I understand your point and when it comes down to it I'd be a lot happier to run away or give the guy my money rather than try and fight him
The thing is that punishment doesn't actually work as a deterent. I would take a two pronged attack on crime. 1: Free the hands of people who are being attacked. If you are attacked then you should have the right to respond with maximum force. 2: Social Engineering. Begin tackling the roots of crime from the youngest generation. This would require a major change in our society which most people would be against but is really the only way to tackle crime. You have to educate children that they have a vested interest in their country/society and that they have real power. Then as they grow they automatically indocrinate their own children into it. Scary but effective and we know it can work, it just limits the freedom of individuals. The Bear.
I'll answer one at a time. 1. Definitely, one of the big issues I have with modern law is that the self defense law is very unclear. It states that violence must be met with "equal force" when I asked my law teacher what that would be she said that if someone hits you it is unreasonable to stab him. Fair enough. But there is a big grey area between those two that is unclear. Every article I've found has always gone from being hit or kicked to it being unlawful to shoot or stab to kill, which kind of goes without saying. What I want to know is if someone pulls a knife on me am I going to be arrested if i break his arm? I imagine so because him pulling a knife and threatening isn't classed as a reason to strike him as he is only threatening and hasn't actually used it yet. (Be a bit late if you waited wouldn't it) 2.Now I really am split about how to reply to this. I agree with the idea but at the same time your proposal is similiar to Jacqui Smith's stance on youth crime and is one o the big issues in my opinion. Kids are getting away with a lap on the wrist (or is that against human rights?) and are facing no true punishment. My step-dad was telling me the other about if he got caught breaking the law the police would give him a slap and take him home. I appreciate this is a bit radical, but at the same time if you obey the law you won't have to worry about it will you? Right that is the longest post I've ever written and I'm now very tired
I think it has to go beyond obeying the law, you have to actively support society. However to do this you would effectively need to break alot of our current society. The Bear.
I don't know about the rest of you, but when I was a kid, all we got was a slap on the wrist and a ride home from the police. THEN the real terror began!! I remember tellin a cop: "you HAVE to take me to jail! you can't take me home!!!!!!" the punishment from the parents was tremendous. I stopped. EVERYTHING!
I think this is one of the main issues, and one that risks turning the UK into a very unpleasant place to live. (Some) Parents either dont care what their kids are upto, or actively throw them out of the house so that they are not under their feet all day. The kids get in to trouble, and then when their parents are confronted get all "Oh my billy wouldnt do that", or even worse get abuse and violent themselves. I know teachers that have given pupils detention, and have the parents come to the school and threaten them. Plus the police have no real power to do anything to these kids any more, so in some cases they dont even bother. These 2 things are breeding generations of teenagers that answer to no-one, and is only going to get worse.
Baby steps. You are the worst internet psychologist I have ever seen. I never said they were "everywhere" (lions, and tigers and bears oh my...) I simply know they exist. I'd rather be one of the wary than one of those who believes such a thing can never happen to me. LOL. Must be all that affirmative action and preferential hiring that makes them go bad. And it certainly explains all the WHITE gang members. What a joke you are. And no I don't subscribe to such ridiculous notions. Having lived many years in a "bad neighborhood" I have seen those who have chosen to be violent gang members and those who have not made such decisions. And the critical factor was not skin pigment. Must be why I'm too dangerous to own guns. LOL. I read your posts as well as you read mine. You claim I do not have a healthy attitude towards firearms but cannot show me a single post by me to qualify such a statement. Then you claim I don't have proper empathy towards my fellow man (I'm must be dangerous guy waiting to shoot somebody) even though I provided a few direct examples to the contrary including one instance of a guy who actually started a fight with me and I never went "for the gun." I know more than a few rookie cops who might have done different. I would normally take the time to explain to you why a free man shouldn't have to "qualify" to enjoy his rights but I think my time would be wasted.
In orders to have rights you should also have responisbilities. The problem with both our countries is that we give too many rights without responsibility. The Bear.
A man is BORN with rights. They are not granted, nor are they qualified for. That said I agree that a man also has responsibilities, mostly for his own conduct while exercising his rights. So while I have the right to be better armed than my local guard unit, there are laws that place certain responsibilities upon me. And so long as those laws don't infringe upon my original rights I don't have any problem with them.
To StyerAUG, what do you consider more important to your continued livelihood, the possession of your firearms, or the use of your car for transport?
I agree that a man is born with rights but I also believe that they should be able to be removed in certain cases. Why should people like Steve Wright and Ian Huntley be able to use human rights as an argument in a case for a lesser sentence when they gave no thought to their victims'
Most people use the word "livelihood" in a connotation with their occupation. I'm assuming this isn't what you meant as few people require firearms to earn a living. If you mean my overall "well being" I'd say firearms. Where I am I'm pretty close to everything and can walk if I had to. I could probably get by without a car if I wanted. But I'd hate to live down here unarmed. That said, the "need" for a firearm is also pretty rare down here. So neither is as important as say money. But both are one of those "better to have and not need than need and not have" kind of things.
I may be going a bit off-topic, but I really don't know where I stand when it comes to weapons laws. If you ban all weapons, the civilians are bound to have some sense of safty. But the problem is with that, is that criminals, if highly motivated can get their hands on just about anything. Whether that be a stick or a broken-beer bottle on the side of the road, or an actual weapon (such as a knife, gun, or sword). And that by banning all weapons you prevent all civilians from any means of self-defense (excluding martial arts training). And as you might have noticed (hence this thread), that all weapon enthusiats get fed up with the law because your banning their hobby; imagine the law banned paint brushes, no more painting for artists. Even if you people have to have a lisence to own a weapon. In my opinion, what's stopping a lisenced owner asulting someone with their weapon? Now, in my opinion the worse of the two options. Now if the law doesn't have any weapon laws, then your country will literally be a war-zone. I speak with experience, living in a country with little (well actually none from what I've heard!!) weapons laws. Where I live there are many active gangs, and I frequently read of murders and asults in the News-papers. And a negative for a my country is that we are a major tourist attraction. I just get plain up terrified when I think of the tourists that come here for a fun time under the sun, and end up being killed (it's happend many times). But on the plus side the civilians have weapons to protect themselves right??!! (sarcastic) For us martial artists it is very easy for us to overlook certain things because of our training. Such as some of us may over look a knife ban because we don't need knife to defend ourself, we just throw or surpress the attacker by means of bare-hand combat. While martial artists that purely train with weapons end up practically useless when your weapon becomes illegal. Ok I really mean weapons within good reason like a knife, bo-staff, nunchaku (mine), or even a stun-gun (not really a MA weapon but you get my point). Weapons such as a Katana, Naginata, or a bow and arrow really don't make sense for self-defense because if you end up walk on the street with one, no one will dare attack you or you'll be looking for trouble, with the police!! I also have a big problem with law officers speaking of using the right amount of force. Because to an untrained person, knocking an attacker out seems like resonable force!! Martial artists are able to control their force, but we're still human, we still feel fear!! We still feel the need to defend ourself at all cost, sometimes even hammer-kicking the guy. Never the less it's always smarter to just give the low-life your wallet, and cancel all your credit cards. I just wish that there would be a happy, safe, and effective way of protecting the people, while halting crime. But that's human nature for you....
Ok, now I have a quetion!!! Next year I'm going off to England for college. And I'm just wondering, but what weapons are banned? The weapons that I hope to bring to England are: Nunchaku Sai Tonfa Sanjigun (if i learn how to use it by that time ) and maybe a Bo-staff and I've already excluded my four swords, because I already know that I can't bring those.....
