun. The thug has a knife. We can guess how this turns out.
Obviously you've never been mugged in an alley. Or you'd know that a gun is no use whatsoever unless you've got an extremely fast draw and can tell when someone coming up behind you is armed and not just someone coming up behind you. Maybe your holster glows when it senses danger?

<snip>

ok, this is getting silly. The proper way to respond in case of a mugging isn't to hand over your wallet and let him get away with it, or to try to outdraw the mugger. The best course of action is to hand over your stuff, wait until the mugger is a few feet away, draw and demand your stuff back. Then go to the police and file a report.
Another option is to wear your gun open carry, if it's legal.

But to get back to the point, Gun control doesn't alter things one way or the other. It gives you a chance, if your lucky, but over all, people will still die/be robbed regardless of guns.

Knife and Gun crime has always existed, everywhere, and anywhere.

What we have here, is the issue, being over publicised by the media and it's scaremongering.

Point is, knife and gun crime is minimal. The former is on the increase. But it isn't that bad. The Media is to blame here, the circumstances are way out of proportion, and although such events are nasty, ans should not happen. People need to accept that occasionally it does happen. Knife crime in the UK is no worse than Gun crime in the US.

I shall now leave this thread. Good day to all.

Rolling squid;13816991']ok, this is getting silly. The proper way to respond in case of a mugging isn't to hand over your wallet and let him get away with it, or to try to outdraw the mugger. The best course of action is to hand over your stuff, wait until the mugger is a few feet away, draw and demand your stuff back. Then go to the police and file a report.
Aye, the vast, vast majority of the public don't carry guns, or indeed knives, in the UK. Because it's simply not allowed.

more work for me.

more work for me.

What?

What?

he's a mugger? or he works in a stab-proof vest factory.

What?

Stabbing people is hard work.

Do you know how much force it takes to get a knife nice and deep in someone's chest? And I still have my principles and what not so stabbing in the eye is completely out of the question.

And thus they are, by and large, not shooting people any more. So banning guns was a success. :)

IIRC, the promise was that violent crime would stop. The weapons have merely changed. That, and gun crime doesn't seem to have abated.

Stabbing people is hard work.

Do you know how much force it takes to get a knife nice and deep in someone's chest? And I still have my principles and what not so stabbing in the eye is completely out of the question.

Actually, as long as you avoid the ribs, and stab their guts, it's very, very easy work if you have a sharp pointy object.

The gut is no fun, no sense of drama.

If you ban knives, what alternatives would there be? Axes? Sticks?

slingshots.

Jesus, I thought the US was bad. You see? We don't ban guns and we don't need to pass out Kevlar vests to all of our government workers. Chalk one up for the US of A!

Yeah, like USA has anything to be proud about in this area, what with all the school shootings etc. :rolleyes:

Let's put it this way:
* enter lousy "guns make me superhero" version of mugging options *

No, no, no and no. Like others have already pointed out:

a) Knife vs. knife your assaillant is "more experienced with the knife" but when it comes to guns the victim suddenly goes in superhero mode and readies weapon for use before the asssaillant gets to shoot? Yeah right :rolleyes:

b) Any assailant with a brain would close on you and before you'd know anything you'd have either knife on your throat/back or gun on your back and hear the assailants choice of words. If guns were legal in the area all but the dimmest assailants would also check that you don't have gun yourself - guns sell for nice profit after all.

c) Your average citizen would be scared shitless (or possibly "scared to point of shitting his pants") when attacked. Say what you will but majority of people are cowards.

d) Let's go by your gun-fantasy-land-episode where the victim somehow gets his weapon fire-ready before the assailant shoots him dead, and they both stand there pointing each other with guns. Most likely reaction of any possible passers-by? Run the fuck away! Sad as it may be most of us have the sense not to intervene with two morons flailing guns around.

e) Even if they did intervene how would they know which one is the robber? Any half-way witted criminal would accuse the victim of being assailant, and how would anyone prove it otherwise? You're both pointing guns at each other.

In short: Everyone carrying a gun around wouldn't make anyone any safer. It just forces the criminals to use more than two braincells. You're still going to get mugged, you're just more likely to supply the criminals with yet another free firearm.

IIRC, the promise was that violent crime would stop. The weapons have merely changed. That, and gun crime doesn't seem to have abated.

Who promised that banning hand guns would stop violent crime in the UK?

Originally Posted by Conserative Morality
3.Vincent has a gun. He has a normal job,say, an office janitor. Walking home one night, he gets stopped by some thug with an gun, who threatens him. Vincent pulls out his gun, but as the thug has been doing this for years, Vincent gets shot several times and has several holes instantly ripped through his internal organs, killing him in seconds.

Fixed.


Fixed (rev. B)
___________

Stabbing people is hard work.

Do you know how much force it takes to get a knife nice and deep in someone's chest? And I still have my principles and what not so stabbing in the eye is completely out of the question.
They sooner they invent lightsabers the better, eh?
IIRC, the promise was that violent crime would stop. The weapons have merely changed. That, and gun crime doesn't seem to have abated.
If anyone seriously promised that a ban on guns would stop violent crime then they're just as stupid as anyone that believed them.
Fixed (rev. B)
___________
I like it.

Take how many Jack killed, over how long, and compare it to the number killed at Virginia Tech in less than a day. And they're still talking about Jack...

Guns are illegal on school campuses in the U.S.

Didn't stop him, did it?

Harris and Klebold broke 20 firearms laws in the Columbine massacre.

Would the 21st have stopped them?

In Pearl, Mississippi, a vice principal of a school stopped a shooter with his own personal firearm. The firearm in question was a quarter mile away in his vehicle, as per U.S. laws under the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995

Also, we're all assuming that Joe Citizen has never once taken a defensive course in handgun combat, or even learned how to draw quickly.
Thumb safeties don't require much skill to operate. With many guns, it rests right on your thumb, enabling you to easily safe or ready the weapon.

We're also assuming that Joe cannot grab his opponent's weapon hand and move the muzzle off of him while drawing his own and firing. Reaction time is slow for a lot of people, and contrary to what it may seem, Joe has the reactionary advantage in that situation: Thug has already shown his weapon and therefore his plan. Joe has not shown the thug that he plans to move the weapon.

As we all know, assuming makes an ass out of you and me.

Bringing up "the U.S.'s school shootings" makes no sense in this discussion because firearms, as I've stated, are already illegal in schools, which means that most of our shootings happen in places that you're not allowed to have firearms anyway.

You're actually arguing against your own point by bringing that up.

Guns are illegal on school campuses in the U.S.

Didn't stop him, did it?

Harris and Klebold broke 20 firearms laws in the Columbine massacre.

Would the 21st have stopped him?

In Pearl, Mississippi, a vice principal of a school stopped a shooter with his own personal firearm. The firearm in question was a quarter mile away in his vehicle, as per U.S. laws.
*Surrenders to logic. Remembers is anti-gun control. Joins.*

Seriously, what's with the recent rise in intelligent new posters? Are you a puppet? Nah, jk.:p

*Surrenders to logic. Remembers is anti-gun control. Joins.*

Seriously, what's with the recent rise in intelligent new posters? Are you a puppet? Nah, jk.:p

If you honestly think that this shit is 'intelligent' you really are stupid.

Guns are illegal on school campuses in the U.S.
*golf clap* Brillent! You are a true master of reality!

The problem was, you see, guns wheren't illegal outside of the school grounds, which cover a very small area compared to the State as a whole. Had this person be unable to buy the guns in the first place he wouldn't have been able to bring the gun onto school property in the first place.



In Pearl, Mississippi, a vice principal of a school stopped a shooter with his own personal firearm. The firearm in question was a quarter mile away in his vehicle, as per U.S. laws.

Wonderful, wonderful!

I've always enjoyed the anti-gun control's bullshit; take this for an example: if person A had a gun, then clearly he could be stopped if everyone had guns. However, you ignore the fact that, if guns where banned completely, then person A wouldn't have had a gun to begin with!

But oh no you say, now he's armed with a knife! all is lost you say, because you banned guns! Why hasn't the crime rate gone down you say! If only we had a gun! it would solve everything!

I suppose if we banned knifes you'd be crying that we needed them back because omg now people are using their fists! Oh noes! we need big scary shiny knives to save us!!!!

Sometimes I don't think you people listen to what your saying. :rolleyes:

If you honestly think that this shit is 'intelligent' you really are stupid.

Calm down, only the desperate go Ad Hominum.
*golf clap* Brillent! You are a true master of reality!

The problem was, you see, guns wheren't illegal outside of the school grounds, which cover a very small area compared to the State as a whole. Had this person be unable to buy the guns in the first place he wouldn't have been able to bring the gun onto school property in the first place.
You know what, you're right! Let's ban all guns from all legal stores! Taht way, people who actually want to hunt with guns, or defend themselves, cannot do so legally!

Oh wait, those criminals got their guns off an illegal gun deal. How do we stop that?

We can't.
Wonderful, wonderful!

I've always enjoyed the anti-gun control's bullshit; take this for an example: if person A had a gun, then clearly he could be stopped if everyone had guns. However, you ignore the fact that, if guns where banned completely, then person A wouldn't have had a gun to begin with!

However, you ignore the fact that criminals get what they want somehow. The USA banned certain drugs from use or possession. Do those certain drugs still exist in the hands of millions of people? Yes. Yes they do.
But oh no you say, now he's armed with a knife! all is lost you say, because you banned guns! Why hasn't the crime rate gone down you say! If only we had a gun! it would solve everything!

I suppose if we banned knifes you'd be crying that we needed them back because omg now people are using their fists! Oh noes! we need big scary shiny knives to save us!!!!

Erm... No, I'd be talking about government lunacy, and how people aren't even allowed to cut their own steak now. Or slice homemade bread. Or do a number of other things

Also, you win my quote of the day! Congrats, cause that one was pretty far out there! *Gives Xomic a medal*
Sometimes I don't think you people listen to what your saying. :rolleyes:
After the little knife speech, I was thinking the same thing.

If you honestly think that this shit is 'intelligent' you really are stupid.


*golf clap* Brillent! You are a true master of reality!

The problem was, you see, guns wheren't illegal outside of the school grounds, which cover a very small area compared to the State as a whole. Had this person be unable to buy the guns in the first place he wouldn't have been able to bring the gun onto school property in the first place.



Wonderful, wonderful!

I've always enjoyed the anti-gun control's bullshit; take this for an example: if person A had a gun, then clearly he could be stopped if everyone had guns. However, you ignore the fact that, if guns where banned completely, then person A wouldn't have had a gun to begin with!

But oh no you say, now he's armed with a knife! all is lost you say, because you banned guns! Why hasn't the crime rate gone down you say! If only we had a gun! it would solve everything!

I suppose if we banned knifes you'd be crying that we needed them back because omg now people are using their fists! Oh noes! we need big scary shiny knives to save us!!!!

Sometimes I don't think you people listen to what your saying. :rolleyes:

Oftentimes we do.

I think what you failed to realize is that the vice principal in Pearl Mississippi DID stop the gunman.

And that making guns illegal has NEVER prevented people from getting a hold of them.

Harris and Klebold got most of their weapons illegally.

An appropriate background check would have stopped the VT gunman. Then again, there was a professor who died to save his students. I believe that a man of action like that would readily gun down the perpetrator, allowing the professor to live too.

If guns were banned completely, only criminals would have guns. Seriously, they're not that hard to get. or make. I've seen Pakistani men making AK-47 copies in the streets with nothing but a hammer, the raw materials, and an anvil.

Ever heard of a zip gun? Easy to make.

Washington D.C. had a pretty strict handgun ban until recently, yet they had some pretty high violent crime(8,772 per 100,000 as of 2006). A lot of good it did there.

Also, are you saying that we don't have the basic human right to defend ourselves with the same amount of effective force that's being used against us? Barring automatic weapons(you don't need one of THOSE for self-defense, though they sure are a blast to shoot.), I believe that I should be permitted to equal the force being used against me. And in all honesty, its much easier to become proficient with a handgun than it is with another style of weapon, especially if your crippled or disabled in some way(not mentally, God that would be a mess. I love them though, God bless their hearts.)

Xomic, its fine to disagree with one's points, but (and this goes for those on BOTH sides of the debate, CM) could we lay off personal attacks? I honestly find that turns the entire situation into a flame fest and no one will even look at the other's posts with a goal to find a middle ground.

I find many of your points to be valid to an extent, but I politely disagree with them. I don't think firearms should be handed out like candy. I think that stricter background checks should be enforced: Does this person have a history of mental illness? A criminal record of violent OR nonviolent crime?
Plus, a bit of common sense should go along with selling firearms: Does the customer seem pissed off? if so, don't sell them the goddamn gun. This is where waiting periods seem to be a good idea, but I'm not sure how I feel about them yet. I am all for preventing rash decisions that result in suicides or homicides.



You know what, you're right! Let's ban all guns from all legal stores! Taht way, people who actually want to hunt with guns, or defend themselves, cannot do so legally!

Oh wait, those criminals got their guns off an illegal gun deal. How do we stop that?

We can't.

However, you ignore the fact that criminals get what they want somehow. The USA banned certain drugs from use or possession. Do those certain drugs still exist in the hands of millions of people? Yes. Yes they do.

While this is true, it could be seen as an argument for legalizing cocaine. To dissuade this tactic, I must say:
Cocaine has never been used to defend one's life effectively, directly, and consistently, if ever.

Erm... No, I'd be talking about government lunacy, and how people aren't even allowed to cut their own steak now. Or slice homemade bread. Or do a number of other things



Like stabbing each other? :P

But yes, it would be silly to ban knives, though this argument isn't as good; a knife was intended originally, and still is often used, as a tool. A gun, while many times argued to be a tool (and technically it is: a tool for killing), was designed specifically to kill something or other, be it paper targets, animals, or other people.

I would be happy at having no more guns at all, in a world where the physically strong are without a doubt dominant, a world where whomever has the best stamina, strength, or speed has the upper hand over those who don't. A world where, knowing the "altruistic" nature of most humans, would be ideal for the crippled, disabled, or otherwise infirm of the earth. :rolleyes:

But yes, it would be silly to ban knives, though this argument isn't as good; a knife was intended originally, and still is often used, as a tool. A gun, while many times argued to be a tool (and technically it is: a tool for killing), was designed specifically to kill something or other, be it paper targets, animals, or other people.

Guns, being purpose specific, enable someone to kill or maim more people in less time for less effort than a knife. Of course this only is true only so long as one has ammunition, but we'll ignore that caveat given how easy vast quantities of munitions seem to fall into the hands of the criminally inclined.

However, I am of the opinion that gun and knife use in crimes are just a symptom of the problem. Squeaky wheel gets the grease and all that. Having a gun, even one acquired illegally, doesn't transform someone into a raving lunatic about to have a massacre in some crowded place no more than it transforms them into this mythological John Wayne-esque superhero out to shoot criminals.

It doesn't matter if the most lethal thing anyone could ever get their hands on is a rock. You'll still have violent crime, murders, etc, etc. The trick is to finding out what causes that crime. Psychological problems, poor neighborhoods, unemployment, low education standards, gang culture, drug abuse. These are all a part of the cause for the majority of violent crimes we see today. Yet nobody seems to really care about it, because they're too busily focused on the symptoms, the gun advocates arguing for the firearm equipped hero citizen and the gun gun control advocates arguing against enabling.

Seriously, if people stopped focusing so much on the tools and more on the reasons, they might actually make an impact on the crimes committed with said tools.

Calm down, only the desperate go Ad Hominum.

You know what, you're right! Let's ban all guns from all legal stores! Taht way, people who actually want to hunt with guns,Oh noes! You can't fulfil your 'want' to hunt! oh no! Whatever shall we do?!

Not hunt perhaps?

or defend themselves, cannot do so legally!

you could buy a bullet proof vest if you 'really' wanted to defend yourself; what you gun nuts want to do retaliate, to kill, not defend: defending is done with a shield, not a sword.


Oh wait, those criminals got their guns off an illegal gun deal. How do we stop that?

You're right, because every petty criminal is going to go to such lengths to obtain handguns. It's not like they're going to say "oh fuck this" and just buy a knife or some shit. No of Course not, they're going to buy a gun

However, you ignore the fact that criminals get what they want somehow. The USA banned certain drugs from use or possession. Do those certain drugs still exist in the hands of millions of people? Yes. Yes they do.

My god, do you watch the Sopranos and the Godfather, and think every criminal is that hardcore? Do you really think people who go crazy and shot all those people have underground connections to the blackmarket? Or could even find it? These things don't get set up by people who will let just anyone in, and those people do NOT go on mass killings, they're trying not to draw attention to themselves.

Erm... No, I'd be talking about government lunacy, and how people aren't even allowed to cut their own steak now. Or slice homemade bread. Or do a number of other things
No you wouldn't, you'd be whining on these boards about how the big bad government has taken away your right to kill people.

Harris and Klebold got most of their weapons illegally.
Yes they did, but the Virgina Tech shooter didn't, and the guns Harris and Klebold used where sold legally, then given to them illegally; had the guns not been available, they would not have been able to obtain them

An appropriate background check would have stopped the VT gunman. Then again, there was a professor who died to save his students. I believe that a man of action like that would readily gun down the perpetrator, allowing the professor to live too.
See, this is what I mean, you only ever see two possible outcomes:
A. He has a gun, shoots everyone
B He has a gun, someone else has a gun, He dies.

While missing the third outcome, He doesn't have a gun, the professor doesn't have a gun, no one is shot.

If guns were banned completely, only criminals would have guns. Seriously, they're not that hard to get. or make. I've seen Pakistani men making AK-47 copies in the streets with nothing but a hammer, the raw materials, and an anvil.
And didn't report them to the police? No wonder you have such a problem with guns in your country, what with such fine upstanding citizens like yourself.



Washington D.C. had a pretty strict handgun ban until recently, yet they had some pretty high violent crime(8,772 per 100,000 as of 2006). A lot of good it did there.

So? Washington DC is like the school in my earlier example.


Also, are you saying that we don't have the basic human right to defend ourselves with the same amount of effective force that's being used against us?

You know, you simply cannot get over this, can you? IF THEY DON'T HAVE A GUN, YOU DON'T NEED ONE.

Barring automatic weapons(you don't need one of THOSE for self-defense, though they sure are a blast to shoot.),

And herein lies the heart of the argument; you don't really care about defense, or such nonsense, no, you're worried the big bad government is going to take your toy gun away.

I believe that I should be permitted to equal the force being used against me. And in all honesty, its much easier to become proficient with a handgun than it is with another style of weapon, especially if your crippled or disabled in some way

And why is it you need a Weapon? Lock your damn doors, build a house with walls.


Xomic, its fine to disagree with one's points, but (and this goes for those on BOTH sides of the debate, CM) could we lay off personal attacks? I honestly find that turns the entire situation into a flame fest and no one will even look at the other's posts with a goal to find a middle ground.

Why? I find shooting someone to be a very personal attack. Maybe you should lay of guns?

There is *no* middle ground that is acceptable, I'm glad you'd try, it's more then the NRA and like would ever want.

I find many of your points to be valid to an extent, but I politely disagree with them. I don't think firearms should be handed out like candy. I think that stricter background checks should be enforced: Does this person have a history of mental illness? A criminal record of violent OR nonviolent crime?

But this is just the problem, they ARE handed out like candy, and even if they have no history of crime or mental illness, they could still go nuts and kill all sorts of people, and that's the problem; it's simply not enough to check once, you have to keep checking, everyday, you need to talk to everyone, etc.

Plus, a bit of common sense should go along with selling firearms: Does the customer seem pissed off? if so, don't sell them the goddamn gun. This is where waiting periods seem to be a good idea, but I'm not sure how I feel about them yet. I am all for preventing rash decisions that result in suicides or homicides. People can be very good actors if they want and gun sellers often don't give a shit, money is money.


While this is true, it could be seen as an argument for legalizing cocaine. To dissuade this tactic, I must say:
Cocaine has never been used to defend one's life effectively, directly, and consistently, if ever.

Throw it in their face, it'll be a surprise!



I would be happy at having no more guns at all, in a world where the physically strong are without a doubt dominant, a world where whomever has the best stamina, strength, or speed has the upper hand over those who don't. A world where, knowing the "altruistic" nature of most humans, would be ideal for the crippled, disabled, or otherwise infirm of the earth. :rolleyes:
Somehow I'm reading happy meals from this. o.o Don't know why.

Sorry if I seem harsh but I've seen a lot of stupid arguments from people like CM before, and I'm really sick of it.

Yes they did, but the Virgina Tech shooter didn't, and the guns Harris and Klebold used where sold legally, then given to them illegally; had the guns not been available, they would not have been able to obtain them


What may work in Britain is unlikely to work in America. A much larger land mass and population to cover, and you can't erase the knowledge of gunsmiths or confiscate the workshops that can be used to make them unless you want to put a whole lot of people out of work and kill the gunsmiths, in which case, you become an even worse criminal.

Guns are just a symptom of the problem as I have pointed out. You can pass any legislation you want, turn state police into draconian stormtroopers. You'll still have violent crime. Solve the cause of violent crime, and you'll solve the issue of weapons being used in them, be they guns, knives, rocks or bananas.

Let's put it this way:

1.Jack (not the ripper) has a knife. He has a normal job,say, an office janitor. Walking home one night, he gets stopped by some thug with a knife, who threatens him. Jack pulls out his knife, but as the thug has been doing this for years, Jack gets stabbed several times and left in the gutter to die.

2. John has a knife. He has a normal job,say, an office janitor. Walking home one night, he gets stopped by some thug with an illegal gun, who threatens him. What the heck is he going to do with a knife in a situation like that?

3.Vincent has a gun. He has a normal job,say, an office janitor. Walking home one night, he gets stopped by some thug with an gun, who threatens him. Vincent pulls out his gun. Both of them stand there, afraid to shoot. Finally, several other passerbys come along, who are also armed because guns are not banned in this fairy-land. The thug backs off. Vincent makes it home both alive, and with his wallet intact.

4. Marcus has a gun. The thug has a knife. We can guess how this turns out.

What would actually happen is that a passing student who happened to have been bitten that morning by a radioactive spider would then develop his super-powers, disarm the assailant and end up a public hero yet bizarrely pilloried by a tabloid paper.

Obvious really:rolleyes:

As we all know, assuming makes an ass out of you and me.


Strictly speaking assuming makes an ass out of you and Ming
and you do THAT at your own risk matey!!

http://pages.nyu.edu/~scs7891/ming.gif

What may work in Britain is unlikely to work in America. A much larger land mass and population to cover, and you can't erase the knowledge of gunsmiths or confiscate the workshops that can be used to make them unless you want to put a whole lot of people out of work and kill the gunsmiths, in which case, you become an even worse criminal.

Guns are just a symptom of the problem as I have pointed out. You can pass any legislation you want, turn state police into draconian stormtroopers. You'll still have violent crime. Solve the cause of violent crime, and you'll solve the issue of weapons being used in them, be they guns, knives, rocks or bananas.

True, but giving them free guns isn't helping. I agree the problem(s) have to be located, but ultimately it maybe that doing such is impossible.

I'd imagine its something to do with this.....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jul/06/knifecrime.ukcrime1

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jul/06/knifecrime.ukcrime1

Thanks both of you. I suspect the LGA is just trying to forestall any attempt by unions to demand danger money for some staff. I suspect it is highly unlikely that if issued these vests will actually be worn. So just another waste of council tax money because of sensationalist reporting. Have any council workers actually been stabbed?

Guns, being purpose specific, enable someone to kill or maim more people in less time for less effort than a knife. Of course this only is true only so long as one has ammunition, but we'll ignore that caveat given how easy vast quantities of munitions seem to fall into the hands of the criminally inclined.

However, I am of the opinion that gun and knife use in crimes are just a symptom of the problem. Squeaky wheel gets the grease and all that. Having a gun, even one acquired illegally, doesn't transform someone into a raving lunatic about to have a massacre in some crowded place no more than it transforms them into this mythological John Wayne-esque superhero out to shoot criminals.

It doesn't matter if the most lethal thing anyone could ever get their hands on is a rock. You'll still have violent crime, murders, etc, etc. The trick is to finding out what causes that crime. Psychological problems, poor neighborhoods, unemployment, low education standards, gang culture, drug abuse. These are all a part of the cause for the majority of violent crimes we see today. Yet nobody seems to really care about it, because they're too busily focused on the symptoms, the gun advocates arguing for the firearm equipped hero citizen and the gun gun control advocates arguing against enabling.

Seriously, if people stopped focusing so much on the tools and more on the reasons, they might actually make an impact on the crimes committed with said tools.

Exactly how I feel about the subject and an extremely well-written post. I have extensive training with both firearms and bladed weapons, and I have also trained in non-weapon based martial arts systems. The weapons aren't the problem, it's our culture. By the way, gun crime in the UK has gone up drastically since guns were banned. :)

It's very easy to make an edged weapon. Anyone with a little know how can get a piece of metal (or even bone) and craft a shank out of it. People have even been killed with umbrellas and pencils. Even in cities with strict gun bans, criminals still get their hands on illegal firearms. They can be made at home with a little know how. The Japanese Yakuza get their firearms from the north of the Philippines, where illegal possession of a weapon is punishable by death. The Philippines still has tons of illegal weapons floating around.

When confronted with a criminal with a weapon, my first choice will always be to try and deal with him or her without my own (extremely sharp Japanese steel) blades or impact weapons having to be drawn. I would only draw a blade if I thought I was going to have to fight for my life.

Thanks both of you. I suspect the LGA is just trying to forestall any attempt by unions to demand danger money for some staff. I suspect it is highly unlikely that if issued these vests will actually be worn. So just another waste of council tax money because of sensationalist reporting. Have any council workers actually been stabbed?

Only slightly more than have been bitten by radioactive spiders.

Actually in Britland the entry of hand guns into crime happened after they were banned in private ownership.

Besides, when were hanguns last legal here, for all the difference its making?

Also, this talk of "banning" knives. Ban what knives exactly? The vast majority are domestic knives - shite, cheap pieces of glorified tin with a stabby point, worth less than a quid. Get rid of them and its turn up to the copshop to get your roast meat cut for you.

I think the thing about banning knifes, is to get them off the street. There are a tiny amount of reasons why a youth should be carrying a knife around the streets and none at all if that knife was designed soley for the porpouse of stabbing people.

I think the thing about banning knifes, is to get them off the street. There are a tiny amount of reasons why a youth should be carrying a knife around the streets and none at all if that knife was designed soley for the porpouse of stabbing people.

But, if having a knife is illegal, only criminals will have knives! :eek:

But, if having a knife is illegal, only criminals will have knives! :eek:

My brother used to live in Nottingham and actually made a young chav who had a blade on him back down by bluffing about having a knife. Those who will hurt you for what you have often fear the loss of their own lives. You have to deal with animals like the animals they are.

You have to deal with animals like the animals they are.

Sometimes, of course, the animal is slightly rabid, and, instead of backing down, lunges for your throat.

But, if having a knife is illegal, only criminals will have knives! :eek:

Meh! Then when caught they get banged up.

Sometimes, of course, the animal is slightly rabid, and, instead of backing down, lunges for your throat.

If they're rabid, you don't have much of a choice but to try and use your brain (and hopefully superior weaponry) to put them down as quickly and efficiently as possible. If you can't flee, you either stand your ground and fight or cower and wait for death. I personally would not reveal I had a weapon if someone else had one ready to go, but didn't have it in motion yet.

My brother used to live in Nottingham and actually made a young chav who had a blade on him back down by bluffing about having a knife. Those who will hurt you for what you have often fear the loss of their own lives. You have to deal with animals like the animals they are.

While I agree somewhat on this stance, it is not at all helpfull when you factor in the 'are you dissing me' qouteant.

For a lot of youths, there is this aspect of 'show'ing of putting up a 'front' and that to have your peers witness you backing down, is somehow more harmfull than getting into a knife fight.

If they're rabid, you don't have much of a choice but to try and use your brain (and hopefully superior weaponry) to put them down as quickly and efficiently as possible. If you can't flee, you either stand your ground and fight or cower and wait for death.

I like the last idea. :)

While I agree somewhat on this stance, it is not at all helpfull when you factor in the 'are you dissing me' qouteant.

For a lot of youths, there is this aspect of 'show'ing of putting up a 'front' and that to have your peers witness you backing down, is somehow more harmfull than getting into a knife fight.

Yup, which is why I wouldn't have done what my brother did. The difference is, I would have had an exceptionally well-made blade on me (and the training to use it). The guy could have stabbed him and his girlfriend. I currently have a folding knife tucked into my waistband that I can deploy and cut someone with in about a second.

Yup, which is why I wouldn't have done what my brother did. The difference is, I would have had an exceptionally well-made blade on me (and the training to use it). The guy could have stabbed him and his girlfriend. I currently have a folding knife tucked into my waistband that I can deploy and cut someone with in about a second.

Myself I'd rather have a stick in my hand. Walking stick, bat, whatever.

Sticks do make great weapons. I carry impact weapons on me as well (you need different force options). I have a baseball bat by the door and a wood police truncheon about 3 feet from me. I'd like to take up escrima at some point so I can become more proficient with the most basic of weapons (the stick). :)

Some of you probably think I'm nuts, but I've had some strange experiences. Had a knife pulled on me in the street when I was 7, and I had to hide under a bed praying for my life at 8 (when someone entered my aunt's home with an automatic rifle). I refuse to be a victim if I can help it.

Oh noes! You can't fulfil your 'want' to hunt! oh no! Whatever shall we do?!

Not hunt perhaps?

You can't get on the internet! Whatever shall you do!

Not get on the internet perhaps? Hunting is a hobby, as much as you or me getting on these forums.
you could buy a bullet proof vest if you 'really' wanted to defend yourself; what you gun nuts want to do retaliate, to kill, not defend: defending is done with a shield, not a sword.
I didn't know bullet proof vests covered the entire body, could stop any bullet no matter how close, and also defended you from someone beating you with the gun. Also, they're air-conditioned, right? It's not like I could have a heat-stroke.
You're right, because every petty criminal is going to go to such lengths to obtain handguns. It's not like they're going to say "oh fuck this" and just buy a knife or some shit. No of Course not, they're going to buy a gun
You're right, they'd rather endanger themselves by getting a knife and getting up close to someone to threaten them, rather then point the gun at him from a few feet away.
My god, do you watch the Sopranos and the Godfather, and think every criminal is that hardcore? Do you really think people who go crazy and shot all those people have underground connections to the blackmarket? Or could even find it? These things don't get set up by people who will let just anyone in, and those people do NOT go on mass killings, they're trying not to draw attention to themselves.

I've never seen either of those. And I'm not seeing how that has any relation to how drugs are still in the hands of millions of people in the USA alone.

No you wouldn't, you'd be whining on these boards about how the big bad government has taken away your right to kill people.
No, I'm fairly sure I'd be talking about how the government has become paranoid beyond all reason.

I think the thing about banning knifes, is to get them off the street. There are a tiny amount of reasons why a youth should be carrying a knife around the streets and none at all if that knife was designed soley for the porpouse of stabbing people.
Self-defense against people who have (Now) illegal knives.

Self-defense against people who have (Now) illegal knives.

Naaa that argument makes no sense to me at all.

Yes they did, but the Virgina Tech shooter didn't, and the guns Harris and Klebold used where sold legally, then given to them illegally; had the guns not been available, they would not have been able to obtain them

See, this is what I mean, you only ever see two possible outcomes:
A. He has a gun, shoots everyone
B He has a gun, someone else has a gun, He dies.

While missing the third outcome, He doesn't have a gun, the professor doesn't have a gun, no one is shot.
While still missing the fact that we still could've gotten a gun.
You know, you simply cannot get over this, can you? IF THEY DON'T HAVE A GUN, YOU DON'T NEED ONE.

Except if they still have a gun because, y'know, criminals usually aren't so shy with breaking the law.
And didn't report them to the police? No wonder you have such a problem with guns in your country, what with such fine upstanding citizens like yourself.
...
And herein lies the heart of the argument; you don't really care about defense, or such nonsense, no, you're worried the big bad government is going to take your toy gun away.
And herin lies the heart of YOUR argument; you don't really care about Civil liberties or such nonsense like that, you want the government to take away EVERYTHING that can be used for violence. *Brings out bubble wrap*

And why is it you need a Weapon? Lock your damn doors, build a house with walls.
Criminals can't pick locks, break down doors,etc,etc,.
Why? I find shooting someone to be a very personal attack. Maybe you should lay of guns?

There is *no* middle ground that is acceptable, I'm glad you'd try, it's more then the NRA and like would ever want.

I find threatening somone to be a very personal attack.

But this is just the problem, they ARE handed out like candy, and even if they have no history of crime or mental illness, they could still go nuts and kill all sorts of people, and that's the problem; it's simply not enough to check once, you have to keep checking, everyday, you need to talk to everyone, etc.
No, they aren't handed out like candy. You have no history of crime or mental illness, do you? Well, you have a computer in your house. You can't have that. You could break the moniter and use the glass as a weapon! :eek:
People can be very good actors if they want and gun sellers often don't give a shit, money is money.
Yeahhh... And tell me, do supermarkets that sell tobacco care? Yes. Because they don't want to be sued. Same goes for the gun sellers.
Throw it in their face, it'll be a surprise!
:p

Somehow I'm reading happy meals from this. o.o Don't know why.

Sorry if I seem harsh but I've seen a lot of stupid arguments from people like CM before, and I'm really sick of it.
I'm not quite sure I'd be talking if I were you. But I'm not. And you keep talking.

It's a good thing few know the obscure art of killing with pie or they might ban those too. :p

Yup, which is why I wouldn't have done what my brother did. The difference is, I would have had an exceptionally well-made blade on me (and the training to use it). The guy could have stabbed him and his girlfriend. I currently have a folding knife tucked into my waistband that I can deploy and cut someone with in about a second.

Then if you are in the UK you should be arrested and could face up to 5 years in jail, deservedly so in my opinion.

You admit to carrying an offensive weapon for the sole purpose of causing greivous bodily harm to others. There is no excuse for that type of behaviour and the attitudes behind it in a civilised society.

Then if you are in the UK you should be arrested and could face up to 5 years in jail, deservedly so in my opinion.

You admit to carrying an offensive weapon for the sole purpose of causing greivous bodily harm to others. There is no excuse for that type of behaviour and the attitudes behind it in a civilised society.

*nods*

Then if you are in the UK you should be arrested and could face up to 5 years in jail, deservedly so in my opinion.

You admit to carrying an offensive weapon for the sole purpose of causing greivous bodily harm to others. There is no excuse for that type of behaviour and the attitudes behind it in a civilised society.
YEAH! You shouldn't be allowed to defend yourself! Only criminals do that!

It's a good thing few know the obscure art of killing with pie or they might ban those too. :p
Smothered?

or

"Your tongues can't repel flavor of that magnitude!"
:p

YEAH! You shouldn't be allowed to defend yourself! Only criminals do that!

Duh! Omigosh I didn't realise that, I just didn't see it that way, geesh taking weapons out the equation=not being able to defend yourself!

I feel sooo stupid now.

Duh! Omigosh I didn't realise that, I just didn't see it that way, geesh taking weapons out the equation=not being able to defend yourself!

I feel sooo stupid now.
Taking weapons out of the victim's hands = Very hard to defend yourself against criminal who has a weapon.

Smothered?

or

"Your tongues can't repel flavor of that magnitude!"
:p

If I tell you, I'll have to pie you. *nods gravely*

If I tell you, I'll have to pie you. *nods gravely*
WHO ARE YOU!?!? The piefather??:D

Taking weapons out of the victim's hands = Very hard to defend yourself against criminal who has a weapon.

But not impossible. Also the point is that if these criminals are caught on the streets with these weapons, then bye bye, jail you go.

But not impossible. Also the point is that if these criminals are caught on the streets with these weapons, then bye bye, jail you go.
The police catch criminals? ALERT THE MEDIA!

Everyone in the world should be trained in some kind of martial arts, Jujutsu preferably.

It wouldn't do anything to make the scenario of criminal vs other guy any less violent or more even, but the footage of the exchange would be like 50x cooler. This is the stuff that television is made of.

Everyone in the world should be trained in some kind of martial arts, Jujutsu preferably.

It wouldn't do anything to make the scenario of criminal vs other guy any less violent or more even, but the footage of the exchange would be like 50x cooler. This is the stuff that television is made of.
It would make it uneven, because now the criminal knows martial arts, or knows martiala rts AND has a weapon. Not a good thing.

The police catch criminals? ALERT THE MEDIA!

Heh yeap you're a funny man huh! Yes they do, that is after all the job they do.

It would make it uneven, because now the criminal knows martial arts, or knows martiala rts AND has a weapon. Not a good thing.

But, conceivably, the victim knows martial arts too.

Therefore, any footage of the events would be very "Kiss of the Dragon".

EDIT: changed movies

Heh yeap you're a funny man huh! Yes they do, that is after all the job they do.
How many crimes happen? How many are reported? How many are solved?
But, conceivably, the victim knows martial arts too.

Therefore, any footage of the events would be very "Romeo Must Die".
You're just doing this so everytime you see someone getting robbed it'll look like some martial arts movie, won't you?

Well, that WOULD explain why you walk down dark alleys with a bag of popcorn...:D

But, conceivably, the victim knows martial arts too.

Therefore, any footage of the events would be very "Romeo Must Die".

I endorse this plan. If humanity is going to take a wee bit longer before evolving out of violent barbarism, we might as well at least be entertained. *nod*

You're just doing this so everytime you see someone getting robbed it'll look like some martial arts movie, won't you?

Possibly...

Well, that WOULD explain why you walk down dark alleys with a bag of popcorn...:D

Nah, I take those little movie candies. Popcorn is nasty when it gets cold.

Heh yeap you're a funny man huh! Yes they do, that is after all the job they do.

Apparently it isn't in America which is why our colonial chums are so confused by the concept.

You all seem to have forgotten an important fact. You run almost twice as fast when you have a knife...

:sniper: *BOOM* headshot!

Possibly...



Nah, I take those little movie candies. Popcorn is nasty when it gets cold.

I knew it!

Hey, give me some candy...:(

:D

I knew it!

Hey, give me some candy...:(

:D

Mine!

*goes Jujutsu on you*

Mine!

*goes Jujutsu on you*
*Goes The Matrix on you, cues awesome music*

I lived in Ordsall (Salford) and I lived in Stratford (East London) and other dodgy places. I've never carried any kind of weapon or known any one that did or ever feared for my safety. Reports of gun and knife crime in the UK are greatly sensationalised and set against the back drop of a country where people generally feel safe.

I think an important point about gun control in the UK that is overlooked by Conservative Morality and others of the same viewpoint, is that the vast majority of UK citizens are very antipathetic to the idea of owning guns. Most people don't like them, don't want them and would be very averse to having one within miles. Even our standard police officers don't carry guns. Making guns more easily accessible would put them in the hands of those with a propensity for power-tripping or violence or criminality without a similar increase in the number of guns owned purely for self-defense; in other words, by making guns easily accessible in the UK, we would be arming the dangerous and leaving ourselves more vulnerable.

YEAH! You shouldn't be allowed to defend yourself! Only criminals do that!

Only criminals stab people, therefore if you stab someone you are a criminal so by extension if you go armed for the explicit purpose of stabbing someone you are a criminal.
The law does not make exceptions for stabbing villains, in England and Wales (Scottish Law may be different) self defence is based upon reasonable force. I think you'll find shoving a six inch serrated blade in someone's abdomen hardly comes under the heading of "Reasonable" although not being a lawyer I would need to check.

I've checked. It's not.

Only criminals stab people, therefore if you stab someone you are a criminal so by extension if you go armed for the explicit purpose of stabbing someone you are a criminal.
The law does not make exceptions for stabbing villains, in England and Wales (Scottish Law may be different) self defence is based upon reasonable force. I think you'll find shoving a six inch serrated blade in someone's abdomen hardly comes under the heading of "Reasonable" although not being a lawyer I would need to check.

I've checked. It's not.
I think you'll find shoving a blade once into someone's abdomen is much preferable to have a six-inch blade shoved into YOUR abdomen several times.

Also, British Law is messed up.

I think you'll find shoving a blade once into someone's abdomen is much preferable to have a six-inch blade shoved into YOUR abdomen several times.



Sorry, where did it say that was the only other option?

*Goes The Matrix on you, cues awesome music*

Oh noes!

Not theme music!

*plays Darth Vader theme, whips out red lightsaber.

doesn't use it. force chokes you instead*

Sorry, where did it say that was the only other option?
Well, you could RUN and have a six inch blade stuck in your spine if that's your sort of thing.
Oh noes!

Not theme music!

*plays Darth Vader theme, whips out red lightsaber.

doesn't use it. force chokes you instead*
*Comes back a day later with a different name and a beard*

Also, British Law is messed up.

Yes, so much better to gunshot wounds to be one of the highest causes of death for young males.

Well, you could RUN and have a six inch blade stuck in your spine if that's your sort of thing.

*Comes back a day later with a different name and a beard*

Or you could not go down the dark alley when the strange voice whispers "Hey Buddy, C'mere"

Or you could rely on the mutant spider powered superhero to protect you, which is as realistic as your scenario.

How many crimes happen? How many are reported? How many are solved?

You're just doing this so everytime you see someone getting robbed it'll look like some martial arts movie, won't you?

Well, that WOULD explain why you walk down dark alleys with a bag of popcorn...:D


Don't know, don't know and umm, don't know. I do know that out of the three stabbings reported inthe press last week, we have two arrests. One could extrapolate data from that I guess.

Yes, so much better to gunshot wounds to be one of the highest causes of death for young males.
I'm fairly sure that's NOT because of self-defense laws.
Or you could not go down the dark alley when the strange voice whispers "Hey Buddy, C'mere"

Or you could rely on the mutant spider powered superhero to protect you, which is as realistic as your scenario.
Somebody robbing you with a knife is unrealistic?:confused:

I think you'll find shoving a blade once into someone's abdomen is much preferable to have a six-inch blade shoved into YOUR abdomen several times.

Also, British Law is messed up.

*shrug* Maybe, but you know what you are called if you do not abide by the law? Yep a criminal.

Don't know, don't know and umm, don't know. I do know that out of the three stabbings reported inthe press last week, we have two arrests. One could extrapolate data from that I guess.
That's a third. A third of all crimes go unsolved ACCORDING TO THAT. I would need a much larger data sample of a period of a year at least, to see how many crimes go unsolved. But if it was a third, that's quite a bit, and it justifies my comment.

*shrug* Maybe, but you know what you are called if you do not abide by the law? Yep a criminal.
If you defend yourself (Which according Y-Ddraig is illegal) you know what you are called? A criminal.

I'm fairly sure that's NOT because of self-defense laws.

Somebody robbing you with a knife is unrealistic?:confused:

Contrary to the picture painted by our rabid tabloid press, in the UK yes it is.
Armed robbery is treated very seriously by the Police over here, and the sentences handed down are generally relatively strong (5years for carrying weapons before we even get to the use part of the charges) and 99.9% of murderers and armed robbers, be they burglars, street criminals or bank robbers end up in prison.

That's a third. A third of all crimes go unsolved ACCORDING TO THAT. I would need a much larger data sample of a period of a year at least, to see how many crimes go unsolved. But if it was a third, that's quite a bit, and it justifies my comment.

No I disagree. Crime is always going to be with us and a third of reported crime being solved is a figure that is much better than say 2/3 or 1/4 huh.

If you feel that 1/3 is a high enough number for people to take the law into their own hands, then I would suggest that it is this mindset that is one of the causes of the problem.

If you defend yourself (Which according Y-Ddraig is illegal) you know what you are called? A criminal.

No wrong again. You can defend yourself against attack, if you use reasonable force. Stabbing somebody does excede such reasonble force, and rightly so. If stabbing somebody is criminal behaviour, then stabbing somebody in self defense must be accounted the same.

If you defend yourself (Which according Y-Ddraig is illegal) you know what you are called? A criminal.

If you stab someone, yes you are a criminal. If that person dies you are a murderer.
You would be arrested and you would go to court where you would need to persuade the jury that carrying a knife didn't exacerbate the situation and that stabbing your alleged assailant was the only course of action open to you.

Contrary to the picture painted by our rabid tabloid press, in the UK yes it is.
Armed robbery is treated very seriously by the Police over here, and the sentences handed down are generally relatively strong (5years for carrying weapons before we even get to the use part of the charges) and 99.9% of murderers and armed robbers, be they burglars, street criminals or bank robbers end up in prison.
99.99%. Why am I not believing that?
No I disagree. Crime is always going to be with us and a third of reported crime being solved is a figure that is much better than say 2/3 or 1/4 huh.

If you feel that 1/3 is a high enough number for people to take the law into their own hands, then I would suggest that it is this mindset that is one of the causes of the problem.
I never said they should take the law into their own hands. I'm saying that if they are attacked by someone, they shouldn't just let the criminal stab them until they're unconscious. Is that really too much to ask?
No wrong again. You can defend yourself against attack, if you use reasonable force. Stabbing somebody does excede such reasonble force, and rightly so. If stabbing somebody is criminal behaviour, then stabbing somebody in self defense must be accounted the same.
Stabbing someone excedes reasonable force? Well, when you try to punch them, and find a blade in your wrist for your trouble, don't come crying to me.
If you stab someone, yes you are a criminal. If that person dies you are a murderer.
You would be arrested and you would go to court where you would need to persuade the jury that carrying a knife didn't exacerbate the situation and that stabbing your alleged assailant was the only course of action open to you.
Yes. Yes it was. Well, that or be stabbed.

99.99%. Why am I not believing that?



Because you are assuming that the UK police are like the US police?

99.99%. Why am I not believing that?

Probably because you have an agenda that the facts don't fit so you choose to ignore or disbelieve them
I never said they should take the law into their own hands. I'm saying that if they are attacked by someone, they shouldn't just let the criminal stab them until they're unconscious. Is that really too much to ask?
Explain to me how stabbing someone is not the same as taking the law into your own hands?

Stabbing someone excedes reasonable force? Well, when you try to punch them, and find a blade in your wrist for your trouble, don't come crying to me.

Yes. Yes it was. Well, that or be stabbed.

Or run away. Or not get into that situation in the first place.

I have to wonder how many of you have been assaulted.

When you are assaulted, mugged or otherwise threatened with a knife, you can always go bold, slip from the grab and run away screaming. If your assailant is also bold, you will get a cut in an arm. More likely, he will try to escape and blend with the crowd. If he has a gun, you will get a gut shot before he runs away, and sadly, guns have proven to be more deadly than knives. I escaped a knife assault by just escaping and running. The same attempt with a gun armed assailant got me several weeks in a hospital.

If your assailant is close quarters with you armed with a gun, then there is no difference if you are also armed. If you try to draw your gun, it is game over for you, more likely. The chances of you actually being successful with drawing a gun when you are being mugged by an assailant are not good exactly. You will get killed before you are ready to fire.

You would be alarmed on the numbers we have here of armed POLICE OFFICERS killed by muggers. Well, to be frank, having a gun only usually mark them as a juicy target, as the gun itself is an additional price to the assault, just to begin. The mugger comes in, and aims the police man, demanding him to give him the gun and the money. The officer, who is not a civilian and is TRAINED in the use of a gun tries to draw his own, and gets shot to death. According to professional sources, it's a matter of initiative, the mugger is ready to shoot, you are not, period. Police around here are now told to turn their guns instead of fighting back.

For clarifying purposes, I carry a gun for self defense purposes after one too many incidents regarding my personal security. However, I am pretty aware that is useless in certain situations, specially when being mugged and caught by surprise. I would really like more gun control in my country. I would really like to live in a country with policies similar to those in the UK so I wouldn't have to carry a gun in my car.

Because you are assuming that the UK police are like the US police?
Because I'm assuming the police aren't omnipotent.
Probably because you have an agenda that the facts don't fit so you choose to ignore or disbelieve them Explain to me how stabbing someone is not the same as taking the law into your own hands?
Explain to me how defending yourself makes you a criminal.


Or run away. Or not get into that situation in the first place.
*Quotes self*
Well, you could RUN and have a six inch blade stuck in your spine if that's your sort of thing.

If you could avoid the situation 100% of the time, well, who WOULDN'T avoid that situation?

Probably because you have an agenda that the facts don't fit so you choose to ignore or disbelieve them Explain to me how stabbing someone is not the same as taking the law into your own hands?


Forgive me but do you have statistics to back that up?

Explain to me how defending yourself makes you a criminal.




Because in my country it is Illegal to stab people, it doesn't matter who they are. We don't have one set of rules for nice people and one set for criminals. We are all covered by the same law, therefore if you deliberately stab someone you are going to jail.

In your imaginary world if I were a drug dealer and wanted to remove some competition I could stick a knife in his heart and get away with it by simply putting another knife in his cold dead fingers. (see what I did there?:D)
It is a recipe for total mayhem.

I never said they should take the law into their own hands. I'm saying that if they are attacked by someone, they shouldn't just let the criminal stab them until they're unconscious. Is that really too much to ask?

Saying that it is better to stab somebody in the abdomen than be stabbed in the abdomen yourself is not saying that satbbing somebody is okay is it?


Stabbing someone excedes reasonable force? Well, when you try to punch them, and find a blade in your wrist for your trouble, don't come crying to me.

Well no I won't, I don't expect that to happen to me. But in answer to your question, yes stabbing somebody excedes reasonable force. I agree that the law can be an ass, but it is still law, and we non criminals still have to live by it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/6692091.stm

That's the original news article if anyone cares.

We are all covered by the same law, therefore if you deliberately stab someone you are going to jail.


I somehow disbelieve the law in your country has no self-defense exemption at all.

Because in my country it is Illegal to stab people, it doesn't matter who they are. We don't have one set of rules for nice people and one set for criminals. We are all covered by the same law, therefore if you deliberately stab someone you are going to jail.

In your imaginary world if I were a drug dealer and wanted to remove some competition I could stick a knife in his heart and get away with it by simply putting another knife in his cold dead fingers. (see what I did there?:D)
It is a recipe for total mayhem.
In your little fantasy world, the criminal won't stab you if don't defend yourself. There are sick, twisted people in this world who do that sort of thing for kicks. Besides, your fingerprints would be on the knife, the position of the body, the that the knife was still in the hand...

If the crime is serous enough, and the police are determined enough, at the very least they'd figure out it was framed. By who... Well, that's where we have unsolved crimes.

Because in my country it is Illegal to stab people, it doesn't matter who they are. We don't have one set of rules for nice people and one set for criminals. We are all covered by the same law, therefore if you deliberately stab someone you are going to jail.


There are multiple cases where this is not true

Edit: This (http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/64/64713_life_on_the_run_for_man_in_stab_horror.html) for example

or this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2550627.stm)

Saying that it is better to stab somebody in the abdomen than be stabbed in the abdomen yourself is not saying that satbbing somebody is okay is it?

Stabbing is by no means okay. But it's no different then the USA attacking Japan after they bombed Pearl Harbor. It's self defense.
Well no I won't, I don't expect that to happen to me. But in answer to your question, yes stabbing somebody excedes reasonable force. I agree that the law can be an ass, but it is still law, and we non criminals still have to live by it.
I don't believe stabbing someone excedes reasonable force. I fairly sure here in the USA it'd go down as "Self-defense", and the man who was defending himself wouldn't be a criminal, he'd be an intelligent citizen.
I somehow disbelieve the law in your country has no self-defense exemption at all.
It's Great Britain. Why do you think we got away from them? :p

Forgive me but do you have statistics to back that up?

Yes.
In many posts on this thread Conservative Morality has shown a distinct bias and a tendency to create imaginary scenarios that don't match real world experience whilst choosing to ignore legal facts in favour of his own half baked opinions.
Stastically this has been 87% of the time.:D

or did you mean http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/crime0506summ.pdf

In your little fantasy world, the criminal won't stab you if don't defend yourself. There are sick, twisted people in this world who do that sort of thing for kicks. Besides, your fingerprints would be on the knife, the position of the body, the that the knife was still in the hand...

If the crime is serous enough, and the police are determined enough, at the very least they'd figure out it was framed. By who... Well, that's where we have unsolved crimes.

To be honest I think you are the one living in a fantasy world. This current knife thing in the UK is blown out of all proportion by the press. It is only a handful of scared kids, about your age, who think like you that they need to carry a knife for protection that cause a problem. There is no need to carry a knife for self defence in the UK because it is a very safe place to live.

I somehow disbelieve the law in your country has no self-defense exemption at all.

We well do and as already been mentioned, it is 'reasonble force' You can of course defend yourself, using reasonble force, and by using reasonble force your assaliant should not end up dead.

It's Great Britain. Why do you think we got away from them?

I'm very well aware Britain has very restrictive self-defense laws. But my point is, there ARE circumstances, limited though they be, in which you CAN intentionally kill a person and not go to jail.

Frankly, CM, there's a reason I try to avoid these arguments on NS G.

Yes.
In many posts on this thread Conservative Morality has shown a distinct bias and a tendency to create imaginary scenarios that don't match real world experience whilst choosing to ignore legal facts in favour of his own half baked opinions.
Stastically this has been 87% of the time.:D

or did you mean http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/crime0506summ.pdf
That ignore legal facts of the UK. In the US however...

And that article/paper/whatever didn't say a thing. I didn't see anything about crime rates % solved.

We well do and as already been mentioned, it is 'reasonble force' You can of course defend yourself, using reasonble force, and by using reasonble force your assaliant should not end up dead.

That word does not mean what you think it means.

We well do and as already been mentioned, it is 'reasonble force' You can of course defend yourself, using reasonble force, and by using reasonble force your assaliant should not end up dead.

I've already provided links to show you can lawfully kill in self defence

Stabbing is by no means okay. But it's no different then the USA attacking Japan after they bombed Pearl Harbor. It's self defense.

It is completely different, your metaphor would have more substance if the USA carried out a pre-emptive strike because they thought Japan was about to attack.
If you'd used Iraq as an example of Self Defence (all those WMDs and links to Al Qaeda) then it would be far more apposite, and about as believable as a claim that it was Self Defence to attack Iraq....but that's a different thread:D

To be honest I think you are the one living in a fantasy world. This current knife thing in the UK is blown out of all proportion by the press. It is only a handful of scared kids, about your age, who think like you that they need to carry a knife for protection that cause a problem. There is no need to carry a knife for self defence in the UK because it is a very safe place to live.
Yes, because we all know how low crime rates are in the Uk :eyeroll: "It is a safe place to live... Big Brother protects me..." It might be safer then the USA, but not by much. It doesn't matter what the probability is that people get mugged or robbed, do you lock your doors? There's no need for locks! The UK is a safe place to live, remember?
We well do and as already been mentioned, it is 'reasonble force' You can of course defend yourself, using reasonble force, and by using reasonble force your assaliant should not end up dead.
Stabbing someone /=/Killing them
I'm very well aware Britain has very restrictive self-defense laws. But my point is, there ARE circumstances, limited though they be, in which you CAN intentionally kill a person and not go to jail.

Frankly, CM, there's a reason I try to avoid these arguments on NS G.
Because of regional differences in law and culture? But that's what makes it so fun!:)

Will the stab jackets protect UK citizens from the cutting British wit?

I've already provided links to show you can lawfully kill in self defence

Yes, but you the killer does not get to choose when that may be, you have to take your day in court and prove to the jury that it was justified and the numbers of times it is unjustified outweigh the few occasions when no prosecution takes place.

It is completely different, your metaphor would have more substance if the USA carried out a pre-emptive strike because they thought Japan was about to attack.
If you'd used Iraq as an example of Self Defence (all those WMDs and links to Al Qaeda) then it would be far more apposite, and about as believable as a claim that it was Self Defence to attack Iraq....but that's a different thread:D
Erm, no... Japan attacked us. Like a criminal trying to stab and ripping your coat, or your clothes, yet missing you (For the most part). You stab him. He doesn't die, and the police come in, as well as an ambulance, and take him away. You're safe. The man is under arrest. The story of Japan and the US (With the eception that both sides got stabbed several times until one decided he'd pull out a grenade :p)

I don't believe stabbing someone excedes reasonable force. I fairly sure here in the USA it'd go down as "Self-defense", and the man who was defending himself wouldn't be a criminal, he'd be an intelligent citizen.

Heh belive what you like, the fact though is that stabbing somebody excedes reasonable force.

Then allow me to suggest that the law in the States(or perhaps your part of it) seems fucking crazy.

Either stabbing somebody is against the law, or it isn't. If it is then I would assume there are very good reasons behind that, probably ethical and moral reasons detailing human life and it's 'rights'(whatever that means).

So you must then be one of these people that belive for some reason that those who transgresse our laws are no longer protected by them?

If stabbing is illeagel then it is right and proper that stabbing a criminal, yes even in self defense is also illiegal, this makes sense yes?

Will the stab jackets protect UK citizens from the cutting British wit?
Nah, the sharpest wit in the UK moved to Australia (Yahtzee!)

Yes, but you the killer does not get to choose when that may be, you have to take your day in court and prove to the jury that it was justified and the numbers of times it is unjustified outweigh the few occasions when no prosecution takes place.

if you deliberately stab someone you are going to jail.

So originally you stated a definite in that stabbing will land you in jail and now you've mellowed that quite a bit to say stabbing will land you in jail if you can't prove you had good reason to do so. Can you see where confusion will arise if you state things as such?

Yes, but you the killer does not get to choose when that may be, you have to take your day in court and prove to the jury that it was justified and the numbers of times it is unjustified outweigh the few occasions when no prosecution takes place.

That's vastly different from your contention that anybody who killss someone in self-defense is a criminal.

I've already provided links to show you can lawfully kill in self defence

I'll have to check them out, but I bet they have to be extreame circumstancse?

Heh belive what you like, the fact though is that stabbing somebody excedes reasonable force.

Legally this isn't always the case

Heh belive what you like, the fact though is that stabbing somebody excedes reasonable force.

Then allow me to suggest that the law in the States(or perhaps your part of it) seems fucking crazy.

Either stabbing somebody is against the law, or it isn't. If it is then I would assume there are very good reasons behind that, probably ethical and moral reasons detailing human life and it's 'rights'(whatever that means).

So you must then be one of these people that belive for some reason that those who transgresse our laws are no longer protected by them?

If stabbing is illeagel then it is right and proper that stabbing a criminal, yes even in self defense is also illiegal, this makes sense yes?
That makes absolutely no sense. That's like saying:

If taking prescription drugs when you aren't sick is illegal, taking prescription drugs when you are sick should be illegal.*

*At least I think taking prescription drugs when you aren't sick is illegal, I might be wrong there. If I am, replace Prescription drugs with marijuana.

I'll have to check them out, but I bet they have to be extreame circumstancse?

Which doesn't make a difference to the point that stabbing is not always going to land you in jail or always exceeds reasonable force

Check out these names as well :

Nick Baungartner
John Campbell
Dean Davis
Richard Watkins

I'll have to check them out, but I bet they have to be extreame circumstancse?
Like someone trying to stab you with a knife?

Erm, no... Japan attacked us. Like a criminal trying to stab and ripping your coat, or your clothes, yet missing you (For the most part). You stab him. He doesn't die, and the police come in, as well as an ambulance, and take him away. You're safe. The man is under arrest. The story of Japan and the US (With the eception that both sides got stabbed several times until one decided he'd pull out a grenade :p)

So are you suggesting that your self defence stabbing of the assailant will only take place after he's proved he's incapable of doing you any harm in the first place or would you take a pre-emptive stab before he's tried to knife you?

Yes, because we all know how low crime rates are in the Uk :eyeroll: "It is a safe place to live... Big Brother protects me..." It might be safer then the USA, but not by much. It doesn't matter what the probability is that people get mugged or robbed, do you lock your doors? There's no need for locks! The UK is a safe place to live, remember?



Only about 1% of UK crime involves serious violence. The real problem is that fear of crime does not reflect the reality, not help by sensationalist reporting. The difference between the UK and the US is that it is the duty of the police to protect citizens here, and not for the citizen to take the law in to their own hands. Vigilante behaviour is discouraged because it has long been shown to cause problems not solve them.

So are you suggesting that your self defence stabbing of the assailant will only take place after he's proved he's incapable of doing you any harm in the first place or would you take a pre-emptive stab before he's tried to knife you?
Let's put it this way:

If the USA saw a load of japanese war ships and bombers coming towards Pearl harbor, would they have declared war? yes. The USA didn't. I did. So yes, I would take a pre-emptive strike as soon as I was SURE he was going to stab me. (As in his hand is moving forward, knife in hand, in a stabbing motion)

I've already provided links to show you can lawfully kill in self defence

I have now read those links, and the police did say that they have to be looked at in a case by case basis and that this is not the green light for people to start killing in self defense.

I have now read those links, and the police did say that they have to be looked at in a case by case basis and that this is not the green light for people to start killing in self defense.

Did I ever say it was? I was just showing the falsehood in the statement that stabbing will always land one in jail

So originally you stated a definite in that stabbing will land you in jail and now you've mellowed that quite a bit to say stabbing will land you in jail if you can't prove you had good reason to do so. Can you see where confusion will arise if you state things as such?

That's vastly different from your contention that anybody who killss someone in self-defense is a criminal.

I will accept the point that killing someone in self defence will not always land you in prison, however if you kill someone in the UK you will be arrested and treated as a criminal and will (almost) always have to go to court. In the vast majority of instances this court case will lead to a criminal conviction.

Only about 1% of UK crime involves serious violence. The real problem is that fear of crime does not reflect the reality, not help by sensationalist reporting. The difference between the UK and the US is that it is the duty of the police to protect citizens here, and not for the citizen to take the law in to their own hands. Vigilante behaviour is discouraged because it has long been shown to cause problems not solve them.

What are we counting as serious violence?

The link Y-Ddraig provided before has violent crime at 22% of total recorded crime

I will accept the point that killing someone in self defence will not always land you in prison, however if you kill someone in the UK you will be arrested and treated as a criminal and will (almost) always have to go to court. In the vast majority of instances this court case will lead to a criminal conviction.

Yup no disagreement there

Stabbing someone /=/Killing them

And in many case it does. The point is if you use a weapon the chances for major injury or death are higher.

I saw my dad getting stabbed, and at least one of my brothers has history with knives, I am fairly aquainted with the damage a knife can do.

I wouldn't carry one, I wouldn't want to have to use one on another human, nope give me stick and that is as much protection as I want.

What are we counting as serious violence?

The link Y-Ddraig provided before has violent crime at 22% of total recorded crime

Grevious bodily harm and up according to the Home Office.

"Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any other person, either with or without any weapon or instrument, shall be guilty of an offence and, being convicted therefore, shall be liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years."

Thy fixed has been fixed.

...

Wait a minute, what?!?

I dont know seems fairly simmilar to your other options about the thug having a hand up with the knife because of experience. One would think that experience with a weapon would translate

Ok then make it approx half of the figure I gave before (according to the link)

So say about 11-12% of the total crime (and 50% of violent crime) results in injury to the victim

I remember a show in the UK that showed CCTV of random victims getting their asses kicked, stabbed, and beaten by chavs, etc. After playing the "shocking" footage, in slow motion, they "appealed" to the public for help in tracking down the bad guys.

Fuck - you're not likely to find most of those people, especially with the quality of footage they're showing.

What are we counting as serious violence?

The link Y-Ddraig provided before has violent crime at 22% of total recorded crime

There's more stats here (http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/statistics/statistics066.htm) and here (http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page1.asp)

I remember a show in the UK that showed CCTV of random victims getting their asses kicked, stabbed, and beaten by chavs, etc. After playing the "shocking" footage, in slow motion, they "appealed" to the public for help in tracking down the bad guys.

Fuck - you're not likely to find most of those people, especially with the quality of footage they're showing.

Argh quick delete the quote before people see how wrong I was :p

Looks like it (GBH) is 0.5% of total crime in London anyway

Link (www.mpa.gov.uk/downloads/committees/mpa/080131-09-appendix02.pdf)

*At least I think taking prescription drugs when you aren't sick is illegal, I might be wrong there. If I am, replace Prescription drugs with marijuana.

Being sick has nothing to do with it. It's illegal to take prescription drugs if you are not the person to whom they were prescribed.

Some interesting reading on the subject of violent crime in the UK
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

If you read down in the page, you'll find that the US and UK count "homicide" very differently.

That makes absolutely no sense. That's like saying:

If taking prescription drugs when you aren't sick is illegal, taking prescription drugs when you are sick should be illegal.*

*At least I think taking prescription drugs when you aren't sick is illegal, I might be wrong there. If I am, replace Prescription drugs with marijuana.

Again it is all to do with the morality behind the law. The reasons why killing somebody is illeagal are differant than why taking proscription drugs to get high are.

It makes perfect sense to me.

Being sick has nothing to do with it. It's illegal to take prescription drugs if you are not the person to whom they were prescribed.
Oh. Well. Yeah. That.

Some interesting reading on the subject of violent crime in the UK
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

If you read down in the page, you'll find that the US and UK count "homicide" very differently.
I wanted to quote that entire article. Thank you Hotwife. Thank you. *Hugs Hotwife*

Some interesting reading on the subject of violent crime in the UK
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

If you read down in the page, you'll find that the US and UK count "homicide" very differently.

For a less pro-gun view
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb1203.pdf

Homicides in US 5.6 per 100,000
in the UK 1.6 per 100,000

Which doesn't make a difference to the point that stabbing is not always going to land you in jail or always exceeds reasonable force

Check out these names as well :

Nick Baungartner
John Campbell
Dean Davis
Richard Watkins

Okay point made.

Did I ever say it was? I was just showing the falsehood in the statement that stabbing will always land one in jail

Fair doo's and I was just saying that, the police have said that this is anot agreen light to start killing people in self defense.

For a less pro-gun view
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb1203.pdf

Homicides in US 5.6 per 100,000
in the UK 1.6 per 100,000

Did you read his article?
The murder rates of the U.S. and U.K. are also affected by differences in the way each counts homicides. The FBI asks police to list every homicide as murder, even if the case isn't subsequently prosecuted or proceeds on a lesser charge, making the U.S. numbers as high as possible. By contrast, the English police "massage down" the homicide statistics, tracking each case through the courts and removing it if it is reduced to a lesser charge or determined to be an accident or self-defense, making the English numbers as low as possible.

For a less pro-gun view
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb1203.pdf

Homicides in US 5.6 per 100,000
in the UK 1.6 per 100,000

Homicides aren't counted the same way between the US and UK, so the comparison is meaningless.

My Girlfriends brother was is in London about a month and half ago and saw some get stabbed in broad day light

My Girlfriends brother was is in London about a month and half ago and saw some get stabbed in broad day light

Oh, well that proves it then:rolleyes:

Did you read his article?

If you read the British Government paper I linked to you will see that it concludes that homicide definitions are similar enough to do international comparisons. If anything the US figure would be even higher using UK criteria - what would be categorised as self-defence inthe US would be prosecuted as homicide in the UK. Even some US police behaviour would lead to them being prosecuted in the UK. The police in the Rodney King video would have ended in prison in the UK, and a much higher proportion of the shootings by US police would be prosecuted under UK law.

If you read the British Government paper I linked to you will see that it concludes that homicide definitions are similar enough to do international comparisons. If anything the US figure would be even higher using UK criteria - what would be categorised as self-defence inthe US would be prosecuted as homicide in the UK. Even some US police behaviour would lead to them being prosecuted in the UK. The police in the Rodney King video would have ended in prison in the UK, and a much higher proportion of the shootings by US police would be prosecuted under UK law.

You'll also find, if you use the Department of Justice Crime Statistics, that our murder rate by firearm is even lower than it's been (on an overall slide for more than ten years).

That, despite a radical increase in the number of firearms owned, and a radical increase in the number of states (nearly all now) that allow concealed carry (versus just 3 states 10 years ago).

We're all walking around, more and more armed, and we're not suffering more firearms murders - we're experiencing less over time. A 64% decline in 10 years.

If you take out the internecine warfare that young black males inflict on each other, the murder rate plummets to below that of Switzerland.

The UK experienced a rise in firearm violence over the years after the handgun ban - it obviously didn't do anything.

Addressing root causes helps more - and a gun is not a root cause.

Here in the US, we tore down and decentralized our housing for the poor - this is what led to the radical drop in firearm violence.

There in the UK, you're not addressing the root problems at all. Waving your hands and saying, "ban the gun, ban the knife" isn't going to do anything except make a few voters ignorantly happy.

You'll also find, if you use the Department of Justice Crime Statistics, that our murder rate by firearm is even lower than it's been (on an overall slide for more than ten years).

That, despite a radical increase in the number of firearms owned, and a radical increase in the number of states (nearly all now) that allow concealed carry (versus just 3 states 10 years ago).

We're all walking around, more and more armed, and we're not suffering more firearms murders - we're experiencing less over time. A 64% decline in 10 years.

If you take out the internecine warfare that young black males inflict on each other, the murder rate plummets to below that of Switzerland.

The UK experienced a rise in firearm violence over the years after the handgun ban - it obviously didn't do anything.

Addressing root causes helps more - and a gun is not a root cause.

Here in the US, we tore down and decentralized our housing for the poor - this is what led to the radical drop in firearm violence.

There in the UK, you're not addressing the root problems at all. Waving your hands and saying, "ban the gun, ban the knife" isn't going to do anything except make a few voters ignorantly happy.

I certainly can agree about the association between poverty and gun/knife crime and the fact that the British Government is not tackling the root cause.

I certainly can agree about the association between poverty and gun/knife crime and the fact that the British Government is not tackling the root cause.

The smartest, and least publicized thing the Clinton Administration did was in 1995 - tearing down the major housing projects all over the country, and dispersing people with Section 8 vouchers, and changing housing development policies to include some Section 8 housing in every development over a certain size.

This dispersal helped a LOT - I think that in the years to come, it will have a very positive effect on crime, educational success of the poor, and other factors related to being poor.

We COULD have an even further drop, by legalizing a lot of street drugs, and having major corporations actually sell them. I believe that would further cut our street violence by more than half.

The smartest, and least publicized thing the Clinton Administration did was in 1995 - tearing down the major housing projects all over the country, and dispersing people with Section 8 vouchers, and changing housing development policies to include some Section 8 housing in every development over a certain size.

This dispersal helped a LOT - I think that in the years to come, it will have a very positive effect on crime, educational success of the poor, and other factors related to being poor.

We COULD have an even further drop, by legalizing a lot of street drugs, and having major corporations actually sell them. I believe that would further cut our street violence by more than half.

One of the worst things Thatcher did in the UK was sell off the better public housing which led to a concentration of the poorest in the worst public housing. We are reaping that particular whirlwind.

In before knives are banned and a massive spree of club-related crimes begins in the UK.

EDIT:
Or maybe lance-crime.
Somebody'll finally put those disused fox hunting horses to good use.

One of the worst things Thatcher did in the UK was sell off the better public housing which led to a concentration of the poorest in the worst public housing. We are reaping that particular whirlwind.

There's a lot of that idiocy that goes on when people want to "streamline government". There are consequences for everything - and if you want to help the poor, you need to do something to give them hope and reduce their numbers. Rather than "force" them to work - give them the education, housing, and jobs that will encourage them to build their lives up.

Warehousing them in concentrated shit-warrens is a recipe for disaster.

You can't get on the internet! Whatever shall you do!

Not get on the internet perhaps? Hunting is a hobby, as much as you or me getting on these forums. And hobbies are not required to live.

I didn't know bullet proof vests covered the entire body, could stop any bullet no matter how close, and also defended you from someone beating you with the gun. Also, they're air-conditioned, right? It's not like I could have a heat-stroke.

I didn't know you could shoot bullets out of the air with your leet superhero skills.

You're right, they'd rather endanger themselves by getting a knife and getting up close to someone to threaten them, rather then point the gun at him from a few feet away.
God you're dense: you don't even seem to get what I'm saying, maybe it's because you live in fear that even the dirtiest hobo on the street is packing heat.

I've never seen either of those. And I'm not seeing how that has any relation to how drugs are still in the hands of millions of people in the USA alone.

Any law is going to drive illegal guns into an underground blackmarket, something most criminals won't have access to.


No, I'm fairly sure I'd be talking about how the government has become paranoid beyond all reason.
The Governement? Paranoid beyond all reason? You're the one who's arguing that you need more guns to solve a gun crime problem.

And hobbies are not required to live.



Any law is going to drive illegal guns into an underground blackmarket, something most criminals won't have access to.

I could steal some money from my sister, and go buy a kilo of meth/coke/pot/ whatever. Just because its black market don't mean that it is completely impossible to get.

I'm sitting in DC, the supposed gun-free area, and I'm already carrying my own (legally purchased in Virginia where I live).

I could walk outside, and with a hundred dollars in cash, get a pistol in 10 minutes. It isn't that hard to find the black market. They're in it for the money.

While still missing the fact that we still could've gotten a gun.
*facepalm*

So, let me get this straight, there is three possible situations, but in the third one I pointed out, which you failed to, the would-be-criminal reaches into the other situations to suddenly pull out a gun.

Except if they still have a gun because, y'know, criminals usually aren't so shy with breaking the law.


I guess the United States must be filled with Supracriminals then, who suddenly have unlimited access to restricted materials.



And herin lies the heart of YOUR argument; you don't really care about Civil liberties or such nonsense like that, you want the government to take away EVERYTHING that can be used for violence. *Brings out bubble wrap*


No, of course not, that's why I elect a government who imprisons people in a jail where they can do as they please.

Civil liberties have nothing to do with it: you have no right to kill someone, regardless of whether or not it's in self defense.


Criminals can't pick locks, break down doors,etc,etc,.
Criminals are more likely to go to a home that isn't locked, then waste time trying to unlock or break down doors.


No, they aren't . You have no history of crime or mental illness, do you? Well, you have a computer in your house. You can't have that. You could break the moniter and use the glass as a weapon! :eek:
Yes they are handed out like candy, background checks are weak and one dimensional at best

Yeahhh... And tell me, do supermarkets that sell tobacco care? Yes. Because they don't want to be sued. Same goes for the gun sellers.
No?

I could steal some money from my sister, and go buy a kilo of meth/coke/pot/ whatever. Just because its black market don't mean that it is completely impossible to get.

And if you get caught you're going to jail: guns aren't drugs, you don't get addicted to them like a substance so it's unlikely you'd do stupid things to get them.

Civil liberties have nothing to do with it: you have no right to kill someone, regardless of whether or not it's in self defense.

The Supreme Court of the United States, and specifically, the US Constitution, disagrees with you completely on that topic.

And if you get caught you're going to jail: guns aren't drugs, you don't get addicted to them like a substance so it's unlikely you'd do stupid things to get them.

You've obviously never bought a few decks of Mexican brown before. It's unlikely you'll be caught, very unlikely you'll go to jail, and you don't have to do anything stupid as long as you have some cash.

Criminals are more likely to go to a home that isn't locked, then waste time trying to unlock or break down doors.

Waste time?The less than 5 seconds it takes to kick a door at the lock several times or ram your shoulder at the top part. They could just break a window.

Waste time?The less than 5 seconds it takes to kick a door at the lock several times or ram your shoulder at the top part. They could just break a window.

Right, because they're really going to be breaking down doors, making all sorts of noise, drawing attention to themselves, something all criminals want.

breaking a window is more likely, but if you're really worried about it, don't get a bottom floor apartment, buy a security system, etc

The Supreme Court of the United States, and specifically, the US Constitution, disagrees with you completely on that topic.

Both of which I care nothing about: I honestly don't care what a bunch of gun lobbied judges say about a piece of paper which is clearly outdated in the modern world.

USA =/= World

Right, because they're really going to be breaking down doors, making all sorts of noise, drawing attention to themselves, something all criminals want.

breaking a window is more likely, but if you're really worried about it, don't get a bottom floor apartment, buy a security system, etc

Here in the US, it's popular to do "home invasion". It's becoming more popular as time goes on.

1. The person is at home, so you get to kidnap them and take them to the ATM, where they will withdraw money for you.
2. If the person is female, you get to rape them before getting some cash.
3. They know where all the good stuff is in your house, so the robbery is more efficient than a burglary where no one is home.
4. Most people are unarmed, so this is pretty safe, since the robber has a gun and/or multiple friends with him.
5. You get to beat the shit out of the occupants of the home, just for fun. And kill them if you feel like it.

A security system won't be worth shit in such a situation. The average response time across the US for police responding to felonies is around 45 minutes - your jurisdiction may vary.

It's indisuputable, by peer-reviewed research, that Americans defend themselves successfully with firearms 2 to 4 million times or more per year. Without killing anyone.

You, it would seem, would prefer those to become actual crimes with actual victims.

Right, because they're really going to be breaking down doors, making all sorts of noise, drawing attention to themselves, something all criminals want.

Doors aren't that loud to break down. All it takes is a kick to the bottom half, then using a crow bar in the opening near the lock.

breaking a window is more likely, but if you're really worried about it, don't get a bottom floor apartment, buy a security system, etc

There is the magical, and wonderful invention of late. Its called a ladder...

You've obviously never bought a few decks of Mexican brown before. It's unlikely you'll be caught, very unlikely you'll go to jail, and you don't have to do anything stupid as long as you have some cash.

No, I have no use for illegal drugs.

My point was, of course, that people are more likely to go out of their way to get drugs to which they're addicted to, then to go out of their way to get a weapon that they're not addicted to.

There's a lot of that idiocy that goes on when people want to "streamline government". There are consequences for everything - and if you want to help the poor, you need to do something to give them hope and reduce their numbers. Rather than "force" them to work - give them the education, housing, and jobs that will encourage them to build their lives up.

Warehousing them in concentrated shit-warrens is a recipe for disaster.

I am in complete agreement with you here.

No, I have no use for illegal drugs.

My point was, of course, that people are more likely to go out of their way to get drugs to which they're addicted to, then to go out of their way to get a weapon that they're not addicted to.

Many criminals are addicted to "freedom" and "survival". Freedom means not going to jail, and survival means not being killed by rivals.

So they'll get a gun.

No, I have no use for illegal drugs.

My point was, of course, that people are more likely to go out of their way to get drugs to which they're addicted to, then to go out of their way to get a weapon that they're not addicted to.

If they have a drug dealer, the dealer will have connections to the people bought the drugs from, who have connections to the black market.

If they have a drug dealer, the dealer will have connections to the people bought the drugs from, who have connections to the black market.

I think xomic lives in the West End, and hasn't seen anything "illegal" in his life.

A security system won't be worth shit in such a situation. The average response time across the US for police responding to felonies is around 45 minutes - your jurisdiction may vary.

Yeah, it may, because I don't live in the USA, so I imagine it would take a pretty long time for them to respond.


It's indisuputable, by peer-reviewed research, that Americans defend themselves successfully with firearms 2 to 4 million times or more per year. Without killing anyone.

All research is disuputable.


You, it would seem, would prefer those to become actual crimes with actual victims.

I would prefer if Americans tried to figure out the underlying problems that lead to such problems in your society, rather then engaging with an arms race with criminals.

Japan has a very low gun crime rate, because they have very strict laws; and so does Canada. In fact, everyone has a low gun crime rate compared to the United States.

All research is disuputable.


Anti-gun people tried and failed.

According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.

Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)

In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.

In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.

In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.

In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)

In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.

Source: "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995

And peer-reviewed by a very anti-gun professor (one among many who tried)

Marvin Wolfgang, the late Director of the Sellin Center for Studies in Criminology and Criminal Law at the University of Pennsylvania, considered by many to be the foremost criminologist in the country, wrote in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995:

"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police ... What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. ["Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, published in that same issue of The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology] The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. ...I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart Studies. ... the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. ... The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."

Then Clinton funded a large scale attempt to refute it - and failed - in fact, they came close to doubling the number of defensive gun uses:

Gun control activists were unhappy with the National Self Defense Survey's results, which show that "Every 13 seconds an American gun owner uses a firearm in defense against a criminal."

In a 1994 TV news taping, Handgun Control, Inc.’s, spokesman, Sandy Cooney, called the National Self Defense Survey “obscene” and threw ad hominem slurs at its lead researcher, professor of criminology, Dr. Gary Kleck. Since Kleck is an impartial social scientist with no links to gun advocates or manufacturers — in fact he’s a liberal Democrat — it appears that Kleck’s only sin was doing research which produced results that challenged the gun-control agenda of Handgun Control, Inc., the "Million" Moms, and similar organizations.

So, to refute the results of the National Self Defense Survey, two pro-gun-control researchers, Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig, were given funding by the Clinton administration's Department of Justice to do their own survey of Defensive Gun Uses, to attempt to prove that the National Self Defense Survey's estimate was too high.

Unfortunately for advocates of gun control, the Cook-Ludwig survey produced results about the same as the National Self Defense Survey and -- in one remarkable paragraph -- suggested that their methodology was too conservative and that the Defensive Gun Use figure could even be doubled:

"Because respondents were asked to describe only their most recent defensive gun use, our comparisons are conservative, as they assume only one defensive gun use per defender. ...Inclusion of multiple DGUs reported by half of the 19 NSPOF respondents increases the estimate to 4.7 million DGUs[emphasis added]."

Source: The National Institute of Justice, in its survey Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig.

Yeah, it may, because I don't live in the USA, so I imagine it would take a pretty long time for them to respond.


All research is disuputable.



I would prefer if Americans tried to figure out the underlying problems that lead to such problems in your society, rather then engaging with an arms race with criminals.

Japan has a very low gun crime rate, because they have very strict laws; and so does Canada. In fact, everyone has a low gun crime rate compared to the United States.

Have you check Japan's sword crime rate?

And if your trying to claim that America has a higher gun crime rate the rest of the world, then you sir are ignorant.

Many criminals are addicted to "freedom" and "survival". Freedom means not going to jail, and survival means not being killed by rivals.

So they'll get a gun.

So you don't think they'd be able to make the connection between 'having gun' meaning more jail time?


And since when have all criminals been gang members?

So you don't think they'd be able to make the connection between 'having gun' meaning more jail time?


And since when have all criminals been gang members?

Most criminals here are involved in gangs, especially once they've been through the prison system once.

We have the "having gun" = "more jail time". It failed miserably.

We do, however, have two major studies as I pointed out, that show that violent crime can be successfully stopped far more often and more effectively than the police by armed citizens.

Have you check Japan's sword crime rate?

And if your trying to claim that America has a higher gun crime rate the rest of the world, then you sir are ignorant.

I imagine some countries have higher gun crime rates then the United States, but not among first world countries, or countries of America's stature.

I imagine some countries have higher gun crime rates then the United States, but not among first world countries, or countries of America's stature.

So you claim that every area that has a large amount of guns per person, say the rural midwest for example, should have a large amount of crime, correct?

I imagine some countries have higher gun crime rates then the United States, but not among first world countries, or countries of America's stature.

Keep imagining then. You're very wrong.

The U.S. has a high gun murder rate, whereas a country like England with strict gun controls has almost no gun murders and a very low murder rate. Doesn't this show that gun control is effective in reducing murder rates? Not exactly. Prior to having any gun controls, England already had a homicide rate much lower than the United States (Guns, Murders, and the Constitution: A Realistic Assessment of Gun Control, Don B. Kates Jr.). Japan is another country typically cited (see Japanese Gun Control, by David B. Kopel). (Briefly discussing the difference in homicide rates between England and the U.S. is Clayton Cramer's, Variations in California Murder Rates: Does Gun Availability Cause High Murder Rates?)

Gun control opponents can play similar games. The Swiss with 7 million people have hundreds of thousands of fully-automatic rifles in their homes (see GunCite's "Swiss Gun Laws") and the Israelis, until recently, have had easy access to guns (brief summary of Israeli firearms regulations here). Both countries have low homicide rates. Likewise this doesn't mean more guns less crime.

The U.S. has a higher non-gun murder rate than many European country's total murder rates. On the other hand, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Mexico have non-gun murder rates in excess of our total murder rate.

Incidentally in 13th century Europe, several studies have estimated homicide rates in major cities to be around 60 per 100,000. (Even back then, the equivalent of coroners, kept records.)

There are many, many factors, some much more prominent than gun availability that influence homicide rates and crime in general. (See this excerpt from 1997 FBI Uniform Crime Report and GunCite's "Is Gun Ownership Correlated with Violent Deaths?")

Due to the many confounding factors that arise when attempting international comparisons, this approach would appear to hold little promise for determining the influence of gun levels (or handgun availability) on violence rates.

Even the following people: http://hei.unige.ch/sas/files/sas/about/mission.html

found it IMPOSSIBLE to tie rates of gun ownership to rates of firearm violence.

So you're wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Keep imagining then. You're very wrong.



Even the following people: http://hei.unige.ch/sas/files/sas/about/mission.html

found it IMPOSSIBLE to tie rates of gun ownership to rates of firearm violence.

So you're wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
That's not even mentioning how Britain "Massages down" it's homicide rate by following it through the court system. Or how Japanese police try their best to claim everything was natural despite the huge cuts on the guys body.

London's knife crime "epidemic" is a bunch of bollocks. Most of the poor innocent "victims" were knife-wielding gangsters themselves.

Anti-gun people tried and failed.
Not to dispute those claims, no. If you had bothered going beyond guncite.org, you might have known that.

Myths about defensive gun use and permissive gun carry laws. (Berkley, 2000) (http://www.bmsg.org/pdfs/myths.pdf)

There's still little agreement and much debate in this area.

That's not even mentioning how Britain "Massages down" it's homicide rate by following it through the court system. Or how Japanese police try their best to claim everything was natural despite the huge cuts on the guys body.

So why are you hammering away at the "Stupid UK laws" when you don't know if the situation there is better or worse?

So why are you hammering away at the "Stupid UK laws" when you don't know if the situation there is better or worse?
Because not being able to defend yourself is downright idiotic Gravlen. I don't know if the situation is better or worse, but I'm fairly sure it's close to the USA's murder rate. They(Great Britain) want to make things look good, and, apparently, we want to make things looks bad, so the numbers aren't even close to correct on either side.

Because not being able to defend yourself is downright idiotic Gravlen.
Well, you're forgetting that the UK isn't the US. The culture is different, and what works in the US may not work in the UK and vice versa.

And why do you feel the need to escalate the situation?
And why do you diregard the possibility of running away?

I don't know if the situation is better or worse, but I'm fairly sure it's close to the USA's murder rate. They(Great Britain) want to make things look good, and, apparently, we want to make things looks bad, so the numbers aren't even close to correct on either side.
They don't "want to make things look good", they just choose a different (and in my mind, more correct) way of keeping statistics: If a case is found not to be murder in a court of law, why should the statistics still say it was a murder?

On the other hand, since the US is counting reported offences, it wouldn't be wrong either.

Regardless: If you can't say one situation is better or worse than the other you shouldn't compare the two and claim that the laws of one country is "stupid".

Also, we're all assuming that Joe Citizen has never once taken a defensive course in handgun combat, or even learned how to draw quickly.
Thumb safeties don't require much skill to operate. With many guns, it rests right on your thumb, enabling you to easily safe or ready the weapon.

We're also assuming that Joe cannot grab his opponent's weapon hand and move the muzzle off of him while drawing his own and firing. Reaction time is slow for a lot of people, and contrary to what it may seem, Joe has the reactionary advantage in that situation: Thug has already shown his weapon and therefore his plan. Joe has not shown the thug that he plans to move the weapon.

As we all know, assuming makes an ass out of you and me.
But the hypothetical criminal had enough experience to take on the average citizen in a knife fight and come out unharmed. Or at least in enough of a state to run away from the crime scene. So are you just assuming away that ability while you assume that the average citizen has had self defence training?

Nah, the sharpest wit in the UK moved to Australia (Yahtzee!)
+1 for you :)
There is the magical, and wonderful invention of late. Its called a ladder...
Yes. You can just carry a ladder, put it up against an apartment building, smash the window, climb in, rob the place, and climb out with everything you've stolen and walk off with the ladder, and nobody will notice.

Or you could just fuck the ladder and rob the people on the ground floor.

Well, you're forgetting that the UK isn't the US. The culture is different, and what works in the US may not work in the UK and vice versa.

And why do you feel the need to escalate the situation?
And why do you diregard the possibility of running away?


They don't "want to make things look good", they just choose a different (and in my mind, more correct) way of keeping statistics: If a case is found not to be murder in a court of law, why should the statistics still say it was a murder?

On the other hand, since the US is counting reported offences, it wouldn't be wrong either.

Regardless: If you can't say one situation is better or worse than the other you shouldn't compare the two and claim that the laws of one country is "stupid".
How many times do I have to say this...

NOT BEING ALLOWED TO DEFEND ONESELF WHEN ATTACKED IS DOWNRIGHT IDIOTIC!

I will, however, agree with you on Britain's way of counting murders. The US should do that. However, the situation in the country does not exclude it's laws from criticism. The UK would have to be crime-free before I stopped criticizing it's anti-self-defense policy.
But the hypothetical criminal had enough experience to take on the average citizen in a knife fight and come out unharmed. Or at least in enough of a state to run away from the crime scene. So are you just assuming away that ability while you assume that the average citizen has had self defence training?

Of course! Everyone has had self-defense training! Don't you know that? :p
+1 for you :)
Yay! :)
Yes. You can just carry a ladder, put it up against an apartment building, smash the window, climb in, rob the place, and climb out with everything you've stolen and walk off with the ladder, and nobody will notice.

Or you could just fuck the ladder and rob the people on the ground floor.
Exactly. But everyone can't live on a higher floor.

Also, wouldn't that hurt a little? I mean, doing that to ladders is kinda creepy...

How many times do I have to say this...

NOT BEING ALLOWED TO DEFEND ONESELF WHEN ATTACKED IS DOWNRIGHT IDIOTIC!
The same could be said for ignoring all those posts about being able to defend oneself provided one uses reasonable force.

Also, wouldn't that hurt a little? I mean, doing that to ladders is kinda creepy...

There's porn of it. There's always porn of it.

NOT BEING ALLOWED TO DEFEND ONESELF WHEN ATTACKED IS DOWNRIGHT IDIOTIC!

IF I TALK REALLY LOUDLY PEOPLE WILL THINK MORE OF MY OPINION...

... oh wait....

The same could be said for ignoring all those posts about being able to defend oneself provided one uses reasonable force.

But where does reasonable force lie? According to the posts I'VE read (Which is all of them), their thought of reasonable force is poking them with the soft cushions. *Cue chord*
There's porn of it. There's always porn of it.
...

I'm scarred for life for even hearing that idea.

IF I TALK REALLY LOUDLY PEOPLE WILL THINK MORE OF MY OPINION...

... oh wait....
It was obvious that he was conveniently missing that part of my posts. I just wanted to make it more visible for him.

How many times do I have to say this...

NOT BEING ALLOWED TO DEFEND ONESELF WHEN ATTACKED IS DOWNRIGHT IDIOTIC!
Who says you can't defend yourself? I'm not, and UK law isn't either.

Nice way of dodging all of my questions though. I shall do you the favour of repeating myself, but without screaming:

Why do you feel the need to escalate the situation?
And why do you diregard the possibility of running away?

I will, however, agree with you on Britain's way of counting murders. The US should do that. However, the situation in the country does not exclude it's laws from criticism. The UK would have to be crime-free before I stopped criticizing it's anti-self-defense policy.
You should criticize - but where it's warranted and based on the facts. And you've just said you don't have the facts. All you have is the straw-man argument that you're not allowed to defend yourself. You are.

You should rather try to explain why you would need to defend yourself with a gun, if that defense would make it more likely that the person attacking you also will have a gun.

Who says you can't defend yourself? I'm not, and UK law isn't either.

Nice way of dodging all of my questions though. I shall do you the favour of repeating myself, but without screaming:

Why do you feel the need to escalate the situation?
And why do you diregard the possibility of running away?

1. Because you seem to regard defending yourself as escalating the situation, I'll put it as simply as I can: Because I prefer to come back to my house with my stomach intact.
2. Because I don't want to either:
A. Have a knife stuck in my spine
B. Have some thug chase me and have him cut me up more then he would've before.
You should criticize - but where it's warranted and based on the facts. And you've just said you don't have the facts. All you have is the straw-man argument that you're not allowed to defend yourself. You are.

You should rather try to explain why you would need to defend yourself with a gun, if that defense would make it more likely that the person attacking you also will have a gun.
... You know, if you keep ignoring my posts, I'm afraid I'll have to do the same to yours.

2. Because I don't want to either:
A. Have a knife stuck in my spine
B. Have some thug chase me and have him cut me up more then he would've before.

Because that's what'll happen. If you run, they'll catch you and kill you even harder. There is 0 chance of you being faster than them. It doesn't even matter if you run into a huge crowd screaming for help. They'll come after you and kill you, unless you kill them first. There are no other options.

Because that's what'll happen. If you run, they'll catch you and kill you even harder. There is 0 chance of you being faster than them. It doesn't even matter if you run into a huge crowd screaming for help. They'll come after you and kill you, unless you kill them first. There are no other options.
Kill you harder.. Hehe.... I wish I had waited for my quote of the day...

I don't want to take the chance. Not everyone can run as fast as the other. I know I sure as heck wouldn't be able to get too far.

1. Because you seem to regard defending yourself as escalating the situation, I'll put it as simply as I can: Because I prefer to come back to my house with my stomach intact.
I see going from knives to guns as escalating the situation.

2. Because I don't want to either:
A. Have a knife stuck in my spine
B. Have some thug chase me and have him cut me up more then he would've before.
That's not the most plausible outcomes though. He'd have to throw the knife, and you would have got nowhere to run to for those to be the most likely outcomes.
(If the person is in close contact with you, a gun won't help much.)

... You know, if you keep ignoring my posts, I'm afraid I'll have to do the same to yours.
And what have I ignored? If anything, it must have been because your huge letters blinded me for a minute.

Up here isn't that bad, unless you venture towards Glasgow East where, incidentally, the Commonwealth games are going to be held.

Otherwise, the chances of getting stabbed, or 'chibbed' as it is called, seem far less than in the London area.

I think if we look at the stats, there is a stronger correlation between proximity to large urban centers and violence than weapon laws and violence. If you don't want to be assaulted, stay out of the city. :)

For the record, I don't live in the UK, even though I am British. I've spent a considerable amount of my life living on the east coast of the US. I now live in a foreign city where we are allowed to carry knives for utility use, including lockback knives, and we have one of the lowest crime rates in the world too. That doesn't mean violent crime doesn't exist. I know several women who have been robbed and assaulted, and my own father has been robbed at knife point not once but twice. If someone really wants to hurt you, they will find a way to do it, with or without edged weapons. What's next, banning glass bottles and tin cans?

I think if we look at the stats, there is a stronger correlation between proximity to large urban centers and violence than weapon laws and violence.
That's always been my take on it, too, but I've never bothered to track down the statistics to argue my case.

That's always been my take on it, too, but I've never bothered to track down the statistics to argue my case.
I think it's a widely accepted fact.

So the UK allows you to defend yourself with reasonable force, including lethal force, but not to carry a knife? Bit hard to fight off an armed attacker unarmed, don't you think? I think people should be given stiffer penalties for unlawful USE of a weapon, and not be charged for mere possession.

Right, back to reading Tess of the D'Urbervilles. :)

OK, one more thing. You know the two PSP playing French students who got murdered recently? Do you think both of them would have died if one or both of them had a knife ready to go? They might have both been killed anyway, but at least they would have had a fighting chance.