Air America breaking news: "USA to fingerprint ALL visitors !!!"

Peter Kemp wrote in
:

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 21:47:07 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
Peter Kemp wrote:

Oh, and defending your home is not illegal, the emphasis in the UK is
defending your *life*, and to use reasonable force (where reasonable
force does *not*include waiting for burglars with an illegally held
shorgun, then shooting one of them in the back).

...in the dark, in the wee hours of the morning, in a remote area, when
the police wouldn't do much of anything...

Which is a policing problem, not a legal one.


Truly free countries realize that police cannot be everywhere,and protect
everyone.They allow citizens the means to defend themselves and their
homes.

Nice of you folks to protect violent burglars like that (look at the
wonderful followups of what the "victimized" burglar has done since).

Which one - the one without *any* violent convictions who is
mouldering in his grave after being murdered? Or the other one (and I
can't recall any violent convicitons for him either) whose is
admittedly a miserable git?
---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster


Why are you so concerned about criminals shot while committing a crime,and
not for the poor guy who suffered repeated burglaries?
What does "violent convictions" have to do with it?

Shooting the crims was a public service.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Truly free countries realize that police cannot be everywhere,and protect
everyone.They allow citizens the means to defend themselves and their
homes.
Why are you so concerned about criminals shot while committing a crime,and
not for the poor guy who suffered repeated burglaries?
What does "violent convictions" have to do with it?

Shooting the crims was a public service.

Well I think that Government should take more active role in this to make
the country more secure so there is no need to arm everyone just in case.

In article , "tadaa" wrote:

Truly free countries realize that police cannot be everywhere,and protect
everyone.They allow citizens the means to defend themselves and their
homes.
Why are you so concerned about criminals shot while committing a crime,and
not for the poor guy who suffered repeated burglaries?
What does "violent convictions" have to do with it?

Shooting the crims was a public service.

Well I think that Government should take more active role in this to make
the country more secure so there is no need to arm everyone just in case.

In other words, you want the government to be *more* obtrusive, not less.

So you must *support* the fingerprinting thing, then, right? It's a
great way for the government to catch criminals and terrorists...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Shooting the crims was a public service.

Well I think that Government should take more active role in this to
make
the country more secure so there is no need to arm everyone just in
case.

In other words, you want the government to be *more* obtrusive, not less.

So you must *support* the fingerprinting thing, then, right? It's a
great way for the government to catch criminals and terrorists...

Well yes and no. Governments shouldn't try to micromanage countries because
they are too diverse and full of conflicting interests to be handled
efficiently, but they should take action in larger terms. Kinda same that in
running a consolidated corporation.
Think how many crimes could be solved if movements of every USA citizens
would be registered, their DNA and fingerprints saved in to a government
file ready for police to use.

"tadaa" wrote in :

Truly free countries realize that police cannot be everywhere,and
protect everyone.They allow citizens the means to defend themselves
and their homes.
Why are you so concerned about criminals shot while committing a
crime,and not for the poor guy who suffered repeated burglaries?
What does "violent convictions" have to do with it?

Shooting the crims was a public service.

Well I think that Government should take more active role in this to
make
the country more secure so there is no need to arm everyone just in
case.




And they all realistically admit that they cannot and do not provide
individual protection for any citizen.The police cannot be everywhere at
all times.

So,practically speaking,you are on your own.It's just a matter of what
level of defensive weaponry your government allows you to have.

Note that the criminals are NOT likewise restricted.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Shooting the crims was a public service.

Well I think that Government should take more active role in this to
make
the country more secure so there is no need to arm everyone just in
case.

And they all realistically admit that they cannot and do not provide
individual protection for any citizen.The police cannot be everywhere at
all times.

So,practically speaking,you are on your own.It's just a matter of what
level of defensive weaponry your government allows you to have.

Note that the criminals are NOT likewise restricted.

I'm not proposing a bodyguard to every citizen. More in line of making the
society safer and tackling the source of the problem. Poverty, unemployment,
drugs etc.
If I lived in Baghdad I would definately get a firearm, but that should not
be the case in modern western country. If you really need firearms to defend
yourself there is something to be fixed.
The interesting thing is that crimerate has been going down for years (in
Finland) but people are feeling more and more unsecure, it seems that media
and its hunger for news with more and more gore is unsettling people.

"tadaa" wrote in :

Shooting the crims was a public service.

Well I think that Government should take more active role in this
to make
the country more secure so there is no need to arm everyone just in
case.

And they all realistically admit that they cannot and do not provide
individual protection for any citizen.The police cannot be everywhere
at all times.

So,practically speaking,you are on your own.It's just a matter of
what level of defensive weaponry your government allows you to have.

Note that the criminals are NOT likewise restricted.

I'm not proposing a bodyguard to every citizen. More in line of making
the society safer and tackling the source of the problem. Poverty,
unemployment, drugs etc.

I don't know of any country that has a handle on poverty,unemployment or
drugs.Do you?


If I lived in Baghdad I would definately get a firearm, but that
should not be the case in modern western country. If you really need
firearms to defend yourself there is something to be fixed.


Like there are NO crimes in Finland? No murders,no rapes,no robberies,no
burglaries,no assaults?
Individuals have widely differing security needs.A free society recognizes
that,and allows it's citizens the means and the right to defend themselves.






--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 02:01:21 +0000 (UTC), Jim Yanik
wrote:

Peter Kemp wrote in
:

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 21:47:07 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

Nice of you folks to protect violent burglars like that (look at the
wonderful followups of what the "victimized" burglar has done since).

Which one - the one without *any* violent convictions who is
mouldering in his grave after being murdered? Or the other one (and I
can't recall any violent convicitons for him either) whose is
admittedly a miserable git?

Why are you so concerned about criminals shot while committing a crime,and
not for the poor guy who suffered repeated burglaries?

Two reasons, because in the UK burglarly doesn't carry a death penalty
without trial, especially when there was no risk to life or limb, and
I have not a huge amount of sympathy for someone who shot a teenager
in the back using an illegal weapon he obtained for that express
purpose. I have sympathy for his previous burglaries, but consider
that human life is somewhat more valuable than property. I suspect we
disagree.

What does "violent convictions" have to do with it?

Chad was referring to "violent criminals"

Shooting the crims was a public service.

Nice to see you approve of the death sentance for petty criminals.
What next, drive-by shootings for speeding?

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

Peter Kemp wrote in
news
On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 02:01:21 +0000 (UTC), Jim Yanik
wrote:

Peter Kemp wrote in
m:

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 21:47:07 GMT, Chad Irby
wrote:

Nice of you folks to protect violent burglars like that (look at the
wonderful followups of what the "victimized" burglar has done
since).

Which one - the one without *any* violent convictions who is
mouldering in his grave after being murdered? Or the other one (and
I can't recall any violent convicitons for him either) whose is
admittedly a miserable git?

Why are you so concerned about criminals shot while committing a
crime,and not for the poor guy who suffered repeated burglaries?

Two reasons, because in the UK burglarly doesn't carry a death penalty

Does the UK have the death penalty for any crime?


without trial, especially when there was no risk to life or limb, and
I have not a huge amount of sympathy for someone who shot a teenager
in the back using an illegal weapon he obtained for that express
purpose. I have sympathy for his previous burglaries, but consider
that human life is somewhat more valuable than property. I suspect we
disagree.

I don't consider ALL human life as being more valuable than -my-
property.Some people aren't worth the air they breathe.



Shooting the crims was a public service.

Nice to see you approve of the death sentance for petty criminals.

Shooting a person is not always a death sentence,often the criminals are
merely wounded,and apprehended while seeking medical treatment for gunshot
wounds.But it's their choice,their risk.


One has to draw the line somewhere;the guy should not have to suffer
repeated burglaries,and he HAD tried the police with no effect.I don't
believe in "career criminals" either;there should be some point at which
the "career criminal" loses their life,rather than have them continue their
life of crime,or live comfortably in prison,at the citizen's expense.If you
don't want to get shot,don't commit burglaries.Let the criminals bear the
risks,not the ordinary decent citizens.Your way just protects the criminals
in the commission of their crimes,in essence enabling them.When such
burglaries becomes too risky,burglaries decrease,a public
service.Burglaries cost everyone money.

What next, drive-by shootings for speeding?

Kind of hard to hit the target from a moving platform,and stray rounds
would negatively impact others.And 'speeding' is a relative
term,anyways.IMO,not always a crime.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Peter Kemp wrote in
news
On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 02:01:21 +0000 (UTC), Jim Yanik
wrote:



Shooting the crims was a public service.

Nice to see you approve of the death sentance for petty criminals.
What next, drive-by shootings for speeding?

You obviously don't know the difference between a civil traffic violation
and a felony crime.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net