Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

Gun control in the USA

1…1920222425…34

Comments

  • #632
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,856 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    MadsL wrote: »
    I don't know too many people who leave their car unlocked with their wallet in plain sight. Being prepared for when violence is done to you is not the same as being violent. Or would you disgree with the principle of self-defence, as I asked before 'are you a pacifist?' and under what circumstances would you meet violence with violence?

    Have you ever heard the phrase "there's no point tempting an honest man"? There is a difference between not leaving a wallet in an unlocked car and carrying a weapon on your person because you think you might need it.
    There are many many things you can do to increase your personal security before you need to consider a weapon.
    MadsL wrote: »
    Because the onus of proof is on the prosecution, or would you like a return to the Spanish Inquisition?

    I can't think of a situation where someone who actually had a good (lawful) reason to have a knife could still incriminate themselves somehow by explaining that reason.
    If you are innocent, then why would you remain silent?
    MadsL wrote: »
    Here is the UKs latest civil liberties infringement dressed up in a reactionary way to make it easier to swallow.
    source
    So another law based on what someone may do. Ostensibly introduced to combat crime, undoubtably will be used to break up political protest.

    Your problem with the law is with it being abused. Or would you prefer police to not act on information they receive until after a crime is committed? Under your system if the police received information that a terrorist was gong to detonate a device in a public place, the police could not act until after the device was used.
    While I do agree that laws such as you quoted could be abused, I would rather the laws were supported by strong regulations and independent post-incident appraisals than for the laws to be scrapped. I simply do not trust random members of the public to know what to do if a crime arises around them.
    MadsL wrote: »
    Do you consider a small penknife in your own car's glovebox to be something that citizens should be prosecuted for after a police search?

    No. A penknife is a tool and so is the policeman who arrests someone for having one in their car. But that is argument against the policeman, not the law.
    MadsL wrote: »
    Except that isn't the law. The law states good reason as a defence, the question we are asking is if self-defence is a valid reason.

    No, it is not. There are many things you can learn for self-defence that remove the need to carry a weapon, a weapon that is likely not to be any use to an unskilled person anyway. Go to any half decent self defence course and you will be told to avoid dangerous environments, to not make yourself look like a victim and to strike (if you need to) with a view to running away as quickly as possible. Because these are how you effectively defend yourself. Not by whipping out a knife, hoping the mugger is alone, doesn't have one himself, or doesn't disarm you and use it against you.
    MadsL wrote: »
    What proof of 'good reason' would be acceptable to you, the guilty having thought through the excuses for carrying or the innocent gobsmacked that thier one inch penknife is now considered an offensive weapon.

    So we shouldn't ask people why they have knives because the guilty will have reasonable excuses while the innocent have none? :rolleyes:.
    MadsL wrote: »
    If scouts meet after school?
    Do you think a knife should be part of a scouting uniform?

    If the scouts meet after school (and the kid can't go home in between) then the knife can be left in the scout den for when s/he gets there.
    A knife is a useful tool for a scout, but only while they are scouting.
    MadsL wrote: »
    And an increasingly less violent society. Europe has has centuries to establish law and order and the rule of law, my State has been part of the Federal US for just 101 years - it would have been an incredibly violent place in 1912.
    Violence in the US has steadily been diminishing as the citizenry have become less tolerant of that violence. The establishment of law and order was the will of the people paying for sheriffs to protect them - exactly as happens here in my county today.

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/29/justice/us-violent-crime/index.html
    U.S. violent crime down for fifth straight year

    :confused: Europe has had two World Wars in the last hundred years, so I don't understand why think an appeal to history is going to work here.
    And I don't know why you bothered quoting a CNN reoprt on the last five years when the pdf I quoted has data going back to 1995.
    MadsL wrote: »
    Contributing to and being willing to help enforce law and order is not seen in the US as people being so inclined to evil who therefore have to arm themselves, it is the enabling and equipping citizens

    Not quite. Citizens aren't enabled and equipped by the state or militias. The law allows them to equip themselves, but requires little to no training in gun use or safety.
    Do you really think any random person who simply buys a gun, even if proficient in its use and care, will be able to effectively engage in a real life combat situation, either by themselves or art of a group (of other random people)? What about if some criminal pulls out a gun in a crowded area? Do you think a random gun carrying citizen wont panic in that situation? There is a reason why police are put through training before they are sent out on the beat. Just the ability to use a gun without shooting off your own toe doesn't mean you can effectively defend yourself or others with it.
    MadsL wrote: »
    to protect first themselves, then their families, then their neighbours, then the wider community.

    From who?


  • #633
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,856 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Yes, but there is no justification to act on that assumption until a threat has been demonstrated. The weapon stays nicely holstered until such a demonstration. This is different from being detained because you haven't threatened anyone yet.

    Its odd that you don't think that police or the courts can be trusted to make a discretionary decision but you assume that anyone carrying a gun can be.
    Manic Moran wrote: »
    This is a 40-minute video, but contains two talks, one from a laywer and one from a cop, and gives you a very good case for keeping your mouth shut, innocent or not.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

    I'm not going to watch a forty minute video. Explain the good case here.
    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Good according to whose standards? If the commonly held standard is "I need it for work," and the CPS in that instance had said that that was the standard it would uphold...

    Good according to the courts standards. According to the article quoted before, the guy had admitted in court that he had no good reason to carry the knife. He admitted in court that he failed its standard, whatever it was.
    Manic Moran wrote: »
    My perspective is that a good reason should not be required to begin with. By the definition, it is subjective and nebulous, my good reason may not be good enough for you. When you're talking about potentially life-changing events like criminal conviction or prison sentences, forgive me if I think something a little more definitive is appropriate.

    As subjective and nebulous as the average member of public assessing the threats of everyone around them?
    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Not only are they not up to the job, they don't have to be. And here's the dirty little secret: They are not up to the job in any country. Ireland, England, Switzerland, Canada: If they were, there would be no murders or other violent crimes.

    But isn't it odd how much less up to the job they are in the US than those other countries (see homicide statistics quoted earlier)? And that's despite having armed members of the public ready to defend themselves. Its almost as if arming members of the public doesn't actually improve their self defense.
    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Further, the police have no obligation to protect you, the individual (Again, in any country that I am aware of). They may be able to detect and prosecute the guilty party afterwards, but that doesn't much help you once they're drawing the line around your body.

    Probably hard to protect someone when you have other people telling them they shouldn't act until the crime has been committed.


  • #634
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    robindch wrote: »
    A Fox News commentator, formerly a senior judge in New Jersey, reminds people that what the Second Amendment actually does is protect the right to murder people:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpYTzvY1ZFs

    What a stupid argument, he said nothing of the sort. Murdering someone is illegal, gun ownership is not.

    Driving a car is legal, having a drink is legal, drink driving and running over a 5 year old under the influence is illegal. Should we ban all alcohol and cars? :rolleyes:

    That judge is actualy an avid libertarian and will probably shares many of your views but it is true what the constitution of the US says.
    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
    Now, I know many would love to get rid of that 'for the greater good' in the pretense of creating a lefty utopian dream but thats not going to happen.


  • #635
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    robindch wrote: »
    Still finishing off the last of the eggnog, eh?

    Perhaps you can answer the question seeing as you are the prince around here. What does gun control in the US have to do with Atheism?


  • #636
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Have you not moved from NZ to OZ then?

    Yes, but what has that got to do with the discussion at hand? Please enlighten me!
    Not being shot by some dick with a grudge against whatever who goes home and picks up a few legally held weapons and goes on a killing spree is a civil liberty I would prefer to see enforced

    So you therefore favour a large authoritarian state overseeing everything for the good of the people. How about the right to defend ones property and family? I suppose they should stand by while they see their wife raped and beaten and children murdered?

    Given the circumstances, everyone would pick up a gun to defend their home against that possibility; people who say otherwise are either liars or naive bleeding hearts lefty hippies.

    This is all the more amusing that its posted by someone who left Ireland in the 70's due to the lacking of civil liberties yet complains that another country has more civil liberties than they are comfortable with. Doesnt Ireland have a blasphamy law? Doesnt the US seperate the church and state something the UK doesnt do?

    Pontificating nonesense!


  • Advertisement
  • #637
    the_syco
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,308 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    If I woke up in the morning and decided I wanted to masacre a few dozen people with a handgun, then I immediate run into a problem with, you know, not having a handgun and having no possible way of getting one.
    If someone woke up in the morning and decided they wanted to massacre a few hundred people with an IED, then you'd immediately run into a problem with... oh, wait, you wouldn't. Everything is available. it may take a week or so, but it'd be possible.
    jank wrote: »
    Doesnt the US seperate the church and state something the UK doesnt do?
    Does the US separate it? When did this happen?


  • #638
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Have you ever heard the phrase "there's no point tempting an honest man"? There is a difference between not leaving a wallet in an unlocked car and carrying a weapon on your person because you think you might need it.
    What is that difference? You do not appear to have articulated it.
    There are many many things you can do to increase your personal security before you need to consider a weapon.
    Many, many things you haven't named. Are they all things that a person of advanced age or limited mobility can avail of?
    I can't think of a situation where someone who actually had a good (lawful) reason to have a knife could still incriminate themselves somehow by explaining that reason.
    "I keep a knife in the car to go camping".
    Are you camping now?
    "No."
    Right, you are fcking nicked, my beauty!
    If you are innocent, then why would you remain silent?
    Because that is your right under law. Will you be campaigning in Ireland to remove the right to silence, please do start a thread on it and justify your position. I find the removal of that principle of law abhorrant - as do most liberal thinking people. Care to justify such a fascist measure?
    Your problem with the law is with it being abused. Or would you prefer police to not act on information they receive until after a crime is committed? Under your system if the police received information that a terrorist was gong to detonate a device in a public place, the police could not act until after the device was used.
    4,500 people were stopped and searched under anti-terrorism legislation in London in 2011, that is not tipoff stuff - that is "I don't like the look of that" blanket oppressive policing - find that an exaggeration? Looking at the statistics for 2011 at the level of stop and searches by UK police - in London in 201 UK police made the following stop and searches at random (no probable cause required) Source

    Section 1 searches
    Searches of persons or vehicles under section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and other legislation,
    Controversial legislation not requiring an arrest or charge before a search is enacted - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_and_Criminal_Evidence_Act_1984
    London Region: 533,574,

    Searches of persons or vehicles under section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
    London Region: 53,518 searches, 161 arrests. [Less than a third of 1% of the number of stops]

    Searches of vehicles and occupants under section 44(1) and searches of pedestrians under section 44(2) of the Terrorism Act 2000
    London Region: 5,055 searches, 33 arrests [less than 2/3 of 1% the number of stops]

    Number of persons and vehicles searched under Sect 1, Section 60 and Section 44 stop and search powers and resultant arrests by police force area and population, 2010/11
    London Region: 597,658 searches, 44,374 arrests (a 7% arrest rate for all reasons - not the stated reasons for the stop)

    With a population of 8 million, London's cops stopped and searched almost 8% of the total population - each Londoner now faces a roughly 1:13 chance of being stopped and search without probable cause every year
    While I do agree that laws such as you quoted could be abused
    ,
    I'd say they are being significantly abused based on those numbers.
    I would rather the laws were supported by strong regulations and independent post-incident appraisals than for the laws to be scrapped.
    Good luck with that. Seriously, the Met really do not want to know.
    I simply do not trust random members of the public to know what to do if a crime arises around them.
    Despite estimated 2.5 million who prevent a crime by using or showing a gun each year who clearly have some impact in preventing the crime arising around them.
    Kleck 1993
    No. A penknife is a tool and so is the policeman who arrests someone for having one in their car. But that is argument against the policeman, not the law.
    Without showing an immediate need for the penknife, you can be arrested. Or do you interpret that particular law differently?
    No, it is not. There are many things you can learn for self-defence that remove the need to carry a weapon, a weapon that is likely not to be any use to an unskilled person anyway. Go to any half decent self defence course and you will be told to avoid dangerous environments, to not make yourself look like a victim and to strike (if you need to) with a view to running away as quickly as possible.
    And if I am 83 and walk with difficulty?
    Because these are how you effectively defend yourself. Not by whipping out a knife, hoping the mugger is alone, doesn't have one himself, or doesn't disarm you and use it against you.
    So you should legally be presented with a situation where your attacker can carry illegally (he's going to break the law anyway but in order to meet force with equal force you must break the law) - I keep asking but are you a pacifist? And under what circumstances do you think force may be met with force?
    So we shouldn't ask people why they have knives because the guilty will have reasonable excuses while the innocent have none? :rolleyes:.
    Do you think having a knife in public is an automatically guil
    If the scouts meet after school (and the kid can't go home in between) then the knife can be left in the scout den for when s/he gets there.
    A knife is a useful tool for a scout, but only while they are scouting.
    Lol! You know nothing about scouting - a scout is always scouting - Be Prepared!! Ring a bell?
    :confused: Europe has had two World Wars in the last hundred years, so I don't understand why think an appeal to history is going to work here.
    Because laws have an hsitorical context? We seem to be constantly reminded of that when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.
    And I don't know why you bothered quoting a CNN reoprt on the last five years when the pdf I quoted has data going back to 1995.
    Slipped my memory you posted it.
    Not quite. Citizens aren't enabled and equipped by the state or militias.
    Militias are not always equipped by the state.
    The law allows them to equip themselves, but requires little to no training in gun use or safety.
    Do you really think any random person who simply buys a gun, even if proficient in its use and care, will be able to effectively engage in a real life combat situation, either by themselves or art of a group (of other random people)?
    A concealed carry license requires both training and a test of ability.
    What about if some criminal pulls out a gun in a crowded area? Do you think a random gun carrying citizen wont panic in that situation?
    10% of Americans are trained military veterans, is there are reason to assume they will.
    There is a reason why police are put through training before they are sent out on the beat. Just the ability to use a gun without shooting off your own toe doesn't mean you can effectively defend yourself or others with it.
    No it doesn't, and that is the reason that practical shooting classes are held at many ranges and gun clubs. Ironically it is illegal in Ireland to teach and practice practical shooting for self-defence.
    From who?

    Ze Germans. ;)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oK_trZhVdk


  • #639
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    stevejazzx wrote: »
    Yeah this current world of religion and guns is doing so much for us eh?.

    Well actually the proof is in the pudding. The United States is one of the oldest and longest running current republics in the world. It has a bill of rights and a constitution that guarantees people rights and safe guards individuals not only against each other but more importantly against the government. Governments and states have killed more people in the last 100 years than anything else bar infectious diseases like HIV or Influenza

    Europe is great right! France is on its 5 republic, or is it 6 cant remember. Germany only tried to inslave the world once but sure they make nice cars so we will give them a break. Only 20 years ago there was genocide in the Balkans. Never mind the fact that 60 years ago Fascists and communists were trying to out do each other in finding out how many more millions they can kill than the other guy in death camps!

    Currently the far right is on the rise in places like Spain, Greece and France while the communists (have they not learned anything over the past 100 years?) in Greece have 10% of the vote and are growing. Never mind that, the US has a gun culture so let’s all pick on that!

    Nowhere else on this planet does a country guarantee ones individual freedoms as much as the United States. Anyone remember the YouTube video some months back? If that person was British they would probably, no definately be facing charges on inciting hate. The US guarantees the rights of freedom of speech, no matter how unpalatable that speech is.

    I am actually shocked, no saddened that atheists can’t see the wood from the trees on this one.
    stevejazzx wrote: »
    Well no matter what terrorism is caused by religious fundamentalists or killing sprees caused by too many guns and a gun culture - we'll have our civil liberties right? And then at least our fearful and paranoid yet heavily armed civillian population will be able to fight off the government? Is it just me or do a lot of people in the pro-gun camp seem angry and afraid? I can get sympathise with that but thinking a right (and as robin pointed out the landscape of what that right was created for has dramatically changed) to bear arms is going to help when the government decides to enslave its own people only proves my earlier point about fear and gun culture. You are not protecting yourself against anything you are only helping to create an atmosphere of distrust. Having to be ready to murder someone or die yourself in any given situation is something we should be moving away from as a society, not towards.

    So you don’t fear government? My my you are naive! Even in Ireland people should be afraid of the power of the state, sure wasn’t it them that elevated the RCC to the position it held up to recently where by nobody dared question its power. Wasn’t it the Irish state that stopped a rape victim from travelling to the UK for an abortion. Wasn’t it the Irish state that guaranteed the banks to the tune of 70+ billion euro thus destroying a generation of wealth in the process. You are so utterly, totally naive!


  • #640
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    the_syco wrote: »

    Does the US separate it? When did this happen?

    Perhaps a history leason is in order?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
    The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...." and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

    When this was established the UK still had the penal laws in Ireland that required people by law pay tax to the church of Ireland, nevermind the fact that catholics were discrimated against legally by the state in various forms of office holders and patronage.

    This doesn’t even take into account that practising your religion in Ireland in the 18th century could have landed you in jail!


  • #641
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Jesus, all this has got us going backwards to the 1st Amendment!


  • Advertisement
  • #642
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    For whatever reason most Irish Atheists hate the US, yet complain bitterly about the lack of a secular Irish state. Irony on them I suppose!:rolleyes:


  • #643
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,856 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    MadsL wrote: »
    What is that difference? You do not appear to have articulated it.

    Leaving a wallet in a an unlocked car makes it more likely to be stolen, as its visibly easy to take.
    Not carrying a weapon, that wouldn't be visible anyway, doesn't make you any less likely to be accosted by a criminal.
    MadsL wrote: »
    Many, many things you haven't named. Are they all things that a person of advanced age or limited mobility can avail of?

    I mentioned some later on in the post. Things like staying out of dangerous environments, not making yourself appear an easy target. DO you think a person of advanced age or limited mobility will be able to effectively use a knife against an assailant?
    MadsL wrote: »
    "I keep a knife in the car to go camping".
    Are you camping now?
    "No."
    Right, you are fcking nicked, my beauty!

    But you would be nicked if you don't supply any reason at all. If you supply a reason from the start, you at least have the chance of meeting someone who you can convince. If you dont, but later supply one, it will look like you made it up.
    MadsL wrote: »
    Because that is your right under law. Will you be campaigning in Ireland to remove the right to silence, please do start a thread on it and justify your position. I find the removal of that principle of law abhorrant - as do most liberal thinking people. Care to justify such a fascist measure?

    I already did: If you are innocent, then why would you remain silent? Saying its your right under the law is not a justification for the right to exist under the law, that is a circular argument.
    MadsL wrote: »
    With a population of 8 million, London's cops stopped and searched almost 8% of the total population - each Londoner now faces a roughly 1:13 chance of being stopped and search without probable cause every year

    And London has a murder rate of ~ 2 per 100,000, less than half of that of the US. Might those two facts be connected?
    MadsL wrote: »
    Good luck with that. Seriously, the Met really do not want to know.

    Which is an argument against the MET, not the law itself.
    MadsL wrote: »
    Despite estimated 2.5 million who prevent a crime by using or showing a gun each year who clearly have some impact in preventing the crime arising around them.
    Kleck 1993

    Aside from being 20 years old, that source is also from a time when the US had nearly double the rate of deaths it had in 2010 (look the pdf I quouted earlier it goes back to 1995 where the rate was 8.1 per 100,000).
    MadsL wrote: »
    Without showing an immediate need for the penknife, you can be arrested. Or do you interpret that particular law differently?

    I do not interpret "good reason" as "immediate need". Daily Mail scaremongering aside, the lack of an epidemic of people being arrested carrying blades for work and the like would indicate that neither do the vast majority of police or courts.
    MadsL wrote: »
    And if I am 83 and walk with difficulty?

    What ever about pepper spray or personal alarm (which don't require much in the way of skill or accuracy, and have no recoil) an 83 year with walking difficulties is not going to be able to use a knife (or a gun) effectively.
    MadsL wrote: »
    So you should legally be presented with a situation where your attacker can carry illegally (he's going to break the law anyway but in order to meet force with equal force you must break the law) - I keep asking but are you a pacifist? And under what circumstances do you think force may be met with force?

    The idea that an attacker can carry an illegal weapon will apply almost no matter what weapons you make illegal, so aiming to match the attackers hypothetical weapon will only lead to escalation.
    The idea that meeting force with equal force will somehow work out good for you (and not just bad for both of you, all other things equal) is naive.

    Don't get me wrong, I am a pacifist but I am also a realist. I avoid violent confrontation but if someone absolutely left me no other choice, I would kill them regardless of what weapons I had, my hands are enough. I just don't go out assuming I may need to do that.
    MadsL wrote: »
    Do you think having a knife in public is an automatically guil

    Depends on why the knife is being held in a public place.
    MadsL wrote: »
    Lol! You know nothing about scouting - a scout is always scouting - Be Prepared!! Ring a bell?

    I was a scout. Besides the motto, you are also thought about social responsibility and maturity. Knives were useful when camping, not so much on a city street, and certainly not as psychological crutch for insecurity.
    MadsL wrote: »
    Because laws have an hsitorical context? We seem to be constantly reminded of that when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.

    I think you missed my point. Europe in the early 1900s was a far more violent place than the US (what with the two World Wars).
    MadsL wrote: »
    Militias are not always equipped by the state.

    :confused: I didn't say they were.
    MadsL wrote: »
    A concealed carry license requires both training and a test of ability.

    The equivalent level of training as a policeman? It can take months to years to become a policeman in the the states, and they come with all kinds of physical and psychological tests. What training do you need to have a concealed carry license? Do all states require it?
    MadsL wrote: »
    10% of Americans are trained military veterans, is there are reason to assume they will.

    Yes, the 90% of Americans who are not trained military veterans.
    MadsL wrote: »
    No it doesn't, and that is the reason that practical shooting classes are held at many ranges and gun clubs.

    Completely independent and optional classes that you don't have ot attend to get a gun.
    MadsL wrote: »
    Ironically it is illegal in Ireland to teach and practice practical shooting for self-defence.

    Not that ironic seeing as its illegal to carry a gun.
    MadsL wrote: »
    Ze Germans.

    I take it from your non-answer that you saw where I was going. The US sees citizens permitted to carry guns as "enabling and equipping citizens to protect first themselves, then their families, then their neighbours, then the wider community" from other citizens. The government allows you to have guns to protect you from yourselves, because the government isn't up to the job. In doing so, you arm the people you are trying to defend yourselves against.


  • #644
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    jank wrote: »
    For whatever reason most Irish Atheists hate the US, yet complain bitterly about the lack of a secular Irish state. Irony on them I suppose!:rolleyes:

    Its the same confused thinking that allow many of the same people rail against US foreign policy (Iraq war and support of Israel) yet their role models and heroes are Christopher Hitchens (fervant supporter of the Iraq war) and Sam Harris (fervant supporter of Israel, a theocracy). They are walking contraditions, ranting against slavery in Roman occupied Judea in the 1st century, yet are in awe of someone who supports occupation and enslavement of a whole ethnic population in the 21st century.


  • #645
    pauldla
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,248 ✭✭✭pauldla


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Its the same confused thinking that allow many of the same people rail against US foreign policy (Iraq war and support of Israel) yet their role models and heroes are Christopher Hitchens (fervant supporter of the Iraq war) and Sam Harris (fervant supporter of Israel, a theocracy). They are walking contraditions, ranting against slavery in Roman occupied Judea in the 1st century, yet are in awe of someone who supports occupation and enslavement of a whole ethnic population in the 21st century.

    Could you give examples of the highlighted text, please?


  • #646
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Its the same confused thinking that allow many of the same people rail against US foreign policy (Iraq war and support of Israel) yet their role models and heroes are Christopher Hitchens (fervant supporter of the Iraq war) and Sam Harris (fervant supporter of Israel, a theocracy). They are walking contraditions, ranting against slavery in Roman occupied Judea in the 1st century, yet are in awe of someone who supports occupation and enslavement of a whole ethnic population in the 21st century.

    Nevermind that those two induviduals made their living, residing in the United States which afforded them the rights to say what they wanted.
    Christopher Hitchens wrote:
    As the third millennium gets under way, and as the Russian and Chinese and Cuban revolutions drop below the horizon, it is possible to argue that the American revolution, with its promise of cosmopolitan democracy, is the only ‘model’ revolution that humanity has left to it
    Sam Harris wrote:
    Coverage of the Newtown tragedy and its aftermath has been generally abysmal. In fact, I have never seen the “liberal media” conform to right-wing caricatures of itself with such alacrity
    Sam Harris wrote:
    Gun-control advocates appear unable to distinguish situations in which a gun in the hands of a good person would be useless (or worse) and those in which it would be likely to save dozens of innocent lives. They are eager to extrapolate from the Aurora shooting to every other possible scene of mass murder


  • #647
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    pauldla wrote: »
    Could you give examples of the highlighted text, please?

    Sure. The rants (including your own) against the morality of slavery in the 1st century from the "Atheism/Existance of God debates" thread. While slavery in any form (no matter how benevolent), cannot be condoned today, one surely has to judge the issue relative to the stage of human development? Unless one is just on a religion bashing exercise that is. What is most relevant is what are the positions of the various governments and world religions on human rights issues today.

    A far more pressing moral issue today than slavery in 1st century Judea is child abuse in China. Are you willing to condemn it with the same vigor used on the other thread? If so, good for you, I applaud you. If not, you have no moral ground to stand on, no more than Sam Harris. Human rights are human rights, regardless of the ethnic group involved.

    http://webpages.scu.edu/ftp/multimedialearning/wkwok/printable%20version.htm


  • #648
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,138 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Its odd that you don't think that police or the courts can be trusted to make a discretionary decision but you assume that anyone carrying a gun can be.

    It is far easier for one to determine whether someone is proving a threat to someone else by their actions than by what they happen to be wearing.
    I'm not going to watch a forty minute video. Explain the good case here.

    If it could be summarized, it probably wouldn't have taken them 40 minutes to say it. But part of the general thinking is that even though you may be trying to be helpful, your general nervousness may well cause you to either say something which may be misconstrued or which may cause the police to start looking at you.
    Good according to the courts standards. According to the article quoted before, the guy had admitted in court that he had no good reason to carry the knife. He admitted in court that he failed its standard, whatever it was.

    I note you don't suggest that you know what the court standard is either. Do you not see the inherent problem with attempting to be a law-abiding citizen here? How can I adhere to the law when I don't know what the law is until after I'm brought to court? I note your later reply to MaDSL:
    If you supply a reason from the start, you at least have the chance of meeting someone who you can convince

    A 'chance' of meeting someone? I don't want my criminal record and liberty to hinge on my 'chance' of anything. I would very much like to have the knowledge I need to make an informed decision ahead of time which removes 'chance' from the equation.
    As subjective and nebulous as the average member of public assessing the threats of everyone around them?

    If I were an identifiable threat to you, there wouldn't be much nebulous about it. I would be pointing a weapon at you. I would be expressing my desire to cause you harm. I would have made it fairly clear to all present that I took exception to your continued existance in your current condition.
    But isn't it odd how much less up to the job they are in the US than those other countries (see homicide statistics quoted earlier)? And that's despite having armed members of the public ready to defend themselves. Its almost as if arming members of the public doesn't actually improve their self defense.

    Depends rather on if you want to look at the macro or the micro level. It can very certainly affect any particular individual's ability to defend themself. Certainly the US has a violence problem. Allowing myself to be an easy target for criminals doesn't help matters as far as I'm concerned.
    Probably hard to protect someone when you have other people telling them they shouldn't act until the crime has been committed.

    Yes. It's easiest to protect someone if you place them in protective custody, in a locked room, on an island surrounded by robot crabs, and wrapped in bubble wrap, prohibiting all contact with anyone else. Wouldn't be very much fun for the protectee though.

    Prohibiting someone's actions for what they -might- do is an anaethema to a free society. You don't punish someone for drinking some wine at home with dinner because they -might- drive drunk later. You punish them if they drink so that their BAC is over the legislated .08 and then attempt to drive.


  • #649
    pauldla
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,248 ✭✭✭pauldla


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Sure. The rants (including your own) against the morality of slavery in the 1st century from the "Atheism/Existance of God debates" thread. While slavery in any form (no matter how benevolent), cannot be condoned today, one surely has to judge the issue relative to the stage of human development? Unless one is just on a religion bashing exercise that is. What is most relevant is what are the positions of the various governments and world religions on human rights issues today.

    A far more pressing moral issue today than slavery in 1st century Judea is child abuse in China. Are you willing to condemn it with the same vigor used on the other thread? If so, good for you, I applaud you. If not, you have no moral ground to stand on, no more than Sam Harris. Human rights are human rights, regardless of the ethnic group involved.

    http://webpages.scu.edu/ftp/multimedialearning/wkwok/printable%20version.htm

    Well, thanks for the reply. You don't come here for the hunting, do you? :p

    I would certainly expect that issues such as slavery should be seen in their historical context. To do otherwise is to fall into the Historian Fallacy, which I try to be mindful of. My comments on the other thread (which, incidentally, is where we should probably have this exchange, if you wish to continue the topic), were aimed at a poster who was describing his views of slavery in a Christian context, following the teachings of St Paul in Ephesians 6:5-9 (advice for slaves and slaveowners to accept their respective roles in Christ). I certainly did no ranting: perhaps this is another word the meaning of which is obscured from you? ;)

    For the second part of your post above, I'm trying to decide which fallacy you've employed (if, indeed, it is only one). Is it a red herring? A strawman? A non sequitur? Perhaps you are accusing me of being party to child abuse in China, which would make it an ad hominem. To be honest, I'm not always so adept at correctly identifying fallacies, which is why I find many of your comments so useful. :P


  • #650
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,856 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    It is far easier for one to determine whether someone is proving a threat to someone else by their actions than by what they happen to be wearing.

    And its far easier for someone trained to look for threats to actually recognise a threat, than a random citizen. The is, of course, the criminal doesn't sneak up on you armed, the surprise and weapon negating your own preparation.
    Manic Moran wrote: »
    If it could be summarized, it probably wouldn't have taken them 40 minutes to say it. But part of the general thinking is that even though you may be trying to be helpful, your general nervousness may well cause you to either say something which may be misconstrued or which may cause the police to start looking at you.

    Why would an innocent person be nervous?
    Manic Moran wrote: »
    I note you don't suggest that you know what the court standard is either. Do you not see the inherent problem with attempting to be a law-abiding citizen here? How can I adhere to the law when I don't know what the law is until after I'm brought to court?

    You do know the law. If you believe you have a good reason for a knife then you can carry one. If you are second guessing your own reasons for carrying a knife, then maybe you don't need to carry it.
    Manic Moran wrote: »
    I note your later reply to MaDSL:

    A 'chance' of meeting someone? I don't want my criminal record and liberty to hinge on my 'chance' of anything. I would very much like to have the knowledge I need to make an informed decision ahead of time which removes 'chance' from the equation.

    My response to MaDSL was from the hypothetical that you were arrested because of an irrational police officer. I would think the odds of eventually finding a rational police officer, prosecutor or judge to be fairly high.
    Manic Moran wrote: »
    If I were an identifiable threat to you, there wouldn't be much nebulous about it. I would be pointing a weapon at you. I would be expressing my desire to cause you harm. I would have made it fairly clear to all present that I took exception to your continued existance in your current condition.

    And if you were already pointing a weapon at me then I would not be able to get my weapon ready before you could use yours. You are assuming that people see threats coming, that people are quick enough to ready their own weapons without the threat retaliating in the mean time.
    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Depends rather on if you want to look at the macro or the micro level. It can very certainly affect any particular individual's ability to defend themself. Certainly the US has a violence problem. Allowing myself to be an easy target for criminals doesn't help matters as far as I'm concerned.

    A concealed weapon doesn't change how much of an easy target you are, or at least how easy you appear to be. Even if you appear armed, a criminal will simple arm themselves and use the element of surprise to catch you unaware.
    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Yes. It's easiest to protect someone if you place them in protective custody, in a locked room, on an island surrounded by robot crabs, and wrapped in bubble wrap, prohibiting all contact with anyone else. Wouldn't be very much fun for the protectee though.

    This is a Daily Mail level of non sequitor.
    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Prohibiting someone's actions for what they -might- do is an anaethema to a free society. You don't punish someone for drinking some wine at home with dinner because they -might- drive drunk later. You punish them if they drink so that their BAC is over the legislated .08 and then attempt to drive.

    What about punishing someone for what they are likely to do? A person, drunk, stumbling towards their car is likely to attempt to drive it. Shout onlooking police really have to wait until that person mounts a curb or flies into oncoming traffic before they try and stop them? Someone who has a knife, but wont say why they have a knife, probably has an illegal reason for having said knife. At the very least it should be confiscated.


  • #651
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,856 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    nagirrac wrote: »
    While slavery in any form (no matter how benevolent), cannot be condoned today, one surely has to judge the issue relative to the stage of human development?

    No, not when the rules for said slavery supposedly come from an objectively moral god. The morals of human society may change and evolve over time, but god's are meant to be consistent and unchanging.

    I'm not sure if this was what pauldla meant though. I for one, would like to know what you meant by "yet are in awe of someone who supports occupation and enslavement of a whole ethnic population in the 21st century". Who are we supposed to be in awe of? And where do they support the occupation and enslavement of a whole ethnic population?


  • Advertisement
  • #652
    pauldla
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,248 ✭✭✭pauldla


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    No, not when the rules for said slavery supposedly come from an objectively moral god. The morals of human society may change and evolve over time, but god's are meant to be consistent and unchanging.

    I'm not sure if this was what pauldla meant though. I for one, would like to know what you meant by "yet are in awe of someone who supports occupation and enslavement of a whole ethnic population in the 21st century". Who are we supposed to be in awe of? And where do they support the occupation and enslavement of a whole ethnic population?

    I was wondering that myself, but in all the excitement I kind of lost count of all the nonsense, fallacies, half-truths and insinuations. So, what about it, nagirrac? But seeing as this is the A&A forum, one of the most vigorous on boards.ie and can blow your head clean off, you have to ask yourself, do I feel lucky? :pac:


  • #653
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    MadsL wrote: »
    If you want to argue that violent uprising = murder then you might go to members of your own legislature and ask if they are therefore defacto "murderers".
    While I don't believe that any of Ireland's current TD's have been convicted of manslaughter or murder, Dessie Ellis certainly has been convicted here in Ireland of a string of explosives offences; and they're separate to the claims which appeared in the UK recently linking him to around fifty murders. So, to answer your question, no, I don't believe any of them are murderers.
    MadsL wrote: »
    If you also feel that law enforcement carrying weapons = murder then I can see how also could argue for an unarmed police force.
    I didn't mention law enforcement, though I am strongly in favour of an unarmed police force. I also mentioned "unlawful" as being part of the legal definition of "murder", but the subtlety of that -- as with the subtlety of just about everything else -- appears quite lost upon you.
    MadsL wrote: »
    Most recently, Irish prisoners even protested to the point of death, the fact that their actions were seen as criminal, and therefore murder rather than revolutionary and therefore political.
    Well, perhaps the legal definition of "murder" I use is a minority view amongst gun-enthusiasts, but as above, as far as I'm concerned, the premedidated, unlawful killing of one person by another constitutes murder.

    BTW, as you bring up the topic, the men who committed suicide in the early 80's in NI were common terrorists with all the cowardice that implies, and certainly not the glorious revolutionaries that they were successfully portrayed in the US, to the IRA's considerable financial benefit.


  • #654
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    jank wrote: »
    For whatever reason most Irish Atheists hate the US, yet complain bitterly about the lack of a secular Irish state.
    Are you drunk?


  • #655
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    jank wrote: »
    Yes, but what has that got to do with the discussion at hand? Please enlighten me!

    Simply pointing out the irony of you giving out about the UK while voluntarily moving to a country that exerts even greater control over it's citizens - and visitors. And yes, I have lived and worked in both.


    So you therefore favour a large authoritarian state overseeing everything for the good of the people. How about the right to defend ones property and family? I suppose they should stand by while they see their wife raped and beaten and children murdered?

    Given the circumstances, everyone would pick up a gun to defend their home against that possibility; people who say otherwise are either liars or naive bleeding hearts lefty hippies.

    This is all the more amusing that its posted by someone who left Ireland in the 70's due to the lacking of civil liberties yet complains that another country has more civil liberties than they are comfortable with. Doesnt Ireland have a blasphamy law? Doesnt the US seperate the church and state something the UK doesnt do?

    Pontificating nonesense!

    Nonsense indeed. One imagines that will all these weapons in the US which allow people to defend themselves there would be no crimes against the person committed at all.

    Who said I left Ireland in the 70s?

    Second time in my life I have been accused of being a hippy - both times on boards.... what a bizarre insult....

    Left-wing, yes I am. Not illegal - although it is frowned upon the the good old US of A - that bastion of civil liberties.

    What about the right not to be shot?


  • #656
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    pauldla wrote: »
    Well, thanks for the reply. You don't come here for the hunting, do you? :p

    I would certainly expect that issues such as slavery should be seen in their historical context. To do otherwise is to fall into the Historian Fallacy, which I try to be mindful of. My comments on the other thread (which, incidentally, is where we should probably have this exchange, if you wish to continue the topic), were aimed at a poster who was describing his views of slavery in a Christian context, following the teachings of St Paul in Ephesians 6:5-9 (advice for slaves and slaveowners to accept their respective roles in Christ). I certainly did no ranting: perhaps this is another word the meaning of which is obscured from you? ;)

    For the second part of your post above, I'm trying to decide which fallacy you've employed (if, indeed, it is only one). Is it a red herring? A strawman? A non sequitur? Perhaps you are accusing me of being party to child abuse in China, which would make it an ad hominem. To be honest, I'm not always so adept at correctly identifying fallacies, which is why I find many of your comments so useful. :P

    Actually I do. I like to hunt (methaphorically speaking of course) hypocritical atheists ;)

    Your post on the other thread (which I agree is where further posts on this topic should be posted and will) was a rant at a poster demanding he clarify his personal views on slavery.

    So, do you deplore and condemn the practice of child labor in China, or are you like Sam Harris where human rights abuse against one group is wrong but abuse against another is somehow justified? I an certainly not accusing you of any involvement in child labor, I am merely asking your opinion on a moral issue.


  • #657
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Its the same confused thinking that allow many of the same people rail against US foreign policy (Iraq war and support of Israel) yet their role models and heroes are Christopher Hitchens (fervant supporter of the Iraq war) and Sam Harris (fervant supporter of Israel, a theocracy). They are walking contraditions, ranting against slavery in Roman occupied Judea in the 1st century, yet are in awe of someone who supports occupation and enslavement of a whole ethnic population in the 21st century.

    Um...no they are not.


  • #658
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Um...no they are not.

    I said some. I wouldn't include you Bannasidhe, you seem a very balanced and consistent poster.


  • #659
    pauldla
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,248 ✭✭✭pauldla


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Actually I do. I like to hunt (methaphorically speaking of course) hypocritical atheists ;)

    Your post on the other thread (which I agree is where further posts on this topic should be posted and will) was a rant at a poster demanding he clarify his personal views on slavery.

    So, do you deplore and condemn the practice of child labor in China, or are you like Sam Harris where human rights abuse against one group is wrong but abuse against another is somehow justified? I an certainly not accusing you of any involvement in child labor, I am merely asking your opinion on a moral issue.

    :confused:

    I will not discuss this further on this thread, as it is not fair to the poster in question (who may want to comment on the exchange, too), but I will be delighted to cross handbags with you on the other thread.

    Incidentally, if you want to make reference to, or comment on, my posts, please do so on the relevant thread: don't diss me on another thread, directly or indirectly, or allude to or attribute to me opinions I have not expressed. It's terribly cowardly.


  • #660
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    nagirrac wrote: »
    I said some. I wouldn't include you Bannasidhe, you seem a very balanced and consistent poster.

    Names. Now.


  • Advertisement
  • #661
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,138 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    And its far easier for someone trained to look for threats to actually recognise a threat, than a random citizen. The is, of course, the criminal doesn't sneak up on you armed, the surprise and weapon negating your own preparation.

    That happens. Nobody is saying that being armed will always help you. But that also doesn't mean to say that even if the criminal 'gets the drop on you' that you can't reverse the situation: There are a number of videos on Youtube which have been linked to elsewhere showing the armed private citizen responding to the first move of the criminal. Heck, I link on the AH thread to a case a couple of months ago where a paraplegic was awoken by a criminal pointing a shotgun to his head: He still managed to shoot the criminal with his own handgun.
    Why would an innocent person be nervous?

    You ever been interrogated? You may know you're innocent, but you also know that it doesn't mean that the person you're talking to agrees with the premise. A little nervousness can be understandable.
    You do know the law. If you believe you have a good reason for a knife then you can carry one. If you are second guessing your own reasons for carrying a knife, then maybe you don't need to carry it.

    No, you're not getting this. I'm not second-guessing my own reasons for carrying a knife. I am quite happy that I use it routinely for whatever reason I may have at that moment and time. My problem is that the standard relies on the subjective assessment of a second party, whose opinion on the matter I can only get after he or she feels she disagrees with me.
    My response to MaDSL was from the hypothetical that you were arrested because of an irrational police officer. I would think the odds of eventually finding a rational police officer, prosecutor or judge to be fairly high.

    And the odds of the issue being dropped, more rapidly, are even higher when all you need to do is say is something like "Look at Penal Code 12020. I don't care if you like it or not, or if you agree with my motivation or not. I can do it"

    I used to work for a security agency at Oakland Airport. An individual who had flown in from Pennsylvania, who did a little research on California law ahead of time, got off his airplane, retrieved his bag at the baggage claim, opened it up, and holstered a sidearm in a visible (external) holster and a magazine on the other hip. Alameda County sheriffs immediately detain him. My God, heaven forbid that someone carry a gun around in open view in a California city (especiallyt one with a high violent crime rate)!

    Ten minutes later, he was on his way. No judgement calls about 'need', no checking with the prosecution service to see if they wanted to charge him. Simply a look at the California Penal Code as written, which gave objective criteria (Half the delay was waiting for someone to arrive wth the book in the car). Was sidearm concealed? No. Not illegal. Was sidearm loaded? No. Not illegal. Was sidearm on the 'assault weapon list?' No. Not illegal. "Thank you sir, sorry for the delay, our mistake. You are free to go, have a nice day"

    Simple, clear, objective criteria, which could be easily understood and followed even by an individual who hailed from a couple thousand miles away. Especially useful in when the subject is emotive, such as weapons.
    And if you were already pointing a weapon at me then I would not be able to get my weapon ready before you could use yours. You are assuming that people see threats coming, that people are quick enough to ready their own weapons without the threat retaliating in the mean time.

    As stated, even the direct victim of a threat can take control of the situation with his own weapon. If he is only a nearby individual, things get much easier. In any case, that it a judgement call to be made by the private citizen at the time: Just because you have a weapon doesn't mean you have to use it. Yet some would arbitrarily remove that choice from the individual.
    A concealed weapon doesn't change how much of an easy target you are, or at least how easy you appear to be. Even if you appear armed, a criminal will simple arm themselves and use the element of surprise to catch you unaware.

    Agreed. But see above, there are plenty of examples where that doesn't seem to have mattered.
    This is a Daily Mail level of non sequitor.

    Just taking it to its logical conclusion (It's actually a derivation of an an IT example, about the most secure computer being off the network, unplugged from power, in a safe, on an island. Very secure, not much use). Quoting Ben Franklin: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    What about punishing someone for what they are likely to do? A person, drunk, stumbling towards their car is likely to attempt to drive it. Shout onlooking police really have to wait until that person mounts a curb or flies into oncoming traffic before they try and stop them?

    They cannot be punished for stumbling towards their car. The Road Traffic Act states: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2010/en/act/pub/0025/sec0004.html#sec4
    A person shall not drive or attempt to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place while he or she is under the influence of an intoxicant to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle.

    It seems he needs to be in the car, with his keys, before there is even a hope of landing a prosecution. See DPP vs Byrne: http://www.ipsofactoj.com/international/2003/Part01/int2003%281%29-011.htm
    Even that need not be a slam dunk. There is now a presumption, once he's in the car with his keys, that he intends to drive, but it is not a given. The fact that the court even had to issue an opinoin on the matter is evidence of the unclear nature of the law: It doesn't clearly define what 'in charge with intent' is, and simply punts it to individual judges by each case. It is interesting to note this thread on Boards a year ago:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056416660

    The lack of clarity in the law is evident. A number of posters are saying things akin to "I get into the passenger seat, put the keys on the back seat, and fall asleep, I'm safe. I have no intention to drive" with other posters responding that the first lot are incorrect, and that they may still get done. Well-meaning boardsies who do not wish to break the law are being told they may still be punished under it, even when they're actively trying not to break it. This is a problem.
    Someone who has a knife, but wont say why they have a knife, probably has an illegal reason for having said knife. At the very least it should be confiscated.

    Back to guilty until proven innocent...

    NTM


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement