My nine yr old daughter was lured out of the house tonight, "By a FRIEND" and into a trap, where 7 other teenagers were want to beat her up for kicking the little sister of one of the rats, anyone who seen my "Car problem" post, will know I was on vacation last week, so how the F could these scally girls have had a problem with my daughter,
My god, its not save to let her out of our own house now...
some days I just want to run down every kid I see on the street.
----------------------
Time for a Sexy Party!
----------------------
Hope your daughter is okay and recovers from traumas. It's sick how sneaky and evil some people can be, even if they do have tiny brains. We've had problem chavs near my house in the past, attacking cars in the street and what not (but not recently, strangely). If you ring the police, 90% of the time they're useless. It's too confrontational for any grown up police man in my local district- they'd rather sit in their cars catching people driving 3mph over the speed limit.
I remember once we had a gang of 14-17 yr olds in our Vegetable garden. It's hidden away behind behind a tall hedge which separates it from the main garden. We called the police, and a 50 year + guy (probably capable of running 10 meters before collapsing) came with a huge torch and radios blaring. By the time he had crossed the lawn the kids were long gone.
Good lord! I hope your daughter is okay. We had somebody ring our doorbell at 3:00 A.M. in the morning, my folks told me. Apparently I slept right through it somehow. Dad pulled out the shotgun and went out into the street looking for those b-tards. Never found em, but my best guess it was these three petty teens that live near us. They're like what, 16-18 or so, only half my maturity? I'm 15. That's not saying alot.
Ruddy Nora, Kai! I'm sure she'll be okay though. I got attacked by some chavs years back, it didn't affect me psychologically but everyone kept asking me if it did. She'll be okay in time But yea. There are some total twunts out there, there are twunts everywhere though. Locals, internet, government.
A couple of friends have been attacked too for no reason at all. Some people are just d**ks.
Out of curiosity are you taking this further with the police or anything?
We live in a Greater Manchester abotu 15 miles from manchester itself,
not a bad area, usually,
And thanks for everyone asking if she is ok, she seems ok,
as for taking it further, what can we do really, Im sure if this was the usa I could get a lawyer to call attempted murder, because it was pre-meditated, and they wanted to cause her harm,
----------------------
Time for a Sexy Party!
----------------------
well unless your legal system is fucked up, thats called assault. and in the usa thats a felony. i wouldnt stand back and do nothing hoping she'll be okay. you never know.
Originally Posted by Kai Proton We live in a Greater Manchester abotu 15 miles from manchester itself,
not a bad area, usually,
And thanks for everyone asking if she is ok, she seems ok,
as for taking it further, what can we do really, Im sure if this was the usa I could get a lawyer to call attempted murder, because it was pre-meditated, and they wanted to cause her harm,
It's certainly still GBH, and premeditated.
Plus, I would be contacting their parents immediately.
Originally Posted by Kai Proton We live in a Greater Manchester abotu 15 miles from manchester itself,
not a bad area, usually,
And thanks for everyone asking if she is ok, she seems ok,
as for taking it further, what can we do really, Im sure if this was the usa I could get a lawyer to call attempted murder, because it was pre-meditated, and they wanted to cause her harm,
Oh smart, where abouts in Greater Manchester? I'm on the very most northern-east edge of it, actually closer to Huddersfield than I am to the city centre .
But no it's definitely GBH, pre-meditated assault and there is certainly a lot you can do.
And see what I mean about d**ks being everywhere? I can't believe in a thread about your daughter being viciously attacked the pits people can drop to.
It's just not as safe to be out and about at night as it used to be. A few years ago I used to walk around the suburbs I am local to, anywhere between 10pm-4am with not a single problem, now there are certain types of people and problem families who's children roam the streets in gangs of 14-17yr olds with nothing better to do than wait for a single person to walk by to mug. Last year a boy was stabbed at the local shop.
"And see what I mean about d**ks being everywhere? I can't believe in a thread about your daughter being viciously attacked the pits people can drop to."
maybe im reading this wrong but what in the hell are you talking about?
im pretty sure everyone in this thread (and probably the site) is on his side.
I think he's upset about my "that explains it then" comment. To be honest Manchester is notorious for crime, like most cities in the UK (but probably more so than a good handful I can think of). Whilst what has happened to Kai's daughter is sick, and should make the news headlines to highlight such a nasty issue, I'm somewhat less surprised when I hear he lives in/around Manchester.
I remember when my brothers made good friends with a "decent girl" from Manchester, whilst abroad on holiday. They met up with her for New Year's Eve in Manchester only to find she was off her face on cocaine, like her mother who was also attending the party. I guess people aren't what they seem.
But like I say, most cities have these problems throughout the world, not just in the UK. It's sad but true. I'll never visit Baltimore.
Greater Manchester ≠ Manchester
It's like saying Hemel Hempstead is dangerous because it's in (Greater) London. And funnily enough even though I'm in Greater Manchester our crime figures for my postcode are considerably lower than ****'s. Hmm.
Edited by Muz
Admin Note Dont mention other members postcodes, please.
My sister wants to move INTO Cincinnati. I want to move farther away! All you hear on the news is shootings this and killings that. It's a pretty violent city.
Once someone sneaked into our house while we were asleep and stole our van. And then another time some creep came knocking at the door at 3 in the morning looking for my dad (who wasn't home) and wouldn't go away. Actually that happened a lot, because we lived in a parsonage. People came for help all the time.
Originally Posted by Dr. James Greater Manchester ≠ Manchester
It's like saying Hemel Hempstead is dangerous because it's in (Greater) London. And funnily enough even though I'm in Greater Manchester our crime figures for my postcode are considerably lower than ****'s. Hmm.
It's not a competition, it's when you make sweeping generalisations like that I have to correct you. Technically Greater Manchester (where both me and Kai are from) is comparatively quite safe.
Well shit happens everywhere, and we're talking about stupid kids here, not convicted criminals, chances are this kind of crime doesn't even count for the crime rate, and in this case Kai didn't even report the case to the police so it's like it didn't happened.
btw if I were you I'd talk to the parents of the kids, if they don't punish their kids severely enough, report the case to the police.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look Well shit happens everywhere, and we're talking about stupid kids here, not convicted criminals, chances are this kind of crime doesn't even count for the crime rate, and in this case Kai didn't even report the case to the police so it's like it didn't happened.
btw if I were you I'd talk to the parents of the kids, if they don't punish their kids severely enough, report the case to the police.
In most cases the parents are even worse than the kids
I've never seen it happen. I mean, I've been in a few fights back in school. It's normal for a kid to throw a few punches or even run around with a crowbar or a plank with a nail in it. Normal to carry around spiked knuckles and threaten to use them. In some cases, even draw blood. But nothing more than cuts and bruises.
It's not exactly a worldwide thing, though. From the media, it sounds worst in the UK. Kids stabbing each other and posting a video of it on the Internet, really?
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Hemel Hempstead has it's fair share of twats and scum, but it's not the worst place to live. There's the odd bike being stolen and a guy getting beaten up but no criminal activity that makes me afraid to walk the streets at night. But hey, find me a big industrious town that isn't like that.
And I'm sorry to hear about your daughter. It's sad that these sick people would target an adolescent like that. I was attacked and beaten up when I was 9 years old by some travelers for not wanting to play basketball with them. :/
My older sister almost got shut in the car trunk when she was 3. Can't remember where The rest of the family and I were at the time but apparently Mom n Dad hired a neighbor of our's daughter to watch her. Thankfully she got out when she went inside for dinner. If I ever find that itch-with-a-"B" I'll sue her ass.
It's not exactly a worldwide thing, though. From the media, it sounds worst in the UK. Kids stabbing each other and posting a video of it on the Internet, really?
It is quite bad here. I've never seen the problem this bad in Poland or Spain. Knife crime attacks are on the rise here, but thankfully so are arrests. There's an absolute lack of respect amongst a lot of youths here and it's not helped by judge's handing out custodial and minor sentences to serious problems.
Your "I remember when my brothers made good friends with a "decent girl" from Manchester," story is perhaps one of the most arrogant, narrow-minded posts made on the forum ever.
And yet you probably don't see what's wrong with it.
@ Kai: I hope your daughter is fine and I hope the attackers get their come-uppance. Where do you live in Gtr. Manc by the way?
Just noticed this post: Kai my friend, i sure hope they get what's coming to them, in whatever shape or form that is. Going to the parents and/or police is a good start.
The UK is becoming quite an unsafe place for numerous reasons, including the over-crowded prisons, the poor judicial system over here, the governments liberal view to tackling crime, the lack of prisons being built, the unrest in the country due to the poor state of the economy/the governments moving towards a European super-state and losing national identity/lack of justice/lack of immigration control/prioritising all minority groups over white males.
I am not racist but i voted BNP at the last local election, only because it wasn't a General Election and only because i am tired of the same old pathetic politicions running the country into the ground for their own personal gains. I hope it gave the people in power a good kick up the arse but i doubt it did and i doubt i won't vote them again because of this!
Like i said though, hope these punks get what's coming to them!
You know, I don't think that is a situation that was unheard of in the past. It's probably different for big cities, however I know having grown up in a small town that there are a few names you hear that you shouldn't get on the wrong side of. Whether it be a particularly rough family "looking out for their own" or just the kind of person that gets their friends, family and neighbours to fight their battles for them.
Ive had people telling me about something my cousin has done, smashing a window or doing something stupid, like it's my business. I hardly ever speak to my family so I just shrugged my shoulders and told them to speak to them not me.
Ha, yeah i know what you mean. In Tenbury there are a few family names living here and in the surrounding villages/towns that carry some weight; "don't mess with them", "they're hard" etc. Most of it is BULL though, it's just their bark is so loud they put people off trying their bite! I tested this out one night...
Let's face it, our country, the UK, has a bad reputation for people starting fights and generally being scumbag little punks. I hate living in this god forsaken country, since Labour has gone into power in 1997 there have been nothing but problems.
To be honest every country has them. I was recently shocked to find some form of chavette in Switzerland, sat on the back of a bus. She had a ridiculous amount of eye makeup, huge hoop ear-rings, gelled curly hair, a red puffer jacket and had her legs up on the seats as she chewed gum with her mouth open and listened to her mp3 player. Unless she was going to a fancy dress party, I really thought they only existed in the UK.
There was also a crazy drunk woman on a train, but again that happens in most countries, I should think.
Yeah, there is chav and chavette equivalents in about every countries.
Not that I can really make a generalization like this but UK does seem to have a reputation for having a lot of scum and brawlers. Of course it could be as bad as many other places in the world. Perhaps it's just something that's been communicated through too much bad media and film.
The problems didn't start in 1997 Circy, the problems have always been here.
It was quite funny to watch a repeat of The Likely Lads the other day, which was about violence, crime and the prevalence of drunken yobs getting into fights... I'm not saying the levels of violent crime are not very real and very scary, but simply that have always been there. What I would say has changed though is our reaction to it; the meagre punishments offered to the attackers especially.
@Marko: I'm not going to attack your reasons for voting BNP, but probably your research about them. They are little more than racist opportunists and holocaust deniers. I do think there is probably too much immigration into the country, but only because of our complicated and shameful past (which included owning practically everywhere the majority of immigrants arrive from) and the lack of infrastructure to handle these new arrivals. The ghettoisation of my own particular town (Rochdale) is a frequent topic of debate here, with gangs of white and Asian men seeking each other out to prove their braveness and committing crime as acts of retribution when, for example, an Asian or white girl gets is sexually attacked. The way that Asian families are shunted into the same areas of Rochdale does little but help the 'Asian hard man' mentality because they see their communities as exclaves in a white racist area. "Multiculturalism" cannot exist in such a state.
@Adam: "She had a ridiculous amount of eye makeup, huge hoop ear-rings, gelled curly hair, a red puffer jacket and had her legs up on the seats as she chewed gum with her mouth open and listened to her mp3 player" - oh my God Adam, arrest this woman! She clearly doesn't fit into your skewed view of normal society!
I hope your daughter is OK Proton, I don’t know what’s happening with the younger generations. Me and my mates did some ‘bad’ stuff when we was younger, but nothing like I have seen in my area (Birmingham) lately. They go round like pack animals looking for people to attack/rob or to carry out pointless acts of vandalism.
I agree with Chris/Circy the country has gone downhill a LOT since 97. The problems have always been there but the joke of our judicial system is increasing the occurrence and severity of crimes. I don’t think Gordon B could run a booze up in a brewery!
Labour took us to bankruptcy in the 70s (Britain had to go to the IMF!!!) and we are not far off doing that again. Trouble is I don’t think any of the major parties are competent enough to fix the county.
I honestly believe our culture is being changed to help control us, if society continues to decline, they can enforce more police state type laws, more observation of us etc.
She is fine, thanks for everyones asking,
I recently heard of a cast in manchester about a girl called "Sophie Lancaster"
so look it up, it could have been what my little one was walking into,
and.. am I the only one who calls them rodents or Scallys, I know Scally is a manchester word, where I went to college (Darlington - YAY!) they were called
"Little Raffs"
but I prefer Rodents.
here is something I found kinda funny, the rodents that had a go at my daughter and Mrs.Proton, happened to be photographed by Mrs. Proton the week before, because she works alot in the community.
so oh dear me we have the photos, lol
----------------------
Time for a Sexy Party!
----------------------
Originally Posted by Matt Boothman The Likely Lads
There is a reason I love you.
@Marko: I'm not going to attack your reasons for voting BNP, but probably your research about them. They are little more than racist opportunists and holocaust deniers. I do think there is probably too much immigration into the country, but only because of our complicated and shameful past (which included owning practically everywhere the majority of immigrants arrive from) and the lack of infrastructure to handle these new arrivals. The ghettoisation of my own particular town (Rochdale) is a frequent topic of debate here, with gangs of white and Asian men seeking each other out to prove their braveness and committing crime as acts of retribution when, for example, an Asian or white girl gets is sexually attacked. The way that Asian families are shunted into the same areas of Rochdale does little but help the 'Asian hard man' mentality because they see their communities as exclaves in a white racist area. "Multiculturalism" cannot exist in such a state.
Absolutely. The BNP don't have any credentials and I'm amazed they are picking up support. Sure the current government needs a bloody nose but so do the oppositions, but voting for the BNP isn't going to give them one. The only force powerful enough to really offer any change in Britain is through an uprising of new MP talent who really do take no s**t. But the problem there is it really can't be one or two individuals since they'd be ostracised and that would be that.
I'm sure everyone and their cat knows a story of injustice of whatnot. Where if the police or judges were tougher we'd see some proper results. Case in point for me - the bloke who attacked me got off scott free. It took years of other similar minor court appearances before he was finally caught attempting armed robbery. Or some other little chav who stole his mums car, rammed a police van which resulted in a police chase starting in the city and ending up in the hills around us, hitting a couple of cars parked on the road. 4 police cars sped past our house and a helicopter was called out too. You'd think it was an open and shut case but he got a suspended sentence.
Sorry to hear your story, Kai. Glad your daughter is OK.
You get kids like that anywhere in the world, but the UK does seem to have a very high percentage of violence among teens. In Japan, this story would be on regional TV and I'm not even kidding.
I'm looking forward to having kids someday but I wonder about the world they'll be growing up in.
I'm pretty sure the Chav culture is some lame attempt at copying the R&B scene from the United States. So yeah, it's definitely not only something in the UK.
Guys, guys, i am not a BNP supporter, in fact i think they are retarded and backwards. However of all the parties outside the top 3 (who are all ridiculous in their own rights), the BNP were the single party who were gaining votes the fastest, as well as having policies far removed from what Labour/Tories/Libs stood for. Trust me, i have researched them and they are nut-balls, however this was a tactical vote and i think it will continue to bloody the noses of the idiot top 3 parties until they pull their fingures out of their a$$es. Mine (and everyone else's) tactical votes would not have had the same effect if we'd all voted for the other loser groups (Green party, UKIP, etc) since a) they are not as radical as the BNP and so will not gain as much media coverage as them (and let's face it, the tabloids pretty much dictate what goes on in this country at the mo, outside of European matters), and b) because of this reason, no-one will take much notice if they grew in popularity as quickly as the BNP.
Note though that if it came to a straight fight between the BNP and another party for control of this country, i would always vote the other party.... unless it was a far-left wing group like the Communists!
I think it's more daft not to vote at all since you influence nothing; atleast my way moves towards some kind of resolution or result. However the whole idea of democracy is freedom of choice, so neither of us is really 'wrong'.
No. It's both utterly ludicrous and dangerous to give your vote to an institutionally racist and discriminatory party merely on the basis of tactical voting. Every vote the BNP attain, regardless of why they get it, helps to legitimise them as a proper political party in the general public's eyes, instead of the 'one issue' party exploiting peoples' instinctual prejudices that they actually are. It's in hard times that the fascists rise, and they're gaining enough votes as it is, thanks to the Left failing us over the last decade and a recession marching on. A 'no vote' maintains the status quo, whilst a vote for the BNP, whatever your ulterior motive for doing so, is putting power and momentum in their hands. It's not as easy as supporting them one minute, and then pulling that support the next; political momentum is a powerful force and not easily predicted.
If I ever indulge in tactical voting (it certainly can be worthwhile) I'll probably go for one of the comparatively harmless parties like the Greens, or the Monster Raving Loony party. But the BNP? Goddamn.
Originally Posted by Marko Each to their own, however if you don't like the party in power how is keeping the "status quo" going to make things better?
BTW, i plan to vote Tories in the General election as they have the best chance of getting Labour out, which i want badly.
I edited in a sentence to make my point clearer;
"It's not as easy as supporting them one minute, and then pulling that support the next; political momentum is a powerful force and not easily predicted."
I completely understand that you don't support what the BNP represent, and your motive is that of tactical voting, not thinly veiled Nazism. I hope that was clear from my post.
Keeping the status quo makes nothing better, of course, but the disagreement between you and Boothman seems to be which is the worse thing to do; I see a no vote the lesser of two evils when the alternative is a vote for the BNP. With our political spectrum the way it is (i.e. no strong prospects out there, all parties fairly awful) we're reduced to damage control, and making sure the best of a bad lot are in power.
It's not the idea of tactical voting that I disagree with you on - I think it's more worthwhile to vote tactically than not vote at all - merely the fact it was the BNP which gained the advantage because of less evil parties' failings. But as you say, each to their own.
To put my reasoning another way, if i knew the Green Party were the fastest rising outside group (much like the BNP seem to be), i would have voted for them instead.
Originally Posted by Rob Rule No. It's both utterly ludicrous and dangerous to give your vote to an institutionally racist and discriminatory party merely on the basis of tactical voting. Every vote the BNP attain, regardless of why they get it, helps to legitimise them as a proper political party in the general public's eyes, instead of the 'one issue' party exploiting peoples' instinctual prejudices that they actually are.
Not exactly. Tactical votes are sort of empty, unless everyone does it and they actually come into power. It hurts the big parties a little, and if they suddenly gain too much power, it would collapse on itself. Not necessarily a bad thing.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Muz, its what the BNP stand for that become the topic of discussion. I was told that in one ward around birmingham somerhere they almost got voted in...
Most of my friends now vote UKIP, even some old staunch Labour supporters . Personally I do not see why we shell out £45 million a day to Europe. No wonder our taxes are so high and our services so poor.
I would not have a problem paying the taxes, if we got the services that warranted our tax levels.
Originally Posted by HT Personally I do not see why we shell out £45 million a day to Europe. No wonder our taxes are so high and our services so poor.
I would not have a problem paying the taxes, if we got the services that warranted our tax levels.
The world really has come to a sorry state. But we just have to man up and take the blows, but don't be afraid to fight back and stand up for what's right.
"If you don't stand for something you'll fall for anything."
I don't try to change this place, I just try to get by without it getting any worse.
'Course I live a peaceful life back in the boonies and rarely experience anything too terrible.
I know what I'm gonna say next is controversal, but I think a lot of stuff about "Chavs" and such said earlier, is a prime example of why gun control is a terrible thing. Sorry I create an off topic argument with this like I did with the elections topics But if Adam would have ran out and aimed a gun to the sky and start yelling like W3r3wolf's dad did, I think the problem would be solved forever without even firing a shot. But in Britain Adam might just get in trouble for that because of their strick gun control laws.
People who use guns for wrong will keep using them with gun control, and those of us who would rather stay out of trouble wouldn't be able to defend ourselves. Also it would allow for the government to force you to do whatever they want you to, which is why we in the US were grated the right to bear arms in the first place. You can make up some story or situation about why guns should be controlled "more" (because gun are controlled in the US just not as much), but there are more stories about why they shouldn't. Study history lest it be repeated.
But to stay on topic:
I am sorry about what happened to your daughter. Best to keep watch over her friends and ask her about who she hangs around.
Wrong. It makes it harder for people to legally obtain guns. Guns last for a very long time if you haven't noticed and even if everyone stopped making guns, there would be far too many already out there to sell on the black market.
Studies have shown that gun control doesn't work, and it's a violation of the Constitutional right to bear arms. All I have to say. Sorry, I won't go off topic any more.
Then I'll show you how much higher the national gun crime rate is for those without gun control. Plus you can't do accurate comparisons unless you do percents, because some countries are much bigger than other, example UK and USA. But I would definitely say the whole UK has more crime than the US State of Texas. I don't have any numbers to prove it, but it's a pretty obvious assumption I beleive, and Texas is bigger than the UK!
But I do have numbers on the conceal and carry, which allows people to conceal and carry firearms
I just so happened to google "statistic crime in conceal and carry"
source=http://www.everycowgirlsdream.com/righttocarry.html
It says:
"States with right-to-carry have lower violent crime rates, compared to states without right-to-carry laws. In states whose laws respect the citizen's right-to-carry guns for self defense the total crime is 13% lower, homicide is 3% lower, robbery is 26% lower and aggravated assault is 7% lower. (Data: Crime in 1996 FBI Uniform Crime Results)"
Okay, sorry for saying I always cause arguments, then arguing back, but I'm from South West Illinois and the fat cats up in Chicago are always passing down their laws on top of us. So we are forced to fight more than just about anybody for our rights. Sorry about keeping this thing going, but where I'm from gun-control is about the biggest evil that can be forced upon you.
As one of the world powers the US is very high up on that list. The problem with a state like Texas is (and correct me if this information is out of date) you're allowed to shoot someone who you think might steal your car, and the right to carry a concealed weapon isn't a good idea either.
Of note I only know of one person with a gun. And it's a ruddy shotgun too! I know where its kept so if the zombie apocalyspe kicks in I'll be sitting pretty for a while.
How convenient for the "study" to have been performed by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, also that data is from year 2000.
Another thing for one to consider is: "In the United States, cities tend to have higher gun crime rates but lower rates of gun ownership, compared with rural areas which tend to have lower gun crime rates but higher rates of gun ownership." Which is on the same page.
So if the AMOUNT of people who own GUNS is the problem, why then is it that there are less gun crimes in areas with more guns?
Wiiman: all comparative rates are percentages, or measured per set number of population, it would otherwise be unworkable.
I'm not going to discuss your 'I don't have any numbers to prove it, but it's a pretty obvious assumption I beleive', so let's leave that one where it belongs.
The murder rate's 3x higher on your mass o' land, and I don't believe an armed populace is a deterrent for criminal behaviour (just as the death penalty has proven not to be).
I once had a gun pulled on me in Texas, in a motel parking lot, but not once did I wish I'd one in my hand to 'even' the threat. In reality there are many reasons why someone would commit crime, and nine times out of ten it's desperation, not malice. Using Texas as an example, it's legal to shoot someone if you believe that they're going to steal your car. Sorry, but a car or a wallet isn't as important as human life - any human life; if we don't have a universal, equal law on the importane of life, then we forfeit our own rights in the process. The simple fact is that disarming the general public makes guns less readily available. This is a fairly futile debate, though, because when it comes to subjects of defense people can be quite defensive, as is their right.
'Then I'll show you how much higher the national gun crime rate is for those without gun control.'
Why is it that when we have a problem with guns they want to make them harder to get.
Whereas when we have a problem with specific types of drugs they want to legalize them.
Makes no sense to me. Especially since a lot of gun murders in my area involve drugs. If someones gonna kill someone over drugs they'll find a way. Gun or not.
I don't personally have a gun. Nor do I want one. But if people who are illegally getting guns (whether or not gun control is put in place) live around me, and I'm in a dangerous area, I want to be able to obtain one for myself. That's a right I was given by the constitution.
If gun control is put in place, people will still get guns and people will still steal guns. Heck, people don't need a gun to hurt you. And people may come from another country with guns. I'm not forecasting some anarchistic apocalypse, but it could happen. If that does happen I want a gun.
I don't even know if I think that's the best mainstream policy, since people are stupid and kill. Yes, the more guns there are, of course the more killings there will be. But to tell the truth I don't give a fricken crap about stats and what other people choose to do as long as I can defend myself when need be. (Statistically, 100% of the people in the world do stupid things.) People who kill with guns will answer to the law, (If they're never caught, they'll get their due from someone else. ) and I won't have my rights taken away because of their stupidity. It is not right to deprive upstanding citizens of a method of defense because others abused it.
If I were attacked by someone with a gun, would I blame the government for not controlling guns? No, I would blame the person with the gun. I would wish I had a gun to defend myself.
I hate guns. I wish there was no need for them. I'd rather I didn't feel the need to protect myself from stupid people. Nobody tells me I can't.
And that is the last thing I'm going to say about it.
OMC, i agree ith the above post. The problems with our government here in the UK is that they seem to blanket-ban things as a result of public out-cry in isolated incidents. That and the fact they are all-round useless!
I agree with OMC . Gun Crime has continued to rise in the UK despite our laws banning hand guns. I know what happened in Dunblane was awful, but why did our government grant a well known nutcase a license! (refer to my earlier post, control).
Whether you like guns or not, the laws did not work in UK (maybe different elsewhere but I doubt it). I know of numerous armed robberies and shootings in Birmingham, with illegally obtained guns. By their very nature criminals are not normally going to legally obtain guns.
What’s happened to our culture and morals? An example of this was the child that fell in that steep walled canal in London, two police arrived and just let him drown as it was deemed to dangerous to try and help. Did anyone think of getting a rope, instead of watching him drown?
I love my country and it makes me sick the mess it’s been turned into. It all boils down to our poor police/judicial system again. We need REAL men back in the UK not turtle neck sweater wearing, smart car driving metrosexuals with no business acumen. Perhaps a UK thread is needed
For the record, i was agreeing with OMC. It's like saying "right, some football thugs had a big fight because of a game, we're banning everyone from going to football matches!"
Granted, this would never happen but it does follo the same principles. Saying that, i think that relaxing gun laws in the UK ould be a bad thing, like the Cannabis class-C fiasco was!
A 15 year old shot himself in the head a few weeks ago, in the village near my town. His father didn't realise his son knew where the key to the gun cupboard was
O.K. I'll defend it. You want to take away my right to defend myself becuase some idiot kid killed himself? Making guns illegal means only people who break the law can own a gun. People die for lots of reasons, it's too bad, but it happens. Banning guns would be a huge over reaction.
Yeah, you said he was 15 right? So his parents should have taught him all about how to safely use it by then. And if it was intentional, there are plenty of ways to commit suicide without a gun. Jumping into traffic for example.
Originally Posted by -Adam- Wow, what simple little minds.
Nope. Shooting yourself in the head is a bad thing, fatal even. And when i was 15 i knew not to play with other people's guns (my dad had about 7 i think) even though i knew where to get at them, and i never shot myself in the head on purpose or accidently, not once.
How come if i say something like i did i have a small mind (like an idiot), but shooting myself in the head wouldn't make me an idiot? I don't get that logic...
Lets not start throwing insults around lads. Or I will stamp on all your toys (Qoute from Gene Hunt!) haha
It is sad, and he could have killed himself a million other ways (are we going to ban bridges, railway lines etc?) but I would not call him an idiot. Seems a bit disrecptful to the guy, and the horror his family must be going through...
Originally Posted by Ricky Garces It wasn't tactful, but it was true. And in a debate, that's all that matters.
No, it's not true. Jumping into traffic will more than likely cause accidents and grief for others on the road. Hence why you're clearly not actually thinking about anything you say.
Originally Posted by Ricky Garces It wasn't tactful, but it was true. And in a debate, that's all that matters.
No, it's not true. Jumping into traffic will more than likely cause accidents and grief for others on the road. Hence why you're clearly not actually thinking about anything you say.
Yeah you're right, there are better ways to kill yourself, I'm just not good at thinking them up. The point was if you wanted to kill yourself, not having a gun wouldn't prevent you. You purposely missed the point and instead attacked the stupidity of the example, reason being you have no good counter argument.
Fact is the first thing a government does before trying to take over your life (aka communism) is to take away everyone's guns.
It's what the Nazi's did, and what Hitler instructed in his book.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler
The scariest phrase in the English language is this: "Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help you"
It's our God given right to bear arms whether or not the government thinks so. Even if some idiot down the road kills himself. I'm not afraid of the guy down the road or even the druggies who have guns. The entire reason we were grated the right to bear arms in the first place was so that we could prevent governmental tyranny.
I said that a 15 year old shot himself in the head, and from this it's concluded that he's an idiot? How so? You don't know what was going on in his personal life, or in his head. Just really ignorant to come to such quick conclusions like that.
Very true, a government that fears it's citizens owning weapons, is a government that doesn't wish to represent it's citizens. But that's not relevant as we are no where near that state, last time i checked democracy is still intact.
Originally Posted by -Adam- I said that a 15 year old shot himself in the head, and from this it's concluded that he's an idiot? How so? You don't know what was going on in his personal life, or in his head. Just really ignorant to come to such quick conclusions like that.
But even if it were an accident or he was having depression issues, it's not the gun. I know someone who accidentally backed over his daughter in the driveway.
Which is a really... morbid... thing to bring up. D: I think I'll go do something more productive.
Originally Posted by Ricky Garces Very true, a government that fears it's citizens owning weapons, is a government that doesn't wish to represent it's citizens. But that's not relevant as we are no where near that state, last time i checked democracy is still intact.
Very true, but taking away our guns is a step in that direction.
I'd rather stay as far away from that as possible, don't you agree?
Originally Posted by -Adam- I said that a 15 year old shot himself in the head, and from this it's concluded that he's an idiot? How so? You don't know what was going on in his personal life, or in his head. Just really ignorant to come to such quick conclusions like that.
O.K. Adam, I'm going to take back calling him an idiot. Doesn't change the fact that he did something really stupid.
Originally Posted by -Adam- I said that a 15 year old shot himself in the head, and from this it's concluded that he's an idiot? How so? You don't know what was going on in his personal life, or in his head. Just really ignorant to come to such quick conclusions like that.
So what was the back story then? Accident (caused by..?) or suicide?
There are two ways we could avoid this debate:
1- if guns never existed.
2- if we stick to the topic.
But forget it. It won't do any good to disarm people who need weapons to defend themselves, so it's best just ot attack the black market before gun control.
"It's our God given right to bear arms whether or not the government thinks so. Even if some idiot down the road kills himself. I'm not afraid of the guy down the road or even the druggies who have guns. The entire reason we were grated the right to bear arms in the first place was so that we could prevent governmental tyranny."
God given right? Really? Just think about that... really? I don't seem to remember that chapter of the Old Testament...
It's well worth noting that in the UK it is perfectly legal to own a firearm, providing you are sufficiently responsible and have a genuine need for it. It seems common sense, let the people who need guns have them and don't let those that don't need them have them.
And, UrbanMonk, with the misleading Hitler comparison you are cluttering up the argument with politics of no relevance. Hitler was of course referring to the occupied Russian territories and the gun status in that part of the German Reich (which of course never did happen). Obviously Hitler would want to cut the supply of guns to Russian citizens, to keep them under control. What little point that has when discussing the US or the UK, two nations that aren't under illegal occupation and never have been for hundreds of years.
The following statistic is quite a good one: "In 2005/6 the police in England and Wales reported 50 gun homicides. By way of international comparison, in 2004 the police in the United States reported 9,326 gun homicides." I know the UK is much smaller than the US, but not by that much.
Originally Posted by Matt Boothman "It's our God given right to bear arms whether or not the government thinks so. Even if some idiot down the road kills himself. I'm not afraid of the guy down the road or even the druggies who have guns. The entire reason we were grated the right to bear arms in the first place was so that we could prevent governmental tyranny."
God given right? Really? Just think about that... really? I don't seem to remember that chapter of the Old Testament...
We have to God given right to life. The ability to defend yourself secures that right. Whether it be from an criminal, or government agents who wish to force their beliefs on you, OR as the case may be, start taxing tea.
Therefore we have the God given right to bear arms.
And,Matt Boothman, there was no mention of the Old Testament you are cluttering up the argument with politics of no relevance. Hitler took away Bibles as well as weapons. I have read a number of books written by Jewish people who went through The Holocaust. Hopefully if we manage to keep our right to bear arms illegal occupation wouldn't happen. Kool.
Wait, am I hearing this right; Hitler might not have succeeded in parts of his plans if Jews and Poles were well armed? I really don't think civilians with regular firearms would be capable of much against the war machine that was the Nazi party. This isn't Hollywood or EA games.
Firing and killing a government official would also get you killed too. So if you shot this "govenment agent" you'd still come to the same fate. And we're talking about modern US and UK here - not early 20th century central Europe. We're not going to be overrun, we're both super powers. We both have active armies to keep harm away from us.
Btw you have a God given right to life. You also don't have the right to end anyones life. Boothman has a perfectly valid point. Is there any mention or allowance of violent defence in the Bible? Infact isn't the Christian way to "turn the other cheek". If someone asks for the robe on your back you offer them your shirt too? Remember God is compassionate after all, you think He'd be a jolly ol bean if you killed a man for stealing something as unimportant as your Bravia TV?
Originally Posted by Dr. James Btw you have a God given right to life. You also don't have the right to end anyones life. Boothman has a perfectly valid point. Is there any mention or allowance of violent defence in the Bible? Infact isn't the Christian way to "turn the other cheek". If someone asks for the robe on your back you offer them your shirt too? Remember God is compassionate after all, you think He'd be a jolly ol bean if you killed a man for stealing something as unimportant as your Bravia TV?
Yes because killing someone for stealing a TV is self-defense. The turn the other cheek reference is not intended for things such as when you're about to die at the hands of another man. There is a difference between murdering unlawfully (The proper translation of the Thou shalt not kill commandment) and killing out of self or family or even a stranger's defense. It means that if someone has wronged you, don't try to get revenge. If they are in need give them more than what they ask for. Generosity and forgiveness, pretty much. A model to go after.
I don't think we should bring theology into this. In fact I think we've all said what we think. Or shall we continue in never-ending circles?
I don't think we should bring theology into this. In fact I think we've all said what we think. Or shall we continue in never-ending circles?
We're not in a never ending circle, we're moving from topic to topic regarding crime and such. And I think it's a healthy debate. Just because it's touching upon an issue that is close to you personally (Religion) doesn't mean it should be closed. This is good! TDC, she'sa growing up.
Originally Posted by OldManClayton I think you misunderstood my intentions, (and it did start to feel a bit repetitive to me) but feel free to continue. I said what I wanted to say.
I didn't! I forgot to say "with all due respect", but I hope that was intended enough.
Let's just start a new thread about gun cotrol, 'kay? And you don't have to kill someone with a gun. YOu could threaten them, club them with it, or even use shoot it against the ground to fly into space with the recoil.
Originally Posted by Not A Taco Let's just start a new thread about gun cotrol, 'kay? And you don't have to kill someone with a gun. YOu could threaten them, club them with it, or even use shoot it against the ground to fly into space with the recoil.
Rocket-jumping is the safest way to remove yourself from a sticky situation!
Originally Posted by MrPineapple you cant send these people to jail if there is no space in said jail
We should take all the hard-core criminals to Somalia and leave them there. Then when they join up with the pirates we can send marines to shoot them dead. Or maybe they'll starve, that'd work too, now there's a question, why feed the prisoners at all?
Should just leave them to starve for a few weeks only giving them water and if they don't die, give them a meal then resume the starving again.
Problem solved right?
I bet crime would be much lower. Have any of you ever not had food? ... it's not fun.
You guys know you've turned this guys post from a single instance of his daughter getting attacked into a crime and punishment/voting/gun control topic right?
Btw, forget guns, lets all wear swords again ... think about it, you really wanna try to mug someone who has a sword and knows how to use it? You've got to be close to mug someone so as to get their money right (unless you plan on yelling at them from a distance to throw their wallet your way, which may alert others)? And swords can beat guns close range depending upon the user. You have to reach for a gun same as you'd have to reach for a sword, difference is the sword strikes quicker, you have to aim a gun first and when they already have theirs pointed at you, it's not going to do you any good. But imagine a samurai sword on your belt, grab and strike in one motion while leaning out of the way of wherever they are aiming. Noone wants to lose limbs over a few dollars. I know I'd much rather be dead than to live with no arms. And sword beats knife with its longer range. No matter what you do, you'd have to be crazy to try and not hesitate even the slightest. It's better to lose money than your life.
You know that it's easier to disarm a gun from someone than it is to disarm a knife right? ... Knives tend to cut you if you grab them from someone, but if you are quick and close enough, it is possible to grab a gun while moving and rip it out of the muggers hand (this will break his finger if it's in the loop round the trigger; most guns have loops). It's not something one should try unless well practiced though for obvious reasons. Better to lose the money in your wallet than your life.
Blood of the Ancient One, Seen only as Shadow, Faster than Lightning, Fierce as the Greatest Dragon, Nearly Invisible, Floating in a Dream, Entered through the Demon Door, Destroyer of Evil in a Realm with a Red Sky Scarred, Who could I be ?
Looks like a bit of a derail. Granted, stupid kids and gun laws are a similar topic.. but guys, start another thread about gun laws if you really want to talk about it. Otherwise, I'd feel guilty about discussing it.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
On my final note in this section no one has yet to tell me how banning guns helped us in UK, hand gun crime has continued to rise. Which in my mind proves the point that guns used for bad are generally illegally obtained ones anyway.
Anyway I think this topic has been flogged to death...
It's funny you mention banning hand-guns in the UK and trying to link it to a recent rise in gun crime, as if it was a recent thing. Not once in the last century have non-permit holders been able to hold a gun; not even during both World Wars were British people ever allowed to have unlicensed guns..
So when you say 'continued to rise' I'd like to know from what this rise has continued from? The 1860s?
As an aside, I hope MBK's suggestions weren't actual thoughts that went through his head. I mean, what would the Somalians think about it if we sent over all our "hard-core criminals". I bet they wouldn't be exactly dancing a jig. And the starving idea is whats called "killing people". And that isn't good, is it?
And for those that suggest this discussion has gone "off-topic" I would kindly point out that the thread title is "What is wrong with the world?" which is as open a topic as you're ever going to get. This is a forum, discussions take courses not convergent with the original intention; get used to it.
"As an aside, I hope MBK's suggestions weren't actual thoughts that went through his head. I mean, what would the Somalians think about it if we sent over all our "hard-core criminals".
Originally Posted by Matt Boothman It's funny you mention banning hand-guns in the UK and trying to link it to a recent rise in gun crime, as if it was a recent thing. Not once in the last century have non-permit holders been able to hold a gun; not even during both World Wars were British people ever allowed to have unlicensed guns..
So when you say 'continued to rise' I'd like to know from what this rise has continued from? The 1860s?
From your favourite Labour Party Propaganda Source:
I personally dont want to own a handgun or anything btw . I am also fully aware of the licensing regulations. My viewpoint is once we start banning things where will it end? And during this time criminals can still obtain whatever they fancy.
My point is getting a better Police force (and more Police) in the UK and tougher sentences rather than more laws. Only time I seen a cop this week is in a speed trap!
Originally Posted by -Adam- A 15 year old shot himself in the head a few weeks ago, in the village near my town. His father didn't realise his son knew where the key to the gun cupboard was
That's not a valid argument at all...
So what about? You don't need a gun to kill yourself. He might have hung himself if he didn't find that gun. The gun just so happened to be how it happened, but it could have happened in multiple ways. Pills? Hanging? Drowning? Electricution? Jumping in front of a moving car? He could have even starved himself somehow. I am aware though, that all of these reasons are not as quick and that he might have gotten help before they finally killed him, but for hanging example, it would take him just as much time to set up a place to hang himself as it would be to find the key to the cupboard and get the gun out, load it and shoot himself. We can't blame something like this on the gun, it could have been anything, we should blame this on today's youth and the situations they've gone through.
Originally Posted by -Adam- A 15 year old shot himself in the head a few weeks ago, in the village near my town. His father didn't realise his son knew where the key to the gun cupboard was
That's not a valid argument at all...
So what about? You don't need a gun to kill yourself. He might have hung himself if he didn't find that gun. The gun just so happened to be how it happened, but it could have happened in multiple ways. Pills? Hanging? Drowning? Electricution? Jumping in front of a moving car? He could have even starved himself somehow. I am aware though, that all of these reasons are not as quick and that he might have gotten help before they finally killed him, but for hanging example, it would take him just as much time to set up a place to hang himself as it would be to find the key to the cupboard and get the gun out, load it and shoot himself. We can't blame something like this on the gun, it could have been anything, we should blame this on today's youth and the situations they've gone through.
You're almost right - it's a little unfair to blame the youth as a whole, more the individuals. Tougher sentencing is the best way to combat crime in this country; too many sentences are short and are spent in cushy, comfortable cells governed by the loony-left that thinks if you're kind to criminals, they'll have a change of heart and start being nice to everyone back.
Exactly. As I said if someone wants to die they will die. There are knives my my kitchen drawer, an easy suicide weapon. Ban kitchen knives? 33% of suicides in the US in 2008 had been drinking. Ban that too?
Originally Posted by -Adam- Im glad people can use Google
lol I presume this is aimed at me , to me its obvious crime is getting worse - I have been in birmingham twice now while there has been armed robberies (found out later on TV what the commotion was about) . Me and my mates always wonder where the police battle wagons/cars are off too .
Not to mention the time i was in birmingham during the race riots that was scary (thankfully it did not involve caucausions so i managed to get home in one piece although it took me hours with all of birminghams roads being closed down...)
I agree with what was said previous. If someone wants to do something badly enough, they WILL find the means to do so. Just because objects are not meant to be used for certain things, it doesn't mean they can't or won't be if someone feels that they must. So yeah, that goes for kitchen knives, ropes, guns (really, a gun in your house if you have one should be for self defence, or hunting), and half of the other things lying around your house it's possible to choke on, cut yourself on, bludgeon yourself with, pierce veins with, etc etc
Well, let's just put it this way. Know all those random stabbings that happen quite a bit? Imagine if they were shootings instead of stabbings.
Bans don't keep guns away from criminals. They keep them away from kids. You don't see school shootings as often in countries where guns are banned from civilian use. And it's easier to kill someone on impulse with a gun than with a knife, so it's not a direct comparison. That's why you don't see that many people successfully killing themselves with a gun. You can find statistics, sure, just remember to compare gun availability and knife availability before you make your conclusion.
And tougher sentencing does not help combat crime.. if anything, the longer criminals spend in jail, the better the devoted criminals get at crime, because they learn it from other criminals. The casual/impulsive criminals turn into hardened criminals with tough sentences, because they lose out on more in life and find it harder to get a job. Higher fines mean that they'd offer higher bribes. Longer jail times mean more prisons and increasing guards and guard wages.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Originally Posted by -Adam- Im glad people can use Google
lol I presume this is aimed at me , to me its obvious crime is getting worse - I have been in birmingham twice now while there has been armed robberies (found out later on TV what the commotion was about) . Me and my mates always wonder where the police battle wagons/cars are off too .
Not to mention the time i was in birmingham during the race riots that was scary (thankfully it did not involve caucausions so i managed to get home in one piece although it took me hours with all of birminghams roads being closed down...)
@ Muz: I do think the UK sentences are a joke to be honest. I know there is a balance between time inside and cost for gaurds/prisons etc but our sentences are a bit of a joke IMHO . Plus if the sentence fits the crime (i.e. long enough time) I am sure it will put people off doing the crime in the first place.
For example (local to where I live) one guy was doing 90 MPH in a Range Rover and hit a car head on in a 30mph road. The car had a family with a young child, and the child is now severely brain damaged and will be for life. The young driver is from what I gather is now out of prison. Is that right?
I dont agree with it to be honest, with such a short sentence I always think people will not learn yet to mention it giving a signal to every possible criminal that bad crimes only put you away for a short time. That guy has basically removed a perfectly normal life & future for the child, and now she will need constant care for the rest of her life. I used to drive down the very road to get to work every day, and I have been overtook many a time by people driving 4x4's or sports cars doing well above 60 .
Also if they do commit crime after coming out, put them away again and increase the time inside even longer. Exponential scale perhaps .
If our country stopped giving our money away we could afford more police, more prisons, better healthcare and better education. Tougher sentences/fines would not bother me one jot, I try not break the law
I can use Google, and i've been practicing using Yahoo too!
Seriously though, the sentencing in Britain needs more than just longer sentences. Sure it's a start, and the longer criminals spend inside the less time they are out and able to re-offend. However jails are too cushy for more serious criminals; t.v.'s, games consoles, activity days, Alton Towers days, day release... what the f**k is all that about? Most of these people have a better life inside than they would outside, so where's the deterent? More re-educating inside would help, but most of the criminals don't give a crap about learning. I think more drastic measures are required.
For example, why can't we chemically castrate peadophiles and rapists? It is proven to work in other countries and solves the problem when they come out. Granted it won't stop people committing armed robbery (or maybe it would, no-one's tried it yet!) but this approach could hold some answers.
For example, why can't we chemically castrate peadophiles and rapists? It is proven to work in other countries and solves the problem when they come out. Granted it won't stop people committing armed robbery (or maybe it would, no-one's tried it yet!) but this approach could hold some answers.
Because we are civilised in this country. Relatively.
Okay, we are civilised. But Peadophiles can never be cured using conventional teachings and courses, in the same way you can't 'cure' a gay (i'm not homophobic, i like the Pet Shop Boys), so why subject our children to the hazards of them just because their sentence has been served? They haven't changed their ways, they still desire children, why don't we do something about it? Why do we, as a civilised society, happily castrate dogs to stop them humping everything in sight, yet we don't want to save children's lives from the clutches of criminals in the same way?
A paedophile is not inherently a bad person (or a dangerous person). Only when a paedophile becomes a child abuser is the boundary crossed. There are many paedophiles who are self-controlled, normal people, and keep their sexual leanings to themselves, as society demands. Would you like to castrate these?
The media have of course altered the meaning of the word 'paedophile' from 'person who sexually desires children' to 'person who has acted sexually with children'. Two different things, and the former is something we actually know very little about (while the latter is front page news).
I think some of the child abuser laws are flawed (Or at least in America)
In America, an 18 year old sleeping with a 17.5 year old is child abuse.
I agree with most of it except that part. I think it should be considered okay with someone under 18 if you're within 3 years of them.
Anything else considered child abuse, in my mind is fair game for castration or prison or death penalty.
Well...any one who read this post from the beginning knows why I posted, and its been great to read everyones views, even when it changed into a political battle, lol
so...the Person in question has actually been brought to justice.
so a happy ending, finally one of the many rodent / Scally's has found they cant talk to adults and other children however they want.
K
----------------------
Time for a Sexy Party!
----------------------
Also, on what Wiiman said, it's sometimes a case of legal adult consent. That's why if a 25 year old has sex with a 17 year old, they can be charged for rape because it is the view of some people that people who are legally juveniles or young are not 100% liable for their actions. This has nothing to do with how mature either of the two parties are, just the general view that somehow when a person turns 18 (or 21) and are legally an adult, they are now 100% liable for their actions and must take full responsibility, they can't argue that they didn't know any better or were talked into it.
From Wikipedia:
"The term statutory rape generally refers to sex between an adult and a sexually mature minor past the age of puberty. Sexual relations with a prepubescent child, generically called "child molestation," is typically treated as a more serious crime.
In many jurisdictions, age of consent is interpreted to mean mental or functional age.[3][4][5] As a result, victims can be of any chronological age if their mental age makes them unable to consent to a sexual act.[6][7][8][9] Other jurisdictions, such as Connecticut, eliminate the legal concept of "mental age" and treat sex with a mentally incapacitated person as a specific crime.
Laws vary[10] in their definitions of statutory rape. It is generally intended to punish heinous cases of an adult taking sexual advantage of a minor. Thus, many jurisdictions prohibit allowing a juvenile to be tried as an adult under this law (most jurisdictions have separate provisions for child molestation or forcible rape which can be applied to juveniles and for which a minor can be tried as an adult). Some jurisdictions also specify a minimum difference in age in order for the offense to be applicable. Under such terms, if the adult is, for instance, less than three years older than the minor, no crime has been committed or the penalty is far less severe. These are called "Romeo and Juliet" laws."
Good work Kai, you did the right thing! My fingers are crossed that the authorities do their bit and also do the right thing too! (it was supposed to be a fudge at a fingers-crossed emoticon!)
Advertisement
Post Reply
We had somebody ring our doorbell at 3:00 A.M. in the morning, my folks told me. Apparently I slept right through it somehow. Dad pulled out the shotgun and went out into the street looking for those b-tards. Never found em, but my best guess it was these three petty teens that live near us. They're like what, 16-18 or so, only half my maturity? I'm 15. That's not saying alot. 
But yea. There are some total twunts out there, there are twunts everywhere though. Locals, internet, government.
Edited by Dr. James MD
.
All you hear on the news is shootings this and killings that. It's a pretty violent city. 
Can't remember where The rest of the family and I were at the time but apparently Mom n Dad hired a neighbor of our's daughter to watch her. Thankfully she got out when she went inside for dinner. If I ever find that itch-with-a-"B" I'll sue her ass.
, I am back and I might even make some games! 
) and I won't have my rights taken away because of their stupidity. It is not right to deprive upstanding citizens of a method of defense because others abused it.
