[Archived] Hang Em High

[Steve Moss]

Decision for themselves ...just like Boston residents ordered to stay in their own homes while the police ran amok ?

I prefer to live in a society that doesn't live in fear of its own gun-toting police force, but that's up to you.

Jim, the police lack the power to "order" residents to stay inside on a city wide basis. They do have the power to suggest, ask or request residents to stay inside. Specifically "Police were asking people to stay inside, lock their doors and not admit anyone but properly identified police." http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-04-19/news/sns-rt-us-usa-explosions-watertownbre93i0jw-20130419_1_boston-marathon-suspects-police-vehicles

And considering the Tsarnaev brothers were tossing explosives about, I think it was fairly solid advice. Advice I would have taken if I had been present in Boston.

And I don't think the residents of Boston were in fear of their "gun-toting police force", but rather the Islamist extremist immigrants who took advantage of our welfare and education systems and then decided that God wanted them to murder innocent people, including children. Enough of these incidents have occured that I believe that we should be paying extra special attention to those immigrants of Muslim beliefs before allowing them residency (or even entry) into the USA.

[LeChuck]

Are you for legalising all drugs in that case? Abortion? Gay marriage?

Not playing ball with that one Steve?

I'm genuinely interested. If your pro-gun ownership stance is because of a "each individual gets to make that decision for themselves" philosophy, then at least I'll be fully able to understand your reasoning (because at the moment I don't get it).

However, for that to be case it has to apply to all walks of life, not just some. Reading my post again it came across as quite rhetorical, but it is a straight up question.

[Steve Moss]

Not playing ball with that one Steve?

I'm genuinely interested. If your pro-gun ownership stance is because of a "each individual gets to make that decision for themselves" philosophy, then at least I'll be fully able to understand your reasoning (because at the moment I don't get it).

However, for that to be case it has to apply to all walks of life, not just some. Reading my post again it came across as quite rhetorical, but it is a straight up question.

Sorry, missed it.

I'm in favor of legalizing drugs and taxing any transactions. Monies raised should be used to establish pervasive education programs as to the dangers of drug use, in addition to rehabilitation programs.

I also believe employers have an absolute right to drug test employees and fire them on the spot if they test postive for controlled substance use.

Societal benefits would include reversing the police state mentality the war on drugs has created and would save billions in law enforcement and incarceration costs. Not to mention we would be treating our citizens as adults while at the same time breaking the backs of the barbaric drug cartels which are tearing Mexico and South America apart.

I've already answered the gay marriage question. I'm in favor so long as people of faith are not required to perform the ceremony.

As to abortion, I'm pro-life. I believe the child is a human being in the womb and its life should be terminated only in desperate circumstances (such as to save the life of the mother). I believe when people engage in sexual relations a foreseable consequence is a pregnancy so I have little sympathy for those who claim they'd be unduly burdened by caring to term. They made a choice and choice implies consequence.

[LeChuck]

Thanks. Not sure I agree 100% with the drug policy, but it's a million times better than what we have now. Not sure any political party will ever be brave enough to make such a change though. I'm certainly in favour of legalisation and control/taxation.

To my mind the pro-life argument does conflict with the.gun ownership. If preserving life is a priority then surely guns go against this?

But that's just me musing, don't feel you need to answer that because I've read your views in depth before, I'm sure you'd just be repeating things...as would I if I decided to reply.

[jim mk2]

Jim, And I don't think the residents of Boston were in fear of their "gun-toting police force",

Really ? According to that article "residents watched out of their windows in terror as explosions and gunshots rocked the normally sleepy town".

Two men on the run while the local police force unleashes an arsenal of gunfire and explosves. Good to know the wild west mentally is alive and well. I like visiting but I'm glad I don't live in your country.

[DE.]

As to abortion, I'm pro-life. I believe the child is a human being in the womb and its life should be terminated only in desperate circumstances (such as to save the life of the mother). I believe when people engage in sexual relations a foreseable consequence is a pregnancy so I have little sympathy for those who claim they'd be unduly burdened by caring to term. They made a choice and choice implies consequence.

Out of curiosity, what about if the woman was raped? Technically her life isn't in danger but do you think she should be required to carry the offspring of her rapist?

[Steve Moss]

To my mind the pro-life argument does conflict with the.gun ownership. If preserving life is a priority then surely guns go against this?

Not at all. My right to carry a weapon arises out of my right of self defense.

Really ? According to that article "residents watched out of their windows in terror as explosions and gunshots rocked the normally sleepy town".

Two men on the run while the local police force unleashes an arsenal of gunfire and explosves. Good to know the wild west mentally is alive and well. I like visiting but I'm glad I don't live in your country.

Are you intentionally missing the point? It was not the police using explosives but the two terrorists.

Out of curiosity, what about if the woman was raped? Technically her life isn't in danger but do you think she should be required to carry the offspring of her rapist?

This is a tough one, as the child is an innocent. But then again so is the victim. I don't think any rape victim should be further tramautized by compelling her to bear her attacker's child.

[ABBEY]

Said it before and will say it again.. Anyone carrying a gun as joe public is doing because its a penis extension .

I've no sympathy for anyone who gets killed if they carry a gun .

[gumboots]

Having a close friend who is still traumatised by being caught up in one of your many college shooting incidents, 5 years or so after it happened, I personally can't understand anyone being against much tighter laws on owning and carrying guns

[jim mk2]

Neither does any rational or sane person but then you are dealing with the US right here and sanity does not come into it.

[Mike E]

Neither does any rational or sane person but then you are dealing with the US right here and sanity does not come into it.

While there are differences, do you object to air gun ownership? Not as inherently dangerous as propelling bullets but easy to maim/kill nonetheless. And we can legally own those without challenge over the age of 17.

[gumboots]

Personally yes. Why do people feel the need to go around shooting people or even things? I understand shooting at target for sport, just like I understand darts - it's about accuracy and steady hands and holding your nerve, but guns take things to a different level

[Steve Moss]

Having a close friend who is still traumatised by being caught up in one of your many college shooting incidents, 5 years or so after it happened, I personally can't understand anyone being against much tighter laws on owning and carrying guns

Three reasons:

1. Because the only people who would be disarmed as a result of banning guns would be the law abiding citizens. The drug dealers, gangbangers, bank robbers, psychos and the like won't turn their guns in. And in nation where there are 300 million plus guns in private ownership, it would take a century or more to get guns off the street in a similar fashion to the UK.

2. I'm skeptical of the assertion that the gun bans have actually made the UK safer. For example, has anyone managed to confirm or deny that a homicide in the UK is only characterized as that if a conviction results as compared to the USA which characterizes a homicide as any death, even if not adjudicated, which was not of natural causes?

3. I'm not a peasant. It I want to carry a weapon, I have a right to do so as a freeman (as an aside I don't normally carry one on my person, but I do have them in my home, office and car). The fact that other more "civilized" nations have surrendered their rights (or hand them surrendered for them) is no reason to follow suit.

[gumboots]

I guess this is just something that's such a cultural difference we'll never see eye to eye on it. Guns aren't and haven't been a part of ordinary people's lives over here at any time most of us can remember. We live among farmers and countryfolk who use guns for shooting rabbits etc on their property but thye have to keep them securely and certainly can't go around carrying them in towns and cities across Britain, and I think life is much better that way. Shootings still shock most of us and we don't want to give anyone else the chance to do it. Personally I'm not sure I could ever shoot in self defence even - killing someone just seems an unbelievable thing to choose to do.

[jim mk2]

Drug dealers, gangbangers (que?), bank robbers and the like generally kill each other. "Law abiding citizens" in this country do not feel the need or want to own guns.

I feel sorry for you.

[Guest Norbert]

Gangbangers means something different in America Jim. I think it means violent gang members who go round dealing drugs, shooting each other etc., and not what we think.

[Tom]

Sickening attack in London tonight

Looks like the police took swift action against the scumbag attackers

[LeChuck]

Sounds like they were asking for pictures and cameras to publicise their cause.

So what do we do? Plaster it all over the headlines. Whilst we make martyrs of these people it'll continue to happen.

[jim mk2]

It's headline news - you can't ignore it. This isn't China.

[T4E]

He's right - they want publicity and they're getting it.

[DE.]

I see a lot of calls to deport them.

However, seeing as they're British and from London I'm not sure where they're going to be deported to. Tottenham?

[adopted scouser]

I see a lot of calls to deport them.

However, seeing as they're British and from London I'm not sure where they're going to be deported to. Tottenham?

You're confusing deportation with repatriation. Yes, deport idiots like these to a country that supports their beliefs, a sh1tthole 100 years behind the rest of the world

[broadsword]

OK, this made my blood boil. Medieval @#/?.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KtJKNgO_ys&feature=youtu.be

[LeChuck]

It's headline news - you can't ignore it. This isn't China.

I didn't mean ignore it. But look at the BBC page. Larger than normal headline with rotating pictures. Underneath a link to 4 related videos and on the right hand side a link to a live text update.

It's a horrific attack so I don't want to it to sound like I'm making light of it, but there is a single victim. There are plenty of incidents that have one victim every week but they don't get this kind of coverage.

I don't anticipate it'll ever stop, it just struck me as slightly bizarre that the media are reporting his requests for publicity immediately following the attack whilst giving him exactly what he was asking for.

[gumboots]

Shocking and horrendous video,but today I was bought presents by some of the loveliest kids you could wish to meet. We shared food together,laughed and cried together and every one of them was a Muslim. We need to be very careful that we don't make the mistake of tarring them all with the same brush or well drive more and more of them into the arms of those who behave like that lot. Keeping open communications, learning about the things we have in common rather than our differences and learning that one another's ways are not always wrong, just different is the only way forward.