Stabbings, shootings, beating ups etc

26 Aug 2007

What kind of world do we live in when a murderer cannot be deported because it will "infringe his human rights" rolleyes

What about the human rights of the poor fuker he's just murdered ??
Suppose they count for nowt mad

26 Aug 2007

I don't know what the answer is. All I know is that it makes me want to cry :cry: (and sometimes actually cry) whenever I turn on the news to hear that yet another child has been murdered, bullied, stabbed, beat up or abducted. I really hate this race of ours sometimes evil

26 Aug 2007

Quote by firelizard
I don't know what the answer is. All I know is that it makes me want to cry :cry: (and sometimes actually cry) whenever I turn on the news to hear that yet another child has been murdered, bullied, stabbed, beat up or abducted. I really hate this race of ours sometimes

Agree with you fire... its a scary world out there for all of us! :smile: I would hate to be growing up in todays world!

Quote by redpantherman

...
Interestingly, when we did a project about weapons with 14-18 yr olds, what came out of it was: they carried weapons for their own safety as they had a very genuine fear of being a victim of crime themselves in the community they live in!

icon_ I'm sorry I find that the biggest load o bollocks ever!!!!
Any kid will NOT be attacked one on one FACT!
What will a child with a weapon do when confronted by two three or more other kids?
Carrying weapons for defense holds no water... weapons carried are either for show or to commit an offense!
Well, we shall have to disagree on the *Bollocks* that young people come out with then lol

:lol: :lol:
I didn’t mention one on one at FACT! :smile: but I will in a minute :lol:
I didn’t say whether I agreed with what they said or not…Fact! :smile:
Yes, *some* young people do carry weapons for show or to commit an offence. We cannot put all young people in the same bracket, can we??
Yet, I do respect that they too have the same fears of being a victim of crime just as an adult does. Where are young people’s human rights when they are a victim of crime?? Same as yours or mine. Young people want to feel safe on the streets they live in as much as we as adults do.
They are *those* young people who are violent and are the perpetrators of crime and deserve to be punished in a just manner. They are young people who DO attack another one on one, I’ve witnessed it, worked with the victims and the offenders. There are some, that do hang about in gangs/groups, some on the fringes, some are the ring leaders. Better to be part of the gang than be apart from it, so say some of the ones on the fringes. They see that as a form of protection for themselves.
Yes, some members of gangs have grown up in a culture of violence etc within their own families, on the streets, within the community but not all of them. Can we still put *some* of those young people in the same bracket as those parents though?? They have no future, no hope, no-one to believe in them. Some young people will grow up in that environment and never manage to get out of the cycle! They don’t understand what respect is because they have never been shown any themselves.
They are some young people though that no matter how hard you try to help get on the straight an narrow, or make positive changes in their lives, nothing works dunno

I don’t like to see or hear of violence that’s seems to be inbred in particular communities. It seems to have been a growing trend for the last few generations. Its not all young people though is it??? Adults have to take some responsibility?
Some of the young people Ive chatted to tell me where they got some the weapons they carry!! From an ADULT!! confused

:?
I don’t know what the answers are either :smile: :smile:
xanaisx
Ps I think EU is crap an all!! :lol2: :lol2:

27 Aug 2007

Quote by Mallock2006
I also think a lot of it has to do with the fact that a lot of todays young have absolutely no respect for their elders or anyone in authority.....they really think they are untouchable.....they know they have so many rights on their side, and that it makes them almost invinceable.
They are scared of no-one....their parents (IF they care at all) teachers, police, even other adults who say anthing against them are abused and injured, they know they are above punishment.
Its a sad fact that the lunatics have well and truly taken over the asylum.
And if anyone thinks by my comments that i dont like kids, i have 4 of my own from age 4 to 14, and i am genuinely afraid for them, but torn between wrapping them in cotton wool, and letting them learn from the real world, but i guess that all part and parcel of being a responsible parent.

Doesnt all that stem from the namby pamby do gooders who say parents are not allowed to discipline children anymore and from the namby pamby EU do gooders who say this that and the other contraveins so and so's human rights ??
Jeeze... yet again I have to wholeheartedly agree with mallock.. The whole country went soft and now we suffer the results..
Untill we all take responsiblity for our own kids nothing will change..
As with mallock.. Mine just would not even dare! She's now 23 and still shows respect.. Not just to us but to everyone.. and that follows on she also respects herself as a result and makes her a nice person.
Simple solution... Take responsibility!
Mike

27 Aug 2007

All weapons are tools of death. In particular the hand held small gun is designed to be conveniently available to tip the balance in winning a disagreement. It is not the tool of reason, it is the tool of force. Anyone 'carrying' this is either intent on killng or likely to produce death through some incompetence.
The proliferation of weapons is the problem. You can have any reason in the world to employ them if you have them.

27 Aug 2007

Quote by flower411
All weapons are tools of death. In particular the hand held small gun is designed to be conveniently available to tip the balance in winning a disagreement. It is not the tool of reason, it is the tool of force. Anyone 'carrying' this is either intent on killng or likely to produce death through some incompetence.
The proliferation of weapons is the problem. You can have any reason in the world to employ them if you have them.

Control of small handguns by law affects ONLY the law abiding citizens.... Any criminal intent on killing and maiming other people will ALWAYS be able to access weapons ....that is ALWAYS !!!!
Only the innocent victims suffer when the right to defend yourself is restricted !
We know that. The spread of weaponry to the unprofessional is as a direct result of the production of them.
Innocent victims are just as likely to be killed by incompetent amateurs as professional killers. The reason for that is because of the use of weapons.

27 Aug 2007

Quote by flower411
All weapons are tools of death. In particular the hand held small gun is designed to be conveniently available to tip the balance in winning a disagreement. It is not the tool of reason, it is the tool of force. Anyone 'carrying' this is either intent on killng or likely to produce death through some incompetence.
The proliferation of weapons is the problem. You can have any reason in the world to employ them if you have them.

Control of small handguns by law affects ONLY the law abiding citizens.... Any criminal intent on killing and maiming other people will ALWAYS be able to access weapons ....that is ALWAYS !!!!
Only the innocent victims suffer when the right to defend yourself is restricted !
We know that. The spread of weaponry to the unprofessional is as a direct result of the production of them.
Innocent victims are just as likely to be killed by incompetent amateurs as professional killers. The reason for that is because of the use of weapons.
So .... We continue to allow the competent criminals to kill and maim the innocent on our streets and restrict the law abiding amateurs from defending themselves because they might hurt another innocent person !!!! :shock: :shock:
No we don't allow it, we reduce it by having less weapons.
We should take cars, busses and planes out of circulation too !!! They all injure the innocent on a daily ....probably hourly basis !!
Redundant argument, transport vehicles are designed for transport. Weapons are specific to killing , right?
No we don't allow it, we reduce it by having less weapons.

27 Aug 2007

Quote by duncanlondon
Redundant argument, transport vehicles are designed for transport. Weapons are specific to killing , right?

Wrong....
My father had both a hand gun and a rifle..
Neither one was capable of firing a live round as they were built as blank firing demonstration weapons.

27 Aug 2007

Quote by flower411
but i know of one or two people who could kill you with a kick !!

I am probably one of those ppl Flower but you don't know me.
I have taught people how to fight for over 30 years now, and in my experience it stops people from being bullies and being violent to any of their fellow human beings.
You do get the odd person who is violent that takes it up to get a (pardon the pun)kick out fighting.
But those people never last long cos there is always someone better than them.
Bullies prey on the weak not the strong.
What we need is a government that will take a strong stance against violence and hit the violent people hard.
Criminals will always manage to get weapons but we need to make it harder for any tom dick or harry to pick them up for a few quid.
Woo

27 Aug 2007

Quote by woohoo
but i know of one or two people who could kill you with a kick !!

I am probably one of those ppl Flower but you don't know me.
I have taught people how to fight for over 30 years now, and in my experience it stops people from being bullies and being violent to any of their fellow human beings.
You do get the odd person who is violent that takes it up to get a (pardon the pun)kick out fighting.
But those people never last long cos there is always someone better than them.
Bullies prey on the weak not the strong.
What we need is a government that will take a strong stance against violence and hit the violent people hard.
Criminals will always manage to get weapons but we need to make it harder for any tom dick or harry to pick them up for a few quid.
Woo
Exactly. The current 'hip' attitude to having a gun is because they are easily available. Availability has increased in the last 20 years. But more so recently.

27 Aug 2007

Quote by flower411
All weapons are tools of death. In particular the hand held small gun is designed to be conveniently available to tip the balance in winning a disagreement. It is not the tool of reason, it is the tool of force. Anyone 'carrying' this is either intent on killng or likely to produce death through some incompetence.
The proliferation of weapons is the problem. You can have any reason in the world to employ them if you have them.

Control of small handguns by law affects ONLY the law abiding citizens.... Any criminal intent on killing and maiming other people will ALWAYS be able to access weapons ....that is ALWAYS !!!!
Only the innocent victims suffer when the right to defend yourself is restricted !
We know that. The spread of weaponry to the unprofessional is as a direct result of the production of them.
Innocent victims are just as likely to be killed by incompetent amateurs as professional killers. The reason for that is because of the use of weapons.
So .... We continue to allow the competent criminals to kill and maim the innocent on our streets and restrict the law abiding amateurs from defending themselves because they might hurt another innocent person !!!! :shock: :shock:
No we don't allow it, we reduce it by having less weapons.
We should take cars, busses and planes out of circulation too !!! They all injure the innocent on a daily ....probably hourly basis !!
Redundant argument, transport vehicles are designed for transport. Weapons are specific to killing , right?
No we don't allow it, we reduce it by having less weapons.
Guns are for killing ...
If they are not being made legally they will be made illegally ... I have no idea where your argument is going !!
We should have the right to defend ourselves from attack. That right has been removed from this country and we are suffering the consequences. The criminal Knows that he/she can do as they please without fear of retribution...
Your answer appears to be to stop the manufacture of guns !!! :shock:
I assume knives are on your list too !!
What are we going to do about rocks and bricks ??? crush them up so people can`t use them as weapons ??
And as cars are not designed for killing ..... that makes it ok ..how ??? rolleyes

Yes my main point is that manufactureres should be held accountable for their products. Otherwise they will continue to mass produce weapons and the surplus will inevitably end up in the wrong hands.
Once they have becomne embedded into a society, they become harder to control. Allowing weapons to spread to those who we would normally consider to be unsuitable is irresponsible.

27 Aug 2007

Quote by flower411

Of course anything can be turned into a weapon. Equally the non criminal who 'innocently' wishes to defend themselves, also has an equivalent responsibility. Both sides are contributing to the availablity of weapons.
Most of us should not need to escalate the culture of weapons, because thankfully we have lived in a socirty which has been able to thrive without an advanced weapons culture.
This is something worth retaining and not giving up so readily.

27 Aug 2007

Quote by flower411

Of course anything can be turned into a weapon. Equally the non criminal who 'innocently' wishes to defend themselves, also has an equivalent responsibility. Both sides are contributing to the availablity of weapons.
Most of us should not need to escalate the culture of weapons, because thankfully we have lived in a socirty which has been able to thrive without an advanced weapons culture.
This is something worth retaining and not giving up so readily.
Hang on !!! You said that manufacturers should be held responsible !!!
Where does that leave us with knives and cars and bricks etc .. you`ve lost me !!
I have already agreed that anything has the potential to be used as a weapon. The difference between a rudimentary weapon and an advanced weapon is now becoming painfully apparent to us all.
Hand guns are specifically designed for discreet killings and are therefore ideal for criminal activities.
Manufacturers should have more stricter controls over their produce. For various reasons they are ending up in the wrong hands.
Less weapons means less death by them. Or is that not understandable?

27 Aug 2007

Quote by duncanlondon
Less weapons means less death by them. Or is that not understandable?

So dont blame the manufacturers...............Blame the legislation that allows them to be produced and sold..

27 Aug 2007

Quote by Mallock2006

Less weapons means less death by them. Or is that not understandable?

So dont blame the manufacturers...............Blame the legislation that allows them to be produced and sold..
Especially to under 18's!! Makes me so cross when i hear of it!
Oh Mallockkkkkkk
Gis a snog kiss

28 Aug 2007

Quote by Mallock2006

Less weapons means less death by them. Or is that not understandable?

So dont blame the manufacturers...............Blame the legislation that allows them to be produced and sold..
Of course, the whole kit and caboodle.

28 Aug 2007

Quote by duncanlondon

Of course anything can be turned into a weapon. Equally the non criminal who 'innocently' wishes to defend themselves, also has an equivalent responsibility. Both sides are contributing to the availablity of weapons.
Most of us should not need to escalate the culture of weapons, because thankfully we have lived in a socirty which has been able to thrive without an advanced weapons culture.
This is something worth retaining and not giving up so readily.
Hang on !!! You said that manufacturers should be held responsible !!!
Where does that leave us with knives and cars and bricks etc .. you`ve lost me !!
I have already agreed that anything has the potential to be used as a weapon. The difference between a rudimentary weapon and an advanced weapon is now becoming painfully apparent to us all.
Hand guns are specifically designed for discreet killings and are therefore ideal for criminal activities.
Manufacturers should have more stricter controls over their produce. For various reasons they are ending up in the wrong hands.
Less weapons means less death by them. Or is that not understandable?
British arms dealer and manufacturers have a very high degree of control placed on them. Illegal weapons on the street have increased since the banning of side arms, pistols in Britain. Criminals always had to turn to stolen or foreign weapons, they still do.
In Switzerland every man has an assault riffle, yet violent crime is far lower.

28 Aug 2007

Quote by flower411
Control of small handguns by law affects ONLY the law abiding citizens.... Any criminal intent on killing and maiming other people will ALWAYS be able to access weapons ....that is ALWAYS !!!!
Only the innocent victims suffer when the right to defend yourself is restricted !

Gun ownership doesn't give you any protection; that's just a fanatasy. The chance of bumping into a burglar is tiny. The chance of being able to access a safely stored firearm before bumping into the burglar is minute. If you look at US statistics, the chance of accidently shooting a member of your own family is a lot higher than the chance of facing down a burglar. If you want to reduce the chance of being burgled there are plenty of effective steps you can take, like fitting decent locks, making an alarm system visible, fitting external lights, creating sight lines onto the house's entrances.
If you want a gun, go and get one - they are not illegal. You can get yourself some very nice and effective shotguns and rifles legally in the UK.
Just remember that gun ownership for self-defence against burglars is a myth - US figures show the victim of a burglary is more likely to die if both they and the burglar have a gun then if just the burglar has a gun.
And as for guns vs knives and bottles ect. You have a fighting chance of scarpering from a knife. Out running a bullet or 6, on the other hand, is not likely.
Some criminals will use what ever weapon they can get there hands on, the more legal guns people have the more likely a yank style school killing, and there would be more illegal guns on the streets than there is now. (like a cold war arms race)

28 Aug 2007

SADLY A 21 YEAR OLD WAS STABBED TO DEATH IN MY LOCAL TOWN WELLINGBOROUGH AT WEEKEND AND WOT FOR DEFENDING A DEAF AND DUMB LAD BEING ABUSED BY GROUP OF MEN IN MY EYES ITS SIMPLE AN EYE FOR AN EYE YOU TAKE A LIFE YOU LOOSE YOUR LIFE INTRODUCE RANDOM SEARCHS IN TOWN CENTRES ANYBADY CAUGHT CARYING GUN OR KNIFE INSTANT THREE MONTHS PRISON AND I MEAN PRISON NOT HOLIDAY CAMPS OF TODAY AND PUT ALL DO GOODERS IN THERE TWO BRING BACK PUNISHMENT FOR CRIMES OR THERE IS NO DETERANT
THIS IS MY POINT OF VIEW A LAW ABBIDING HARD WORKING ENGLISHMAN DESSPERATLEY SAVING TO LEAVE THIS COUNTRY

29 Aug 2007

The reason we have problems in this country at school is that parents have failed to discipline their children.
They leave school without discipline because teachers are no longer aloud to discipline children in their care.
The police start by giving out warnings, sometimes they work, but now it is a warning for each new class of offence. Not just one warning as it used to be.
When someone does get to court, the first offence is unlikely to mean prison, even if they have had ten warnings. When they get to prison they get early release. NOW here is where we can make a difference. Instead of releasing prisoners early because we have no room for them; select the persistent offenders, those who will never stop stealing, smashing up the local bus stop and hang them.
This makes more room for those that prison may help, and removes a burden on the tax payer.

29 Aug 2007

Quote by
They leave school without discipline because teachers are no longer aloud to discipline children in their care.

Yes they are:

Scroll down to the 'Behaviour problems' section.
Earlier this year, it was in the media that teachers have now been given back certain means of 'power' (for want of a better word) to discipline.

29 Aug 2007

Quote by Freckledbird

They leave school without discipline because teachers are no longer aloud to discipline children in their care.

Yes they are:

Scroll down to the 'Behaviour problems' section.
Earlier this year, it was in the media that teachers have now been given back certain means of 'power' (for want of a better word) to discipline.
Oh, good, but it is still going to take a few years to take effect in society.
Thank you for the information.

29 Aug 2007

jonnycum lately to the thread, cos i've been partying at Manchester Pride all weekend ((( thanks guys! smile

))) but . . . just for a bit of perspective on the whole thing . . . .
recently, there have been a spate of stories involving horrendous murders, and shootings. they have all taken place roughly within the same time-frame, involving gangs / out of control youths / etc / etc / yadda yadda ya. it gives the appearance that the whole gun-crime thing is spiralling out of control. that is the message we are meant to take from media coverage of, and politically motivated comment on, recent events. the truth however is somewhat different from the spin.
the government has recently been accused of doing nothing about, and even covering up a huge increase in gun crime by the Tories / media. if you exclude gun crime involving fake / pellet / air guns however, shootings involving real guns and real bullets are down on last year, and down on comparable stats from ten years ago. i'd google you the stats and post the links meself, cos they're easy to find, but i'm cooking me tea, and don't have the time at the minute.
i can tell you, from my own experience, that shootings in places like Chapeltown in Leeds rarely make much more than the local rag, particularly where they are black on black, in drug-ravaged areas, or seemingly gang related. i can guarantee you though that if there's a shooting there this weekend, it will be front page news nationally, cos it's 'on message' with the current media spin.
neil x x x ;)

29 Aug 2007

Quote by Rosie_n_Jim
Anti gunners frequently hold up the US as a den of iniquity quoting all sorts of figures. But the bottom line is the highest gun death rates are in locations where legal firearms are hardest to get - New York etc., but States like Montana where the per capita ownership of guns is the highest have the lowest gun crime figures. You explain it....

Montana and New York? they have very different socio-ecomic structures, with a very different, rather less stratified, socio-economic mix, with very different well-established ethnic communities? confused

one would be driven by unfettered Capitalist Economics in it's purest, most dynamic form, the other would be founded rather more traditionally in the mould of agricultural, relatively static, relatively co-dependent, relatively single-economy small-town communities? :? all the drug gangs are in New York, not Montana? :?

Quote by Rosie_n_Jim

Hand guns are specifically designed for discreet killings and are therefore ideal for criminal activities.

A fairly typical mantra from the "Banned it" brigade showing little knowledge of firearm use.
A handgun is a defensive not offensive weapon. The fact that it can be easily concealed and used offensively is moot and thus brings it in line with the knife, baseball bat, sharp pointy object scenario.
sorry! i'll hate myself in the morning for this, but absolute rubbish! sorry, i'll say sorry again, but that was complete bollox, and you know it! ;) lol

a baseball bat is designed to hit baseballs. :? a knife is designed to cut things. double edged sword that one i know? :? sharp pointy objects are designed to do jobs where sharp pointy objects might come in handy? :? a gun is designed to kill people stone dead. :!: a gun embodies ultimate, deadly force. it renders all other incidental uses redundant. a gun will always trump a baseball bat ((( 'less it ain't loaded, or you forget to remove the safety, or whatever else? :P ))) because it is explicitly designed to kill.
a baseball bat designed to hit home runs, that has a secondary use as a murder weapon, is not comparable with something that is primarily designed to be a murder weapon, even where the primary intent of that design is it's potential secondary use as a deterrent, in the hope that it is never, ever used? :? it's not the same thing at all!
you are conflating two seperate positions / design ideas, as though they are mutually exclusive? you are in effect, trying to basket-weave a vaguely human form from a handful of dried grasses! :P ;)
neil x x x ;)

29 Aug 2007

Be honest, how many of you vote in every election? local and national?

29 Aug 2007

Quote by Cnrcouple
Be honest, how many of you vote in every election? local and national?

Does that have a bearing on the subject dunno

If anyone can see it please point it out :lol2:

30 Aug 2007

Quote by Rosie_n_Jim

Hand guns are specifically designed for discreet killings and are therefore ideal for criminal activities.

A fairly typical mantra from the "Banned it" brigade showing little knowledge of firearm use.
A handgun is a defensive not offensive weapon. The fact that it can be easily concealed and used offensively is moot and thus brings it in line with the knife, baseball bat, sharp pointy object scenario.
Blair and cronies prohibited pistols post Dunblane and it has done nothing to reduce their illegal use & ownership - as was pointed out to the Government at the time. In fact yesterday it was announced that the illegal use or firearms has gone up by 26% in the last year.
In the US States which have Concealed Carry permits (the vast majority of States I hasten to add) have seen a rapid decline in firearms offences against the civilian population - whilst the gang bangers continue to blow each other away but with more care of involving someone who just might be able to shoot back and with a lot more accuracy.
Anti gunners frequently hold up the US as a den of iniquity quoting all sorts of figures. But the bottom line is the highest gun death rates are in locations where legal firearms are hardest to get - New York etc., but States like Montana where the per capita ownership of guns is the highest have the lowest gun crime figures. You explain it....
And ban their manufacture? next stop caves and animal skins (but watch out for the clubs)
I have used an SLR and hand pistol in the cadets, a 12 bore shot gun, and now occasionally use a .22 air rifle. It hardly counts as a lot of firearms usage. The limited use and training I had was disciplined, and conducted in an appropriate manner.
There are several arguments running through this thread, statistics have been passed about etc. We have theories about behaviour, society etc. All very academic.
The escalation of violence is directly as a result of the increasing availability of firearms. Many of these are new, fully functioning manufactured weapons.
probably from China and the old Iron Curtain countries.
It seems fairly logical that the world should accept that the weapons are being overproduced and ending up illegally in the wrong hands. That some kind of control needs to be applied.

30 Aug 2007

Quote by duncanlondon
The escalation of violence is directly as a result of the increasing availability of firearms. countries.

So who's to blame for the high increase in knife orientated violence dunno

Sheffield I suppose rolleyes

30 Aug 2007

Quote by Rosie_n_Jim

Hand guns are specifically designed for discreet killings and are therefore ideal for criminal activities.

A fairly typical mantra from the "Banned it" brigade showing little knowledge of firearm use.
A handgun is a defensive not offensive weapon. The fact that it can be easily concealed and used offensively is moot and thus brings it in line with the knife, baseball bat, sharp pointy object scenario.
Blair and cronies prohibited pistols post Dunblane and it has done nothing to reduce their illegal use & ownership - as was pointed out to the Government at the time. In fact yesterday it was announced that the illegal use or firearms has gone up by 26% in the last year.
In the US States which have Concealed Carry permits (the vast majority of States I hasten to add) have seen a rapid decline in firearms offences against the civilian population - whilst the gang bangers continue to blow each other away but with more care of involving someone who just might be able to shoot back and with a lot more accuracy.
Anti gunners frequently hold up the US as a den of iniquity quoting all sorts of figures. But the bottom line is the highest gun death rates are in locations where legal firearms are hardest to get - New York etc., but States like Montana where the per capita ownership of guns is the highest have the lowest gun crime figures. You explain it....
And ban their manufacture? next stop caves and animal skins (but watch out for the clubs)
In Texas one of the few places that concealed guns are not permitted are schools are colleges. Where do folk go on kill sprees? Schools!
However it is in the mind of the each of use that killing happens. If someone wishes to kill they will find a weapon.

30 Aug 2007

Quote by Mallock2006

The escalation of violence is directly as a result of the increasing availability of firearms. countries.

So who's to blame for the high increase in knife orientated violence dunno

Sheffield I suppose rolleyes

Sabatier maybe? Or do we blame the celebrity tv chefs for wielding knives in front of us on a daily basis?
eg I fancied doing a Delia one night but instead went and knifed a pensioner etc.