Strange Days
 

Have you ever read the papers and thought to yourself that the lunatics have finally taken over the asylum.
Story in paper.Drugstore manager gets punched unconconsious in his store,the Police don't want to know.He gives the police the name address and a photo of the guy that assaulted him and finds out that may be charged with a crime.
Why because the guy used the store's computer records to trace the punk and finds out that he has breached the Data Protection Rules misusing computer records.
The halfwit and his crew decided to rampage through the same Chemist's shop he had been using for years and his prescription details address etc were on file.
Three weeks later the cops have taken no action.
Living in the UK today.Its a hoot. :D

Can you say, vigilantes.:shotgun:

Ahh, yes, the good old UK. Where all they ask is that you do nothing more to protect yourself and family than defenestrate yourself during a home-invasion robbery, lest ye stand in the dock on felony charges.

I like Houston, our crime rate is only half that of Rio de Janiero.

Unfortunately, bruce, the brit's don't have that option.

The gov't took all the guns, including most "sporting" rifles and shotguns after the Dunblaine school massacre (it was the guns' fault, you see, not that of the dangerous lunatic ... loonies are still walking the streets over there).

And if you defend yourself, you end up charged with assault or worse. There is a case in rural england where a guy was struck by home invasion robbers for a second or third time and he defended himself . I forget whether he did have a firearm or bludgeoned them with a cricket bat ... got a very long sentence for doing so, AND the guys who broke into the house got reduced sentences for their housebreaking for providing testimony at the homeowner's trial.

ive been meaning to query all u Americans about that gun issue.. nobody actually believes that "guns dont kill people, people kill people" do they? :confused:

My AK has never of it's own volition leapt up off a table and discharged itself, no matter how much I goad it into a fury.

It's a rather hackneyed saying, but it IS true.

A firearm, like a hammer, is a tool.

http://www.binarystorage.net/clients...ich-inline.gif

>>ive been meaning to query all u Americans about that gun >>issue.. nobody actually believes that "guns dont kill people, >>people kill people" do they?

Not all of us.

Australians have a very gun happy image of America, which has been fueled by your own Michael Moore. Although there is the rare shoting in Sydney maybe, i never hear of anyone being shot over here. apart from the occasional glimpse of one when i was living on the farm and my mum had kangaroo shooting rifles (which she locked away and hid from the eyes of us kids) i have never even seen a real life gun.

i can see how some might think that ok, if someone is angry enough at another person and they have the mens rea to murder them or inflict harm on them, then the likelihood of it happening is almost 100%, however... its a lot harder to club someone to death with a rolling pin then it is to just blow their head off.Obviously a gun is not going to jump up and shoot randomly on its own... thats not what i meant wolf.. yes, people kill people, but owning or having access to firearms makes it so much easier for people to kill people.

if some phyco person for example is arguing with another in his home, and he knows he has an AK47 under the bed.. is there not a likelihood he will be inclined to go and get it, even if just for threat purposes.. and then maybe even use it if the situations requires. I doubt the likelihood however that in the midst of an argument in a gun free home that the angered individual would have the kitchen utensils, or their kids sporting equiptment on the top of his train of thought.

.. IMO

According to the National Self-Defense Survey created by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of defensive gun uses can be projected to approximately 2.5 million per year, or one defensive use for every 13 seconds. from here


This may or may not be a bullcrap stat. I'm pro-2nd amendment but not a "gun nut". To me its a simple question of trust. I trust my fellow citizens with guns and I don't trust politicians who don't trust my fellow citizens. As far as Mike Moore is concerned, he really plays it fast and loose with the truth but he did come up with one good question...Why does Canada, with similar gun ownership numbers to the US, not have the gun violence numbers we have?

Population density, Griff.

1999 Murders w/firearms

USA 8259
Canada 165

It seems pretty alarming until you consider it's a rare event:

USA 0.03 per 1000 people
Canada 0.02 per 1000 people

And not really evidence of a political problem:

Saudi Arabia 0 per 1000 people

...and thus, probably not really of concern to most people, unless they want to make a dopey political point of it.

I wonder what the numbers would be without the gang bangers and gangstas popping each other?

Perception runs into that brick wall called reality.

xoB, I believe that if you look at per-capita murder figures over the years, you could see peaks during alcohol prohibition and then again during the first wave of the "war on drugs".

As the government tried to crack down on prohibited substances that the people were going to use anyway, it just led to more upset and violence trying to run that business below the law.

The first prohibition led to "gangsters", the second, "gangstas".

IMO of course

Michael Moore, though I think he means well, is a rabblerouser, IMO.

As far as the quote, yes, I believe it. After all, you can kill someone with your own two hands. It's all in the state of mind of the person.

I strongly support the 2nd amendment, but like Griff, am not a gun nut. The way I see it, based on my research, guns aren't the problem. I don't care how the Brady Campaign or any gun control group tries to spin stats. It's all in the interpretation, really...and how legitimate the numbers and sources are.

I saw some recent murder stats for some of the major cities in the US...and it would seem that the rates were driven by how effective the police force was and economic factors. Here in Philadelphia, the number of murders was up 20%. And I'm not surprised...our economy sucked ass, and there are a ton of problems within the Philadelphia Police Department.

And from what I understand, the number of attacks with weapons like knives has gone through the roof Down Under...

Well we have VERY strict knife laws as well. one can be fined for carrying a knife in your lunch box to eat lunch with, and to buy knifes from the store, you need to show your ID. Anyway id rather b stabbed in the arm then shot in the head.

Do you own a gun Syc? if so , why do you feel you need to own one?

That's all well and good, but a knife in the right spot will put you six feet under just as easily as a gun.

Tougher laws don't necessarily alleviate a problem. The "3 Strikes and You're Out" laws are an example of that here in the US, IMO.

And no, I don't own a gun. I don't feel a desire or need to own one. When it's my time to go, be it peacefully or in a hail of bullets, then it's my time to go.

i guess. but personally i could easier pull a trigger then attack. its just so damn easy to shoot.. IMO.

yeah, when your numbers up, theres no fighting it, your numbers up.

Mine too.:)

I'd rather be shot in the arm than stabbed in the head.

if someone is going to shoot (bullett travelling at a zillion K and hour) you, do you think your arm will have enough time to react and cover your head?

If someone comes running at you (travelling at 10K an hour) with a knife, do you think your arm will have enough time to react and cover your head?

I apologise for the pseudo-hijack, but boy the Boondock Saints was a lovely idea.

No.

First off, that automatic guarding behavior ... putting your hands up to ward off, say a knife blow, ain't gonna do SHIT if the bullet leaves the barrel. Even with a relatively low velocity, light caliber round (like a 22 or 25), and assuming you get your hand up in time, you're not going to get really appreciable deflection, although I did know a guy that saved himself from getting a facefull of shotgun pellets by putting his gloved hand up in front of his face.

If an assailant, armed or unarmed, is within 21 feet of you, you don't have TIME to react.

They are on you like hair on a gorilla, and you're suddenly fighting for your life. Been there, done that. Happened at work, so I wasn't armed, wouldn't have had a chance to do anything if I were. OTOH, had the attack happened in the community, I wouldn't have intentionally been that close to a crazy guy.

I think i was misunderstood. I know that your arm protecting you couldn't save you from harm from a bullett. not much could. this is what i was trying to say!! your arm couldnt save you from a bullett, but it MAY protect you somewhat from a knife.

therefore, IMO guns are worse than knives.. hence, my statement that id rather b stabbed in the arm , rather than shot in the head.

What you meant and what you said are two different things. You have now added a whole script to the scenario. I responded to your statement.:)

Sparkz, you're choosing the lesser of two evils. Violence is violence; it provokes almost identical responses from victim and perpetrator whether the tool is a knife, a gun, or a plastic bag. The trick, as UT so excellenty pointed out, is to figure out why the fsck people are trying to hurt each other and deal with that issue, rather than the tangential problem of how they accomplish that.
A pro/anti-gun debate only distracts us from the real issue at hand: why can't we treat each other as human beings rather than as pieces of meat to be stabbed/shot/bludgenoned/eaten in order to get what we want?.

That sounds good in theory, but I gotta get him before he gets me.:)