welshbairn Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 "The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons." - Cesare Beccaria "A comprehensive review of published studies of gun control, released in November 2004 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was unable to determine any statistically significant effect resulting from such laws" "Economist John Lott, in his 1998 book More Guns, Less Crime, provides data showing that laws allowing law-abiding citizens to carry a gun legally in public may cause reductions in crime because potential criminals do not know who might be carrying a firearm. The data for Lott's analysis came from the FBI's crime statistics for all 3,054 U.S. counties" "For example, a 2002 review of international gun control policies and gun ownership rates as these relate to crime rates by Kates and Mauser, published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Policy argues that, "International evidence and comparisons have long been offered as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths. Unfortunately, such discussions are all too often been [sic] afflicted by misconceptions and factual error and focus on comparisons that are unrepresentative." Kates and Mauser point out in Europe, there is no correlation whatsoever between gun ownership rates and homicide rates (see table "European Gun Ownership and Murder Rates")." What reason would you have NOT to trust the authorities and the police on this issue, though? They TRULY have your best interests at heart, right. They've proven that time and time and time and time and time and time and time again. So what do you think County have to do to get their season back on track? Change the formation for example? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweet Pete Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 So what do you think County have to do to get their season back on track? Change the formation for example? Shoot the manager? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironstaggies66 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 So what do you think County have to do to get their season back on track? Change the formation for example? Build a new team from scratch, get a new manager. Nah, in all honesty we just need to snatch 11th (will come down to luck more than anything really, too late to drastically change the way we're playing now) and pray we end up facing The Rangers rather than Hibs in the play-off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweet Pete Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Build a new team from scratch, get a new manager. Nah, in all honesty we just need to snatch 11th (will come down to luck more than anything really, too late to drastically change the way we're playing now) and pray we end up facing The Rangers rather than Hibs in the play-off. You forgot to make this post 4 paragraphs long and then edit it to add another 4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Build a new team from scratch, get a new manager. Nah, in all honesty we just need to snatch 11th (will come down to luck more than anything really, too late to drastically change the way we're playing now) and pray we end up facing The Rangers rather than Hibs in the play-off. Shouldn't the players be armed to deter Ian Black from committing extreme violence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 We should all club together and buy ironstaggie a firearm. Give him a day or so and guaranteed he'll blow his toes, hands or face off. Saving us all from this idiocy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddly optomistic Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 It's interesting to see that ironstaggie's argument always revolves around stranger attacks. Considering most people are killed by people they know, I don't see how every household owning a gun would help. Domestic murders would likely increase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamdunk Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 I'd rather just give someone the money than kill them tbh. I mean I never really carry more than £50, is someone's life worth taking for that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironstaggies66 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 You forgot to make this post 4 paragraphs long and then edit it to add another 4. Not concise enough, interesting. I really do try to keep things as short as possible, thanks for the constructive critcism (even if it wasn't intended as such) anyway! It's interesting to see that ironstaggie's argument always revolves around stranger attacks. Considering most people are killed by people they know, Is there some logical block in your brains that just filters out all violent crime other than murder? The vast majority of people who are robbed/attacked are NOT victimized by family members or people they know well. As it stands here in the UK you're either a pussy and timidly hand over your hard earned belongings and money to said thugs (or just take an ideally light beating, depending on what mood they happen to be in) in that situation or you have a good chance of getting a vital organ punctured, assuming of course you obey the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnstoun Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 I'd rather just give someone the money than kill them tbh. I mean I never really carry more than £50, is someone's life worth taking for that? That's because you're living in fear, you should definitely get a gun, then you'd realise that shooting muggers is just human nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweet Pete Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 You definitely need to pack a gat in order to survive the notorious Dingwall ghettos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironstaggies66 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 I'd rather just give someone the money than kill them tbh. I mean I never really carry more than £50, is someone's life worth taking for that? Worth less, probably. Depends on who's attacking you, really, I guess. There's over 7 billion people, man, grow the f**k up and get over this "we're all special snowflakes" bullshit.. Still though, you aren't necessarily going to kill them. Especially if you have something like a taser (10 years in prison for possession remember!). These things are specifically designed to debilitate in a non-lethal manner. Yes they CAN be deadly but that's a consequence you should face for attacking somebody. But here in the UK if you want to follow the law you have NO right to carry ANY object that could be used to cause harm to a person. It's alright though, you can use whatever's on the ground at the time of the attack.. So just make sure if you get attacked it happens next to a place where the ground is littered with weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddly optomistic Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 So you're happy for the murder rate to rise in order to allegedly reduce violent crime. Interesting tactic. Anyway, so if the robber or burglar knows that the victim could be armed, the surely they would definitely arm. The police would have to be armed (you know the same police you expressed so much faith in earlier). What could go wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamdunk Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Worth less, probably. Depends on who's attacking you, really, I guess. There's over 7 billion people, man, grow the f**k up and get over this "we're all special snowflakes" bullshit.. Still though, you aren't necessarily going to kill them. Especially if you have something like a taser (10 years in prison for possession remember!). These things are specifically designed to debilitate in a non-lethal manner. Yes they CAN be deadly but that's a consequence you should face for attacking somebody. But here in the UK if you want to follow the law you have NO right to carry ANY object that could be used to cause harm to a person. It's alright though, you can use whatever's on the ground at the time of the attack.. So just make sure if you get attacked it happens next to a place where the ground is littered with weapons. wow. So are you angling for guns to be legal, or just non lethal weapons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnstoun Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 50 people a year die at the hands of robbers in the UK, in the US it's 2,000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironstaggies66 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 So you're happy for the murder rate to rise in order to allegedly reduce violent crime. Interesting tactic. Anyway, so if the robber or burglar knows that the victim could be armed, the surely they would definitely arm. The police would have to be armed (you know the same police you expressed so much faith in earlier). What could go wrong? Killing someone in self-defense isn't murder. All murder is killing, not all killing is murder. Look up the definition of murder for more information. Police already are armed anyway, you see they carry batons and spray in case they need to use them, rights not granted to your average citizen. If they face a serious threat the police call in armored officers with riot shields and if it gets really bad they call in officers with firearms.. Well generally robbers and attackers are going to arm themselves in the first place, like I said it gives them an immediate advantage even if they aren't physically imposing or with multiple assailiants. That's the problem with the laws at present, you're being robbed of the mere chance of having at least an equal footing. All based on the premise that criminals will buy into this great philosophy and respect that law.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweet Pete Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 I never leave the house without a 50 calibre anti-aircraft gun, just in case someone tries to take my bus fare from me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suspect Device Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 How many people die from testing a 9V battery with their tongue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironstaggies66 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 wow. So are you angling for guns to be legal, or just non lethal weapons? Both. If I choose to prepare for a situation like this and take my own protection into my own hands I should be entitled to. If you want to rely on a thinly spread police force, that's fine, your call. But I can see how people in the UK might be less hysterical when it comes to allowing citizens to carry weapons they haven't deemed.. lethal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Living in the east end of Glasgow, which historically hasn't the best of reputations, I can say of all the things I've had to worry about, someone shooting me or even threatening me with a gun hasn't been one of them. I've never even seen one. Now someone thinks it's a good idea to allow weapons designed to do only one thing.. And that's kill into the general population. To keep it simple. My response to that would be. Jog on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.