MicroBalrog
member
At any rate, I don't see how any of what you said disproves Gabb's main point in any way.
Putting the Case Against Gun Control: by Sean Gabb
- Thread starter MicroBalrog
- Start date
- Status
agricola
Member
What was his main point? That he "won" the argument (which its fairly clear even from his main point that he didnt)? Or that he had a damned fine time on television? Or that he managed to portray gun owners as being to a man wackos and thus convinced every man and woman in the studio, and probably those watching (and later the eleven people and a cat listening to BBC Radio Northampton) that the ban on handguns was a good deal?
I have just read your article. As I recall, Joyce Lee Malcolm's article and the evidence it contained could not have been extended to read as "ban on some guns = rise in violent crime" but went on about the "English RKBA". The rest of it I wouldnt comment on, except to state that CCW is a worrying trend in that one should always be wary of a state telling you you can do something you've (in the US context via the 2A) every right to do in the first place. Would you accept the state giving you a licence to read? Or speak out?
I have just read your article. As I recall, Joyce Lee Malcolm's article and the evidence it contained could not have been extended to read as "ban on some guns = rise in violent crime" but went on about the "English RKBA". The rest of it I wouldnt comment on, except to state that CCW is a worrying trend in that one should always be wary of a state telling you you can do something you've (in the US context via the 2A) every right to do in the first place. Would you accept the state giving you a licence to read? Or speak out?
MicroBalrog
member
No, but CCW laws are a whole lot better than no-issue or may-issue laws.
MicroBalrog
member
The main point was:
agricola
Member
microbalrog,
i'd disagree - arguments are won because you are right and he/she is wrong.
i'd disagree - arguments are won because you are right and he/she is wrong.
MicroBalrog
member
But Anne Pearson was not only technically wrong. She was morally wrong.
Freedspeak
Member
Libertarian aspect
Agricola
Actually the Libs have a higher rate of elected officials in the US and a larger membership than all the other "third" parties combined. At the state and local levels they are making inroads, and that is where it starts!
Agricola
Actually the Libs have a higher rate of elected officials in the US and a larger membership than all the other "third" parties combined. At the state and local levels they are making inroads, and that is where it starts!
Freedspeak
Member
Ahh, but in what reference frame?
On a societal or cultural level the concept of right or wrong can vary, the argument must be put into a context of ethos rather than ethics, one being universal the other being a cultural affectation. So from that how do you decide who is right or wrong, if each is arguing based on a different cultural belief!
On a societal or cultural level the concept of right or wrong can vary, the argument must be put into a context of ethos rather than ethics, one being universal the other being a cultural affectation. So from that how do you decide who is right or wrong, if each is arguing based on a different cultural belief!
Mr. Bombastic
Member
Actually no.
Maybe the term ‘self defence’ hasn't been removed from English Law. But the way the law stands now, it is the equivalent of saying that it is perfectly legal to climb Mount Everest, but you can't do it using anything other than your bare feet and hands.
A man was recently arrested and prosecuted because he ran after four racist vandals that damaged his shop. He pursued them, armed with a rolling pin for self defence, which he had because he was outnumbered and he feared they were armed. He never used the rolling pin, but he caught one of the vandals. The police were not on the scene to catch the vandals themselves even though they witnessed what happened on CCTV.
His rolling pin was confiscated and he was fined £100.
I guess you believe he should have just stood by and let these scum destroy his life-blood? Or maybe he should have phoned the police (who already knew what had happened) and hope that they actually bothered to do something about it?
The vandals were not afraid of the police or jail. They were afraid of a person willing to break the law and defend themselves and their property though.
Did you read my post properly? Did I write that 'freedom' included the ability to have a 'free' anything?
You don't even recognise the right to self defence in your 'definition' of freedom, for what it's worth.
'We can't even watch TV without a licence.' is what I wrote. I didn't write 'We can't even watch videos or play computer games without a licence'.
Having to pay the government $180 every year to finance the BBC, even if you only watch independent channels and don't ever watch the State owned television is hardly having ‘freedom’ to use your own property in your own home is it? You even have to let ‘Inspectors’ into your home to prove you can’t receive any broadcast signals (even independent) to avoid paying the licence.
Still, never mind about that, it doesn’t really relate directly to firearms.
agricola
Member
bombastic,
for a start, everyone knows about the TV licence and its a direct consequence of buying a television - do you object to paying road tax for the same reasons?
Secondly, I cannot find any links for that story you cite despite Google searches. Do you have more information, or a link to evidence it? In any case, as the law stands that is not a matter of "self defence" because the man was under no threat - the criminals were fleeing. As for the Police not being there despite witnessing it, well until that instantaneous matter-transportation system comes online we will have to wait for officers having to make their way to an area using normal means of transportation, which means time.
Still, I guess this means nothing coming from a violent minion of Her Nazi Majesty. Victory to the regime!
for a start, everyone knows about the TV licence and its a direct consequence of buying a television - do you object to paying road tax for the same reasons?
Secondly, I cannot find any links for that story you cite despite Google searches. Do you have more information, or a link to evidence it? In any case, as the law stands that is not a matter of "self defence" because the man was under no threat - the criminals were fleeing. As for the Police not being there despite witnessing it, well until that instantaneous matter-transportation system comes online we will have to wait for officers having to make their way to an area using normal means of transportation, which means time.
Still, I guess this means nothing coming from a violent minion of Her Nazi Majesty. Victory to the regime!
MicroBalrog
member
And until that time, we'll need weapons for self-defense.
Mr. Bombastic
Member
MicroBalrog, you took the words right out of my mouth.
The rolling pin story was on page 19 of yesterdays Daily Mail.
The rolling pin story was on page 19 of yesterdays Daily Mail.
MicroBalrog
member
Thanks Mr. Bombastic. I do think this thread needs some kicking in these dire days.
- Status
