|
Originally Posted by RMA26
(Post 6660720)
Since Labour made owning Handguns illegal in the Uk, gun related crime has gone up .
Ironically true. Since Thomas Hamilton (who's background should have removed from him the right to own firearms - police mistake?), the politically correct Snowdrop petition managed to ban upright and law abiding citizens from hangun ownership - thereby ensuring that the only people with pistols are bad guys. Since then, gun crime has gone up. I suspect that the root of problem is political correctness. |
Originally Posted by Paul Habgood
(Post 6660982)
Tenager geting hold of firearms and killing each other is bad, no matter the colour of their skin. They leave behind mum's, dad's, brothers and sisters who have to pick up the pieces.
I think it's time we took Chris Rock's lead and started differentiating between decent, honest, hard-working black people, and niggers:) |
Originally Posted by bugsti
(Post 6663480)
Ironically true. Since Thomas Hamilton (who's background should have removed from him the right to own firearms - police mistake?), the politically correct Snowdrop petition managed to ban upright and law abiding citizens from hangun ownership - thereby ensuring that the only people with pistols are bad guys. Since then, gun crime has gone up.
I suspect that the root of problem is political correctness. |
Originally Posted by Steven82
(Post 6661309)
Off course it’s not racist to say that “predominately gun crime is committed by young black males”!!!! This trend is obviously very concerning--- but comments like …… “Why don’t we hand guns out in hackney so they can kill each other off”………not racist??? hmmmmmmmmm if you say so mate!!
Kittle….. do you think that if you stay in your “nice little suburban area” gun crime wont effect you??? LOL I wouldn’t speak too soon mate ….one day you could be driving your Scooby somewhere and someone could stick a gun to your head and nick it mate!! LOL And also ….. What’s liberalism and the fundamental values of a fair and just society got to do with it??? Personally I blame the breakdown of the family structure and simply BAD parenting!! I grew up in a very deprived area, which was very multicultural--- and I tell you wat I noticed….. the Asian and Chinese kids always worked hard, they were brought up in good families and now there making a good contribution to society!! On the other hand--- the white and black kids …… and more white kids can I add, would be the ones that ****ed about and as a result these are the ones on the dole, dealing drugs and nicking cars….. More often then not these were kids from broken families or simply had parents that didn’t give a ****e!! Pussy footing around the the issue in the name of PC solves nothing; it actually compounds the problem. I found these sketches amusing and enlightening in equal measure: YouTube - Chris Rock, Guns and Stupid Kids YouTube - Chris Rock - How not to get your ass kicked by the police= Ns04 |
Anyone watched Question Time yesterday on BBC1 ?? they were having this exact convo
|
Originally Posted by f1_fan
(Post 6663526)
Way too simplistic, the USA has a huge amount of gun crime despite the fact that it easier to own a gun legally than just about any other developed nation.
And it was never as easy here compared to the USA to own a handgun. |
Originally Posted by bugsti
(Post 6663837)
Yes but we are not discussing the USA - we are talking about here and withdrawing the right to legally own handguns has NOT reduced gun crime - in fact the reverse has happened.
And it was never as easy here compared to the USA to own a handgun. No the inference was that if the gun laws returned to being more relaxed gun crime would go down. I merely pointed out the two do not go hand in hand and then illustrated my point with a real world example. Has it ever crossed the minds of the indignant once gun toting minority of the UK population that just possibly gun crime may have increased anyway especiually seeing as it was already doing so before the ruling as a result of the Dunblane incident? No, didn't think so. |
Originally Posted by bugsti
(Post 6663837)
Yes but we are not discussing the USA - we are talking about here and withdrawing the right to legally own handguns has NOT reduced gun crime - in fact the reverse has happened.
And it was never as easy here compared to the USA to own a handgun. Anyway, back on track: I think the police need to be better equipped to deal with this menace: the agument "well we can't have the poice armed as the criminals will tool up as well": Er, Hello??? Teenagers, never mind life long criminals, are carrying firearms! I don't think arming the nation is going to help matters at all, but I do think that, as with so many other areas of law, the situation has swung far too heavily in favour of the criminals and against the law abiding general public! Ns04 |
Originally Posted by f1_fan
(Post 6663862)
No the inference was that if the gun laws returned to being more relaxed gun crime would go down. I merely pointed out the two do not go hand in hand and then illustrated my point with a real world example.
Has it ever crossed the minds of the indignant once gun toting minority of the UK population that just possibly gun crime may have increased anyway especiually seeing as it was already doing so before the ruling as a result of the Dunblane incident? No, didn't think so. I agree that gun crime trends are probably independent of gun laws. However, in that case, why take away the right of legal ownership of weapons if doing so hasn't significantly impacted on criminal use of guns? Perhaps the reason was that the nanny state wished to pander to public opinion ...........political correctness possibly? |
Originally Posted by bugsti
(Post 6663954)
Well, I suppose I must one of the indignant ones and probably certainly in a minority.
I agree that gun crime trends are probably independent of gun laws. However, in that case, why take away the right of legal ownership of weapons if doing so hasn't significantly impacted on criminal use of guns? Perhaps the reason was that the nanny state wished to pander to public opinion ...........political correctness possibly? I have nothing against responsible people owning firearms whatsoever, but I don't hold with the assertion that gun crime has risen because of the tightening up of the gun laws. However, it seems that neither do you hence I guess we ain't arguing on that one :D :D |
Originally Posted by bugsti
(Post 6663954)
Well, I suppose I must one of the indignant ones and probably certainly in a minority.
I agree that gun crime trends are probably independent of gun laws. However, in that case, why take away the right of legal ownership of weapons if doing so hasn't significantly impacted on criminal use of guns? Perhaps the reason was that the nanny state wished to pander to public opinion ...........political correctness possibly? The rise, as has been pointed out, started before the ban......that said, it may have been compounded by the ban. I mean, you're less likely to be inclined to break into a house if you think there is a remote possibility that you might be staring down the barrel of a .45! ;) :lol1: |
Originally Posted by New_scooby_04
(Post 6664319)
I mean, you're less likely to be inclined to break into a house if you think there is a remote possibility that you might be staring down the barrel of a .45! ;) :lol1:
However political correcteness would say otherwise... |
Originally Posted by bugsti
(Post 6664414)
Very good point! And the law should come down completely on the side of the householder in such circumstances - the burglar having relinqished any rights by the act of breaking in.
However political correcteness would say otherwise... Bollox to it! PC has to shoulder some of the blame for the country being in the state its in. :mad: You get injured/killed in the comision of a criminal act, tough titties; you live by the sword, you die by it! Don't expect decent people who bother to obey the law to foot the bill or entertain your whinging! :razz: The answer is simple: obey the law, respect other people and their property and don't tolerate others who don't! :thumb: Ns04 |
Originally Posted by New_scooby_04
(Post 6664480)
:thumb:
Bollox to it! PC has to shoulder some of the blame for the country being in the state its in. :mad: You get injured/killed in the comision of a criminal act, tough titties; you live by the sword, you die by it! Don't expect decent people who bother to obey the law to foot the bill or entertain your whinging! :razz: The answer is simple: obey the law, respect other people and their property and don't tolerate others who don't! :thumb: Ns04 |
so it seems "mister 15 year old Nice guy" wasnt a nice guy. Involded in crack cocain dealing etc. So his family can now see for themselves what its like to watch your children die. 2 locals I know backed up the press today . they reccon he is involded in a minor way with some "bad lads" He wanted the "action" and he got it !!
Good.. one less next please !! and no feelings for his parents. They should have kept him under control. |
He was on probation for the burglary.
He got in one little scrape and his mom got scared, I think he should have moved in with his auntie and uncle in Bel Air. |
IIIIIIIII pulllled up to a house, about 7 or 8 and I yelled to cabbie "yo, go home see ya later", looked at my kingdom I was finally there, that's how I became................................
|
:D
The Fresh Prince of Bell End. |
I think it would be a big mistake to allow everyone to have guns for the express purpose of self defence. I believe that would create many more problems than it would solve.
I do believe however, that if a man breaks into a house with the intention of burglary then since he has deliberately broken the law then he should automatically lose his so called human rights of protection from the houseowner. Since so many thieves these days have little respect for the lives of the people they attack, I believe that the householder should automatically have the right to defend himself vigorously, and if the burglar gets injured that the houseowner should not be held responsible for that. Why the hell should the thief be protected by the law and the houseowner be hammered by the courts for defending his property and quite possibly his own life! All this just encourages the crooks to "burgle for England" I cannot believe that the Authorities and the PC Plonkers cannot see all this for themselves-what is behind their attitudes to all this? Les :( |
Any kid that carries a knife or gun has just made themselves a adult in my book. That means they get the same. I wouldnt stop to think about kicking the crap out of some kid that threatened me or my family. I would do it and do it hard.
|
Quite right too!
Les |
Originally Posted by Seamaster
(Post 6667705)
I wouldnt stop to think about kicking the crap out of some kid that threatened me or my family. I would do it and do it hard.
Wouldn't they first need to get past your laser beam security grid by suspending themselves from a ceiling rose in your living room via a steel cable :Suspiciou This is after they have put a tap on your phone to track your movements, obviously! :lol1: |
dont have a ceiling rose in the livingroom. It all low voltage.
|
more shot !!!! its like christmas.
|
|
and before you all start, its one of my firm beliefs that you dont have to be black to be a nigger.
astraboy. |
Nigger or Nigga ??? big difference. I use the term to describe black street scum. Rude?? I dont care its my life and I dont see why I should be dictated to on who I must like. Same as white scum. I call them many names etc. all ment to be rude and offensive. Both are just street scum and deserve the abuse.
But the word Nigger used just to be offensive to a Black person isnt right . |
Originally Posted by Leslie
(Post 6667699)
I think it would be a big mistake to allow everyone to have guns for the express purpose of self defence. I believe that would create many more problems than it would solve.
I do believe however, that if a man breaks into a house with the intention of burglary then since he has deliberately broken the law then he should automatically lose his so called human rights of protection from the houseowner. Since so many thieves these days have little respect for the lives of the people they attack, I believe that the householder should automatically have the right to defend himself vigorously, and if the burglar gets injured that the houseowner should not be held responsible for that. Why the hell should the thief be protected by the law and the houseowner be hammered by the courts for defending his property and quite possibly his own life! All this just encourages the crooks to "burgle for England" I cannot believe that the Authorities and the PC Plonkers cannot see all this for themselves-what is behind their attitudes to all this? Les :( A friend of mine from Arizona thought I was winding him up when I told him about it. :( |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:53 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands