Jack Thompson Tells Radio Interviewer He Wants to Kill!

unbelievable.

i dont think id be taking his words out of context in thinking that it seems he would actually enjoy killing someone in return for an attempted burglary. he wants it to happen, so he can legally kill someone and test out his new .45! 'one less videogame fanatic in the world' he'd remark smugly, standing over the anonymous bounder sprawled lifeless on the floor before him. probably plant a copy of GTA on the corpse

we have f**ked up kids in the UK, like america and everywhere else, but the reason we dont have these school gun massacres is because there arent lethal projectile weapons within peoples reach. kids shouldnt be able to get there hands on adult material, i agree, but they doubley should not be able to get their hands on f**king guns

goddamnit, 'there' instead of 'their'

pet peeve

Comparing the firearms policies and historical origins of such of the US and the UK (and Japan, for that matter) is both unfair and telling.

The UK is the remnant of a tyrannical empire, with a sharply polarized class-based society, control of weapons being one of the methods employed to ensure and reinforce primacy of both the upper class and the British (and thier puppets) abroad for centuries. A normally unarmed constabulary being sufficient to control an unarmed populace, cops being members of the lower classes themselves...gasp, jolly good the upper crust (and its dedicated lackeys, a near hereditary cadre) runs the Harmy and has all the guns, wot?

The US being founded on the principle that England sucks, smashing such control methods and ensuring they can never be employed against our citizenry again was a priority. Hence the added clause in our Constitution assuring we will not be denied the privelege of gun ownership. Also, we still had plenty of wolves and Indians left to kill. The slave economy our former British imperators saddled us with for thier own selfish ends helped as well, as obviously no one intended any part of the Constitution aside from the bit about being 3/5 of a person to apply to them, unless it was under the blanket heading of "property".

So thats how we got here... Now I happen to live in a quite small town situated what would be frighteningly close to a crime-ridden area. Whats worse, its along the direct route between this area and a major prison. Why then is our crime rate so astonishingly low? Our known penchant for keeping and using guns. Not even making this up. Criminal elements look elsewhere when confronted with an armed populace they percieve as more likely to shoot back with superior firepower and accuracy. So the presence of guns in the hands of the people has benefitted me and mine enormously, at the expense of others.

School gun massacres, while tragic and sensational, are neither the largest, nor most important issue agruing in favor of greater gun control in the US. Their primacy in the public media and concience here, and over there apparently is indicative of classism and racism. Children of minorities and the lower classes having killed each other for years.

Jerk is a prat, and you are right, he would probably enjoy it, but then, hes not alone there...wether its hardwired, or culturally programmed, the righteous employment of violence in the defense of one's life, home, and property sounds like something many men would find a certain amount of pleasure in, barbaric as it may sound. Look how worked up you lot got at the prospect of the First World War, you weren't even defending your homeland...I consider our entry into that useless conflict one of the greatest tragedies ever.

i do understand why everyone has had guns for a long time in your country, and it makes sense for them to have had them - then - but i think the guns festival you dudes are having over there is wrong in this day and age.

i live near a prison too, and although my street is fine there are lots of godawful council estates around here, scally/smackhead/yob population in this town is through the roof, ive never felt the need for a gun though! weve got enough on our plate with stabbings and beatings, nevermind blummin guns.

and if i could get my hands on a gun to defend myself, they can get a gun to aid them in their crime. which is kind of stupid.

i think gun ownership helps create an atmosphere of fear, in the same way that nuke ownership by nations helps create fear amongst other countries.

you sure have a purdy mouth, guh-huh

Your forgetting the main point for the population to own guns, beating back a repressive government! When the boys on the hill get to big for their britches and start treeting the nations people as a means to their own ends rather than employers, well, somebody has to get em out of there some how. Fixed elections and electronic voting machinces are making an already iffy system *coughTheElectoralCollegeSucksCough* nearly unworkable. It's nearly accepted fact at this point the bush didn't win in '00 and a fare numbe of us think 04 was a sham as well. I've never owned/shot a gun, but when our government "by the people and for the people" stops being those things, then to arms it is... and thank god i've been training on video games all these years ;)
_______

people run the country and outnumber them hundreds of thouasands to one. governments are scared of the people regardless of guns, i think the 'were just practising on eachother for if the government go 1984 on us' argument is very weak indeed.

firstly, i dont remember promoting "practicing on each other".

Secondly this is not an "if" scenario. The governments of many countries, especialy my good ol' USofA, HAVE gone "all 1984" on us. Also, when thousands of rioters can be controlled with tear gas and rubber bullets, im sure the government is capable of doing a pretty good job of kicking the people around if they wanted to. perhaps you arent aware but there are several governments around the world that rule their people with "an iron fist". perhaps you've heard the term. its a term that was created to describe how governments control their populace. Things dont make it into the lexicon unless they get alot of use.

________

Don't worry. It's coming. Maybe not school massacres - but juvenile gun crime is growing rapidly in the UK.

If that were even 1% true, there's be hordes of angry gun owning Americans descending on Washington DC right now.

That's a myth you are fed to make you complacent while the politicos continue to exploit you. They are running the country for the benefit of their corporate buddies - the same ones they used to manage, and still hold shares in. The ones who will give them mega-bucks board roles once they leave office.

i know you didnt promote 'practising on each other', it was just a send up of the fact that whilst the guns in your country await their sole and sacred purpose of bringing down your government, they spend their free time in the hands of americans killing other americans and generally stinking the place up.

and yep, your government like many are massively inflating, fabricating and using the realistically wafer-thin threat of terrorism to tighten its hold on the country and keep its citizens in line through fear. as has been said time and time again, there is nothing an ambitous politician with dreams of building power likes more than a war

but your government are buffoons, and theres a lot of damn fine americans. you do not need guns to prevent the continued ruination of your country and it would be defeatist to think so

@the doc - yes, i know it is rising here in the uk, im not sure of the actual figures but its definitely becoming more frequent, although not epidemic, it needs nipping in the bud big time. where the hell are these youths getting their guns? the government needs to find out how theyre getting in the country and fast

my mum recalls growing up in moss side, before bullet holes lined the houses T_T



thats definitely a point, which withdrawn liberty is it that breaks the camels back so to speak?


<edit> the right to bear arms? lol

Jesus Christ LUPOS, let it f**king die already...the Democrats will have thier shot to take the title back in 2 years, worry about that, instead of rehashing aincent history.

As to the Electoral College, I think its one of the Founding Fathers finest refinements to our Republic. Its purpose has remained unchanged since its inception, a brake on the power of populous states, and a sorely needed lever by which small states may make thier influence felt. A defense against Democracies inherent "tyranny of the majority". Just becasue it worked against you doesn't mean you can say its not any good, or doesn't work.

I'm sorry to hear that, its a shame, really...

Unfortunately we have so many guns lying around in this country, gun control is a very difficult proposition. Restrictions are followed only by responsible, law abiding citizens, criminals have easy and cheap access, despite massive gun buyback/destruction programs.

Bush's cozying up to the Religious Right dismays and concerns me more than anything else. I do completely disagree with your assessment. At least you waited until the 12th...fabricated and wafer-thin my ass...

Never forget.

We've had a discussion of this type before on SPOnG and I actually did some reading into the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I was surprised at what I found.

The US Constitution grants no rights to the population of the US, it merely limits what the Federal Government can do in the course of governing the country.

Some of the articles of the Constitution have been incorporated into state constitutions. However the 2nd Amendment is not one of them.

Ref: This Page

Only the Federal Government is prevented from banning gun ownership. States can legally ban gun ownership, so can a city or housing association when you get down to it.

There is no universal right to bear arms in the US, there is only a protection from the Federal Government denying the population the right to bear arms.

Everything I read there supports my view that the 2nd Amendment was a reaction to and a defense against British rule. The Founding Fathers had no problem with citizens own states regulating guns, as each state would presumably have its own ideas, and its own citizens' elected representatives the responsibility. The protection is against an outside force, originally England, but presumtively the Federal government. The same laws which would seem reasonable in Los Angeles, would be ridiculously restrictive in Nebraska.