Comments by mrnntop

Page 1 of 1

Posted on April 12 at 4:57 a.m.

That is the problem the world has moved on from 1776 and I seriously doubt Thomas Jefferson or any of the other founding fathers would have liked the way people infer what was not implied.
I am not English, just enlightened - England is not without its own unique problems and sometimes weak laws; however, the weapon of choice for the Police in the UK are their brains. Gun units are rarely called to the scene unless it is clearly a terrorist situation and then the fire power is overwhelming. Casually having coffee with your gun in England would never happen...
I don't have all the numbers, but the murder rate in England is about1000+ in 2009. The rate for suicide by firearms is very low - I believe one or two digits.

On Open Carry at Starbucks

Posted on April 11 at 3:22 p.m.

I still want to know what government agency these guys were from that required them to carry overt weapons to Starbucks. In my experience when plan clothes cops carry open weapons they also clearly display their badges. Statistically if one owns a gun he or she is more likely to meet with a violent death ... In the UK owning a handgun is next to impossible, and if one wants to own a rifle or a shotgun then membership and training at a gun club is mandatory. These tight controls in the UK kept the gun homicide rate down to 35 in 2009. Everybody has a different skill set and like anything else in life gun ownership and use of a firearm is a skill: a skill that is not universal and not one that people naturally possess - some can learn this, but many never will, which is why it makes an Interesting comparison between guns and cars ( driving) because driving is a privilege, which must be trained for, but not a right and can easily be taken away — it is a shame that guns are not controlled in the same way.

On Open Carry at Starbucks

Posted on March 31 at 8:49 a.m.

I was shocked to read that only 50 have jumped from the bridge since 1963. I expected this number to be in the Thousands... whilst it is sad that 50 people lost their lives, that number does not justify the bridge being ruined for everyone else.

On Suicide Barrier Contract Awarded

Posted on September 1 at 6:23 p.m.

I am a straight guy, but I am shocked at the way you objectify your Gay friend, and rather than just being friends based on his character you write that his sexuality is the best thing about him.
Would people pretend that your article is 'cute' if it were about ' a black' or 'a jew' ?

On None

Posted on June 10 at 10:21 a.m.

I love dogs, but I do not believe that pit bulls are friendly and cuddly: The news and facts refute your view. All too many pitbull owners find themselves in hot water after their dog mauls somebody -- I have never read a story about a poodle mauling a baby.

If you don't beleive me, then check with the British government. As you know, unlike the USA, the UK has fewer laws and penalities than the USA; however, when the public good or safety is at risk, they act and act swiftly as they did in 1991 after a series of pitbull attacks. They created the Dangerous Dog act.

In short, it prevents thugs from owning 'thug' breeds of dogs,or puts restirctions on said ownership. Read the following and the stop crowing about the comparison of Travis Armstrong to a pitbull being wrong -- Humans are thugs, and some dogs are too

Dangerous Dog act UK
back to previous page

An Act to prohibit persons from having in their possession or custody dogs belonging to types bred for fighting; to impose restrictions in respect of such dogs pending the coming into force of the prohibition; to enable restrictions to be imposed in relation to other types of dog which present a serious danger to the public; to make further provision for securing that dogs are kept under proper control; and for connected purposes.
[25th July 1991]

Be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-(This is only the summary)
Dangerous Dog act: 1991

Dogs bred for fighting.

1.-(1) This section applies to-
(a) any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier;
(b) any dog of the type known as the Japanese tosa; and
(c) any dog of any type designated for the purposes of this section by an order of the Secretary of State, being a type appearing to him to be bred for fighting or to have the characteristics of a type bred for that purpose.
(2) No person shall-
(a) breed, or breed from, a dog to which this section applies;
(b) sell or exchange such a dog or offer, advertise or expose such a dog for sale or exchange;
(c) make or offer to make a gift of such a dog or advertise or expose such a dog as a gift;
(d) allow such a dog of which he is the owner or of which he is for the time being in charge to be in a public place without being muzzled and kept on a lead; or
(e) abandon such a dog of which he is the owner or, being the owner or for the time being in charge of such a dog, allow it to stray.

On The Latest News-Press Generated Drama

Page 1 of 1

event calendar sponsored by: