water cannon

[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.

[winny]

Some numbers. Which contradict SJ's Switerland theory - Taken from a UN crime study (2004). Country, followed by number of people murdered by firearms in a year.

# 1 South Africa: 31,918
# 2 Colombia: 21,898
# 3 Thailand: 20,032
# 4 United States: 9,369
# 5 Philippines: 7,708
# 6 Mexico: 2,606
# 7 Slovakia: 2,356
# 8 El Salvador: 1,441
# 9 Zimbabwe: 598
# 10 Peru: 442
# 11 Germany: 269
# 12 Czech Republic: 181
# 13 Ukraine: 173
# 14 Canada: 144
# 15 Albania: 135
# 16 Costa Rica: 131
# 17 Azerbaijan: 120
# 18 Poland: 111
# 19 Uruguay: 109
# 20 Spain: 97
# 21 Portugal: 90
# 22 Croatia: 76
# 23 Switzerland: 68
# 24 Bulgaria: 63
# 25 Australia: 59
# 26 Sweden: 58
# 27 Bolivia: 52
# 28 Japan: 47
# 29 Slovenia: 39
= 30 Hungary: 38
= 30 Belarus: 38
# 32 Latvia: 28
# 33 Burma: 27
# 34 Macedonia: 26
# 35 Austria: 25
# 36 Estonia: 21
# 37 Moldova: 20
# 38 Lithuania: 16
= 39 United Kingdom: 14
= 39 Denmark: 14
# 41 Ireland: 12
# 42 New Zealand: 10
# 43 Chile: 9
# 44 Cyprus: 4
# 45 Morocco: 1
= 46 Iceland: 0
= 46 Luxembourg: 0
= 46 Oman: 0

What exactly is the UK doing so wrong? If UK gun control is there to protect the population, then it appears to be working quite well.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by 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.

Technically it is. Holland must have got it awfully wrong otherwise. The day they'll manage to tax drugs, you'd be able to get em from your corner shop, just like booze and cigarettes.

[quote]
You quoted me, so seems you were talking to me. You also clearly implied I did not exercise my right to vote.
[quote]
No, it's Winny that doesn't vote, not you.

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.

Fascist? Seriously? If you obey the law and conduct a respectable life, why should you be considered a fascist if you want to defend what you have? We all have a potential, it's all about what we can do with it. Some people are successful, some aren't, but some important choices are the key to our life achievements. I know plenty of respectable workers who live in difficult areas and they would have the same rights to bear arms like any other in my ideal society.

I think it really depends in the area you live man. I don't perceive my neck of the woods as an utterly safe one, I had a conversation with a police constable not so long ago on our local square, he said "yes, unfortunately this is not a safe area and we can't guarantee 100% cover". The introduction of CCTV systems for many was the solution, cos nobody with a sane brain would ever commit a crime and get recorded. Truth is that even that system (which is not pro-active anyway, but just a way to gather evidence), will do little as a deterrent for many (see what happened with the riots).

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?

it's still not acceptable for a country and a city under constant terrorist threat (don't forget we're involved in war against a terrorist organisation). Again, many many people were dramatically affected by the riots, it wasn't just a case of shops being looted: people have lost their houses and belongings, some died, it's no light matter that can be dismissed like that.

As for the Greek and French, they're different cases altogether. What happened in Greece was a political issue, not a case of scumbags who realise that they can go and steal cos the police is doing nothing to stop them.
What happened in France is the result of a deep unresolved racial issue.

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

I never said that the UK government is corrupt, it surely isn't more than the average countries, and that's what I like about it, there are some cases, but it's petty stuff compared to other countries.

Italy's government is a bloody shambles, that goes without saying, and it's one of the reasons why I don't miss living in my country of origin that much.