Quake3World

Nightshade wrote:Approximately 99.9% of all defensive gun uses are not fatal shootings, however -- criminals are usually frightened off, held at bay, or non-fatally wounded. Also, many defensive firearms uses occur away from home.

Nightshade wrote:but hey, I guess a firsthand account from someone I knew quite well doesn't have any sort of evidentiary weight).

Memphis wrote:

Nightshade wrote: Wow. That's a lot of assumptions in one post. Have you ever even BEEN to the US? For more than a few days?

Yet the Americans arguing that they need to carry guns for self defense. Yes i'm generalising, but i'm not contradicting.
Compared to Wales the US IS the wild sodding west. I get your point, but it applies to yourself as much as me.

Somewhere on Wikipedia wrote:Tyranny of King John
The tyranny of the Union's most ignominious monarch, King John was tarred by an inherent division between the Principality of Wales, and England. His monarchy saw dangerous factions form as well as the grave prospect of collapse of English/Welsh solidarity.

The cause of this discontent is slightly bizarre. English high society and gentry stood aghast as King John presided over a highly controversial agricultural policy. It was upon his edict that a popular Welsh assertion was legalised and therefore to an extent, legitimised. James Sperike, a member of the King's court is recorded as commenting "ye is somewhat perturbed and chagrined by the insouciant, immoral and, I hazard to say injudicious pronouncements upon the King's conscience." Indeed to this day, this Welsh postulation remains a significant problem in the Welsh valleys. This prosaic myth was that having sexual intercourse with livestock, in particular sheep, would improve their yield. Unsurprisingly, the English stood in moral outrage, and launched against their monarch's will a vast campaign against the unethical Welsh.

The wise English leaders showed great sagacity in cognizing that the most efficacious way to subjugate Welsh society was through job creation, rather then the brutal, unforgiving wholesale slaughtering of Welsh men (not women and children of course). To this end they built mines to employ the misguided Welsh man. This was based on the assumption that the less than industrious Welshman was, whilst under ground for 23 hours each day, unlikely to have the opportunity to commit such misdemeanours.

As such, through this magnanimous approach the erudite English prohibited the corrupt Welsh from their propensity towards depravity. For centuries undisturbed sheep grazed and prospered, producing fine wool and succulent lamb. Unfortunately, their peace has been broken in the last 20 years as the feasibility of mining in Wales became unpractical. Government crimes statistics have revealed a clear correlation between the rise in structurally unemployed former miners and the increase in sheep penetration incidents. The problem has become such a serious affliction that Tony Blair regularly delights his ennobled English audiences with his axiom, "I am going to get tough on sheep shagging, and tough on the causes of sheep shagging." Thus far efforts to ameliorate this dire predicament have proved relatively unsuccessful. These have included an eclectic array of policies, including such replacement job creation as paying Welshmen to lick windows clean and un-tooled cesspit cleansing. Out of desperation and in an attempt to couch itself in a democratic pretence the government has launched a major public consultation. Suggestions to http://www.labour.co.uk


Dr. Ivor Kitten, Bangkok School of Bestiality studies

Memphis wrote:

Nightshade wrote: Wow. That's a lot of assumptions in one post. Have you ever even BEEN to the US? For more than a few days?

Yet the Americans arguing that they need to carry guns for self defense. Yes i'm generalising, but i'm not contradicting.
Compared to Wales the US IS the wild sodding west. I get your point, but it applies to yourself as much as me.

losCHUNK wrote:lol, he aint welsh

and he was saying the america is the wild west... it has to be.... we have no guns ! (well not a lot anyway)

@dave

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:you Americans sure like your guns

losCHUNK wrote:you guys got age limits on guns ?

not like

for ages of 5 +

i mean like

for ages 18 - 90

A person must be at least 18 years of age to purchase a rifle or shotgun. To purchase a handgun, you must be at least 21 years of age, pursuant to federal law.

tnf wrote:NOW, ACCEPTING THAT FACT, SHOULD A PERSON CARRYING A GUN, IF THEY ARE ATTACKED, HAVE TO PROVE TO THE COURTS THAT THEY ATTEMPTED TO RETREAT FROM THEIR ATTACKER BEFORE THEY SHOT THEM?

re·treat
n.

The act or process of withdrawing from a dangerous situation
- Many jurisdictions require that a person must have at least attempted a retreat, if it was possible to do so with safety, in order for a defense of self-defense to prevail. Retreat from an attack in one's own home, however, is usually not required. retreat
vb.

Dave wrote:

losCHUNK wrote:lol, he aint welsh

and he was saying the america is the wild west... it has to be.... we have no guns ! (well not a lot anyway)

@dave

who ain't welsh? memphis? at least I know the difference between Welsh and English, unlike some brits who think America is some kind uniform shade of gray

Geebs wrote:How 'bout some maths on the "2.1 million defensive uses of guns a year" stat?

tnf quotes rates of violent crime in the US as about 600 per 100,000 population. The US population is about 300,000,000, giving us 1.8 million violent crimes a year. This gives us about 0.3 million non-violent crimes a year in which a gun is used defensively - so presumably, guns are being used as a measured, proportionate response to littering, jaywalking, public nudity, and parking in a restricted zone by US citizens 300,000 times a year. Smell a rat?

Geebs wrote:

tnf wrote:NOW, ACCEPTING THAT FACT, SHOULD A PERSON CARRYING A GUN, IF THEY ARE ATTACKED, HAVE TO PROVE TO THE COURTS THAT THEY ATTEMPTED TO RETREAT FROM THEIR ATTACKER BEFORE THEY SHOT THEM?

My point is basically that a gun is an OFFensive, not DEFensive weapon. So yeah, they should prove they used all other options before opening fire.

Memphis wrote:Indeed, i'm currently of the opinion that the general public have no right whatsoever to own a device made to kill someone when they have no good reason to.

Dave wrote:which in turn is like imagining everyone within those borders, US, UK, whatever, is the same

tnf wrote:

Geebs wrote:

tnf wrote:NOW, ACCEPTING THAT FACT, SHOULD A PERSON CARRYING A GUN, IF THEY ARE ATTACKED, HAVE TO PROVE TO THE COURTS THAT THEY ATTEMPTED TO RETREAT FROM THEIR ATTACKER BEFORE THEY SHOT THEM?

My point is basically that a gun is an OFFensive, not DEFensive weapon. So yeah, they should prove they used all other options before opening fire.

Good, so the burden is on the victim of the violent crime to justify why the acted the way they did when being attacked.

Geebs wrote:

tnf wrote:

Geebs wrote: My point is basically that a gun is an OFFensive, not DEFensive weapon. So yeah, they should prove they used all other options before opening fire.

Good, so the burden is on the victim of the violent crime to justify why the acted the way they did when being attacked.

Assuming that they're the one who is still alive, I'd guess the burden is on them to prove they were the victim.

seremtan wrote:

Memphis wrote:Indeed, i'm currently of the opinion that the general public have no right whatsoever to own a device made to kill someone when they have no good reason to.

and yet the state does have that right? this is the unspoken assumption running through this thread i can't stand, the idea that massive killing power should be concentrated in the hands of a few while we should all recoil in abject terror at the thought of joe average having a piddling little 9mm locked up in his closet. remember the recent kerfuffle in iraq, how the whole thing was a crime that slaughtered 100,000 people? and the people who did that are the one's you want to trust with firepower? fucking hell...

and more generally: am i really the only non-american in this thread who doesn't have a problem with the RKBA? i mean, come on people: the yanks lifted the 2nd amendment straight from the english bill of rights in the first place (though they dropped the bit about protestants)

losCHUNK wrote: 12 hendre farm drive
newport
gwent
np19 9py

S@M wrote:

losCHUNK wrote: 12 hendre farm drive
newport
gwent
np19 9py

What time is teh party and do you have a sauna/spa for the girls (nightshade etc).