Prohibition Laws

[Aelia Jusa]

Originally posted by MagiK: mm Nebbie. My best friend, Kurt in Highschool died because he crashed without his seatbelt on. I feel bad that he died, but not that he died because at the time there was no seatbelt law. On the other hand. My dad is alive because he didn't have his seatbelt on when his truck was side swiped by a drunk driver and crashed into a tree...because he was not tied in palce by the belt, he was thrown to the floor of the vehicle and saved from having his skull crushed by the tree when it caved the roof of the truck in. Yeah I know my dad was the exception to the rule, but the thing here is...are we adults able to make decisions for our selves? Or are we to forever remain children dependant on others to make the choices for us?

It's not only those people who decide to wear a seatbelt or not who are impacted by their own personal choice. If you don't wear a seatbelt and you get spattered all over the road other people are affected - police and emergency service workers who have to come scrape you off. Why should they have to suffer because you're exercising your allmighty freedom of choice? And what about children? Children are influenced by their parents - if their parents don't wear seatbelts they'll likely learn it's not essential and not do it either when they're adults, even if you have laws that say children have to wear them because they can't make their own choices. It's not their fault their parents make foolish choices yet they may suffer in the long run.

[Neb]

Originally posted by The Hunter of Jahanna: Whatever it is legalize it. Drugs and alcohol are a great way to thin the herd. The stupid and weak will O.D. and die, thereby freeing up valuable resources for the more productive members in society. Guns dont kill people, people shooting other people is what kills people.Takeing away guns will not stop murders.Almost all of the realy successfull serial killers never used a gun once. Gacy strangled,Bundy blugented,Dahmed used power tools,Lucas and Toole used what ever was handy and even Manson used knives. Outlawing guns wouldnt have saved a single person that thoes people killed and some of them killed well over a hundred other people.Helmets and seatbelts should be optional. Let the buyer beware when useing a motor vehicle. I seriously doubt anyone else not useing a helmet or seat belt can hurt me more than themselves. When you get down to it , people have choices and choices have consequences. Stupidity can not be legislated against and natural selection can not be stopped. Almost every foolish death is prefaced by the phrase,"Hey Earl, watch this!"

I'll actually have to agree with HoJ here. If we legalize this stuff we should also remove any form of safety related to it, and doing stuff while so inebriated that all inhibitions are off shouldn't be any protection whatsoever. For anyone who falls, there'll be no safety net. Probably a more effective way of getting people to stop doing drugs, anyway, when they see their friends die and go down the drain from doing drugs.

[Donut]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: The idea of an armed public scares me a little (esp from a soldiers point of view - room to room clearing is hell), but I fully support the right to arm bears.

Okay. I read it three or four times to make sure it said what I thought it said but this suggestion is just far too radical. Does an armed bear still shit in the woods? Or can it force it's way into your house and use your toilet?

[Night Stalker]

Originally posted by Donut: quote: Originally posted by Night Stalker: The idea of an armed public scares me a little (esp from a soldiers point of view - room to room clearing is hell), but I fully support the right to arm bears.

Okay. I read it three or four times to make sure it said what I thought it said but this suggestion is just far too radical. Does an armed bear still shit in the woods? Or can it force it's way into your house and use your toilet?[/QUOTE]Heheheh ... at least someone can still have a sense of humor in a hot topic like this

And no. They can't force their way into your home to use the [img]graemlins/toilet.gif[/img] but demanding Oreos is Ok

[ 10-09-2002, 09:42 AM: Message edited by: Night Stalker ]

[RevRuby]

i will repeat myself from the sniper post: the only gun control NEEDED is family gun control. we didn't have school shootings when dad's took kids hunting and taught them respect. unfortunately that doesn't happen in today's society where most of the time it's hard to find one parent or the other, and most of us work hours that keep us from our children most of the day. yeh so they're in school most of the day, but not during the summer. a breakdown of society stems fromt eh breakdown of family. i have a friend named gene. great guy, would bend over backwards for a friend. i remmeber the first time he talked to his dad (i think it was the first time in his life, but don;t quote me on it) he said his dad wanted ott ake him to new york. i asked him why he cared what his dad wanted when he hasn't been there the whole time. his mom also, she was there physically, but not as a parent. he looked at me once when iw as griping about my parents not letting me do things they thought were bad. all he said to me was "i wish my mom cared so much." the look in his eye was surprising. here's a boy who basically decided whther or not to show up at school, how much pot to smoke, who to get alcohol from, etc. and he's jealous of my overbearing parents???? it really is the breakdown of family that makes our "nanny goverment" possible. the ppl have voted it in to lead us because they're not home to hold their kids hands, and so must ask our politicians to. i say they because i have only participated in one election. i don;t mind seatbelt and helmet laws, i always where my belt, and i don;t ride anything requiring a helmet. i think the ppl who don't deserve what they get. my cousin is a horrible driver and doesn't where hers. she has a lot of back problems!!! but i feel that if someone is stupid enough not to see the safety of it then they need someone to point it out. ignorance is asking to be educated, family isn't there to do it, so goverment does. i don;t want to know anyone who's died in an accident, i want the ppl i know to live and love. if the goverment accomplishes that i thank them! and i know this will be butchered most likely and have allt he faults pointed out, so be it. if i didn;t ave faults in my opinions i wouldn't be human.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: Timber By the way the weapon mounted on the HMMWV is the Mk-19 40 mm auto grenade launcher.

Ooooops, you are so right. I had the designations mixed up. Come to think of it, though, it'd be great if you could have an M16/Mk-19 under-over combo.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by RevRuby: i will repeat myself from the sniper post: the only gun control NEEDED is family gun control. we didn't have school shootings when dad's took kids hunting and taught them respect. unfortunately that doesn't happen in today's society where most of the time it's hard to find one parent or the other, and most of us work hours that keep us from our children most of the day. yeh so they're in school most of the day, but not during the summer. a breakdown of society stems fromt eh breakdown of family. i have a friend named gene. great guy, would bend over backwards for a friend. i remmeber the first time he talked to his dad (i think it was the first time in his life, but don;t quote me on it) he said his dad wanted ott ake him to new york. i asked him why he cared what his dad wanted when he hasn't been there the whole time. his mom also, she was there physically, but not as a parent. he looked at me once when iw as griping about my parents not letting me do things they thought were bad. all he said to me was "i wish my mom cared so much." the look in his eye was surprising. here's a boy who basically decided whther or not to show up at school, how much pot to smoke, who to get alcohol from, etc. and he's jealous of my overbearing parents???? it really is the breakdown of family that makes our "nanny goverment" possible. the ppl have voted it in to lead us because they're not home to hold their kids hands, and so must ask our politicians to. i say they because i have only participated in one election. i don;t mind seatbelt and helmet laws, i always where my belt, and i don;t ride anything requiring a helmet. i think the ppl who don't deserve what they get. my cousin is a horrible driver and doesn't where hers. she has a lot of back problems!!! but i feel that if someone is stupid enough not to see the safety of it then they need someone to point it out. ignorance is asking to be educated, family isn't there to do it, so goverment does. i don;t want to know anyone who's died in an accident, i want the ppl i know to live and love. if the goverment accomplishes that i thank them! and i know this will be butchered most likely and have allt he faults pointed out, so be it. if i didn;t ave faults in my opinions i wouldn't be human.

I agree with everything you say, but how to make it happen? Family values are invaluable, but not every family has them. And, should we let kids like your classmate Gene "fall through the cracks" just because they have the misfortune of being born to parents who care less or know less? I'm not saying we legislatively require family values education at home, though these days I'm sure some Congressman or another would be willing to propose a Bill on it.

I'm just asking how we do it. If good family upbringing can get rid of (or decrease the severity of) the gun problem and the drug problem, how do we ensure youngsters get good family upbringing? At present, we do it by (attempting to) identify abusive or deadbeat parents and ripping the kids from them or putting them (the parents) in jail. Sometimes we send them to parenting classes. All this seems a big joke.

The Malthusian/Darwinist in me wants to let those families fall through the cracks - hell, it's no secret overpopulation is our biggest problem. The elitist social planner in me wants to take the kids from bad homes and find them good ones - even if it means requiring wealthy families to take them in. The reasonable guy in me simply realizes he sees the problem and has no clue how to tackle it.

[Bardan the Slayer]

Originally posted by MagiK: I of course completely agree. Especialy about the Helmet and seatbelt laws which were just enacted to satisfy the Special interest group known collectively as the "Insurance Racket" err Industry..yeah industry...not racket [img]smile.gif[/img]

Well, I agree here - you're 18 years old? Make up your own mind. If you want to be splattered all over the road when you're in an accident? Fine, your choice - just don't whinge to anyone about how you should have been made to wear a helmet/seatbelt.

Outlawing guns only insures that outlaws have them and that honest decent people do not...not to mention breaking the second ammendment, and its supporting documents the Washington letters and Jeffersons writings. (Jefferson by the way was the guy who wrote the constitution and pretty much weeded the first 10 ammendments down from roughly 400 or so). Guns are and have been part of American Culture from the very beginning of the country. What others do about it in their countrys is their business but please do not presume to tell us what we should do with them here.

Nobody is telling you what to do - gun control in America would never work - there are far too many guns already in circulation, and that is the problem. In Britain, gun law is as strict as it can be. Guns are to all intents and purposes illegal.

*However*, this does not mean that every criminal has a gun and every law-abiding citizen does not. What it means is that there are very few guns in circulation. People who are part of large crime rings have them. Muggers don't. Burglars don't. That's what the strict gun law does - it means that because the police have no guns and the citizens have no guns, the criminals tend not to carry them either - firstly, because they don't need them, and secondly, because there are not many places to get them, thirdly, because if you get caught carrying one or owning one, it's instant arrest. Guns are so prevalent in America, that to get one is a cinch.

Reeka tells me that when she was mugged in London, the mugger wasn't even carrying a knife. In the UK this is perfectly normal. Maybe they will carry a knife, and in very rare circumstances, a gun. *Very* rare. It makes the front page news when someone is shot by a mugger, it is so rare. She tells me, however, that in America, she would likely have been dead. A mugger will shoot you just so you aren't a witness at his trial. likewise a burglar. Hell, they'll even shoot you for road-rage.

The prevalence of guns in the US leads to an enormous lack of respect for life among the criminal underclass. They can kill you from a distance, and tyey don't even get their hands dirty. It's unemotional. It's far different from plunging a knife into someone's belly and feeling their blood wash over your hands. It's cold and distant, and that's why the gun situation is out of control in your country. Prohibition would never work, because you would nevr get all the guns out of circulation.

Over here, however, the laws have been very strict. Guns are not in circulation. You cannot obtain a gun by going into someone's house and stealing it. The result? You don't get shot at work by a disgruntled employee. You don't get shot because you had a fight with a guy in a pub. You don't get shot in the heat of an argument. You don't get shot because you were caught ****ing your neighbour's wife. You don't get shot when you get mugged. You don't get shot when you get burgled. Really, you just don't get shot unless you are staggeringly unlucky, or involved in some organised criminal undertaking. Hell, i grew up and live in a right sh**hole, surrounded by drug dealers, arsonists, career criminals, muggers, burglars and 'reformed' rehoused criminals. I've never even seen a gun, and only heard a 'rumour' that someone I knew may have had one once.

Say what you like about prohibition of guns. The UK has it, guns are rare in circulation, you don't get shot. The US doesn't, guns are everywhere, you are likely to be shot if you are mugged. According to many Americans (whom I know in real life), if they don't shoot you first, to steal your stuff, they'll shoot you afterwards, to stop your testimony.

The UK solution? You can walk around in relative safety, knowing that if you get mugegd, you *may* get stabbed, and you will *not* be shot. Can the same be said of the US? No - all you can say is that the criminal will have his gun, you will have yoursa, and the person that lives is the one with the faster draw.

As te the constitution - it was made 200 years ago when your country was coming out of colonial rule that it had only managed to throw off because the citizens armed themselves and fought. I believe the spirit of the constitution is that you can own a gun to protect your home, and to use in the rare event that the government loses it's head and starts trying to act unilaterally. what it does not mean IMHO is that every american has easy access to staggeringly huge amounts of military weaponry that gets used far too often for the wrong reasons.

[Bardan the Slayer]

I should, of course, add that no country is perfect. One thing America does perfectly correctly is allow you to defend your home against intruders.

In the US as I understand it, anyone who gets shot by you while they are burgling your home or mugging you is assumed to have no legel recourse against you. This is only sensible - they committed the crime. if they didn't want to get shot - don't burgle peoples' houses!

In the UK, however, you are totally unable to defend your home. If someone breaks in you are allowed to a) - scare them away by shouting, and b) - call the police. The law makes no mention of the result of a and b - that yopu and your family may very well be harmed.
In this country, if you in any way harm an intruder, or even threaten to harm him, or even if you keep a bat beside your bed just in case - you go to jail. That's right folks - in the UK, if you try to defend your home, you go to jail, and the criminal gets compensation. Great, eh?

Just wanted to tip my hat to the US for actually having sensible laws about defending your home. It seems that in that respect, you are far more sensible than this damn counrty :9 *grumble*

[Timber Loftis]

Well, Bardan I'm so happy somebody finally posted this perspective. I spent a summer in London, went to bad places at the worst hours (hell, I lived right up from Kings Cross - decently dodgy), and never feared guns because you just had that sense about it. Now, you can certainly get mugged and get the holy shit beaten out of you - but not getting shot is definately a plus. The worst fear in London that summer were nail-bombs being set off in Jewish communities - which is certainly a threat you guys had a much larger share of than we did, until 9/11 of course.

The defense of self-defense in the US is complicated. In general, you can only answer with deadly force (guns, knives) if you are faced with deadly force (normally guns/knives, but possibly large fists if you are small and female - it's a "reasonable fear" test). As well, you typically must retreat if possible to avoid using deadly force. In the home, in most states, deadly force is allowed, as the fear of harm you will have is increased. Some states still require you to retreat if in the home (e.g. Massachusetts)- this is an issue that is being examined in this season's The Practice, BTW.

Still best no shoot someone in the back. And you are almost never allowed to use force of any kind to protect mere property. Unless you are in Texas or Louisiana, where you can use deadly force to combat "criminal mischief" (e.g. keying your car) during the nighttime. Gotta love those Southerners.

My approach if I suspect an intruder would be to loudly announce that I have a weapon, that I assume they do, and that they should leave now or risk their life. Then shoot shoot shoot.

Lookout - It's comin' right for us. - South Park, of course.