backtop


Print 146 comment(s) - last by voodoochile123.. on Sep 1 at 12:03 AM


British police tried to beat down rioters as class riots swept the island nation.  (Source: Pravista Today)

Britain is back to playing the censorship game in the wake of riots, looking to censor Facebook, Twitter, and BlackBerry communications to prevent future dissent.  (Source: Virgin Films)

BlackBerry's blog was hacked after Research in Motion pledged to turn rioters over to British police.
Facebook, Twitter, and BlackBerries are likely the first to be censored

Last week the fatal shooting of a 29-year-old man by members of the Metropolitan Police Service in Tottenham, North London, enraged the nation's working class.  People in several British cities took to the streets engaging in looting, arson, burglary, robbery and "general disorder."  Five civilians were killed, 186 police officers were injured, and over 1,200 people have been imprisoned for their role in the riots.  Property damages are estimated at £100M ($161M USD)

I. Censor Social Media and Mobile Devices?

In the wake of the riots the situation remains tense.  Britain has the lowest social mobility of any developed country and there's a growing wealth gap between the rich and poor.  The lack of opportunity and equality is creating a growing public animus that threatens more violence.

To try to cut that off, the nation's political elite are considering a sweeping campaign of censorship of social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook.  

In a Thursday speech to Parliament, embattled British Prime Minister David Cameron remarked, "Everyone watching these horrific actions will be struck by how they were organized via social media. Free flow of information can be used for good. But it can also be used for ill. And when people are using social media for violence, we need to stop them."

He said that the government and police are going "to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality."

PM Cameron, a Conservative (though more of a centrist by American political standards), is courting the opposition Labour Party on the matter.  And it appears to be working. Ivan Lewis, the Labour Party's shadow secretary of culture in the House of Commons, comments, "Free speech is central to our democracy, but so is public safety and security. We support the government's decision to undertake a review of whether measures are necessary to prevent the abuse of social media by those who organize and participate in criminal activities."

The Prime Minister has called for meetings with heads of top social network site Facebook and top microblogging platform Twitter -- both of which he said were used to spread word of the riots and encourage them.  He's also contacted Canada's Research In Motion, Ltd. (
TSE:RIM) as he claims that the company's BlackBerry smart phones were used to send messages spreading the riots.

II. Services Pledge to Cooperate, Met With Public Outrage

Facebook and Twitter both have agreed to the meeting, though they say they object to censoring or banning their services in the UK.  Facebook, however, vowed to remove posts or user pages directly inciting rioting.

RIM has also expressed willingness to cooperate, promising to help London police in locating those who incited the riot or participated.  This outraged some members of the English public and the official BlackBerry blog was hacked by a group calling itself TeaMp0isoN.  

The group comments:

Dear Rim;

You Will _NOT_ assist the UK Police because if u do innocent members of the public who were at the wrong place at the wrong time and owned a blackberry will get charged for no reason at all, the Police are looking to arrest as many people as possible to save themselves from embarrassment.... if you do assist the police by giving them chat logs, gps locations, customer information & access to peoples BlackBerry Messengers you will regret it, we have access to your database which includes your employees information; e.g - Addresses, Names, Phone Numbers etc. - now if u assist the police, we _WILL_ make this information public and pass it onto rioters.... do you really want a bunch of angry youths on your employees doorsteps? Think about it.... and don't think that the police will protect your employees, the police can't protect themselves let alone protect others..... if you make the wrong choice your database will be made public, save yourself the embarrassment and make the right choice. don't be a puppet..

p.s - we do not condone in innocent people being attacked in these riots nor do we condone in small businesses being looted, but we are all for the rioters that are engaging in attacks on the police and government.... and before anyone says "the blackberry employees are innocent" no they are not! They are the ones that would be assisting the police

Curt Hopkins of ReadWriteWeb also objected to the planned censorship, writing, "Banning those convicted of crimes from accessing social networks (the idea being that they used such access to organize criminal activities) is no different than banning the same criminals from accessing goose quills and ink pots. It will have zero effect on crime, aside from criminalizing social media itself."

III. My Take (EDITORIAL)

Our basic take on the issue is that government-sponsored digital censorship attempts are inevitable, but futile.

It's hard to consider this developing story without thinking of the late English author and philosopher George Orwell.  In his seminal work 1984 he paints a grim dystopian picture of an England in which impoverished working class is kept in line via constant government monitoring.  Likewise Alan Moore's graphic novel masterpiece V is for Vendetta depicted a totalitarian British government.  Note that in each case, though, for all the censorship, people did still rise up against oppression (though perhaps not so successfully in 1984's account).

England today is perhaps closer to that vision of "Big Brother" than any other nation around the world.  There are cameras on the street corners.  And there's a growing lack of opportunity for the nation's youth -- in short, it's hard to break out of poverty, and it's hard to step out of line.

Violent protests are obviously the domain of the desperate and, in their chaotic nature; they often fail to right whatever perceived wrong caused them in the first place.  On the other hand, the American Revolution began with both peaceful and violent protests, so not all violent protests work out badly.

It's appealing to try to stomp out violence via censorship, but the question becomes how far the censorship must go to stop the violent.  For example, it's hard to distinguish between a protest page against the English government supporting violence and one supporting a peaceful protest.  And humans are clever creatures -- those who actually do want to engage in violent protest can simply engage in code-speak that no amount of censorship can full destroy. 

Another compelling question is whether the UK government is truly interested in stomping out violence or whether its primarily interested in saving face and staying in power.  After all, public unrest is bad for politicians’ health in the polls.  At the end of the day many politicians are first focused on doing whatever it takes to stay in power, or to keep their party in power -- even if what it takes is censorship and public oppression.

But Britain is not alone in restricting free speech online and off.  In America the U.S. Supreme Court has vacillated on numerous free speech issues, such as dissent about the government, anonymous literature, obscenity, and speech in schools.  

In America protesters at political events are afforded special "free speech zones", but can be arrested if they peacefully demonstrate outside the zone.

In Branderburg v. Ohio the Supreme Court ruled that speech that incited "imminent lawless action" was punishable.  Hence the U.S. has the legal means to practice much of the same brand of censorship that the UK has, though, thus far they haven't been tested to a great extent.  In short, even free speech in the U.S. isn't so free.

The internet's wonders of anonymity and instant mass-communication likely will push the issue of free speech.  It already played a key role in overthrowing several governments in the Middle East, despite those governments' best efforts at censorship.  

The message for better or worse seems clear -- politicians can and will try internet censorship, but it's a doomed effort.  If politicians fail to give opportunity and equity to their people, the disfranchised will rise up.  When such digital dissidents are in the minority, they will inevitably be villainized and put down -- but when they become the majority, they will eventually rise up, no matter what censorship barriers are put in place.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

2nd amendment
By mattclary on 8/12/2011 10:21:13 AM , Rating: 1
Maybe if the rioters new their fellow citizens were packing heat, they may have thought twice before burning stuff to the ground.




RE: 2nd amendment
By Lord 666 on 8/12/2011 10:30:57 AM , Rating: 5
And that is why The United States of America is beautiful


RE: 2nd amendment
By Omega215D on 8/12/2011 10:35:41 AM , Rating: 2
We've lost almost all our rights to guns in NYC. Not too sure about elsewhere in NY.

Why did some reports say that the guy was killed while exchanging fire with police? There's some iffy reporting going on but the rioters are still POS's for burning down innocent people's property and businesses.


RE: 2nd amendment
By FITCamaro on 8/12/2011 10:49:51 AM , Rating: 4
Simple solution. Speak with your actions. Leave NYC.


RE: 2nd amendment
By Lord 666 on 8/12/2011 11:28:31 AM , Rating: 3
While I work in NYC, live in NJ. Hoping Chris Christie loosens up the extremely limited CCW permit in NJ or Perry becomes president and mandates a federal level reprocity program.

That London situation would have never lasted as long in the US let alone any CCW state.


RE: 2nd amendment
By bigdawg1988 on 8/12/2011 2:18:27 PM , Rating: 3
You mean like the L.A. riots?


RE: 2nd amendment
By The Raven on 8/12/2011 3:07:41 PM , Rating: 2
Point taken, but we're talking England here. Different people and culture. Guns might've done the job there, whereas in LA we should've just brought in the tanks first thing.

Personally I'm not calling for guns or tanks as I don't think the gov't (especially federal) should be asking to be a target of people's ire. I think if the gov't gets out of people's lives then they won't blame said gov't for all their probs.

I'm just being critical of your logic.


RE: 2nd amendment
By Aloonatic on 8/12/2011 3:55:24 PM , Rating: 5
Lol, are you being serious?

Guns might have got the job done? What job? Killing people? It's amazing how little you guys value human life. Just watching your TV shows and reading comments here is really quite very very sad. Are you really so happy to see people being shot and killed?

You do realise that this all (supposedly) started because of guns?

Seriously, there are few things funnier than watching Americans try to lecture others about crime. You guys have got it sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo o o o o ohh wrong, it's just not funny.

Lol, tanks.


RE: 2nd amendment
By jimbojimbo on 8/12/11, Rating: 0
RE: 2nd amendment
By Aloonatic on 8/12/2011 5:43:44 PM , Rating: 3
Well, people defended their stores in the UK without guns, so, erm, what have you got to say about that?

(Some didn't even have whistles! :-O)

Honestly, why are guns the only answer? It is possible to do many things without them. Luckily, as "the mob" didn't have guns, then store owners (and the Police) didn't need them either, and very few people were killed even though these "riots" took place over a number of days all over the country.

AFAIK, the total is just 4 people killed. 3 died when they were run over by a car and 1 old guy was beaten to death as he tried to put out a fire.

Do you honestly think that fewer people would have died if everyone in the UK could easily have access to guns? Or do you really just value property over human life so much?

(FYI, it is possible to own firearms in the UK, just so you know)

Sorry, but I'd rather see 1000s of shops burnt to the ground, that will be rebuilt and the owners recompensed for lost trade via insurance (and pay the increase in my premiums insuring other things, as I surely will now anyway) than see people being shot.

I think it's a credit to our police force that they managed to get this under control with little more than some body armour, shields, helmets and batons too, by the way.

Personally (if I was a shop owner) I'd rather have a burnt out shop that's rebuilt in a few weeks time, rather than a blood stained one and the memory of when I shot a kid and killed over a pair of trainers.

Crazy talk, I know :-/

Maybe that sort of thinking makes me a "bleeding heart liberal" or something in your eyes, but there you go.


RE: 2nd amendment
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/12/2011 9:01:59 PM , Rating: 2
Unless lives are on the line, the point doesn't get made. If you riot and some people simply get arrested and released and stores rebuild then what was the point other than wasting money. Now if people are willing to put their lives on the line to make a point, or defend a point, it actually has meaning to it. I could care less about any cause someone champions if they aren't willing to fight and/or die for it. Change is effected because you either wipe out the opposition or the loss of life on one or both sides is sufficient to give everyone a sour taste and push for change to stop the sacrifices on both sides. You don't effect real change sitting around discussing stupid shit day in and day out.

-The Romans didn't conquer most of the known world by holding meetings and debates, they did it by killing everyone who opposed them.


RE: 2nd amendment
By robinthakur on 8/15/2011 6:27:36 AM , Rating: 2
In the UK handguns are not and never will be legal. We do not aspire to be like America in all ways, certainly not in your attitude to owning deadly weapons. Other people made the point that the police were only authorised to use Riot shields until Tuesday night when the PM and the Home Secretary authorised them to use baton rounds and heavier tactics, should trouble flare. I do not think that guns in this situation would have fixed anything, it just would have led to far greater loss of life.

Also Dailytech, the picture you see above is of the G20 riots in the City of London, not from the recent riots, and it's all a bit sensational, politicians have agreed to look into what role social media played in the organisation of the riots, it has not suggested outright censorship! In the recent riots, police were easily outnumbered by looters 100:1 and therefore couldn't really do anything. You appear to be suggesting that heavy handed police tactics were to blame here, when the opposite is true. Now is NOT the time to be anti-police. Without them, modern life and supposed civilisation disappears in a heartbeat, as we saw last weekend. British police are very differnt to US police, and their policing style is far more consensual and open to litigation.

A man with a history of drug dealing, gun-running and other illegal actions was shot dead by the police whilst carrying a genuine fire-arm (this is highly illegal in the UK) and although he might not have opened fire at police, one can understand that they believed that they were in a life and death situation. This then kicked off all over the country with thousands of mindless thugs and hooligans stealing and smashing everything, burning buildings to the ground, even kicking down doors to the homes of private residences and looting them.

This is not about class riots, most of them were more bent on anarchy and destruction whilst stealing new sneakers and TV's and they were all teenagers or often pre-teens. There was no political motivation behind it other than a "grab what you can" mentality and anything you might hear about it being justified by the killing of Mark Duggan is mere pretext.


RE: 2nd amendment
By The Raven on 8/12/11, Rating: 0
RE: 2nd amendment
By Aloonatic on 8/12/2011 5:55:43 PM , Rating: 5
Seriously, do you really believe what you are writing?
quote:
And furthermore it is possible to shoot someone (should the weilder choose) and not kill them.

Shoot someone and not kill them? Of course it's possible, but even highly trained and experienced Police officers who've carried firearms for years would never claim to be able to do that, let alone the average store owner at the height of a riot.

As for livelihoods, of course I understand that. I also understand the concept off insurance, which you can take out not only for loss of property and stock, but for the loss of earnings if you are unable to trade. If my business was that important to me I'd have taken that sort of insurance out.

Oh, and I didn't miss "that part". However, you might be fooling yourself when you claim to say that you aren't calling for guns, but it seems that other than that one sentence, the rest of your comment is doing just that, and it makes no sense.

Nor does it make sense to think that guns would only be being used to defend property and "stop violence". They would be a great act of violence themselves, and also being used to take property by the looters too, and then the Police would inevitably have to be armed as well......

Gun are only made for one thing, whether you want to face up to it or not, and that's for killing people. You guys are welcome to have as many as you like, and shoot each other all day long if you want to, for whatever excuse you can come up with, but I'm glad that I live in a country where thats not the case, thanks very much.

As such, I don't need to come up with irrational, hypocritical or contradictory nonsense to try to justify it :)


RE: 2nd amendment
By The Raven on 8/12/11, Rating: -1
RE: 2nd amendment
By Aloonatic on 8/12/2011 7:00:00 PM , Rating: 5
Criminals would not be the only people making that decision about whether thy might get shot or not. Everyone would have to start making that decision as, as I have already said, shop owners wont be the only people with guns.

Also, I don't get your point about not needing the police because of insurance. I never said that people can "protect themselves" with insurance. Honestly, please explain to me how you came to get that idea? I said that you don't need to shoot people to keep your shop/livelihood going. You can let your shop get burnt and rebuild later without having to start killing people.

Out of interest, what value do you put on a human life. Even a rioting "looter's" life, which I am going to be so bold to to think that you think is worth less than most?

Also, please post a quote where I have claimed to have "all the answers".

All I've done is pointed out the inconsistent, hypocritical, contradictory and nonsensical nature of what your'e said, Like the notion about only "some people" having the ability to use a gun. The more guns you have, the more likely they are too fall into the wrong hands. People in the UK can have guns too, in case you didn't know. Some have them illegally too, of course, but as they are not common place legally, and they are not really common place illegally too.

As for the LA riots point you make, Please explain it to me more clearly, as I don't understand that you are on about. Are you saying that it's OK just for Koreans to own guns? You do realise that it everyone didn't have guns, then they would have feat less of a need to use them. Also, you can defend property without them, as I pointed out (and you've ignored) many bushinesses in the UK were defended without guns, amazingly. Why? Because guns aren't common. Those Koreans would not feel so much of a need to have them perhaps, if they were working in the UK.

I also enjoyed your comment about the "innocent" loss of life. Amazing. The perverse nature of the kind of mind boggling way in which you are so deep into the idea off guns and killing that you have to come up with such phrases is probably lost on you totally.

The thing is, it's easy to pick out individual cases where the truck driver was "saved" by his gun, but sadly, plenty more people have been killed when someone who isn't so nice pulled out a gun too. I'd imagine that, if asked, would the truck driver prefer to live in a country where very few people have guns or lots of people do? I would be pretty sure that he'd rather live and work somewhere where guns are so rare that it is highly unlikely that he will ever see one anywhere other than on TV, at hte cinema, while playing on his xBox or maybe at the airport.

Keeping them to a minimum is just common sense, as they are only made for one thing and once you start letting lots of people have them, it's very very hard to keep them under control, and that notion of control seems to be the delusion that you are living under.


RE: 2nd amendment
By tng on 8/12/11, Rating: -1
RE: 2nd amendment
By ipodsrule420 on 8/12/2011 11:11:05 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, he would do nothing while on the other hand, you would bust in with your sweet GunKata moves and blow the rapist away with the world's largest shotgun.


RE: 2nd amendment
By Omega215D on 8/12/2011 11:22:45 PM , Rating: 2
You need one them cool cleric coats to make the gun kata effective.


RE: 2nd amendment
By Aloonatic on 8/13/2011 3:07:13 AM , Rating: 5
@ 2nd amendment.

Are you being serious?

Who mentioned rape? I was responding to someone making the point about defending a livelihood with a firearm, as if it was the only way to do so, and I said that you don't need to with insurance, as it's already protected.

Oh, but would that not be man enough for you?

Pathetic.

Oh, and just to make it clear to you.

If I saw a girl being raped in the UK, I'd likely go to her aid as I know that it's highly unlikely that her attacker would have a firearm.

If I saw a girl being raped in the USA I'd be much less likely to go to her aid as I know that there is a far greater chance that her attacker might have a gun. Even if I had one myself I'd still be less likely to as I'd know that if a stand off or fire fight was to ensue, then there would be a good chance that either the girl or I may be seriously injured or killed.

Thats the point that all you gun loving "men" *kisses pecks as I put on gun show of my own, "boo yeah"* seem to miss.

Of course, you've got a great kill ratio on CoD and have watched the Matrix many times so know that "there is no gun" and could cartwheel over, dodging bullets before disarming the attacker while saying some dry, comic one-liner before catching the girl who would swoon and fall into your manly big man, man arms.

Deluded.

FYI, if you were to come across an armed guy raping a girl, even if you had a gun yourself, I'd wager that you would be too scared to do anything yourself, if you're honest with yourself.

Carry on believing otherwise of course, but the only person you're fooling is yourself.


RE: 2nd amendment
By Reclaimer77 on 8/13/11, Rating: -1
RE: 2nd amendment
By Aloonatic on 8/13/2011 10:10:34 AM , Rating: 3
A major riot breaks out in Britain every year or so? Your ignorance and xenophobia is breath-taking.

I'd get stabbed helping that girl. Maybe, but the truth is that it's a lot harder to kill someone with a knife than a firearm, which is why I'd be much more likely to help her. Sorry, that's just a fact.

I don't get what you think is so bad to think that things (guns) that are made solely for the purpose of killing people (and maybe the odd dear or bears, because there are millions of dear and bears in America, which is why you need so many guns) are not a great thing for everyone to have?

You keep on skipping these points and fall back on your well rehearsed arguments.

And yes, well done for spotting that my comment about the matrix was silly, and not meant to be taken all that seriously. Sadly, however, too many people on here take it seriously. And I'm not throwing "all yanks" in together, just hte people that I'm reply too, or those whom my comments clearly apply.

Show me where I have written a comment saying that all Americans are....

It's funny how yanks like to tell the world what to do, but don't like having it rebutted or any suggestions about what you do at all.

When you start using movies like V for Vendetta for your argument, even you must realise that you are scrapping the bottom of the barrel.

But now you mention government buildings being blown up by citizens, when was the last time a British person blew up their own government building like Timmy did in Oklahoma?


RE: 2nd amendment
By Reclaimer77 on 8/13/11, Rating: -1
RE: 2nd amendment
By The Raven on 8/15/2011 1:52:34 AM , Rating: 2
Dude quit with your "I didn't say ALL yanks..." crap.
quote:
Show me where I have written a comment saying that all Americans are .... It's funny how yanks like to tell the world what to do, but don't like having it rebutted or any suggestions about what you do at all.

You didn't say "It's funny how SOME yanks like..."
It seems like all of your comments are like this. If you don't mean to come across like that, then I suggest you brush up on the language that we stole from you at the barrel of a gun ;-) (No hard feelings, BTW :-)

And you asked me where you say you have all the answers.
Where have you said that guns might be a good idea for someone? You haven't. You have said that they are always for killing and always a bad idea. So you are saying that you know better than all of us. Hence, "all the answers." All the answers for each and every individual in the US and the World. The UK gov't is saying that they don't care what kind of situation you are in or what you think, you cannot own a gun. I disagree with that prohibition, but to each their own, again I do not know every thing.


RE: 2nd amendment
By The Raven on 8/15/2011 10:34:49 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I'd get stabbed helping that girl. Maybe, but the truth is that it's a lot harder to kill someone with a knife than a firearm, which is why I'd be much more likely to help her. Sorry, that's just a fact.

That is a fact? Assuming that there will be a close quarters struggle (since you won't have a gun) you and your arms feel that you have some measure of safety because the criminal doesn't have a gun? No, you could get killed just as easy. That is a fact. Sure chances might be worse if they have a gun (because they wouldn't have to wait for you to approach them to blow you away, again since you don't have a gun to threaten them with), but the fact remains that you could just as easily be killed. So your point is invalid. And you obviously wouldn't come to the aid of a victim regardless of the criminal's armament because you are basically stating that you don't want to roll those dice.

I'd rather be surrounded by what you might consider "gun-toting lunatics" here in the US than be your neighbor. I'd feel much more safe being surrounded by people with morals.


RE: 2nd amendment
By The Raven on 8/15/2011 10:56:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You keep on skipping these points and fall back on your well rehearsed arguments.

No offense to R77, but these don't sound well rehearsed. Mine certainly aren't (as you'd probably agree).

And speaking of skipping points...
quote:
And your violent crime rate is NOT lower than ours, sorry. Our gun violence is higher, yes, obviously. But America more violent than the U.K?

...you LEAPED right over that one.

I was unaware of the possibility of this (since it is irrelevant to my opinion) but a quick search yielded an article from 2009. Feel free to straighten us out with more recent news, but regardless of the possibility of a turnaround in the UK, it certainly doesn't sound like the utopia you are making it out to be.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-ord...


RE: 2nd amendment
By tng on 8/15/2011 11:06:27 AM , Rating: 2
Nice link. Good info.


RE: 2nd amendment
By Aloonatic on 8/16/2011 10:59:16 AM , Rating: 2
I've never said that the UK is a utopia. Only someone who is ultra-defensive and worried about something might have to resort to making those sort of childish claims.

Why are you all so touchy when someone simply questions the guff that you come out with and points out the insanity of, and contradictions in your arguments?

So far all you've been able to come back with is that I didn't explicitly say qualify that I was talking about "some" Americans, but I also did not say "all" Americans wither... but that's about all you've got, along with a quote that I've not made any mention of or reference to?

Debating with pro-gun types seems a lot like debating with those of a religious bent, who seem happy to make outlandish claim after claim, then go on to change the subject and make out that someone is saying something else when they really aren't, as they try to deflect.

I've never said that the UK isn't a violent place. Violence is an inherent part of the human condition. Only a fool would pretend otherwise, or that any one area is free from it.

The thing is, as every society does have violent people in it (and we are all prone to violence when pushed, it's just that some have different limits). Isn't it best to keep tools designed exclusively for the killing of people out of their hands?

Really, I'm getting tired of this now.

The only thing that this thread is useful for now is as an example of how to straw-man your way through an argument and the blind/blinkered view of A FEW Americans like yourself.

Oh, and on the UK violence capital of Europe front. Do you know what one of the main reasons that many state for this? That the UK is the most "Americanised" country in Europe, where the influence of American style gang culture etc is the highest.


RE: 2nd amendment
By The Raven on 8/16/2011 4:09:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Debating with pro-gun types seems a lot like debating with those of a religious bent, who seem happy to make outlandish claim after claim, then go on to change the subject and make out that someone is saying something else when they really aren't, as they try to deflect.

Well that is where you are wrong. I'm not simply pro-gun, I'm pro-freedom and yes I am religious about that just how anyone should be about their political beliefs. You BETTER feel pretty damn strong for imposing your OPINIONS on another and curbing their RIGHTS. And regardless of your opinion, which I interpret as there should be no civilian owned guns in the US, that is the state of things. Gun ownership is a right in the US.

Outlandish claims? Changing subjects? Deflecting? Are you talking to me?
Here are examples of outlandish claims:
"It's amazing how little you guys value human life."
"Seriously, there are few things funnier than watching Americans try to lecture others about crime. You guys have got it sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo o o o o ohh wrong, it's just not funny."
"Gun are only made for one thing, whether you want to face up to it or not, and that's for killing people."
"I would be pretty sure that he'd rather live and work somewhere where guns are so rare that it is highly unlikely that he will ever see one"

What is being deflected? I'm sorry if I missed anything as you have been writing a lot of BS IMO. It is difficult to sort through. But list it here and I will address because I am serious about the subject despite your contention that we are merely babies mindlessly crying for guns.

And "make out that someone is saying something else when they really aren't"? Here's an example.
quote:
However, you might be fooling yourself when you claim to say that you aren't calling for guns, but it seems that other than that one sentence, the rest of your comment is doing just that, and it makes no sense.

The bulk of the comment was me not "calling for guns" but you twisted that how you saw fit to make me out to be a moron because you disagree with my opinion.
So who is the hypocrite exactly?

quote:
I've never said that the UK is a utopia.

That's right. You said that the US is a much better place to live in because there are so many guns around to make you feel safe. Oh wait you said the exact opposite. And then there is this doozy where you claim the UK (or you at least) knows the answer to reducing crime
quote:
Seriously, there are few things funnier than watching Americans try to lecture others about crime. You guys have got it sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo o o o o ohh wrong, it's just not funny.

But I know what you will probably say to that..."Where did I say I had the answers? I merely said that Americans were sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo o o o o ohh wrong. I don't claim to have the answer to reducing crime, but I know you have it wrong. I just pulled that out of my arse, because it isn't much better on this side of the pond either."

quote:
I've never said that the UK isn't a violent place. Violence is an inherent part of the human condition. Only a fool would pretend otherwise, or that any one area is free from it.
The way you talk, you'd think it isn't a violent place because you paint Americans as homicidal maniacs. Your thinking: guns=murder...murder=killer...gun owner=killer. Gun owners are not necessarily killers. And yes, crime is everywhere. This is why I think you are a fool to think that guns can't protect you. Crime happens and it might be a good idea to have a gun when it does. Or you can take your approach and stick your head in the sand thinking "no criminal would bring a gun to a knife fight." Or you can choose not to have a gun (like me).

I don't know, you keep claiming that I am misinterpreting your statements. Maybe I should just ask a couple questions so that we do not misunderstand each other.
1) Assuming you are American (because you claim that we have it wrong) if you could (or at least vote to) make it illegal for civilians to carry firearms in your home country of the US, would you?
2) Do you believe that you should be able (by law) to stab a man and possibly kill him in self-defense?


RE: 2nd amendment
By The Raven on 8/15/2011 10:33:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Who mentioned rape?
He did. Don't skirt the issue just because he brings up a different situation. Err, let me put that in terms you would understand...turn and run from his argument.
quote:
It is not a crime to defend yourself, although you seem to think so. You are the person that criminals love, a victim.

Thank you for jumping over this statement to expose yourself as a selfish coward. In your mind you can't even man up to help another if you might be harmed. I don't claim to guarantee that I will run into a fight in such a case, but at least my default is set to "help."

The fact that you bring up some movie/video game fantasy really exposes you as someone who knows nothing else. And it is folly to assume that we are just as ignorant.


RE: 2nd amendment
By Paj on 8/15/2011 7:17:22 AM , Rating: 2
What the HELL are you on about?
What are you, Batman or something?


RE: 2nd amendment
By tng on 8/15/2011 10:55:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What the HELL are you on about?
Ever had someone try to assault you, mug you? I have, scary, but I did respond and not in the way that the guy with the knife wanted. Makes me shake just thinking about it, not something I would care to repeat.....

Brings up another thing, I hate large cities, anywhere for just this reason. Nice to visit, don't want to live in one.


RE: 2nd amendment
By Ammohunt on 8/13/2011 9:58:04 AM , Rating: 2
You make the most common ignorant mistake that most anti-gunner/European people make of not understanding escalation of force. Your focus is on the weapon and not the real problem the person with the weapon. Case in point Rwanda most of the people slaughtered there were hacked to death by Machetes becasue it was cheaper than bullets. I don't remember at that time seeing a big call to ban long Knives! The sad fact is people repond absolutly to the threat of deadly force its not theory its a fact for example the flash mob violence that is taking place in Philadelphia would not happen in my state becasue of conceal weapon permits. when you don't know who is armed and who isn't the unknown possiblity exists that you might loose your life for commiting acts of violence that alone it decreases the likelyhood of such to the point of non-existence without a single shot fired.


RE: 2nd amendment
By Aloonatic on 8/13/2011 10:15:45 AM , Rating: 4
Oh jesus, me, ignorant? hypocrisy is strong in this thread.

I have no problem with the general argument around the idea that gun's don't kill people, the people who wield them do. The thing is, guns sure as hell make it a lot easier to.

Yes, in Rowanda a lot of people were killed. Just imagine how many more would have been killed if they had had access to more guns and ammo however.

As for long knives being banned. They are in the UK. At least, in public if you have no reason to have one. I don't have a problem with that either. Why would anyone need one other than for a few very specific purposes?

I do enjoy how you think that your theory about concealed weapons is fact.

Your's and reclaimer's comments would almost be funny, if the subject wasn't so serious.


RE: 2nd amendment
By Schrag4 on 8/13/2011 12:26:08 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I have no problem with the general argument around the idea that gun's don't kill people, the people who wield them do. The thing is, guns sure as hell make it a lot easier to.


Yes, they are merely a tool. They make it easier to defend yourself too - they level the playing field. This is particularly important for smaller/weaker people. You might be able to take on a 250 pound, knife wielding criminal. I probably can't. My wife certainly can't. I suppose if we're targeted we should just lay down and die like good victims.

quote:
Yes, in Rowanda a lot of people were killed. Just imagine how many more would have been killed if they had had access to more guns and ammo however.


Uh, they had guns but sharpening blades is cheaper than bullets, and the victims didn't have a way to fight back, so why use bullets? But again, you're missing the point. What if the victims had firearms?


RE: 2nd amendment
By The Raven on 8/15/2011 3:19:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Criminals would not be the only people making that decision about whether thy might get shot or not. Everyone would have to start making that decision as, as I have already said, shop owners wont be the only people with guns.
I don't quite follow you here? Are you alluding to the fact that a criminal might have a gun? If you are then are you saying that they are impervious to death because they have a gun? Then why don't you make the same assumption of the shopkeeper/law-abiding gun owner? Yes, criminals with guns also have to make that decision to risk their lives when they attack a gun owner (or a knife owner for that matter.)
quote:
Also, I don't get your point about not needing the police because of insurance. I never said that people can "protect themselves" with insurance. Honestly, please explain to me how you came to get that idea? I said that you don't need to shoot people to keep your shop/livelihood going. You can let your shop get burnt and rebuild later without having to start killing people.

We were talking "protection" of livelihood here. Yes I hear what you are saying. But if this is the case, that you should never fight to protect your business (possibly resulting in death of any party involved by gun knife or otherwise) then why do we lock doors after closing our shops here? What is the purpose of that? Why do we risk the lives of policemen to chase after car thieves when the cars are insured anyway? What is the point? Because other than what I said before (that the police force is a measure of protection from unaffordable insurance premiums) I don't see the point.

And above that, you cannot just get a new body when you are stabbed/shot dead. I believe you should have the right (should you choose because you believe it is worth the risk) to own a firearm.
quote:
Out of interest, what value do you put on a human life. Even a rioting "looter's" life, which I am going to be so bold to to think that you think is worth less than most?

What mental picture do you have in your mind? Like I am just indiscriminately spraying LMG rounds into a crowd of looters? What's wrong with simply brandishing a gun to warn people that you are packing heat and that they may risk more than jail time if they advance on you. Again the onus is on the perp to make the decision of whether that gun gets deadly.

Here's a couple personal experiences from my childhood to help illustrate the point of non-deadly use of weapons to avoid personal harm.

My drunken biological father broke through a window of our house and threatened to beat my mom (maybe to death I don't remember exactly, but whatever he was drunk.) After warning my father, my stepdad went and got his gun (he was a master sergeant in the USAF) and threatened to use it on my dad. Of course he did not want to use it, and he kept saying things like, "You do not want to do this. This is stupid. This is not worth it." to my dad.
My poor drunken father knew that he didn't stand a chance against the gun, broke down crying and left us. (I don't believe the police were ever involved by the way.) Casualties: 0

On another occasion, my dad's cousin (that's right, my drunken dad's cousin) got drunk, got into a verbal fight with my dad and eventually pulled a knife on him. My dad retreated into his duplex returned with his long bow (yeah you guessed it, my drunkard father preferred a gentleman's weapon) and threatened to shoot his cousin from a safe distance. His cousin backed down and surrendered the knife.
Casualties: 0

Now I may not remember all the details 100% correctly, but I hope you get the idea...and have a good laugh at my family's expense! (Oh and needless to say I have never touched a drop of alcohol lol)

So to answer your question? I value life greatly. But a person's fate is what they make of it. Don't blame the guy who owns a gun/knife/crowbar. Blame the guy who attacked the guy who owns a gun/knife/crowbar. Nice try on making me out to be a trigger happy gun nut (BTW I don't own a gun as I don't feel I personally need to at this time).

And I certainly value the life of my innocent mother and stepdad over my drunken threatening father. Yeah sometimes life might call for such decisions but luckily for me, mine hasn't yet. (Oh and this was one of those people who could've safely performed a non-fatal shot to the thigh lol.)
quote:
The thing is, it's easy to pick out individual cases where the truck driver was "saved" by his gun, but sadly, plenty more people have been killed when someone who isn't so nice pulled out a gun too. I'd imagine that, if asked, would the truck driver prefer to live in a country where very few people have guns or lots of people do? I would be pretty sure that he'd rather live and work somewhere where guns are so rare that it is highly unlikely that he will ever see one anywhere other than on TV, at hte cinema, while playing on his xBox or maybe at the airport.

Well seeing how the truck driver wasn't attacked by people with guns I don't think he would care if they were prevalent through out the country. And how can you be so sure of what he would like since you don't even seem to understand the facts of the case? Again, not that I blame you for not knowing detailed US history, but here you are making statements based on omniscience that you don't have. I'm guessing that he wouldn't have been attacked had he had a gun. But as I said:
quote:
Ask the truck driver who was pulled out of his ride if a gun would've helped? I don't claim to know what he would say, but I wouldn't be surprised if he answered either way. And I believe he [should've] had the right to carry gun should he choose.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/199...

quote:
Keeping them to a minimum is just common sense, as they are only made for one thing and once you start letting lots of people have them, it's very very hard to keep them under control, and that notion of control seems to be the delusion that you are living under.
Keeping them to a minimum is common sense. However the definition of "the minimum" is not. That is decided by individuals who find themselves in dicey situations.

What notion of control are you talking about? The "shoot someone and not kill them" thing? That was an extreme example and why I was surprised that you jumped over the main part of that paragraph.

And innocent life = life of someone who did not bring their death on themselves (e.g. didn't attack someone)


RE: 2nd amendment
By The Raven on 8/15/2011 3:26:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
As for the LA riots point you make, Please explain it to me more clearly, as I don't understand that you are on about. Are you saying that it's OK just for Koreans to own guns? You do realise that it everyone didn't have guns, then they would have feat less of a need to use them. Also, you can defend property without them, as I pointed out (and you've ignored) many bushinesses in the UK were defended without guns, amazingly. Why? Because guns aren't common. Those Koreans would not feel so much of a need to have them perhaps, if they were working in the UK.
Oh I forgot this part. Read up on it THEN get back to me. Don't just shoot your mouth off without knowing the facts of the story that I am referencing back at the people who think the LA riots would've been significantly less deadly if guns were banned in the US.


RE: 2nd amendment
By Samus on 8/12/2011 1:12:27 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. If you want to own weapons, NYC (or any inner-city area) might not be the ideal place to live. I live in Chicago and it's pretty difficult to register a legal firearm in the city, let alone aquire a much-saught-after conceal and carry permit. Just to register a firearm, you need a FOID card (Firearm Owners ID) from the state, an affidavit from the city that basically puts you on a 'list', and you need to take a 2-part course that covers firearm laws, use, and self defense, plus 7 hours of range time at a licensed facility.

While that sounds like all good ideas, I don't see the need for ANY of it if I am going to have a Walther P22 for self defense in my own home. A weapon that I have locked up, and will never leave my home. And I don't want to be on a list so the police can come in "weapons-free" when I have an emergency.


RE: 2nd amendment
By Lord 666 on 8/12/2011 3:26:29 PM , Rating: 3
Whats the P22 for? Give someone a flesh wound? That nut job in AZ hit that poor congresswoman in the head with a 9mm at close range and she lived. Pick the right tool for the job at hand.

If you were to have only one weapon, the Mossberg 590 A1 fits the bill for home defense. No worries with that sissy Chicago law stuff since its not a pistol.

If you must have a pistol, a quality .40 (Glock 23 or XD-40) will do the trick.


RE: 2nd amendment
By EricMartello on 8/12/2011 5:15:24 PM , Rating: 2
The 9mm round is Ms. Popularity. I keep a 10MM pistol on me and I have an mil-spec M4 rifle in a "tactically viable location" with several 30 rnd clips ready to go. I do agree that a shotgun is a solid choice for home defense if you're only going to have one weapon...but if you are in a situation where you would need to use that weapon, it's always better to have options you know?


RE: 2nd amendment
By Aloonatic on 8/12/2011 6:35:38 PM , Rating: 1
Jesus, are you gay?

I've got a mini-gun behind sandbags facing my front door, grenade launchers on the roof, claymores behind ever internal door and land-mines in my lawn. I've got the odd RPG in the garage too, just in case.

Booo-yeah!

Who's the man?

Huh!?

Who's the man?

*Holds up hand for a high five*


RE: 2nd amendment
By EricMartello on 8/13/2011 12:07:21 AM , Rating: 2
You sound quite gay. Did your bedazzled vespa break down leaving you stuck at home?


RE: 2nd amendment
By Aloonatic on 8/13/2011 3:14:32 AM , Rating: 1
a) I would not care about sounding gay as (to be being serious for a mo, and in case you didn't realise, I was obviously being sarcastic above) there is absolutely nothing wrong with being gay.

b) I pity you.

Good day :o)


RE: 2nd amendment
By EricMartello on 8/14/2011 6:24:51 AM , Rating: 2
Actually from a biological standpoint being "gay" is wrong for the simple fact that they would not survive due to their inability/unwillingness to reproduce. Lucky for them, "civilization" is there to keep them going.


RE: 2nd amendment
By Aloonatic on 8/16/2011 3:42:10 PM , Rating: 2
It all depends on what you think nature is all about. In an over populated world, maybe it's "right" for there to be a section of the population that are happy to not be able to reproduce.

There is homosexuality all over the natural world too, not just in man, kept alive only by civilization.

Luckily, sad, petty, judgemental, homophobic politics doesn't affect them though. :o)


RE: 2nd amendment
By Reclaimer77 on 8/13/2011 9:41:48 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Whats the P22 for? Give someone a flesh wound? That nut job in AZ hit that poor congresswoman in the head with a 9mm at close range and she lived. Pick the right tool for the job at hand.


Well, statistically speaking, the head is a poor choice. Bone is very hard and the head is very round, making it a non-ideal choice with a handgun round which bleeds energy very quickly.

And before the Brit get's in an uproar, no, I do not go around shooting people in the head to test this theory. Nor do I fantasize over it.


RE: 2nd amendment
By Omega215D on 8/12/2011 11:21:53 PM , Rating: 2
I am actually. Leaving for SD to be PD. I already have a gun carry license and it wasn't too hard to get considering that I graduated from a criminal justice college for forensic science, no prior convictions or history of incidents, work in ballistics and have handed in several personal history statements for various agencies.


RE: 2nd amendment
By tng on 8/12/2011 12:45:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not too sure about elsewhere in NY.
Spending allot of time in upstate NY it is only slightly better depending on the city/county. California is just as bad, maybe worse. In CA it seems that the laws are written to punish the gun, not the person who used it.


RE: 2nd amendment
By EricMartello on 8/12/2011 5:18:12 PM , Rating: 2
That's what happens when you get liberals and morons dictating laws that serve only to give them the illusion of being "tough on crime". In fact, law abiding citizens are not buying guns to commit crimes...and criminals will continue to acquire weapons any way they can regardless of laws.

Also, the BATF "Fast and Furious" program says hi.


RE: 2nd amendment
By Reclaimer77 on 8/13/2011 9:43:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In fact, law abiding citizens are not buying guns to commit crimes...and criminals will continue to acquire weapons any way they can regardless of laws.


You mean it's just a coincidence that cities with the toughest gun control also have the highest rates of gun related violence? Say it isn't so!


RE: 2nd amendment
By CensorshipRules on 8/17/2011 6:54:26 PM , Rating: 2
And here is the ugly underside of the belly of America that is disgraceful. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9IXBU6dKdA


RE: 2nd amendment
By CensorshipRules on 8/17/2011 6:55:06 PM , Rating: 2
RE: 2nd amendment
By Tony Swash on 8/12/11, Rating: 0
RE: 2nd amendment
By geddarkstorm on 8/12/2011 12:02:14 PM , Rating: 5
Yet, even when our politics are inflamed to their highest (as recently), with dangerous rhetoric flying everywhere, our country is still not gripped by riots. Why? Because of the lack of censorship: people get to vent, they feel they can make a difference with their words so they aren't forced to try with their fists and fire. And, decent citizens are free to step up and reign in those who are starting to get out of hand. We don't have to rely on the government to police ourselves through open discussion and freedom (what remains of it anyways).

Censorship leads to only one inevitable conclusion: revolution. Because, that becomes the only way to break the government's hold on the freedom of the populous. And if you've been watching the middle east, or the Ivory Coast, you know that all populations seek freedom.

There comes a tipping point, and the UK's government needs to realize this before things get worst and more tragedies spread.

And remember, the reason the US has such free firearms is specifically to allow the population latitude to overthrow our government if we feel it's been taken over and become tyrannical. This was a specific thing left open by the founding fathers, after they had to do the same against Britain. Will that ever have to happen? I pray not! May it never be so! And thankfully, it's highly, highly doubtful to ever occur. But, the fact it -can- helps keep our government in line instead of becoming a police state and holding us captive. Yes, this means more crimes can happen that involve guns; but in Britain you've got knives and bats and other weapons to replace guns. Criminals are criminals, and will always find a way to hurt or kill others no matter what weapons are available (look at the 1970's in the US); guns or no guns, that'll never change. But at the government scale? Yeah, it does matter in the end.


RE: 2nd amendment
By tng on 8/12/2011 12:47:23 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
And remember, the reason the US has such free firearms is specifically to allow the population latitude to overthrow our government if we feel it's been taken over and become tyrannical.
Isn't that in the Federalist Papers? The 2nd Amendment is there for just this case?


RE: 2nd amendment
By ZorkZork on 8/12/2011 12:59:02 PM , Rating: 2
RE: 2nd amendment
By B3an on 8/12/2011 1:21:06 PM , Rating: 2
I knew there would be typical comments like this from yanks on there high horses conveniently forgetting all the riots that have happened in the U.S... And on each occasion theres been FAR more deaths. Dont know why you always have to pretend everything is better over there, the world knows otherwise and you're not fooling anyone.

And you know nothing if you think the riots had anything to do with censorship. It was purely greed from criminals. There was a poll and almost 90% of the UK knows this. Theres NO political point being made by the rioters, they're just looters, criminals and anarchists. Kids that are mostly from 14 - 19 years old burning down homes in there own town and looting shops is not making a political statement.


RE: 2nd amendment
By FITCamaro on 8/12/2011 1:36:45 PM , Rating: 1
Gee funny how nearly all violent riots in the country have been by those who typically vote for Democrats.


RE: 2nd amendment
By bigdawg1988 on 8/12/2011 2:21:29 PM , Rating: 2
Rich people don't need to riot to be heard, they just buy off their politicians.


RE: 2nd amendment
By ZorkZork on 8/12/2011 2:41:03 PM , Rating: 2
Oh yes I’m sure that if this happened in the US these guys would have been registered voters for the democratic party.

LOL


RE: 2nd amendment
By The Raven on 8/12/2011 5:19:34 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Yes, this means more crimes can happen that involve guns ; but in Britain you've got knives and bats and other weapons to replace guns. Criminals are criminals, and will always find a way to hurt or kill others no matter what weapons are available (look at the 1970's in the US); guns or no guns, that'll never change. But at the government scale? Yeah, it does matter in the end.

I take it you missed this part.

Look, there are places where guns are not allowed and yet we find guns. However they are not held by "the good guys". They are always held by some mental case.

Columbine: 13 dead, 21 wounded*
Ft Hood: 14 dead, 29 wounded**
Tucson: 6 dead, 19 wounded***
*Obviously no guns allowed
**Happened at a military installation, but it was a place where it was not commonplace to carry guns.
***guns not prohibited but took place at a gathering of people (Democrats) who happily give that right up. Not speaking ill of Dems, that is just their platform.

My thinking is that if the people at these places all had guns (theoretically speaking, not necessarily calling for guns to be commonplace in schools) then those numbers would be a lot lower.

Guns certainly wouldn't have done anything to help Giffords in Tucson since she was the first one to get shot, but the nutjob who shot her could've been taken down sooner by a nearby CCW permit holder preventing further death.

I for one learned on 9/11 (BTW, no guns) that we shouldn't always just plan on duck, cover and wait for the SWAT team to save us. The mental stability of these nuts is unpredictable. They may just land the plane and we all get away fine. Or we may end up in the side of a building causing the deaths of others. No, I'd rather be like those passengers on Flight 93 who sacrificed themselves knowing that they may just die anyway, and prevented further loss of life.

There will always be people like this. They will always have access to dangerous weapons. I believe that the rest of us should have the right to protect ourselves should we feel like we need it. In the right hands a gun can be a good way to do that.


RE: 2nd amendment
By Tony Swash on 8/12/11, Rating: 0
RE: 2nd amendment
By seamonkey79 on 8/12/2011 2:11:29 PM , Rating: 2
Criminals in Great Britain and other European countries never use guns?


RE: 2nd amendment
By ZorkZork on 8/12/2011 2:55:20 PM , Rating: 2
Armed robbery (per 100,000 people)

United States 221
Canada 94
United Kingdom 63
Sweden 49
Germany 47
Japan 1


RE: 2nd amendment
By The Raven on 8/12/2011 5:48:24 PM , Rating: 2
Irrelevant, because I have the freedom to not be one of those people if I take precautions to not be (e.g. carry a gun). Criminals prey on the weak because they know things could get ugly quick it their target is strong.

Also, how is UNARMED robbery going for the UK amidst these riots?


RE: 2nd amendment
By ZorkZork on 8/12/2011 6:50:36 PM , Rating: 2
Obviously you can make up situations where the gun will protect you.

However in most situations, you will not have the gun in your hand when you are robbed. And the criminals cannot avoid you because they cannot see that you carry a gun (unless you carry a batch saying so, but in that case I guess you will just be shot immediately).

Worse, when you reach for it you will be shot. And same thing happens to me when I try to surrender my wallet because the criminal will think I have a gun.

Guns just makes the crimes more violent.

Lastly, if your theory was correct, then with the amount of guns around in the US, there should be no crime at all since any criminal would have a high risk of being confronted with a firearm. Clearly that is not the case, as crime in the US is significantly higher than other civilized countries.


RE: 2nd amendment
By undummy on 8/12/2011 8:47:52 PM , Rating: 2
The amount of guns in the US is irrelevant.
The amount of guns "CARRIED" is and that number is minimal because laws make it difficult.

Criminals make the crime violent. Guns don't.

We border Mexico. Most other civilized countries don't.


RE: 2nd amendment
By ZorkZork on 8/12/2011 9:19:50 PM , Rating: 2
The amount of guns "CARRIED" in the US is higher than any other civilized country.

The number of guns in the US is relevant as any gun may end up in the hands of criminals.

Criminals that do not have guns cannot shoot. Thus criminals with access to guns make more violent crimes than criminals without access. Simple.

Europe border Russia and the Balkans. The US border is fairly easily defended compared to that. Besides the guns flow from north to south - not the other way. And Europe has the same problems with drugs as the US (just not as violent).

But all of the above doesn't matter. The US is a much more violent country than other civilized country. Guns galore hasn't helped. What makes you think that more guns will help?

Fact of the matter is that even though the London riots were dangerous, very few people were killed. If more guns had been around, a lot more would have been killed.

As a "potential victim" walking the streets, you cannot just shoot anybody who you might think would hurt you. Whereas criminals with guns will shoot anyone in their way. Advantage criminals.


RE: 2nd amendment
By Omega215D on 8/12/2011 11:25:00 PM , Rating: 2
Criminals will find ways of obtaining weapons regardless of legality.

The US still have vast open spaces and guns are mostly used for hunting or protection as in some rural areas it can take as long as 15 min. for the police to arrive as quite a few live miles away from the main township.


RE: 2nd amendment
By ZorkZork on 8/13/2011 4:18:37 AM , Rating: 2
Well criminals in Europe are far less likely to shoot. Is that …

a) … because the most violent Europeans went to the US, thus concentrating violence in the genes of the US population

b) … because the socialist societies of Europe are better at inducing nonviolent behavior in kids becoming adults (and for the record: I don’t subscribe to Europe as being socialist)

c) … because the weak US state has far more difficulties in defending its border sthan the strong European Union?

d) … because it is far more difficult for criminals to get access to firearms

Which is it? Statistics tells us that Americans are far more likely to get shot.

With regards to rural communities: Europe also has communities where the distance to police is great (and 15min. is nothing in that respect). Especially when you look at mountain regions. And Europe gets by with far less guns, far less homicides, far less armed assaults.

And the hunting bit makes no sense what-so-ever. I mean, who hunts with a handgun or a (semi)automatic firearm? Again, European has riffles for hunting and they are the right tool for the purpose. Criminals using hunting rifles? Not something I hear of often.

And others talk about this silly idea the armed militias to defend the people. Well, let’s say the UN, the British, the Chinese, and Canada gangs up against the US. Who is going to defend you? The US military with its impressive arsenal? Or the militia with small arms?

And if the federal government comes after you? Small arms (however powerful) against superior training, tanks, jets, and helicopter gunships? Nah, I think your best defense against the federal government is the fact that the federal government and all its agencies consists of Americans who love the country, the people, and the American way of life. And if you don’t like the federal government? Throw it out of office at the next election. That are is far less costly financially and in human lives.


RE: 2nd amendment
By nuarbnellaffej on 8/15/2011 10:33:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And others talk about this silly idea the armed militias to defend the people. Well, let’s say the UN, the British, the Chinese, and Canada gangs up against the US. Who is going to defend you? The US military with its impressive arsenal? Or the militia with small arms?


Well since the US is the UN's largest financial contributor by far, I don't think we have much to worry about should we pull our funding.. And the British..? It's not 1776 dude, I'm pretty sure redneck militias from the country side could fight off what ever the Brits send over, hell, we've done it TWICE before. The Feds can have the Chinese lol


RE: 2nd amendment
By voodoochile123 on 8/14/2011 11:32:55 PM , Rating: 2
It's going very well actually... If you bothered to read their statistics they have very low crime and minuscule crime related deaths.

This entire thread is pathetic by the way. I was hoping to read what peoples thoughts were on the riots, but one moron suggested guns were the solution, and then every reply since then has been equally stupid. The talk about gayness was the lowest point for me. Sad to see that a site which once had a good educated tech audience, is now no better than all the other crappy forums out there with mindless teenage idiots bickering about stupid stuff.


RE: 2nd amendment
By The Raven on 8/15/2011 11:11:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also, how is UNARMED robbery going for the UK amidst these riots?

Seriously, how could I have been more clear?
quote:
This entire thread is pathetic by the way. I was hoping to read what peoples thoughts were on the riots, but one moron suggested guns were the solution, and then every reply since then has been equally stupid. The talk about gayness was the lowest point for me. Sad to see that a site which once had a good educated tech audience, is now no better than all the other crappy forums out there with mindless teenage idiots bickering about stupid stuff.
What kind of a moron are you? You come to a tech site to "read what peoples thoughts were on the riots" which is stupid to begin with, and then you criticize someone who shared what his "thoughts were on the riots" for doing just that. If this thread is pathetic: you win best post.


RE: 2nd amendment
By voodoochile123 on 9/1/2011 12:03:53 AM , Rating: 2
No you


RE: 2nd amendment
By FITCamaro on 8/14/2011 11:27:27 PM , Rating: 1
Armed robbery involves more than just guns dumbass.

If guns are responsible for killing people then spoons are responsible for obesity.


RE: 2nd amendment
By shaidorsai on 8/12/2011 4:27:23 PM , Rating: 5
Clearly you lack a basic understanding of what America is about. You stated and I quote -

"Having an armed population offers precisely zero benefits but it does mean that several hundred thousands of your citizens lives have been tragically cut short in recent decades. "

Are you talking about the supposed tragedy of inner city violence where drug dealers and other scum are gunned down while committing their crimes? Hardly a tragedy unless your someone that thinks human life no matter how scummy is sacred. With almost 7 billion people on the planet I think we can do without some of the scumbags.

Lecturing us about how you don't like American gun law (which you clearly don't understand the basis of) is laughable while your cities burn and your politicians talk of censorship and controlling your population.

Let me give you a clear understanding of historical fact about American gun law and the 2nd Amendment. We have a 2nd Amendment right to bear arms in defense of self and country that we put in place specifically to deal with the threat posed by entities like the British empire and to keep our Federal government from becoming to powerful.

And I quote - "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

The part you clearly don't understand is that the State is it's citizens and the citizens are the State. The States in early America took, through the 2nd Amendment, the power to defend themselves, through armed citizens, against a potentially hostile Federal government. We the people make up the body of the collective State(s) and as such we have given ourselves the right to self defense. Someone living in a society that has no right to self defense, and hence no true freedom, not to mention a vestigial monarchy hanging around...just wouldn't get it.


RE: 2nd amendment
By Tony Swash on 8/12/11, Rating: 0
RE: 2nd amendment
By TSS on 8/12/2011 2:48:13 PM , Rating: 3
Censorship isn't the only way to control people. Americans are being controlled by misinformation, via ways i used to call "dirty tricks to win a discussion" when i was a kid.

Cherry picking info is the easyest. For example: i saw on CNN that the initial unemployment claims went down. The market rose on the news. But i know this is not because of higher hiring, but because more people are leaving the labor force. So while it's portrayed as good news, it's really awefull news.

Information overload: The exact opposite of censorship, but still as effective. Just throw out statistic after statistic that all correlate, but don't really have to causate. For instance, the initial unemployment claims are down, the total american debt is decreasing, $1,5 trillion in 10 years in spending is going to get cut, and companies are making solid profits. The economy must be strong.

The real info however is, more people leaving labor force, total debt went from $55 trillion to $54 in 3 years, spending cut just means the deficit increases less rapidly and companies went through record layoffs. Doesn't sound so good anymore huh?

And just plain lies of course. Everybody knows campaign promises don't mean a god damned thing. Obama was going to bring the troops home remember? Yet everybody believes it every election again.

This works because of ignorance. Because the other party is too stupid to see through the logical falacies and doesn't have the capacity to track so much information at the same time. But hey, he can so he must be right, right?

Oh i forgot distraction, I'll keep this arguement short: American Idol. Nuff said.


RE: 2nd amendment
By Aloonatic on 8/13/2011 8:33:46 AM , Rating: 2
You need to do a bit more research about what this is about rather than fling words like "censorship" about.

If we were talking about banning people talking about genuine political rallies and messages relating to organising peacful demonstrations, then you might have a point.

All that's been asked for is a way to control the way that anarchists, criminal and mindless idiots can communicate as they are rioting across large towns and cities in multiple locations.

It's funny how so many people here seem to think that America is so great because they wouldn't try to censor anyone, but just shoot them instead.

Weird.

Anyway, I don't have a problem with BlackBerry Messenger being blocked in certain areas while rioting and looting is going on, or even certain phrases being blocked on facebook which clearly have something to do with people trying to organise rioting and large scale thefts, as was the case.

There was no political point being made in the UK riots, although some have belatedly tried to tack some on to use them for their own agendas, but it was just a bunch of disaffected youths who felt that they had little to lose trying to gain a few free TVs consoles, jeans and trainers.

They weren't trying to protest. If they were, they would have stayed in one place and then there would be no need for poltiticans and hte police to call for these services to be monitored or blocked.


RE: 2nd amendment
By Reclaimer77 on 8/13/2011 9:03:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's funny how so many people here seem to think that America is so great because they wouldn't try to censor anyone, but just shoot them instead.


Oh come on! Really? Will you just stop with this rubbish...


RE: 2nd amendment
By Aloonatic on 8/13/2011 9:26:24 AM , Rating: 2
Seems like a pretty reasonable summery of the comments here.

Please show me otherwise.

I'l happily stop writing "this rubbish" when you have an argument, other than just calling what I write rubbish and/or people stop writing the things that they have been above.

I see that you don't though :o)

I've been able to pretty easily bat off any responses above as most of them don't make much sense.

So, please put together an argument, and I'll gladly debate.

Or just hide behind childish comments like yours :o)


RE: 2nd amendment
By Reclaimer77 on 8/13/2011 9:34:30 AM , Rating: 2
There's nothing for me to argue here. I'm just pointing out your silly nationalistic and stereotyped based arguments and telling you they bother me. Every post I read from you is a long anti-American diatribe based on nothing but the comments of a few others who, quite frankly, don't speak for an entire nation of 300+ million.

That's another right we have I guess you wouldn't understand :P

I do find it ironic that, while your country is being ripped apart by civil unrest and rioting (again), you are so focused on us and our problems. Maybe you should at least acknowledge yours before so readily judging ours?

p.s. I own a gun and it stays in my home. I've never "blown away" anyone with it or have thought I was Neo from the Matrix. I have no criminal record or history of violence. There are many many people here just like me, if that helps clear up your confusion.


RE: 2nd amendment
By Aloonatic on 8/13/2011 9:49:17 AM , Rating: 2
Nationalistic?

Pot/kettle. lol

Seriously, you are possibly the most nationalistic contributor on this site.

Anti-American? What that I have written is anti American? Please back up your slur.

I'm actually rather pro-American, as it happens.

I am anti-gun, anti-killing and anti-moron though, and put a higher price on life than I do a store and it's material contents, which I concede might confuse some slow people who think that that is anti-American.

It's funny that you say that I think that people's comments speak for an entire nation, yet also presume that I am talking about you exactly and what you do with your gun. FYI, I could have a gun in my home too, just so you know. Indeed, I could have a rifle if I wanted one.

I don't feel that I need one though. That's the difference, and what seems to confuse so many of you on here.

I don;t need a gun to feel safe in my house I don't get why you think that it is so great that you need one in order to.

I find it amusing that you think that my country is being "ripped apart by rioting (again, the last major riots being???? Said as if America never has any riots too)" full stop. When it's really not. Some shopping centres windows might have been, but the country is still intact. As demonstrated by people who came out in their communities to defend temples and mosques, and to clean up the streets afterwards. I guess you haven't been told that by your amazing free media, or it wasn't relevant to this "article". Indeed, just compare our riots to yours, and the death tolls and then consider whether there being a whole bunch of guns involved on both sides is really worth it?

I see people here (this very thread started by someone making this point) saying that if shop owners had guns, then people would think twice about rioting or looting. Well, riots happen all over the word, in places where there are and aren't guns and guess what, shops still get looted and burned everywhere, the main difference is that fewer people die when guns aren't in the mix.

Oh, and I've never said that Britain isn't without problems, I've just being making the point that guns don't solve any of them anywhere.

I'd draw a picture for you to make it easier for you to understand, but this forum doesn't have that facility, sadly.


RE: 2nd amendment
By Reclaimer77 on 8/13/2011 12:29:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't feel that I need one though.


If that was your only point, you would have stated that and let it be. I think you aren't being very honest with me or yourself when you claim this is one of the few points you are trying to get across.

So because you don't feel you need a gun, we're automatically wrong. Brilliant logic there. There are also people who don't feel they need cancer screening when they are high risk. Or dentists. Or those who "can live" without electricity too. Congratulations.

quote:
I don;t need a gun to feel safe in my house I don't get why you think that it is so great that you need one in order to.


Who said I own my gun to "feel safe"? I own my gun because I have the right to own one, because I enjoy shooting it outdoors or at the range. We all own a great many things that we could do without, we all make impulse buys, who cares. It's none of your business.

Again, you pretend there's no nationalism in your arguments and that you are just speaking your opinion, but your true feelings come through. You don't "get" why we do something, so you need to judge it because it's different than your way of doing things.

quote:
I'd draw a picture for you


You already have, and then pretend to get offended when I verbalize it. Your depictions of our society and culture are most certainly anti-American, so stop pretending you feel otherwise.

Now I agree with you that a few shop keepers wouldn't hold off an entire riot. But you've said so much more beyond that, it doesn't matter anymore.

But just be more honest. Deep down, guns bother you. And there is no logical reason why, it's all just emotion. You think you're saying something here I haven't read hundreds or thousands of times by others like you?


RE: 2nd amendment
By exquisite corpse on 8/14/2011 10:48:11 PM , Rating: 2
Aloonatic. Read their username carefully.

A Lunatic. In addition to being an obvious "madman," this user is quite clearly a troll, and also a shill - knowing or otherwise - for the same kind of worthless tripe about disarmament like the UN Small Arms Treaty.

Face it, Aloonatic, the USA is one of the few lucky countries in the world where the State does not entirely have a monopoly on the use of force.

I despise the oversimplified analysis that breaks things down to the level of "there are two types of people in this world." But as the world plunges deeper into chaos, there are generally two very polarized responses to the chaos:

1) Those who see that individuals have a right to act responsibly, including defending themselves, and to suffer accountability for their actions. Those who see that individuals have a right to make their own choices. Who see that individuals have a right to be self sufficient.

and

2) Those who see the only solution in the State acting as a Parent. Those who support the nanny state. Those who have never been trained - and whose media has perhaps poisoned the well of their world view - never to wield any power or freedom greater than serfdom. Those who want their choices regulated and limited, for their safety, for the good of the children. Those who pay with their freedom and their taxes for the privilege of being tethered to an overworked, overprotective and underqualified Nanny State.

I don't know about the rest of you, and I certainly feel sorry for those who live in a country that has already made this choice for them, but I choose the former.

I don't care if my fellow Americans are as polite and team oriented as the Japanese, or if they are a bunch of ruthless pillaging barbarians, the USA is one place where the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed.

No doubt our next Bill of Rights will needs make the same statement about the freedom to communicate via electronic media which has now begun to be infringed.


RE: 2nd amendment
By The Raven on 8/12/2011 3:16:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because of the lack of censorship: people get to vent, they feel they can make a difference with their words so they aren't forced to try with their fists and fire.

Lack of censorship? I guess you haven't tried drawing an image of Mohammed, burning a Koran or calling someone an n-bomb recently. ;-)


RE: 2nd amendment
By Aloonatic on 8/12/2011 4:02:27 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah, why protest (not that this was a protest against anything in any way, shape or form) when you can just shoot your politicians in the face?

*rolls eyes*

What censorship are you talking about, by the way? That's really not the issue. There's no more censorship in the UK than there is in the USA.

So much fud on this page it's untrue, and not even funny. Well, Americans lecturing about criminal activity and guns is funny, but only in a sad kinda way, as is the idea that the US "people" have fire-arms so as to act as some kind of check and balance to take on the government.

Deluded doesn't even come close.


RE: 2nd amendment
By gixser on 8/12/2011 4:56:09 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. There are some seriously deluded folks expressing their opinions on this page.

To think this is about censorship is just too retarded. To those Americans that think they are somehow beyond what was proposed I'll highlight the relevant quote.

quote:
He said that the government and police are going "to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality ."
Emphasis added.

Now...go read (1) Your constitution (2) Your legal precedents and (3) your previous posts and think about incitement and sedition. How is what was proposed different?


RE: 2nd amendment
By Schrag4 on 8/12/2011 12:18:53 PM , Rating: 3
Yes somehow when restrictions are lifted in areas, instead of the streets running red with blood, crime actually many times goes down. Gee, I wonder where a criminal would rather carry out his business...in a gun free zone or in a place where citizens might be carrying?

I'm sure the fact that Chicago, NYC, and D.C. have very high violent crime rates, including many, MANY shootings, yet gun ownership is pretty much completely restricted in those places isn't lost on you. Is it?

I don't expect to sway your opinion with logic and statistics though.


RE: 2nd amendment
By tng on 8/12/2011 12:42:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes somehow when restrictions are lifted in areas, instead of the streets running red with blood, crime actually many times goes down.
Those are the statistics that are never shown, even though the FBI makes them widely available in it's crime databases. Not popular with the media to show that guns actually reduce crime. If it were my choice I would make every citizen above 21 with no criminal or mentally ill carry a gun. Would solve allot of problems, might cause a few....


RE: 2nd amendment
By nolisi on 8/12/2011 1:24:10 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'm sure the fact that Chicago, NYC, and D.C. have very high violent crime rates, including many, MANY shootings, yet gun ownership is pretty much completely restricted in those places isn't lost on you. Is it?

I don't expect to sway your opinion with logic and statistics though.


I promise you you can sway me with statistics- please show them.

The statistics you need to show to prove your point: Number of shootings per capita before gun restriction laws were implemented verses shootings per capita after gun restrictions. Also, you need to factor out any possible correlation with an overall escalation in violent criminal activity regardless of whether a firearm was involved.

Can you show me an area where gun violence has actually gone down after lifting gun restrictions, meanwhile, still factoring out correlation with an overall decline in criminal activity?

So far all you've done is mentioned places with "high violent crime" rates that also happen to have gun restrictions. You do realize that if I mug you, I don't need a gun to do it, right?

Having fewer gun restrictions is not going to stop criminals or shootings. It just gives people more incentive to make sure that they shoot first.


RE: 2nd amendment
By Schrag4 on 8/12/2011 3:06:43 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
You do realize that if I mug you, I don't need a gun to do it, right?


Then why restrict guns? Is being stabbed or bludgeoned to death any better than being shot to death? Is your wife more equipped to defend herself against someone twice her size with a gun or with a knife/club?

quote:
Having fewer gun restrictions is not going to stop criminals or shootings. It just gives people more incentive to make sure that they shoot first.


I'm going to assume you mean it gives criminals more incentive to shoot first. It doesn't just give them incentive to shoot first. It also gives them incentive to find a different, unarmed target. I mean, would you rob a joint that has 10 customers and 2 clerks if you knew that all of them were armed? Even with 20 rounds in the mag you'd have basically no chance of surviving the encounter. Sure, you might take out 3 or 4, but 12? You'd have to be as dumb as a rock to try something like that.


RE: 2nd amendment
By nolisi on 8/12/2011 4:32:06 PM , Rating: 1
I like how you not so cleverly avoided the topic of statistics. Confirms what I usually hear from people who don't agree with gun restrictions.

quote:
Then why restrict guns?


A) Most gun laws are in place for tracking purpose. If you do decide to take your legally registered firearm and do something illegal with it, we have a better chance of figuring out who did it.

B) Let's give more thought to your scenario regarding my wife:
1. The best policy is always prevention when it comes to any violence. My wife should walk in well lit, populated areas, where help is easily accessible.

2)Most people cannot spot violence before it occurs, and by the time it occurs, it's usually too late. A gun would not have helped. The best example is the schoolyard shootings that seem to keep reoccurring in our nation. People who get shot don't know it's going to happen beforehand, therefore carrying a gun does nothing to prevent such incidents. If a crazy person is gonna shoot you, you're not likely to know it beforehand, and they're going to shoot you regardless of your gun ownership status.

Basically, in order for a gun to help in any case, you have to have it in hand pointed at everyone at all times.

quote:
I'm going to assume you mean it gives criminals more incentive to shoot first.


No, I meant people. You've heard of road rage, you want everyone who experiences this to have a gun in their car when they get cut off?

Texans are always looking for a good excuse to shoot people- they've created legal loopholes for it. Of course these incidents are not consistently counted when it comes to statistics regarding gun violence in Texas.

quote:
I mean, would you rob a joint that has 10 customers and 2 clerks if you knew that all of them were armed?


Ok, there are so many things wrong with this statement. Your supposition that the criminal has foreknowledge as to who is armed in the store is critically flawed as an argument.

1) Very rarely do criminals assail highly populated "joints". They wait until they have just one person (the clerk) to contend with, or they bring their gang with them.

2) No matter what, if the criminal is dumb enough to try to assail a "joint" with a lot of people in it, they're never going to know who's armed and who isn't.


RE: 2nd amendment
By Schrag4 on 8/12/2011 6:58:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A) Most gun laws are in place for tracking purpose. If you do decide to take your legally registered firearm and do something illegal with it, we have a better chance of figuring out who did it.


I'm not talking about registration. I'm talking about not being able to carry at all.

quote:
B) Let's give more thought to your scenario regarding my wife: 1. The best policy is always prevention when it comes to any violence. My wife should walk in well lit, populated areas, where help is easily accessible.


So if your wife was kidnapped and raped it would be her fault for being in the wrong place at the wrong time? I don't think so. It's the kidnapper's fault. Your "where help is easily accessible" comment is laughable. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

quote:
2)Most people cannot spot violence before it occurs, and by the time it occurs, it's usually too late. A gun would not have helped


You can't think of any scenario where someone could see violence unfolding and stop it? None?

quote:
Basically, in order for a gun to help in any case, you have to have it in hand pointed at everyone at all times.


That's just not true. Do you need me to cite examples?

quote:
No, I meant people. You've heard of road rage, you want everyone who experiences this to have a gun in their car when they get cut off?


If you're so unstable that you can't keep from drawing a gun when you're cut off then maybe you shouldn't carry a gun. That's your personal choice. But if you pull a knife on me because I cut you off, I'd rather have the right to defend myself.

quote:
Texans are always looking for a good excuse to shoot people


Not just any people. Criminals.

quote:
1) Very rarely do criminals assail highly populated "joints". They wait until they have just one person (the clerk) to contend with, or they bring their gang with them.


Ok, fine, take away the ability for law abiding citizens to defend themselves then an armed robber can take on 12 people in a store. And don't let the poor clerk have any way to defend himself after hours. Good idea.


RE: 2nd amendment
By tng on 8/12/2011 5:44:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You do realize that if I mug you, I don't need a gun to do it, right?
Well yes you don't need a gun, but the last scumbag that tried with a knife got a piece of rebar across his head and don't know if he was OK or not(left him bleeding on a sidewalk), so yes bring a gun.
quote:
Having fewer gun restrictions is not going to stop criminals or shootings.
No, but live in some place like Texas for awhile and you realize that it is going to slow it down. It is proven that if you restrict the right to have guns, criminals will get them in spite of the law and since law abiding citizens have fewer they ARE considered targets.


RE: 2nd amendment
By ZorkZork on 8/12/2011 12:57:01 PM , Rating: 5
More guns? Interresting concept. Let’s compare US to Britain:

Homicide rate (per 100,000)
- US: 5.0
- UK: 1.28
- Western Europe (avg): 1.5

Incarceration rate (per 100,000)
- US: 743
- UK: 150
- Europe: 105

The US might be able to teach the world something about freedom and entrepreneurship. Crime prevention and balancing a budget ... not so much.


RE: 2nd amendment
By cschuele on 8/12/2011 5:03:55 PM , Rating: 2
If you dont understand the history of why USA broke away from England and why the founding fathers made sure we could be armed I cant help you. Those things should be easy to put in context and see the cause and effect and why we are at where we are today. Sure guns in should not be allowed for everyone to have but thats how things worked out.

As for those of you who think they should take away the USA's guns you fail to realize theres hundreds of thousands if not millions of illegal guns that the criminals would still have if all the law abiding citizens gave them up. Take for instance what happened in Australia.
http://www.rense.com/general69/guns.htm

Also, the only reason americans said guns would help the brits is that people would be less prone to enter a business or home if they knew there might be someone waiting ready to shoot them.

On a side note, reading these attacks you all sound like 5 year olds, american or britsh. Learn how to discuss things rationaly without lashing out. And both countrys are highly media cencered and those rights will be erroded more no matter who has guns and who protests more.


RE: 2nd amendment
By ZorkZork on 8/12/2011 5:44:53 PM , Rating: 3
Just because something was right 200 years ago doesn’t make it right today. The US was a very different country at that time. And clearly, the gun laws in the US are not working. Compared to Europe Americans are getting killed, robbed, and incarcerated significantly more. That is either because Americans are more violent or because the system isn’t working. I choose to believe that the system isn’t working.

How to fix it? It will leave that to you. But continuing with a broken system makes no sense.

With regards to your report from Australia, then the stats are useless. They cover only one year and variations are much bigger than that. Here are real stats from Australia (1996 is the year the article is referring to with regards to tightened gun laws):

Year Homicides
1996: 354
1997: 364
1998: 334
1999: 385
2000: 362
2001: 347
2002: 366
2003: 341
2004: 302
2005: 301
2006: 322
2007: 282

Clearly homicides have declined (especially if you factor in that population in Australia is growing by around 1.5% per year).

Armed robberies:
2003: 8865
2008: 6427
Clearly a decline.

However while these statistics are better, they still look at far to short a period to give conclusive evidence one way or the other. And they are clearly no use compared to the US, as crime rates in Australia are much lower.


RE: 2nd amendment
By Xcpus on 8/12/2011 6:22:40 PM , Rating: 2
You can't use Empirical evidence and Statistics with Mises.org bandwagon followers because they don't believe in Empiricism. To them all there is, is Chaos. And because Chaos is a reality (Nature is chaotic and not ordered) they assume that we ought to act in a way that is chaotic (rather than voluntarily choose to act in a polite, loving and caring way.. a.k.a Ordered).

You're not going to get it through their thick heads. Believe me I've tried.


RE: 2nd amendment
By ipodsrule420 on 8/12/2011 11:42:00 PM , Rating: 2
Okay, I figured out the cure for Gun Violence. Anyone who gets shot will assumed to be a criminal and the shooter will always be the brave hero who prevented a crime. Then we'll have daily parades for the heroic shooters.


RE: 2nd amendment
By Xcpus on 8/12/2011 6:18:56 PM , Rating: 2
Why don't you take 5 mins and look into the history of Riots in the USA. People (Citizens) with guns made them worse. One good example are the Detroit Riots of 1967. Citizens began to shoot rioters. Rioters then armed themselves and began to shoot citizens and police officers. The National Guard and Military were called in. Half of Detroit was burned to the ground.

You Second Amendment freaks are ignorant. How about sticking to facts and evidence rather than some empty philosophical talking point devoid of any factual substance?


RE: 2nd amendment
By voodoochile123 on 8/14/2011 11:41:28 PM , Rating: 1
I DONT KNOW WHAT ALL THAT MEANS - I JUST KNOW GUNS R GOOD BECAUSE GUNS KILL BAD PPL!!! AMERICA - FUCK YEAH!


RE: 2nd amendment
By inperfectdarkness on 8/12/2011 9:37:38 PM , Rating: 2
this needs more + rating. violent crime has EXPLODED in the last 100 years in GB, and it has a LOT to do with the banning of firearms.

additionally, they are using FB to hunt down people who *gasp* brandish a weapon in a public place (including a hammer? seriously?)

yes, ban facebook. because that's MUCH easier to do than acknowledge that your society is f'd up, and needs to change its ways. you know who else bans this kind of stuff? iran. syria. china.

nuff said.


RE: 2nd amendment
By voodoochile123 on 8/14/2011 11:43:40 PM , Rating: 2
Nobody is suggesting a ban on facebook you stupid little troll child. All they are talking is "LOOKING IN TO" banning pages that exist to organise crime. And quite frankly if you are against that, then you are a total idiot.


Not sure who's more disgusting
By amanojaku on 8/12/2011 10:05:16 AM , Rating: 5
The rioters, for destroying innocent people's property and continuing this violence that has lead to death and injury?

The politicians, for considering censorship?

The police, for shooting a man they had restrained, which started this mess?

...

F*ck it, they're all equally disgusting.




RE: Not sure who's more disgusting
By heffeque on 8/12/2011 10:13:27 AM , Rating: 2
England prevails!


RE: Not sure who's more disgusting
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/12/2011 10:50:57 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The rioters, for destroying innocent people's property and continuing this violence that has lead to death and injury?

It is sad that the people don't choose to focus their dissent against the gov't versus senseless acts like looting.

I'm not English and I don't live in England, so I don't claim to know for sure what's going on over there.

But from what I've read there's a great (and growing) wealth gap, with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Whatever your feelings on whether this is "fair", it's a virtual inevitability that the people will rise up. Just look @ what happened in the Middle East.

But looting local businesses is just making your situation worse and cheapening your cause.
quote:
The politicians, for considering censorship?

In my eyes a government saying it's illegal to speak out against it or organize protests is kind of like a fundamentalist religion telling you that you will go to hell if you believe in or study other faiths.

Society is all about power and control. Whether it's politics or religion, those in power historically have always tried to paint dissent and free thought as morally "wrong", in order to maintain their wealth and control.

Fortunately we live in an enlightened time in which some religions and some governments are allowing an increasing amount of free thought, and praising people for exploring alternatives, rather than punishing.

One can only hope society in general progresses in that direction...
quote:
The police, for shooting a man they had restrained, which started this mess?

Sounds like San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) cops!
quote:
F*ck it, they're all equally disgusting.

Hear, hear.


RE: Not sure who's more disgusting
By Cerin218 on 8/12/2011 1:42:39 PM , Rating: 1
Ah yes, Britain. Another stunning example of the destructiveness of collectivism. More "The rich are getting richer" crap. If you aren't rich, it's simply because you are too stupid or lazy to make yourself rich. It isn't "The Man" keeping you down. Collectivism is based on a hatred of humanity and a desire to control people. The answer to a riot is censorship?! How stupid is that? Instead of striving for a freer society, the masses are drooling to be led. Collectivism is destroying the US and lots of other places.

It will be interesting when when the younger generations enter the political realm. All the pot smoking hippies and protestors from the 60's and 70's are who the politicians are now, and you can see the agenda they failed to achieve in the 60's and 70's with their protesting they are now carrying out with legislation. Free health care, free welfare, free everything, tax the Corporations, tax the rich! Power to the people!! Make CRT's and incandescent light bulbs ILLEGAL!! I even saw a bill being sponsored by Democrats that made organ donation a default that you would have to opt OUT of in order to retain your organs in death.

You can't legislate social justice and equality. You can't force people to achieve that utopia where we are all happy and free. If we could have it, it would already be done.

Freedom is wasted on people and they are more than happy to and in fact, quite often BEGGING to be controlled today. And yet we call people like Hitler bad simply because he gave people what they truly wanted, servitude.


RE: Not sure who's more disgusting
By BugblatterIII on 8/12/2011 10:22:20 PM , Rating: 2
So the gap between rich and poor is getting wider because the poor are getting dumber?

Evolution doesn't work that fast!

Capitalism concentrates wealth. The longer it lasts the more concentrated the wealth becomes, until something enormous happens to force us to redress the balance, after which the cycle begins again.

The riots weren't that 'something enormous'; that's still coming.

95% of the rioters were actually just taking advantage of a fantastic opportunity to steal stuff without getting done by the police. The police just stood and watched them; it's no wonder so many youths with no moral compass went looting.

The other 5% just wanted to watch the world burn.

Having said all that there's a massive problem over here in the UK, if fact several problems.

Our politicians got caught ripping off the country with their expenses, and no-one was at all surprised (which is in itself a problem). The majority of them got away with it.

The banks damn near bankrupted the country, then we paid the banks billions to say thank you, then they paid a lot of that to themselves as bonuses and carried on pulling the same crap as caused the original meltdown.

The banks are obliged to have as available assets 15% of the money they've leant out. To get around that they invented futures/derivatives which allowed them to obfuscate the figures and only keep 1-2% available. That made them vulnerable, and what's changed? Who went to jail for this fraud?

Because of the recession we've all been hit by cuts and many have lost their jobs. Most of the programmes to help young people, or even give them something to do other than hanging around on street corners, have been cancelled.

I'm 40 and getting a pretty decent wage, but I'm damned angry. Not burning-things-down angry, but angry nonetheless. Pretty much anyone here that isn't a banker and isn't entirely clueless is angry.

And who can we vote for to bring the banks under control and bring the responsible parties to book?

Erm...

Vote for me!

So we're mad as hell, but mostly it was about getting free stuff.


RE: Not sure who's more disgusting
By Aloonatic on 8/13/2011 8:00:02 AM , Rating: 2
I think you're looking at things in a way that is too simplistic.

Expenses? Most MPs don't get paid that well, when you consider the hours that they put in and responsibility that their position holds, compared to many people in other areas. THe real problem was that "the people" are too petty and small minded to accept that if they paid people well, they will get good people in the job. They don;t seem to have a problem paying someone £500,000 a week to kick a bag of air around a football pitch as they see that quality does not come cheap, but when it comes to running the country, they think that MPs shouldn't be paid a fraction of that annually? So what did MPs do? They took a little around the edges.

I'm not saying that what politicians did was right, but to pretend that they wer just being greedy or whatever, and that "the people" have noting to do with it is stupid.

Bankers. They loaned people too much money, but no one forced people to take that money in the first place. I didn't see bankers with automatic rifles stalking the streets making people take out mortgages that they couldn't afford and their 5th credit card because they'd already maxed out the other 4. Indeed, those credit cards and loans are what are causing many of the problems now as we try to recover, as it's a mill stone around the nations neck.

I'm not saying that what bankers did was right, but to pretend that they were just being greedy or whatever, and that "the people" have noting to do with it is stupid.

As for the cuts. Sadly, spending what you can really afford is viewed as a cut, for some reason. I don't know why. We're just trying to balance our national cheque book, not making punative "swinging" cuts to hurt people. Of course, who gets the blame? The people only spending what we can really afford? Or those who spent way too much in the past and encourage people to take on personal debt too?

Most people who are angry, are also in denial. If you're 40 and have managed to keep yourself employed and out of (manageable) debt, then maybe you have a point, but that people are angry just at bankers, as if they are the only people responsible, and at the current government simply don;t understand what has happened in the last few years and what is needed to get us out of this mess.

No easy answers I'm affraid.

I do feel sorry for this generation of kids though. Growing up in the hardest global employment market, they have been let down by a passed government that were happy to pay them off with a few quid each week to keep them in iTunes vouchers and WKD, sorry, pens and paper for college while they were really being left well behind in what really matters. Getting a strong work ethic and earning what you want, but they've been trained to expect to be handed it to them on a plate.

Sad.


By BugblatterIII on 8/13/2011 10:00:23 AM , Rating: 2
Well I imagine the vast majority of people don't think they're paid enough; that's never been an excuse for fraud. Some of these MP's were getting us to pay for their second or third house!

Personally I'd rather have MP's that were in it to make a difference rather than for the money.

Bankers do have a responsibility not to lend people more than they can afford to repay; however that isn't what I criticised them about. The banks leant far more than they were allowed to and put themselves at risk of insolvency. Then when they were going bankrupt we had to bail them out. The very few bankers that lost their jobs over it got massive golden handshakes; they made millions from it!

I also didn't criticise the government for making cuts; I dislike the Tories even more than I dislike Labour but it was Labour that failed to keep the banks in line and then failed to introduce measures to prevent the same thing happening again.

Yes there's more to this than just the government and banks, but they're the biggest culprits.

Going back to the riots, we've all become so scared of getting stabbed that we've let these yoofs get away with doing whatever they like for years. If we hadn't done that they wouldn't have had the nerve to do what they did.

It's time to stop letting them get away with stuff. I don't mean just being noisy, but any antisocial behaviour should not be tolerated. I've already been doing that for a while, but it needs to become the norm for adults.


By themaster08 on 8/13/2011 1:59:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm not English and I don't live in England, so I don't claim to know for sure what's going on over there.
But you sure know enough to write an entire article about a topic that has not even touched parliament, and has only been thrown about by a few socialists looking for an excuse. The same idiots that blamed the raise in tuition fees for this. The government is aware of the problem, and why it exists, and it's not because of social media.

quote:
But from what I've read there's a great (and growing) wealth gap, with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
We have the last 13 years of labour-run, outlandish, socialist spending that has completely ran us into the ground to blame for that. Why should people focus their dissent towards the current government who have been left to deal with this mess?

Our current government is taking controversial, but effective measures to prevent this from continuing. For example those that earn £10,000 or less per year will be completely exempt from paying tax on their earnings, as opposed to earning just over half of that and paying tax under Labour. Those families earning over £30,000 a year will be exempt from receiving child tax credits, as opposed to those earning over £60,000 under Labour. Such measures are helping tp close the gap and have allowed Britain to maintain their AAA credit rating. Something the US has failed to do.

quote:
In my eyes a government saying it's illegal to speak out against it or organize protests is kind of like a fundamentalist religion telling you that you will go to hell if you believe in or study other faiths.
It's just a shame that you can't differentiate what is being said in the media towards what is being said in parliament.

Your ignorance is completely apparent here, Mick. Your sensationalist articles have yet again won over a mass of ignorant others.

This is why I get my facts from the BBC. You know, a reputable news media.


RE: Not sure who's more disgusting
By FITCamaro on 8/12/11, Rating: 0
By voodoochile123 on 8/14/2011 11:48:41 PM , Rating: 2
What are you babbling about? Tell me about this highly restricted freedom oh wise one. What are they restricted from doing?


By Aloonatic on 8/12/2011 2:14:04 PM , Rating: 2
How about people passing judgement on issues that they know little about while trying to make it sound like they do?

It's interesting to see how this has been reported on here. I've been waiting for an article.

Basically, all politicians have said is that Blackberry messenger (mostly, along with other smart-phones and FB etc) has made it more easy for groups who are out to carry out mass acts of criminality to keep mobile and out manoeuvre the Police.

Also, FYI, these acts off mindless looting and riots are not a protest against anything. They are, however, a sad reflection on a generation who have been truly let down by passed government(s) in the face of the harshest/most competitive global employment market that has ever existed.

That someone who was carrying a loaded gun (which there is absolutely no reason for anyone to do unless they want to kill someone, there aren't too many angry brown bears to protect yourself against in London) was shot by the police was neither here nor there for 99.9999% of the looters. What was relevant was that many kids who do genuinely have no future (along with a fair few who did, but got caught up in it all) saw a chance to take what they can.

Is stopping them from communicating where other people can join them in their mindless looting, destruction of property and other forms of criminality censorship? I don't think so.

If we were talking about a genuine protest against something that the government was trying to stop then you might have a point. However, everyone in the UK has the right to protest peacefully. There's no need to keep it secret from the authorities or anyone else, unless you want to break the law. In fact, keeping a protest secret doesn;t make sense really, does it.


Britain Doesn't Get It.
By tng on 8/12/2011 10:06:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality."
If you censor web communication, people will just find anther way.

You think that they would have learned this when they outlawed guns to reduce the number of people killed by guns. Ten years later they are talking about outlawing certain knives because of the number of people dieing by knives have tripled since guns were outlawed.




RE: Britain Doesn't Get It.
By Schrag4 on 8/12/2011 11:38:27 AM , Rating: 3
I've seen photos taken in shops in the UK that say you have to be 18 years old to buy a little green plastic water gun, or to buy a silverware set that contains a *GASP* butter knife. Britain certainly doesn't get it at all.


RE: Britain Doesn't Get It.
By amanojaku on 8/12/2011 12:58:47 PM , Rating: 2
Butter knives ARE dangerous. If you're attacked with one you'll die. Laughing.


RE: Britain Doesn't Get It.
By FITCamaro on 8/12/2011 1:38:12 PM , Rating: 1
I'll cut his heart out with a spoon.

Why a spoon? Why not a knife or axe?

Because its dull you twit it'll hurt more!


RE: Britain Doesn't Get It.
By BugblatterIII on 8/12/2011 10:24:01 PM , Rating: 2
You shouldn't be spreading that about!


RE: Britain Doesn't Get It.
By Omega215D on 8/12/2011 11:27:33 PM , Rating: 2
I use a spork, especially the ones given out at KFC!


History
By bennyg on 8/13/2011 12:30:31 AM , Rating: 1
LOL @ all the Yanks who forget their gun laws are relics of the Civil War, the frontier and the Wild West, and all the Poms who forget their history of regular civil wars and assorted bloodshed over the last millennium. Also their policing ethic is a relic of the IRA years, most are gun-less because they used them too much (seemingly still the case) And all the people forgetting "Armed" includes all manner of weapons, even empty syringes and fingers-in-overcoat-pockets.

Here in Oz, seems we did the ...right... thing to our indigenous peoples, the only ones that weren't killed were nowhere near anything valuable (like soil) and even then their culture was destroyed and their societies fragmented.

Problem is now we've grown a conscience we don't know how to un-fuck their societies, paternalism and masses of money isn't working.




RE: History
By silverblue on 8/13/2011 8:00:42 AM , Rating: 2
Please... our last civil war was 323 years ago. I'm not proud of how the British Empire and the British as people have conducted themselves, but don't punish the living for the mistakes of the dead.


RE: History
By The Raven on 8/15/2011 11:48:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Please... our last civil war was 323 years ago.
2011 - 1776 = 323!??!


RE: History
By Aloonatic on 8/13/2011 8:25:44 AM , Rating: 2
In Oz, the USA and most colonial places, what you've done is blamed "the British" for everything that was bad in your people's past and then moved on, pretending that it had nothing to do with you.

It's all silly anyway, as depending on how far you want to go back, there is not a people/culture/religion on this planet that has not abused it's position at some time.

Just look at the "indigenous" people of Australia, who it has turned out forced out the island's previous inhabitants and now none of them remain, but remain still live in New Zealand.

Americans, yeah, after you threw out us Brits your country was all lovely and all the slaves were freed and snce then you've done nothing but send out smiles and hugs to the rest of the world.

Pur-leas.

Not saying that Britain hasn't got a murky past, but there is not a wealth people/nation/etc that hasn't, and to pretend otherwise is just pathetic.


RE: History
By Aloonatic on 8/13/2011 8:25:44 AM , Rating: 2
In Oz, the USA and most colonial places, what you've done is blamed "the British" for everything that was bad in your people's past and then moved on, pretending that it had nothing to do with you.

It's all silly anyway, as depending on how far you want to go back, there is not a people/culture/religion on this planet that has not abused it's position at some time.

Just look at the "indigenous" people of Australia, who it has turned out forced out the island's previous inhabitants and now none of them remain, but remain still live in New Zealand.

Americans, yeah, after you threw out us Brits your country was all lovely and all the slaves were freed and snce then you've done nothing but send out smiles and hugs to the rest of the world.

Pur-leas.

Not saying that Britain hasn't got a murky past, but there is not a wealth people/nation/etc that hasn't, and to pretend otherwise is just pathetic.


Blame Game
By Uncle on 8/12/2011 10:59:16 AM , Rating: 2
Here we go again. Authority has no part in what happened? Shift the blame as usual. Citizens just decided out of the blue, to riot. Its going to get worst all over the world as "The rich get richer and the Poor get poorer" Tunisia, Eygypt,Syria,etc etc. What makes the west think their so mush better because we can go into debt and have more material wealth,ha,ha. Thats what the west has in plan for the third world, turn them into "Poor"consumers,While the so called "Elite" own more of the wealth. In short why the wealthy have fear of the poor with out the police or army.




RE: Blame Game
By ClownPuncher on 8/12/2011 12:07:26 PM , Rating: 2
Most of the rioters were just looters.


the article...
By Cloudie on 8/14/2011 7:51:36 AM , Rating: 2
.... is nonsense. As some people have already pointed out, the riots are not class riots: they are not politically motivated. "Censorship laws" will be debated in parliament I expect but there is a lot of opposition to them, even within the police and local government, as they view social media as a tool that aids them getting information out quickly. Just as it may have helped the rioters, it helped other groups too. Furthermore, they weren't talking about switching the internet off or the phone lines, just certain services for a couple of hours in dire emergencies, like BBM or twitter. Not saying it's right but it's not as big a deal as this sensationalist story would have you believe.

This article is designed to get as many hits as possible, which is fair enough, but you should view it with a great deal of skepticism, it's quite misleading.

Also sorry but I lol'ed a little at the person linking the daily mail article. you don't really know our media very well, clearly. I have no interest in the royal family (thankfully I was on holiday in Canada at the time and missed it all woop!), no interest in cricket and football, quite honestly not nationalist in the slightest. I find the idea of 'pledging allegiance' for example, bizarre at best but have I ever looted, damaged or physically hurt anyone? No. Am I from a privileged, rich family? No. Daily Mail is tabloid rubbish, if you read it for a chuckle then fair enough, but don't quote it like some scholarly source please :p

With regard guns, I personally don't see why anyone would want or need one. I respect others' opinions on this of course, but I think the more guns a society has, whilst the vast majority are responsible with them, an irresponsible or perhaps even 'evil' minute minority have a much bigger chance of getting hold of one and thus ruin other peoples' and families' lives.

Also the person who made the massively presumptuous comment that gay people don't have children: you need to get your facts straight. Gay people can and do have children. And if someone doesn't have children you think that gives you the right to disrespect them? You also insinuate that people that don't have children are a burden on society or did I misunderstand? If you look at the population figures, in 1950 there were 3 billion people on earth, now 60 years later there are 7 billion. Does the world even need more children? If the only contribution to society you can make is in having children, then I pity you. Gay people have in general have been proven to be better educated and more affluent than their straight counterparts, surely that pleases you people on the right, at the very least?




RE: the article...
By themaster08 on 8/15/2011 4:51:32 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed! It's just a shame that your post is hidden below most of the ignorant crap spouted by foreigners that know nothing of this country, yet have the audacity to write an article about something that is even going to happen!

David Cameron is to announce a review of every major policy in oder to prevent this from happening again, and to fix our society. This will likely involve more power to authorities, removing red tape and bureaucracy. Not once have I ever seen there be any mention of censorship. This will not happen.

Mick's sensationalist, ignorant, lack-of-evidence articles have yet again won him a mass of posts. Those that know the problems are those that actually live in this country and have seen first-hand how the youth have been brought up.


get AT&T
By Dr of crap on 8/12/2011 10:14:21 AM , Rating: 3
Maybe if the roiters had that AT&T cell from the ad where the guy is waiting for the flash mob to start, but he didn't get the message that the thing had been moved to a half hour later!

You could spread the word and give out a number of different times and not everyone would show!




Ban phones!
By BugblatterIII on 8/12/2011 10:29:39 PM , Rating: 1
I heard that some people phoned some other people to meet them up for some rioting.

Clearly phones are evil and must be banned!

And matches!

And hoods!

And youths!

Actually we could just ban morons. It'd mean changing our entire political system of course, but I'm game.




RE: Ban phones!
By CensorshipRules on 8/17/2011 6:52:28 PM , Rating: 2
Government Censorship of Facebooks and Twitter, American Style http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9IXBU6dKdA


Just a "zone"?
By wiz220 on 8/12/2011 10:47:13 AM , Rating: 2
"free speech zones"

I'm sure this is just what the people who penned the bill of rights had in mind. They must be rolling over in their graves.




Britain, this is China, we can help
By noxipoo on 8/12/2011 12:42:47 PM , Rating: 2
We "developed" our own system (ignore the American companies logos on the gear) and can sell it to you cheap. You can block twitter in no time.




III. My Take (EDITORIAL)
By Aloonatic on 8/12/2011 6:27:31 PM , Rating: 2
Hey hey, look at me, I read 1984, a book that wasn't written by Tom Clancy or J K Rowlng....

I kid, I kid.... Seriously though, just so that you guys know....

There has also been a lot of praise in the UK for how Facebook and the like have been used by people to mobilise to show their support for the police, for people who've been affected and to organise anti looting/rioting protests as well as organise community protection and clean-up groups.

Like everything, these things can be used for good as well as ill.

There has only been talk of instigating these kinds of cuts in services during riots too, not when other forms of protest are taking place. Not that you can even call what happened a "protest" against anything other than the exchange of money for goods, rather than just taking what you can while you can, I suppose.

I can't help but think that you are blowing this waaaay out of proportion.




No.
By silverblue on 8/13/2011 7:46:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
and over 1,200 people have been imprisoned for their role in the riots.

Arrested doesn't mean imprisoned. Also, the reported damage has been estimated at over £200m.

People were rioting because they could, not because they were protesting about the death of Mark Duggan, who was apparently neither restrained nor unarmed. I don't approve of his death, but he had a loaded firearm, and while he may have not meant to use it, the very fact that he possessed such a weapon is something the police will seize upon. For someone who supposedly wouldn't get involved in such things, you can't deny the hypocrisy.

There was a peaceful protest in Tottenham on the Saturday and other people saw it as an excuse to riot for the sole purpose of stealing, damaging property and harming innocents. There can be no excuse for anyone who joined those riots, and their actions will only cause even more grief for the rest of us whose insurance costs are spiralling out of control anyway. Did anyone note some of the shops they were looting? Sports clothing shops. Electrical stores. Jewellery stores. Off-licences. Supermarkets. The enduring pictures? Masked chavs carrying bottles and cans of beer when they weren't carrying 40" televisions. Not all of the criminal element were chavs, but it's certainly not going to make the rest of British society warm to people whose reputation is bad enough without this happening. A 140-year-old furniture store was torched... was it because it might burn well? Two girls interviewed by the BBC who'd been rioting and were drinking all night, first blaming the government when they didn't even know who was in power and what they'd done, then blaming the rich shop owners (unlikely as most shop owners would be ordinary people mortgaged to the hilt), and finally settling on the opinion that it was to show the rich and the police that they can do what they want. These sheep hadn't a clue, and I hope their free rosé wine is worth the trade for the lives they're denying themselves. Attacking and destroying shops has just put more people out of work and more people onto benefits, thus less money for society as a whole.

By the way, the first picture is a protest, not a riot. There's a clear distinction and something the BBC were unwilling to make for most of their coverage, a fact that angered people like myself.

What people like these need is to be made to help repair the damage they've done, and to be educated in a way their parents and peers obviously failed or didn't care to try. Arming everyone isn't the solution, and blaming social networking is shortsighted at best considering the authorities make good use of it themselves (though, possibly not BBM). There's talk of removing benefits for any unemployed people involved, and for those people saying it'll only make things worse for them, the simple fact is they shouldn't have done it in the first place. Five people are dead, three from being run over whilst protecting their community in Birmingham... it's a sorry state of affairs and I hope that not only those people affected by the riots can rebuild their lives, but those who perpetrated the violence and theft are all made to serve time for their acts against the peaceful majority of this country.

Rant over.




Darn right people are angry
By holymaniac on 8/13/2011 8:42:09 PM , Rating: 2
People are angry all over the world because the "leaders" they PAY to be leaders do not serve them and their interests, but rather RULE them in service to the wealthy, greedy few. They say power corrupts. Most of those in positions of authority have gotten fat headed and mostly serve those who feed their power addiction habit - the greedy and powerful, self-serving wealthy.




By foolsgambit11 on 8/14/2011 4:12:29 PM , Rating: 2
I find it a little ironic that these same people were praising the effects of social media on organizing civil unrest during the past year in the Middle East. Of course, much of the unrest in the Arab Spring was peaceful from the side of the protesters, but that just demonstrates that social media isn't at fault; it isn't the problem, and shouldn't be censored.

I find it strange that the protests under truly autocratic regimes like Egypt (formerly) or Syria were so peaceful but Britain's protests became riots. It's hard to say what that means, but one interpretation might be that, when protest is common, violence gets used to show that you're serious, while when protest is rare, it is enough to simply protest in numbers to get the government's attention. But that is only one interpretation, and I'm sure there are other equally valid, or more valid, interpretations.




Gun laws mean nothing
By vision33r on 8/14/2011 9:25:43 PM , Rating: 2
As long as you can drive out of NYC to get guns, there's plenty of firepower.

If the riots ever happen in NYC, you bet there will be a lot of dead people.




By CensorshipRules on 8/17/2011 6:50:21 PM , Rating: 2
Government Censorship of Facebooks and Twitter, American Style http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9IXBU6dKdA




yep
By jay401 on 8/12/2011 11:38:35 PM , Rating: 1
Typical nanny state reaction. Can't face the facts of its decaying society, has to try to censor the symptoms of a systemic problem that begins with a lack of parenting and moral compass among the youth.
Best article on the subject of the riots:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2024284/...




Not censorship.....
By 306maxi on 8/12/11, Rating: -1
RE: Not censorship.....
By Omega215D on 8/12/2011 10:36:26 AM , Rating: 2
I guess the tin foil hat folks are behind this poor instance of reporting.


RE: Not censorship.....
By CensorshipRules on 8/17/2011 6:53:09 PM , Rating: 2
"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki