"Unpleasant Truth" <no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:

You don't need to apologize. Leftists in this country (and by that, I
don't mean to call YOU a leftist, although I won't hesititate to do so
if I find cause :-) don't understand the individual's right and duty
to defend himself, his family and his property either.

However, you must be aware - unless there's censorship I'm unaware of
- that crime rates have soared since the U.K. banned guns.

It's not so much censorship as spin. As far as crime rates are
concerned, it's really not possible to tell exactly what's happening in
Britain, since the Government will say one thing, and various other
organisations and pressure groups will all say something else.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if crime rates HAVE gone up - certainly
public fear of crime has risen sharply and the media have gone into a
gleeful frenzy in their attempts to generate hysteria - but the cause of
any such upswing would also have to be carefully examined.

Is it down to the banning of guns? I'm pretty certain we can say it's
not. Bear in mind that guns weren't widely available in Britain even
before the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 was introduced - they've never
really been a part of our national consciousness, you might say.
Relatively few people possessed weapons (excluding farmers who routinely
keep shotguns and rifles for vermin control); certainly only a small
percentage possessed handguns, and then only for sporting use. The 1997
Act was criticised because it really had very little effect other than

outlaw handgun shooting as a viable sport in Britain.

Some would suggest that the increase - sorry, the *perceived* increase

burglaries, car thefts and robberies is down to more widespread
availability of illegal drugs; where violent crime is commonly (and, I
think, justifiably) put down to the increasing inability of the British
to act responsibly with alcohol.

September 19, 2005

Scotland tops list of world's most violent countries
By Katrina Tweedie

A UNITED Nations report has labelled Scotland the most violent country
in the developed world, with people three times more likely to be
assaulted than in America.

Perhaps true. But I would ask what the statistics say about the nature
of the assault. While a person in Scotland (or in certain areas of
Scotland) might be more likely to suffer an assault, is that assault

or less likely to involve a firearm in Scotland than in America?

I think we must both agree that statistics are difficult things to use.

But if I was asked to say what I think was the chief culprit with regard
to the sudden rise in crime levels, I would say that a large part of it
was the result of new police procedures with regard to the reporting of
crime. In the past, the police have always had a certain amount of
discretion as to what crimes they record. They no longer do. With the
new National Crime Recording Standard, and the National Standard of
Incident Recording, crime reports are being generated at a much higher
rate than in previous years. Where a report might once have been

if there was evidence to suggest a crime had been committed, the

now is to create the report unless evidence suggests that a crime has

been committed. A great many of these initial reports are subsequently
marked off as no crime - but by then they have already affected the
statistics.

The result is that there is a sudden rise in recorded crime levels,

the media leap on as evidence that we are descending into the depths of
lawlessness, in the hope that it will frighten the public half to death,
which unfortunately it does. Thus, a measure taken to try to reassure
the public of a certain standard of service from the police results in
public confidence in the police being severely undermined.

reason is as obvious as it is simple - where criminals know the
homeowner is legally prevented from being armed, they have far less
incentive to care whether they are home or not than in cases where
they risk being shot and killed.

Under British law, although a person is not permitted to have a gun

around the house to use against burglars, a person is entitled to defend
their homes using 'reasonable force'. If the person considers lethal
force to be reasonable, then so be it - but they must subsequently be
able to justify such force in a court of law. Many people have taken to
keeping swords as handy ornaments: "I just grabbed it, officer, I really
wasn't thinking, I was too scared". So far, those groups campaigning

such weapons - sorry, ornaments - to be banned have been unsuccessful.

Recent clarification on home defence has stated that the use of

force will not necessarily result in a conviction if it can be shown

the home defender was driven by genuine fear for their own safety or

of their family.

And in the rare instance where a British citizen dreams he still lives
in the land where one's home is one's castle, and has the audacity to
actually defend himself, one can be assured HE, not the criminal, will
serve a long time behind bars.

See above. And please don't presume to judge our standards by those of
your own nation. Britain is a foreign country, and while we may follow
America's lead in almost everything, we are still entitled to form our
own opinions.

Man Who Killed Armed Intruder Jailed Eight Yearsprint close
Tue 23 Mar 2004

3:23pm (UK)
Man Who Killed Armed Intruder Jailed Eight Years

By Will Batchelor, PA News


A man who stabbed to death an armed intruder at his home was
jailed
for
eight years today.

Carl Lindsay, 25

This case is well known, and the article you quote does not offer all

facts. Carl Lindsay, 25, was a drug dealer who knew that he was likely
to be targeted. He pursued his erstwhile attackers - who by this time
were *running away* - out into the street, caught up with one of them

stabbed him four times in the back. The court ruled that this did not
qualify as reasonable force in the defence of the home, and strictly
speaking Lindsay should have faced murder charges. The court also found
that he had purchased the sword with the specific intent of using it as

weapon.

It is a mark of leniency that he was instead charged with manslaughter -
which is a lesser offence called in the US (according to Wikipedia)
'criminally negligent homicide'. In other words, it does not have the
element of premeditation or intent to kill required to support a murder
charge.

THAT is what freedom loving Americans can't understand.

That is because, if this article is anything to go by, freedom-loving
Americans aren't given all the relevant information.

Republicans don't want to take away my religious freedoms.
Democrat/ACLU types do it all the time.

Is this the freedom to choose which religion you follow, or to choose

none?

Both.

Sorry - this was my lack of clarity. This was one choice: "the freedom
to choose a religion or to choose none", against "the freedom to choose
Christianity".

Please define "Christian militants" and give us a couple of real world
examples of the behavior you apparently find frightening. I try to
look at foreign news sources once in a while, but of course I cannot
have a feel for what you get as the normal fare.

Well, you might look at the recent case of whether Creatio... sorry,
'Intelligent Design' should be taught in schools. Religious
fundamentalists were portrayed (at least by the British media) as
mounting a campaign to have their religion taught alongside science in
schools, as though it was a viable alternative.

The Guardian, in May 2005, reported Tom DeLay's argment against stem

research, which he based on the claim that "Jesus of Nazareth" started
life as an embryo.

There is a widespread perception amongst British people that, as Bush is
known to be a fundamentalist Christian,

so he is carefully placing those
of similar religious beliefs into position of power and influence in
America to pave the way for policies based on religious ideals rather
than on democratic principles.

You may recall the case of Terri Schiavo - the woman who suffered brain
damage and whose life support was withdrawn following a lengthy case
which could at the very least be described as 'bitter'. Various
political figures interfered with the courts and medical staff during
that case in attempts to prevent the removal of her feeding tube. The
involvement of Jeb and President Bush was widely perceived as being
driven by religious principles - but it was the fact that these people
were attempting to strong-arm the judiciary when they had no real right
to do so that caused surprise in many people here.

I'm not saying that our perception of such situations is correct, any
more than your perception of the Carl Lindsay case was correct. Both

countries are at the mercy of their media. But suffice to say that
merely the potential for the USA to come under the control of a
theocratic government is enough to cause very serious concern.

I should point out that the abolitionist movement in this country's
19th century was Christian led, and the Civil Rights movement in the
20th century was also. Does that trouble you?

There is a difference, though, between 'Christian' and 'militant
Christian'. I have no problem with anyone choosing the religion they
feel best suits them. But when their choice of religion starts to

me, my family, or friends, or colleagues, then I do start to have a
problem. Religions, including Christianity, can be very worthy, and can
achieve great things. But they can also be used to rationalise terrible
things. I am just cautious.

There is NO compulsion of religion anywhere.

There is if national policies are determined based on what the
lawmakers' religion dictates.

But there is plenty of
compulsion against it. Even voluntary prayers are banned in public
schools. Recently a federal judge ruled a chaplain could not utter
the word "Jesus" in his invocation prior to a session of the Indiana
congress.

And this is where I lose track again. You see, I can see no reason why
prayers need to be made in public, voluntarily or otherwise.

I certainly
see no reason why they need to be said out loud at a public gathering.
God knows what we are thinking. Making a public ritual out of prayer
seems rather, well, showy, to me.

I guess this must just be another
cultural thing. Everyone knows we Brits are repressed.

Currently the ACLU's main activity has been running all over the
country tearing down long standing (well over 50 years) displays of
the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments are not even exclusive to
Christians, much less "fundamentalists."

They ACLU is even trying to erase every vestige of America's Christian
heritage. Recently they got the county of Los Angeles to remove a
tiny little cross from its seal.- a seal that includes a much, much
larger image of the pagan goddess Pomona, to celebrate the heritage
and importance of agriculture.

Now, is that anti-Christian bigotry or what?

Quite possibly. But again, while you would highlight these examples,
using the wording that you have, the ACLU would no doubt argue that they
are merely trying to be fair, and perhaps present the same cases in a
very different light. And those who support the ACLU would no doubt

me all sorts of reasons why I should believe that view. As I said, it

only to be expected that you (and they) will present the information in

way sympathetic to your politico-religious position - and I do not know
enough about the situation to say "it is not so".

What you have experienced is called selective reporting (what else
would you expect from the ALCU's own web site?).

Selective reporting, however, is all I have. From them, and from you.

can expect nothing else, and must simply make a judgement.

Republicans don't make up speech codes and racial quotas and censor
speakers that don't agree with their politics, as Bill Gates'
Seattle prep school just did.

I do recall reading about 'free speech zones' around the Republican
campaign presentations... Perhaps this was misrepresented? It just

seems

a little odd in a country that has built itself around the idea that
the entire nation is nothing other than a 'free speech zone'.

??

I just wonder what you base your assessment that "you can't trust
Republicans with your freedom" on. Based on your assessment of the
ACLU, it's pretty clear you're not getting anywhere near a balanced
picture.

I haven't yet heard your views on these supposed "free speech zones",
either.

I should also point out that the ACLU is an extremist organization,
supporting even the distribution of child pornography. It is
currently defending an obnoxious group, called NAMBLA, which

... I'd always thought was straight out of an episode of South Park.
Quietly, I suppose I'd always *hoped* it was just made up.

But, having heard so many people mention it in discussions like this, I
finally gritted my teeth and ran a search in Wikipedia (so I'm expecting
NCIS banging on my door in a few minutes), and lo and behold, it does
appear that this organisation is in fact real.

I'm surprised, I admit. I guess fiction will never be able to beat
reality for the completely depraved - not to mention utterly fatuous -
things that they'll accept.

Still, child pornography is still some way from religion, and it's not a
topic I particularly want to discuss. So, okay, you've told me that

supports this 'NAMBLA'. Fine. It's your statement, I can't verify it.
You've given me a newspaper report, but as we've seen above, they don't
always paint an accurate picture.

Frankly, I don't really want to spend time digging through that sort of
thing, so I can't argue the point with you. So I guess I give up.