Silk Road forums
Discussion => Silk Road discussion => Topic started by: piratesam on June 15, 2013, 12:43 am
-
Why?
I always assumed it was because it brought way to much attention to an already very publicized black market. I don't know for sure though. Anyone know the true reason for it?
-
i think it was around the beginning of the year. Why dont you check out BMR. watch though a lot of people scam for weapons.
-
i think it was around the beginning of the year. Why dont you check out BMR. watch though a lot of people scam for weapons.
Yeah, I have checked out BMR, bunch of asshole vendors inflate the prices almost double triple to what some of the guns MSRP is worth. Like a glock for just over a grand, must be out of their fucking mind if ima buy a pistol that is normally maybe $300-500.
-
Dude, you're buying an illegal gun, anonymously. You pay for the privileged.
There are three of four of us on BMR who sell guns for 100% escrow, including shipping. I build ARs. If you're domestic (in the US) I'll sell you one for $1500 shipped. That's the MEDIAN price for a legal AR-15. The ARs I build are 100% legal.
-
This thread used to explain why: http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion/index.php?topic=33758.0
It doesn't seem to be with us any longer. I don't know why.
IIRC, DPR stated something along the lines that the Armory wasn't getting enough traffic and left it at that.
From everything I have learned about DPR I would guess he fully supports the right to own, buy, and sell weapons freely - just not right here, right now. I would also speculate that DPR had more reasons for banning weapons which he did not publicly share, like negative media attention or more scrutiny from the state.
Don't complain about the price. Buy it or don't.
If they are that overpriced then sell them yourself. Easy right?
-
Weapons were originally sold alongside all other goods on the SR main site.
The way I recall it, once Silk Road began to boom, there were many philosophical discussions about whether weapons 'should' be sold and whether they fell within the meaning of items "intended to harm...", which are prohibited by Silk Road. A great many people who were okay with the sale of drugs to consenting adults were morally opposed to the sale of weapons.
The other major argument was that the sale of weapons was likely to bring more heat to the site.
Eventually, SR management made the decision to hive weapons off into a completely separate sister site, The Armory. This decision appeased most folk.
After a few months (on August 3 2012 to be precise) The Armory was shut down as it didn't seem to be a feasible business venture. There is big difference between posting powders and posting arms. The site was not profitable and members complained of scams, which would damage the reputation of the site's owners (and by extension, Silk Road, having the same parent).
HTH :)
-
The US government would become enraged if SR was providing weapons to terrorists such as those to whom the US government is currently providing weapons. :(
-
I think it's good silkroad doesn't market arms. I think the right to bear arms and defend yourself are rights that should never be taken, but just selling unlicensed weapons to anonymous individuals is a recipe for disaster...
-
Don't steal. Don't sell drugs. And definitely don't sell any weapons. The government hates competition. ;D
The US government would become enraged if SR was providing weapons to terrorists such as those to whom the US government is currently providing weapons. :(
-
The US government would become enraged if SR was providing weapons to terrorists such as those to whom the US government is currently providing weapons. :(
LOLLOLLOL! ;D
So true!!
-
Hi,
I have been away from SR for a while and didn't realize weps were no longer on sale. Last I was around there were always threads on the front page of "General" forum debating their sale. In my country (UK) a drugs webby doesn't really get people excited, but weapons on sale would.
I think SR will likely survive for longer without them, because whatever ppl think nothing is invulnerable forever.
-
Don't steal. Don't sell drugs. And definitely don't sell any weapons. The government hates competition. ;D
word.
-
The Armory was shut down because it was spun off as a separate site, and it cost more to operate than they were making in commission. The illegal arms market is much smaller than the drug market. If guns were allowed on the main site, it wouldn't matter, because the site pays for itself through drugs. However, a lot of people objected to that.
-
:)
I remember it, but thought it was to whacky and as Astor says brought too much attention at that particular time, (black marketreloaded) and the others seem to be ok but there not in the lime light.
I for one could not live with fact IF i ran a site such as this, as well as selling weapons, would drive me nuts and never sit right on my brain.
My belief in DPR and a possibly that this could of been a misguided adventure and on moral aspects he made change.
If not thats fine too after all free market i have seen a shed lot more worse stuff.
-
Don't steal. Don't sell drugs. And definitely don't sell any weapons. The government hates competition. ;D
word.
8)
-
There's an old post by DPR explaining this, and now I can't find it. I think it was in the Guest Market section which is now deleted. The reasons were non viability according to a fiscal standpoint, and limiting the scope of LE targeting.
Piece, Love, and Fuck Haters.
-
I like to think that having the DEA on your ass is a lot better than having the ATF and DEA.
-
I, for one, am glad that SR banned selling weapons. Guns introduce a whole different vibe to this place. I prefer a nice, friendly place where people can meet, talk, buy and use drugs. Plus if SR permits selling weapons it will really be bad PR for the place and ratchet up negative publicity. I think it was a good decision to ban weapons sales here.
-
I'm not sure I disagree with gun sale wholly.
The point is this market is to be libertarian; guns should be available for purchase. There's more liability as a market in selling guns, but ultimately, with burgeoning gun laws, it is going to be a bigger market in the upcoming months/years, especially in the U.S.
-
I'm not sure I disagree with gun sale wholly.
The point is this market is to be libertarian; guns should be available for purchase. There's more liability as a market in selling guns, but ultimately, with burgeoning gun laws, it is going to be a bigger market in the upcoming months/years, especially in the U.S.
No one has yet brought up the consideration that Silk Road would take the brunt of it if The Armory -- now re-established as Arms Depot -- failed to deliver. With the previous subsidiary attachment to Silk Road it would have been impossible for Silk Road to successfully extricate our involvement if something went belly up, even though it would have had nothing to do with Silk Road. Now this is remedied with the current severance.
I believe that these factors would have ultimately outweighed any positives Silk Road would have stood to gain by continuing to to link themselves in this way with the selling of guns.
Piece, Love, and Fuck Haters.
-
I am glad SR isn't selling weapons. If you need a gun go to the store and buy one here in the US. Otherwise you don't deserve to have one. It's the same with alcohol. If you need alcohol go to the store and buy some. If you can't well it's probably because you shouldn't have any. Those that should have the choice of going out and buying either.
-
I'm not sure I disagree with gun sale wholly.
The point is this market is to be libertarian; guns should be available for purchase. There's more liability as a market in selling guns, but ultimately, with burgeoning gun laws, it is going to be a bigger market in the upcoming months/years, especially in the U.S.
No one has yet brought up the consideration that Silk Road would take the brunt of it if The Armory -- now re-established as Arms Depot -- failed to deliver. With the previous subsidiary attachment to Silk Road it would have been impossible for Silk Road to successfully extricate our involvement if something went belly up, even though it would have had nothing to do with Silk Road. Now this is remedied with the current severance.
I believe that these factors would have ultimately outweighed any positives Silk Road would have stood to gain by continuing to to link themselves in this way with the selling of guns.
Piece, Love, and Fuck Haters.
I didn't know that much about it but I don't think The Armory was re-established as Arms Depot. The Arms Depot was exposed as a scam long ago. They kept their website and the scam going for a long time after they were exposed and might still be scamming people if the website is still up. I don't know.
EDIT: Looks like Duffman beat me to it!
-
Don't know a single person who would be comfortable with Arms sales on SR. I know USA users have a different perspective but SR is international and it was probably a sensible business decision to stop selling weaponry.
It doesn't sit well to me to buy LSD and weed from the same place that sells Glocks and AK47s . Make of that what you will.
Take care.
-
Killing people is not cool
-
So three things about buying weapons:
1. @ The-Truth: Guns don't kill people, people kill people. You can use a gun for a lot of things before you use it to kill someone. When you stop drinking the kool-aid, you'll realize this.
2. On BMR, there are two people not including myself who have SUCCESSFULLY sold guns internationally, I sell to them, and they sell my items to the world. They are:
Grass4Cash/DemonFifa
CherryFlavor
3. The Armory was closed down because the majority of the ads there were scams. To the person who touted that they were not comfortable buying LSD and an AK-47 on the same website - lol come on. The next time you see your street dealer, ask him how hard it would be to get a firearm. I bet he'll say he knows a guy and you'll have a gun in your hands ASAP for the right price.
----------------------
Guns are a tool to prevent a government from turning the population into slaves. I believe this, I am an American as probably most of you know. I do not vote Democrat or Republican, I am a Constitutionalist. The Second Amendment was put there to prevent the Government from getting too large.
Liberalism has destroyed the USA.
I will sell my guns to people on BMR for a fair price ($1500-$2k US ONLY). I will do this because an armed population is a better tool for change than an easily falsified voting document.
I look forward to doing business with you all soon..
OH...
Macbook Pros will be back in stock in a few weeks :D
-
Dude, you're buying an illegal gun, anonymously. You pay for the privileged.
There are three of four of us on BMR who sell guns for 100% escrow, including shipping. I build ARs. If you're domestic (in the US) I'll sell you one for $1500 shipped. That's the MEDIAN price for a legal AR-15. The ARs I build are 100% legal.
I was going to get into the market as I buy and sell alot of guns... To be honest most need a middle man I buy ftf and ship in pieces USA with fake ID...
Shit SR vendors sells Poison meant to kill people on here bought to kill yourself or others.
So I dont see the issue? ID's SSN is fare less potent than
I bought this from here with the intention of offing myself before I got hooked on Bitcoin and illegal shit
potassium cyanide
Tell me this doesnt harm people the most its sole purpose is to kill.
Guns to protect and kill
SSN and Ids not to kill and related issues can be overcome by victims..
Just saying...
But it brings more heat...
-
So three things about buying weapons:
..........
2. On BMR, there are two people not including myself who have SUCCESSFULLY sold guns internationally, I sell to them, and they sell my items to the world. They are: .....
just hope the US State dept doesn't catch onto you - they make ATF look like pussies, and ATF is bad enough. I think it's mainly they don't like competition, what with their cartel clientel via fast & furious. Exporting munitions list articles without an export license is a whole new matter.
just saying
-
It's interesting to see the varying opinions, depending on the parts of the world the posts come from. I must say, many of the USA posters who are pro-guns, seem to have been brainwashed by the Rifle Association (or whatever), with the whole constitutional "right to bear arms" thing. Guns, and indeed all weapons, are designed to kill and maim, either yourself or someone else. Only other uses for them, that I can think of, are for ornamental or sporting purposes (target shooting, not blood sports). Drugs, on the other hand, in 99% of cases, are taken by people to feel good and enjoy themselves. Still risky, but not to anyone who hasn't been exposed to drug in question, just the user.
Having said that, if I lived in USA, i'd almost definately get a gun, just for self-protection. I think this mutual paranoia is what fuels much of the gun trade in USA, rather than the desire to go out killing people. Unfortunately, there is little to stop potential murderers/nutters from owning a gun, hence the terrible incidents which occur where many innocent people are killed by (legal) guns. :(
That's just my opinion. No disrespect to any Americans, I just believe selling weapons on SR, links drugs to violence unnecessarily. If done in a civilized manner, drug-use has no connection with violence. ::)
-
Plus if SR permits selling weapons it will really be bad PR for the place and ratchet up negative publicity. I think it was a good decision to ban weapons sales here.
I couldn't agree more. I think allowing the sale of weapons would only make SR an even bigger target for LE and the news media; banning them makes it safer here for all of us.
-
Dude, you're buying an illegal gun, anonymously. You pay for the privileged.
There are three of four of us on BMR who sell guns for 100% escrow, including shipping. I build ARs. If you're domestic (in the US) I'll sell you one for $1500 shipped. That's the MEDIAN price for a legal AR-15. The ARs I build are 100% legal.
^
are they traceable? See my real worry when buying a gun was the ballistics test, fast and the furious much? At worst they could sell some guns and then store the info of the markings in a DB. When it shows up in a case pop you...lol ok a bit OD but lord knows I want a AR-15 or Glock that unless found on me would never be traced. Freedom at its best if you ask me, sadly we all dont have a stand your ground law!
-
What's the deal with "freedom", and guns lol :D Even if the conspiracy theorists are right, it's not as if owning guns is gonna help overthrow the NWO, or whoever is meant to be in league with the government.
-
Weapons were originally sold alongside all other goods on the SR main site.
The way I recall it, once Silk Road began to boom, there were many philosophical discussions about whether weapons 'should' be sold and whether they fell within the meaning of items "intended to harm...", which are prohibited by Silk Road. A great many people who were okay with the sale of drugs to consenting adults were morally opposed to the sale of weapons.
The other major argument was that the sale of weapons was likely to bring more heat to the site.
Eventually, SR management made the decision to hive weapons off into a completely separate sister site, The Armory. This decision appeased most folk.
After a few months (on August 3 2012 to be precise) The Armory was shut down as it didn't seem to be a feasible business venture. There is big difference between posting powders and posting arms. The site was not profitable and members complained of scams, which would damage the reputation of the site's owners (and by extension, Silk Road, having the same parent).
HTH :)
This is exactly how it went down , there was lot of very heated talk about freedoms and risk . DPR decided to split weapons away from the main site then closed it down due to lack of business
-
the right to arms is complete bullshit. if you do buy a gun do the world a favour and kill yourself with it
-
the right to arms is complete bullshit. if you do buy a gun do the world a favour and kill yourself with it
Yeah, it seems crazy from a UK perspective, but I guess if you're brought up in an environment where it's acceptable, it must just seem normal. Not dismissing those Americans who are against "the right to arms", i'm sure there are many.
-
"What's the deal with "freedom", and guns lol :D Even if the conspiracy theorists are right, it's not as if owning guns is gonna help overthrow the NWO, or whoever is meant to be in league with the government. "
Well, actually that would help if an enemy could be identified. Back in the days of the Cold War, the high rate of gun ownership in the US was of great concern to Soviet military planners. I think it was Brezhnev who was (quite famously) overheard conceding that the Russians had never seriously considered a large scale conventional invasion of the continental US due to the resistance they'd meet from armed civilians.
I'm not saying that a large, professional military couldn't ultimately defeat a far larger population of armed civilians operating under no or a limited centralised chain of command; but that the casualties the professional force would incur constantly due to encounters with armed civilians would be unbearable.
In terms of threats from those wielding power in your own backyard, widespread civilian gun ownership raises the marginal cost of tyranny. Simple as that. And that can't be a bad thing. That's the freedom angle.
-
I agree with most of what you say i.e. it would potentially make things much more difficult for an invading force. But the point is, there is no danger of USA ever being invaded, due to its nuclear stockpile. I disagree with your last comment though, I don't think hypothetical tyranny justifies arming yourself with a very real weapon, designed with the intention to kill and maim. There are just too many dangerous individuals who can easily obtain guns and ammo.
-
I expect to receive hatered and alienation for being honest, but:
People like me. Were the reason guns are controlled in the first place. I am literally obsessed with columbine. I failed to obtain a gun and kill my classmates before graduating... So now Im hatching new plans: I cant target those who left me out of so many fun things. High schools over, that ship has sailed... So my new target it government officials. Especially that fucking weiner guy!!! I want to torture that foul butt-ugly man. And Obama, the fraud. And not to mention Bush... I must say I hate them for lying and fouling up the planet.
When you hear about me in the news think "holy shit I might have seen his post in the sr forums". I promise Ill get a gun sooner or later. And unless I change my mind, there WILL be blood, as much as I can spill.
One more thing. That guy who shot kindergarteners disgusts me. Whats the point in killing innocents? At least have a motive, even if other people say its irrational. Killing without meaning is wrong, but killing itself is not always wrong... just my 2 cents
-
"But the point is, there is no danger of USA ever being invaded, due to its nuclear stockpile."
You underestimate the Canadians again! Actually there is limited danger, not zero danger, of the continental US being invaded. One scenario presumes that any invader would also be a nuclear power, so the Americans might well choose to try and contain the invasion rather than testing the limits of the MAD principle by lobbing nukes around and facing likely retailiation. Another is that the invasion takes place after a full scale nuclear attack on the US mainland. And one more; missile defence research is easily outpacing ballistic missile development. In a few decades, we may find that missile defence technology ameliorates a nuclear deterrent, making a conventional invasion of the US a less risky strategy. In all these scenarios, armed civilians would indeed play important roles in defending the homeland.
However, I agree with you that the best arguments for less gun control and not more revolve around the right to self-defence. Don't forget that people who are willing to use guns to commit crime are hardly going to be concerned by gun control laws. And if these criminals know that a high proportion of armed citizens are everywhere, they tend to behave better.
"There are just too many dangerous individuals who can easily obtain guns and ammo. "
I agree with you here, as that is indeed the situation in the UK and Australia where gun control laws are very strong.
So if you were ever unfortunate enough to be confronted by a dangerous individual with a gun and you were in fear of your immediate safety, which of the following scenarios would you prefer?
a) have law-abiding gun owners trained in the handling and use of such weapons close by
b) wait staring down the barrels of the bad guys for several minutes for the cops to arrive - if anyone noticed the crime taking place and called them, that is
-
You underestimate the Canadians again!
LOL, and armed with ice-hockey sticks!! ;D
I really disagree with you on the point that criminals will refrain from from committing crime just because "law-abiding citizens" can legally buy guns. The amount of gun crime which occurs in UK is miniscule compared with the US (even taking into account that US has a much larger population). Surely criminals in the US are emboldened by the fact guns are freely available, rather than the opposite. I'm not surprised that ordinary citizens buy guns, because their availability causes a sort of mass paranoia, and people, quite understandably, want to defend themselves. I just think criminals are less likely to use guns if there are strong penalties for carrying one. The crime/murder rates in USA are some of the highest in the world.
BTW, one of the reasons that atomic bombs were dropped on Japan in WW2, was that the Japanese government had tried to arm (not necessarily with guns) every Japanese citizen, in order to make a potential US invasion as difficult as possible. US generals knew that a ground invasion would lead to heavy casualties for their soldiers (as in Okinawa) so they nuked Japan into surrendering. So in this case, a heavily armed civilian population only resulted in Japan being nuked, rather than deter the US.
Anyway, the only country who could compete militarily with USA is China, and even then, war between the two would result in mutual nuclear armagedon. So the Chinese would never do something as suicidal as that in all likelihood.
-
I expect to receive hatered and alienation for being honest, but:
People like me. Were the reason guns are controlled in the first place. I am literally obsessed with columbine. I failed to obtain a gun and kill my classmates before graduating... So now Im hatching new plans: I cant target those who left me out of so many fun things. High schools over, that ship has sailed... So my new target it government officials. Especially that fucking weiner guy!!! I want to torture that foul butt-ugly man. And Obama, the fraud. And not to mention Bush... I must say I hate them for lying and fouling up the planet.
When you hear about me in the news think "holy shit I might have seen his post in the sr forums". I promise Ill get a gun sooner or later. And unless I change my mind, there WILL be blood, as much as I can spill.
One more thing. That guy who shot kindergarteners disgusts me. Whats the point in killing innocents? At least have a motive, even if other people say its irrational. Killing without meaning is wrong, but killing itself is not always wrong... just my 2 cents
I hope you're trolling.
All I read is that you hate yourself.
-
I expect to receive hatered and alienation for being honest, but:
People like me. Were the reason guns are controlled in the first place. I am literally obsessed with columbine. I failed to obtain a gun and kill my classmates before graduating... So now Im hatching new plans: I cant target those who left me out of so many fun things. High schools over, that ship has sailed... So my new target it government officials. Especially that fucking weiner guy!!! I want to torture that foul butt-ugly man. And Obama, the fraud. And not to mention Bush... I must say I hate them for lying and fouling up the planet.
When you hear about me in the news think "holy shit I might have seen his post in the sr forums". I promise Ill get a gun sooner or later. And unless I change my mind, there WILL be blood, as much as I can spill.
One more thing. That guy who shot kindergarteners disgusts me. Whats the point in killing innocents? At least have a motive, even if other people say its irrational. Killing without meaning is wrong, but killing itself is not always wrong... just my 2 cents
I hope you're trolling.
All I read is that you hate yourself.
Hmmmm, quite disturbing. :o
-
Yep, 2marijuanaman, that's some pretty fucked up sentiments. I hope you have people in your life that you love/love you so that you don't act on these feelings.
If you're trolling, well, lol.
If not, buy some good (admittedly expensive) drugs here on SR and catch some more uplifting vibes.
-
It seems to be part of the nature of humans to produce people with a grudge against society in general, or aspects of that society, and are prepared to kill because of it. Probably because modern life has become so competitive, people will happily marginalize others just to protect their own status within the group. Which ends up with alienated, angry, bitter, potential mass murderers - some of whom get their hands on guns. That's my take on it anyway! :-\
-
If not, buy some good (admittedly expensive) drugs here on SR and catch some more uplifting vibes.
I ordered 250mg DMT for a spiritual experience. My final hope as lsd and shrooms did not help.
I hope I can haunt survivors after Im dead. If I really go through with this. Ive wanted to for so long... I wanted to shoot up prom!!! I failed but there are always more chances.
-
I just want the community to know, If anyone has the opportunity to fill an order placed by 2Marijuanaman..
Poison him,
Fucking poison him.
-
"Surely criminals in the US are emboldened by the fact guns are freely available, rather than the opposite."
That doesn't make much sense. It seems more logical to me that criminals in countries with strict gun control rules are far more likely to be emboldened by the fact that them wielding a gun places their victims - the law-abiding folk who will not be armed due to the fact that they abide by the law - at such a massive disadvantage.
"I just think criminals are less likely to use guns if there are strong penalties for carrying one. "
So a criminal willing to cause harm to a victim is going to think "hey I'm more than willing to break the law by robbing/raping/bashing/killing this person, but these strict gun control laws have got me shitting myself!"
"The crime/murder rates in USA are some of the highest in the world."
Are you sure you're not mistaking correlation for causation? There are other countries in the world where gun ownership is high like in America (Canada, Switzerland), yet do not have anything like the murder rates of the USA. Furthermore, guns don't make people more violent. The UK has higher rates of violent crime than the US. Knife attacks/murders are much more prevalent in the UK compared to the US.
Incidentally, gun murder rates in the US have almost halved since the mid-1990s, when a much-vaunted 'assault weapons ban' expired - a policy which Obama, his spy networks and much of the Democratic party wish to put back in place. And this huge decline in gun murders has taken place while gun ownership has skyrocketed. In contrast, since the UK strengthened their gun control laws in 1996 and removed many guns from private hands, gun violence has increased.
-
Yeah, but lets be honest, gun crime in UK is miniscule compared to that in the US, and the ban on private weapons in UK was brought in after the Dunblane massacre.
I really don't think it's worth us arguing any more about it anymore, as both our opinions are shaped by the countries we were brought up in. All I will say, is that if I lived in USA, I'd be paranoid as fuck and stock up on weapons like everyone else. I feel no need to do so living in the UK.
-
i think it was around the beginning of the year. Why dont you check out BMR. watch though a lot of people scam for weapons.
'Could you give us noobs a link to BMR please?
-
There is a link to BMR on the TORDIR directory home page if that helps.
-
"Yeah, but lets be honest, gun crime in UK is miniscule compared to that in the US"
I'm not exactly sure what your point is here. Guns themselves do not cause violence. Guns themselves do not cause gun violence. Gun crime in gun-loving Switzerland and Canada is miniscule compared to that in the US. When gun control measures were restricted in the UK after Dunblane, gun crime has gone UP. Knife crime in the UK have skyrocketed in recent years. There are more violent crimes committed in the UK per capita than in the US. In the US, gun murders have dropped dramatically since the 'assault weapons ban' lapsed in 1994. Overall, gun control measures are being loosened in the US with more and more states passing Concealed Carry laws, and there are more privately owned guns in the US than ever before, yet gun crime is falling and has been falling for years. Jurisdictions in the US where gun control laws are strictest have the highest rates of gun crime in the country. Jurisdictions in the US where gun control laws are the most liberal have very low rates of gun crime.
These are facts, and they contradict pretty much every rationale someone who advocates for strict gun control laws puts forth.
"and the ban on private weapons in UK was brought in after the Dunblane massacre. "
Um....so? It's a tragedy that an armed, responsible adult skilled in handling firearms wasn't there to disable the killer before he managed to murder 16 children. Banning private weapons won't prevent another Dunblane. Someone who's willing to murder a classroom of kindergarten children isn't going to be concerned about breaking the law by purchasing a gun on the black market. Incidentally, pretty much all of the recent mass shootings in the States (except for the rampage where Gabby Giffords was shot - and perhaps The Dark Knight cinema massacre?) took place in "gun free zones". Less competition, see. Those gun free zones are fantastic hunting grounds for psychos.
"as both our opinions are shaped by the countries we were brought up in."
Perhaps yours was. As I mentioned above, I like to go on facts rather than what would appear to be logical. I'm not American, I don't own a gun, I live in a country with strict gun control laws that most people support.
As a final thought, something I've noticed about the people who advocate for gun control is that they generally know very very very little about guns. Furthermore, humans are in general very poor at judging risk. Consider the following:
If you had a child and your child wanted to visit a friend's house and you knew that the friend's parents were gun owners, would you allow your child to visit their house? (I don't know if you'd say yes or no, but the vast majority of people who support strict gun control answer no. People who know about guns ask if the weapons are secured and if so yes - but actually the metric is gun ownership alone, not whether they are secured)
if you had a child and your child wanted to visit a different friend's house and you knew there was a swimming pool at that friend's house, would you allow your child to visit their house? (The vast majority of people say yes without thinking, some ask if the pool is fenced - again, pool ownership was the only criterion)
Well, your child is several hundred times more likely to die by drowning in the friend's pool than by being killed by a firearm at the other friend's house.
Interesting, huh?
-
What about Finland? A European country with liberal gun laws, and I seem to remember at least 2 recent massacres committed by disgruntled 'psychos'. Guns are very hard to obtain in the UK, unless you're involved in high-end criminality. Knife crime is far more of a problem.
I don't know where you are getting your stats from, but they seem very similar to those used by the Rifle Association and shock-jocks, who would rather die than give up their right to bear arms. It's just nonsensical to claim that giving the whole population of a country access to firearms is going to LOWER violent crime, because the criminals are scared of 'law-abiding' gun owners. I'm sure I could find plenty of stats to counter your arguments, but frankly i'm bored of this debate. Guns are designed to KILL! Swimming pools are not! ::)
-
"I don't know where you are getting your stats from, but they seem very similar to those used by the Rifle Association and shock-jocks"
This reeks of ad hominem and I'm disregarding it at it does not do anything to strengthen your argument. So what if the National Rifle Association* and "shock jocks" quote those stats as long as they are true? Are you going to argue from a point of emotion and disregard facts because people and organisations you find distasteful make valid points, or are you going to be logical and deal with facts? What I've mentioned above is correct. It would be easy for me to provide sources for the stats I mentioned, but I assumed we're discussing in good faith and this would not be necessary.
"Guns are very hard to obtain in the UK, unless you're involved in high-end criminality."
A veritable gangsta paradise, then. Leaving aside the fact that guns aren't that hard for criminals to obtain in the UK (I actually know a normally law-abiding Brit whose loved one was treated so appallingly by their partner that, with minimal effort, he located and bought a handgun on the black market for 2000 pounds and was going to deal out his own justice - thankfully he didn't), don't you see the problem here? An illegally purchased gun may be an expensive purchase, but that's an investment for a criminal, and often one with a high rate of return due to the fact that the people criminals target are very unlikely to be able to defend themselves on a level playing field. Lambs to the slaughter, so to speak.
"What about Finland?"
Finland has fairly stringent gun control legislation - perhaps liberal compared to the UK - but gun crime is actually quite low there. You mentioned two school shootings, but any statistician would tell you that your sample size of two is far, far too small to draw any conclusions from these. Norway has similarly rigorous gun control regulation. Anders Breivik's rampage took place in spite of these. He also set off a bomb. To my knowledge, Norway does not allow civilians to make and detonate bombs, and yet he did it anyway. Where are the calls to toughen Norway's "bomb control" laws?
"It's just nonsensical to claim that giving the whole population of a country access to firearms is going to LOWER violent crime, because the criminals are scared of 'law-abiding' gun owners."
Firstly, and not so importantly, why 'law abiding'? If it's legal for a citizen to own a gun, scare quotes are not required.
Now, do you think effective criminals are stupid? Hell, even something like you owning a dog is going to make your house much less likely to be burgled. If you are a criminal in a jurisdiction like Texas where the probability of facing armed resistance from your victim and/or other bystanders, you're going to be a LOT more careful when using your firearm in an offensive capacity. Consider the hoary old maxim - an armed society is a polite society. That's very simple logic. You think this axiom is nonsensical because of where you're from - the simplistic assumption that more guns must equal more gun crime. But think about it for a bit, however, and what I've said perfectly logical. It's borne out by reality, too. The jurisdictions in the US where rates of legal gun ownership are highest tend to have the lowest rates of gun crime. And - as I say again - gun crime in the UK has INCREASED since Dunblane.
"Guns are designed to KILL! Swimming pools are not!"
So? Here's a hypothetical for you. Someone's in your house with the intent to do god knows what to you and/or your loved ones. Suddenly, a guardian angel appears before you and offers you a choice. They will either give you a loaded gun OR install a swimming pool in your back yard. Take your pick.
My point was that guns have very specific uses. The argument that we should restrict gun ownership because children can accidentally die when they misuse them is as nonsensical as banning backyard swimming pools because children can accidentally die when they misuse them. And if you are silly enough to think that's a convincing argument, you should target backyard swimming pools first, because they're responsible for a lot more accidental child fatalities than guns. And if you still don't agree in regards to this....well, it's pretty clear that the welfare of children is not your primary consideration, and you are cynically exploiting the deaths of children to forward your crusade.
*there is no such organisation as the "Rifle Association" to my knowledge - I'm mentioning this not to be catty but to illustrate my point that those railing against widespread civilian gun ownership often don't have a particularly strong understanding of the issue they're discussing
-
I suggest you watch Bowling For Columbine, a decade old now but still relevant. I'm sure you've seen it before but maybe you should watch it again. I find Michael Moore a bit annoying, but this was one of the best docs he's made. He doesn't seem to portray Canada as the gun-toting country you make it out to be.
The most (of many) troubling things you say is that the citizens of all countries should be heavily armed, in order to fend off the devious intentions of those who govern them. The countries with most firearms are some of the most dangerous in the world - Syria and Iraq to mention just 2. You seem to dream of a similar situation in the US, which is somewhat alarming. There are places in the world where it is really happening.
-
Yeah, I saw Bowling For Columbine. And yes it was one of MM's better doccos, although he hasn't set the bar particularly high.
It's funny you should mention this documentary. Amongst other things, Moore was trying to establish why gun crime was so high in the US. He used the example of Canada, with a rate of gun ownership comparable to that in the US yet recording far lower levels of gun crime. So his whole point was exactly that Canada was "gun toting".
"The most (of many) troubling things you say is that the citizens of all countries should be heavily armed, in order to fend off the devious intentions of those who govern them. The countries with most firearms are some of the most dangerous in the world - Syria and Iraq to mention just 2. You seem to dream of a similar situation in the US, which is somewhat alarming. There are places in the world where it is really happening."
Can you please explain what on earth you mean by this? It's totally illogical. Yes, one reason law abiding, responsible citizens should have the right to bear arms is to raise the marginal cost of government tyranny. However, how do the sectarian conflicts in Syria and Iraq negate this principle? If anything they underscore its importance. And why on earth do you think I "dream of a similar situation in the US"? I actually have no idea what you think I want for the US, but please, do me a favour - deal with what I have written rather than whatever it is you've decided I believe? And as for the "places in the world where it is really happening" - what do you mean by "it"?
All that you are illustrating with your final paragraph is that you have very little understanding of the rationale you are opposing.
-
What I meant when referring to Syria and Iraq, was to show what really happens when a well-armed populace decides to remove their respective government by force. It just leads to civil war and millions of deaths. I'm not saying you wish this upon the US, but your comments about owning guns to keep governments in check suggests a similar scenario.
I think the point MM was making about Canada, is that there are far more stringent regulations and background checks than in the US. I haven't seen it for 10 years though, so forgive me if i'm wrong.
And if a UK politician suggested that the best way of reducing gun crime, is to LEGALIZE guns, he'd be carted off to the funny farm. ;D
-
"What I meant when referring to Syria and Iraq, was to show what really happens when a well-armed populace decides to remove their respective government by force."
Well, in that case you failed on both counts. The Iraqi people did not overthrow Saddam - the US military did. The Syrian rebels were originally very poorly armed at the start of the civil war, and received most of their weaponry via mass defections from the Syrian military which split down sectarian lines. Neither case arose from armed and law-abiding citizens protecting their natural rights from tyrannical regimes, more's the pity.
I think the point MM was making about Canada, is that there are far more stringent regulations and background checks than in the US. I haven't seen it for 10 years though, so forgive me if i'm wrong.
No, MM's semina pointl regarding gun ownership in Canada was that lots of Canadians own guns just like in the US, yet gun crime there is much lower than in the US (remember his silly stunt about how Canadians don't lock their front doors?). You might want to review your source before citing it lest it undermines your argument.
"And if a UK politician suggested that the best way of reducing gun crime, is to LEGALIZE guns, he'd be carted off to the funny farm. ;D"
Well, that's because most British don't have a particularly sophisticated understanding of the issue (in fact the vast majority of them know very little of the dynamics of the debate at all). Don't take offence - most people from where I come from also have very strong opinions on the matter yet know practically nothing about it, so you British aren't alone.
The British also cling desperately to their shitty NHS, claiming that it's the envy of the world while patients rot in hospital corridors, so I don't normally pay a great deal of attention to the generally ill-considered opinions of the British chatterati.
-
How did I guess! More stats from my old foe, lol.
I don't think people who are against the legal sale of firearms necessarily need stats to promote their cause. It just needs a modicum of common sense. I did know it was the GENERAL Rifle Association, I was just being flippant about a lobby which, through their ignorance, cause thousands of deaths every year.
You call UK a criminals paradise, because it's only gangsters who own them. Well most gun-crime is gang-related, you don't get many civilian deaths. I'd say a "criminals paradise" is one where you only have to go to your local arms dealer, to get almost any gun available, along with ammo. Simple, without doing anything illegal, you now have a device which will assist you in any violent crime they then choose to commit. Only China executes more people than USA, so i'm not sure crime-prevention in the way of have-a-go heroes with guns is working very well.
And I believe that before the (illegal) invasion of Iraq, Saddam gave out as many weapons as possible, to the general populace, as he believed they would repel the invaders as one. Hence, Iraq is now flooded with weapons. And aren't the Sunni militants launching an armed campaign against what, in their belief, is a tyrannical government.
As much as I love you metacontxt, and enjoy a good debate, maybe it's time for us to stop arguing about something which we will never agree on. Peace! :-X
-
"More stats from my old foe, lol."
What stats?
"I did know it was the GENERAL Rifle Association, "
ooooh awkward. It's the National Rifle Association.
"through their ignorance, cause thousands of deaths every year."
Ridiculous. How? Please justify this comment. Or stat.
"I'd say a "criminals paradise" is one where you only have to go to your local arms dealer, to get almost any gun available, along with ammo. "
No, a criminal's paradise is one where all the criminals have guns and all their victims don't.
is one where you only have to go to your local arms dealer, to get almost any gun available, along with ammo.
Actually few (smart) criminals acquire their firearms this way, because it leaves a paper trail. In most (if not all) jurisdictions, people with certain kinds of criminal backgrounds cannot buy guns legally. There are certain loopholes (gun shows) but even these are not a great source of weapons for criminals. A smart criminal will buy a stolen or illegally imported gun on the black market.
And I believe that before the (illegal) invasion of Iraq, Saddam gave out as many weapons as possible, to the general populace, as he believed they would repel the invaders as one. Hence, Iraq is now flooded with weapons.
And I believe that before the (illegal) invasion of Iraq, Saddam gave out as many weapons as possible, to the general populace, as he believed they would repel the invaders as one. Hence, Iraq is now flooded with weapons.
Well, there was already a fairly high rate of gun ownership in Iraq before the invasion. Not all totalitarian regimes disarm their subjects, even though many do. Saddam was able to maintain power for so long for several reasons, one of which being that he was willing to suppress uprisings with extreme brutality and ruthlessness. I never claimed that widespread civilian gun ownership will always prevent the formation or tyrannies, but, as I said before, it raises the marginal cost of tyranny.
"And aren't the Sunni militants launching an armed campaign against what, in their belief, is a tyrannical government."
Yes, and if they succeed they will probably install their own tyranny. I don't really see how this is relevant to any point I've made, however.
Yes it's been fun. I like debating, and (unlike many) I don't take a forthright, sincere and even heated exchange of conflicting opinions personally. I'm glad you don't either.
Do me a favour, though. Please read the following article. It may not change your mind in the slightest, but at least you will know a LOT more about the rationale of those who disagree with you on gun control.
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/
-
The UK has higher rates of violent crime than the US. Knife attacks/murders are much more prevalent in the UK compared to the US.
+1 metacontxt
-
To farmer1, I haven't checked stats on murder rates for either country, but doesn't the fact that the UK has a problem with knife-crime show that it's not easy for potentially violent criminals to obtain firearms. So essentially, the ban on firearms has worked, leaving violent crims with less lethal instruments of violence (not that being stabbed is much fun).
Credit to metacontxt though. You are obviously well-versed in the talk of the pro-gun lobby, and while I disagree with much of what you say, it is interesting to hear from someone offering different arguments to those that i'm used to.
-
To farmer1, I haven't checked stats on murder rates for either country, but doesn't the fact that the UK has a problem with knife-crime show that it's not easy for potentially violent criminals to obtain firearms. So essentially, the ban on firearms has worked, leaving violent crims with less lethal instruments of violence (not that being stabbed is much fun).
Credit to metacontxt though. You are obviously well-versed in the talk of the pro-gun lobby, and while I disagree with much of what you say, it is interesting to hear from someone offering different arguments to those that i'm used to.
A ban on firearms leaves people defenseless against knife and gun violence. Having a better statistical chance of getting stabbed rather then shot is not a solution to me. Carrying a gun is.
If you are able to control what physical property another human may or may not own, do you not own that person?
Who owns you?
-
If this was the case, why is no-one whatsoever in the UK asking for a relaxation of firearms laws? If anything people want sentences for carrying them increased! Legalizing firearms is just not on the political agenda AT ALL in UK, despite this supposed prevalence of gun/knife wielding maniacs. I'm not a patriotic person at all, but I think you have little understanding of issues surrounding firearms/violent crime in the UK.
-
To farmer1, I haven't checked stats on murder rates for either country, but doesn't the fact that the UK has a problem with knife-crime show that it's not easy for potentially violent criminals to obtain firearms. So essentially, the ban on firearms has worked, leaving violent crims with less lethal instruments of violence (not that being stabbed is much fun).
Credit to metacontxt though. You are obviously well-versed in the talk of the pro-gun lobby, and while I disagree with much of what you say, it is interesting to hear from someone offering different arguments to those that i'm used to.
A ban on firearms leaves people defenseless against knife and gun violence. Having a better statistical chance of getting stabbed rather then shot is not a solution to me. Carrying a gun is.
If you are able to control what physical property another human may or may not own, do you not own that person?
Who owns you?
something in support of farmer1's stmt
back in the 90s, down in miami, we had a lot of car hijackings/kidnappings, along I95 (interstate 95 for you brits), and they were occurring primarily at the rest stops along I95. The hijackers were for the most part, black gang kids (usually juveniles 17-20 yrs old), and the victims were oddly enough, tourists in rented cars.
The kids would force the tourists back into their car, make them drive someplace secluded where they'd relieve them of cash, jewels etc, and in about six or so incidents, murdered them. There were a good number of these hijackings, that the papers had not reported, to keep tourists coming to the sunny state of Florida. When they escalated to involving murder, that's when the stories went national (in the news).
Florida had, a few years earlier, passed one of the nation's first concealed carry laws, ie municipalities "will issue" Concealed Carry Permit, and not require the citizen to have a high priced attorney or be well connected politically to secure a concealed carry permit.
The Florida Police Chiefs Association, headed by the Chief of Miami Police, were dead set against the new law, and he asked the membership of the chiefs' association to document any incidents involving concealed carry in their jurisdictions. There was the usual hyperbole "there'll be bloodshed in the streets", folks will bump into each other and get mad and be reaching for their guns.....or there'll be vigilante bloodshedd everywhere (liberals do think that everyone digests/resolves issues on the same emotional level they do).
Anyway, after a year or so, of the concealed carry law being in effect, the chief was interviewed by a reporter from a liberal paper (miami herald) asking how many incidents invoving use of concealed carry weapons he'd accumulated reports on, and he was embarrassed, saying he was "pleasantly surprised that he didn't have a single report", contrary to his expectations.
That same reporter then interviewd about 17 juveniles that had been incarcerated, having been convicted of hijacking tourists, and of the interviewees (non of which were from the same gang), he'd ask them "why did you semm to always pick tourists for your targets?" (they knew they were tourists cause they were either a) driving rental cars (license plates have special coding designating a lot of types, ie new car dealer, used car dealer, rental etc) or b) out of state license plates which would be obviously tourists. The answer the kids gave was simply fucking beautifully eloquently simple in it's logic: "OH, THAT'S EASY, CAUSE WE KNOW THEY CAN'T BE CARRYING" ie out of state residents couldn't carry a concealed weapon to defend themselves with. Side note: In an area of concealed carry, even those that don't choose to carry are safer, as the criminals are a little more hesitant, not knowing if a victim is carrying or if there's someone nearby that is carrying a concealed weapon.
Report just came out few days ago, Univ of Virginia study, 5 years in a row in Virginia, as firearm purchases went up, violent crime went down. And this, in spite of the flood of migrants that have been flooding virginia and doing home invasion robberies.
Now i know someone is going to throw up that "saint & junior poster boy for the boy scouts" TREYVON MARTIN, and that evil, wicked, baby killing George Zimmerman. If you think either of those descripts are accurate, then you still believe in flying, fire-breathing dragons and santa claus.
fwiw
-
If this was the case, why is no-one whatsoever in the UK asking for a relaxation of firearms laws? If anything people want sentences for carrying them increased! Legalizing firearms is just not on the political agenda AT ALL in UK, despite this supposed prevalence of gun/knife wielding maniacs. I'm not a patriotic person at all, but I think you have little understanding of issues surrounding firearms/violent crime in the UK.
actually, i believe i've seen videos of the protest marches the pro-gun owners have put on.
But there is a basic difference between you brits and americans - i see the same attitude toward their gov't by the canadians, you're very trustful of your gov't (and there's no shame in that, i'm just defining what i see as the difference in attitude), and think of the Queen as their "mother", so to speak. So it's more of a matriarchial relationship. And you seem more tolerant of gov't abuse or gov't taking away your liberties, under the assumption that the queen mother wouldn't do anything that wasn't absolutely necessary. And then i read stories, like i did, in the mailonline.uk, where a married couple had their 30,000 pound (as in british pounds) caravan stolen, then found by the police, but the police can't seize back cause the traveler family living in it, why it'd be a violation of their "human rights" - after all, they had a folded up pc of scratch paper where they'd paid someone, in a pub, 300 pounds for it. No registration paperwork, no logbook etc, just a cocktail napkin receipt. here's a link http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2381292/Police-wont-hand-stolen-caravan-couple-protect-human-rights-travellers-living-it.html
The point of that is, while you brits have been at this "civilization" thing longer than us, god help us if we ever get that screw up over here.
and today's entertaining animal story - mice trained to skateboard (airborne) thru a ring of fire. I have no idea who thinks to do this kind of shit, but it amuses me http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2385458/Skateboarding-mice-taught-leap-ramps-ring-fire.html
Americans are more distrustful of our gov't, and in these days, it's becoming more and more clear why.
-
If this was the case, why is no-one whatsoever in the UK asking for a relaxation of firearms laws? If anything people want sentences for carrying them increased! Legalizing firearms is just not on the political agenda AT ALL in UK, despite this supposed prevalence of gun/knife wielding maniacs. I'm not a patriotic person at all, but I think you have little understanding of issues surrounding firearms/violent crime in the UK.
So your argument is that since the UK hasn't relaxed their firearm laws then they must have the best way of doing things? The one does not prove the other.
I am not interested at all in arguing UK vs US laws. IMO both governments are completely fucked. My only interest in their rules stems from my attempt to avoid interaction with the state.
I believe it is the right of every human being to own whatever property they have earned. The fact that governments have tricked their subjects into believing they do not have that right makes me sad.
-
" So essentially, the ban on firearms has worked"
Problem is that it hasn't.
nearly every police force in England and Wales...show that the number of firearms incidents dealt with by officers annually is 60 per cent higher than figures stated by the Home Office.
Last year 5,600 firearms offences were excluded from the official figures. It means that, whereas the Home Office said there were only 9,800 offences in 2007/8, the real total was around 15,400. The latest quarterly figures, due to be released on Thursday, will again exclude a significant number of incidents.
So gun crime has actually *increased* since Dunblane.
If this was the case, why is no-one whatsoever in the UK asking for a relaxation of firearms laws? If anything people want sentences for carrying them increased! Legalizing firearms is just not on the political agenda AT ALL in UK,
Never underestimate the stupidity of the mob. Surely you should know that.
But as long as you guys feel safe with government agents and criminals maintaining a duopoly over gun ownership, I guess everything's fine. You can sleep easy knowing that when seconds count, the cavalry are just minutes away.
I think you have little understanding of issues surrounding firearms/violent crime in the UK.
Well, let's have a listen to what your own coppers are saying about the issue
A 2000 report from the Inspectorate of Constabulary charges Britain's 43 police departments with systemic under-classification of crime...Britain's justice officials have also kept crime totals down by being careful about what to count.
"American homicide rates are based on initial data, but British homicide rates are based on the final disposition." Suppose that three men kill a woman during an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but because of problems with identification (the main witness is dead), charges are eventually dropped. In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person homicide, but in British statistics it counts as nothing at all. "With such differences in reporting criteria, comparisons of U.S. homicide rates with British homicide rates is a sham," the report concludes.
Seems to me that it's =the average Brit who has little understanding of issues surrounding firearms in the UK. And that they think the at best ineffectual handgun ban after Dunblane was a necessary solution to a problem that they blindly refuse to accept is getting worse....two words - cognitive dissonance.
-
I'm sure if I trawled the net for anti-gun quotes and statistics, I could prove your arguments to be misguided. I think tbart is correct in saying Brits are more trusting of the state than Americans, some of whom live in permanent fear of being terrorized by their government. Also, the USA has had a tradition of gun-slinging settlers, since Europeans arrived in North America.
And please don't tell me i'm wrong just because the Daily Mail has scaremongering stories about how terrible European human rights legislation. The whole ethos of the Mail is this sort of story. You should try reading more widely if you're gonna quote from UK papers. Each one has its own core readership, and its own slant on issues.
I wasn't talking about Dunblane when I talked about firearms bans. The murderer in this case was a member of a shooting club, so owned the gun legally. I think you'll find that crime in general is probably greater in the UK than 20 years ago, regardless of a ban on handgun ownership. I have never met anyone in the UK who has expressed a desire to own a gun because they fear for their own safety. Like i've said before, most gun-crime in UK is between rival inner-city gangs. Most people must have a 1 in several million chance of ever being a victim of gun-crime.
And i'm sorry, but any 'stupidity of the mob' is surely those in America who believe owning dangerous weapons to be a human right.
-
what you view as "'stupidity of the mob'" in owning firearms, we yanks view as being self-reliant. Sorry, but the stupidity of the mob is in relying on or expecting your gov't to save/protect you - there are too many stories of your cops not doing their job, going to the wrong address two towns over, or as in that case of the stolen caravan NOT DOING ANYTHING AT ALL.
Someone is busting your front door in (we call them "home invasion" robberies where they bust in while you're home) - i don't think the perpertrators are going to stand idly by while you dial the cops and b, hope the cops get there before the perpertrators have done any serious damage. My assumption, if someone broke in, especially while i'm home, is that he didn't do it to discuss world peace, and in all likelihood, given the brazeness of the act, he's probably coke'd up or high on something, PCP or whatever. You can live in "lala" land all you want, the reality of life will hit you like a ton of bricks when it finds it's way to your door.
And home invasion robberies are happening there as well - it's idiocy when that farmer, Tony Martin iirc, shoots a burglar who'd broken into his house after dark, threatened martin, and then martin goes to jail - you brits ASSUME the burglar is only there to steal (and that was a burglar that had done time for assault) in spite of the senseless violence i see reported in both the mailonline as well as the guardian. THAT'S A NEW STANDARD IN "MOB STUPIDITY" - sorry dude, you want to be a sheeple, fine - that 's your perogative, but fuck you if you think you're going to look down on me for not wanting to be a sheeple and term my philosophy of self-preservation "mob stupidity".
One of my neighbors, about 7 or 8 doors down, about 20 years ago, got broken into at 3:00AM - they beat the living shit out of him to make him open his safe, broke all the fingers on one hand. When they were leaving thru the garage, they found another safe, so 'stupidity of the mob' they went back upstairs where they'd left him tied up and did it again for not volunteering that there was a 2nd safe and to get the combination to it.
He's a liberal, and didn't believe in guns - guess what? After that break-in, He came down for advice on what gun to buy. He learned the hard way that offering to sing CumBya with someone, does not convince them or cause them to change their focus'd goal. They say a liberal is simply a conservative that hasn't been mugged yet.
If the muggers, burglars, "yobs" as you brits love to call them, know no one is armed, they're going to be far more brazen than if they didn't know who's carrying (assuming people have the freedom of choice to carry). If they know the victims are going to be punished for resisting being victimized, and in a lot of cases more that the perpertrators, they'll be even more brazen. Threatening Tony Martin, in his own home after having broken in, the burglar got what he deserved - Martin lost 5 years of his life in prison (and god knows what else financially) and would have spent more time in jail except for the public outcry.
Trawl for all the stats you want, that's simple logic - if you can't accept it, then it's only because you don't want to admit you might be wrong - most liberals can't and won't.
-
"I'm sure if I trawled the net for anti-gun quotes and statistics, I could prove your arguments to be misguided."
Well, maybe you should. Otherwise my points stand.
-
And Garrincha, please! You've basically admitted to being ignorant of the arguments the "pro-gun lobby" puts forward, and you don't even try to refute them. You just say "oh I'm sure if I did a quick websearch I could find some effective counters to your points". Don't you realise how intellectually sloppy that sounds?
The soundest reason for debating someone with an opposing viewpoint to your own is that doing so makes you even more informed regarding the issue, reinforcing your belief. Alternatively, you may realise your view is misguided (this is the most valuable, and rarest, gift you can receive from debating). Yet you have said several times you aren't willing to improve your knowledge of the case for gun control, and when you encounter reasoning that contradicts your assertion, you dismiss this reasoning solely on the basis that you're sure there must be an effective counter response out there somewhere, even though you don't know what this is and aren't willing to seek it out. That's a very illogical way of putting your case forth.
Seriously, why are you even having this discussion with people who know their briefs a hell of a lot better than you know yours? Do you think you're going to convince anyone? Hell, I reckon I could play devil's advocate and put up a better argument for gun control than you - and I wouldn't even need to resort to Google to do so.
-
Garrincha - when you trawl the web for stats in support of gun control, what you'll find for the most part are exaggerated, if not completely fabricated numbers - back in the early 90s i remember one year, early in the gun control campaign, the numbers were "14,xxx fatalities last year alone" from gun violence - what they didn't say was that almost half of those were from police shootings (seriously, that number was in the middle 6,000 range), and some were also suicides. Other's were justifiable self defense shootings. But that wouldn't get much traction with their agenda's goal, so those "inconvenient" facts were left out of the discourse. Then i remember an ad campaign that started out quoting "2 children a day" die from gun violence, then i noticed it grew to 3, then 4, then finally by the 8th week of the campaign it was 7 deaths a day. Holy shit i thought, that's a lot - i did some math, 365 days X 7 = 2,550 kids per year, that's 50+ per state here in the US. No way, i'd have seen those in the paper, hell, when a kid dies from a drive by shooting in detroit or chicago (two democratic "utiopias" btw with strict gun control laws) we read about it and we're across the country from them. Totally bogus numbers. What does it tell you about an agenda when bogus facts have to used to sell it?
below - this just came out yesterday, the democratic party strategy manual for selling gun control explicitly states "not to use facts" and "not to attack the consitituion" in gun control arguments, as they'll lose the argument. Instead use the emotional value of any event to draw people into the conversation and the cause. Please, tell me when any judgement/decision based on emotional input has proven to be the best decision. If you doubt the below, go to the original story on the clearnet, there's a link to the democratic party strategy manual. See for yourself. Then ask yourself, in the deepest part of your soul, what does it say to you about an ideology that openly admits it has to lie and play on emotional heart strings to sell it's agenda, and what will be the emotion "du jour" tomorrow?
Fast & Furious, over 700+ deaths already from guns that our ATF illegally allowed to travel to mexico (against the advice of agents on the ground) with no way to track them - the only plausible reason was to create the need for more gun control. Doubt me - go to CleanUpATF.org - it's a website setup and run by ATF agents wanting a honest agency.
wrap yourself in emotion, and well, it's like what they say about computer analysis - "garbage in, garbage out"
http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/democrat-manual-how-to-lie-about-gun-control/
Democratic strategists have drafted a how-to manual on manipulating the public’s emotions toward gun control in the aftermath of a major shooting.
“A high-profile gun-violence incident temporarily draws more people into the conversation about gun violence,” asserts the guide. “We should rely on emotionally powerful language, feelings and images to bring home the terrible impact of gun violence.”
The 80-page document titled “Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging,” also urges gun-control advocates use images of frightening-looking guns and shooting scenes to make their point.
“The most powerful time to communicate is when concern and emotions are running at their peak,” the guide insists. “The debate over gun violence in America is periodically punctuated by high-profile gun violence incidents including Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson, the Trayvon Martin killing, Aurora and Oak Creek. When an incident such as these attracts sustained media attention, it creates a unique climate for our communications efforts.”
Apparently, as President Obama’s former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”
The manual offers a step-by-step guide on how to stir up sympathy for victims, arrest the “moral authority” from opposing groups like the National Rifle Association and keep the debate emotional instead of allowing facts to interfere.
“Essentially it’s a how-to book on inciting a moral panic,” comments James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal.
The guidebook, discovered by Paul Bedard of Washington Examiner, was prepared by four strategists including Al Quinlan of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, which touts it is “committed to progressive goals,” and includes among its clients the American Civil Liberties Union, Planned Parenthood and Mayors Against Illegal Guns, among dozens of other left-leaning organizations.
The manual opens by claiming three key arguments are the most “powerful” when trying to grip the public: “One: The serious personal toll that gun violence takes on people’s lives, Two: People’s right to be free from violence in their communities; Three: The changing nature of weapons towards more powerful, military-style ones that make us less safe.”
“The notion that today’s weapons are different in kind from what was available in the past is an especially powerful idea and helps make the case for new levels of concern and scrutiny around access to weapons,” the manual posits, a tip seen in wide action following the Newtown school shooting, as national debate broke out over the AR-15 rifle and the size of ammunition magazines, with gun-control advocates frequently referring to these as “military-style” weapons or “automatic rifles,” when neither description is technically accurate.
Key arguments in mind, the manual then offers a step-by-step guide on how to frame an intensely emotional discussion, beginning with Step 1: “Always focus on emotional and value-driven arguments about gun violence,” followed by Step 2: “Tell stories with images and feelings,” then Step 3: “Claim moral authority,” Step 4: “Emphasize that extraordinarily dangerous, military-style weapons are now within easy reach across America.”
Later tips remind gun-control advocates to, “Always start with the pain and anguish that gun violence brings into people’s lives,” and, “Use statistics to support an emotional argument, not to replace it.”
Even when the manual does get around to dealing with facts instead of emotional appeals, offering a list of statistics and factoids that are easy to memorize and keep at hand, the authors admit, “These aren’t a comprehensive statement of the most critical facts about the issue – just a quick guide to a few items with powerful communications potential.”
Finally, the document is interspersed with several examples of how to counter a gun-rights advocate’s arguments.
For example, the manual suggests, if someone were to say, “If an honest citizen with a gun were present, this [tragedy] would not have happened,” a gun-control advocate should counter with, “There’s not a shred of credible evidence that more guns and more shooting save people’s lives. More guns and more shooting mean more tragedy.”
But Jeff Knox, director of the Firearms Coalition, warns gun-control campaigns like this specifically direct advocates to shy away from facts because they’re based on trying to fool the public.
“That gun-control playbook is full of lies,” Knox told WND, “with the biggest one being in the opening statement that they have the facts and logic on their side, but that we use emotion and money to advance our cause.
“The opposite is true and demonstrated by the suggestions in the book,” he continued. “They depend on emotion and fear, because reality does not support their position. Gun control doesn’t work. It never has. If it did, there would be ample evidence, but the only evidence they have is so weak and suspect, even anti-gun panels for the Centers for Disease Control and the Science Foundation couldn’t find any strong evidence of gun-control efficacy.”
In a WND column earlier this year, Knox specifically countered the guidebook’s argument that “more guns and more shooting mean more tragedy.”
“Reviews of existing literature going back to the 1970s have consistently found no connection between gun control and crime,” Knox wrote. “On the other hand, there are several peer-reviewed studies which show that guns in private hands are used to stop crimes more often than they are used to commit crimes, and that the prevalence of guns appears to result in reduced violent crime.”
Though the guide was originally produced in 2012, prior to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Conn., Bedard commented that gun-control advocates in Washington seemed to have taken a page right out of the guidebook following the shooting.
“Clearly the president and other Democratic leaders followed the talking points,” Bedard wrote. “The talking points, for example, suggest phrases politicians should use [when] speaking about mass shootings, and at least three were adopted by the president in just one speech last March on gun violence.”
In fact, the woman introducing Obama for that speech, Katerina Rodgaard, followed the guide’s advice perfectly, beginning with the first key argument, the “personal toll” of gun violence.
“I have been personally affected by gun violence,” Rodgaard began. “As the mother of a first-grader, I cannot even look at my own daughter without thinking about the poor, innocent victims at Sandy Hook. My heart breaks for them and their families and the families of the eight children every day who are killed by guns in this country.”
She then followed in order with the second key argument, the “right” to be free from violence: “I feel that my rights to feel safe in this country and the rights of our children to feel safe in this country are paramount and worth fighting for.”
Obama then followed with the third key argument – fear of military-style weapons – pledging Congress would vote to “keep weapons of war and high-capacity ammunition magazines that facilitate these mass killings off our streets.”
-
Yes, those arguing for gun control often claim that 30,000+ people die every year in the States as a result of gunshot wounds. They neglect to mention that the vast majority of these deaths are suicides.
When you strip out the suicides, the number's under 10,000. In the early 90s it was around 18000. The inconvenient truth that the gun control lobby has to grapple with is that deaths resulting from accidents with guns or gun violence has decreased greatly since gun ownership laws were liberalised and the number of guns in society soared. The only way the gun control lobby are able to advance their agenda nowadays is by hijacking outlier events like Sandy Hook.
You have to be careful with their weasel words. Assault weapon, for example. What exactly is an assault weapon? It could be a stick. Or a multi-megaton MIRV. All guns could be assault weapons.
-
Bump for The Armoury back again.
Bump
Bump
-
Heavy on the hip come get some...
Ryno
-
To be honest mate, if you think I haven't reputed any of your "gun-lobby" stats (how come your stats are right while the other sides' stats are not), you have little idea of how nonsensical most of your arguments would be to most in UK.
You're right that there was an outcry from the UK right when Tony Martin got banged up, but you don't seem to have much idea as to what happened. He shot the 2 burglars in the back as they were running away, killing 1, seriously injuring the other. He also did not have a license for the shotgun he owned. Now stealing is definately a big WRONG in my liberal little world, but intentionally taking the life of another (except in self-defence or the defence of others) is THE biggest no-no in my own Bible. Martin may not have intended to kill, but he knew full well that shooting someone in the back carried that possibility.
As far as self-defence goes, those paranoid about burglaries in the UK substitute guns for baseball bats, knifes etc. Being robbed at gunpoint is too rare for anyone to seriously call for the legalizing of firearms. As i've already pointed out gun-crime predominantly effects gang-members warring among themselves, and this has led to many people calling for TOUGHER gun laws. The UK was not built on guns like the USA.
-
DPR Recently posted his interview with forbes. In it he said that the sale of guns may well be re-allowed.
So who knows, It may well be back
-
DPR Recently posted his interview with forbes. In it he said that the sale of guns may well be re-allowed.
So who knows, It may well be back
Sign my name on the official petition to allow it again.
I think it is honestly a bit sad that DPR caved on this issue. It's the one thing that really prevents me from feeling like I'm in a real "free"/libertarian environment.
How can people possibly be free if they cannot protect themselves? Blows my mind.
I will be putting a lot more time and effort into this argument and will make a more official post asking for this very State-like Prohibition to end.
-
because for some reason SR feels the need to involve politics and morals into everything they do (when x % of their dealers are murderers and steal for a living regardless) as a reaction to the publicity they receive to make the website seem more legitimate and "conscious" if you will. so guns were removed because they don't have the balls to sell them
now the gun vendors on BMR make upwards of 150 thou because there is no competition
-
Isn't that just gonna seem to people that drugs and weapons are somehow linked? I feel strongly about the prohibition of drugs, as it's a matter of choice by the individual in question, and they cannot be used as an offensive weapon (unless you spike someones drink or whatever). Weapons are a different kettle of fish though IMO. I don't buy the argument that guns should be legal, in order for people to protect themselves. Many people buy guns with the sole intention of committing crime.
DPR Recently posted his interview with forbes. In it he said that the sale of guns may well be re-allowed.
So who knows, It may well be back
Sign my name on the official petition to allow it again.
I think it is honestly a bit sad that DPR caved on this issue. It's the one thing that really prevents me from feeling like I'm in a real "free"/libertarian environment.
How can people possibly be free if they cannot protect themselves? Blows my mind.
I will be putting a lot more time and effort into this argument and will make a more official post asking for this very State-like Prohibition to end.
You don't need a gun to protect yourself. Use some imagination and find an item (bat, knife, kitchen utensil) which is perfectly adequate when confronting burglars (unless you live in USA where the burglars will use their legally purchased firearms). ::)
-
Isn't that just gonna seem to people that drugs and weapons are somehow linked? I feel strongly about the prohibition of drugs, as it's a matter of choice by the individual in question, and they cannot be used as an offensive weapon (unless you spike someones drink or whatever). Weapons are a different kettle of fish though IMO. I don't buy the argument that guns should be legal, in order for people to protect themselves. Many people buy guns with the sole intention of committing crime.
DPR Recently posted his interview with forbes. In it he said that the sale of guns may well be re-allowed.
So who knows, It may well be back
Sign my name on the official petition to allow it again.
I think it is honestly a bit sad that DPR caved on this issue. It's the one thing that really prevents me from feeling like I'm in a real "free"/libertarian environment.
How can people possibly be free if they cannot protect themselves? Blows my mind.
I will be putting a lot more time and effort into this argument and will make a more official post asking for this very State-like Prohibition to end.
You don't need a gun to protect yourself. Use some imagination and find an item (bat, knife, kitchen utensil) which is perfectly adequate when confronting burglars (unless you live in USA where the burglars will use their legally purchased firearms). ::)
I'm not even the slightest bit worried about protecting myself from burglars. I'm worried about protecting myself from the government.
I know the propaganda that has been drilled into your head since birth is now already working to label me a crazy tin-foil hat wearing loon. Because everyone knows, the government is our friend.
I would strongly suggest you do some research on Democide statistics. Very strongly.
As to your initial paragraph: lol what?
Of course it will seem as if drugs and weapons are somehow linked - they are both things the government has decided they don't want the citizens to have. That's the extent of the 'link' though imo, as any rational person can quickly decipher.
To say that drugs cannot be used as a weapon is...well, it's just wrong. You go on to contradict yourself immediately after saying it in parentheses, but then ignore that point (it doesn't exist, because it's in parentheses?).
If I buy a bunch of GHB and go on a date raping spree and it comes out I got it from Silk Road...that would probably look pretty fucking bad wouldn't it? Yeah. Does that mean we should ban GHB from Silk Road? Do you see how this logic works? This is the slope that banning firearms takes you down.
"Many people buy guns with the sole intention of committing crime."
Flawless logical keystone of your argument right there. 'Many' people buy guns only to commit crime. Wow. Groundbreaking.
Do you suppose it would also be fair to say that many people buy knives only to commit crime? I think it would. Should we prevent all sale of knives?
Do you also suppose it would be fair to say that some, if not 'many,' people also buy HAMMERS only to commit crime? Certainly. Should we prevent all sale of hammers? Well no comrade, we wont prevent it, but you need to sign your name on this Hammer Owner's Registry first....
Do you see now? Where do you draw the line? The only reason you arbitrarily draw the line at firearms and not hammers is because you are, to put it plainly, unfamiliar and ignorant of firearms and have grown up in a propagandized environment which encourages you to remain defenseless.
Did you know more people are killed every year by blunt instruments like hammers and baseball bats than rifles? Not all firearms, if you include handguns the statistic doesn't work.
But rifles. Honestly, look it up, it's a valid point: hammers and bats kill more people than rifles. YES, including the ultra scary all black "ASSAULT rifles" (lol).
Do we need to write all of our friendly politicians right this instant and get hammers and bats banned and a registry created and limit access and not allow hammers and bats on silk road? By your logic I think we should.
Another interesting random fun fact for you to conclude:
In America specifically, over the last 50 years, there have been numerous "Mass Shootings" which are now used as the reasoning for most people to say they want the government to be the only people with firearms. Allow me to share a little known fact with you: out of ALL these mass shootings, ONLY ONE IN THE LAST 50 YEARS HAPPENED IN AN AREA THAT WAS NOT DESIGNATED A "GUN FREE ZONE."
Please, take a moment and read that once or twice and let it sink in. The Aurora, Colorado shooter who shot up the movie theater when Batman was playing? He had numerous theaters around his apartment to choose from that were all playing the batman movie, including several that were CLOSER to him. You know which theater he chose? The theater that specifically stated it was a Gun Free Zone and people couldn't carry their concealed carry weapons inside.
Coincidence? Considering this happens over and over and over and over again, I really doubt it. Do you think it's coincidence that the people that advocate you having no weapons to defend yourself have TEAMS of guys with weapons protecting THEM and their families? Do you never allow your brain to consider these things?
Look for my voice to be heard loud and clear about this issue over the coming weeks and months if necessary.
-
To be honest mate, if you think I haven't reputed any of your "gun-lobby" stats (how come your stats are right while the other sides' stats are not), you have little idea of how nonsensical most of your arguments would be to most in UK.
You're right that there was an outcry from the UK right when Tony Martin got banged up, but you don't seem to have much idea as to what happened. He shot the 2 burglars in the back as they were running away, killing 1, seriously injuring the other. He also did not have a license for the shotgun he owned. Now stealing is definately a big WRONG in my liberal little world, but intentionally taking the life of another (except in self-defence or the defence of others) is THE biggest no-no in my own Bible. Martin may not have intended to kill, but he knew full well that shooting someone in the back carried that possibility.
As far as self-defence goes, those paranoid about burglaries in the UK substitute guns for baseball bats, knifes etc. Being robbed at gunpoint is too rare for anyone to seriously call for the legalizing of firearms. As i've already pointed out gun-crime predominantly effects gang-members warring among themselves, and this has led to many people calling for TOUGHER gun laws. The UK was not built on guns like the USA.
yes martin shot at them while they were fleeing - but that was in the dark, he shot the first time while they were coming up the stairs - google the stories, and yes it was an illegal pump action shotgun (got they're scary), with 3 shot capacity. He'd been burglar'd 10 fucking times prior to the incident - 10 times. But in your little world, i guess he should have asked them if they took cream with their tea
one more stat for you to ignore - 1997/98, Clinton, the commander-in-sleaze, had commissioned DOJ to do a study on gun violence - this was the same report that cited 14,000+ gun related homicides (but remember any death by a weapon is a homicide, even when the weapon was used by the popo), and of those 6,600 or so were police shootings, with some others being suicides (also categorized as homicide, albeit self-homicide). FOR THE FUCKING RECORD, more children die from drowning in swimming pools & bathtubs - should we ban those as well?
NOW FOR THE SHOCKER - the DOJ did a supplemental study on firearms used in self defense or prevention of a crime. The report was released by the statician without approval, and he was subsequently fired, but the report noted, between 1994-1997, there had been 2.4 million incidents of firearms ruledd used to prevent a crime or in self-defense. That's 600,000 a year.
What the statician noted in the footnotes was particularly more interesting - he indicated it was unknown how many incidents had gone unreported to the popo - ie, incident is resolved, who wants to waste time talking to the popo. I had one such incident at a parking lot, late at night, high end mall, when three kids (i'll guess their ages at 17-19) approached my wife while she was loading her pkgs in the back of the van. They hadn't seen me (i was at the front of the van, outside on the passenger side. Nothing about these kids looked right, they were out of place by their dress, manner and attitude. One asked her for the time while another was looking up inside the van, like maybe we had a miniture "big ben" tower clock inside. I walked around to the back, i was carrying on my left hip so i pulled my jacket back and asked "sorry, what'd you need?" - i could see from the look on the wife's face she was worried / scared - and she's usually pretty calm, nonchalant and whatever. One look at my hip and response was "nuthin" and they turned and left to look for another victim.
I didn't waste any time calling the popo - but did call the mall security to advise them of what'd happened without identifying myself.
so you continue to live in your "cumbaya" world, encourage criminals that there are no serious consequences to their crimes (sorry but have read too many stories of "yobs" attacking /beating/kicking victims, some elderly for the fun of it and getting in some cases probation with a warning. I know, they're just products of their environment and we shouldn't judge them too harshly.
I'm going to give you both barrels in this response and that will be my last on this subject, so you can come back with whatever nonsense you wish.
The people that commit violent crimes are for the most part scum - half do it for the enjoyment, the power they feel from victimizing someone. One example of such animals were the Briley brothers, down in Virginia - they had committed some heinous murders, one was stabbing a prostitue 37 times, throwing her off in a cul-de-sac, pouring gasoline over her (still alive) and setting her on fire. Another was a home invasion where they'd raped the wife in full view of her husband, and two teenage sons, then after tying everyone up, rolling everyone up in carpets, and pouring kerosene from the hurricane lamps on the mantle and laughing / joking that they were going to burn them alive. For whatever reason they didn't but try to put aside that logic of yours to imagine the horror they went thru - the family went thru therapy for years. Anyway, back to recognizing the consequences of their actions --
they were on trial for multiple murders (this was approx 1994) and down in Virginia the death sentence had just been re-instated a few years earlier. They had rejected a plea bargain offered by the prosecution, and the jury was out deliberating - had been out less than one hour, when the news (about 6:00PM) came out that a former cop (iirc, his name was Joseph or Frank Coppola) had just been executed for the murder he'd been convicted of some years earlier. When the news was delivered to the Brileys while the jury was out, they took all of 2 minutes to ask their counsel to ask the prosecutor if the plea bargain deal (life without parole was still on the table) and the response came back negative. Point is, even animals recognize the penalty of death, of ceasing to live and fear it. Btw, these were the same brileys that engineered a successful escape from death row and were on the run for about 3 weeks before being captured and eventually put to death (jury ruled guilty in the first degree).
please, sing cumbaya till you're blue in the face, and when you're the victim, why just tell the perps how they should hold your hand and sing along with you
you're dangerous cause you think with your heart and how you "feel" things should be, and not with clinical facts - you haven't offered any facts to support your position, just your "feelings" - feelings are for idiots
-
To be honest mate, if you think I haven't reputed any of your "gun-lobby" stats (how come your stats are right while the other sides' stats are not), you have little idea of how nonsensical most of your arguments would be to most in UK.
You're right that there was an outcry from the UK right when Tony Martin got banged up, but you don't seem to have much idea as to what happened. He shot the 2 burglars in the back as they were running away, killing 1, seriously injuring the other. He also did not have a license for the shotgun he owned. Now stealing is definately a big WRONG in my liberal little world, but intentionally taking the life of another (except in self-defence or the defence of others) is THE biggest no-no in my own Bible. Martin may not have intended to kill, but he knew full well that shooting someone in the back carried that possibility.
As far as self-defence goes, those paranoid about burglaries in the UK substitute guns for baseball bats, knifes etc. Being robbed at gunpoint is too rare for anyone to seriously call for the legalizing of firearms. As i've already pointed out gun-crime predominantly effects gang-members warring among themselves, and this has led to many people calling for TOUGHER gun laws. The UK was not built on guns like the USA.
yes martin shot at them while they were fleeing - but that was in the dark, he shot the first time while they were coming up the stairs - google the stories, and yes it was an illegal pump action shotgun (got they're scary), with 3 shot capacity. He'd been burglar'd 10 fucking times prior to the incident - 10 times. But in your little world, i guess he should have asked them if they took cream with their tea
one more stat for you to ignore - 1997/98, Clinton, the commander-in-sleaze, had commissioned DOJ to do a study on gun violence - this was the same report that cited 14,000+ gun related homicides (but remember any death by a weapon is a homicide, even when the weapon was used by the popo), and of those 6,600 or so were police shootings, with some others being suicides (also categorized as homicide, albeit self-homicide). FOR THE FUCKING RECORD, more children die from drowning in swimming pools & bathtubs - should we ban those as well?
NOW FOR THE SHOCKER - the DOJ did a supplemental study on firearms used in self defense or prevention of a crime. The report was released by the statician without approval, and he was subsequently fired, but the report noted, between 1994-1997, there had been 2.4 million incidents of firearms ruledd used to prevent a crime or in self-defense. That's 600,000 a year.
What the statician noted in the footnotes was particularly more interesting - he indicated it was unknown how many incidents had gone unreported to the popo - ie, incident is resolved, who wants to waste time talking to the popo. I had one such incident at a parking lot, late at night, high end mall, when three kids (i'll guess their ages at 17-19) approached my wife while she was loading her pkgs in the back of the van. They hadn't seen me (i was at the front of the van, outside on the passenger side. Nothing about these kids looked right, they were out of place by their dress, manner and attitude. One asked her for the time while another was looking up inside the van, like maybe we had a miniture "big ben" tower clock inside. I walked around to the back, i was carrying on my left hip so i pulled my jacket back and asked "sorry, what'd you need?" - i could see from the look on the wife's face she was worried / scared - and she's usually pretty calm, nonchalant and whatever. One look at my hip and response was "nuthin" and they turned and left to look for another victim.
I didn't waste any time calling the popo - but did call the mall security to advise them of what'd happened without identifying myself.
so you continue to live in your "cumbaya" world, encourage criminals that there are no serious consequences to their crimes (sorry but have read too many stories of "yobs" attacking /beating/kicking victims, some elderly for the fun of it and getting in some cases probation with a warning. I know, they're just products of their environment and we shouldn't judge them too harshly.
I'm going to give you both barrels in this response and that will be my last on this subject, so you can come back with whatever nonsense you wish.
The people that commit violent crimes are for the most part scum - half do it for the enjoyment, the power they feel from victimizing someone. One example of such animals were the Briley brothers, down in Virginia - they had committed some heinous murders, one was stabbing a prostitue 37 times, throwing her off in a cul-de-sac, pouring gasoline over her (still alive) and setting her on fire. Another was a home invasion where they'd raped the wife in full view of her husband, and two teenage sons, then after tying everyone up, rolling everyone up in carpets, and pouring kerosene from the hurricane lamps on the mantle and laughing / joking that they were going to burn them alive. For whatever reason they didn't but try to put aside that logic of yours to imagine the horror they went thru - the family went thru therapy for years. Anyway, back to recognizing the consequences of their actions --
they were on trial for multiple murders (this was approx 1994) and down in Virginia the death sentence had just been re-instated a few years earlier. They had rejected a plea bargain offered by the prosecution, and the jury was out deliberating - had been out less than one hour, when the news (about 6:00PM) came out that a former cop (iirc, his name was Joseph or Frank Coppola) had just been executed for the murder he'd been convicted of some years earlier. When the news was delivered to the Brileys while the jury was out, they took all of 2 minutes to ask their counsel to ask the prosecutor if the plea bargain deal (life without parole was still on the table) and the response came back negative. Point is, even animals recognize the penalty of death, of ceasing to live and fear it. Btw, these were the same brileys that engineered a successful escape from death row and were on the run for about 3 weeks before being captured and eventually put to death (jury ruled guilty in the first degree).
please, sing cumbaya till you're blue in the face, and when you're the victim, why just tell the perps how they should hold your hand and sing along with you
you're dangerous cause you think with your heart and how you "feel" things should be, and not with clinical facts - you haven't offered any facts to support your position, just your "feelings" - feelings are for idiots
+1!
Estimates for the amount of people in the population that have ZERO EMPATHY (i.e. sociopaths that would kill you for $5 if they could get away with it) start at FOUR PERCENT.
4%.
1 in 20 people in your town would kill you for your shoes if they could get away with it.
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
-
1 in 20 people in your town would kill you for your shoes if they could get away with it.
Then why the hell give the bastards the right to buy, possess, conceal, such items - that's the biggest flaw of your arguments - if the criminals can't get their hands on guns there is no need for the rest of us to fear being woken up at night with a gun to your head.
As for hammers, knives, swimming pools ( ::) ), they differ significantly from guns since they all have many uses apart from to kill/maim ( I accept guns can be used for sporting purposes at the Olympics etc). People where I live have been calling for tough laws on people carrying knives outside of the home, so other potentially lethal weapons have pretty tough laws as well.
Oh, and I don't trust politicians or the police, but that's more to do with endemic corruption and basic human error.
As for the death penalty, not many people who get executed have committed crimes as brutal as you mention. And every EU state has abolished the practice due to its inhumanity.
Am gonna try and refrain from answering any more retorts from my foes ( ;) ), as i'm bored of the debate now and feel it's getting a bit political and nationalistic. Thanks for an intelligent debate on the subject.
-
"(how come your stats are right while the other sides' stats are not),"
Well, I haven't seen you provide any.
"I don't buy the argument that guns should be legal, in order for people to protect themselves. Many people buy guns with the sole intention of committing crime. "
There are something like 300+ million privately owned firearms in the States. A tiny fraction of that number are used as tools to commit crime.
"The UK was not built on guns like the USA."
Well that sure is wrong. Gun ownership was reasonably commonplace in the UK until the late 20th century. In the 19th century, gun ownership was very common.
"which is perfectly adequate when confronting burglars (unless you live in USA where the burglars will use their legally purchased firearms)."
You are again being wilfully obtuse on this issue. We've gone over it before, but you stubbornly refuse to engage the reasoning, citing "well there must be some argument out there that could respond to your point, so I don't accept it". But I'll go over it again. Firstly, most criminals in the US don't use legally acquired guns - they're traceable. Furthermore, burglars in the UK most definitely carry illegally acquired guns (they are criminals so they don't mind breaking the law) BECAUSE they know law-abiding citizens will, by definition, not be able to defend themselves with guns, because law-abiding citizens don't break gun control laws. The deck is stacked in favour of the criminal. Are you naive enough to think they don't take advantage of this? You need to read the papers a bit more.
Incidentally, did you read that article I referred you to before, Garrincha? Or are you still content in proudly flouting your ignorance on this issue?
-
" if the criminals can't get their hands on guns there is no need for the rest of us to fear being woken up at night with a gun to your head."
Oh sweet jesus BUT THEY CAN AND DO GET THEIR HANDS ON GUNS and use them to commit crime, just like you or I can purchase dope even though it's against the law. Your solution is to prevent the law-abiding from owning guns and assuming that criminals will, for some reason, observe this one law too, even though there is a massive incentive for them to break it. No. Because they're criminals, they wouldn't think twice about breaking a law. Gun control laws do not prevent criminals from owning guns. By definition, criminals don't follow laws, and would happily use a tool that allows them to ply their trade more effectively.
-
I'm sorry, this argument has gone on for too long now. You have raised some interesting points, although it hasn't changed my principal beliefs. From now on my lips are sealed. :-X
-
But surely guns on SR are going to be more likely bought by criminals (who don't want to go through checks etc.) than law abiding citizens.
-
opened the mailonline this morning and what a surprise, another story - and 12 year sentence for kicking a grandfather to death for the sport of it - guess that grandfather hadn't gotten the memo about singing cumbaya
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2397314/Thug-Liam-Wyard-kicked-grandfather-Keith-Wright-death-apparent-reason-jailed.html
'He was minding his own business waiting for a bus': Thugs who kicked grandfather to death 'for no apparent reason' are jailed
Keith Wright, 50, died 10 days after the attack suffering from brain injuries
A man who punched and kicked a grandfather to death 'for no apparent reason' has been told he must serve at least 12 years in prison for the murder.
-
Tbart and cork1screw. +1 each, Some very nice reading you made for me there. I agree with both of you wholeheartedly. People have been brought up amongst this propaganda administered by the government from day1 and have no idea what the hell is going on in the real world, How many people have you heard say something like "statistics show that guns do more harm than good" or "Surveys say that ..." when the surveys they quote happen to be written by scientists under the employment of certain governments that pay for the funding towards their labs. As if they would go against it.
When you get down to the cold hard facts, Its obvious what the right choice is.
Well done. Well done.
-
But surely guns on SR are going to be more likely bought by criminals (who don't want to go through checks etc.) than law abiding citizens.
"But surely," you will have to have a better logical backdrop for your assumptions than "But surely."
But surely GHB on SR is more likely to be bought by criminals (who don't want to go through riskier local channels etc.) than law abiding citizens just trying to get high. I think we need to stop the sale of GHB on Silk Road immediately as it is more likely to be purchased by people trying to daterape others. (/sarcasm) (slippery slope...)
The real point is that people who want to date rape women are going to do it. It doesn't matter if Silk Road sells GHB or not. The same thing goes for those who are going to assault/rob people with weapons. They are going to assault and rob people. It doesn't matter if Silk Road sells weapons.
And let's be really brutally honest here, I would imagine an unbelievably small percentage of Silk Road users are real 'hard criminals.' Random rob-you-for-your-wallet on the street Crackhead Larry doesn't need to go on Silk Road to get a pistol, he's going to pay his brother's cousin's uncle 200$ to pick one up from a pawn shop.
-
because we want to enjoy drugs and expand our counsciousness and chill , not kill . Weapon are bad , violence is bad.
-
because we want to enjoy drugs and expand our counsciousness and chill , not kill . Weapon are bad , violence is bad.
I'm with you grandpa! Forcing violence on other people is bad, and it's really at the heart of all evils.
I also just want to enjoy drugs and expand my consciousness and chill.
The problem is that there are a lot of people who are NOT cool with that. In fact they are SO NOT COOL with that, they may come to my house with their weapons, and force their violence onto me.
Know what I mean? This happens time and time and time again in history. Unfortunately you will not be left alone to "chill and enjoy drugs and expand your consciousness" in today's world. With enough submission to authority, you can at least attain the illusion.
But stop paying your taxes for a while and see how the government deals with your peaceful chilling and drug enjoying. My guess is with ruthless and merciless violence proportional to the amount of resistance you offer. The more you protest their violence, the more violent they will be.
Naivety is no excuse. You are not safe from your government.
-
But surely guns on SR are going to be more likely bought by criminals (who don't want to go through checks etc.) than law abiding citizens.
"But surely," you will have to have a better logical backdrop for your assumptions than "But surely."
But surely GHB on SR is more likely to be bought by criminals (who don't want to go through riskier local channels etc.) than law abiding citizens just trying to get high. I think we need to stop the sale of GHB on Silk Road immediately as it is more likely to be purchased by people trying to daterape others. (/sarcasm) (slippery slope...)
The real point is that people who want to date rape women are going to do it. It doesn't matter if Silk Road sells GHB or not. The same thing goes for those who are going to assault/rob people with weapons. They are going to assault and rob people. It doesn't matter if Silk Road sells weapons.
And let's be really brutally honest here, I would imagine an unbelievably small percentage of Silk Road users are real 'hard criminals.' Random rob-you-for-your-wallet on the street Crackhead Larry doesn't need to go on Silk Road to get a pistol, he's going to pay his brother's cousin's uncle 200$ to pick one up from a pawn shop.
True, but GHB can be used to get high, guns can only be used to harm others. I don't know, I'm not really decided either way.
AND DON'T CALL ME SURELY!!!
-
Guns can also be used to protect. To feed. To clothe.
At a truly basic survival level, the firearm is an unbelievable tool.
-
But surely guns on SR are going to be more likely bought by criminals (who don't want to go through checks etc.) than law abiding citizens.
"But surely," you will have to have a better logical backdrop for your assumptions than "But surely."
But surely GHB on SR is more likely to be bought by criminals (who don't want to go through riskier local channels etc.) than law abiding citizens just trying to get high. I think we need to stop the sale of GHB on Silk Road immediately as it is more likely to be purchased by people trying to daterape others. (/sarcasm) (slippery slope...)
The real point is that people who want to date rape women are going to do it. It doesn't matter if Silk Road sells GHB or not. The same thing goes for those who are going to assault/rob people with weapons. They are going to assault and rob people. It doesn't matter if Silk Road sells weapons.
And let's be really brutally honest here, I would imagine an unbelievably small percentage of Silk Road users are real 'hard criminals.' Random rob-you-for-your-wallet on the street Crackhead Larry doesn't need to go on Silk Road to get a pistol, he's going to pay his brother's cousin's uncle 200$ to pick one up from a pawn shop.
True, but GHB can be used to get high, guns can only be used to harm others. I don't know, I'm not really decided either way.
AND DON'T CALL ME SURELY!!!
llamasocks - while you're sitting there in your ivory tower passing judgement, 'splain to me or reconcile this story of some bad AMT sold or purch'd on the internet from holland, that killed some teenager - (story doesn't mention SR so don't know if it was bought from a SR vendor
at least i've offered some indication firearms serve a lifesaving purpose, ie in my first post referencing the DOJ study. It's so easy to take the "moral" high ground and pontificate, especially about somthing that we know nothing about - and worse still, that "we" refuse to see the facts clinically
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2398034/Southampton-teen-Adam-Hunt-died-taking-legal-high-imported-Holland-remembered.html
Pictured: Teenager who 'died after taking legal high imported from Holland' called AMT as parents pay tribute to 'thoughtful and caring son'
Adam Hunt discovered collapsed in his bedroom by his mother Bernadette
She said he'd taken AMT, which he had ordered from the Netherlands
18-year-old also believed to have taken etizolam, psychoactive substance
His parents have paid tribute to their much loved, thoughtful
j would love to know the difference between this fatality and those resulting from the .1 % of the population mis-using firearms
-
Its only a matter of time before SR re-introduces them, or another mainstream onion site steps up. There would be too much money t be made if a vendor could get it right.
-
and another one, for the cumbaya crowd - sadly this one is made to order for tbart's argument - three teens shoot a 22 year old australian here in the US on a baseball scholarship, BECAUSE THEY WERE BORED !!!
I know, they're just mis-understood products of their environment
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/chilling-911-call-details-final-moments-of-melbourne-baseballer-chris-lane8217s-life/story-fni0fiyv-1226700172461
THE harrowing last seconds of murdered Melbourne man Chris Lane's life have been recorded on a 911 emergency call.
The seven-minute call, released by the District Attorney's office in Duncan, Oklahoma, begins with local Joyce Smith telling the operator she was driving her Toyota Corolla and spotted a bloodied man at the side of the road.
"There's a young man," Ms Smith tells the operator.
"He's just fell over in a ditch and he's got blood on him."
It was 2.57pm on Friday.
Authorities allege Lane, a 22-year-old baseball player who had a scholarship with an Oklahoma college and was visiting his US girlfriend Sarah Harper in Duncan, was jogging along Country Club Road when he was shot in the back in a random drive-by shooting.
Accused teen killer on Vine
15 year old James Edwards uploaded this video to Vine. Courtesy Vine
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
Ms Smith, unaware Lane has been shot, has no idea what had happened to him.
"I'm afraid to go over to him," Ms Smith told the operator.
"I don't know him."
Revealed: Private lives of the accused
How the world press covered the shooting
Lane's accused killers refused bail
Two boys who allegedly shot dead an Australian baseballer have been charged with first degree murder.
Ms Smith told the operator Lane was standing at the side of the road, but then fell over in a ditch.
"I'm kind of scared to go over by myself," Ms Smith said.
At 1:42 into the call, Richard Rhodes, a building contractor who was working on a house in front of where Lane was shot on the corner of Country Club Rd and Twilight Beach Rd, came out to investigate.
"The man that has come around the corner off Twilight Beach said, 'He has been shot. Tell them to hurry'," Ms Smith, panic in her voice, relayed to the operator.
"He said, 'He heard the shot and he knows what the car looks like'."
911 call for Christopher Lane
Joyce Smith of Duncan called 911 for emergency assistance for Christopher Lane. WARNING Sensitive material.
5b7e43b0-0a2f-11e3-83dc-3d9ceca4e3ce
boy
The Immanuel Baptist Church parking lot in Duncan, Oklahoma, where the three accused of killing Chris Lane last Friday were apprehended. Picture: Andrew Quilty Source: Supplied
Mr Rhodes will now become key to the arrest of the three teenagers who are accused of the drive-by shooting - James Edwards, 15, Chancey Luna, 16, and Michael Jones, 17.
Luna, the alleged shooter of a .22 calibre revolver, and Edwards, an alleged passenger in the Focus, were charged with first-degree murder and face life in prison without parole if convicted.
They were both refused bail.
Jones, the alleged driver, was charged with using a vehicle to facilitate the discharge of a weapon and accessory after the fact of murder in the first degree.
He faces a maximum 45-year sentence.
Bail for Jones, who is assisting prosecutors and police, was set at $US1 million ($A1.1 million).
The three will be tried as adults.
Sarah Harper remembers slain boyfriend
The girlfriend of a murdered Australian baseball player Chris Lane says she will cherish the memories their time together. Courtesy Channel Ten
Mr Rhodes said he was working on the house, heard what sounded like a bullet being fired, looked down the street and saw a black car with a white sticker on the windshield.
The teenagers were arrested four hours later in a black 2003 Ford Focus with a white sticker on the windshield.
At 2:45 into the 911 call, Mr Rhodes had alarming news that Ms Smith relayed to the operator.
"He's turning blue," Ms Smith said.
Mr Rhodes said he believed the bullet went through Lane's back and punctured his lungs.
At 3:19 into the call, the operator alerted authorities.
"We have a male who said he has been shot and is bleeding in the back," the operator said.
At 3:37 she informed Ms Smith help was on the way.
"OK. We have an ambulance and a PD (police) on the way," the operator said.
At 3:54 the operator asked: "Is he breathing? Is he conscious? Is he talking to you?"
Ms Smith asked Mr Rhodes and the reply was "Lane is not conscious and is barely breathing".
About 20 seconds later Ms Smith relayed promising news from Mr Rhodes: "He just took a breath."
At 4:26 an Ms Smith complained to the operator she couldn't hear any sirens and at 5:53 she again raised her concerns.
"I hear no sirens. I see no lights. Oh my gosh how long is it going to be?" Ms Smith said.
At 6:06 Ms Smith said: "I finally see some lights coming."
At 6:20 Ms Smith said an unidentified female passer-by was performing CPR on Lane and then delivered a warning.
"If you don't hurry, he's gone," Ms Smith, relaying the message, told the operator.
"Ma'am. They're coming OK. I can't make them come any faster," the operator replied.
At 6:47 Ms Smith said: "Finally I see them coming up the street."
38bac564-094f-11e3-a09f-e8cf4599a091
Chris Lane wears his baseball equipment in Australia. Picture: Essendon Baseball Club
Chris Lane. Picture: Essendon Baseball Club Source: AP
ee1a4bd0-0a05-11e3-affc-ced01c385700
Sarah Harper and Chris Lane.
Sarah Harper and Chris Lane. Source: Supplied
The operator asked if Lane has stopped breathing
Mr Rhodes can be heard in the background saying: "Yes."
"Yes, yes they said he has," an emotional Ms Smith confirmed.
At 7:06 the ambulance pulled up at the scene.
"Stop right here fella," Ms Smith can be heard telling them.
Lane was taken to Duncan Regional Hospital where exactly 50 minutes after Ms Smith called 911, doctors pronounced him dead.
When an innocent Australian student is shot dead in Oklahoma for 'fun' - America's gun crisis becomes the world's problem.
— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) August 21, 2013
"@us_patriot_3888: @realDonaldTrump- Why isnt mainstream media all over this like Trayvon Martin story?Will there be justice for Chris Lane?
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 21, 2013
The accused teenagers were dobbed in by a local who claimed his son was the trio's next target.
James Johnson, 52, called the police to tell them that the accused killers were hiding in the car park of the Immauel Baptist Church car park at about 5pm, two hours after they allegedly shot Lane.
"My son called me and said, 'They're saying they're coming to kill me' so I called the police and they got here within about three minutes," Johnson told the Herald Sun.
Mr Johnson claimed that Edwards had threatened the life of his own 17-year-old son Christopher on Facebook. His son was at home with his mother and sisters near the church when he received the death threat.
"They threatened to kill my son because they are in a gang, the Crips, and were trying to get my son in it and I wouldn't let him do it.
"I told him he couldn't run with those boys. He's a little terrified."
Mr Johnson said the Crips was a predominantly African American street gang that began in Los Angeles in 1969 and had been in Duncan for the past few years.
5285201c-0a2f-11e3-83dc-3d9ceca4e3ce
'My son was their next target'
James Johnson believes his teenage son was the trio’s next target. Picture: Andrew Quilty Source: Supplied
He said the group consisted of teenagers who he called "wannabes".
"I've been living here all my life and we never had this, but in the past few years gangs from Lawton have been coming here," Mr Johnson said of the Crips.
Johnson's son also attends Duncan High School, where suspect Luna and Edwards were students. He said he knew both boys and described them as "troublemakers" and "bullies" who had "no parental supervision".
"I'm just glad they found the other gun, because they haven't found the murder weapon yet," Mr Johnson said.
Prosecutors have promised that the "thugs" charged over the brutal murder "will pay".
District Attorney Jason Hicks said outside the first court hearing in the Oklahoma town of Duncan yesterday that he was "going to do everything I can to ensure these three thugs pay for what they did to Christopher Lane".
"To those friends of ours in Australia, we would say to you this is not Duncan, Oklahoma," Mr Hicks said.
"This is not Stephens County, Oklahoma."
caf7868a-0a10-11e3-83dc-3d9ceca4e3ce
James Edwards, 15, charged with first-degree murder.
James Edwards, 15, charged with first-degree murder. Source: Supplied
91c6247a-0a0b-11e3-affc-ced01c385700
James Edwards takes a selfie. Picture: Facebook
James Edwards takes a selfie. Source: Supplied
Stephens County Courthouse heard Edwards danced and laughed as he was taken into a police station to be charged after the killing on Friday.
James Edwards was treating the murder as a joke, Mr Hicks told the hearing.
Mr Hicks told the court that Edwards has previously been in contact with police, and that he had "an attitude of total disregard for law enforcement" when he was being charged over Lane's death.
"He thinks it's funny, and it's all a joke," Mr Hicks said.
"I believe he is a threat to the community."
Mr Hicks said Edwards kept a probation appointment for another matter at the courthouse just minutes after Lane was killed.
"He was cold, callous and that was the demeanour that we saw throughout the course of the investigation," Mr Hicks said.
Mr Hicks said that Luna had refused to co-operate with police.
152d63be-0a11-11e3-83dc-3d9ceca4e3ce
Chancey Luna, 16, charged with first-degree murder.
Chancey Luna, 16, charged with first-degree murder. Source: AP
3f1fe70a-0a11-11e3-83dc-3d9ceca4e3ce
Chancey Luna.
Chancey Luna. Source: Supplied
The teenagers were dressed in orange prison jumpsuits and had their legs shackled during the brief appearance.
Edwards and Luna did not show any emotion, but Jones broke down in tears after Mr Hicks said he was looking at a "very, very lengthy prison sentence".
"I didn't pull the trigger," Jones said.
5b6e3f2e-0a11-11e3-83dc-3d9ceca4e3ce
Michael Jones, 17, charged with being an accessory to the killing.
Michael Jones, 17, charged with being an accessory to the killing. Source: Supplied
The courtroom was packed and divided.
In the front row sat about 20 family and friends of Harper, 23, who was not in court.
Cindy Harper told the Herald Sun her daughter was at home "trying to relax".
Another Harper family member said "this is surreal" as they were taken out a side door of the court building by sheriffs.
A few rows behind was a distraught Jennifer Luna, coming to grips with a nightmare 12 months that saw the death of her husband in a motorcycle accident and now the prospect her son could spend the rest of his life in prison.
e49709be-09f5-11e3-affc-ced01c385700
Jennifer Luna, right, the mother of 16-year-old murder suspect Chancey Luna, outside court. Picture: AP
Jennifer Luna, right, the mother of murder suspect Chancey Luna, outside court. Source: AP
5b40bd90-09f0-11e3-affc-ced01c385700
Jennifer Luna, the mother of Chancey Luna, leaves court Photo: Andrew Quilty.
Jennifer Luna. Photo: Andrew Quilty. Source: HeraldSun
On the right hand side of the courtroom was James Edwards Sr, refusing to believe his son was a killer.
"Yes, I do," Mr Edwards replied outside court when asked if he believed his son, who hoped to be an Olympic wrestler, was innocent.
In the back left area of the court was Jones's parents and supporters, including his pregnant girlfriend.
She sobbed in her seat, eventually leaving the court before Jones came in.
Edwards and Luna did not appear to be fazed during their court appearance.
Even when Ms Luna stood up in court to answer an administrative question from Judge Jerry Herberger, her son didn't acknowledge her.
Edwards didn't look for family members.
7864ecba-0a05-11e3-affc-ced01c385700
James Edwards Sr believes his 15-year-old son is innocent.
James Edwards Sr believes his 15-year-old son is innocent. Source: AP
64b5d58c-09ea-11e3-83dc-3d9ceca4e3ce
The sister of accused murder James Edwards is comforted by a friend, left, outside court.
The sister of accused murder James Edwards is comforted by a friend, left. Source: HeraldSun
Asked if she had a message for the Lane family outside court, Ms Luna told the Herald Sun: "I feel sorry for them, my heart goes out to them, it really does, but that's my baby too.
"My boy was a baby too."
Luna said there were no guns at her house, and her son was at home playing X-Box with her soon-to-be stepson when she came home from work last Friday after finishing at 3pm.
It comes after Duncan Police Chief Danny Ford this week said he had secured the confession of Jones who had summoned investigators to his jail cell and claimed they were bored "so they decided to kill somebody".
Chief Ford said the teens had no motive other than to ''make a name for themselves''.
d4114898-09f0-11e3-affc-ced01c385700
Prosecutor Jason Hicks, right, talks to the media following the teenagers' court appearance. Picture: AP
Prosecutor Jason Hicks, right, talks to the media following the teenagers’ court appearance. Source: AP
Lane was staying with Ms Harper in Duncan before going back to Oklahoma's East Central University where he majored in finance and was the catcher on the team's baseball team.
Ms Harper has revealed her heartbreak at losing her "best friend".
She also told the Herald Sun that she didn't know what punishment would be appropriate for the three teens.
Lane, who grew up in Oak Park in Melbourne's north, had only been back in the US for three days after an eight-week break in Australia with Ms Harper.
"I don't want them to have any future that Chris wasn't able to have as well," Ms Harper has said of the accused.
"It's been pretty rough. It's been hard knowing he was taken so close to home, let alone taken in the way he was. To be pointed out like that …"
6883435a-09f6-11e3-affc-ced01c385700
Sarah Harper next to a memorial along the road where Chris Lane was killed. Picture: AP
Sarah Harper next to a memorial along the road where Chris Lane was killed. Source: AP
3d3f8672-0a00-11e3-83dc-3d9ceca4e3ce
A memorial to Chris Lane near where he was shot.
A memorial to Chris Lane near where he was shot. Source: AP
She fondly described Lane as a smart, kind and curious guy who would "do anything for anybody".
Ms Harper, also a talented sportswoman, said she and Lane just "meshed together" within weeks of meeting at college in Oklahoma in August 2009.
"It was more of a personality (we had in common), not so much interests. He was intellectual, into world news, and I found that quite boring," she said.
"He really wanted to travel more. He loved the idea of seeing the world."
Ms Harper said she would come back to Australia to farewell Lane with his family.
"I'm probably going to go back and say goodbye with the people he loved the most," she said.
"It was a great time getting back there and seeing him in his element with all his favourite friends.
"It's going to be hard going back but it's something I need to do.
"Thank you to everyone who supported and loved Chris. I really appreciated it."
- with Stephen Drill Andy Burns and AAP
-
Sorry to break my pledge, but this thread still winds me up. I don't know what significance there is in the murder of an elderly man in UK. What a shock, hands and feet can be used as weapons too! Whats your point? If only he had a pump-action shotgun on him, he'd have been saved?
In relation to the Australian incident, I hear the Aussie government has called on its citizens to boycott American tourism, in order to encourage Congress to do something about the gun situation in the US. Cumbaya my lord, cumbaya!!
You've accused me of being a cumbaya merchant, but i'm only putting forward my experiences and knowledge of living in a country where you can't legally possess firearms, unless licensed to do so. I sleep with a large knife by my side, so i'm not naive when it comes to home security. In my whole life, living in 3 different cities (2 of which are notorious for violent crime) I have never been threatened by a gun and I don't know anyone who has. The UK has a serious problem with violent crime (much of it fuelled by alcohol), in comparison to other large European countries, but neither myself or anyone I have ever known has expressed a desire to own a gun in order to protect themselves (but they've all been brainwashed, unlike Americans of course). The American gun lobby has surely brainwashed some of the posters in this thread IMO. The type of libertarianism espoused by them is pretty much an entirely American concept, and yet they need guns to protect themselves from the very politicians who allow guns to be so accessible. Am I missing something?
-
Sorry to break my pledge, but this thread still winds me up. I don't know what significance there is in the murder of an elderly man in UK. What a shock, hands and feet can be used as weapons too! Whats your point? If only he had a pump-action shotgun on him, he'd have been saved?
In relation to the Australian incident, I hear the Aussie government has called on its citizens to boycott American tourism, in order to encourage Congress to do something about the gun situation in the US. Cumbaya my lord, cumbaya!!
You've accused me of being a cumbaya merchant, but i'm only putting forward my experiences and knowledge of living in a country where you can't legally possess firearms, unless licensed to do so. I sleep with a large knife by my side, so i'm not naive when it comes to home security. In my whole life, living in 3 different cities (2 of which are notorious for violent crime) I have never been threatened by a gun and I don't know anyone who has. The UK has a serious problem with violent crime (much of it fuelled by alcohol), in comparison to other large European countries, but neither myself or anyone I have ever known has expressed a desire to own a gun in order to protect themselves (but they've all been brainwashed, unlike Americans of course). The American gun lobby has surely brainwashed some of the posters in this thread IMO. The type of libertarianism espoused by them is pretty much an entirely American concept, and yet they need guns to protect themselves from the very politicians who allow guns to be so accessible. Am I missing something?
What you're missing is a history lesson.
I believe I mentioned in one of my previous posts to look up "democide statistics." It is pretty clear to me that you did not do that.
-
I think history will show that millions of lives have been lost since the invention of the gun. If it had never been invented, the world would be a much safer place than it is today.
When I was a child, people going to France from UK used to comment on the fact that there was something intimidating about the French police being allowed to carry firearms. Things changed after 9/11 and 7/7, and now it is quite common to see police in the UK carrying intimidating looking firearms. It does not necessarily make me feel more protected, and there are many corrupt police officers in the UK, but at least these guys have been properly trained in the usage of these things, unlike USA where ANYONE, regardless of their background, lack of expertize, criminal intentions or their mental health background can go to Walmart, and stock up on anything from pistols to assault rifles.
-
FUCK some people don't like bullets in their brains ok>>>>>??????????
Bullets are for killing animals not humans der!!
-
Tbart and cork1screw. +1 each, Some very nice reading you made for me there. I agree with both of you wholeheartedly. People have been brought up amongst this propaganda administered by the government from day1 and have no idea what the hell is going on in the real world, How many people have you heard say something like "statistics show that guns do more harm than good" or "Surveys say that ..." when the surveys they quote happen to be written by scientists under the employment of certain governments that pay for the funding towards their labs. As if they would go against it.
When you get down to the cold hard facts, Its obvious what the right choice is.
Well done. Well done.
I wouldn't be quite so triumphalist buddy, there are no black and whites in this world, only greys. So the NRA and arms industry DON'T employ scientists/statisticians to forward their own argument? Personally, guns play no important role in my life, so i'm not gonna trawl the web just to prove that guns kill many people all over the world every day. THAT is the real world my friend. And who are the "certain governments"? I think you will find that most countries in the developed world have laws to discourage the proliferation of firearms among its citizens. So I don't think it's obvious AT ALL what the right choice is.
-
Sorry to break my pledge, but this thread still winds me up. I don't know what significance there is in the murder of an elderly man in UK. What a shock, hands and feet can be used as weapons too! Whats your point? If only he had a pump-action shotgun on him, he'd have been saved?
In relation to the Australian incident, I hear the Aussie government has called on its citizens to boycott American tourism, in order to encourage Congress to do something about the gun situation in the US. Cumbaya my lord, cumbaya!!
You've accused me of being a cumbaya merchant, but i'm only putting forward my experiences and knowledge of living in a country where you can't legally possess firearms, unless licensed to do so. I sleep with a large knife by my side, so i'm not naive when it comes to home security. In my whole life, living in 3 different cities (2 of which are notorious for violent crime) I have never been threatened by a gun and I don't know anyone who has. The UK has a serious problem with violent crime (much of it fuelled by alcohol), in comparison to other large European countries, but neither myself or anyone I have ever known has expressed a desire to own a gun in order to protect themselves (but they've all been brainwashed, unlike Americans of course). The American gun lobby has surely brainwashed some of the posters in this thread IMO. The type of libertarianism espoused by them is pretty much an entirely American concept, and yet they need guns to protect themselves from the very politicians who allow guns to be so accessible. Am I missing something?
Garrincha - please don't take offense at this, as i mean it with the utmost respect - when i was a kid, my parents had a toothpick holder with three monkeys at it's base. one monkey had it's hands over it's ears, one over it's eyes and the other over it's mouth, with the logo "hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil". You remind me of the first two monkeys with the adaptation of "see no facts, hear no facts..."
from my first post, i gave a story o f the florida carjackers indicating the reason they only carjacked tourists was they knew "they couldn't be carrying". The point of that and all the rest, even when there are ninnies who view weapons as inherently evil, as long as citizens are allowed to carry (if you're too scared or horrified to handle a weapon, then don't) but as long as some are armed, LESS CRIME OCCURS.
here, in todays news, from a liberal institution
http://www.smallgovtimes.com/article/harvard-study-reveals-gun-control-counterproductive/
Harvard study reveals gun control counterproductive
August 20, 2013 2nd Amendment Steve Adcock
Once again, a study from an organization that you would never accuse of being “gun-loving” or “right-wing” seems to disprove the myth that the availability of handguns increases murder rates. In fact, it doesn’t.
The Harvard study attempts to answer the question of whether or not banning firearms would reduce murders and suicides. Researchers looked at crime data from several European countries and found that countries with HIGHER gun ownership often had LOWER murder rates.
Russia, for example, enforces very strict gun control on its people, but its murder rate remains quite high. In fact, the murder rate in Russia is four times higher than in the “gun-ridden” United States, cites the study. ”Homicide results suggest that where guns are scarce other weapons are substituted in killings.” In other words, the elimination of guns does not eliminate murder, and in the case of gun-controlled Russia, murder rates are quite high.
The study revealed several European countries with significant gun ownership, like Norway, Finland, Germany and France – had remarkably low murder rates. Contrast that with Luxembourg, “where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is minimal, had a murder rate nine times higher than Germany in 2002.”
The study found no evidence to suggest that the availability of guns contributes to higher murder rates anywhere in the world. ”Of course, it may be speculated that murder rates around the world would be higher if guns were more available. But there is simply no evidence to support this.”
Further, the report cited, “the determinants of murder and suicide are basic social, economic, and cultural factors, not the prevalence of some form of deadly mechanism.” Meaning, it’s not guns that kill people.
People kill people.
what is evil is the fucking idiocy of the liberal mentality that gave us a welfare culture, starting in the 1960s, where mothers are encouraged to bear children without a stable family environment (ie no father around) as the state will support them. That gave us a sub-population of thee animals that killed the australian college kid in oklahoma.
Then, on the flip side of the equation, the liberal mentality says we should be tolerant and understanding of the miscreants that commit crime, as after all, they're "only products of their environment, it isn't their fault" - ie that they grew up in poverty without a father. And as further proof of that, and the upside down logic of the liberal mentality, we have this story. Notice the burglars got off with a fine of 75 pounds (approx $125) for fucking burglary, while the property owner is facing trial for grievous bodily harm for hitting one of them with a stick THAT HE TOOK FROM THEM - they had brought it as a weapon
This was in today's mailonline.uk
Boss who tackled burglar raiding his tyre business hauled before a court for attacking THEM
Andrew Woodhouse, 43, apprehended a burglar at his type depot
He allegedly used a stick to injure the thief's legs before holding him down until police arrived
When officers arrived, they arrested Woodhouse for grievous bodily harm
He denied the charge at Newport Crown Court and was released on bail
By Suzannah Hills
PUBLISHED: 03:10 EST, 24 August 2013 | UPDATED: 04:38 EST, 24 August 2013
Businessman Andrew Woodhouse, 43, apprehended a burglar at his tyre firm and was then charged with causing grievous bodily harm with intent
A businessman who confronted a burglar raiding his premises appeared in court yesterday accused of attacking him.
Andrew Woodhouse, 43, was chasing thieves off his property when he claims one of them 'came at' him with a wooden stick.
Father-of-five Woodhouse allegedly used the stick to injure the man's legs before holding him down while his wife called the police.
But when officers arrived they arrested Woodhouse and held him in a cell for 18 hours.
He appeared at Newport Crown Court yesterday charged with grievous bodily harm with intent which has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Andrew Taylor, defending, said: 'Mr Woodhouse apprehended two of the burglars at his tyre depot.
'It happened after two or three men decided they were going to remove a large quantity of diesel from his premises.
'Mr Woodhouse has been interviewed by police and has provided a full explanation about what happened.
'There is a CCTV recording of the incident and we are waiting to see the footage.'
Woodhouse denies the charge and was given bail until next month.
A Facebook page has been set up in support of Woodhouse, of Abergavenny, South Wales with more than 2,000 supporting him.
Woodhouse was in bed with his wife Lisa at their detached home in the village of Govilon, near Abergavenny, when his burglar alarm went off at about 12.30am.
The alarm is fitted to his business premises on an industrial estate a mile from his six-bedroom £350,000 home.
Woodhouse drove to his business premises where the alleged assault happened.
His wife Lisa said her husband was prepared to go through the legal process to clear his name.
She said: 'But I fail to see where there was any intent on Andrew's part.
'He didn't intend to get up in the middle of the night to assault anyone. All he did was protect his property.
'People may think he took the law into his own hands but what was he supposed to do, stand by and watch?'
Woodhouse employs six staff including two of his sons at the family business, which was set up 20 years ago.
The firm has lost £15,000 in recent years to thefts of diesel and tools.
Two fuel thieves who stole £50 worth of diesel from Woodhouse's premises on the night of the alleged assault have been dealt with in court.
Timothy Cross, 31, and Kevin Green, 52, took two jerry cans of diesel from Woodhouse's tyre depot in Abergavenny.
Cross and Green both admitted theft and were fined £75 by Cwmbran magistrates.
Garrincha - if you can steel up all the nerve you have to face one question, i know i'm asking a lot here, but when someone builds a house, who do you credit it with - the carpenter or his hammer????????
Obviously, the carpenter. Then why do you blame firearms for crime??? - read the harvard study, where guns are heavily controlled, the MURDER RATE WENT UP, as criminals simply availed themselves of other weapons (when they couldn't find an illegal or unregistered firearm).
I doubt you'll accept any argument that's logical, after all it's "feelings" that count. Same as the fraud scientists that manipulated the data to support climate change being man made - go back and read the fucking news articles when the emails leaked, they had to throw out over half the data as it contradicted their stated goal finding, so they could create the "hockey stick" climate graph that showed incredible temp gains over a 12 year period, ONLY TO FIND OUT THAT THE TEMPS ACTUALLY WENT DOWN OVER THAT PERIOD.
yeah, give me the opinion of a liberal any day, cause it goes without saying, it's founded in solid logic & thoughtful consideration.
Keep on your journey thru life with your hands over your eyes, and when you find yourself run over by a truck, just ignore it - it didn't really happen.
PS - that killing of the australian college baseball player, the one they killed out of boredom - guess what, as teenagers, possession of a pistol is a crime - you can't own or possess a pistol under the age of 21, federal law. You can own one but only use it legally, on your own property or at a range in the presence of a supervising adult. 2nd, those teenagers were already guilty of other felonies - don't know if they were ever convicted, but possession of a firearm by anyone having been convicted of a felony is a crime
so while you've got that big knife by your bed, pray that if anyone breaks in they don't a) have a bigger knife (or a machete or crowbar, or b) worse yet, have a firearm and c) they aren't on crack or pcp, as most of the druggies are when they "B&Eing"
and hope and pray your wife isn't home alone when they break in - a woman with a knife is no threat to the asswipes that break in. That's why firearms are called the great equalizer.
-
you can file this one under "a liberal is nothing but a conservative that hasn't been mugged yet", or under "guns for me but not for thee"
http://www.examiner.com/article/anti-gun-pol-considers-concealed-carry-after-home-break-in
Anti-gun pol considers concealed carry after home break-in
David CodreaGun Rights Examiner
August 26, 2013
Embracing advice from responding police following a home break-in where she hid from intruders, former Michigan State House representative and failed Detroit mayoral candidate Lisa Howze may decide to carry a gun, The Detroit News reported last Wednesday.
“The officer told me it’s time to get my CPL license,” Howze told the press. “I had resisted for a long time, saying, no, I’m not getting a gun, I’m not getting a gun. Now I’m not resisting.”
Why a concealed carry permit would be useful in a home robbery was left unsaid, so the assumption must be that she intends to carry a gun in public. This has some pro-gun comment posters hopeful that they have a convert and a new ally for the cause of liberty.
Such wishful thinking may end in disappointment. After all, Dianne Feinstein notoriously obtained a concealed carry permit when she feared for her life, but that never slowed down her efforts to disarm her constituents and everyone else.
Howze is a doctrinaire Detroit Democrat. When she had a chance to expand authorized concealed carry locales to protect against mass shooters, she voted “Nay.”
She gave her reasons why in an interview last year, when she promulgated a telling “Only Ones” interpretation of the Second Amendment.
“When you say trained individuals, I think of law enforcement, and those individuals have the right to carry in those various locales,” Howze maintained. “I think that when you begin to bring weapons into those types of areas, into schools and churches, I think it kind of takes away from the purpose of those buildings."
Whether Howze will reappraise that assessment remains to be seen, but as for her immediate environs where she is considering going armed, she still exhibits an inflated sense of official importance, first by using her status as a political elite to elicit a faster response time from police responders to her home burglary, and also in her belief that “teens in the neighborhood … would never let anyone mess with her.”
Does she think her home intruders were imports from other neighborhoods, and just who does she think she’s going to be shooting if she needs to defend herself? And how can she say she still feels safe in her neighborhood, and if she really does, why the need for a gun?
There’s a curious thing about such a willfully blind assessment. The home intruder story says Howze lives near 8 Mile and Gratiot, which is just on the northern border of an appalling concentration of violent crime statistics. In fact Detroit as a whole is given a “2” rating on crime (with “100” being safest) by Neighborhood Scout, and the Mohican Regent area is keeping close track with the city, with the violent crime index being an astounding and shameful 704 percent higher than the Michigan average.
And there’s one other curious thing, in case Howze ever does need to stand her ground (which statistically works in the favor of Black Americans more than for any other segment of the populace) and rely on a defensive gun use: the demographic-based odds indicate one race will be “overrepresented” above all others combined.
Who thinks her doing so would create a national, media-fueled rage?
-
Sorry to break my pledge, but this thread still winds me up. I don't know what significance there is in the murder of an elderly man in UK. What a shock, hands and feet can be used as weapons too! Whats your point? If only he had a pump-action shotgun on him, he'd have been saved?
In relation to the Australian incident, I hear the Aussie government has called on its citizens to boycott American tourism, in order to encourage Congress to do something about the gun situation in the US. Cumbaya my lord, cumbaya!!
You've accused me of being a cumbaya merchant, but i'm only putting forward my experiences and knowledge of living in a country where you can't legally possess firearms, unless licensed to do so. I sleep with a large knife by my side, so i'm not naive when it comes to home security. In my whole life, living in 3 different cities (2 of which are notorious for violent crime) I have never been threatened by a gun and I don't know anyone who has. The UK has a serious problem with violent crime (much of it fuelled by alcohol), in comparison to other large European countries, but neither myself or anyone I have ever known has expressed a desire to own a gun in order to protect themselves (but they've all been brainwashed, unlike Americans of course). The American gun lobby has surely brainwashed some of the posters in this thread IMO. The type of libertarianism espoused by them is pretty much an entirely American concept, and yet they need guns to protect themselves from the very politicians who allow guns to be so accessible. Am I missing something?
Garrincha - please don't take offense at this, as i mean it with the utmost respect - when i was a kid, my parents had a toothpick holder with three monkeys at it's base. one monkey had it's hands over it's ears, one over it's eyes and the other over it's mouth, with the logo "hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil". You remind me of the first two monkeys with the adaptation of "see no facts, hear no facts..."
from my first post, i gave a story o f the florida carjackers indicating the reason they only carjacked tourists was they knew "they couldn't be carrying". The point of that and all the rest, even when there are ninnies who view weapons as inherently evil, as long as citizens are allowed to carry (if you're too scared or horrified to handle a weapon, then don't) but as long as some are armed, LESS CRIME OCCURS.
here, in todays news, from a liberal institution
http://www.smallgovtimes.com/article/harvard-study-reveals-gun-control-counterproductive/
Harvard study reveals gun control counterproductive
August 20, 2013 2nd Amendment Steve Adcock
Once again, a study from an organization that you would never accuse of being “gun-loving” or “right-wing” seems to disprove the myth that the availability of handguns increases murder rates. In fact, it doesn’t.
The Harvard study attempts to answer the question of whether or not banning firearms would reduce murders and suicides. Researchers looked at crime data from several European countries and found that countries with HIGHER gun ownership often had LOWER murder rates.
Russia, for example, enforces very strict gun control on its people, but its murder rate remains quite high. In fact, the murder rate in Russia is four times higher than in the “gun-ridden” United States, cites the study. ”Homicide results suggest that where guns are scarce other weapons are substituted in killings.” In other words, the elimination of guns does not eliminate murder, and in the case of gun-controlled Russia, murder rates are quite high.
The study revealed several European countries with significant gun ownership, like Norway, Finland, Germany and France – had remarkably low murder rates. Contrast that with Luxembourg, “where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is minimal, had a murder rate nine times higher than Germany in 2002.”
The study found no evidence to suggest that the availability of guns contributes to higher murder rates anywhere in the world. ”Of course, it may be speculated that murder rates around the world would be higher if guns were more available. But there is simply no evidence to support this.”
Further, the report cited, “the determinants of murder and suicide are basic social, economic, and cultural factors, not the prevalence of some form of deadly mechanism.” Meaning, it’s not guns that kill people.
People kill people.
what is evil is the fucking idiocy of the liberal mentality that gave us a welfare culture, starting in the 1960s, where mothers are encouraged to bear children without a stable family environment (ie no father around) as the state will support them. That gave us a sub-population of thee animals that killed the australian college kid in oklahoma.
Then, on the flip side of the equation, the liberal mentality says we should be tolerant and understanding of the miscreants that commit crime, as after all, they're "only products of their environment, it isn't their fault" - ie that they grew up in poverty without a father. And as further proof of that, and the upside down logic of the liberal mentality, we have this story. Notice the burglars got off with a fine of 75 pounds (approx $125) for fucking burglary, while the property owner is facing trial for grievous bodily harm for hitting one of them with a stick THAT HE TOOK FROM THEM - they had brought it as a weapon
This was in today's mailonline.uk
Boss who tackled burglar raiding his tyre business hauled before a court for attacking THEM
Andrew Woodhouse, 43, apprehended a burglar at his type depot
He allegedly used a stick to injure the thief's legs before holding him down until police arrived
When officers arrived, they arrested Woodhouse for grievous bodily harm
He denied the charge at Newport Crown Court and was released on bail
By Suzannah Hills
PUBLISHED: 03:10 EST, 24 August 2013 | UPDATED: 04:38 EST, 24 August 2013
Businessman Andrew Woodhouse, 43, apprehended a burglar at his tyre firm and was then charged with causing grievous bodily harm with intent
A businessman who confronted a burglar raiding his premises appeared in court yesterday accused of attacking him.
Andrew Woodhouse, 43, was chasing thieves off his property when he claims one of them 'came at' him with a wooden stick.
Father-of-five Woodhouse allegedly used the stick to injure the man's legs before holding him down while his wife called the police.
But when officers arrived they arrested Woodhouse and held him in a cell for 18 hours.
He appeared at Newport Crown Court yesterday charged with grievous bodily harm with intent which has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Andrew Taylor, defending, said: 'Mr Woodhouse apprehended two of the burglars at his tyre depot.
'It happened after two or three men decided they were going to remove a large quantity of diesel from his premises.
'Mr Woodhouse has been interviewed by police and has provided a full explanation about what happened.
'There is a CCTV recording of the incident and we are waiting to see the footage.'
Woodhouse denies the charge and was given bail until next month.
A Facebook page has been set up in support of Woodhouse, of Abergavenny, South Wales with more than 2,000 supporting him.
Woodhouse was in bed with his wife Lisa at their detached home in the village of Govilon, near Abergavenny, when his burglar alarm went off at about 12.30am.
The alarm is fitted to his business premises on an industrial estate a mile from his six-bedroom £350,000 home.
Woodhouse drove to his business premises where the alleged assault happened.
His wife Lisa said her husband was prepared to go through the legal process to clear his name.
She said: 'But I fail to see where there was any intent on Andrew's part.
'He didn't intend to get up in the middle of the night to assault anyone. All he did was protect his property.
'People may think he took the law into his own hands but what was he supposed to do, stand by and watch?'
Woodhouse employs six staff including two of his sons at the family business, which was set up 20 years ago.
The firm has lost £15,000 in recent years to thefts of diesel and tools.
Two fuel thieves who stole £50 worth of diesel from Woodhouse's premises on the night of the alleged assault have been dealt with in court.
Timothy Cross, 31, and Kevin Green, 52, took two jerry cans of diesel from Woodhouse's tyre depot in Abergavenny.
Cross and Green both admitted theft and were fined £75 by Cwmbran magistrates.
Garrincha - if you can steel up all the nerve you have to face one question, i know i'm asking a lot here, but when someone builds a house, who do you credit it with - the carpenter or his hammer????????
Obviously, the carpenter. Then why do you blame firearms for crime??? - read the harvard study, where guns are heavily controlled, the MURDER RATE WENT UP, as criminals simply availed themselves of other weapons (when they couldn't find an illegal or unregistered firearm).
I doubt you'll accept any argument that's logical, after all it's "feelings" that count. Same as the fraud scientists that manipulated the data to support climate change being man made - go back and read the fucking news articles when the emails leaked, they had to throw out over half the data as it contradicted their stated goal finding, so they could create the "hockey stick" climate graph that showed incredible temp gains over a 12 year period, ONLY TO FIND OUT THAT THE TEMPS ACTUALLY WENT DOWN OVER THAT PERIOD.
yeah, give me the opinion of a liberal any day, cause it goes without saying, it's founded in solid logic & thoughtful consideration.
Keep on your journey thru life with your hands over your eyes, and when you find yourself run over by a truck, just ignore it - it didn't really happen.
PS - that killing of the australian college baseball player, the one they killed out of boredom - guess what, as teenagers, possession of a pistol is a crime - you can't own or possess a pistol under the age of 21, federal law. You can own one but only use it legally, on your own property or at a range in the presence of a supervising adult. 2nd, those teenagers were already guilty of other felonies - don't know if they were ever convicted, but possession of a firearm by anyone having been convicted of a felony is a crime
so while you've got that big knife by your bed, pray that if anyone breaks in they don't a) have a bigger knife (or a machete or crowbar, or b) worse yet, have a firearm and c) they aren't on crack or pcp, as most of the druggies are when they "B&Eing"
and hope and pray your wife isn't home alone when they break in - a woman with a knife is no threat to the asswipes that break in. That's why firearms are called the great equalizer.
C'mon tbart. Like the NRA and gun lobby doesn't frequently sponsor studies to further their own cause? And while the report you present evidence from still came from a very American institution. As for Luxembourg being the new Ciudad Juarez or wherever, I don't know. Can you really compare crime rates from a country of under a million people to one of 80 million + (Germany)? I know a fair bit about geography and I can't say i've ever heard of Luxembourg being unsafe. As for Norway, look at Anders Breivik. It only takes one nutter out of 4.5 million people to carry out a completely horrendous, unnecessary and illogical crime. Been a couple of recent school massacres in Finland too. A more useful study would be a simple comparison of GUN crime in several countries, rather than violent crime. There have been just too many horrific incidents in the US for it to be swept under the carpet and forgotten about. If you live in a country where SCHOOLS need to have armed guards, the link between lack of gun control and frequent massacres is just too commonsensical to argue about. You accuse me of living in "cumbaya land", maybe you're right. I'm luckier than some, in that I went to schools (reputedly the roughest in the city), where the only time in 14 years that weapons were mentioned, were 2 incidents of someone rumoured to have brought a knife into school. I wouldn't swap that school environment for one with armed guards. Incedently, the county where the city in question was has about the lowest crime rate in the country, so I guess you're right in saying that (until my final year, when i got into drugs) I had a fairly sheltered childhood.
I agree with you totally when you say that "guns don't kill people, people do". This really contradicts your argument, because if only 1 in 100 gun owners, is violent, criminal or mentally unstable you have the potential for the atrocities which happen every day in USA. Clearly, out of all the 1st world countries, America has a problem with effective gun control. Presumably, the other countries with high levels of gun-ownership have many more restrictions than the US, and in any case, have less violent crime in general. "The Real World", as you refer to it, differs from country to country, and then region to region, city to city.
-
Garrincha - you convince me with each post how appropriate my reference to the "see no facts, hear no facts...." monkeys was.
I haven't mentioned the NRA but that is a simple liberal (and truly tired out) trick. First mis-characterize my stmt, in this case to include the NRA (assuming that half the population will revile them as they'be been cast as "villianous" and "extremist" by the liberal MSM, and then use that association to try to dis-credit my stmts. You truly are a work of hardheadness, but then again, they say about fanatics, "when in doubt, predictably they will re-double their efforts".
what's really sad is the fact that it's the liberal studies that are usually found to be based on invented numbers, much like the global warming farce was.
The most important study i offered was the DOJ (US Dept of Justice) study, performed under the commander-in-sleaze Clinton, to assess or categorize any incidents involving citizens use of weapons. When the study turned up some 2.4 million incidents of firearms used to prevent crimes reported in a four year period (that's 600,000 per year for you ill-educated liberals), and the statician performing the study foot-noting that in his estimation there were likely another 2.4 million incidents that went un reported.
Tell you what, i've got a sign for you to put up in your front yard, a simple sign, that indicates "this is a firearm free zone, no firearms allowed within" and let your neighbor put up on indicating support for firearms. Guess whose house gets broken into?
you're a dimwit, truly
this story just popped up today, but i know, it's just another NRA trick story that they conjured up
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/13/texas-mans-pregnant-wife-never-wanted-to-have-a-gun-in-the-house-but-now-shes-sure-glad-he-insisted/
Texas Man’s Pregnant Wife Never Wanted to Have a Gun in the House – But Now She’s Sure Glad He Insisted
Sep. 13, 2013 4:00pm Jason Howerton
A Texas man’s pregnant wife made it clear she was against having a firearm in their house. However, the husband insisted she learn how to use a gun to protect herself just in case. In fact, it was just a few months ago that he took her out to teach her the basics.
On Saturday, she was extremely thankful to have the protection of a gun on her side.
The pregnant woman, identified only as “Alex,” told KGBT-TV that she was startled by the sound of a man banging loudly on her front door while another man walked around to the back of her Palmview, Texas, home. Her husband had just left 20 minutes before.
“I’m a young woman, I’m pregnant, I’m home alone. I’m not going to answer the door – I mean, I know better,” she recalled.
Sensing something was very wrong, the pregnant woman retrieved her husband’s handgun for protection. With one hand on the firearm and the other dialing 911, one of the men broke into the house.
“Oh my gosh, he broke in!” the woman told the operator. She remembered what her husband told her while practicing shooting just months before: “When you’re in a situation like that- you’re not going to think twice.” He was right.
When the two men realized the woman was armed, they took off towards their truck. Alex’s “adrenaline kicked in” and she shot once at the vehicle. She said she was not aiming to shoot the men, but rather at the truck to both scare the burglars and provide police an identifying marker that might help them track it down.
Unsurprisingly, Alex is very thankful her husband insisted that they not only keep a firearm in the house, but that she learn how to use it.
“I was against him buying a gun maybe 7-8 months ago, but I told him, ‘I don’t know if I told you, thank you for doing that’ because it changed the situation completely,” she told KGBT-TV.
Palmview Police and SWAT eventually tracked down the suspects, brothers Lucas and Jesus Ortiz, who had barricaded themselves inside a different home. Authorities blocked off the area and negotiated with the two men, ultimately arresting them.
“Palmview Police say Lucas and Jesus Ortiz were high on unknown drugs at the time of the burglary and that they are still not being cooperative with the investigation,” KGBT-TV reports.
and this one is an update on one of the gang members convicted of murder in a tourist carjacking back in the early 90s in florida, that i spoke of in an earlier post - the one where the convicted gang members, from un-associated gangs, identified the reason they targeted rental cars at the rest stops along the interstate, was that they knew tourists "couldn't be carrying" (as in un-armed)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420506/American-murdered-British-tourist-botched-robbery-20-years-ago-jailed-40-years.html
American who murdered British tourist in botched robbery 20 years ago is jailed for a further 40 years
Aundra Akins murdered Gary Colley from West Yorkshire in 1993
Received 27 year prison sentence at the time, the maximum sentence given to a juvenile offender
Despite pleading he was a 'changed man' a judge turned down his plea for parole and added 40 years to the life sentence yesterday
By Jennifer Smith
PUBLISHED: 20:12 EST, 13 September 2013 | UPDATED: 20:15 EST, 13 September 2013
\
Aundra Akins, pictured here in 1997 aged 18, faces a further 40 years behind bars on top of his 27 year sentence
A man who murdered a Briton in a botched robbery 20 years ago in Florida has had 40 years added to his prison sentence.
Aundra Akins, who was just 14 when he gunned down holidaymaker Gary Colley in 1993, was imprisoned for 27 years in four years later - the maximum sentence he could receive as a juvenile.
But today Akins appeared back in court where Judge Karen Gievers added 40 years onto his existing sentence.
The 34-year-old was told there was no hope of parole.
A court official at Jefferson County Court said: 'Aundra Akins was sentenced to 40 years to run consecutively to his previous sentence of 27 years for the murder of Gary Colley.'
Margaret Jagger, Mr Colley's girlfriend at the time, was also injured in the incident.
She travelled back to Montecito in Florida for yesterday's hearing.
Speaking before the case, she told local news outlet WCTV: 'I didn't think I would have to come back again.
'Both he and I have served time in different ways. My sentence will never end.'
Ms Jagger said Akins needs to show he can stay out of trouble, it was reported.
Akins reportedly told the judge today that at the time he did not comprehend the magnitude of what happened, but said he does now.
His mother was reported to have appeared at the hearing, and in asking the judge to release her son, she said: 'I understand what he did was wrong. I know he won't be no trouble to nobody.'
Akins' brother, cousin and uncle also testified, according to reports.
Gary Colley (pictured) from West Yorkshire was murdered by Akins in 1993 on a motorway near Tallahassee in Flordida
Now the same age as his victim was when he died, the murderer who acted as part of a gang in 1993 pleaded for forgiveness.
Akins pointed to his attainment of a GED qualification, trade certificates and his attendance of a Christrian retreat as proof of his changed ways.
He said: 'I'm not the kid I was before. I am a grown man and I really want to make a difference and I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me,' but was refused the chance by Judge Gievers.
Remarkably, yesterday's developments took place on the eve of the tragedy's 20th anniversary.
Speaking of the landmark date, Ms Jagger from Bradford said: 'It's a big coincidence that this happened on this day, so it's very strange. It's 20 years tomorrow that Gary died. So it's pretty emotional'.
Mr Colley, Wilsden, West Yorkshire and Mrs Jagger were reportedly threatened on their way to Tampa in 1993 by a gang of youths, of which Akins was one.
The number of incidents that year prompted the Foreign Office to issue a warning to Britons thinking of travelling to the Florida, guidance which has since been lifted.
-
Guns are illegal in mexico and we see how that has curbed the violence down there. If you want to see how USA will be in the future, don't look at Europe. The USA is becoming more and more like Mexico. Here on the west coast the change is more pronounced but it's coming to theaters near you.
-
New South Wales Premier Barry O'Farrell has proposed new laws which will give police greater powers to search people for guns without a warrant.
The changes are to be introduced to Parliament this week and mean police would not need a warrant to search people who have been banned from owning weapons.
Their cars, homes and outlaw motorcycle gang club houses will also be able to be searched without a warrant.
Mr O'Farrell also plans to increase the prison term for anyone convicted of possessing or supplying guns to try to crack down on crime in Sydney.
The jail term will increase from 10 to 14 years.
The Government says there are about 60 people who have been issued with firearm bans and he predicts the number will rise as police place a greater focus on gun crime.
"Police will be able to stop and search them in their cars, in their homes, in their workplace, frankly there'll be no place for them to hide," he said.
"Clearly these laws are about dealing with gun crime across Sydney, police are concerned about the activities of outlaw motor cycle gangs and others and these laws will ensure that disorderly houses or crime dens can also be searched."
Labor has put forward similar proposals in the past, which suggests there could bipartisan support for the changes.
But civil libertarians have condemned the idea, arguing it erodes police accountability.
New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties president Cameron Murphy says a warrant provides legitimacy.
"What a search warrant does is confines the police's activities, so we know why they're searching, and ensures there's a legitimate reason for them to do so," he said.
"By removing that level of accountability, all we do is set up the scene in the future for perhaps police corruption, because there's no accountability over their actions."
Clearnet - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-15/nsw-premier-proposes-tougher-gun-search-powers/4958740