17yr old black kid shot and killed for walking in white suburbia?

[robertlouis]

I see you've drunk the Koolaid on Canada...incidentally I came from the country that is responsible for that phrase 'drinking the Koolaid' although it was an American that was responsible for that crime.

Canada was founded mainly by the French who were content to exploit their relations with the native people in what is generally called Eastern Canada (Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and some might include eastern Manitoba too) to supply the European rage for beaver fur. The French monarchy took a mostly laissez faire attitude to the region until the Napoleonic Wars. The Scots came after the fall of New France (you must go to Quebec some day and stand on the Plains of Abraham as that battle was arguably the one with the most profound long term impact on North America) and helped define and build Canada. The first PM was a Scotsman!

I wouldn't say the French experienced ethnic cleansing here - that's a lie that's been repeated for too long. In fact the English allowed far far greater freedoms to the French here than they did to other conquered lands - compare to what happened to Africa or India or even later the Boers - and you'll see. The French were allowed to continue practicing most of their way of life including language, religion, etc. Anyways we've hijacked the thread so I'll quit now!

Yep, but at least we won't get shot lol.

[SammiValentine]

How're knife crimes coming along in the UK? What about good old-fashioned beatings at the pub? Are those on the decline? Based on the last time I looked at UK crime, it didn't seem that way. Controlling guns may lessen the number of fatalities but where there's a will there's a way.

Although I have to admit it's probably better that Arnie666 has use of a flashlight only and not a gun!

You didnt look very closely then as our gun crime is still increasing and has been even since the amnesty law thingy.. I think the main benefit of our controls is statisitically that we have a lot less "crazed gun man massacres". I think our last one was in Cumbria.... forgot his name.. but I do remmeber he had a gun licence anyway so yea that puts a small boot up the ass of that theory, like you say where there is a will.... Also on the boot up the ass point our population is a lot smaller, our society is a lot different (i think you have a lot more race, religion and isssues in general over there - no offense meant and ive never been to U.S so i could be wrong).

Anyway this gun control thing its an awfully difficult thing to pass judgement on - plus your laws are state to state and bla bla, itd be a lot different over there anyway. I dont think the UK and what we do is comparable to US.

[nonnonnon]

http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2008/...-in-world.html

[notdrunk]

You think this is similar? Maybe if Zimmerman had been the one who got shot.

One more time. Zimmerman was attacking Martin when he got out of his car & chased him down the walkways of the commons. When you chase someone down, especially when you have no authority to do so, you should expect them to fight when you catch them. Even that cute little bunny rabbit will fight to the death when cornered by a predator. Zimmerman was the assailant, & that negates all claims of self defense.

Cervini was attacking Scott. Stepping out your front door to yell at a couple of punks who are breaking into your neighbor's car isn't an assault by any stretch of the imagination. You can't even make the claim that he initiated the confrontation. Charging toward someone in a threatening manner is an assault. That's the literal definition of the word. Scott defended himself against an assailant, who he already knew was a criminal because he'd just caught him in the act. Again: That's the definition of fthe term "self defense". Another thing that's not similar at all is that Scott was arrested & charged with manslaughter. You say the jury acquitted him? Well of course they did. Cervini died of stupidity. His partner who ran away should have been charged with felony murder because the death happened during & because of them committing a crime.

Zimmerman attacked Martin now? That must be realllllyyyy brand new news. And, I just thought he was only following him. By the way, Scott pulled out a gun and told them to freeze. He went out of his way to engage would-be thieves even though he knew that his girlfriend called the police about a group of teens breaking into a neighbor's car. He left his house to be a police officer. Sounds familiar..no?

The state of New York wanted to charge Scott with murder; however, a grand jury recommended him to be charged with manslaughter. A jury acquitted him. If Scott can get off, so can Zimmerman if he even goes to trial.

[EvonRose]

Shit happens. If I got my hands on you after you did that then you'd never do it again.

You could also just as likely run around the mall with a butcher knife stabbing people to death. You could be the Chinese guy on the Greyhound bus in Alberta who stabbed a man to death and ate parts of him while the cowards fled and watched from outside. You could be the guy in Toronto who pulled a knife on a streetcar and started several people or the other one who pushed a girl onto the subway tracks. We can't protect us from ourselves by restricting access to weapons. There are deviants everywhere and they will always find a way to realize their deviant behaviour.

People are more likely to tackle me down, example men who are over 150 pounds, since i weigh about 120, I could kill a man as big as a hippo it takes one shot in the head with a gun. i could kill more people in less time as to the effort of a knife, i would burn out fighting off people. You are also more likely to survive a knife attack. We can't protect ourselves but the point is lessening the violence and in no doubt in my mind if we control the gun situation it would decrease. You talk about england and the US lets take statistic in account to what country has more fatality in a violent act, or how many of those crimes are gun related.

People are more likely to convict me as well. Since it take close body contact s oppose to gun shooting from a distance and claiming self defense!

how do we expect everyone to defend themselves against these types of people? People under 18 are helpless, Like treyvon was. So how can we protect them from people like Zimmerman who are trigger happy?

[robertlouis]

As reports come through of another college campus massacre in California, isn't it about time that gun possession laws should be reviewed if only to try and prevent casual access to firearms by people who, sadly with hindsight, should never be allowed near them?

*bump*

[robertlouis]

You didnt look very closely then as our gun crime is still increasing and has been even since the amnesty law thingy.. I think the main benefit of our controls is statisitically that we have a lot less "crazed gun man massacres". I think our last one was in Cumbria.... forgot his name.. but I do remmeber he had a gun licence anyway so yea that puts a small boot up the ass of that theory, like you say where there is a will.... Also on the boot up the ass point our population is a lot smaller, our society is a lot different (i think you have a lot more race, religion and isssues in general over there - no offense meant and ive never been to U.S so i could be wrong).

Anyway this gun control thing its an awfully difficult thing to pass judgement on - plus your laws are state to state and bla bla, itd be a lot different over there anyway. I dont think the UK and what we do is comparable to US.

Interesting points, Sammi. It's also worth adding that the tightening of our gun laws here in the UK followed the lone gunman atrocities in Hungerford and Dunblane. In both of those cases, and the one in Cumbria (Derek Bird), the gunman was licensed to carry firearms and was a member of a gun club. So action was taken in that context, and on the assumption that it was placing tighter restrictions on people who already had legal access to guns.

What it failed to address, of course, was the trade in illegal firearms and their increasingly casual use in inner-city crime, usually gang or drug-related. That's less about control and more about vigilance and prevention by the police and wider authorities. And in such cases guns are being carried and even used by minors - I particularly recall that terrible shooting of the kiddy in Liverpool by a juvenile on a bike.

[BigDF]

Shit happens. If I got my hands on you after you did that then you'd never do it again.

You could also just as likely run around the mall with a butcher knife stabbing people to death. You could be the Chinese guy on the Greyhound bus in Alberta who stabbed a man to death and ate parts of him while the cowards fled and watched from outside. You could be the guy in Toronto who pulled a knife on a streetcar and started several people or the other one who pushed a girl onto the subway tracks. We can't protect us from ourselves by restricting access to weapons. There are deviants everywhere and they will always find a way to realize their deviant behaviour.

Funny thing about other weapons: you never hear of anyone being killed by a stray knife or baseball bat. On the other hand... IMHO if anyone wants to be serious about this issue, it would make more sense to license gun owners, just as we do with automobiles. But of course that would be an infringement of freedoms, right?

[runningdownthatdream]

You didnt look very closely then as our gun crime is still increasing and has been even since the amnesty law thingy.. I think the main benefit of our controls is statisitically that we have a lot less "crazed gun man massacres". I think our last one was in Cumbria.... forgot his name.. but I do remmeber he had a gun licence anyway so yea that puts a small boot up the ass of that theory, like you say where there is a will.... Also on the boot up the ass point our population is a lot smaller, our society is a lot different (i think you have a lot more race, religion and isssues in general over there - no offense meant and ive never been to U.S so i could be wrong).

Anyway this gun control thing its an awfully difficult thing to pass judgement on - plus your laws are state to state and bla bla, itd be a lot different over there anyway. I dont think the UK and what we do is comparable to US.

Not sure what point you're making. My point was that in the UK it's not as easy to get a gun as it is in the US, generally speaking and, while you may have lower incidences of gun crimes, you have very high incidences of violent crime.

Your gun crimes may be on the rise because handguns are more widely available?

[SammiValentine]

Not sure what point you're making. My point was that in the UK it's not as easy to get a gun as it is in the US, generally speaking and, while you may have lower incidences of gun crimes, you have very high incidences of violent crime.

Your gun crimes may be on the rise because handguns are more widely available?

My point was our gun crime does continue to rise regardless of laws and licences, it was in response to "where there is a will..." (its all gang related) . Correct its more difficult, we (regualr folks) cant just walk in a shop and buy a gun, but if you do really want a gun you only need to speak to the right person who knows a person and you can get a gun - they are not that hard to get hold if you want to get one.

Why do we have high violent crime and less gun stuff? Different society as others have said, we are both very fucked up places in our own special way