When Swords are Outlawed only Outlaws will have Swords... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Lebell · 03-12-2004, 03:16 PM

People just can't understand that outlawing guns doesn't lead to less crime.

Australia is a great example.

Guns are outlawed and gun crimes have been going up (posted in TFP before, but I'll post again, if necessary).

Now, thugs are carrying swords and knifes.

So the solution is to outlaw them.

Care to guess what the solution will be when they start carrying cricket bats?

PEOPLE commit crimes! Not OBJECTS!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/com...5E2862,00.html

New law to ban swords

Peter Mickelburough, state politics reporter
09mar04

SWORDS will be outlawed from July under new laws to curb the growing use of the weapons in street brawls.

Police Minister Andre Haermeyer said the ban would help police overcome a culture of young people arming themselves with swords.
"For most people running around the street carrying swords there is absolutely no reason for them to be carrying those weapons," he said yesterday.

From July, anyone found possessing or selling a sword without a permit will face up to six months' jail and fines of up to $12,000.

Existing sword owners must surrender their weapons to police, sell them to a licensed dealer or apply to the Chief Commissioner for specific approval.

Collectors and people with legitimate cultural, religious or military reasons to own swords will be exempted from the ban, but must store them under lock and key and have a burglar alarm.

The sword ban follows a string of recent attacks and a regulatory impact statement undertaken by the State Government last year.

Last week, a 13-year-old boy was arrested and charged after allegedly charging police with a sword near Castlemaine, in central Victoria.

A 21-year-old man had his hand severed by a samurai sword in a confrontation between 40 men in the Fitzroy Gardens a fortnight ago -- the second brawl involving swords in 24 hours.

Huy Huynh, 19, was chased from the Salt nightclub and hacked to death nearby in July 2002 by a mob using samurai swords and machetes.

The new laws will make it illegal to sell swords to anyone who does not have a permit.

Sword sellers will have to keep a register of buyers' details and make it available for police to inspect.

Mr Haermeyer said groups such as highland dancers, historic re-enactment groups, bonafide collectors and people with family heirlooms could apply for an exemption from the licensing services branch of Victoria Police.

"Legitimate sword owners understand the importance of ensuring that their swords do not fall into the wrong hands," he said.

"The vast majority of the community would say, 'Look, there's no place for people just being able to go out there and buy these things and carry them around the street'."

Mr Haermeyer said the exact definition of a sword under the new regulations was still being considered.

He said machetes would remain a controlled weapon, requiring a person to have a legitimate reason for carrying them.

The Government is also looking at bans on some other weapons, such as crossbows, and greater restriction on the sale of prohibited and regulated weapons at weekend markets.

Mr Haermeyer warned that police would be actively hunting for knives and swords after being given new powers and 480 metal detectors late last year, allowing them to search people they reasonably suspected were carrying weapons.

HunterDevourer · 03-13-2004, 12:26 AM

Ah, that's in Victoria...Glad I'm in NSW, and my mate who bought a folded steel katana will be too. It's pretty ridiculous I agree, getting a fucking permit for something you collect would be beyond irritating. Maybe if the government offered to pay anything near the value of some of the swords it'd be feasible to me.

opackfan · 03-13-2004, 12:42 AM

swords i can do without, but when they start coming after my axe, that is when they will have a problem

Strange Famous · 03-13-2004, 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
[B]People just can't understand that outlawing guns doesn't lead to less crime.

Australia is a great example.

Guns are outlawed and gun crimes have been going up (posted in TFP before, but I'll post again, if necessary).

Now, thugs are carrying swords and knifes.

So the solution is to outlaw them.

Care to guess what the solution will be when they start carrying cricket bats?

It's interesting that you used the same metaphor that Prince Philip did after the murder of 20 school children in the town of Dunblane by a gun maniac...

Personally, the argument for outlawing certain weapons to me is that they make violence much more easily. Guns, for example, create the possibility of an argunent turning into a murder, and so do swords.

The fact that so much violent crime exists to me is the proof that there is a requirement to disarm the people... people simply must not be allowed to own weaponary. of course, someone who wants to kill will always be able to do it, what you aim to reduce is the instances of people who do not really mean to kill, just to menace or threaten or fight, becoming killers because of the weaponary they use.

Seaver · 03-13-2004, 01:21 AM

Quote:

The fact that so much violent crime exists to me is the proof that there is a requirement to disarm the people... people simply must not be allowed to own weaponary

Wow... I havent liked many of your statements in the past.. but... wow.

A pencil can become a deadly weapon very easily, should pencils be outlawed as well?

Who's going to disarm people? To safely disarm people, and keep them disarmed, you need armed people, which in and of itself is a contradiction. I know how much you hate the Bush administration, would you trust any administration who can kill you in a heartbeat and all you have is a pair of safety-sissors?

sprocket · 03-13-2004, 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
It's interesting that you used the same metaphor that Prince Philip did after the murder of 20 school children in the town of Dunblane by a gun maniac...

Personally, the argument for outlawing certain weapons to me is that they make violence much more easily. Guns, for example, create the possibility of an argunent turning into a murder, and so do swords.

The fact that so much violent crime exists to me is the proof that there is a requirement to disarm the people... people simply must not be allowed to own weaponary. of course, someone who wants to kill will always be able to do it, what you aim to reduce is the instances of people who do not really mean to kill, just to menace or threaten or fight, becoming killers because of the weaponary they use.

The gun debate always seems to get led into an argument over what would be better for society (aka the state), both sides arguing over weather their ideas are going to reduce crime or increase crime or will there be an increase or decrease in firearm accidents etc. What should be discussed instead is weather a person should have the right to arm themselves for defense and what would be considered reasonable to defend oneself. We obviously dont want people to be able to go to a local gunshop and purchase a nuclear weapon, but can we tell someone its not reasonable for them to own an AK47 for self defense and protection for their family?

Its a dangerous world, just as it was for the caveman in his day. For all our technology and knowledge the world is dangerous enough that I think its reasonable for a person to arm themselves for protection. I dont think you can disarm the people today and leave them with reasonable means to protect themselves or their family. Guns cannot be disinvented and bad people will always have them.

When the argument is made this way I think it becomes clear pretty quickly that disarming the public is not something that a government should have the power to do (at least in the US). The Bill of Rights recognizes the fact that the world is hazardous and the government is unable to ensure the safety of its citizens. Disarming the people is removing somones ability to defend their life should the need arise.

analog · 03-13-2004, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
Personally, the argument for outlawing certain weapons to me is that they make violence much more easily. Guns, for example, create the possibility of an argunent turning into a murder, and so do swords.

The fact that so much violent crime exists to me is the proof that there is a requirement to disarm the people... people simply must not be allowed to own weaponary.

1. If we were arguing, and I wanted to kill you, it would take as little as exactly 1 second, and 2 fingers, and your ass is grass. You woulnd't see it coming, you couldn't possibly block it unless you are also a master of martial arts or trained by the military, and you cannot recover from it.

Having a "weapon" other than your own two hands, feet, etc., is just easier in general. The more you take away, the more inventive people will get. So now, rather than being mugged by gun- or knife-point, and the intimidation alone being enough to make you fork it over, EVERY mugging turns into a violent display of battery, as they now resort to just beating you to get what they want.

It's stupid.

2. Much as with many things, including recreational drugs, when you outlaw a certain product, you only create an atmosphere of violence and greed, and you drive those who want to own it head-on into the criminal element. It's been proven time and time again that in areas where guns are legal, crime rates go down, and where they are outlawed, continue to rise.

seretogis · 03-13-2004, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by analog
1. If we were arguing, and I wanted to kill you, it would take as little as exactly 1 second, and 2 fingers, and your ass is grass.

Clearly, we need to outlaw knowledge and fit everyone with straight jackets in order to peace and harmony for all.

Strange Famous · 03-13-2004, 10:39 AM

oh come on, we are not going to get into conversations where people claim they can kill with two fingers, are we? If your two fingers rested against the triggers of two guns I would believe it, otherwise,,,

of course it is possible to beat someone to death, and most people are physically capable of doing so in some cases... we cannot ever pre-emptively stop all murder.

But right now in the states, and in parts of London, there are gangs walking around with guns, and when it goes down they use them... in the states right now, arguments turn violent and someone gets shot, if no one had a gun, they would get punched spark out...

We need to disarm people because, in general and on the whole, the general population is not universally capable of not using their weapons lethally.

People say "why should swords be illegal"... I ask, why should they be? What purpose does a sword serve a law abiding and peaceful person? if people want to display swords as ornaments, then we will produce fake plastic blades that look just the same for them to display, if people want to fence, we will them fibre glass rapiers to play the sport with... there is nothing you can use a sword for, that you cannot use an alternative for, other than hacking someone to bits.

seretogis · 03-13-2004, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
We need to disarm people because, in general and on the whole, the general population is not universally capable of not using their weapons lethally.

Your entire "argument" boils down to this statement, which I have not seen a shred of proof to back up. If the majority of the general population were to be so animalistic to not be able to handle doing anything without using lethal force, why are there not 1 million deaths in the US each day from people using their automobiles, baseball bats, toasters, microwave ovens in a lethal fashion? The world is not as you preceive it to be -- not by a long-shot.

Lebell · 03-13-2004, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
But right now in the states, and in parts of London, there are gangs walking around with guns, and when it goes down they use them... in the states right now, arguments turn violent and someone gets shot, if no one had a gun, they would get punched spark out...

We need to disarm people because, in general and on the whole, the general population is not universally capable of not using their weapons lethally.

Man, I'm really not trying to bust your chops today and I know you're sincere and all, but do you think about what you are posting?

In the first sentence you say, "But right now...in parts of London, there are gangs walking around with guns..."

In the second sentence you say, "We need to disarm people..."

WELL,

Guns are ILLEGAL to own in London, so the people are theoretically already "disarmed". But of course, the criminals aren't playing nice and following the law, so that means that only they have guns.

In otherwords, "disarming" really means disarming the law-abiding.

So if an honest person wants to *gasp* defend themselves, they are out of luck.

WarWagon · 03-13-2004, 11:05 AM

Here's how I see it. You take away guns from law abiding citizens, those who illegally own weapons will have never had such confidence that they can get away with whatever they want, and the crime rate skyrockets exponentially. Now, if every citizen was required to carry a non-concealed weapon, criminals are sure as hell going to think twice about whoever they approach, knowing that their life is at risk, even if it were an elderly old woman.

Now, I'm certainly not suggesting that this idea is feasible or a good idea, but a lot of criminals would certainly lose that sense of invulnerability when everyone else has an equalizer.

Strange Famous · 03-13-2004, 11:07 AM

the gangs need to be disarmed, and so do all people - what we need is to make gun ownership a serious crime, and force the ownership of gusn way underground so that only the worst and most hard core criminals will have them.

We cannot univent the gun, the world would be much better if we could, but the people do not YET have full enough control of their world. In a communist world, I would believe that guns will not exist, nor swords I would imagine.

Of course, in the present world, we cannot stop the production of guns, and there is always the possibility of the bad guys getting them, we have to aim to make society as safe as we can, if we cannot make it perfectly safe.

The difference is I want a society with as few weapons as we can achieve, and you think, we all need to be armed, and hope that Mutually Assured Destruction creates more peace... it seems to me at least to be down to which of these ideals you think is the safest.

Lebell · 03-13-2004, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
the gangs need to be disarmed, and so do all people - what we need is to make gun ownership a serious crime, and force the ownership of gusn way underground so that only the worst and most hard core criminals will have them.

We cannot univent the gun, the world would be much better if we could, but the people do not YET have full enough control of their world. In a communist world, I would believe that guns will not exist, nor swords I would imagine.

Of course, in the present world, we cannot stop the production of guns, and there is always the possibility of the bad guys getting them, we have to aim to make society as safe as we can, if we cannot make it perfectly safe.

The difference is I want a society with as few weapons as we can achieve, and you think, we all need to be armed, and hope that Mutually Assured Destruction creates more peace... it seems to me at least to be down to which of these ideals you think is the safest.

As you say, we cannot uninvent the gun.

That being agreed upon, I would not force anyone to carry a gun that was uncomfortable doing so.

But I also do not want to place my safety solely in the hands of the police, who may or may not be there to protect me when I need it.

And that I think is a good description of the differences between communism and libertarianism: You prefer that individuals place their safety and well being in the hands of the state, whereas a libertarian prefers to take the responsibility for them him/herself.

Unfortunately, while a libertarian has no problem with an individual who wants to put their lives and well being in the hands of the state, a communist has no problem forcing everyone to do so, even those who don't want to.

The_Dunedan · 03-13-2004, 11:19 AM

Strange Famous,
The empiracal data coming out of your own country, Australia, and South Africa right now disproves such statements. As Lebell pointed out above, the ownership of handguns is illegal in Britain, and yet according to your own Home Office, your violent-crime rate has been increasing by 12-15% for five years now, and is set to eclipse that of the US within the next 18 months. Your rates for Armed Robbery and Home Invasion already exceed those of the US by a considerable margin, according to the same report.
In Australia, the numbers are reversed but the situation is the same. The V-Crime rate will catch up to the US in a little over two years, according to the latest UN figures, and the rate of Armed Robbery is already equal to that of the US, although due to Australia's more rural population, home-invasions are somewhat more rare; this according to the Australian Home Office and the UN's Global Report on Small Arms and Global Report on Crime ( I believe those were the titles, but I'll check ).
South Africa, meanwhile, is a nightmare. Posession of unlicensed firearms will get you 12 years, a law which is enthusiastically enforced by the Marxist govornment in power there, and yet S. Africa has the 3rd to 5th highest rate of violent crime in the world; the US doesn't even make the Top Twenty.
Study of empirical evidence from around the world puts the lie to these anti-defense prattlings; the more strict a country's weapons-control policies are, the higher it's rates of both violent and organized crime. Look at Russia, where the ownership of anything magazine-fed is illegal; look at Brazil, a nation with an almost total prohibition on gun ownership; Number 6 in the world for violent crime, with Rio De Janero ( sp? ) being the 3rd most violent city on the planet. I can go on and on about this.

Denying evidence does not make it go away. The UN, CDC, Amnesty International, and American BAR Association have all weighed in on this one, and despite the blatant and offensive anti-self-defense bias of all these organizations, all have come to the same conclusion; that Gun Control ( more correctly called Victim Disarmament ) is a counterproductive pipe-dream at best, and Murder By Govornment at worst.
This arguement is put forth very nicely in Aaron Zellman's book "Murder By Gun Control," available through the Jew For The Protection of Firearms Ownership website; www.jpfo.org.

timalkin · 03-13-2004, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous

We need to disarm people because, in general and on the whole, the general population is not universally capable of not using their weapons lethally.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the true mindset of liberals and communists. The average person is not capable of conducting himself in a civilized manner and must be strictly controlled by the state.

The Founding Fathers of the United States of America realized that individuals should be able to do whatever they want, so long as they aren't hurting anybody else. You can't take someone's guns away if they haven't been used to kill another person. IT IS JUST THAT SIMPLE.

If you want some overpowering nanny-government to control your life, move to a deserted island somewhere in the Pacific Ocean and start your own little country. Leave freedom loving people, and their guns, alone.

I think I'll make that next gun purchase as a result of reading this thread. Thank you.

Strange Famous · 03-13-2004, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by timalkin
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the true mindset of liberals and communists. The average person is not capable of conducting himself in a civilized manner and must be strictly controlled by the state.

The Founding Fathers of the United States of America realized that individuals should be able to do whatever they want, so long as they aren't hurting anybody else. You can't take someone's guns away if they haven't been used to kill another person. IT IS JUST THAT SIMPLE.

If you want some overpowering nanny-government to control your life, move to a deserted island somewhere in the Pacific Ocean and start your own little country. Leave freedom loving people, and their guns, alone.

I think I'll make that next gun purchase as a result of reading this thread. Thank you.

And so 10,000 Americans a year are killed by guns...

timalkin · 03-13-2004, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
And so 10,000 Americans a year are killed by guns...

Can you show me a reliable source for this number? According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention(CDC) in 2001 there were:

802 deaths by firearm

3,281 deaths by drowning

42,443 deaths by motor vehicle accidents

http://webapp.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker...01537&_debug=0

You could possibly outlaw motor vehicles and water along with firearms in a communist state, but what kind of life would that be?

Edit: These are unintentional deaths, of course. These are deaths that could be prevented if the mechanisms that caused them were eradicated. Unfortunately, homicide will always occur, firearms or not.

Strange Famous · 03-13-2004, 01:00 PM

my figures come from "Bowling for Columbine"

The_Dunedan · 03-13-2004, 01:06 PM

Aaah yes, the "Mockumentary" so riddled with falshoods that Moore's Academy Award is likely to be stripped. We asked for sources, not comedy. Moore gets his numbers by throwing together every death firearms-related, whether criminal or not, a fair number of which are criminals shot by their intended victims. This is not a source, this is a joke. You're talking about a plaigarist, a disingenious liar who cobbled together 4 speeches and presented it as a single unit, who reviled a sick old man for making a speech ( in a town where Moore himself had made a speech 6 weeks PRIOR ), and called millions of good, hardworking people racists. This same person broke the law on at least two occaisions, ON FILM, and is getting away with it because he's the darling of well-heeled, elitist scum like Diane Feinstein. Get real.

Lebell · 03-13-2004, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
my figures come from "Bowling for Columbine"

Oh.

I see.

seretogis · 03-13-2004, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
And so 10,000 Americans a year are killed by guns...

That is counting suicides, hunting accidents, etc and is really a misleading statistic. Not that you're really interested in fact, anyhow.

Ustwo · 03-13-2004, 01:42 PM

Its been maybe 14 years since I read the illuminati books. One of the more amusing bits was when a character was rescued from the racist, power abusing, good old boy cop he was referred to by the rescuer as a communist.

You see the communists wanted to get people to their side, by making their enemies into caricatures of themselves. The sheriff was really a communist agent meant to make you hate the system so you would turn to them.

I'm starting to think that Strange Famous is the 'communist' equivalent, and he is secretly a libertarian capitalist and trying to set a bad example to keep people away from the communists.

I now need to find my tinfoil hat!

Strange Famous · 03-13-2004, 02:06 PM

people may criticise Moore, but in fact, when we come down to it, that is the number of people killed by gunshot in the US in a year, no one denies that... Moore may have misrepresented the figure, but it remains factually true.

The_Dunedan · 03-13-2004, 02:17 PM

Do you realize what you're saying?
In part, you are using the fact that people -defended- themselves as the rationale for stripping them of the means to do so!
"You lot killed violent criminals who were attempting to prey upon you. Therefore, you must be disarmed, lest these violent predators come to further harm."
Un-be-friggin-lieveable.
According to John Lott's research, in addition to that of Univ. of Florida researcher Gary Kleck, firearms are used in self-defense about 2,000,000 times per year in the US. That's 2,000,000 more violent crimes per year that would have occurred -without- the presence and use of these defensive weapons.
You, sirrah, are advocating that those 2,000,000 violent crimes be -allowed- to take place! This may not have been your original intent, but empirical data demonstrates that it -will be- and -is- the result of such policies, wherever they are enacted.

Strange Famous · 03-13-2004, 02:35 PM

10,000 lives a year, THIS is the cost of the American love of guns, 10000 souls.

timalkin · 03-13-2004, 02:41 PM

Correct me if I am wrong, but in the great gun-free paradise of Great Britain, you WILL go to jail if you cause harm to another individual, even in self-defense. You have the choice of letting some criminal scum rape and kill you, or you can defend your life and spend the rest of it in prison.

Not much of a choice there, in my opinion.

There are forces in the United States that wish to turn this country into such a place. These forces want the average citizen to cower together like sheep and hope that no big bad wolf comes along to harm them.

Firearms represent freedom itself. To take firearms away is to take freedom away.

The_Dunedan · 03-13-2004, 02:43 PM

Most of which were either violent criminals, who don't deserve to still be swimming around the gene pool anyway, or suicides. Japan's suicide rate ( 3x our own ) shows how effective guns laws are at curbing Seppuku, and every dead rapist, murderer, and mugger is "score one for the good guys," as far as I'm concerned. We enact the provisions you call for, and that "10,000" number you quote will be swallowed by a massive, sudden tide of violent crime, as it is being swallowed now in Britain, Australia, Russia, South Africa, etc etc etc.
Do the math, SF. 10,000 dead/2,000,000 crimes thwarted. Now, allow for those 2M crimes to occur, a fair number of which would result in the death of the victim. THINK ABOUT THIS ONE FOR A MINUTE, willya!?
I can deal with 10,000 dead criminals, suicides, and morons a LOT better than I can deal with 2,000,000 more violent crimes a year.

Dead Criminals: deserved it.
Suicides: Would still find a way. Empire State Building, anyone?
Accidents: These people need to be out of the Gene Pool anyway. The gun did not "accidentally go off" all by itself, someone pulled the trigger while mucking around with it and blew their own brains out. CDC stats show that 80+% of all accidental shooting victims...pulled the trigger on THEMSELVES, not the neighbors 2-year-old like in the commercials.
Anyone dumb enough to be screwing around with a gun like that does NOT need to be reproducing and taking air, food, water, and gasoline away from productive, intelligent people.

timalkin · 03-13-2004, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
10,000 lives a year, THIS is the cost of the American love of guns, 10000 souls.

So you advocate banning cars because it would save 42,443 souls per year, right?

There is always a cost to having freedom. You cannot save every single person from their own stupidity, no matter how much you want to.

And wouldn't you think these deaths would be prevented without gun control? I mean, murder is still against the law, last time I checked.

Strange Famous · 03-13-2004, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by timalkin
Correct me if I am wrong, but in the great gun-free paradise of Great Britain, you WILL go to jail if you cause harm to another individual, even in self-defense. You have the choice of letting some criminal scum rape and kill you, or you can defend your life and spend the rest of it in prison.

Not much of a choice there, in my opinion.

Allow me then to reassure you, people who defend themselves from rapists do noy get life imprison, self defence is allowed n UK law, and your undertanding of our laws is false

The_Dunedan · 03-13-2004, 03:04 PM

Self-defense with ineffective tools, you mean. If any of Her Majesty's SUBJECTS dares to defend him/herself with a firearm or other "Offensive Weapon," off to Old Bailey they go.
See, that's the differenct here. You, Mr. Famous, are a SUBJECT, a chattel of the Crown. I, however, am a free man, a CITIZEN of the Republic, and I am chattel to no man.

timalkin · 03-13-2004, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
Allow me then to reassure you, people who defend themselves from rapists do noy get life imprison, self defence is allowed n UK law, and your undertanding of our laws is false

This news story speaks otherwise, as do many others.

Quote:

Something is rotten in the state of England

by Robert A. Waters

May 29, 2002

Tony Martin still sits in an English prison.

But the farmer who killed a burglar and wounded a second at least has a chance for parole later this year. In yet another bizarre twist to an already bizarre story, the second burglar, Brendan Fearon (who was also shot but did not die), has been consulted about conditions of Martin's eventual parole. You see, Fearon is considered the "victim" in this case, and in England, victims have a right to give their input when a convicted felon may be released. It doesn't matter that Fearon had more than 30 arrests, including several for crimes of violence. Nor does it matter that Fearon's own father has called for Martin's release.

The conviction and imprisonment of Martin is a stain on the once-great British Empire.

Now an equally disturbing case comes to light.

Bill Clifford, 77, of Aldershot, Hampshire and a veteran of World War II, hanged himself on May 3, 2001. It was the day he was to appear in court on charges of "possessing an imitation firearm with intent to cause fear." According to his brother Raymond, the veteran had never been in trouble with the law and was so ashamed of being arrested that he took his own life.

According to the Manchester Guardian, Clifford committed the heinous offense of using a pellet gun to scare off a gang of teenage punks who were kicking in his door and breaking a window in his home. Raymond Clifford stated that a long history of harassment led to the incident. "The trouble he had from the youths got worse in the last couple of months," Raymond Clifford said. "They shouted outside and put eggs through his letterbox." His brother called police several times to report the gang's criminal activities, but got no satisfaction. Finally, when the thugs attempted to break into his home, Clfford used the pellet gun to scare them away. Instead of detainIng the punks who were threatening the homeowner, cops arrested Bill Clifford.

It seems English Constables have trouble catching real criminals. But even though an esimated three million guns may be in the hands of English criminals, God forbid that any law-abiding citizen should keep a firearm for the defense of his home.

Just as despicable to English police are children who play with toy guns.

A few months ago, Constables stormed through the door of a residence in Red House, Sunderland and arrested an eleven-year-old boy who had just received a pellet gun for his birthday. According to the Newscastle Journal, the lawmen, accompanied by a riot van, interrupted a birthday party to make the arrest.

The child, Roland Hopper, was spirited by cops to the local jailhouse and interrogated for two hours. His mother, Andrea Davies, stated that the Constables rushed into the house just as her son was about to cut his birthday cake. "I was pretty shocked," she said. "We looked out the window and they were swarming around like storm troopers in bulletproof vests...And on top of everything else, they confiscated the gun. Roland was in tears."

It was later determined that a neighbor had seen the boys playing with the pellet gun and reported it to police.

After being released, Roland said, "It was the worst birthday party I ever had."

And now, in maybe the most outrageous case of all, Ruby Barber, a grandmother who had been repeatedly burglarized, decided to surround her house with barbed wire to protect it from intruders. Her request was initially denied because it "might hurt burglars." A storm of protest eventually caused the Northampton Borough Council to relent. Barber, they said, could surround her garden with razor wire. But there was a catch--she must take the precaution of posting warning signs and "agree to take full responsibility if a would-be intruder is injured."

Am I missing something here?

Sounds like the inmates are running the asylum.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/infor...em.asp?id=3443

Edit: Link added

sprocket · 03-13-2004, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
people may criticise Moore, but in fact, when we come down to it, that is the number of people killed by gunshot in the US in a year, no one denies that... Moore may have misrepresented the figure, but it remains factually true.

You seem to be completely missing the point of Micheal Moores "Bowling for Columbine" movie. Now my feelings about Micheal Moore are summed up very well by The_Dunedan's earlier post, but his movie didnt really have the anti-gun message people seem to think it does. Again, his statistics are very questionable but did you completely miss the part of the movie where he goes on to demonstrate that Canada has a higher percentage of firearms in the population than the US, while having a much lower percentage of deaths caused by firearms? I mean there was probably a full 20-30 minutes of that movie demonstrating that firearms are not the reason for violent crime.

That was the point of the movie. He poses the question the question, "Why do we continue to kill each other?". He demonstrates that a firearm is a tool that can be mis-used to kill people but at the same time he proves that more firearms do not equal more violence. He allows you to draw your own conclusions as to why there is more violent crime in the US, even though the population as a whole is less armed than Canada. He does hint at the fact that it might have something to do with a fear driven culture in America (ie Evening news programs, corperate marketing that plays on peoples insecurites etc) and the level of tension it causes.

BigGov · 03-13-2004, 04:46 PM

Why argue myself when a better arguement is already made.

From the Hardy Law website:

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Quote:

There are two reasons Moore may be reluctant to talk numbers rather than rates or probabilities.

First, the other countries he compares have a smaller (sometimes a much smaller) population) than the US. The US has a population of about 285 million: Canada about 31 million, Australia 19 million, Germany 81 million. For example, in 2000-2001 Australia reported 381 homicides among its 19 million people. Source. If we were to apply its rate to the US population, that'd work out to 5,715 murders. (The above source puts a peculiar spin on this data, by the way. Although reporting a massive 20% jump in murders, and a 100% increase in intra-family killings, it is headlined that "In 2001-2002 there was a 25 per cent decrease in the use of firearms to commit homicide." Great: what it really means is that gun homicides fell slightly, but were more than offset by increases in all other means of murder. The above figure of 381 is, by the way, total homicides rather than gun homicides.... it's of no benefit to get killed with a knife or club, either.)

Second, the minute you get into rates it starts to become apparent that gun homicides are a very low probability event wherever you are. Phrased otherwise, the odds are enormously in favor of you or I dying of heart attack, stroke, or cancer, no matter what country we live in.

Here's the 1999 Center for Disease Control statistics (which is what Bowling uses) for the US:

Deaths from heart attack &

other cardiovascular failure: ........ 892,558

Deaths from cancer: ................... 549,838

Deaths from flu & pneumonia: .... 67,730

Deaths from kidney failure: ......... 35,525

Deaths from diabetes: .................. 68,399

Deaths from alcohol ingestion .....19,171

Deaths from gun homicides: ....... 10,217 (includes self-defense and police killings of criminals)

Deaths from gun accidents .............. 824 (not a typo)

Of the 2.39 million US deaths that year, gun homicides comprised 0.4%.And of course that probability can be sizeably reduced by a few lifestyle changes. E.g., don't deal crack. Gun accidents comprised three one-hundreds of one percent.

But you can't make much of a documentary around a theme of "The US has an enormous problem -- almost one-sixth as likely to kill you as the flu, and one-ninetieth as likely as heart failure."

smooth · 03-13-2004, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
Of course, in the present world, we cannot stop the production of guns, and there is always the possibility of the bad guys getting them, we have to aim to make society as safe as we can, if we cannot make it perfectly safe.

Strange Famous, I don't know why you even engaged in this mental masturbation. About once a week, someone (usually from within a particular crowd) posts this type of thread so the usual suspects can beat their heads against the wall.

Anyway, I quoted the portion above because I have considered whether we actually can ban the mass production of guns. AFAIK, the US Constitution allows ownership, not production.

One rebuttal might be that restrictions on production would be de facto ownership restriction. However, one could envision a law that allowed production for personal use, while still outlawing mass production (from corporations, etc.).

Well, commense rubbing everyone, I guess--just hope you don't gum up your keyboards

cj2112 · 03-13-2004, 08:32 PM

see my signature....'nuff said

Strange Famous · 03-14-2004, 12:35 AM

timalkin

Tony martin was a nazi sympathiser who had expressed agreement with the views of Adolf Hitler. He fired one shot, from a stare well, and the burgular went down. He then stood above his and fired a second shot while the guy was already down. Shooting someone with a shot gun while they lay wounded on the floor is not considered to be self defence, in any country I should think.

You would be allowed to kill someone if they threatened your life, killing someone because they are trying to steal your TV is not self defence, it is defence of your property. Of course we dont allow people to shoot someone because they are stealing your TV set.

analog · 03-14-2004, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
oh come on, we are not going to get into conversations where people claim they can kill with two fingers, are we? If your two fingers rested against the triggers of two guns I would believe it, otherwise,,,

of course it is possible to beat someone to death, and most people are physically capable of doing so in some cases... we cannot ever pre-emptively stop all murder.

Go talk to anyone in a legitimate martial arts field, or anyone with any real military training. It's not a conversation to be had, it's a fact to be learned.

I'm not describing it, for fear of some retard trying it out and suing everyone to hell and back, but go find out for yourself- do some actual "investigation" and find out some "facts" and you'll be much better for it. I promise.

Strange Famous · 03-14-2004, 01:51 AM

There is a guy at work who claims that the SAS can kill someone with a piece of paper... I suppse it could be possible to kill someone with a couple of fingers, if you rammed then through their temple or eyes or something like that, or are we talking vulcan nerve grip stuff here?

I think that the fact remains, to use your example, if you were to attack me with a sword you would have a much easier time killing me than if you only used a couple of fingers...

sprocket · 03-14-2004, 01:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
timalkin

Tony martin was a nazi sympathiser who had expressed agreement with the views of Adolf Hitler.

OK so because of someones alleged political views that makes them unentitled to self defense? We're supposed to say this guy is automatically guilty or have less sympathy for his plight because of it?

Quote:

He fired one shot, from a stare well, and the burgular went down. He then stood above his and fired a second shot while the guy was already down. Shooting someone with a shot gun while they lay wounded on the floor is not considered to be self defence, in any country I should think.

You would be allowed to kill someone if they threatened your life, killing someone because they are trying to steal your TV is not self defence, it is defence of your property. Of course we dont allow people to shoot someone because they are stealing your TV set.

Lets see.. did the burglar announce his intentions to Tony? "SIR! DONT SHOOT.. I'm only stealing your TV set! Its OK!". Perhaps burglars should call residents ahead of time, and let the homeowner know exactly what they plan to steal, this way violence is avoided. I admire your desire for peaceful co-existince but I cannot fathom your logic here.. If someone is breaking into your home they should expect to be shot.

03-12-2004, 03:16 PM	#1 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	When Swords are Outlawed only Outlaws will have Swords... People just can't understand that outlawing guns doesn't lead to less crime. Australia is a great example. Guns are outlawed and gun crimes have been going up (posted in TFP before, but I'll post again, if necessary). Now, thugs are carrying swords and knifes. So the solution is to outlaw them. Care to guess what the solution will be when they start carrying cricket bats? PEOPLE commit crimes! Not OBJECTS! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/com...5E2862,00.html New law to ban swords Peter Mickelburough, state politics reporter 09mar04 SWORDS will be outlawed from July under new laws to curb the growing use of the weapons in street brawls. Police Minister Andre Haermeyer said the ban would help police overcome a culture of young people arming themselves with swords. "For most people running around the street carrying swords there is absolutely no reason for them to be carrying those weapons," he said yesterday. From July, anyone found possessing or selling a sword without a permit will face up to six months' jail and fines of up to $12,000. Existing sword owners must surrender their weapons to police, sell them to a licensed dealer or apply to the Chief Commissioner for specific approval. Collectors and people with legitimate cultural, religious or military reasons to own swords will be exempted from the ban, but must store them under lock and key and have a burglar alarm. The sword ban follows a string of recent attacks and a regulatory impact statement undertaken by the State Government last year. Last week, a 13-year-old boy was arrested and charged after allegedly charging police with a sword near Castlemaine, in central Victoria. A 21-year-old man had his hand severed by a samurai sword in a confrontation between 40 men in the Fitzroy Gardens a fortnight ago -- the second brawl involving swords in 24 hours. Huy Huynh, 19, was chased from the Salt nightclub and hacked to death nearby in July 2002 by a mob using samurai swords and machetes. The new laws will make it illegal to sell swords to anyone who does not have a permit. Sword sellers will have to keep a register of buyers' details and make it available for police to inspect. Mr Haermeyer said groups such as highland dancers, historic re-enactment groups, bonafide collectors and people with family heirlooms could apply for an exemption from the licensing services branch of Victoria Police. "Legitimate sword owners understand the importance of ensuring that their swords do not fall into the wrong hands," he said. "The vast majority of the community would say, 'Look, there's no place for people just being able to go out there and buy these things and carry them around the street'." Mr Haermeyer said the exact definition of a sword under the new regulations was still being considered. He said machetes would remain a controlled weapon, requiring a person to have a legitimate reason for carrying them. The Government is also looking at bans on some other weapons, such as crossbows, and greater restriction on the sale of prohibited and regulated weapons at weekend markets. Mr Haermeyer warned that police would be actively hunting for knives and swords after being given new powers and 480 metal detectors late last year, allowing them to search people they reasonably suspected were carrying weapons. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

03-13-2004, 12:26 AM	#2 (permalink)
HunterDevourer Insane Location: Sydney - Australia	Ah, that's in Victoria...Glad I'm in NSW, and my mate who bought a folded steel katana will be too. It's pretty ridiculous I agree, getting a fucking permit for something you collect would be beyond irritating. Maybe if the government offered to pay anything near the value of some of the swords it'd be feasible to me. __________________ Viva La Muerte

03-13-2004, 10:39 AM	#9 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	oh come on, we are not going to get into conversations where people claim they can kill with two fingers, are we? If your two fingers rested against the triggers of two guns I would believe it, otherwise,,, of course it is possible to beat someone to death, and most people are physically capable of doing so in some cases... we cannot ever pre-emptively stop all murder. But right now in the states, and in parts of London, there are gangs walking around with guns, and when it goes down they use them... in the states right now, arguments turn violent and someone gets shot, if no one had a gun, they would get punched spark out... We need to disarm people because, in general and on the whole, the general population is not universally capable of not using their weapons lethally. People say "why should swords be illegal"... I ask, why should they be? What purpose does a sword serve a law abiding and peaceful person? if people want to display swords as ornaments, then we will produce fake plastic blades that look just the same for them to display, if people want to fence, we will them fibre glass rapiers to play the sport with... there is nothing you can use a sword for, that you cannot use an alternative for, other than hacking someone to bits. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

03-13-2004, 11:07 AM	#13 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	the gangs need to be disarmed, and so do all people - what we need is to make gun ownership a serious crime, and force the ownership of gusn way underground so that only the worst and most hard core criminals will have them. We cannot univent the gun, the world would be much better if we could, but the people do not YET have full enough control of their world. In a communist world, I would believe that guns will not exist, nor swords I would imagine. Of course, in the present world, we cannot stop the production of guns, and there is always the possibility of the bad guys getting them, we have to aim to make society as safe as we can, if we cannot make it perfectly safe. The difference is I want a society with as few weapons as we can achieve, and you think, we all need to be armed, and hope that Mutually Assured Destruction creates more peace... it seems to me at least to be down to which of these ideals you think is the safest. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

03-13-2004, 11:19 AM	#15 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Strange Famous, The empiracal data coming out of your own country, Australia, and South Africa right now disproves such statements. As Lebell pointed out above, the ownership of handguns is illegal in Britain, and yet according to your own Home Office, your violent-crime rate has been increasing by 12-15% for five years now, and is set to eclipse that of the US within the next 18 months. Your rates for Armed Robbery and Home Invasion already exceed those of the US by a considerable margin, according to the same report. In Australia, the numbers are reversed but the situation is the same. The V-Crime rate will catch up to the US in a little over two years, according to the latest UN figures, and the rate of Armed Robbery is already equal to that of the US, although due to Australia's more rural population, home-invasions are somewhat more rare; this according to the Australian Home Office and the UN's Global Report on Small Arms and Global Report on Crime ( I believe those were the titles, but I'll check ). South Africa, meanwhile, is a nightmare. Posession of unlicensed firearms will get you 12 years, a law which is enthusiastically enforced by the Marxist govornment in power there, and yet S. Africa has the 3rd to 5th highest rate of violent crime in the world; the US doesn't even make the Top Twenty. Study of empirical evidence from around the world puts the lie to these anti-defense prattlings; the more strict a country's weapons-control policies are, the higher it's rates of both violent and organized crime. Look at Russia, where the ownership of anything magazine-fed is illegal; look at Brazil, a nation with an almost total prohibition on gun ownership; Number 6 in the world for violent crime, with Rio De Janero ( sp? ) being the 3rd most violent city on the planet. I can go on and on about this. Denying evidence does not make it go away. The UN, CDC, Amnesty International, and American BAR Association have all weighed in on this one, and despite the blatant and offensive anti-self-defense bias of all these organizations, all have come to the same conclusion; that Gun Control ( more correctly called Victim Disarmament ) is a counterproductive pipe-dream at best, and Murder By Govornment at worst. This arguement is put forth very nicely in Aaron Zellman's book "Murder By Gun Control," available through the Jew For The Protection of Firearms Ownership website; www.jpfo.org. __________________ "I personally think that America's interests would be well served if after or at the time these clowns begin their revolting little hate crime the local police come in and cart them off on some trumped up charges or other. It is necessary in my opinion that America makes an example of them to the world." --Strange Famous, advocating the use of falsified charges in order to shut people up.

03-13-2004, 12:42 AM	#3 (permalink)
opackfan Tilted Location: St. Paul	swords i can do without, but when they start coming after my axe, that is when they will have a problem

03-13-2004, 11:05 AM	#12 (permalink)
WarWagon Loser	Here's how I see it. You take away guns from law abiding citizens, those who illegally own weapons will have never had such confidence that they can get away with whatever they want, and the crime rate skyrockets exponentially. Now, if every citizen was required to carry a non-concealed weapon, criminals are sure as hell going to think twice about whoever they approach, knowing that their life is at risk, even if it were an elderly old woman. Now, I'm certainly not suggesting that this idea is feasible or a good idea, but a lot of criminals would certainly lose that sense of invulnerability when everyone else has an equalizer.

03-13-2004, 01:00 PM	#19 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	my figures come from "Bowling for Columbine" __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

03-13-2004, 01:06 PM	#20 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Aaah yes, the "Mockumentary" so riddled with falshoods that Moore's Academy Award is likely to be stripped. We asked for sources, not comedy. Moore gets his numbers by throwing together every death firearms-related, whether criminal or not, a fair number of which are criminals shot by their intended victims. This is not a source, this is a joke. You're talking about a plaigarist, a disingenious liar who cobbled together 4 speeches and presented it as a single unit, who reviled a sick old man for making a speech ( in a town where Moore himself had made a speech 6 weeks PRIOR ), and called millions of good, hardworking people racists. This same person broke the law on at least two occaisions, ON FILM, and is getting away with it because he's the darling of well-heeled, elitist scum like Diane Feinstein. Get real. __________________ "I personally think that America's interests would be well served if after or at the time these clowns begin their revolting little hate crime the local police come in and cart them off on some trumped up charges or other. It is necessary in my opinion that America makes an example of them to the world." --Strange Famous, advocating the use of falsified charges in order to shut people up.

03-13-2004, 01:42 PM	#23 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Its been maybe 14 years since I read the illuminati books. One of the more amusing bits was when a character was rescued from the racist, power abusing, good old boy cop he was referred to by the rescuer as a communist. You see the communists wanted to get people to their side, by making their enemies into caricatures of themselves. The sheriff was really a communist agent meant to make you hate the system so you would turn to them. I'm starting to think that Strange Famous is the 'communist' equivalent, and he is secretly a libertarian capitalist and trying to set a bad example to keep people away from the communists. I now need to find my tinfoil hat! __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

03-13-2004, 02:06 PM	#24 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	people may criticise Moore, but in fact, when we come down to it, that is the number of people killed by gunshot in the US in a year, no one denies that... Moore may have misrepresented the figure, but it remains factually true. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

03-13-2004, 02:17 PM	#25 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Do you realize what you're saying? In part, you are using the fact that people -defended- themselves as the rationale for stripping them of the means to do so! "You lot killed violent criminals who were attempting to prey upon you. Therefore, you must be disarmed, lest these violent predators come to further harm." Un-be-friggin-lieveable. According to John Lott's research, in addition to that of Univ. of Florida researcher Gary Kleck, firearms are used in self-defense about 2,000,000 times per year in the US. That's 2,000,000 more violent crimes per year that would have occurred -without- the presence and use of these defensive weapons. You, sirrah, are advocating that those 2,000,000 violent crimes be -allowed- to take place! This may not have been your original intent, but empirical data demonstrates that it -will be- and -is- the result of such policies, wherever they are enacted. __________________ "I personally think that America's interests would be well served if after or at the time these clowns begin their revolting little hate crime the local police come in and cart them off on some trumped up charges or other. It is necessary in my opinion that America makes an example of them to the world." --Strange Famous, advocating the use of falsified charges in order to shut people up.

03-13-2004, 02:35 PM	#26 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	10,000 lives a year, THIS is the cost of the American love of guns, 10000 souls. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

03-13-2004, 02:41 PM	#27 (permalink)
timalkin Addict Location: watching from the treeline	Correct me if I am wrong, but in the great gun-free paradise of Great Britain, you WILL go to jail if you cause harm to another individual, even in self-defense. You have the choice of letting some criminal scum rape and kill you, or you can defend your life and spend the rest of it in prison. Not much of a choice there, in my opinion. There are forces in the United States that wish to turn this country into such a place. These forces want the average citizen to cower together like sheep and hope that no big bad wolf comes along to harm them. Firearms represent freedom itself. To take firearms away is to take freedom away.

03-13-2004, 02:43 PM	#28 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Most of which were either violent criminals, who don't deserve to still be swimming around the gene pool anyway, or suicides. Japan's suicide rate ( 3x our own ) shows how effective guns laws are at curbing Seppuku, and every dead rapist, murderer, and mugger is "score one for the good guys," as far as I'm concerned. We enact the provisions you call for, and that "10,000" number you quote will be swallowed by a massive, sudden tide of violent crime, as it is being swallowed now in Britain, Australia, Russia, South Africa, etc etc etc. Do the math, SF. 10,000 dead/2,000,000 crimes thwarted. Now, allow for those 2M crimes to occur, a fair number of which would result in the death of the victim. THINK ABOUT THIS ONE FOR A MINUTE, willya!? I can deal with 10,000 dead criminals, suicides, and morons a LOT better than I can deal with 2,000,000 more violent crimes a year. Dead Criminals: deserved it. Suicides: Would still find a way. Empire State Building, anyone? Accidents: These people need to be out of the Gene Pool anyway. The gun did not "accidentally go off" all by itself, someone pulled the trigger while mucking around with it and blew their own brains out. CDC stats show that 80+% of all accidental shooting victims...pulled the trigger on THEMSELVES, not the neighbors 2-year-old like in the commercials. Anyone dumb enough to be screwing around with a gun like that does NOT need to be reproducing and taking air, food, water, and gasoline away from productive, intelligent people. __________________ "I personally think that America's interests would be well served if after or at the time these clowns begin their revolting little hate crime the local police come in and cart them off on some trumped up charges or other. It is necessary in my opinion that America makes an example of them to the world." --Strange Famous, advocating the use of falsified charges in order to shut people up.

03-13-2004, 03:04 PM	#31 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Self-defense with ineffective tools, you mean. If any of Her Majesty's SUBJECTS dares to defend him/herself with a firearm or other "Offensive Weapon," off to Old Bailey they go. See, that's the differenct here. You, Mr. Famous, are a SUBJECT, a chattel of the Crown. I, however, am a free man, a CITIZEN of the Republic, and I am chattel to no man. __________________ "I personally think that America's interests would be well served if after or at the time these clowns begin their revolting little hate crime the local police come in and cart them off on some trumped up charges or other. It is necessary in my opinion that America makes an example of them to the world." --Strange Famous, advocating the use of falsified charges in order to shut people up.

03-13-2004, 08:32 PM	#36 (permalink)
cj2112 Unbelievable Location: Grants Pass OR	see my signature....'nuff said

03-14-2004, 12:35 AM	#37 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	timalkin Tony martin was a nazi sympathiser who had expressed agreement with the views of Adolf Hitler. He fired one shot, from a stare well, and the burgular went down. He then stood above his and fired a second shot while the guy was already down. Shooting someone with a shot gun while they lay wounded on the floor is not considered to be self defence, in any country I should think. You would be allowed to kill someone if they threatened your life, killing someone because they are trying to steal your TV is not self defence, it is defence of your property. Of course we dont allow people to shoot someone because they are stealing your TV set. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

03-14-2004, 01:51 AM	#39 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	There is a guy at work who claims that the SAS can kill someone with a piece of paper... I suppse it could be possible to kill someone with a couple of fingers, if you rammed then through their temple or eyes or something like that, or are we talking vulcan nerve grip stuff here? I think that the fact remains, to use your example, if you were to attack me with a sword you would have a much easier time killing me than if you only used a couple of fingers... __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas