Damn Seanchai...I can't recall ever seeing you THIS angry. I understand where you're coming from though. SOMETHING needs to be done...
Printable View
Damn Seanchai...I can't recall ever seeing you THIS angry. I understand where you're coming from though. SOMETHING needs to be done...
"In fact since the ban there has been absolutely no reduction in the number of homicides from firearms."
In the UK it is almost sacrilege to suggest that the 1997 Hand-Gun ban was anything less than a triumphant step towards a utopian peace. Over here comedians, pundits, papers and television routinely mock the USA for it’s gun culture; we are more enlightened, more “progressive” is the underlying sentiment. But as anybody with any common sense could easily have concluded long in advance, prohibiting guns does not get rid of them, it only drives them underground. As the cliche goes: If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
On the 2nd of June Derrick Birdembarked on a killing spree that left 12 people dead in his wake. This is comparable to the 17 who died in the tragic Dunblane school massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia which was the pretext for the hand-gun ban in the first place. Derrick Bird was not deterred from carrying a gun because Derrick Bird was batshit fucking insane. His victims, and the bystanders who saw what happened (fearing lengthy jail terms if caught with a weapon), were unarmed and unable to stop this madman.
In fact since the ban there has been absolutely no reduction in the number of homicides from firearms.
Now let’s forget the facts that the ban has not reduced murders, and let’s forget the obvious truth that you simply cannot legislate guns out of the hands of criminals and let’s talk about what really matters: the individual.
The government makes it impossible for individuals to protect their homes, and their families!
This might sound like hyperbole but that’s probably because you’ve never been targeted by a criminal.
If you are an average sized Male, living on your own, you cannot protect yourself against determined criminals.
Criminals are typically hard bastards, they’re used to fighting, they’re used to carrying weapons and using them, they’re often big and what’s more they’ll kick down your door and steal everything you have if they think they can get away with it. Here’s the crux: what are you going to do to stop them?
Phone the police? All the police can do is arrive after the scene of the robbery. Sure they can take a few details, but the vast majority of crimes are never solved. Maybe they’ll take a fingerprint or two, but if you’ve ever dealt with the boys in blue you’ll know that the chances of anything coming from that are about as remote as Mel Gibson teaching anger management classes.
When the individual property owner (a property owner is somebody who has agreed to live amongst society. He is playing the long game. Working. Producing. Accumulating wealth and becoming known in his community. He is the opposite of the criminal) cannot defend himself against the thug who wants to take by force what he has not earned through toil you have a recipe for a decaying civilisation.
It’s no coincidence that the worst places to live are the inner city ghettos, where the criminals are most likely to carry, and the victims are least able to invest in any kind of decent home security.
It’s also no coincidence that it is always the government who seeks to disarm the law-abiding and productive in favour of the psychopaths; the violent criminals…
They are the same people.
Where the criminal plays the short game, using violence to take what he wants in the moment, the government plays the long game; taking the fruits of your labour pay-cheque to pay-cheque, under the threat of its own guns, which it always finds a way to justify it needs.
Because remember citizen: ethics are not universal; there is one rule for us and another for them.
Why?
BECAUSE WE HAVE THE GUNS, THAT’S WHY!
http://theuklibertarian.com/2010/07/...ous-criminals/
"Gun Crime Soars in England by 35% Where Guns Are Banned"
Since NBC sportscaster Bob Costas gave us an anti-gun lecture two weeks ago during Sunday Night Football, we’ve heard a lot from progressives like Juan Williams, Bob Beckel and anti-gun advocacy groups about how countries in Europe with strict gun control laws don’t have problems with gun crime. We’ve also heard the reason the United States has a “gun crime problem” is because we allow citizens to own handguns however, the numbers on violent crime committed using a gun tell a different story.
New data out from the UK, where guns are banned, shows gun crime has soared by 35 percent.
The Government’s latest crime figures were condemned as “truly terrible” by the Tories today as it emerged that gun crime in England and Wales soared by 35% last year.
Criminals used handguns in 46% more offences, Home Office statistics revealed.
Firearms were used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the 12 months to last April, up from 7,362.
It was the fourth consecutive year to see a rise and there were more than 2,200 more gun crimes last year than the previous peak in 1993.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012...-banned-by-35/
But hey.....never let the goddamned facts get in the way of "feeeeeeelings"..
dammit. Too bad fukken criminals do not obey the law....hugh?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
FUCK YOU BRITS and your "CULTURE of VIOLENCE"
Culture of violence: Gun crime goes up by 89% in a decade
"
Gun crime has almost doubled since Labour came to power as a culture of extreme gang violence has taken hold.
The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent.
In some parts of the country, the number of offences has increased more than five-fold.
In eighteen police areas, gun crime at least doubled.
The statistic will fuel fears that the police are struggling to contain gang-related violence, in which the carrying of a firearm has become increasingly common place.
Last week, police in London revealed they had begun carrying out armed patrols on some streets.
The move means officers armed with sub-machine guns are engaged in routine policing for the first time.
Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Grayling, said last night: 'In areas dominated by gang culture, we're now seeing guns used to settle scores between rivals as well as turf wars between rival drug dealers.
'We need to redouble our efforts to deal with the challenge.'
He added: 'These figures are all the more alarming given that it is only a week since the Metropolitan Police said it was increasing regular armed patrols in some areas of the capital'.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...89-decade.html
Culture of violence: Gun crime goes up by 89% in a decade
By James Slack
UPDATED: 03:42 EST, 27 October 2009
....dammit. More facts. this sucks...hugh?
"
Do Gun Bans Reduce Violent Crime? Ask the Aussies and Brits
"
Nothing original to add here, but this posting I picked up from Instapundit is well worth passing along, particularly in light of the typical, knee-jerk, Statist reactions to the horrific Aurora CO shootings:
Actually, if the Australian Bureau of Criminology can be believed, Americans would be insane to concern themselves with what non-Americans think about American gun rights.Now all this statistical and factual information isn’t going to mean anything to Lefty’s and Statists, but it is always good to know that reality backs up the conservative position on gun rights and the 2nd Amendment. "
In 2002 — five years after enacting its gun ban — the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.
Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:
In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
Moreover, Australia and the United States — where no gun-ban exists — both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:
Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.
So, if the USA follows Australia’s lead in banning guns, it should expect a 42 percent increase in violent crime, a higher percentage of murders committed with a gun, and three times more rape. One wonders if Freddy even bothered to look up the relative crime statistics.
The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations. Twenty-six percent of English citizens — roughly one-quarter of the population — have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized. The United States didn’t even make the “top 10″ list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2012/...ies-and-brits/
Call the cops......
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Call the WAAAAAAMBULANCE too
Well fuck me...seems like cops have no obligation to protect you....
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren...ct_of_Columbia
Even though Wiki is largely funded by the anti-second amendment shit bag soros......
"case that held police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help to be on the way, except when police develop a special duty to particular individuals."
Well, well, well, the cop on the beat would rather shoot your dog than protect your life. Who knew?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/po...otus.html?_r=0
"
Domestic Violence
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: June 28, 2005
WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation."
__________________________________________________ __________________________________
Ohhhhhh nnnnooooooooooooeeeeeessssss
you mean all you statist leech-fucks might actually have to learn a little bit about personal responsibility?
Go ahead you shit-stains, become victims.
Hey beandip, how's the view with your head up your ass, dipshit? ha ha ha
Because the only real law is the law of the jungle is exactly the reason people will finally come together after this massacre and say enough is enough.
Because you can't make sense of this is why you have to make sense of it. If you've ever known a child who was killed senselessly, you know what I'm talking about.
Law of the Jungle. Kill or be killed.
As with all your other posts your main concern is to make cheap political points about the UK on the basis of a Daily Mail article from 2003, on the basis of out-dated data whose only purpose is to undermine an honest debate about guns and crime. You can happily quote from the Libertarian Because remember citizen: ethics are not universal; there is one rule for us and another for them -precisely in order to demean the decency of people who do shape their lives and actions according to ethics because they have a sure sense of what is right and what is wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by beandip
You show no sense of compassion for the families left devastated by these shootings; no sense of pride or honour for those staff who gave their lives so that others might live.
This weekend, set polemics aside, and give up some of your precious moments to reflect upon this sorrow, and any positive response we can draw from it.
Plain and simple: The poeple's right to buy guns is more important than the poeple's right to live.
is it?