FINALLY -> truck - testicles arrested.

You do know they are rioting across the UK, burning cars and the odd building block, stealing trainers and attacking police...if only our bored unemployed youths could be amused by a set of 'truck testicles'...we would hand them out like candy...:D
 
Yupp, Manchester's been hit pretty hard last night, about 10 miles from where I live. Since they sent all the police down to London, nobody's up here to do anything useful. Not that they've been doing anything useful in the first place, there's several parts of London that have essentially been wiped out - burned to the ground. Hard to believe.
 
San said:
Yupp, Manchester's been hit pretty hard last night, about 10 miles from where I live. Since they sent all the police down to London, nobody's up here to do anything useful. Not that they've been doing anything useful in the first place, there's several parts of London that have essentially been wiped out - burned to the ground. Hard to believe.
Click to expand...

Yeah it is pretty stunning! I think as an act of 'rebellion' I would prefer truck testicles to this kind of BS!
 
Totally. But at least the riots aren't considered 'offensive', and won't scar little children for the rest of their lives....

Oh....wait.

Never mind.
 
San said:
Yupp, Manchester's been hit pretty hard last night, about 10 miles from where I live. Since they sent all the police down to London, nobody's up here to do anything useful. Not that they've been doing anything useful in the first place, there's several parts of London that have essentially been wiped out - burned to the ground. Hard to believe.
Click to expand...

Ahem.... gun control laws... cough.. cough.... cough.. .cough... your own fault... .cough ... cough......
 
Last edited:
ChefChiTown said:
I'm pretty sure that 'contemporary community standards' is another way of saying, 'we can enforce rules for whatever reason we feel like and there isn't anything you can do about it.'
Click to expand...
If you mean WE as in WE the people, then yes. Is it really that hard to understand? All you have to do is ask yourself.... Does this belong in a community with children and parents and grandparents.
 
Erhm....so yeah, our rioters aren't running around heavily armed, shooting people left, right and centre. That is a fault how?

As for things that belong into a community....as stated before, there are dozens of things that are more 'disturbing' and more important to take care of. But if somebody's happiness is resting solely on dragging somebody into court because of a pair of plastic testicles....who am I to disagree?
 
San said:
Erhm....so yeah, our rioters aren't running around heavily armed, shooting people left, right and centre. That is a fault how?

As for things that belong into a community....as stated before, there are dozens of things that are more 'disturbing' and more important to take care of. But if somebody's happiness is resting solely on dragging somebody into court because of a pair of plastic testicles....who am I to disagree?
Click to expand...

There are bigger issues than the riots happening where you are too, but does that make the riots "no big deal" or something that people should just let happen, without consequence? No, absolutely not.

You could play this game with anything and it seems that's all you're doing.
 
All I was pointing out is that people can behave very stupidly at times. In the scheme of stupid behaviour I have seen lately fake truck testicles just seems a trivial act of stupidity and rebellion.

And I am glad these kids are not armed. With this lack of self control and good sense I can only imagine how much worse the riots could get.

I guess we need to keep things in perspective.

I'm from Australia and I've lived in the UK for 10 years so this sort of behaviour is new for me. That said, the UK is now my home so I guess I'll have to get used to it!
 
San said:
Erhm....so yeah, our rioters aren't running around heavily armed, shooting people left, right and centre. That is a fault how?
Click to expand...
This has nothing to do with rioters being armed. It has to do with responsible citizens being able to protect themselves. It works. It is effective. It is proven.
If the rioters wanted guns they could get them. It has been proven time and time again that criminals can and will find ways to get them.
The crime rate in the UK is what it is because rioters and other criminals don't feel there will be any consequences for there actions. Criminals usually think twice before facing an armed citizen.
 
Last edited:
From the Times:
Wouldn’t you feel safer with a gun?
British attitudes are supercilious and misguided
Richard Munday
Despite the recent spate of shootings on our streets, we pride ourselves on our strict gun laws. Every time an American gunman goes on a killing spree, we shake our heads in righteous disbelief at our poor benighted colonial cousins. Why is it, even after the Virginia Tech massacre, that Americans still resist calls for more gun controls?

The short answer is that “gun controls” do not work: they are indeed generally perverse in their effects. Virginia Tech, where 32 students were shot in April, had a strict gun ban policy and only last year successfully resisted a legal challenge that would have allowed the carrying of licensed defensive weapons on campus. It is with a measure of bitter irony that we recall Thomas Jefferson, founder of the University of Virginia, recording the words of Cesare Beccaria: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

One might contrast the Virginia Tech massacre with the assault on Virginia’s Appalachian Law School in 2002, where three lives were lost before a student fetched a pistol from his car and apprehended the gunman.

Virginia Tech reinforced the lesson that gun controls are obeyed only by the law-abiding. New York has “banned” pistols since 1911, and its fellow murder capitals, Washington DC and Chicago, have similar bans. One can draw a map of the US, showing the inverse relationship of the strictness of its gun laws, and levels of violence: all the way down to Vermont, with no gun laws at all, and the lowest level of armed violence (one thirteenth that of Britain).

America’s disenchantment with “gun control” is based on experience: whereas in the 1960s and 1970s armed crime rose in the face of more restrictive gun laws (in much of the US, it was illegal to possess a firearm away from the home or workplace), over the past 20 years all violent crime has dropped dramatically, in lockstep with the spread of laws allowing the carrying of concealed weapons by law-abiding citizens. Florida set this trend in 1987, and within five years the states that had followed its example showed an 8 per cent reduction in murders, 7 per cent reduction in aggravated assaults, and 5 per cent reduction in rapes. Today 40 states have such laws, and by 2004 the US Bureau of Justice reported that “firearms-related crime has plummeted”.

In Britain, however, the image of violent America remains unassailably entrenched. Never mind the findings of the International Crime Victims Survey (published by the Home Office in 2003), indicating that we now suffer three times the level of violent crime committed in the United States; never mind the doubling of handgun crime in Britain over the past decade, since we banned pistols outright and confiscated all the legal ones.

We are so self-congratulatory about our officially disarmed society, and so dismissive of colonial rednecks, that we have forgotten that within living memory British citizens could buy any gun – rifle, pistol, or machinegun – without any licence. When Dr Watson walked the streets of London with a revolver in his pocket, he was a perfectly ordinary Victorian or Edwardian. Charlotte Brontë recalled that her curate father fastened his watch and pocketed his pistol every morning when he got dressed; Beatrix Potter remarked on a Yorkshire country hotel where only one of the eight or nine guests was not carrying a revolver; in 1909, policemen in Tottenham borrowed at least four pistols from passers-by (and were joined by other armed citizens) when they set off in pursuit of two anarchists unwise enough to attempt an armed robbery. We now are shocked that so many ordinary people should have been carrying guns in the street; the Edwardians were shocked rather by the idea of an armed robbery.

If armed crime in London in the years before the First World War amounted to less than 2 per cent of that we suffer today, it was not simply because society then was more stable. Edwardian Britain was rocked by a series of massive strikes in which lives were lost and troops deployed, and suffragette incendiaries, anarchist bombers, Fenians, and the spectre of a revolutionary general strike made Britain then arguably a much more turbulent place than it is today. In that unstable society the impact of the widespread carrying of arms was not inflammatory, it was deterrent of violence.

As late as 1951, self-defence was the justification of three quarters of all applications for pistol licences. And in the years 1946-51 armed robbery, the most significant measure of gun crime, ran at less than two dozen incidents a year in London; today, in our disarmed society, we suffer as many every week.

Gun controls disarm only the law-abiding, and leave predators with a freer hand. Nearly two and a half million people now fall victim to crimes of violence in Britain every year, more than four every minute: crimes that may devastate lives. It is perhaps a privilege of those who have never had to confront violence to disparage the power to resist.

Richard Munday is editor and co-author of Guns & Violence: the Debate Before Lord Cullen
Click to expand...
 
I am sorry, Monster, but I seriously cannot have a debate with you about gun laws and crime rates in this, or any other country. Your first comment about the gun control laws was so utterly ignorant that I just do not see the point in saying anything else. I like a good discussion, and even the occasional healty argument, as much as the next person, but no, thank you. There wouldn't be anything healthy about this, and you already have a pre-formed, unshakable opinion. I think I'll bow out on wasting time on this occasion.
 
Last edited:
San said:
I am sorry, Monster, but I seriously cannot have a debate with you about gun laws and crime rates in this, or any other country. Your first comment about the gun control laws was so utterly ignorant that I just do not see the point in saying anything else. I like a good discussion, and even the occasional healty argument, as much as the next person, but no, thank you. There wouldn't be anything healthy about this, and you already have a pre-formed, unshakable opinion. I think I'll bow out on wasting time on this occasion.
Click to expand...

I agree with San. Our current riots would not have been prevented by any change in the UK gun laws. There are causes that underly this behaviour and it is the causes that must be addressed and changing our gun laws is not part of the solution that will address the unrest in our youth.
 
San said:
I am sorry, Monster, but I seriously cannot have a debate with you about gun laws and crime rates in this, or any other country. Your first comment about the gun control laws was so utterly ignorant that I just do not see the point in saying anything else.
Click to expand...
Really?
apparently you do not believe in facts and studies.
There have been so many studies that say you are so dead wrong that you absolutely right.
There is no point in arguing.
Just have a look at the internet.
 
Spinner1964 said:
I agree with San. Our current riots would not have been prevented by any change in the UK gun laws. There are causes that underly this behaviour and it is the causes that must be addressed and changing our gun laws is not part of the solution that will address the unrest in our youth.
Click to expand...

Actually... there is a prime example. During the L.A. riots, Korean shopowners were able to keep there stores from getting destroyed because they scared would be looters and vandals away.
That's not to say it's solution to whole problem, but it's a great deterrent.
 
Monster said:
Actually... there is a prime example. During the L.A. riots, Korean shopowners were able to keep there stores from getting destroyed because they scared would be looters and vandals away.
That's not to say it's solution to whole problem, but it's a great deterrent.
Click to expand...

I think the biggest deterrent in that case is the fact that those little Korean shops often don't have shit worth stealing inside of them, HAHAHA.
 
But really, I think the REAL problem is that....

notbroccolis.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top