Author Topic: She survived!  (Read 968 times)

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
She survived!
« Reply #15 on: September 21, 2005, 02:38:54 PM »
No.... they took their guns away because they could.  

There is no such thing today as a government that doesn't fear it's citizens and want to disarm em..  england is just ahead of us in this one... they have conditioned their citizens to blindly accept any loss of freedom just a little sooner than us is all.

A very good book is "the best defense"  It is true stories of people who defended their lives or those of others with firearms.  

lazs

Offline Nashwan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
She survived!
« Reply #16 on: September 21, 2005, 04:09:18 PM »
Quote
Are you saying the Brits and Scots and Welsh are inherently more violent than Americans?


Probably not, but criminals in Britain don't get sentenced to anywhere near as long terms as in America, leaving them free to commit more crimes.

In the US at any one time, 701 people per 100,000 population are in prison.

In the UK it's 141 per 100,000.

What's also interesting is that the Scots feel they are amongst the safest, 80% reporting they felt safe outside alone after dark, second only to Sweden at 82%

And whilst violence is more common in Scotland, murder is much more rare.

The homicide rate per 100,000 people in Scotland is 2.1, in the US it's 5.5

So, you are more likely to be attacked in Scotland, but more likely to be killed in the US. I wonder why that is? Couldn't have anything to do with the availabilty of the favoured tool for killing people, could it?

(And the murder rate in Scotland includes negligent manslaughter, the US figures exclude it, so the Scottish murder rate is actually lower in comparison than the figures show)

(And one more for Lazs. The Scottish murder rate is higher than the rate for England and Wales, despite the fact very few ethnic minorities live in Scotland compared to England and Wales)

Offline SaburoS

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2986
She survived!
« Reply #17 on: September 21, 2005, 04:27:01 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
Culture thing eh?  Are you saying the Brits and Scots and Welsh are inherently more violent than Americans?  

Well, no wonder they had to take their guns away.  

:D


Guns really don't have anything to do with it.
Look at Japan. Private ownership of guns? Yet they have Samarai swords and knives.
Had they had gun ownership laws like here in the US, they'd still be at 0.1 %.
We'd be the same 1.2% here in America even if guns were illegal.

Violence is a trait inherent in its people, not because some of them have more knives, guns, bats, etc. they are who they are regardless of the weapons available to them.

It is silly for a brit or any other nonamerican that doesn't live in America to preach to Americans about what our gun ownership laws should be.

....just as it is silly for us Americans preaching what gun control laws the English should have.

This whole constant bickering of what the otherside should have is kind of stupid.
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. ... Bertrand Russell

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
She survived!
« Reply #18 on: September 22, 2005, 08:49:38 AM »
so nashwan... you are saying that the sentances for crime in england are lower (that the criminals spend less time) ?

How could they be lower than some of our out in one year manslauter or burglary sentances?

No... what you are really proving is that in the U.S. we are better at catching criminals because we have more of em... they fall into our lap... not all criminals are violent either... few are comparitively.

as for your ridiculous race card arguement... comparing the amount of minorities in a country with 3% to one that is lower yet is not really worth doing... 3% is insignificant.... any lower number is no less insignificant.... when you get up to about 20% or so then you can compare with those who have 1% or so.

The fact is that we have a large criminal society composed of a very high percentage of minorities.   In this country and situation.... people who are armed prevent such criminals from commiting crimes a couple of million times a year.

For anyone who has stopped a violent attack by using a firearm.... no arguement for gun control can ever be taken seriously.

In the U.S. you are more likely to be murdered than in england but... that is still allmost a negligible number... like getting hit by a meteorite.... on the other hand... in both england and the U.S. you are much more likely to be mugged or assaulted (not knowing how it will turn out) .... I want to face the bad buy with better training and a better weapon.

lazs

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
She survived!
« Reply #19 on: September 22, 2005, 08:56:06 AM »
Gary Baker... A jewelry store owner who, with his employees help....  killed two long time mad dog killers and robbers in his store said...

"And why shouldn't we be armed?  Why should we fear the armed thug?  They have failed at everything they have tried... job, home and life..  Why should not us people who have been successful in life be better at defending than they are at making us victims?   We have the choice of weapons while they have only what they can steal...  we can practice and train while they hide and do nothing..  We have been succesful in the things we want while they have not."

That was a paraphrase but the meaning is intact... He is correct.  We only have to fear these predetors when our government disarms us and makes us sheep.... Citizens with guns are the defense... not cops taking reports or coroners taking away the bodies.

lazs

Offline mora

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2351
She survived!
« Reply #20 on: September 22, 2005, 12:51:27 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
How could they be lower than some of our out in one year manslauter or burglary sentances?

I bet I'd need to make 5 burglaries to do any time at all, I'm guessing it's about the same in the UK.

Offline VOR

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2313
She survived!
« Reply #21 on: September 22, 2005, 01:04:02 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by mora
I bet I'd need to make 5 burglaries to do any time at all, I'm guessing it's about the same in the UK.


What would be a normal response to a first or second time offender? Some type of parole?

Offline Nashwan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
She survived!
« Reply #22 on: September 22, 2005, 09:59:59 PM »
Quote
so nashwan... you are saying that the sentances for crime in england are lower (that the criminals spend less time) ?


Yes. A lot lower.

See for example his page from the US department of justice, comparing sentences for some offences between the US and E&W:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/cjusew96/isl.htm

Quote
How could they be lower than some of our out in one year manslauter or burglary sentances?


They could be community service orders.

They could even be police cautions, which is where you admit guilt, the police read out a formal caution, which is held on record for a few years. No real punishment involved. (not for manslaughter, of course, but for burglary)

In E&W in 2005, 25,360 were sentenced for burglary. (this doesn't include those who got cautions etc).

Of those, 11,820 got custodial sentences, of an average 17 months. (There is automatic remission of sentence, and offenders typically serve 1/3 - 1/2 their sentence. So of those sent to prison, the average time spent inside is about 6 - 8 months.

Cautions for burglary account for only 6% of adults proceeded against, but 45% of those under 18 (ie for those under 18, 45% get only a caution for burglary, 55% go to court)

Quote
No... what you are really proving is that in the U.S. we are better at catching criminals because we have more of em.


No, the sentences in the UK, when caught, are lower than in the US. That's irrespective of clear up rates.

Quote
as for your ridiculous race card arguement... comparing the amount of minorities in a country with 3% to one that is lower yet is not really worth doing... 3% is insignificant.... any lower number is no less insignificant....


Where's 3%? England and Wales have a much higher proportion than that, from memory it was about 9% at the 2001 census, which ignores the illegal immigrants and the huge numbers allowed in since then (the government, frightened by the bad publicity about asylum seekers, decided the way to get lower numbers of asylum seekers was to allow them in without waiting for them to claim asylum)

The government itself estimates that, as of 2001, there were about 500,000 illegal immigrants working in the UK, and that doesn't include asylum seekers, or dependents of those working here.

Id be very suprised if the total figure wasn't around 12 - 14% at the moment.

Quote
In the U.S. you are more likely to be murdered than in england but... that is still allmost a negligible number..



Negligible? It's equivalent to about 5 9/11 attacks a year, every year. In fact, since the 3,000 people were murdered on 9/11, about 65,000 Americans have been murdered by other Americans.

Quote
in both england and the U.S. you are much more likely to be mugged or assaulted (not knowing how it will turn out) .... I want to face the bad buy with better training and a better weapon.


i'd rather face the bad guy who hasn't got a gun.

The thing is, life isn't a John Wayne movie. The good guy doesn't always win. The criminal not only has the advantage of suprise in most cases, he's also better prepared to use his weapon, because he knows you're the target, but you don't know he's the threat until he instigates the encounter.

That's borne out by the stats, too. Less than 300 people killed criminals in self defence, criminals killed over 15,000 people during commision of their crimes.

Quote
I bet I'd need to make 5 burglaries to do any time at all, I'm guessing it's about the same in the UK.


I don't think it's quite that bad. First offence, extremely unlikely to get prison. Third offence, probably get prison, but not for long.

The government brought in a "mandatory" 3 year sentence for a burular convicted for a third time. I's supposed to be mndatory, but judges have discresion not to apply it if there are exceptional circumstanes. In the first 3 years, less than 15 3 year sentences were handed out.

Quote
What would be a normal response to a first or second time offender? Some type of parole?


Community service order. Spend about 180 hours doing some work in th community and being told how to reform. (The highest judge in the UK issued sentencing guidelins a few years ago saying first time burglary offenders should not be sent to prison)

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
She survived!
« Reply #23 on: September 23, 2005, 07:59:12 AM »
Ban teh Assault Knives!!!

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
She survived!
« Reply #24 on: September 23, 2005, 08:21:32 AM »
nashwan... so I guess you are correct... you have a system that releases violent criminals to prey on the population again and again...  I still say we are too lenient but you are.... like in so many things.... insane in your laws.   I don't know if you are bragging or complaining.... I certainly wouldn't trust a government that allowed these predetors out to make my decisions on how I was to defend against them!   Oh... and you guys catch a lot fewer crooks too don't ya?

Last I heard the population of minorities in england was 3% even if it is 9% like you say... that is negligible compared to the U.S. and... you are not seriously wanting to comapare the amount of illegals in both countries are you?

You calim that you would rather not be attacked by a criminal with a gun... that is fine... me either but... what you leave out of that statement is that in order for there to be a chance of that you are willing to disarm yourself... you are willing to meet whatever he comes at you with... with your bare hands....I don't even know you but I bet me and one other guy on here could kill you with our bare hands in about 20 seconds.... I know I could kill your mom or sister or wife or son or daughter in that time.  


You act like the U.S. is some tiny little island like england... we have allmost 300 million people (that will admit it) and still.... you have to be one of a couple of people in 100,000 in order to be murdered... and.... if you don't live in the **** holes of cities that don't allow firearms.... you are even less likely than that to be murdered....  

The real best situation is for violent criminals to be forbiden guns and the citizens to be armed... it is best if the bad guys die at the citizens hands and don't see prison again.   Next best is to put them away for a long time.

Your crime continues to rise...  you never really had a murder problem... guns or no guns... nothing has changed there... what has changed is that your people are more and more at the mercy of thugs that are stronger than them...  you have removed your ability to defend yourself and offered no alternative.   Not to mention choice and rights...  

Our crime is going down... where citizens carry guns it goes down even more...  where citizens are unarmed it goes up.

I would really like you to convince that woman in the story that because the man who attacked her had no gun... she was safe.... because we have police... she was safe...  because she had a phone... she was safe...  convince her that she is a murderer because she killed a man needlessly with a firearm that she had no right to have.... convince her of that stuff... not us here...

Throw some stats at her.

lazs

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
She survived!
« Reply #25 on: September 23, 2005, 08:32:38 AM »
I think the real difference is that nashwan believes that any amount of violent attacks on innocent people is fine so long as only a few of em end up dead... or at least..

He thinks it beats citizens being able to defend yourself with a weapon that is effective if that means that those weapons will be out and murderers will use them instead of something else.

He shows no improvement in murder rate in england when citizens are diarmed but instead....  an increase in assaults and burglaries...  

In fact... no country has ever shown that gun control is effective in lowering crime much less murders..

In the U.S.. by contrast... the places with the most gun control are the most dangerous and the places with the least gun control are the safest.

Go figure.

But... all that asside.. the fundamental issue is.... no matter what... Do you think it is your right to defend yourself from attack by those who would do you harm?  

If so... how would you do so?    If you are one... even young and strong with a cricket paddle back home under the bed... how do you defend against many?   how does your dad or mom or sister or the poor sickly guy down the road?   Hell with em eh?   It's a tough world and they can just suffer?   What rights do they have in england?  the right to hide?

lazs

Offline Jackal1

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9092
She survived!
« Reply #26 on: September 23, 2005, 08:35:19 AM »
You got to be sure to remember to remind the attackers at the VERY beginning of the attack...."Ummmmm.......You do remember you are not allowed to use a gun, right?"......"OK, go ahead with your attack now. I just wanted to get that straight." :)
Democracy is two wolves deciding on what to eat. Freedom is a well armed sheep protesting the vote.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
She survived!
« Reply #27 on: September 23, 2005, 08:39:46 AM »
In the U.S. the vast majority of the over 2 million cases a YEAR where citizens defend themselves or others with firearms...  the attacker is not armed and/or is frieghtened away by the firearm without a shot being fired...  

If only one percent of those cases ended in a death of an innocent because they didn't have a firearm.....  20,000 deaths more a year at the hands of psycopaths.

most of you/us carry a cell phone around with us every waking moment of our lives... "in case of an emergency" is why you couldn't be banned from carrying it...  The odds are that you will never have an emergency in your lifetime that you could not have dealt with without a cell phone.

It is no differnent with a firearm... you may never need it... you hope you don't but... if you do... nothing else will do.   And... an armed society is a polite one...  by carrying a gun you are protecting the othe 80-90% that probly wouldn't...

That is changing tho... guns are smaller and lighter and easier to carry... they can weigh as little as 8 oz.

none of these firearms inovations were of course.... made in england.

lazs

lazs
« Last Edit: September 23, 2005, 08:45:56 AM by lazs2 »