Are... you... serious?!
11 posts • joined 6 Jun 2007
Are... you... serious?!
What is stopping a criminal from grabbing it and turning its siren off by for example, smashing it repeatedly against victim's head?
As Benny Hill liked to say, the only protection one can have is a Colt .45 under an armpit.
In UK you have given up on your rights to:
Defend your life or your family - no firearms for honest citizens, just for politicians and criminals.
Privacy - STOP & SEARCH - what is it, Nazi Germany, 1939?!
In a free world, one can carry a firearm for self defense, and no, it does not make him instantly a serial killer. Only a fool would think of a such thing.
Well, you must still have the subject mentality deep inside of yourselves...
Whoa, that is one unresponsive UI...
Hitting the video name three times just to start it... WTF?!
"The community can't be expected to defend themselves, they don't have the training, they need to be properly represented."
Please don't confuse PUBLIC safety with PERSONAL defense, those are two completely different things.
Police is there to provide PUBLIC safety for the society, it cannot and will never be able to provide the PERSONAL defense (unless you manage to get one policeman per citizen at all times).
Anyway, what kind of training have the police? How many times a year they go to a shooting range? Is it the same training they used to kill the Brazilian electrician a couple of years ago, while strolling peacefully into a metro?
You expect them to be at your bedroom at all times? Follow you around the town?
What is the moral base of asking a policeman to put his life in harms way and protect yours when you are not willing to do the same, even for your own life?
What kind of training do you need to point a handgun at a rapist and pull the trigger? Why not allowing citizens to take the same training the policemen are taking? In the end, that training is paid by one's taxes.
Since when the subjects and citizens of UK are divided into two classes, those that are allowed to have means for protecting themselves and their families when assaulted and those that are not?
Human rights are universal, don't take away the only effective means of personal defense from women that live alone just because you are afraid of guns.
How disarming law abiding citizens and converting them into defenseless victims makes society safer?
Criminals prefer assaulting victims that have no means of defense... so, why is your government working for the criminals by making citizens defenseless and why are you supporting that kind of government?
The source of stats:
“Illegal Firearms in the UK”, Centre for Defense Studies at King's College in London, July 2001.
British Home Office, reported by BBC news, July 12, 2002.
Regarding Swiss, people bear arms for personal protection also. The military weapons are not the only guns present in the homes of the Swiss.
Here are more stats:
Contact Crime Victimization Rates (% in 1999)
#1 Australia 4.1
#2 England and Wales 3.6
#3 Scotland 3.4
#4 Canada 3.4
#13 USA 1.9
Source: 2001 Dutch Ministry of Justice, Criminal Victimization in Seventeen Industrialized Countries
I really find it sad that the basic human rights like self defense and privacy are non-existant in UK.
Everything useful for protection is prohibited - even gobstoppers are cause for jail time/fine.
Stop&search, what is that? Nazi Germany '39?
What happened to Brits? Why and how did they allow all this to happen?
How does a woman that lives alone and has a gun for her personal protection within her home, present danger for society or for anyone else but the criminals?
How do you explain to a raped woman that it is ok, because if she had a gun she could have killed the rapist, and that is not good, because there is the police to protect her?
Between 1997 and 1999, there were 429 murders in London, the highest two-year figure for more than 10 years – nearly two-thirds of those involved firearms – in a country that has virtually banned private firearm ownership.
The U.K. has strict gun control and a rising homicide rate of 1.4 per 100,000. Switzerland has the highest per capita firearm ownership rate on the planet (all males age 20 to 42 are required to keep rifles or pistols at home) has a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000. And to date, there has never been a schoolyard massacre in Switzerland.
Handguns were used in 3,685 offences in 2000 compared with 2,648 in 1997, an increase of 40%. It is interesting to note:
• Of the 20 areas with the lowest number of legal firearms, 10 had an above average level of "gun crime."
• Of the 20 areas with the highest levels of legal guns, only 2 had armed crime levels above the average.
Increase of crime from pre-handgun ban in UK:
Armed robbery 170.1%
Attempted murder 117.6%
Sexual assault 112.6%
Nice going UK... What's next your rulers are going to prohibit? Fists and fingers?
Self defense - BAD!
Criminals handled with care - GOOD!
Why not check the assault victimization?
At least in USA they can defend themselves, unlike the UK subjects that are, well, subjected to their governments will.
Damn self defense, it should be outlawed! Only the chosen ones should be able to defend themselves, for example, those nice undercover armed policemen that have proven metro shooting abilities.The rest of the subjects should play dead in a case of assault. :-)
Can a UK subject sue his rulers for not protecting him and at the same time not allowing him to defend himself?
I just downloaded FF 3.0... Damn, it's so UGLY!!! Where's the "Vista look" several bloggers were talking about?
The first thing I did after installing it was to go searching for a new skin... and... of course, I found not a single one worth installing...
The second thing I did after installing FF3 was to go to opera site and download it...
Well... it looks MUCH better...
Mozilla, WTH?! Who does your UI design?!
Where is the article?
"The phrase "fundamental rights" is a legal term of art referring to certain basic civil liberties that merit strict legal scrutiny under the American Constitution, and although poker is a venerable American tradition - and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is an avid poker player - it seems doubtful that the Supreme Court will elevate online gambling to a level of constitutional protection generally reserved for racial discrimination or political speech."
We're talking about land of free, where the rights do not come from the state but from the people. We're not talking about European countries where subjects expect to have only those rights given to them by the government.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
So, yes, they do have a merit and we should wish them well in their fight for our fundamental right to lead our lives as we find fit, be it online poker or living with a person of a same sex.
systemd'oh! DNS lib underscore bug bites everyone's favorite init tool, blanks Netflix
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017