Ripple

Um, what is marriage? Not trying to provoke anything, just asking. Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

But as human beings they should have the right to qualify. See? Oh, I'll explain, I have no issue with anyone, anyone at all, expressing their loving union in the form of marriage. Its equality. Um, that's pretty offensive to say that I would harm your family, my opinion that all human beings have the right to be treated equally isn't dangerous to anyone. Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

Oh, do tell. What is the difference? Absolutely. No problem at all. (Except I really don't find my brother or my sisters remotely attractive Sure, I have no problem with that either. I can see no reason why any loving union should not be allowed to be expressed via the vehicle of marriage. That sounds pretty ideal to me. Well, in my opinion, I can't see why any loving union should be denied the right to marriage. Um, using the analogy of a driving licence, homosexual couples should then have the right to apply and be considered for a marriage license just as hetrosexual couples are. See what I mean? It is my opinion that to treat any section of humanity in an inequal (unequal? Never sure) way is discrimination and therefore immoral. Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

But marriage means a lot more than just parenting children. If it was just about that then single parents would be ostracised, criminalised etc. etc. Surely marriage is about two people who love each other promising to be partners (and all that entails) and demonstrating that promise to the world and their god. So to argue that that right (and I believe it IS a right) should be denied purely because the children may suffer is flawed, imo. Another reason why the children argument is flawed, (again, imo) is the 'normality' aspect. If gay people were allowed to marry then it would become 'normal'. It wasn't 'normal' for disabled people or ethnic minorities to be treated as equals at one time, but is perfectly 'normal' nowadays. 'Normal' is just another word for 'usual'. If something becomes 'usual' it becomes acceptable and vice versa. So, having disposed of the children argument, what other issue could you argue would arise from the marriage of two people who happen to be the same sex? The more love (no matter how its shown) the better, I would have thought. Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

Um, isn't it traitors? Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

Much like your goodself? Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

John, there are far more reasons for any crime going up or down than just one reason. If gun crime increases after the gun legislation has been tightened (they haven't all been 'banned' btw) it is not necessarily due to the laws that have been introduced. Look at the wider picture, there are all sorts of changes that have occured that have influenced this matter. The matter of the EU, for instance, the influx of guns from Eastern Europe, the relaxing of borders, the increased availability of hardware, etc. etc. Unless someone does a thorough, unbiased analysis of the overall situation, we're not going to know the actual reasons for any change in crime rate. But it has to be said that without controlling guns, gun crime would be even higher. Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

Um, you're right, I shouldn't compare it to America. I guess I am though, because America has laxer gun laws than the UK and, in my opinion, America's gun crime figures reflect that. Since that report was published in 1996, the disparity has grown even larger. England is not the idyllic crime-free haven that many people think it is. I don't believe it, sorry. I think one can find any 'report' to support ones own arguement, whatever it is. That's another reason why I feel there is little point in linking to any material. I do believe that where police, in certain areas, have been given more authority, where police numbers have been increased, gun crime has gone down. Ah, but we are not a free country. We may be a democracy, but that does not necessarily equate to free. No, it has only increased in areas where policing has not been altered to reflect the insurgence of the criminal element. There are many, many factors for the reasons for any increase or decrease in crime. The gun laws, in my opinion, have helped to stop gun crime increasing to the extent it would have done without them. Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

Please don't feel that its 'work'. This is only a forum, after all. I don't actually care if people believe the statistics or not. If they want to they will, whether I post a link or not and the obverse is true, also. Besides, posting of links to verify info is lampooned by some, and for your information, I didn't get it from a website, and therefore didn't have a link, I got it from a newspaper. Any police chief who calls an 8% increase in murder in one year a crime-fighting "success", should be fired immediately. Just because gun crime is down for the last year in one place, does not mean that gun crime is not up, and dramatically so, for England overall, since handguns and semi-auto long guns were banned. It is. And note that substitution is occuring from guns to knives, and the murder rate is still climbing. Is it an improvement to have more people murdered with knives, than fewer people with guns? Check out the attached chart showing rising gun crime in England, as reported by the Home Office, which is the statistical collection office for crime, similar to America's FBI. The chart shows that I was correct when I said that gun crime is up in England. The source for that chart is here: BBC News Firstly, all I was demonstrating was that gun crime in London is down. I did not at any time mean to imply that I was talking about the entire country. Secondly, I was refering to gun crime only, as that appeared to be the topic under discussion. This, as proven has improved dramatically in London, principally, it would seem, due to different policing techniques along with the gun control laws. I didn't say it was. Only London. If you remember I pointed out that the Job is the MPS newspaper Actually, that's over dramatising the situation. Gun crime has never been as bad over here as it is in America, secondly without the gun control we now have, there would be far more criminals touting guns than there are currently. The gun laws have helped prevent a situation, not cure it. Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

That's correct. Thank you. However, if gun crime goes up, goes down, stays the same, I'll sleep easy at night I'm unable to see why they cause a large problem. Sorry, quite right. No, not underreporting, recording differently. I'll try and find the article I read the other day... Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

Total crime: Down 1.8% to 1,060,930 offences Burglary: Down 7.1% to 105,361 offences Car crime: Down 7.1% to 225,610 Drugs offences: Down 3% to 32,332 GBH: Down 0.5% to 4,908 Gun crime: Down 7.4% to 3,576 Picking pockets: Down 14.6% to 27,238 Rape: Down 5.9% to 2,571 Robbery: Down 4.4% to 40,640 Sexual offences: Down 2.2% to 10,200 Street crime: Down 4.2% to 56,455 Source: BBC News 28th April 2004 Shootings Significant reductions were achieved in Camden, where gun crime fell by 40 per cent Haringey (27 per cent) and Lambeth (21 per cent). Cuts of 17 and 10 per cent respectively were also recorded in Hackney and Brent. And a new unit, Trafalgar, set up in January to tackle non-fatal shootings, has achieved a 35 per cent reduction in incidents in six months. Trident has continued to have a clear impact within the black community, with a 45 per cent cut in gun-related murders over the last six months – from 11 between January and June 2003 to six murders this year. Detective Chief Superintendent John Coles said: “The combination of the Trident and Trafalgar teams working together in one command has led to an improved focus on intelligence and proactive opportunities to drive down shootings in London that benefits all the communities we serve.” Source: The Job 24 July 2004 The Job is the MPS newspaper, btw. People mistakenly believe that gun crime has risen, when infact, all that has changed are the recording procedures. Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

Quote The only way I can imagine you'd get to people not shooting each other over resources is to either: (a) create a truely communist society, or (b) take away all the weapons. Neither is appealing. I suppose there's option (c), too, a frontal labotomy for everyone. Why would creating a truly communist society be bad? Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

My sentiments exactly. By the way, PJ, point-to-point is a form of horse racing http://www.pointtopoint.co.uk/ and protocol http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/cisintwk/ito_doc/ppp.htm. English language is more flexible that you seem to realise. Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

Yeah, I've noticed that you only bring the subject up when you haven't got any other ammunition to make the other person look bad.

There is such a thing as dyslexia which takes many forms and operates on many different levels. Also English is not always someone's first language. But that aside, there is no requirement to be 100%accurate in spelling and grammar to post on these forums and by picking up on it, you come across as making a pretty desperate attempt to pull someone down, instead of doing the more credible, and creditworthy thing of backing down gracefully. Oh, me is very bad, I forgot an apostrophe. Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

When I was in hospital, a guy was bought in after his father (driving a car) was hit by a speeding, overtaking motorbike, the rider smashed through the car's windscreen, killing the father and fracturing the guys head. The motorbike rider walked away... Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

Oh, you're 'trying' alright. Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

Ok, firstly, you do know my circumstances . Secondly, you appear to be saying that if I wouldn’t want to kill an attacker, I must want them to go completely free. Yes, killing would be a start for me too. But, for me, its not one rule for one, one rule for another. If I killed, I would be just as bad. I’m concerned that you seem to think I was suggesting otherwise. Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

Sure, I understand what you're saying. However, I think its totally unfair to make the victim 'wrong' for not killing their attacker (if they can) like you have done when you say: That's just so wrong. It wasn't the victims fault they were attacked, why does the fact they were attacked make them responsible for what the attacker may do in the future? First of all, I'm not talking 'moral equal'. I don't know what someone would have to do to make me think they don't have as much right to life as I do, though. My beliefs have changed quite radically over the last 10 years or so. I used to feel exactly the same way as you. I really did. But I've increasingly realised that when I believe someone is worth less than someone else (e.g. me), it causes me stress, its not a peaceful way for me to live and it doesn't have any impact on them, at all. I don't expect, or even want you to change the way you feel. I respect it and I want you to understand that its not wrong for me to feel the way I feel. Ok, well, whatever works for you. But I really feel bad that you would blame someone for not killing their attacker if they had the chance. Yes, I believe that self-defence is necessary and I believe in justified self-defence. For me. I know that I, personally, would not want to kill someone who attacked me unless I knew that they were going to kill me. Its also a very grey area, how does anyone know if their attacker is not going to kill them until the attack is over? I understand that revenge is an act that is done in retaliation after the threat has gone. Again, a grey area? All I'm asking is don't make a victim wrong because they didn't kill their attacker when they had the chance. Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

So why you hope he dies a painful death if it would give you no pleasure either way? Just asking, not trying to cause an argument. Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

Oh, I'm sorry, I had no idea the topic was just about 'real time self defence choices'. I thought it was about a woman who killed her attacker when he was no longer posing a threat to her. Revenge being another name for that, imo. Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

Me thinks Jeffrey should be on this woman's defence panel. Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

As you've said yourself, you've never been in a similar position, so that statement hasn't got much credibility, has it? That aside, if someone doesn't exact the kind of retribution you'd like when they have the opportunity, maybe its because they know they wouldn't live happily with the fact, maybe they feel that even if someone does something evil to them, their life is still of equal value. Why is that wrong? The devaluing of people's lives is what causes the shit in the first place. Surely its better to go through life without resentment. If something bad happens to you and you go after revenge, you're reliving the orginal situation, again and again. I'd rather live it just once. That's not to say I advocate forgiveness, by the way. PhillyKev: You can't have read many threads on here then Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

Ooooo, I don't either. Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

Thanks for replying Jeffrey, I thought you'd forgotten You're right, arming oneself is the most effective way of dealing with the immediate situation. However, don't you think that its rather like treating the symptom, rather than the cause? I know there are a huge number of 'causes' for crime, violent or otherwise, and its a huge subject to tackle. Nevertheless, I believe that because we have the means of dealing with the symptom, we have, largely, absolved ourselves of finding a way of dealing with the cause. Consequently, because we don't have to deal with the cause, it never gets treated and therefore, has the opportunity to grow and grow and never go away. So maybe it a bit of both, have some way of protecting oneself (whether that's a gun, or awareness or whatever), but look for ways of addressing the causes of crime too. What d'ya reckon? Btw, I'm not for or against guns, per se. But I'd rather have them used purely for sport, than as a means of protection. Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes