water cannon

[Hood]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

yeah, there's the right way to interpret it, then there's your way



aaawwwww bless, so you can vouch for the fact that we (in the UK) live in a society that is safe cos the government and police do a good job at protecting us? I take it you're also implying that all the Swiss citizens are crazy? As for the rule of laws, it might come as news to you, but criminals normally are tagged as such because they break the law.. so you play by the rules, they don't, they might get you killed and then, maybe arrested. But in the end who won? In Italy we say "it's better to have a bad trial than a nice funeral".


it's different, the American presidentialism offers more possibilities than our constitutional monarchy (another thing that leaves me well puzzled..I respect it of course, but regardless of what you say it's a waste of money, period).
If an American disagrees at least he has the option to get on the road with his militia (which hasn't really happened so far), if you disagree cos your government is shafting you, you do what "keep calm and carry on"?



this is valid for your as well, you criticise the American system and then ask others to respect the UK one..
I wish I could giggle about this, but men that can't even take the ultimate responsibility of defending their own country and/or neighbourhood are men anymore? You probably never had to deal with a public disorder/crime situation here, where what really comes out is how helpless and useless policing is here. Besides, if your government and police are so efficient, why do you think we have things like "neighbourhood watch" in place? Are they all crazy?



..and this is yet another example of your provocative nature.

Yes we are safe, as safe as anyone can be.

Nope haven't criticised the American system - it's their system to do with as they will, so is neither good nor bad, just different. I disagree with it, but that's not criticism. I'm not sure where the assumption comes from that I'm implying the Swiss are crazy, so I won't even touch on that further. Crazy costs of living yes.

Lots of people in the UK don't understand the monarchy either. I happen to be in favour for a number of reasons but that's a different subject.

What really gets me is that all the pro-gun crowd seem to be equating gun = ability to defend. A gun is needed because the other guy has one. In the UK the vast majority don't have guns to use, so we don't need one. I can defend myself if I have to, but that doesn't help me defend my country. What kind of skewed thinking is that.

As for my provocative nature, what a sweeping assumption to make based on my caustic response to a provocative comment. I wonder what the other examples are?

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Hood

Yes we are safe, as safe as anyone can be.

then you must live in some remote part of the UK and you don't watch TV news. Seriously? That's pure denial.

Nope haven't criticised the American system - it's their system to do with as they will, so is neither good nor bad, just different. I disagree with it, but that's not criticism. I'm not sure where the assumption comes from that I'm implying the Swiss are crazy, so I won't even touch on that further. Crazy costs of living yes.

cos every man there is asked to defend his country, just like when you had the territorial Army here during the war. Maybe that's why you are against guns, you watched too many re-runs of Dad's Army..

Lots of people in the UK don't understand the monarchy either. I happen to be in favour for a number of reasons but that's a different subject.

it's off topic, but I'd be genuinely interested to know why, feel free to PM me about it.

What really gets me is that all the pro-gun crowd seem to be equating gun = ability to defend. A gun is needed because the other guy has one. In the UK the vast majority don't have guns to use, so we don't need one. I can defend myself if I have to, but that doesn't help me defend my country. What kind of skewed thinking is that.

that's a somehow romantic view, guns can be used to defend yourself when you'd be easily overcome by someone stronger or in greater numbers than you. It's a battle leveller: if everyone has the same offensive potential, everyone stays calm. It's what our governments do with nuclear weapons: they don't use 'em, but they're there, just in case..

As for my provocative nature, what a sweeping assumption to make based on my caustic response to a provocative comment. I wonder what the other examples are?

yeah, but that was a bit over the line here.. as you know banjos are Luthier's fav instrument

[Hood]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

then you must live in some remote part of the UK and you don't watch TV news. Seriously? That's pure denial.


cos every man there is asked to defend his country, just like when you had the territorial Army here during the war. Maybe that's why you are against guns, you watched too many re-runs of Dad's Army..

it's off topic, but I'd be genuinely interested to know why, feel free to PM me about it.

that's a somehow romantic view, guns can be used to defend yourself when you'd be easily overcome by someone stronger or in greater numbers than you. It's a battle leveller: if everyone has the same offensive potential, everyone stays calm. It's what our governments do with nuclear weapons: they don't use 'em, but they're there, just in case..



yeah, but that was a bit over the line here.. as you know banjos are Luthier's fav instrument

I live near Manchester. Pick any country and if you're in the wrong place at the wrong time then you're in trouble. TV news rarely shows good news, and if you read the Daily Mail then the whole country is going to the dogs. I don't equate bad news on the TV with living in the UK in general.

As for defending my country, if I was conscripted then I'd pick up a gun. Not because it's what I want but because it's what my country expects of me. I don't need a gun to hand to do it - that's what the armed forces are for.

The monarchy - I like it because:

1. It's a constant in times of great change. The current queen has been a very worthwhile moral compass and a great example of public service - I really believe that she sees her role as serving the people of her country and the Commonwealth.

2. The Crown Estates (ie the properties owned by the monarchy) give about £230 million to the revenue of which about £8m is returned to the Queen - good profit for the country I'd say.

3. The royal family are great ambassadors for the country, and they do it for duty not money (google Civil List to see hwo the monarchy is funded - might clear up some misconceptions commony held).

4. For me it makes the UK different from most other nations. Not better or worse, just different. Over time I think the monarchy will end up more like that of the Netherlands.

5. I just like it - no rationale logical reason.

6. They're probably ever so slightly traditional British eccentrics (i.e. bonkers but nice with it).

There are a whole host of arguments against them, normally focused on their cost to the UK economy. I always wonder if it'll ever be possible to calculate their actual worth.

And I forgot that Luthier likes the banjo. Just so long as he doesn't start saying "Squeal...."

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Hood

I live near Manchester. Pick any country and if you're in the wrong place at the wrong time then you're in trouble. TV news rarely shows good news, and if you read the Daily Mail then the whole country is going to the dogs. I don't equate bad news on the TV with living in the UK in general.

yeeeeeah, any other commonplaces to put down? The truth is that you can get a lot more news and information nowadays than 20 years ago, it's all about knowing where to get it. I think the Daily Mail is on par with Nuts Magazine et similar, you can get all the information you need from online news independent broadcasts etc.. I can provide you with link, but maybe you're too busy reading the Sun..

As for defending my country, if I was conscripted then I'd pick up a gun. Not because it's what I want but because it's what my country expects of me. I don't need a gun to hand to do it - that's what the armed forces are for.

yep, four days of burning and looting in the major UK cities were the perfect example of how ready our armed forces are.

The monarchy - I like it because:

1. It's a constant in times of great change. The current queen has been a very worthwhile moral compass and a great example of public service - I really believe that she sees her role as serving the people of her country and the Commonwealth.

this I can understand.

2. The Crown Estates (ie the properties owned by the monarchy) give about £230 million to the revenue of which about £8m is returned to the Queen - good profit for the country I'd say.

this I don't understand. It's like they're getting a share of a profit without doing anything, a bit mafia like

3. The royal family are great ambassadors for the country, and they do it for duty not money (google Civil List to see hwo the monarchy is funded - might clear up some misconceptions commony held).

mmmmhyeah, have to say that Prince Philip offers some comedy gems every now and then

4. For me it makes the UK different from most other nations. Not better or worse, just different. Over time I think the monarchy will end up more like that of the Netherlands.

That goes without saying. You love being different.

5. I just like it - no rationale logical reason.

what is it that you like exactly? To be a commoner or the idea that there are people with no special skills, but that for chance/land owning/convenient wedding are entitled to a title of nobility and are somehow "better" than the average person?

6. They're probably ever so slightly traditional British eccentrics (i.e. bonkers but nice with it).

lol true

There are a whole host of arguments against them, normally focused on their cost to the UK economy. I always wonder if it'll ever be possible to calculate their actual worth.

Well other countries have other people that cover the same roles at the fraction of the salary, so their worth is kinda irrelevant.

The way I see it is that's just a neat, overpriced, anachronistic tradition to cling onto, but hey, it's part of your heritage, so why not? Maybe they could still do what they do cutting a bit on the unnecessary expenses, that might really show how they are "the people's royal family". But hey, again, just my opinion. I ask cos most people react really weird and tend to evade the question when I ask them what they think of the royal family.

And I forgot that Luthier likes the banjo. Just so long as he doesn't start saying "Squeal...."

[MD_Titus]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

your statement clearly shows you're not reading what I write, or that my English is not good enough, or that you don't understand your own language. Read my posts again and please give me a valid reason why people licensed from the institution couldn't own semiauto full bore firearms and pistols.


no, my definition of agree is respecting the fact that some people can own certain firearms and that you don't have to fear from them, since they won't jump on you and shoot your head off. It sounds like you think that every gun owner is a nutter!!


Ok, according to the theory of both of you, if I seek something cos I like it I should be kept away from it?!

You two sound like the envious losers who slag people who own fast cars just because they can't afford it..

Talking of which, here's another comparison: say that I like fast cars, which have a serious potential of infringing the law because of their speed, and that we could well do without, since you can have a normal car for your commuting. Shall we forbid fast cars just cos they serve no purpose? Or shall we be free to own something that yes, potentially it can be used to infringe the law and even kill someone, but still it's our own personal free choice to spend our own money?

If tight gun legislation prevents ONE person being killed by someone who had previously passed whatever tests were in place, and who legally owned their firearms... It's done it's job. End of, simple as that. It's not a failing of language that prevents you understanding this stance, which is shared by my countrymen in this thread, it's a failing of logic.

That you continue to debate this, and draw in irrelevant examples such as jealousy (!) of car owners just goes to further to illustrate the fatal flaw. Guns, in the wrong hands, kill people. The wrong hands may have been the right hands yesterday. Doing everythjng within the UK governments power to prevent that is, in the eyes of the majority of citizens of the UK, a Good Thing.

Originally Posted by brando

" A bit of military or para-military discipline never did any harm to anyone."

Leaving aside the IRA. UDA. PIRA. UVF. RIRA. RHD. and various other para-military groups who did an awful lot of harm to the peaceful citizens of their country?

Or maybe consider the cross-border flow of drugs for guns across the Rio Grande?

But it's really no use talking to a person whose gun fetish outweighs his compassion....

+1
Indeed.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

I'm still talking facts here man, get your facts right then tell me about yours..

You keep on ignoring a really huge one, so why should we?

Originally Posted by Hood

That goes both ways doesn't it.

Quite.

Originally Posted by Hood

You take responsibility? I presume you have a cape to twirl whilst you dish out punishment in your vigilante alter ego?

I presume that you know that the "right to bear arms" has different interpretations, and that it was formulated in the late 18th century? By people who had to support the idea of armed insurrection as that is what they had just done?

I don't have to defend my nation as my government does that on my behalf, and I trust them to do so. Owning a gun wouldn't help me defuse an IED in Afghanistan, or stop a terrorist attack. How do you defend your nation by owning a gun? Owning a gun doesn't empower you to do anything at all; that's what the rule of law does.

It really doesn't bother me that the USA allows the right to bear arms. It's your country and your politicians and if you vote for them and they let you have what you want then that's fine. If you disagree with your government by all means form a militia and march on Washington. It'll make great TV whilst it lasts.

However, don't criticise another country's peoples and laws just because you do not agree with them. If you're not a citizen then it's really none of your business. That goes for the whole guns are great/bad argument.

Giggle away.

Cracking post. Although the image of Stern as big daddy (Kick-Ass) is bkth amusing and disturbing...

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

then you must live in some remote part of the UK and you don't watch TV news. Seriously? That's pure denial.


cos every man there is asked to defend his country, just like when you had the territorial Army here during the war. Maybe that's why you are against guns, you watched too many re-runs of Dad's Army..

it's off topic, but I'd be genuinely interested to know why, feel free to PM me about it.

that's a somehow romantic view, guns can be used to defend yourself when you'd be easily overcome by someone stronger or in greater numbers than you. It's a battle leveller: if everyone has the same offensive potential, everyone stays calm. It's what our governments do with nuclear weapons: they don't use 'em, but they're there, just in case..



yeah, but that was a bit over the line here.. as you know banjos are Luthier's fav instrument

I find the depths of your delusion disturbing.

News reports make it seem every street has it's own paedo, crack dealer, terrorist cell and serial killer. "if you don't read the newspapers you're uninformed, if you do read them you're misinformed".

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by MD_Titus

If tight gun legislation prevents ONE person being killed by someone who had previously passed whatever tests were in place, and who legally owned their firearms... It's done it's job. End of, simple as that. It's not a failing of language that prevents you understanding this stance, which is shared by my countrymen in this thread, it's a failing of logic.

That you continue to debate this, and draw in irrelevant examples such as jealousy (!) of car owners just goes to further to illustrate the fatal flaw. Guns, in the wrong hands, kill people. The wrong hands may have been the right hands yesterday. Doing everythjng within the UK governments power to prevent that is, in the eyes of the majority of citizens of the UK, a Good Thing.

+1
Indeed.

You keep on ignoring a really huge one, so why should we?

Quite.

Cracking post. Although the image of Stern as big daddy (Kick-Ass) is bkth amusing and disturbing...


I find the depths of your delusion disturbing.

News reports make it seem every street has it's own paedo, crack dealer, terrorist cell and serial killer. "if you don't read the newspapers you're uninformed, if you do read them you're misinformed".

You know what, I'm not even making an effort to answer your posts anymore, you came out for what you are: a person that is lazy, uninformed and cares about his country only when others (read "foreigners") question its rules, to which you can only obey like a sheep, not only cos you're uninformed, but cos you don't even use your own right to defend your opinion, the vote. You're the kind of person that is ruining this country, carry on with your obtuse and condescending behaviour, I'm sure it'll get you far..

[MD_Titus]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

You know what, I'm not even making an effort to answer your posts anymore, you came out for what you are: a person that is lazy, uninformed and cares about his country only when others (read "foreigners") question its rules, to which you can only obey like a sheep, not only cos you're uninformed, but cos you don't even use your own right to defend your opinion, the vote. You're the kind of person that is ruining this country, carry on with your obtuse and condescending behaviour, I'm sure it'll get you far..

utter tosh.

again you ignore the salient point - the majority of UK citizens are happy with the restricted ownership of guns. most, if not all, would also support even harsher sentencing for illegal ownership of guns.

this is the law of the land.

it is democratically supported.

i vote in national and local elections.

and i am far from uninformed.

sending armed troops onto the street to deal with rioters is the reserve of syria. the riots happened for very deeply ingrained issues, and quickly degenerated into simply looting... which is again a result of deeply ingrained issues. as soon as a sufficient police response was established the problem was extinguished, and with a minimal loss of life.

with less restricted gun ownership (and don't ignore that a lot of those currently on remand for their part in the riots were first offenders with no psychiatric issues which would preclude gun ownership), or a heavily armed response... it would've been a bloodbath.

when people cite the laws of other countries and wish to implement them in this country, i will defend my country and the laws i live under where i agree with them - and if i do not i will still respect the democratic process that has led to their implementation. i will not bitch and moan that the laws should be changed simply because it inconveniences me. and i will do this regardless of who i am arguing with.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by MD_Titus

utter tosh.

utter tosh?! First of all, was I talking to you? No. Second thing, you reckon that a citizen that doesn't vote or doesn't understand the importance and value of his vote is a responsible one?

again you ignore the salient point - the majority of UK citizens are happy with the restricted ownership of guns. most, if not all, would also support even harsher sentencing for illegal ownership of guns.

this is the law of the land.

it is democratically supported.

i vote in national and local elections.

and i am far from uninformed.

oh yes, I remember when they made a referendum on the subject, and citizen were asked whether they would be for or against the prohibiting of only certain firearms instead of re-thinking the gun policies.. oh wait, it never happened, they did choose what's better for you (and them: blame the firearms, not their ineffective laws)..

But because it never was an effective change, after years another gun massacre happened, and instead of raising the obvious question "should police officers be armed in order to face such rare but possible outbursts of violence?", they watched impotent as an armed man held a part of the country hostage of terror, because the police forces couldn't stop him for 4 hours (he started shooting at around 10am, and the police was notified by 10.20), cos even when they started following him in the car, the PCs were unharmed and had no mean of stopping him..
Try and say "sorry, but shit happens" to the families of the 13 victims. It's a bloody shambles, and there's no justification for it. Times are changing, and police should adapt their methods to a society that is getting more violent (with or without firearms).

sending armed troops onto the street to deal with rioters is the reserve of syria. the riots happened for very deeply ingrained issues, and quickly degenerated into simply looting... which is again a result of deeply ingrained issues. as soon as a sufficient police response was established the problem was extinguished, and with a minimal loss of life.

erm, no, you probably still think that Armed troops would do what the English Army did in Ireland, but that's other times..
as soon as?! 4 days?!?! The looting stopped mainly cos there was nothing left to loot, not because of the "adequate policing", let's not forget they are the one who said "we were not ready for this" (utterly insane!) and are now changing their methods and bosses.

with less restricted gun ownership (and don't ignore that a lot of those currently on remand for their part in the riots were first offenders with no psychiatric issues which would preclude gun ownership), or a heavily armed response... it would've been a bloodbath.

..seriously? And you think that you'd issue a lot of gun licenses to people that live in potentially dangerous areas, who are on welfare or have a criminal record? Besides it's a matter of armed police forces in that case: nowadays people well know the threat of an armed police officer in front of them and get contained easily. See what happens in the rest of the world when riot police gets on the roads.

Uh and since you mentioned Syria, which is a corrupt regime, I could tell you "see what happened in Lybia when citizens gets weapons: they dispose of tyrants".

Considering how soft bellied and spoiled we are nowadays, if the UK became a corrupt regime you'd just keep calm and carry on..

when people cite the laws of other countries and wish to implement them in this country, i will defend my country and the laws i live under where i agree with them - and if i do not i will still respect the democratic process that has led to their implementation. i will not bitch and moan that the laws should be changed simply because it inconveniences me. and i will do this regardless of who i am arguing with.

The UK laws do not inconvenience me at all, I am just stressing on the fact that some laws are indeed ridiculous and only offer an illusion of safety, because they address the problem in a fascist way (denying their own fault and depriving you of things).

[winny]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

oh yes, I remember when they made a referendum on the subject, and citizen were asked whether they would be for or against the prohibiting of only certain firearms instead of re-thinking the gun policies.. oh wait, it never happened, they did choose what's better for you (and them: blame the firearms, not their ineffective laws)..

Me again No, what happened is they said 'we're banning handguns' the vast Majority of the UK went 'Oh, Ok..' There was no popular movement crying out that Handguns shold't be banned, you just don't get that the majority of people in the UK just don't give a sh*t about guns.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

But because it never was an effective change, after years another gun massacre happened, and instead of raising the obvious question "should police officers be armed in order to face such rare but possible outbursts of violence?", they watched impotent as an armed man held a part of the country hostage of terror, because the police forces couldn't stop him for 4 hours (he started shooting at around 10am, and the police was notified by 10.20), cos even when they started following him in the car, the PCs were unharmed and had no mean of stopping him..
Try and say "sorry, but shit happens" to the families of the 13 victims. It's a bloody shambles, and there's no justification for it. Times are changing, and police should adapt their methods to a society that is getting more violent (with or without firearms).

This point is about arming the Police, not arming the population. You mistrust the Police and want to arm them too?! All over the place...

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

erm, no, you probably still think that Armed troops would do what the English Army did in Ireland, but that's other times..
as soon as?! 4 days?!?! The looting stopped mainly cos there was nothing left to loot, not because of the "adequate policing", let's not forget they are the one who said "we were not ready for this" (utterly insane!) and are now changing their methods and bosses.

Why on earth would you bring up bloody sunday, another cheap shot against the UK. I said it before, leave. I don't want you here, slagging us of whilst taking our money, double standards.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

..seriously? And you think that you'd issue a lot of gun licenses to people that live in potentially dangerous areas, who are on welfare or have a criminal record? Besides it's a matter of armed police forces in that case: nowadays people well know the threat of an armed police officer in front of them and get contained easily. See what happens in the rest of the world when riot police gets on the roads.

What happens is people die. Apple can afford to restock their shop. Or is money more important than life?

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

Considering how soft bellied and spoiled we are nowadays, if the UK became a corrupt regime you'd just keep calm and carry on..

Bull. Utterly wrong. (And I take it the 'we' you mean you)

Your air of superiority is palpable.

[MD_Titus]

With respect badaim, i'd disagree it's giving up a freedom for security, more surrenderibg a priviledge and a responsibility that can, in a small number of cases, be abused with horrible consequences. I doubt many would phrase narcotics prohibition with a curtailment of freedom, which could be taken as a parallel.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

utter tosh?! First of all, was I talking to you? No. Second thing, you reckon that a citizen that doesn't vote or doesn't understand the importance and value of his vote is a responsible one?


oh yes, I remember when they made a referendum on the subject, and citizen were asked whether they would be for or against the prohibiting of only certain firearms instead of re-thinking the gun policies.. oh wait, it never happened, they did choose what's better for you (and them: blame the firearms, not their ineffective laws)..

But because it never was an effective change, after years another gun massacre happened, and instead of raising the obvious question "should police officers be armed in order to face such rare but possible outbursts of violence?", they watched impotent as an armed man held a part of the country hostage of terror, because the police forces couldn't stop him for 4 hours (he started ishooting at around 10am, and the police was notified by 10.20), cos even when they started following him in the car, the PCs were unharmed and had no mean of stopping him..
Try and say "sorry, but shit happens" to the families of the 13 victims. It's a bloody shambles, and there's no justification for it. Times are changing, and police should adapt their methods to a society that is getting more violent (with or without firearms).


erm, no, you probably still think that Armed troops would do what the English Army did in Ireland, but that's other times..
as soon as?! 4 days?!?! The looting stopped mainly cos there was nothing left to loot, not because of the "adequate policing", let's not forget they are the one who said "we were not ready for this" (utterly insane!) and are now changing their methods and bosses.


..seriously? And you think that you'd issue a lot of gun licenses to people that live in potentially dangerous areas, who are on welfare or have a criminal record? Besides it's a matter of armed police forces in that case: nowadays people well know the threat of an armed police officer in front of them and get contained easily. See what happens in the rest of the world when riot police gets on the roads.

Uh and since you mentioned Syria, which is a corrupt regime, I could tell you "see what happened in Lybia when citizens gets weapons: they dispose of tyrants".

Considering how soft bellied and spoiled we are nowadays, if the UK became a corrupt regime you'd just keep calm and carry on..



The UK laws do not inconvenience me at all, I am just stressing on the fact that some laws are indeed ridiculous and only offer an illusion of safety, because they address the problem in a fascist way (denying their own fault and depriving you of things).

You quoted me, so seems you were talking to me. You also clearly implied I did not exercise my right to vote. And no, I don't think someone who either doesn't vote, or who votes without making an informed decision, is a responsible citizen. All laws obly offer an illusion of safety, it's only if people adhere to them that they are truly effective. I find your implied intention to only arm the employed and those living in "safe" areas rather disturbing though, and ironically extremely fascistic. One law for the rich much? Preventing gun ownership on economic terms would represent a horrific curtailment of the principles of equality that this country tries to live by. This delusion that the country is more dangerous and violent ignores crime statistics, or only reads them without also understanding the much improved level of reporting crime. Sounds very Daily "going to hell in a handcart" Mail.

The rioting stopped because all police leave was cancelled and they flooded the streets, not because the country had been stripped bare. Not a fast enough response, but that's not bei.g debated. Are greek and french police forces routinely armed? How about their riot handling ability?

Oh, and I find the idea of a corrupt uk government amusing when cited by an italian.