For heaven's sake, when will it end?

[Wedge Suron]

6th stabbing last night in London this week alone, It's stupid.

 

Not long after the House of Lords announced they would cancel out the Annoymous Witness in all murder cases. Stabbings are on the rise. All because some idiots in government want to have fairness in cases, against people dying because murderers get out and kill them.

 

I'd prefer Annonymous Witnesses.

 

What's your opinion?

[Ctrl Alt Del]

I wouldn't know - and I particularly feel this belongs to Kavar's - could you fill me in on the case?

[Arcesious]

I need more information if I am to elaborate on this at all or form an opinion. (IE, an article from the news or something that goes over the details.)

[Aash Li]

Allow the law-abiding people to carry guns... Oh I know! Terrible! Guns kill people! Can't have that... But this just prove that you disarm the people, only criminals will have the weapons... since they dont obey the law what makes you think they will obey concealed weapon laws...

 

Yes I know its "stabbings" but thats not really the point... they going to ban all sorts of knives because some twit was stabbing people? Spoons next? Where does it stop?

 

Ah well, thats what happens in socialist countries... ^.^;

[Hallucination]

Sounds to me like witnesses in murder trials wouldn't be anonymous, which is a great way to put their safety at risk.

 

What exactly would be gained from this?

 

Edit: @Aash: The answer to taking away anonymity is to let people have guns?

[Rev7]

Allow the law-abiding people to carry guns... Oh I know! Terrible! Guns kill people! Can't have that... But this just prove that you disarm the people, only criminals will have the weapons... since they dont obey the law what makes you think they will obey concealed weapon laws...

 

Yes I know its "stabbings" but thats not really the point... they going to ban all sorts of knives because some twit was stabbing people? Spoons next? Where does it stop?

There is definately a hard balance; not allow guns, allow guns, there will still be crimes. People just need to be mature.

[True_Avery]

Allow the law-abiding people to carry guns... Oh I know! Terrible! Guns kill people! Can't have that... But this just prove that you disarm the people, only criminals will have the weapons... since they dont obey the law what makes you think they will obey concealed weapon laws...

 

Yes I know its "stabbings" but thats not really the point... they going to ban all sorts of knives because some twit was stabbing people? Spoons next? Where does it stop?

 

Ah well, thats what happens in socialist countries... ^.^;

So, the answer is to arm every person?

 

-Canada had 605 murders is 2006, 109 with a firearm.

-The United States had 12,352 homicides by handgun out of 16,740 violent crime homicides, adding to the total of 11,565,499 crimes nationwide in 2005.

 

Yep, works just fine in the USA. -Nobody- shoots or stabs each other here

 

*Whispers*

Oh, by the way, the United States of America is very much socialist.

 

I mean... who needs police, fire fighters, schools, etc...

 

6th stabbing last night in London this week alone, It's stupid.

 

Not long after the House of Lords announced they would cancel out the Annoymous Witness in all murder cases. Stabbings are on the rise. All because some idiots in government want to have fairness in cases, against people dying because murderers get out and kill them.

 

I'd prefer Annonymous Witnesses.

 

What's your opinion?

I'd comment, but I need more information to work off of.

[Emperor Devon]

they going to ban all sorts of knives because some twit was stabbing people? Spoons next? Where does it stop?

 

Putting aside my own opinion regarding gun control (this not being the place for it), yours is a good example of the slippery slope fallacy. Why should spoons inevitably follow guns? You may think that's a logical consequence of banning the latter, but you've not provided any arguments that justify it.

 

@Topic: Anyone have any further links or info regarding this? Being as ignorant as I am of affairs in the UK, I doubt I could guess the argument either side has.

[Q]

Agreed with True & Devon; more info would help me decide which way to vote.

 

@True:

 

1) Did you take into account that the US has a population many times the size of Canada's?

 

2) Anyone who tries to take my gun will be shot. Anyone who survives will be riddled.

 

3) This really belongs in Kavar's.

[True_Avery]

@True:

1) Did you take into account that the US has a population many times the size of Canada's?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

 

2) Anyone who tries to take my gun will be shot. Anyone who survives will be riddled.

That would be why we are #4

[Q]

Per capita results are a bit more telling.

[True_Avery]

Per capita results are a bit more telling.

Telling in what way? Mine is totals; yours is per capita.

 

Even that link of information places the United States at #8, while Canada is down at #20, and the UK at #32 for per capita.

 

Totals places United States at #4, Canada at #14, and the UK at#40.

 

Either way, I question any person that wears either of those as a badge of honor.

[Q]

I'll put it to you this way, then:

 

If you try to take away the 2nd Amendment there will be civil war. If that happens then the US will easily shoot to the top of both charts because if it's anything like the last one, 2% of the population will die. That's 6 million people.

 

Knowing my luck, one of those killed would probably be me.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

If you try to take away the 2nd Amendment there will be civil war.

Good, I need a new TV.

[True_Avery]

I'll put it to you this way, then:

 

If you try to take away the 2nd Amendment there will be civil war. If that happens then the US will easily shoot to the top of both charts because if it's anything like the last one, 2% of the population will die. That's 6 million people.

 

Knowing my luck, one of those killed would probably be me.

If this was 100 years ago, I would agree with you.

 

I do not, however, believe a war like that can break out in a first world country anymore. I think wars like the civil war, WW1 and 2, died when we created both the UN and the atomic bomb. I know that probably sounds silly, but hear me out.

 

The atomic bomb and the end of the Cold War, in my opinion, ended World Wars between humans on the scale we had been previously fighting. We no longer need to invade anything. We no longer need to send troops. If someone is a genuine threat to anybody, anybody could destroy them with the press of a button. With tension like that, you get a never ending Cold War that will keep World Wars from ever erupting again.

 

The United Nations also has an fairly impressive military, as does most of the world. The second we turn on ourselves, things will be put into motion. Through economic and political strings, a civil war would not last very long... if even at all.

 

If the United States took guns away from the citizens, they would get ticked off. I agree. Our greatest strength and weakness is that we are a civilian military basically. But, that concept was made because we were technically still at war or could possibly go to war with the countries of the world. We needed a gun in every hand.

 

Today, we don't have any viable enemies. You can choose to believe we do, but we have never been invaded in either of the World Wars, and the only large scale war that took place was our own Civil War.

 

We managed to get assault rifles off of the market and area in a lot of places in the United States. I think we could pull it off if the government tried. You ain't taking my gun you say? Fine, shoot them. Now you are wanted.

 

Crime rates will go up? Our crime rate is already pretty damn high with guns around. If it actually goes up when guns disappear, I think that says more for how far this country has fallen and less on the lack of guns.

 

Japan is the huge economic capitol of the world. Sure, it has some stuff wrong with it, but its homicide rate is practically at the bottom of all lists. This is because when we took over the country after WW2, we reformed a lot of it. We stabilized their economy, helped them get on their feet, and so on. Japan is Japan today because of how well we handled that situation, and they currently have one of the worlds strictest ban on firearms.

 

We did the same with Germany. Not to the extreme of Japan, but we handled it well enough to put Germany up there on one of the best places to live in the world today.

 

We are attempting to do the same with the Middle East right now.

 

The thing that bothers me is... we seem to be pretty damn good at getting people back on track with their lives when the situation calls for it. But, it is like a smoker convincing his friend to stop smoking, but then goes into the next room and lights a cig.

 

We are the lowest rated first world country in the world today. After WW2, we helped put the world back together and helped form the UN, and did a pretty damn good job of it considering how the rest of the world is today. But why can't we seem to fix our own problems?

 

I do agree with you that a civil war could break out. But, as I said, I don't believe in physical war of that scale anymore. It would be a huge political battle between democrats and republics, conservatives and liberals... but it would be political.

 

And if a war would start simply because some rednecks couldn't polish their shotgun and blasts holes through animals to make their testicles feel bigger... then there is something wrong with the people of this country. It means we are addicted to violence and fear and would be willing to kill to keep it.

 

... Sorry for taking this thread off topic. A mod can delete my posts or split the thread. As has been said, this does seem to fit into Kavars better.

[jonathan7]

6th stabbing last night in London this week alone, It's stupid.

 

Not long after the House of Lords announced they would cancel out the Annoymous Witness in all murder cases. Stabbings are on the rise. All because some idiots in government want to have fairness in cases, against people dying because murderers get out and kill them.

 

I'd prefer Anonymous Witnesses.

 

What's your opinion?

 

Firstly the poll is a joke; I voted, (but think I ended up voting incorrectly) but now feel I shouldn't of as there isnt an option that covers my opinion, the poll is simplistic and leading.

 

This is a classic case of the government manipulating the facts, to fool the general public; who lack either the ability or inclination to look into things for themselves, Witnesses considered at risk; already can appear behind screens or bear testimony via TV. I fail to see why we need anything more than that.

 

The risings in stabbings has nothing to do with Anonymous Witnesses. Our justice system used to reside on innocent until proven guilty, unfortunately the general public is stupid and the government seems hell bent on removing civil liberties; never a good combination.

 

Finally if you have a anonymous witness... how are the jury to vet their reliability?

 

@Topic: Anyone have any further links or info regarding this? Being as ignorant as I am of affairs in the UK, I doubt I could guess the argument either side has.

 

From a good UK newspaper;

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4269818.ece

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/janice_turner/article4272240.ece

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jun/26/jackstraw.justice?gusrc=rss&feed=uknews

[Q]

If this was 100 years ago, I would agree with you.

 

I do not, however, believe a war like that can break out in a first world country anymore. I think wars like the civil war, WW1 and 2, died when we created both the UN and the atomic bomb. I know that probably sounds silly, but hear me out.

 

The atomic bomb and the end of the Cold War, in my opinion, ended World Wars between humans on the scale we had been previously fighting. We no longer need to invade anything. We no longer need to send troops. If someone is a genuine threat to anybody, anybody could destroy them with the press of a button. With tension like that, you get a never ending Cold War that will keep World Wars from ever erupting again.

Uh-huh.

 

It would appear that you're assuming that the civil war that I mentioned would would be fought along definitive geographical boundaries like the last one. Suffice to say it would not, as the proponents of gun ownership are evenly interspersed with the opponents. There would be no north verses south here. And there would be no safe haven for people like you to hide in and wait it out. The war would come to any area where people differ on this issue, which means it would be everywhere. And any government ruthless enough to turn it's nuclear arsenal on it's own population deserves to be ruthlessly overthrown.

 

You'll have to forgive me when I say that your grasp of the tactial is somewhat naively unrealistic.

 

If the United States took guns away from the citizens, they would get ticked off. I agree. Our greatest strength and weakness is that we are a civilian military basically. But, that concept was made because we were technically still at war or could possibly go to war with the countries of the world. We needed a gun in every hand.

And we still do in order to keep the government in check and prevent it from becoming the socialist oligarchy that you apparently want it to become.

Today, we don't have any viable enemies. You can choose to believe we do, but we have never been invaded in either of the World Wars, and the only large scale war that took place was our own Civil War.

No viable enemies but those within who are trying to destroy the constitution for the sake of their own misguided idealism.

We managed to get assault rifles off of the market and area in a lot of places in the United States. I think we could pull it off if the government tried. You ain't taking my gun you say? Fine, shoot them. Now you are wanted.

Given the fact that I'm more than willing to give my life for the cause of preserving the freedoms that we now enjoy, this would be the least of my worries. At least half of the law enforcement community and half of the military would be on my side anyway.

Crime rates will go up? Our crime rate is already pretty damn high with guns around. If it actually goes up when guns disappear, I think that says more for how far this country has fallen and less on the lack of guns.

And you think it will be safer with the law-abiding population unable to properly defend itself? The criminals will still have guns, you know, given the fact that they are not law-abiding.

Japan is the huge economic capitol of the world. Sure, it has some stuff wrong with it, but its homicide rate is practically at the bottom of all lists. This is because when we took over the country after WW2, we reformed a lot of it. We stabilized their economy, helped them get on their feet, and so on. Japan is Japan today because of how well we handled that situation, and they currently have one of the worlds strictest ban on firearms.

But it's a trade-off, as their suicide rate is one of the highest (ie, Samurai Stockbroker; Samurai Lawyer; and, my personal favorite, Samurai Night Fever ).

We are the lowest rated first world country in the world today. After WW2, we helped put the world back together and helped form the UN, and did a pretty damn good job of it considering how the rest of the world is today. But why can't we seem to fix our own problems?

Sorry, but for the most part I couldn't care less what the rest of the world thinks of our domestic policies. As for our foreign policies, yes, they could use some work, but that has nothing to do with gun control, IMO.

I do agree with you that a civil war could break out. But, as I said, I don't believe in physical war of that scale anymore. It would be a huge political battle between democrats and republics, conservatives and liberals... but it would be political.

No, it would not be purely political. Such an occurance would be beyond mere civilized debate. It would be a bloodbath like none of us, save students of history, could imagine.

And if a war would start simply because some rednecks couldn't polish their shotgun and blasts holes through animals to make their testicles feel bigger... then there is something wrong with the people of this country. It means we are addicted to violence and fear and would be willing to kill to keep it.

This statement is nothing short of bigotry, plain and simple. I've read enough of your posts in the past to know that you've been the victim of bigotry yourself, haven't you, Avery? I know that others have tried to force their ideals down your throat and tell you how to live and what to think, so why are you attempting to do the same thing here? It is also a gross generalization, as many proponents of the Second Amendment happen to be women, as well as being sexist as hell.

 

If the Second Amendment should exist for but one reason, that reason would have to be the prevention of tyranny over the majority, as an armed populace is far more difficult to oppress. I'm happy to inform you that the Supreme Court of the United States agrees with me.

[HerbieZ]

I can't see how good carrying a gun would be in this type of situation. The government might as well issue permits for the public to carry knives to defend themselves. To me that's like fighting fire with fire. In America the second amendment has been established for so long, the public are used to it. I understand that and respect it. But over here, that sort of thing would tear the country apart. Not the guns themselves or the crimes that are committed with them, but the media coverage of it would send people into a panic alone.

 

Besides, i'd much rather face my killer than have him pick me off at a distance.

[Darth InSidious]

Aash, you might want to look up a small place called 'Dunblane'.

 

There are reasons guns and their licenses are hard to obtain in this country (IIRC, you need two police officers and a minister of the established church to ratify your license, or somesuch...).

 

I prefer our system, warts and all.

 

As for the government's constant meddling in the judicial system, it's all part of the constant constitutional tinkering that has typefied the last ten years - and to no good end.

[Arátoeldar]

Aash, you might want to look up a small place called 'Dunblane'.

 

There are reasons guns and their licenses are hard to obtain in this country (IIRC, you need two police officers and a minister of the established church to ratify your license, or somesuch...).

 

I prefer our system, warts and all.

 

As for the government's constant meddling in the judicial system, it's all part of the constant constitutional tinkering that has typefied the last ten years - and to no good end.

 

If one of the teachers or administrators carried then the massacre could have been prevented or lessened. Just as the Luby's massacre could have been prevented. If at the time, Texas law would have aloud Suzanna Gratia Hupp to carry her handgun into the restaurant.

[Totenkopf]

Putting aside my own opinion regarding gun control (this not being the place for it), yours is a good example of the slippery slope fallacy. Why should spoons inevitably follow guns? You may think that's a logical consequence of banning the latter, but you've not provided any arguments that justify it.

 

 

I think the spoon bit was an example of hyperbole. But the stabbings prove the counterclaim of the pro-gun side that it's people who kill people and that taking guns away doesn't stop the killing (though I'm sure the argument will be made that it does cut down on the trail of bodies ). I'm split somewhat on the anonymity issue. Won't comment on British law, but seems that allowing people to make claims anonymously allows for people to lie to settle grudges (though hopefully good police work severly cuts that down). On the flip side, the police often need all the help they can get and most people value their life too much to come forward if they fear it will get them killed.

 

@True--I think the lower incidence of gun related mortality in places like Japan is much more cultural than anything to do with Occupation policies. Prior to the reintroduction of firearms in late-Tokugawa era Japan (1850s-60s), most Japanese were forbidden to own them anyway (would have made it too easy for the peasants to defeat the samurai) for about 2 1/2 centuries.

 

The Second Amendment pertains as much to having an armed citenzenry to combat foreign armies as it also does to keeping the US govt in check. As was pointed out, the per capita death rate from firearms in the US is very low. The numbers seem large when cited out of context. Most legal gun owners in this country aren't irresponsible or the numbers would be much higher. A lot of it is gang-on-gang related violence. I suspect the #s would still be pretty high if they only had knives, louisville sluggers, pipe bombs, etc.. and did not illegally possess guns.

[Darth InSidious]

Ave, I may be quoting bits out of context and somewhat unfairly, but some of this stuff needs answering, IMO.

I don't see the UK being oppressed.

Not through our lack of firearms, anyway.

 

A romantic view of revolution and power to the people.

But... but... revolutions are always fought by the good guys. Hollywood told me so.

 

When this country's government takes control, it will be slow and quiet enough for the people to follow blindly. By that time, only a few will raise their guns and be defeated by the majority.

Either that, or voter apathy will be at such a ridiculous level that they can just get away with murder because no-one cares. New Labour over here have managed it.

 

Because, after all, a government is only as strong as the people behind it... no matter what the government. When the people decide they no longer want the government in power, they change it.

Assuming there's actual choice available.

 

Giving a gun to every person changes absolutely nothing because it is the will of the majority that makes change. A civilian populous with guns is just as easy to control as a civilian populous without guns.

There's also the danger of the manipulation of the mob. Just ask Messrs. Clodius Pulcher and Annius Milo...

 

The majority will always allow themselves to be taken control over and ruled. It is why we allow government. It is why we allow and practice religion. It is simply the way our species works.

I think perhaps you look at it from an odd angle. Rather than allowing themselves to be conquered, I think people rather form hierarchies.

[Astor]

You can choose to believe we do, but we have never been invaded in either of the World Wars[/Quote]

 

Battle of the Aleutian Islands

 

Okay, so maybe i'm clutching at hairs, but It is part of America, unless, of course, you refer to the mainland US.

 

As for the government's constant meddling in the judicial system, it's all part of the constant constitutional tinkering that has typefied the last ten years - and to no good end.

 

What doesn't help, as far as I can tell, is that many in our country don't even know we have a constitution. I certainly didn't know until I started sociology classes.

 

And that, from what I can see, helps New Labour to dismantle our civil liberties.

[Relenzo2]

There is definately a hard balance; not allow guns, allow guns, there will still be crimes. People just need to be mature.

 

In that case, we will always have gun crimes. But I guess we knew that.

[SilentScope001]

Okay, so maybe i'm clutching at hairs, but It is part of America, unless, of course, you refer to the mainland US.

 

In which case, you can just click on the Wikipedia links to learn of all mainland assaults during World War 2 by Germany...and Japan.

 

As for the topic at hand...well, I personally feel sorry for all the stabbings that have occured.