Surely the lawlessness and scarcity of basic necessities makes them more dangerous.
Advertisement
by Anywhere Else But Here » Mon May 23, 2016 9:31 am
by Imperializt Russia » Mon May 23, 2016 9:47 am
Vassenor wrote:Lamadia wrote:On the subject of guns in Britain, I do think we should all have the right to defend ourselves, however by no means would I begin handing out firearms. Not only is it, as proven in the US, capable of fuelling crime, but in this current climate, assault rifles in circulation would be dangerous. However, if I were US President, I would not begin collecting guns based on the right of all Americans to bear arms.
Yes, it is a shame we don't live in a parliamentary democracy where the great unwashed have the right to elect a party they think will change things.
We already do have that right.
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by Imperializt Russia » Mon May 23, 2016 9:48 am
Hydesland wrote:It also matters how easily available they are, and fuck anything that makes arms more easily available to criminals and gangs.
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by Questers » Mon May 23, 2016 9:49 am
by Souseiseki » Mon May 23, 2016 9:49 am
Questers wrote:FPO OUT FPO OUT FPO OUT FPO OUT
by Souseiseki » Mon May 23, 2016 9:51 am
by Vassenor » Mon May 23, 2016 9:53 am
Questers wrote:If I remember correctly the law is based on reasonable belief, so if you reasonable believe that you are under threat you are entitled to use proportional threat in response to the threat you honestly believed you were under.
Personally I think if a chap enters my house uninvited with a weapon I should have the legal backing to blow him away if I see fit.
by Imperializt Russia » Mon May 23, 2016 9:53 am
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by Questers » Mon May 23, 2016 9:57 am
No, in this particular case it is the jury's acceptance of your reasonable belief, not the reasonable man standard (iirc).Vassenor wrote:Questers wrote:If I remember correctly the law is based on reasonable belief, so if you reasonable believe that you are under threat you are entitled to use proportional threat in response to the threat you honestly believed you were under.
Personally I think if a chap enters my house uninvited with a weapon I should have the legal backing to blow him away if I see fit.
I believe it has to be reasonable to you and reasonable to a random person on the bus.
by Vassenor » Mon May 23, 2016 9:59 am
The jury, as ordinary members of the community, must decide the amount of force reasonable in the circumstances of the case. It is relevant that the defendant was under pressure from imminent attack and may not have had time to make entirely rational decisions, so the test must balance the objective standard of a reasonable person by attributing some of the subjective knowledge of the defendant, including what he had believed about the circumstances, even if they were mistaken.
by Souseiseki » Mon May 23, 2016 12:17 pm
by Lamadia » Mon May 23, 2016 2:09 pm
by Imperializt Russia » Mon May 23, 2016 2:13 pm
Lamadia wrote:A victory for sanity; http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... five-years.
Councillors in Yorkshire have approved plans for fracking. Fracking is a massive industry- Britain is wasting billions on wind farms and so on. However important renewable energy is, the amount of money, the independence, shale gas can provide, could assure this country's energy industry for decades to come. We need more of this.
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by Lamadia » Mon May 23, 2016 2:16 pm
Imperializt Russia wrote:Lamadia wrote:A victory for sanity; http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... five-years.
Councillors in Yorkshire have approved plans for fracking. Fracking is a massive industry- Britain is wasting billions on wind farms and so on. However important renewable energy is, the amount of money, the independence, shale gas can provide, could assure this country's energy industry for decades to come. We need more of this.
Money on wind farms isn't "wasted". Just throwing that out there. There are better arguments against them, and even then, not against them entirely, just against the number we should have.
Fracking won't bring us energy independence, because if we make a serious go of it, OPEC will tank the oil price again and make it unprofitable. Again.
by Imperializt Russia » Mon May 23, 2016 2:22 pm
Lamadia wrote:Imperializt Russia wrote:Money on wind farms isn't "wasted". Just throwing that out there. There are better arguments against them, and even then, not against them entirely, just against the number we should have.
Fracking won't bring us energy independence, because if we make a serious go of it, OPEC will tank the oil price again and make it unprofitable. Again.
Shale gas can reduce massively bill costs, making the energy industry in Britain more flushed with homegrown supply, makes us ever-less reliant on Russia (obviously, not entirely,) and can generate big jobs in small communities. Yorkshire should be happy.
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by Valaran » Mon May 23, 2016 2:25 pm
Lamadia wrote:makes us ever-less reliant on Russia (obviously, not entirely,)
Archeuland and Baughistan wrote:"I don't always nice, but when I do, I build it up." Valaran
Valaran wrote:To be fair though.... I was judging on coolness factor, the most important criteria in any war.
Zoboyizakoplayoklot wrote:Val: NS's resident mindless zombie
Planita wrote:you just set the OP on fire
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Emotional Support Crocodile, Ifreann, Pasong Tirad, The Xenopolis Confederation
Advertisement