Aussie has the answer for US gun control

And you do for example in the United Kingdom?

 

Indeed.

 

Drivel. Your post is trolling. And then there is your holier than thou signature. Such hypocrisy.

 

A question was presented to the forum. In response an answer in confirmation was presented in turn.

One need only look at the laws pertaining to hate speech in the united kingdom to understand the matter, where everyone must worry constantly about what they say to avoid violating such laws.

https://reason.com/archives/2018/09/15/britain-turns-offensive-speech-into-a-po

Which country's police force just called on its citizens to report offensive speech? Not libelous speech or death-threat speech, just plain old insulting speech. Speech that is merely hurtful or hateful. Which nation's cops instructed the citizenry to snitch on haters?

North Korea? China? Maybe Turkey?


It was Britain. Yes, Britain has become a nation in which offensive speech can become a police matter. Where, in April this year, a 19-year-old woman was convicted of sending a "grossly offensive" message after she posted rap lyrics that included the N-word on her Instagram page. Where, also in April, a Scottish shitposter was found guilty of a hate crime for teaching a pug to do a Nazi salute and posting the footage on YouTube. Where in recent years individuals have been arrested and in some cases imprisoned for making racist comments or just cracking tasteless jokes on Twitter.




This birthplace of John Stuart Mill, this nation that gave the world John Milton and his Areopagitica, still one of the greatest cries for the "liberty to utter," is now at the forefront of shutting speech down.


The latest Orwellian invitation to rat out offensive speakers was issued by the South Yorkshire Police.


These clearly time-rich coppers took to Twitter to remind people that "HateHurts". That was their actual hashtag. I'm sure hate can hurt, but not nearly as much as being burgled or beaten up or whatever other crimes these cops are probably missing as they trawl Twitter for rudeness.


"In addition to reporting hate crime, please report non-crime hate incidents," they pleaded. These non-crimes include "things like offensive or insulting comments, online, in person or in writing."


It is chilling that cops, whose only business should be fighting crime, now want to hear about non-crime. Anyone who has even a sliver of respect for the ideal of liberty, for the right of people to go about their lives without being watched or narked on, should be seriously concerned that cops would want to hear about non-criminal behavior, otherwise known as everyday behavior.


Even more perversely, these non-crimes really just mean "insulting comments." So if you're in Yorkshire and someone on Facebook calls you a fat slob, call the cops. If you wear a niqab and a work colleague tells you—a la Boris Johnson—that you look a little bit like a mailbox, phone the police.


In essence, South Yorkshire Police want people to report on everyday conversations. This is Stasi territory. Coppers asking citizens to file reports on things they have read or overheard really should have disappeared from Europe with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Yet here it still is, this GDR-style instruction to eavesdrop and squeal, though now it's happening on the other side of the old Iron Curtain.


It is testament to how entrenched censorship has become in 21st-century Britain that a police force can so casually call for reports about speech.


This is a country whose communications laws and public-order legislation can be, and regularly are, used to punish hateful expression. Last year The Times reported that British police are arresting nine people a day for posting "offensive messages online." In 2016, 3,300 people were detained and questioned for things they said online. In some parts of Britain the arrest rate for offensive speech has risen by nearly 900% in recent years. We Brits are sleepwalking into a police state.


Not content with punishing people for the offensive things they say on public online platforms, now there are moves afoot to punish them for what they say privately too. This week the Labour MP Lucy Powell put forward a Bill in parliament that would ban private online discussion forums because, she says, hate speech can fester in these "echo chambers." Why not go the whole hog and mic us all up so that you can hear what we're saying at all times of the day?


The South Yorkshire call for information about "non-crimes" caused a stink in the media here in Britain, which is good. Yet while these cops' declaration of war against offensive speech may have been shocking, it wasn't surprising. It is the logical next step in Britain's ever-expanding empire of hate-policing.


We have laws that criminalize hate. We have laws against being grossly offensive. We have hate-crime laws, which mean that if you commit a crime with hatred in your mind, then you might get a stiffer punishment. Punch a Buddhist because you hate Buddhism, and you could get a longer sentence than if you punch him simply because you dislike that particular Buddhist.


This is the policing of thought. The policing of ideology.


The policing and punishment of hate by officialdom should never be acceptable. Hatred is a feeling, a sensation, a thing of the mind, and that area of life must always be off-limits to the authorities. South Yorkshire Police, here's some offensive speech for you: **** you and your Stasi tribute act.

 

This is clearly not an objective source. Is that really the best you've got. You really need to understand sources which stick to facts and sources that are not
characterised by polemic.

Certain crimes are aggravated by race hatred for example but they have to be crimes in the first place. This is completely different from "hating" being a crime by itself. The USA has similar aggravating factors that are used to determine sentencing. The source you quoted is wholly biased and clearly gives a partial account of the cases it mentions. Just look at the rant it goes into.

If I stand in the middle of a street and shout the "N' word very loudly over and over again it is likely that in most places I will be committing a public order offence of behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace or something related to that. In universally accessible forums like Facebook where this can be seen to be equivalent to shouting in a public place then some legal framework is clearly appropriate. If I swear in front of children or just people who object to that behaviour it is likely that I am committing an offence related to public order. This is not an infringement of my right to free speech.

 

So... why don't -you- expect people to be intellectually honest, and admit it when it is shown they aren't?

 

Ah. More of your unsupportable nonsense.

 

No doubt that it will include that sort of situation but it will also include situations when you feel threatened by someone you knew - 34.4% of justifiable murders in 2014 the person shot and killed was known to the shooter.

And the usual dishonesty in the figures quoted by pro-gunners like Tog lead the reader to assume that the criminal was armed. That is not what the data said; the victim is the one stated as armed, not all criminals are armed or intend to do any physical harm.

And out of 16.5 million violent crimes where the victim carried out self protection, 1% did it by using or flashing a gun, 99% did not show a gun. No figures in the link showing the outcome of the self protection ie from that link we don't know how many of those who flashed or shot their gun were subsequently shot or hurt by the criminal.

Another interesting fact from the link is that out of 15M property crimes per year, only 36,000 cases did the owner manage to use or flash his gun. No data on whether he was subsequently shot or hurt. Yet 48000 guns were stolen. So a householder is more likely to have his gun stolen than used for self defense in his property. Hence the victim is in greater danger now because his property had a gun that was stolen

 

I"m sorry you hate the fact the a firearm, is used FAR more often in self-defense than to commit murder or suicide -- but it remains a fact.

 

Explain the definition used in determining how someone was actually known to another. What is the methodology utilized? Is it merely close friends and acquaintances? Does recognizing someone by appearance but not knowing their name count at knowing them? Where are the pertinent details?

Is it being stated on the part of yourself, that the criminal individual should be given the benefit of the doubt?

Thus blaming the victims of criminal offenses. The above is no different than blaming the victim of sexual assault for antagonizing their assailant and provoking the sexual assault to be committed.

 

Another dishonest post from you. On one side of the equation you just use the words "self defense. On the other side of the equation you use the words "murder or suicide".

I'll add this post again "And the usual dishonesty in the figures quoted by pro-gunners like Tog lead the reader to assume that the criminal was armed."

 

All the figures are in the link that Tog provided

 

Yup. Them the facts. You don't like truth? Too bad.

-For every gun used to commit murder, >10.8 are used in self-defense
-For every gun used to commit suicide, >4.4 are used in self defense.
-For every gun involved in an accidental death, >195.6 guns are used in self-defense.

Feel free to show otherwise.

The VPC made no such assertion or assumption, nor did I.
See, an assailant need not be armed for someone to legally act in self-defense.
That's news to you, I'm sure.

 

In what world is "Hence the victim is in greater danger now because his property had a gun that was stolen" blaming the victim!

 

It's not.
It's unsupportable nonsense, but it isn't blaming the victim.

 

I'll add this post again "And the usual dishonesty in the figures quoted by pro-gunners like Tog lead the reader to assume that the criminal was armed."

My figures came from the link you provided (thank you for providing that link)

 

Me too:

-For every gun used to commit murder, >10.8 are used in self-defense
-For every gun used to commit suicide, >4.4 are used in self defense.
-For every gun involved in an accidental death, >195.6 guns are used in self-defense.

Feel free to show otherwise.

The VPC made no such assertion or assumption, nor did I.
See, an assailant need not be armed for someone to legitimately act in self-defense.
That's news to you, I'm sure.

 

Straight from your link. 15M property crimes per year, only 36,000 cases did the owner manage to use or flash his gun. No data on whether he was subsequently shot or hurt. Yet 48000 guns were stolen. So a householder is more likely to have his gun stolen than used for self defense in his property.

Do the maths 48000 > 36000

 

The fact you dishonestly omitted the >58,000 defensive uses of a gun each year in violent crime aside...
The correct number of firearms stolen from households is 38,700. 2005-2010 is 6 years.
Looks like a wash to me.

Thus, unsupportable nonsense.

 

What part of "15M property crimes per year," did you not understand?

Oh and BTW 38700 > 36000 and I managed to get you to acknowledge my observation in the link you provided.

So all this about having a gun in your house gives you protection is crap. Only 0.2% managed to get to their gun when a intruder is discovered in their house. Jim Jefferies was right - the gun owners could not remember their mother-in law's birthday

 

The part where you don't understand artificially limiting the defensive use of firearms to just property crimes is dishonest.
You're fully aware of the fact that if you correctly include all 94k defensive uses of a firearm, your 'stolen gun' argument dissolves into nothing.
Thus, unsupportable nonsense.

Funny then how -you- continue to avoid the truth:

-For every gun used to commit murder, >10.8 are used in self-defense
-For every gun used to commit suicide, >4.4 are used in self defense.
-For every gun involved in an accidental death, >195.6 guns are used in self-defense.

Feel free to show otherwise.

 

Didn't they arrest a guy and find him like 800 pounds for teaching his pug to do the Nazi salute there?

 

No, they fined him for saying "gas the Jews" 23 times in the 2 minute video. The pug was just an incidental prop for his Nazism

 

Yes they find him for mocking Nazis. That isn't free speech. I don't get fined in the US for mocking Nazis.

 

The fine in question indicates what the left would do with "free speech", if they had the chance.