Author Topic: Lazs will like this - even though it's a wall-o-text (Read 1580 times)

Chortle · « **Reply #30 on:** December 07, 2004, 05:20:13 PM »

All very valid points I'm sure after everything quoted from Beetles Telegraph quote. Lets not forget though that the rag he's quoting is currently licking its fetid wounds after losing it's libel case in court.

Its taken to publishing complete unknowns in a rearguard action to save money.

Other than that, if they say we're all doomed I'm sure the opposite is in fact the case.

beet1e · « **Reply #31 on:** December 07, 2004, 05:44:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chortle
If you ever feel like butching up or reading the Guardian let me know.

Oh sure! I was going to buy a copy tomorrow - Wednesday - when all the non-jobs get advertised. Maybe I can get a new career as a "policy officer (social inclusion)" or a "five-a-day fruit specialist".

Chortle · « **Reply #32 on:** December 07, 2004, 05:52:00 PM »

Your confusing social work with libel lawyers.

Thrawn · « **Reply #33 on:** December 07, 2004, 06:11:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
They don't work well enough or they work too well.

Perhaps not in specific cases, but generally they work better in protecting people from injury and property loss.

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=101429

lazs2 · « **Reply #34 on:** December 08, 2004, 08:17:23 AM »

thrawn what are you talking about? I am saying that "less leathal" weapons don't work very well not that guns don'e work very well... guns work just fine.

chortle... The article is simply pointing out the obvious. It is also obvious that only you can be ultimately responsible for your own safety. It is the height of folly to allow your government to disarm you. It is even more insane to expect that they can protect you from all that would do you evil.

lazs

beet1e · « **Reply #35 on:** December 08, 2004, 10:53:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
It is the height of folly to allow your government to disarm you. It is even more insane to expect that they can protect you from all that would do you evil.

My generation wasn't disarmed; we were never armed. (except for war service).

My parents' generation were not disarmed; they were never armed (except for war service).

My grandparents' generation were not disarmed; they were never armed (except for war service).

Maybe if you lived here for any length of time, you could begin to understand. Google is an excellent search engine, but it's not a window upon British life, and neither is Joyce Lee Malcolm's book.

lazs2 · « **Reply #36 on:** December 09, 2004, 08:41:43 AM »

The data in Lee Malcoms book is eronious? You were never armed? Then why the increasingly strict gun laws over the decades? Why would you allow it? you are disarmed right now and it is because of the laws made in the last 50-60 years.. that is all there is too it.

If those laws were not allowed to be made... you would be free to choose if you wanted to buy a gun or not.

Your country is a perfect example of incrementalism destroying the right to bear arms... Originaly you had the right.... now you don't and you lost it in tiny little incriments till even you feel that you never had it.

your arguement seems to be that no one cared anyway... If that is the case then you have gotten what you deserve. It is most likely too late for most of you to have your freedoms restored. I don't see any of your politicians making it a point.

As fopr you personaly... you are now asking what kind of gun you should buy.. I am saying the kinds you should buy are impossible for you to own or get good with. even with your wealth they are about out of your reach.. for lower incomes... impossible.

You people didn't trust your neighbors (and the lower classes)so you cut off your own nose to spite your face.

I don't think you should have easier access to firearms than any other law abiding brit. Sorry... just my American classless opinion.

lazs

Thrawn · « **Reply #37 on:** December 09, 2004, 06:22:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
thrawn what are you talking about? I am saying that "less leathal" weapons don't work very well not that guns don'e work very well... guns work just fine.

According to FBI statistics the best home defence system is any weapon besides a firearm, the next best is a firearm, followed by not being armed at all.

Nashwan · « **Reply #38 on:** December 09, 2004, 06:51:06 PM »

Lazs, you have Lee Malcolm's Guns and Violence, the English Experience, don't you?

I've seen a claim that it distorts facts to make it's case. For example, this paragraph:

Quote

That willingness was further undermined by a broad revision of criminal law in 1967 that altered the legal standard for self-defense. Now everything turns on what seems to be “reasonable” force against an assailant, considered after the fact. As Glanville Williams notes in his Textbook of Criminal Law, that requirement is “now stated in such mitigated terms as to cast doubt on whether it [self-defense] still forms part of the law.”

I don't have the book, but I'd be interested to know if that passage is actually in it. Could you look it up? If it has a good index, it should be possible to find references to Glanville Williams. If it's not too much trouble, would you mind checking to see if that paragraph is quoted correctly? In particular the last sentence.

beet1e · « **Reply #39 on:** December 09, 2004, 07:03:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nashwan
Lazs, you have Lee Malcolm's Guns and Violence, the English Experience, don't you?

I've seen a claim that it distorts facts to make it's case. For example, this paragraph:

I don't have the book, but I'd be interested to know if that passage is actually in it. Could you look it up? If it has a good index, it should be possible to find references to Glanville Williams. If it's not too much trouble, would you mind checking to see if that paragraph is quoted correctly? In particular the last sentence.

Nashwan, I have the book.

I looked in the index for Glanville Williams, and found references on pp185-188. I read these pages, but could not find the passage you quoted.

lazs2 · « **Reply #40 on:** December 10, 2004, 01:45:24 PM »

thrawn.. I see no such FBI stat that says that any weapon other than a firearm is better for home defense than a firearm. Can you point me to it? I do not believe that burglars knowing you might have a cricket paddle or nine iron is as much of a deterent as them thinking you might have a gun.... I can't imagine the idiot burglar who would face a gun with less fear than a rolled up newspaper say.

nashwan... I can't seem to find that passage right now.. it may be in there but the book does tend to jump around slightly on the timeline thing. I am pretty much reduced to simply getting in the general time line and scanning the pages for any reference to the year 1967... I have seen several but none that match your paragraph.... will look a bit longer.

The book is interesting. It is indeed opinionated but it does seem like the british experiance has been one of slow incramenatlism taking away basic rights that were once common. Most of the things done to the brits are the things that gun control/gun ban crowd here advocates. For those of us who believe in the basic human right and duty to protect themselves and others.... it is chilling.

lazs

Chortle · « **Reply #41 on:** December 10, 2004, 02:07:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2

chortle... The article is simply pointing out the obvious. It is also obvious that only you can be ultimately responsible for your own safety. It is the height of folly to allow your government to disarm you. It is even more insane to expect that they can protect you from all that would do you evil.

lazs

Lazs, my dig at the article was purely spiteful and aimed at Beelte, the newspaper is a rag imho.

I agree I'm ultimatley responsible for my own safety, but I trust the Govt to disarm the criminal. I live in south east London which by insurance standards is high liability - according to Beetles favourite tabloid it's a no-go area for police, ravaged by crack addicted armed cannibal teenagers.

If I expected to deal with armed criminals I might consider a gun, in the meantime I'll just consider kicking them in the throat.

lazs2 · « **Reply #42 on:** December 10, 2004, 02:24:02 PM »

chortle... I am glad that you are still strong enough and agile and well enough to kick a criminal or..... several home invaders... in the throat. I think that youth and vigor tend to distort ones opinion of what is needed for self defense tho. It is common knowledge that criminals will go for the easiest mark... would you then say to the elderly or infirm that if they can't kick the crap out of criminals well...... tough luck?

I also believe that if the burglars in your country knew that, regardless of "class" or physical ability... they were likely to meet with armed resistance if they invades ANY home... well.... I believe that is a lot less selfish of a law than your saying that you are ok because you are the second coming of Bruce Lee. No matter hwo great your abilty... it does nothing to help others.

in my opinion... the law abiding should allways be better armed than the criminal. Laws should be put into effect that make that the most likely not the least likely.

lazs

rshubert · « **Reply #43 on:** December 10, 2004, 02:47:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chortle
Lazs, my dig at the article was purely spiteful and aimed at Beelte, the newspaper is a rag imho.

I agree I'm ultimatley responsible for my own safety, but I trust the Govt to disarm the criminal. I live in south east London which by insurance standards is high liability - according to Beetles favourite tabloid it's a no-go area for police, ravaged by crack addicted armed cannibal teenagers.

If I expected to deal with armed criminals I might consider a gun, in the meantime I'll just consider kicking them in the throat.

How is government going to disarm the criminals? By making it illegal to own a gun. What a laugh. If a person is willing to hurt or kill another (a very serious crime), then the fact that the tool is illegal is not going to be important. Criminals break laws. That's why they're called criminals.

And expecting the police to intervene in your behalf is another silly idea. For that to work, you would need a police escort 24/7.

The only real effect of gun prohibition is to prevent law abiding citizens (or subjects) from protecting themselves with the most efficient tool--a firearm.

~~shubie~~

Chortle · « **Reply #44 on:** December 10, 2004, 03:05:05 PM »

Lazs, I believe I'd be able to kick them in the throat merely because of the layout of the flat I live in.

Even I would wake up before they kicked in 2 doors and being a flight of stairs up I'd take full advantage. I'm pushing 40 and if I miss a cod liver oil tablet my knee is ****ed. Otherwise I'd be as vulnerable as anyone else.

To keep it short, arming the general population is a good idea if they're used to the responsibilities, concealled carry works. In the UK though, despite our history it would escallate the already dubious crime rates. Arming the Grandad over the road would only make me forget about him rather than keep an eye out.