This might have been mentioned already but one problem i can see with allowing people to defend themselves and property with weapons is that thieves will go along with weapons themselves for 'defence'. This will make things a lot lot worse in the long run. Its a shame there arent real punishments for people caught doing such crimes.
Lad breaks into a house and is killed...
- Thread starter int
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 5,488
The death penalty clearly does not work. Also, its wrong in absolute principle for the Government to be deciding who lives and who dies.
Your 'real' death penalty would result in a lot more people being killed it would seem and out of those people, mistakes will be made. An innocent person will end up being killed.
Capital punishment was abolished decades ago in this country and I'm totally against a random comeback at this point.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2006
- Posts
- 5,280
- Location
- Midlands, UK
less than half a mile from my old house where i lived up until last year. Pretty rough area to be honest. Riots were on national news 2 years ago.
Bottom line, you should be allowed to defend your castle. Intruders take the risk...and sometimes......pay the ultimate price. Waste of a life, but hey-ho!
Bottom line, you should be allowed to defend your castle. Intruders take the risk...and sometimes......pay the ultimate price. Waste of a life, but hey-ho!
Breaking news: angry nerd is killed in police cell by hardened criminal
And most people would stop downloading music if it carried the death penalty. What's your point? Murdering someone in cold blood because they broke the law, which is exactly what the death penalty is, could be 'effective' but would be grotesquely unjust.
Aside from the moral issues, the state is too incompetent to dole out death. It's on the news today that a man has been cleared of murder after spending 27 years in prison. In your dream world, he would have been killed decades ago, along with the dozens of other people wrongfully convicted in recent times.
Yes - in case you are too young to remember (and most here are) "Mongol" was the original name for Downs children. Then it was an nickname - and a cruel one at that - and now it is no longer used, except by idiots. That's what the person was referring to when he used the expression, NOT hinting that they might come from the area between Russia and China. Essentially he was saying they were retarded (and yes, I know some Downs children are not that retarted).
M
So what you're saying is that people who like technology, computers and gaming can't handle themselves?
What World do you live in? You might be an 8st weakling incapable of punching themselves out of a wet paper bag but I certainly aint, and I know there's quite a few other members on here that would quite easily tear a burgler caught in their house a new orifice if they were given the chance to do so.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 May 2005
- Posts
- 12,631
ok, that makes sense. I find it hard to believe that kid would know it meant that though.
Do you read too much into throwaway remarks for a living or something?
The idea that victims should be allowed to beat up criminals in custody is ridiculous. A lot of victims, particularly of random assaults and muggings, were targeted because they were physically incapable of defending themselves in the first place. Unless you think the criminal should be restrained, which would be quite sadistic. But it would allow the mental health services to identify psychopaths, so I suppose it might be a useful public service.
Meridian is correct, there was a kid on TV with the condition and we started copying his actions NNNNNNGGGHHHHHH.
You **** !
From the urban dictionary.....
****
is short for 'mongoloid', which was originally an anachronistic term for a Down's Syndrome sufferer. The modern **** however is a total ****wit, who deserves nothing less than complete humiliation for their idiocy. That includes all those dope smokers too, who relate being 'monged' to being chilled and mellow. Its because when you're stoned you act like a ****ing retard, you ****ing spazzers!
****
is short for 'mongoloid', which was originally an anachronistic term for a Down's Syndrome sufferer. The modern **** however is a total ****wit, who deserves nothing less than complete humiliation for their idiocy. That includes all those dope smokers too, who relate being 'monged' to being chilled and mellow. Its because when you're stoned you act like a ****ing retard, you ****ing spazzers!
Why is running away out of the question?
We are assuming it is a burglar and not a sadistic killer or something..It is perfectly possible to tell the burglar you are there and you have called the police and then back up the stairs and hold up at the top. Thereby putting yourself between the burglar and your family and calming the situation while giving him the option of running off rather than forcing him to fight you..
Semi-pro Waster said:
Theres your problem though, human life is cheap. There are billions of us, and sparing the many by sacrificing the few has been used before.
I can say in confidence that if super strict rules were in play i would abide by the laws and consequences. Being killed for murder is not restricting my right to live, i dont need to murder.
Do you consider your own life to be cheap?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 16 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 1,124
well, even if it all went down as the times says and he was breaking in to someones house it really all comes down to what happened in the house, it looks to me that if that kid was breaking in he was probably un-armed, and it looks to me if someone pulled a knife on him he would wet himself so theirs a possibility the house owners could have used excessive force, i mean i believe in the right to defend your house but only with justified force.
doesn't sound as clear cut as the guy was charged because he closed the window on a burglar who was climbing through his windows on the 2nd floor because he subsequently fell and hurt himself.
EDIT: A funny statistic i throw at people who are against the ability to defend your family and homes is that in the USA, states that have passed a conceal carry law (due to old English common law its always been illegal to conceal a weapon) crime drops majorly.. because criminals know if they are going to try and rob somebody their is a high chance they are gonna get a revolver pointed at them... which is quite a deterrent, or if they wanted to rape a woman they know theirs a high chance she would be a real woman and put a hole in his head where as the UK, we are told to phone the police, wait the 30 minute response time for them to show up and save the day, but in reality that's enough time for the house invader to kill you, rape your wide, butcher your kids, make a bacon sandwich and then burn the house down. In my opinion people will always kill people, if we are going to ban guns to save lives why dont we ban swimming pools? they kill thousands more than guns, what about cars? i believe that the picture the media paints, that making guns legal would turn the country into a sort of 'wild west' is a complete lie, criminals in the UK already have guns because funnily enough, criminals dont really care when they break the law... when you make guns illegal, carte blanche, then all that ensures is that your law abiding citizenry is unarmed and easy prey, like decadent jellyfish sitting on the beach just waiting for a predator.
doesn't sound as clear cut as the guy was charged because he closed the window on a burglar who was climbing through his windows on the 2nd floor because he subsequently fell and hurt himself.
EDIT: A funny statistic i throw at people who are against the ability to defend your family and homes is that in the USA, states that have passed a conceal carry law (due to old English common law its always been illegal to conceal a weapon) crime drops majorly.. because criminals know if they are going to try and rob somebody their is a high chance they are gonna get a revolver pointed at them... which is quite a deterrent, or if they wanted to rape a woman they know theirs a high chance she would be a real woman and put a hole in his head where as the UK, we are told to phone the police, wait the 30 minute response time for them to show up and save the day, but in reality that's enough time for the house invader to kill you, rape your wide, butcher your kids, make a bacon sandwich and then burn the house down. In my opinion people will always kill people, if we are going to ban guns to save lives why dont we ban swimming pools? they kill thousands more than guns, what about cars? i believe that the picture the media paints, that making guns legal would turn the country into a sort of 'wild west' is a complete lie, criminals in the UK already have guns because funnily enough, criminals dont really care when they break the law... when you make guns illegal, carte blanche, then all that ensures is that your law abiding citizenry is unarmed and easy prey, like decadent jellyfish sitting on the beach just waiting for a predator.
Last edited:
This.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
But without the death penalty do you already abide by the law? If you do then you're a very poor example to use to say that the death penalty works.
I'm not sure where to start here, is a swimming pool designed to propel a projectile at a target with a not infrequent propensity to injure or kill it? Do cars have beneficial uses aside from mowing down OAPs on zebra crossings? Both swimming pools and cars can be dangerous but the positives to them outweigh the negatives for most people, I'm not sure you can say the same about guns.
So CCWs work in the USA, does that mean it will also work in the UK which doesn't have a strong gun culture? It might do but frankly given some of the attitudes displayed in this thread I'd feel decidedly less safe with more guns on the street than less, even if they are in the hands of criminals. To paraphrase the famous quote about democracy 'the most convincing argument against gun ownership is a five minute conversation with the average wannabe gun owner" (nb there are quite a few people on here that I'd trust absolutely implicitly with guns but I'm not sure I'd extend that to most people).