[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Are you actually reading my posts or are you just banging your head against the keyboard and coming up with stuff like the infinite monkeys chained to typewriters?[/quote]
Yes I am reading your posts. In fact I just had to go back through your posts to dig up the quote of you that is in this post.
[quote]
Sifu wrote:
My point is this. Here in the US glassing is rare, even in bad areas. I have been in some seedy places in Detroit where one had to be on guard for just about anything, but even then I never had to be too concerned about getting glassed.
If you look at those news stories on glassing from Britain those attacks are happening everywhere not just in seedy places. ie This attack happened in Mayfair of all places!
http://www.news.com.au/...5001021,00.html
I take it you haven’t spent much time in London. Mayfair has some extremely seedy bars. [/quote]
It has been a few years since I lived there. So I’ve consulted a higher authority, my Mum and Dad who both worked in Mayfair. Mum says it is very posh, Dad agrees but says it could get seedy especially around Soho. Perhaps it being the most expensive property on the Monopoly board has affected my view, but it certainly isn’t as bad as Detroit.
[quote]
I am aware that glassing is more common in the UK than in the states. Headbutting also seems to be a more British way of starting a fight than in other parts of the world. [/quote]
I am very aware of headbutting. That is why I don’t let someone I am having a confrontation with get up in my face for a stare down without at least pushing them back. If someone has something to say they can say it at arms length.
[quote]
There is a simple reason why these kinds of attacks do not happen in the US with anywhere near the kind of frequency that they happen in Britain or Australia. It is because here in the US people know better.
What I mean by that is they know that to do something so vicious to another person is extremely provocative. It is so provocative that the victim or people with the victim could become homicidal and want to kill you. With the availability of guns here getting killed could be an immediate result of glassing someone.
That is why you are much less likely to see a glassing in a sleazy dive in Detroit than you are to see a glassing in a posh bar in the ritzy Mayfair section of London. In Detroit you would be lucky to make it out of the parking lot alive.
So you agree with my point that in the US, people see a gun as the way to resolve a situation whereas in the rest of the world they are more likely to fight to settle their differences but not as likely to rely on a gun.
Additionally in the US if you were to get arrested for such an assault you would do a good number of years in jail. Because Americans believe in consequences for ones actions. The British on the other hand do not like to see bad people suffer bad consequences for their bad behavior.
utter unsubstantiated rubbish. Common or agrevated assault is a crime that can be punished with a serious term in prison. [/quote]
There is a huge difference between “can be” and is. The jail sentences that are given to violent criminals in Britain are a joke and a national disgrace.
First off everyone gets an automatic half time sentence reduction. So if a man murders someone and gets 3 years that means he will only serve 18 months. But here is some substantiation.
A drunken yob who killed a man by pushing him off a bus has been jailed for just 27 months.
Gary Robson admitted the manslaughter of former soldier Stan Dixon, 60, who had ticked him off for swearing.
The judge in his case told Newcastle Crown Court the sentence he had to give was governed by rules ‘laid down by higher courts’.
To add insult to injury, under current rules the 23-year-old is likely to serve only half his time and should be out by next August at the latest.
Judge David Hodson said such cases were among the most difficult any court has to deal with.
He said: 'I hope it can be clearly understood that the sentence this court will pass is not and can never ever be a valuation of the life that has been lost.
'I hope it can be understood the court has to proceed in accordance with sentencing principles and authorities laid down by the higher courts.
‘The court must have in mind the unlawful act was done without any intention to kill or cause really serious harm.’
With a jubilant thumbs up, a 14-year-old criminal gives his verdict on British knife-crime justice.
The boy struck the defiant pose as he walked free from court despite having stabbed a schoolboy, leaving him with life-threatening injuries.
In an unprovoked attack, he had plunged an 11in blade into the 16-year-old’s back, rupturing the boy’s windpipe and lung.
As doctors desperately fought to save the victim’s life, his heart stopped three times.
Despite being found guilty of malicious wounding, the attacker was let off with a paltry 12-month supervision order.
Incredibly, magistrates also removed the boy’s curfew imposed while on bail - so that he could attend evening football practice.
And rather than make an example of the thug, the bench refused to let the media identify him.
Last night, the mother of the victim - who was stabbed near his home in Crawley, West Sussex, in March - expressed her ‘utter disgust’ at the sentence.
‘This gives anyone the right to go around and stab someone, knowing they will get off with a slap on the wrist,’ she said.
'My son died on the way to hospital and it was only the quick thinking of the medics that saved him.
During the trial at Lewes Crown Court, East Sussex, the attacker, who was 13 at the time of the stabbing, refused to admit his guilt.
Instead he chose to laugh and smirk as he sat in the dock.
When he was sentenced at Crawley youth court, magistrates said he would not need to pay any legal costs because his family has no money and he would not have to pay any compensation.
His victim, now 17, said: ‘I was so lucky to survive, I’m just so grateful to the doctors and paramedics. It took five minutes for them to reach me - I’d have died otherwise.’
He added: ‘This boy can go to football training and have an active life, while the damage done to my lungs has meant that I’ve been unable to ride my bike or take part in the sports I want to play. It doesn’t seem fair.’
A drunken thug threw sulphuric acid into the face of a good Samaritan who stepped in to break up a fight.
Courtney Bunce, 18, hurled the caustic liquid at Stephen Kerslake after he went to help a man who was being attacked by a mob.
Mr Kerslake, 19, was left with horrific burns and doctors said it was only his contact lenses that prevented him from being blinded.
A yob who left a 15-year-old boy scarred for life after he battered him to the ground with a single punch has been sentenced to one year’s detention.
Danny Hawkins, 16, boasted about how ‘hard’ he was on the social network site Bebo before attacking Jordan Hawkins at a party.
[quote]
In the UK and the US there are some judges that hand out sentences that do not seem to match the crime. This is a problem that both countries have. [/quote]
In the US local judges are elected. So people can get rid of a bad judge. In Britain the automatic sentence reduction means that even if a judge does hand down a lengthy sentence the criminal is only going to serve half his sentence.
[quote]
The widespread availability of firearms in America that so many Brits decry puts a limit on the types of violence that occur in the US and America enjoys much lower rates of certain types of violent crime than the US or Australia.
It puts a limit on it until someone accidentally shoots someone else, shoots themselves because they are depressed or has their child shoot themselves or a sibling. [/quote]
You ask if I read your posts but with this one I am wondering if you read your posts. With this paragraph you are desperately clutching at straws while trying to appeal to emotion instead of logic. This might work with idiots but we aren’t idiots here.
Accidents will happen. But if we followed your logic we shouldn’t be allowed to drive cars, fly in planes, ride bikes, sail in ships, run, skip, jump or engage in any other activity where we could have an accident.
There are ways to minimize risks. The most important one is training. Children can be taught safe firearm practices at a fairly young age and you can always lock your guns away if you need to.
Again you have made a ridiculous reference to suicide. It is immoral to subordinate the self defensive needs of people who care about their lives to people who don’t give a damn about their own lives. Yet you keep bringing up this retarded non issue.
Causing people who want to live to be defenseless in order to force suicidal people to find another way to kill themselves is absolutely retarded. Since there is nothing to stop a suicidal person from using rope to hang themselves, or a handful of pills and a fifth of whiskey, or a hibachi grill in a car or any other way of committing suicide this part of your rhetoric makes no sense what so ever.
Yet you and your compatriots keep using this most irrational of arguments then wonder why people don’t want to listen to your twisted illogical reasoning.
[quote]
The figures below do not equate to much lower rates of violent crime. They relate to similar or in some cases higher rates of violent crime. There are also discrepancies caused by the way that different countries report crime. [/quote]
The incidence of Rape in Australia is the third highest in the world. Yet Australians don’t think that women should be allowed to arm themselves. I think that says a lot about the mentality of the Australians.
[quote]
#3 Australia: 0.777999 per 1,000 people
#9 United States: 0.301318 per 1,000 people
#13 United Kingdom: 0.142172 per 1,000 people
#1 New Zealand: 1.3%
#2 Austria: 1.2%
#3 Finland: 1.1%
#4 Sweden: 1.1%
#5 Australia: 1%
#6 United Kingdom: 0.9%
#7 Netherlands: 0.8%
#8 Canada: 0.8%
#9 Slovenia: 0.8%
#10 France: 0.7%
#11 Italy: 0.6%
#12 Switzerland: 0.6%
#13 Denmark: 0.4%
#14 United States: 0.4%
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_bur_percap-crime-burglaries-per-capita
#1 Australia: 21.7454 per 1,000 people
#6 New Zealand: 16.2763 per 1,000 people
#7 United Kingdom: 13.8321 per 1,000 people
#9 Canada: 8.94425 per 1,000 people
#10 South Africa: 8.89764 per 1,000 people
#17 United States: 7.09996 per 1,000 people
DoubleDuce wrote:
“How high does the assault rate have to be before you would allow someone to carry? Give me a number.”
To which you replied:
“To give you a politicians answer on that, I would want to have a better view of all available data before answering that question in more detail. We will be forming a working group to look into this and they will report back their findings at which point a decision will be made.”
You make sound like you are somehow involved with the governments decision making on firearms. Or you are at least trying to be involved. And I might point out trying to be involved motivated by an ideology that will make things much worse for the Mexicans.
Sorry, forgot I was typing to an American. That was a joke. It was a way of saying that I couldn’t answer his question because I didn’t know enough about it. In the future I will put joke answers in italics so that you can keep up… [/quote]
I have seen activist Brits go around the world sticking their noses into other peoples business and trying to spread their stupid ideology so I took you seriously.
[quote]
“So what” is his reply to an overwhelming majority in a democratic vote. You keep saying the overwhelming majority of people in the world don’t want gun ownership to be legal.
I haven’t said that at all, I have said that the majority of the world has a different attitude to guns to Americans, that is totally separate. [/quote]
I didn’t know that there was a world wide vote. When did that happen? Could you provide a link? Or are you just making things up?
[quote]
But when it got put to a vote in Brazil which is one of the largest countries in the world the overwhelming majority voted to keep gun ownership legal. Which shows that you are talking out of your ass.
Brazil has less than 3% of the worlds population. The 20% of the population in China supports communism therefore it must be the best system. (please note, this is a joke, I can’t work out how to make it italic) [/quote]
Brazil is one of the most populous countries. The referendum there was %67 in favor of gun ownership. I think that result or similar could be repeated in a lot of other countries. So you are wrong about the rest of the world.
[quote]
I see you didn’t want to address the Rhys Jones shooting. I will assume that you concede that his being shot by another school kid completely undermines the gun control makes the schools safe argument.
Sorry, didn’t see that specific question in amongst the rest of your post. Why do you keep coming back to gun control laws? This is not the argument that I am making. [/quote]
If that’s the case why do you keep spouting the rhetoric of gun control nuts?
[quote]
Another thing is, I see that you don’t consider the oft used “the schools are going to get shot up” rhetoric to be hysteria. Which is why you resort to it. Despite the fact that these are very rare occurrences.
Especially compared to burglaries or assaults. Yet you want to argue that people wanting protection to deal with those types of crime is based upon hysteria and paranoia.
You are a hypocrite.
No, I want to argue that the attitude to guns in the US makes a kid more likely to grab a gun and shoot up his school. The ready availability of guns just makes it easier, but is not the root cause.[/quote]
While I would argue that with the availability of firearms to school age gang bangers in Britain shows that the law there hasn’t had an affect except to leave a lot of adults defenseless and has had deadly results.
I think the gun laws there have also caused a break down in the social structure because older gang members with guns can elicit a sense of awe from young recruits that their parents can’t compete with without being criminals themselves.
Then when the kids get their own guns they feel a real sense of empowerment and superiority over adults that they wouldn’t be able to feel if they knew that adults could be just as well or even better armed than they are.
I think that Britain’s gun control laws are an aggravating factor contributing to Britain’s problem of feral youths. Because the law empowers children to dramatically change the relationship of child to adult.
