By lalala - 14/06/2011 10:47 - United Kingdom
Same thing different taste
Armed and not dangerous
By littledonny - 12/05/2017 18:00
By Matthew - 27/11/2011 02:33 - United States
By lamed - 04/12/2009 22:01 - United States
Am I being detained?
By PackingSpaceHeat - 11/10/2009 13:21 - United States
Bad boys bad boys
By Tom - 17/08/2011 18:27 - United States
By MattVh - 12/01/2010 17:23 - Belgium
By Jonas - 06/06/2012 05:00 - United States - Wimberley
By iliketoastalot - 09/08/2011 17:38 - United States
By Anonymous - 12/01/2011 04:04 - United States
Leg it
By BobbyHutchinson - 20/10/2009 15:57 - Australia
Top comments
Comments
Your not suppose to carry it over your head stabbing at the air, with the music from Psycho playing on your IPod
it wasn't covered?? YDI
I have deagles
Amen to that, brother.
better be careful, that might offend someone, and lord knows how the UK doesnt let anyone offend anything...
Guns aren't scary. They're machines. They're no more scary than automobiles are.
can't you get arrested for saying c**t in the US?
215- But more deaths are caused every year by cars than by firearms. It's not your car you should be scared of... It's irresponsible drivers that you should watch out for. Same way with guns.
How dare you buy a knife ;)
you couldve killed a chicken with that thing!!
Yep, UK has stupid gun/weapon laws. You can be jailed for defending yourself from an intruder inside your own home. My sympathies, OP.
Also in the UK you can defend yourself if someone breaks in. It's only people who use excessive force that go to jail! Like Tony Martin who shot 2 teenagers in the back as they were fleeing the scene, with a shotgun he owned illegally. Even he only got 3 years..
You can also be sued if a robber falls through your skylight and gets injured xD.
That skylight thing was in California at a school 'Bodine v. Enterprise High School'
51- Your feeble attempts to bash the USA are very laughable!!! The only thing he mispelled was someone (because he didn't type out the whole word) and he missed the C on Can. Do you have nothing better to do than to loathe America? A word of advice dick nozzle, learn the difference between genuine mispellings, text language, and typos.
89 why do I have 2 thumbs up and you have 2 thumbs down? I'm in Pre-Ap English. English is the usage of the English language. Spelling is a small part of Language class. Granted, it does help! but if you're good in English, usually people think that you're good in Parallel structure, Sophisticated Vocabulary, Etc... How am I being stupid? By sticking up for my country and heritage? Another weak and feeble mind...
102, you're not sticking up for your country, you're taking a joke way too seriously. also, if you look at 89's comment they make it quite clear that it was addressed to 51 and not you, which actually should really have been clear from what he wrote. so he was AGREEING with you, inasmuch as he wrote that 51 was overgeneralising. and not being able to work that one out is a pretty poor reflection on the US, if you're representing them to people who like to generalise... also, a word of advice - don't measure yourself by the number of thumbs up your comment gets on fml. it's a bit low (i don't mean the number, i mean attaching any significance to the number), plus i can change that number quite easily >:]
#110 you beat me to it. #102 I was going to say for someone who is 'Pre-Ap English' your reading comprehension sucks!
Shows what you know. Texas has the castle doctrine, based off of old UK laws, before their vaginas became overwhelmingly large and drippy...
That only applies to deadly force in defence from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack.. Someone stepping onto you property would not be cause to shoot someone..
my sentiments exactly geeksaresexy :)
66- The two burglars had broken into Tony Martin's house before, and threatened him and his property. He also lived in a rural area, so by the time police would have arrived, the burglars would be gone, or he would be dead. In the United States, there's no such thing as owning a shotgun "illegally" unless you're a felon. The problem with prosecuting people who use "excessive force" to defend themselves is that the definition of "excessive force" is completely up for interpretation. Criminals should not be rewarded by the law when their victims fight back.
#145 as soon as he got the shotgun out they fled.. he still shot them IN THE BACK that's all that matters. That is murder, end of. He murdered one and seriously injured the other. Yes they were breaking in yes they may have threatened him but he shot them as they were running away! They posed NO THREAT at that point!
#144 Like I said the person has to be considered an assailant. You can't just shoot anyone willy nilly. Reasonable use of lethal force is allowed if an intruder is: - Committing certain violent crimes, such as murder or sexual assault, or is attempting to commit such crimes - Unlawfully trying to enter a protected place - Unlawfully trying to remove a person from a protected place.
It's easy to say that they posed no threat in hindsight, but what if they were running away to retrieve a gun or some other weapon? You can never assume an attacker is finished until he is actually FINISHED. Regardless of what you may believe, your rights as a citizen and human being should end when you illegally force yourself into other peoples' homes with to intent to rob or injure them. Shooting someone who has invaded your home is NOT murder. In the US, we have a saying that "it's better to be judged by twelve than carried by six"
So just ignore the fact that we don't all have guns in the UK and the guy was in the middle of nowhere. They either had weapons or they didn't, they didn't. There was nowhere to retrieve a weapon from in this case. Lets also ignore the fact the guy should not have had a shotgun, he owned it illegally. That is a crime in itself. You are totally missing the point. This is the law, end of. In the UK we do not have the right to use deadly force. Also, what about the Muhs? Do you agree with their actions? They shot and killed a 7 year old boy for NO REASON. They fired twice at a car that they thought was on their land and killed a little boy. That is murder regardless of what country you're in.
I've never heard of the Muhs, but have you ever stopped to consider that the anti-gun laws in the UK could be wrong? They were only changed recently. If a person doesn't have the right to defend him or herself, what other rights does that person have? Gun prohibitions do not keep guns out of the hands of criminals, only law-abiding citizens. Even if you take away guns, criminals will still use knives or other weapons to victimize others. A gun is just a tool that can be used or misused for good or bad intentions, like any other tool.
We do have the right to protect ourselves just not to use deadly force. I don't need a gun! If I had a gun for protection it would have to be somewhere easily reached, like a night stand, which would be dangerous with kids in the house. If I keep it in a lock-box I couldn't get to it quickly in the case of a break-in so it's pointless having it. I do have a house full of other weapons (mostly for decoration) including a real axe in my bedroom. Don't get me wrong, if I could legally own a gun I'd have one. I like shooting as a recreational thing, same as I like archery and knife throwing. My problem is some of the total morons that are allowed to own guns! We don't need guns here, gun crime is not an issue here. Knife crime on the other hand is a HUGE problem! I've never EVER felt the need to even carry a knife. I don't live in a safe area and I still don't feel the need to arm myself! The law is the law and I'm not bothered if they change it or not. Also the most recent changes to our gun laws were in response to someone, who legally owned a firearm, shooting dead 16 young children and their teacher! So I struggle to see how looser gun laws would be a good idea! Especially when you see all the shootings that happen in America.
208- The logic behind looser gun laws is that a criminal is going to disobey the law anyway, so restricting the availability of guns only hurts law-abiding people who would use them to protect themselves. What if that murderer had simply drove his legally-owned automobile into a crowd of people? Would it be logical to ban cars for everyone? Obviously not. As you just said, since guns are not readily available, criminals just use knives instead. I'm going to play the devil's advocate here and ask what would have happened if the teacher or another good citizen had been allowed to carry a handgun during that massacre. The murderer could have been eliminated without so many lives lost. In the United States, there are thousands of firearms circulating around the country, so putting any sort of restrictions on them does nothing to stop a criminal from obtaining one. However, if a criminal knows that his potential victims are potentially armed, he will be less likely to follow through with committing a crime. Making guns more readily available to the public acts as a crime deterrent. The presence of laws do nothing to stop someone from breaking the law; they only ensure punishments for the law-breaker when caught.
Your argument is basically the same one people use to back the death penalty! 'It acts as a deterrent' It clearly does NOT! People are still killing and raping same as they always will. Crime rates aren't lowered by the death penalty they also aren't lowered by availability of guns.. The only difference is, in America, you quite happily sell guns to insane people! In the UK we can own guns for certain purposes (like hunting) but you have to get a licence. Getting a licence in the UK isn't nearly as easy as buying a gun in the US. Also my original point was actually that there is NOWHERE that will let you shoot someone just for being on your property. Not even Texas as someone suggested at the top. I had no intention of getting into a massive debate about gun laws! I just wanted to show that idiot didn't even know the law in his own state!
The reason the death penalty isn't an effective deterrent is because it is not swift, sure, and consistent; all of which are required for a punishment to be effective. Also, the death penalty can only happen after the crime has already been committed. Arming potential victims stops crimes before they happen. Since you admit that violent crimes have and always will happen, what's the point of disarming the law-abiding populace? It just makes them easier victims for criminals who break the law anyway. Also, people wishing to purchase firearms from a firearms dealer in the United States must pass a background check, which includes a history of mental health. We also have the right in most states to kill a home invader without fear of prosecution in order to protect ourselves.
*yawn* Don't really care.. Like I said, my original point was you can't shoot people for no reason.. Breaking in IS a reason so that was never actually my argument. Also just because your PERSONAL views differ from mine doesn't mean mine are wrong.
well it kinda looks suspicious when you are on the street holding a huge stake knife just saying..
Keywords
who'd you stab?
You shouldn't have been wearing your new hockey mask at the same time.