water cannon

[MD_Titus]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

You know what, I'm not even making an effort to answer your posts anymore, you came out for what you are: a person that is lazy, uninformed and cares about his country only when others (read "foreigners") question its rules, to which you can only obey like a sheep, not only cos you're uninformed, but cos you don't even use your own right to defend your opinion, the vote. You're the kind of person that is ruining this country, carry on with your obtuse and condescending behaviour, I'm sure it'll get you far..

utter tosh.

again you ignore the salient point - the majority of UK citizens are happy with the restricted ownership of guns. most, if not all, would also support even harsher sentencing for illegal ownership of guns.

this is the law of the land.

it is democratically supported.

i vote in national and local elections.

and i am far from uninformed.

sending armed troops onto the street to deal with rioters is the reserve of syria. the riots happened for very deeply ingrained issues, and quickly degenerated into simply looting... which is again a result of deeply ingrained issues. as soon as a sufficient police response was established the problem was extinguished, and with a minimal loss of life.

with less restricted gun ownership (and don't ignore that a lot of those currently on remand for their part in the riots were first offenders with no psychiatric issues which would preclude gun ownership), or a heavily armed response... it would've been a bloodbath.

when people cite the laws of other countries and wish to implement them in this country, i will defend my country and the laws i live under where i agree with them - and if i do not i will still respect the democratic process that has led to their implementation. i will not bitch and moan that the laws should be changed simply because it inconveniences me. and i will do this regardless of who i am arguing with.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by MD_Titus

utter tosh.

utter tosh?! First of all, was I talking to you? No. Second thing, you reckon that a citizen that doesn't vote or doesn't understand the importance and value of his vote is a responsible one?

again you ignore the salient point - the majority of UK citizens are happy with the restricted ownership of guns. most, if not all, would also support even harsher sentencing for illegal ownership of guns.

this is the law of the land.

it is democratically supported.

i vote in national and local elections.

and i am far from uninformed.

oh yes, I remember when they made a referendum on the subject, and citizen were asked whether they would be for or against the prohibiting of only certain firearms instead of re-thinking the gun policies.. oh wait, it never happened, they did choose what's better for you (and them: blame the firearms, not their ineffective laws)..

But because it never was an effective change, after years another gun massacre happened, and instead of raising the obvious question "should police officers be armed in order to face such rare but possible outbursts of violence?", they watched impotent as an armed man held a part of the country hostage of terror, because the police forces couldn't stop him for 4 hours (he started shooting at around 10am, and the police was notified by 10.20), cos even when they started following him in the car, the PCs were unharmed and had no mean of stopping him..
Try and say "sorry, but shit happens" to the families of the 13 victims. It's a bloody shambles, and there's no justification for it. Times are changing, and police should adapt their methods to a society that is getting more violent (with or without firearms).

sending armed troops onto the street to deal with rioters is the reserve of syria. the riots happened for very deeply ingrained issues, and quickly degenerated into simply looting... which is again a result of deeply ingrained issues. as soon as a sufficient police response was established the problem was extinguished, and with a minimal loss of life.

erm, no, you probably still think that Armed troops would do what the English Army did in Ireland, but that's other times..
as soon as?! 4 days?!?! The looting stopped mainly cos there was nothing left to loot, not because of the "adequate policing", let's not forget they are the one who said "we were not ready for this" (utterly insane!) and are now changing their methods and bosses.

with less restricted gun ownership (and don't ignore that a lot of those currently on remand for their part in the riots were first offenders with no psychiatric issues which would preclude gun ownership), or a heavily armed response... it would've been a bloodbath.

..seriously? And you think that you'd issue a lot of gun licenses to people that live in potentially dangerous areas, who are on welfare or have a criminal record? Besides it's a matter of armed police forces in that case: nowadays people well know the threat of an armed police officer in front of them and get contained easily. See what happens in the rest of the world when riot police gets on the roads.

Uh and since you mentioned Syria, which is a corrupt regime, I could tell you "see what happened in Lybia when citizens gets weapons: they dispose of tyrants".

Considering how soft bellied and spoiled we are nowadays, if the UK became a corrupt regime you'd just keep calm and carry on..

when people cite the laws of other countries and wish to implement them in this country, i will defend my country and the laws i live under where i agree with them - and if i do not i will still respect the democratic process that has led to their implementation. i will not bitch and moan that the laws should be changed simply because it inconveniences me. and i will do this regardless of who i am arguing with.

The UK laws do not inconvenience me at all, I am just stressing on the fact that some laws are indeed ridiculous and only offer an illusion of safety, because they address the problem in a fascist way (denying their own fault and depriving you of things).

[winny]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

oh yes, I remember when they made a referendum on the subject, and citizen were asked whether they would be for or against the prohibiting of only certain firearms instead of re-thinking the gun policies.. oh wait, it never happened, they did choose what's better for you (and them: blame the firearms, not their ineffective laws)..

Me again No, what happened is they said 'we're banning handguns' the vast Majority of the UK went 'Oh, Ok..' There was no popular movement crying out that Handguns shold't be banned, you just don't get that the majority of people in the UK just don't give a sh*t about guns.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

But because it never was an effective change, after years another gun massacre happened, and instead of raising the obvious question "should police officers be armed in order to face such rare but possible outbursts of violence?", they watched impotent as an armed man held a part of the country hostage of terror, because the police forces couldn't stop him for 4 hours (he started shooting at around 10am, and the police was notified by 10.20), cos even when they started following him in the car, the PCs were unharmed and had no mean of stopping him..
Try and say "sorry, but shit happens" to the families of the 13 victims. It's a bloody shambles, and there's no justification for it. Times are changing, and police should adapt their methods to a society that is getting more violent (with or without firearms).

This point is about arming the Police, not arming the population. You mistrust the Police and want to arm them too?! All over the place...

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

erm, no, you probably still think that Armed troops would do what the English Army did in Ireland, but that's other times..
as soon as?! 4 days?!?! The looting stopped mainly cos there was nothing left to loot, not because of the "adequate policing", let's not forget they are the one who said "we were not ready for this" (utterly insane!) and are now changing their methods and bosses.

Why on earth would you bring up bloody sunday, another cheap shot against the UK. I said it before, leave. I don't want you here, slagging us of whilst taking our money, double standards.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

..seriously? And you think that you'd issue a lot of gun licenses to people that live in potentially dangerous areas, who are on welfare or have a criminal record? Besides it's a matter of armed police forces in that case: nowadays people well know the threat of an armed police officer in front of them and get contained easily. See what happens in the rest of the world when riot police gets on the roads.

What happens is people die. Apple can afford to restock their shop. Or is money more important than life?

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

Considering how soft bellied and spoiled we are nowadays, if the UK became a corrupt regime you'd just keep calm and carry on..

Bull. Utterly wrong. (And I take it the 'we' you mean you)

Your air of superiority is palpable.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by winny

Me again No, what happened is they said 'we're banning handguns' the vast Majority of the UK went 'Oh, Ok..' There was no popular movement crying out that Handguns shold't be banned, you just don't get that the majority of people in the UK just don't give a sh*t about guns.

even if you cared you wouldn't have obtained anything.

See what happened lately with the insane raise of university taxes, you tell me that nobody cared? It affected (and will affect) students, universities and employees.. thousands of people got on the road to protest, but in that case the police was quite swift in sending everybody home there.. don't you really see what they do to our society?!

This point is about arming the Police, not arming the population. You mistrust the Police and want to arm them too?! All over the place...

no, arming the police AND arming citizens who are deemed as suitable by a fair and adequate institution. Disarming everybody seems the easiest solution, but in fact you deprive people of their own basic rights.

Why on earth would you bring up bloody sunday, another cheap shot against the UK. I said it before, leave. I don't want you here, slagging us of whilst taking our money, double standards.

it burns uh? it's your heritage, like the bloody heritage of any other modern country.. Your beloved Cromwell killed 3500 Irish people in the Siege of Drogheda; the Croke Park Massacre, the Bogside Massacre (Bloody Sunday).. shall I carry on? Your country is not better or worse than many others.

Yeah, taking your money, your women.. anything else?
Fortunately they're not all arrogant, ignorant bigots like yourself, besides how are you gonna make me leave exactly, talking me out of here?
You can't even control your own immigration flow, and people from abroad who bother studying and making a career come here and get your best jobs.. you're lazy, you don't vote, you don't understand the importance of your own rights and you bark at the people who try to instill some good sense in your sheep mentality.. as I said before, you're the worst England. Uh, and I'm not telling you this as an Italian, I'm telling you this as a worker and taxpayer, who holds the same rights and duties as you do (and I do bother to vote), regardless of where I'm coming from.

What happens is people die. Apple can afford to restock their shop. Or is money more important than life?

yeah, people die anyway, as for your brilliant equation, it's not money that is more important than life, but it's respect for laws and above all self-respect. What kind of low life scum idiot does what we saw happening? Someone we surely won't miss.

Bull. Utterly wrong. (And I take it the 'we' you mean you)

Your air of superiority is palpable.

Utterly wrong, why? Elaborate.
I don't feel superior, in the end of the day we're all human beings, I think it's you who's starting to feel inferior, since you got all aggressive..

[winny]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

even if you cared you wouldn't have obtained anything.

See what happened lately with the insane raise of university taxes, you tell me that nobody cared? It affected (and will affect) students, universities and employees.. thousands of people got on the road to protest, but in that case the police was quite swift in sending everybody home there.. don't you really see what they do to our society?!

No, I said nobody cared about guns, I was talking about guns, remember?

Universtity fees (taxes?) is a seperate issue? Who was protesting? Students. Who protested at the banning of handguns? Handgun owners, it means nothing. It's just tough

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

no, arming the police AND arming citizens who are deemed as suitable by a fair and adequate institution. Disarming everybody seems the easiest solution, but in fact you deprive people of their own basic rights.

So what? laws are restrictions of rights the more stupid the population gets the more laws are brought in. They didn't disarm everyone, if you've got a good enough reason and you pass the criteria you can still get one.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

it burns uh? it's your heritage, like the bloody heritage of any other modern country.. Your beloved Cromwell killed 3500 Irish people in the Siege of Drogheda; the Croke Park Massacre, the Bogside Massacre (Bloody Sunday).. shall I carry on? Your country is not better or worse than many others.

I have relatives who were there. You really are an obnoxious person.

Where did I say my country was better, where would you like me to start with Italy? 20th Century?

Truth is, none of these points you raise have any relevance to the discussion.

You brought Bloody Sunday up why? What point were you making?

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

since you got all aggressive..

Where? You can't handle it not me. Where Have I ranted on like you do?
Bringing all manner of historical attrocities and wrong doings, for what? To defend your hobby. I have kept to arguing my case not throwing so much sh*t around hoping some sticks.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by winny

No, I said nobody cared about guns, I was talking about guns, remember?

Universtity fees (taxes?) is a seperate issue? Who was protesting? Students. Who protested at the banning of handguns? Handgun owners, it means nothing. It's just tough

yeah, cos either you don't have a degree or you already paid yours, so it's not your issue, right? Typical selfish attitude of ignorant people.

So what? laws are restrictions of rights the more stupid the population gets the more laws are brought in. They didn't disarm everyone, if you've got a good enough reason and you pass the criteria you can still get one.

a law is a rule to define your behaviour in a society, not a restriction of your rights. They disarmed a lot of people.

I have relatives who were there. You really are an obnoxious person.

Seriously man, I was talking to you plural, why to you it always has to be a personal attack ,especially if I don't know you?.. besides it wasn't even you that brought up Syria, and that was in answer to that.

Where did I say my country was better, where would you like me to start with Italy? 20th Century?

again, it wasn't referred at you, read ALL the posts of this thread, not only the ones from me.. and I surely know that my country is very very far from perfect, and if someone points out its flaws I'll be the first one to say you're right.

Truth is, none of these points you raise have any relevance to the discussion.

You brought Bloody Sunday up why? What point were you making?

Hood (was it Hood?) made the silly comparison with Syria, and my point was that there's no need of such parallel, since every country has its own massacres at some points in history.

Where? You can't handle it not me. Where Have I ranted on like you do?
Bringing all manner of historical attrocities and wrong doings, for what? To defend your hobby. I have kept to arguing my case not throwing so much sh*t around hoping some sticks.

well you keep on telling me to leave, cos I'm not welcome and I steal your money(by you, who again for some reason think you represent your whole country, and thank God you don't), is that a relaxed attitude? It's called xenophobia, fear of what's different, and that's what it is. From what you write you really seem to be afraid that what's alien to you will bring only bad things, so you want to push it away altogether.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

yeah, cos either you don't have a degree or you already paid yours, so it's not your issue, right? Typical selfish attitude of ignorant people.

We're broke.. If someone has to pay a bit more towards a degree then that's just tough. I can't afford any more tax, sorry. They are lucky that they got a free education anyway, many many more worldwide do not.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

a law is a rule to define your behaviour in a society, not a restriction of your rights. They disarmed a lot of people.

Argue over the words all you want, you're good at it. So, it's a government restriction on behaviour when you want it to be, but when you say that the current law restricts your rights what you mean is it restricts your behaviour? Which is it?

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

Seriously man, I was talking to you plural, why to you it always has to be a personal attack ,especially if I don't know you?.. besides it wasn't even you that brought up Syria, and that was in answer to that.

Why bring up Bloody Sunday?

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

again, it wasn't referred at you, read ALL the posts of this thread, not only the ones from me.. and I surely know that my country is very very far from perfect, and if someone points out its flaws I'll be the first one to say you're right.

Why did you bring up Bloody Sunday?

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

well you keep on telling me to leave, cos I'm not welcome and I steal your money(by you, who again for some reason think you represent your whole country, and thank God you don't), is that a relaxed attitude? It's called xenophobia, fear of what's different, and that's what it is. From what you write you really seem to be afraid that what's alien to you will bring only bad things, so you want to push it away altogether.

As one of my rights I can express my opinion. I'm not xenophobic, or Racist, I represent me, myself. I said I want you to leave, I do. From the way you've spoken to me and the extremes (I could go back and quote all the negative things you've said about me, my country, my view) you go to to make a point, the things you've said to me would get you knocked out in any pub in the UK, lazy, benefit cheats, drunks, murdrers, destroyers of countries, bereft of morals, corrupt.. etc . I don't want you here, me personally, ok? Not the whole of the UK, I'm not taking dictation here. It's just me.

You also continue to tell me how I think ' From what you write you really seem to be afraid that what's alien to you will bring only bad things, so you want to push it away altogether'

No, I just don't want the current gun laws changed, you have expanded the argument to include all of the 'bad' things that you have included in your posts, the shock tactics, character assasination, is all there for anyone to read.

All I have said is I disagree with you and I've stated why. Get over it. Oh and please quote me where I said you 'steal' our money, I said take, as in when it's given.

[Bewolf]

If I listen to my inner child, I can more then understand this fascination with guns. As a mature adult however, I can't.

A gun is a tool made for killing. That is it's sole purpose. The only way a gun thus makes sense is that killing is acceptable under certain conditions in any given society. Once that line of thinking is established, it is rather easy for people to justify their own reasons for using deadly force. That applies to criminals as much as to people defending themselves.

This whole debate is questionably a debate between instinct and rationals.
Instinct dictates the right for defence of home, family and one's own life without trusting others or institutions to do that job. THat is an emotion I can more then understand.

However, Rational dictates to ban killing outright (including the death penalty) and a ban on tools for killing is a logical consequence. At first glance this may look naive, as there always will be people willing to use deadly force. However, a) emotional barriers will be higher (yes, it does make a difference for people if you told them as a child that it is ok to use deadly force in some circumstances opposite to telling them that killing is wrong, period)

and b) a lack of tools for that purpose makes it quite a bit harder from a purely physical PoV.

It's a simple matter of maths. Ban on firearms=fewer firearms=fewer kills. The individual may feel more unsafe without lethal means for defense, but that person is also much less likely to be confronted with a firearm.

That said, there are some grave differences between the US and the UK; or any other european country for that matter. In the US there is a lot of space for people to spread out. In Europe there is not. And the fewer space there is for a society to spread out, the more there is a need for compromise.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

If I listen to my inner child, I can more then understand this fascination with guns. As a mature adult however, I can't.

A gun is a tool made for killing. That is it's sole purpose. The only way a gun thus makes sense is that killing is acceptable under certain conditions in any given society. Once that line of thinking is established, it is rather easy for people to justify their own reasons for using deadly force. That applies to criminals as much as to people defending themselves.

This whole debate is questionably a debate between instinct and rationals.
Instinct dictates the right for defence of home, family and one's own life without trusting others or institutions to do that job. THat is an emotion I can more then understand.

However, Rational dictates to ban killing outright (including the death penalty) and a ban on tools for killing is a logical consequence. At first glance this may look naive, as there always will be people willing to use deadly force. However, a) emotional barriers will be higher (yes, it does make a difference for people if you told them as a child that it is ok to use deadly force in some circumstances opposite to telling them that killing is wrong, period)

and b) a lack of tools for that purpose makes it quite a bit harder from a purely physical PoV.

It's a simple matter of maths. Ban on firearms=fewer firearms=fewer kills. The individual may feel more unsafe without lethal means for defense, but that person is also much less likely to be confronted with a firearm.

That said, there are some grave differences between the US and the UK; or any other european country for that matter. In the US there is a lot of space for people to spread out. In Europe there is not. And the fewer space there is for a society to spread out, the more there is a need for compromise.

bewolf, people get killed regardless of firearms, if someone wants to kill, he/she still will do it, with or without a gun.

Following your idea we shouldn't even have armies, nor embark in things like invading other countries for "peacekeeping". This kind of societal hypocrisy really annoys me.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

bewolf, people get killed regardless of firearms, if someone wants to kill, he/she still will do it, with or without a gun.

Following your idea we shouldn't even have armies, nor embark in things like invading other countries for "peacekeeping". This kind of societal hypocrisy really annoys me.

That would imply that all killing was planned and intentional. It also implies that using physical force or careful planning as a means to kill a perosn is as likely as simply having to pull a trigger as a result of the situation. That's a very narrow view on gun crime. Or any crime involving a dead person in the end, eventually.

And please spare me that army argument. We actually should disband them indeed. The countries with the largest track record of starting wars are western countries, between each other and most of the rest of the world at one point or the other. That hardly is a good defense for defense.

Besides, hardly a criminal considers himself "evil" or a "bad person". Neither do nations. All have their in their own eyes legit reason for the crimes they comit. The only "good" guy is the one who stands in the end with a smoking gun.

Just to make this clear, I do think that there are situations where one must fight, risking one's own life and for that having the means to win. But these situations do not apply to everyday life.