DJKillaQueen

LOL.......wasn't everyone doing that?

Surely that would be an issue of assault if unprovoked, and therefore a police matter?

El Pibe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "And that's why anything that tips the balance in > the favour of the victim and rids society of > another scummy thief is preferable to protecting > the rights of a criminal to carry on without fear > or risk of harm to himself." > > Pretty self evident that that means killing > thieves is a good thing as is allowing people guns > in their home. > Killing an intruder is, weirdly enough > extrajudicial. > Sheesh. I may have extrapolated a bit but I can't > see how I put words in your mouth. How does tipping the balance in favour of victims equate to killing anyone? Nor does it insinuate the legalisation of firearms. If you bothered to read it properly, instead of reading what you want to read, it is a complaint about the law which extends every kind of human rights legislation to criminals. Like I say....putting words in my mouth. If I were a supporter of firearm legalisation in the uk I would say so. I am not fyi in support of firearm legalisation. All I have questioned is the idea that crime levels rise with gun ownership. Global stats just don't support that idea. It's not a conclusive argument however, either way, which is what makes for an interesting debate.....and I can manage to have that debate with that in mind - hence feeling no need to jump on anyone who disagrees with my view. Please don't put words in my mouth or I'll have to agree with Carter and declare the lunacy of this thread ;)

Thomas, Zippo's horses are extremely well cared for. Police horses work and travel more than Zippo's horses. Two years ago I had the misfortune to run into a protestor as I went to the circus. I gave extremely good pointers as to why the horses at the circus are not being subjected to cruelty, in a polite manner. As I walked away the ignorant and rude woman had the audacity to say to me 'thank you for supporting cruelty to animals.' I then gave the stupid woman a dressing down on what defines cruelty (heard by all in the park no doubt) and suggested she go and stand outside Brixton nick where they keep horses (or at least used to) and try her luck there. There is no doubt that creulty to animals exists but these protestors are extremists who quite frankly have picked the circus because it's an easy target. What does your photo show Thomas? A well groomed horse in a stable, because believe it or not that's what most horses sleep in. What your photo doesn't show is the fenced paddock area behind the stable where the horses have time every day to run around freely. Have you ever been to a riding school Thomas? Or any kind of farm where horses are kept? Stables and a paddock is pretty common accomodation for horses. And horses that train for dressage for example, carry out way more complex training and routines that what you'll see at Zippo's circus (as others have posted on this thread). The horses at most, travel twice a week (again not very much by the standards of working horses). Get a sense of perspective for goodness sake. I will be going to the circus tm. Maybe I'll protest against stupid protests ;)

But I reserve my greatest contempt for DJKQ who is saying that "we need guns to redress the balance of a society with an enlightened justice system and reintroduce extraducial killing with protection for those who commit homicide because, you know, kids and that don't respect the law, when I was a lad a clip round the lughole was enough.." Where on earth have I said that or anything like it El Pipe.....utter nonsense. How can anyone have a sensible debate with someone who invents my words for me. You are being totally ridiculous and you know it. DaveR is at least trying to have a sensible debate around the complex issues raised. You might want to take a leaf out of his book El Pipe.

"However, if I did, and I found myself in a situation confronting an intruder in my home at any time of the day or night, I'd shoot first and ask questions later." And that's why anything that tips the balance in the favour of the victim and rids society of another scummy thief is preferable to protecting the rights of a criminal to carry on without fear or risk of harm to himself.

' I'm not aware of any UK specific research that has attempted to track the impact of changing gun laws during the 80s and 90s.' Murder rates have increased by 52% in England and Wales since the introduction of gun control laws in 1968 and 15% since the 1997 handgun ban. So gun laws do not reduce murder rates or violent crime. El Pipe, you still haven't replied to my very valid point about knife crime. You have shown nothing that conclusively proves that incerased gun ownership causes higher murder rates or violent crime, and for every think tank report that suggests it does, there are others that make the same points as I. Culture and the propensity towards violent behaviour in an individual is far more important. If someone gave me a gun, it would not somehow take possession of me and turn me into a potential violent criminal anymore than picking up a knife every time I use my kitchen does. But if I were someone of violent criminal nature, a gun might be a preferable tool to a knife, but either will do.

To be fair pk, I don't think anyone on this thread has been offensive to anyone......and most of us have thoroughly enjoyed watching, whether on TV or being lucky enough to have tickets, the paralympics. It's not offensive either to point out just how important the sucess of this games will hopefully be in changing attitudes towards people with disabilities, because there is a lot of prejudice and assumption that disabled people can't achieve anything on a par with those without disabilities. If we are going to tackle prejudice where it exists we have to be able to say that. And I for one hope that we will now see world championships and commonwealth games and a whole range of sprting events for those athletes now televised, so that we can follow the progress of these great athletes beyond the paralympics.

PeckhamRose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We were rather impressed with the Chinese on > Tooley Street but that is closer to Tower Bridge > near Bermondsey Street junction. Just sayin'! PR took me to this restaurant and I can second that the food was amazing..... :)

I don't think that's true. It is showing examples of inverse proportionality to illustrate that the idea that increased gun ownership precipitates increased crime is not proven. For example, if you look at the figures for gun 'ownership' state by state, there are great differences. California has one of the highest levels of gun ownership. It also has a high level of violent crime. What's impossible to know is how much of that ownership is a reaction to the fear of crime in a high level area (most of the guns owned are never used in any incident of crime whatsoever). My argument is that to say high levels of murder exist because of high levels of gun ownership is no more proven than high ownership of guns being a reaction to a high level of local murder.

Here is an in depth analysis that explores that concept Alan.... http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/Crime%26Inequality.pdf It's a detailed one that requires some sticking with to understand in full, but on page 30 it demonstrates clearly, huge differences in range from continent to continent. It considers impacts like poverty, GDP, education etc and for me demonstrates the complexities in understanding the levels of violence from continent to continent and nation to nation. It's also extremely clear that all those things, including law inforcement do have a bearing on the figures too.

Well the majority of violent crime, including murder is not carried out with a firearm in the UK. What do you make about my point regarding knife crime? Do we starting suggesting a wide availability of knives is responsible for the growing murder rate in the UK, a rate that incident increased by 52% in England and Wales since the introduction of gun control laws in 1968 and 15% since the 1997 handgun ban.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the credibility of the debate offered by the thesis H. I don't find the stats woolly at all. The trust of the thesis is that culture, levels of law enforcement, social disorder etc have more impact on homicide rates (hence the comparison to Russia) than gun ownership alone. I think it makes a good argument on that level. America is a violent culture. This is what defines it's high level of murder and violent crime. It's a subject that has been explored by many intelligent writers, journalists etc and the conclusion is always the same....that there is something particular to American culture that has this consequence. To blame it all on higher levels of gun ownership is just too simplistic. Edited to add.....it's a debate that has raged for a long time, and good arguments can be made from all viewpoints. I just don't buy the idea that if we removed all guns from the planet tomorrow, that the league table positions of countries by level of violence/ homicide would be very much different. But of course I can't know that for sure. No-one can.

Another way to look at this is to look at the rise of knife crime un the UK. There is no doubt this has increased significantly over the last decades. Is it the availabiliy of knives that have caused this? No-one would ever make such a ridiculous suggestion, as knives have always been readily available, and teenagers have always had pen-knives. What has changed is the culture of carrying a leathal weapon and being prepared to use it. Guns like knives are only a weapon of choice by those prepared to commit a violent crime, or conversely those feeling a need to defend themselves. Guns get a high profile because they are more lethal than knives, compared to their proportion of use, and it is that point which makes the avaialbility of guns undesirable. At the end of the day, if someone is intent on murdering someone, there are countless ways to do it and many of them far more violent than by gun shot. And the more you look at the data, the more apparent it is that violent crime and murder is reflective of more prevalent things within a culture than gun ownership.

Ok El Pipe here are some stats for europe and gun ownership. Nation/ Murder Rate/ Rate of Gun Ownership Russia 20.54 [2002] 4,000 Luxembourg 9.01 [2002] c. 0 Hungary 2.22 [2003] 2,000 Finland 1.98 [2004] 39,000 Sweden 1.87 [2001] 24,000 Poland 1.79 [2003] 1,500 France 1.65 [2003] 30,000 Denmark 1.21 [2003] 19,000 Greece 1.12 [2003] 11,000 Switzerland 0.99 [2003] 16,000 Germany 0.93 [2003] 30,000 Norway 0.81 [2001] 36,000 Austria 0.80 [2002] 17,000 What do you see there? No correlation between gun ownership and high homicide rates, in fact the opposite. Read the attached thesis before you comment El Pipe. It's well researched and produced by Harvard. And H, just where have I supported gun ownership? I am merely arguing with the idea that the more guns a society has, the higher the murder rate, when every piece of available data completely blows that myth out of the water. And that if it's not gun ownership that leads to higher homicide rates, it has to be something else. I think exploring what that something else is, is a valid part of the debate.

Here is a good thesis on the subject of gun ownership and homicide. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf It's opening paragraphs state..... There is a compound assertion that (a) guns are uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is why (b) the United States has by far the highest murder rate. Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, statement (b) is, in fact, false and statement (a) is substantially so. Edited to add, that comparing the USA to the UK is pointless. It's not comparing like for like, whether in proportion, culture, history etc. At the end of the day a gun is an inanimate object. Levels of violence within a culture is the real issue here. For example, the more unequal a society is, the higher the level of violence tends to be statistically. If we compare levels of crime.....there are also a correlations between that and murder and inequality. Guns are truly a red herring in all that.

Hmm canada has just as many guns in circulation as the USA but a significantly smaller homicide rate......so can't be the guns can it? I think this argument about gun ownership is a red herring. Many farmers own shotguns, as do many people in remote rural areas, and they do so without ever using it on another person. The majority of murders too are carried out without a firearm in sight in this country. What matters here is the range of emotions a person goes through when finding an intruder in their home. I'd defy anyone to not be either angry or terrified or both if in the middle of the night they hear someone breaking into or burgling their home. If they are in a remote area, on their own, or have children with them then I can certainly understand an extreme of those emotions. When people are scared, they don't act methodically or rationally. In the case of this couple, FOUR burly men entered their home in the middle of the night to burgle it. The husband woke to see a man in his bedroom. He had his wife next to him......I'd defy anyone in that situation to not grab the nearest available weapon, or item that could be used as a weapon to defend themselves. And it mystifies me as to why we have so much sympathy in law for the criminal in these cases. I don't own a gun, nor would ever have any interest in doing so, but I would grab the nearest effective weapon if ever someone broke into my home and made me feel that frightened.

I mostly agree with that Dave and in part what you are talking about is local solutions to localised problems. There is also the issue of trade barriers too. Corn can be grown in many countries as easily as anywhere else, but the world trade setup makes it uneconomic for farmers in some countries to do so (because no one will buy the crop) as cheaper imports are preferable.

Absolutely loved my day at the Excel today with my brother....even though team GB sitting volleyball ladies lost. Totally blown away by the power lifting too....the lady from Nigeria took gold with a 249kg lift!!!!! I can just about manage a bag of shopping!!!

And I would add that for gay christians, marriage is as important to them as is it to you Silverfox, and for the same reasons. Once you start saying to someone, you can be part of our club, but not have access to the same rules/ opportunity etc, then you make a mockery of their membership. Whichever way you look at it, it's just blatent prejudice and totally wrong. I totally agree H that marriage was not invented by the church and rather, has been hijacked for their own ends.

It's interesting because when I was a child meat was a luxury. Chicken would be served as a sunday roast. Cheap cuts of meat during other times were used for making stews etc and there was no real snacking outside of three meals a day. So cheap and plentiful food, all year round is a fairly recent development. I think we will just have to end up going back to where we were, eating local and seasonal produce. And given the rising levels of obesity, perhaps that will be a change for the better.

I watched the Table Tennis final yesterday on C4, or at least tried to. There was a GB player in the final. We never saw the end of two of the five games because C4 cut to adverts! They were both games the GB player lost. It completely ruined my viewing to the point I thought 'what's the point of watching'.

But your argument is still the same, that changing any definition of 'marriage' within a religious institution will open the floodgates to other changes. There is no evidence whatsoever to support that. The prpoposed change is simply an effort to recognise that gender should not be the sole requisite when recognising committed relationships between two people. And incidently, as for marriage standing the test of time, have you looked at the divorce rate lately? Or have you researched the misery many women endured trapped by unhappy marriages because at those times there were no other options for women? Marriage evolved as a way to treat women as property and remained so until within the last century. In some cultures it still is a tool for gender inequality and subjegation of women. So no, I don't think there can be any romantic view held regarding the meaning or history of marriage.

Here's some things for Silverfox to chew over..... "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28) So the bible says gender is irrelevant then? But then we have this..... "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." (Leviticus 25:44-46) And slavery is ok........ See, the institution Silverfox is trying to protect from the 'abomination' of gay marriage stands on some pretty dodgy ground in what it chooses to believe from it's own Bible. But then we already know that. Christians with any kind of common sense, including clergy, already do ignore those writings which are clearly nonsense (and of their time). No Christian would condone slavery. And indeed, many Chrisitans also see the anti gay stance of the Church (also of it's time) as nonsense too.

You are right, I have never been aware you had to push a button. That is because I'm always looking upwards at the red light when I approach it, just like a driver looks at the lights. Why would I look underneath for a button to press if there's nothing to make me aware such a thing exists. Thank you for pointing it out though :).