Backintothesky

It's why grammar is very important.... "Let's eat Mum!" vs "Let's eat, Mum!"

More terrifying are the Christians that claim that without God they would have no morality. If the only thing holding them back from acts of unspeakable cruelty is their belief in an invisible sky fairy then I don't want to be around them. The biggest irony here is that the video in the OP promotes this idea. The video purported that religious people choose to obey the law because they are "accountable to god." What this literally means is that they are afraid they will have to pay (settle the account) if they don't follow the law. And settling your account with god is presumably much more difficult than settling your account with city hall. This is IMO a very weak reason to do the right thing. Do it because you know it to be right, not because you feel accountable for it.

That's exactly how non believers view every religion. Welcome, we've been expecting you.

As a believer why bother? I thought you'd be excited about dying? You get to see your God no? I see religious people crying when their loved ones die. Why? Only a matter of time before they see them again according to their beliefs...and apparently they are in a better place....?

The ignorance displayed in this quote is simply shocking. Learn your history. America didn't "liberate" Europe alone, it REQUIRED a concerted effort from Allies around the world. In fact there's a good argument to be made that Russia was the key to defeating the Nazis by 1945. God knows how long the war would have gone on for without the Eastern front pressure on Hitler. I'm not going to compare you to Hitler directly but you do realise that this is the same logic he used. "It's ours". By that logic Putin is well within rights to roll up Eastern Europe up to Berlin. Thinking and acting like that just leads to continous and never ending violence.

In which case the acts of Muslims who behead non believers are right on because their Prophet did it...... You can use religion to justify anything. I bet I could find something in the Christian bible to justify ANY crime including child molestation. That's what happens when your morality is based on a book written by goatherders thousands of years ago.

False. There are still a lot of guns in the UK and Australia mate. There's still a lot of hunting as well as gun ranges. The UK is not a "gun free" place. Nor should it be. Shooting is a legit sport and it's shameful that our national pistol shooting team must train abroad. Shameful. Did you know you can buy an AR-15 in the UK.......it's straight pull sure, but still lethal. Semi automatic shotguns and bolt action high powered hunting rifles (what the media would call "sniper rifles") are available to be purchased. In France I can pick up Glocks, AK-47's, shotguns, AR-15s and all sorts of weaponary relatively easily. Nearly every Swiss home has an assualt rifle in it. Now of course there can never be a like for like comparison between countries - particularly given the size of the US BUT I've said it before and I'll say it again it's a CULTURE thing. Why can other countries be awash with weapons and yet not have the same massacres?

Incredibly brave man. One can only hope we have the same sense of courage if ever put in such a situation. According to reports the other hostage who died was shielding her pregnant friend from gunfire. Tragic loss of two young and courageous individuals. Thoughts go out to their familys.

If it works then surely the police should be allowed to use waterboarding and rectal feeding to interrogate suspects? Where is the line? If you say "terrorists" then define terrorists because meanings can be changed. When I was in America earlier this year the media had a habit of calling all violent or disturbing acts "terroristic" even though a lot of them were criminal acts and not acts of "terror". It could get to the point where any criminal act that causes people to be "scared" will be a "terror" act and the suspects will be tortured... I'm not accusing or beating your point of view down here - I'd genuinely like to hear your viewpoint on this and your opinions.

Do you see how this logic ends up in a never ending cycle of increasing violence? It's PART of the reason why Israel and Palastine will never resolve their issues. It's why in thousands of year SOME members of the black community will continue to justify their criminal actions because of slavery.

If you love this stuff then do check out "Guns, germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond. My mother in law gave it to me the other week and it's fascinating reading - it's a study into why certain cultures and countries have ended up the "top dogs" in the world and others, such as Africa, despite having a "head-start" are still languishing in third world status. It sounds like the beginning of an incredibly racist book but it's actually are very, very nuanced and intelligent look at how and more crucially WHY things like guns and steel were created in some cultures and not others. And obviously how that gave those countries the advantage. Fascinating stuff if you enjoy that kind of thing (which I do!). Check it out if you haven't already. Wendy P.

There are gangs in the UK. SO19 (the firearms division - British "SWAT" if you will) deal with firearms incidents every day. BUT, the average cop in the UK (or other countries) doing a vehicle stop for example does NOT expect a firearms to be in the vehicle. It is a rare occasion when that is the case. When SO19 had information that Jean de Menezes had a bomb and was about to detonate it in the metro they shot him several times in the head to stop him. It turns out the information was wrong. But they did what they needed to do with the information they had. I.E. dangerous threat, need to use lethal force to stop him. Mark Duggan - UK "gangster", SO19 told he had a weapon and they needed to do a vehicle stop and arrest. They believed he had a weapon and so acted accordingly. He made some suspicious moves when they pulled his vehicle over and so they shot him. He died. It appears the intelligence was wrong (at least partially). Point is, when the police believe you might well have a weapon on you and you act in a way that might suggest you will use a weapon they will shoot you to make sure you don't use it on them. Quite rightfully so. In the USA the police know that ANYONE can have a weapon on them because of the prevalance of legally available weapons. In the UK (for example) there are a lot of firearms but they tend to be in the hands of country farmers and skeet shoot enthusiast. No-one has the legal right to carry a handgun on the streets. If the UK police dealt with a similar environment to US police you can GUARANTEE that the number of police killings would be a lot higher. And I provided evidence of gangs in Britain via a link. The USA is NOT the only western nation to have gangs or minority communities. It is, however, WAY out of line in the total number of murders and in the number of killings by LEOs.

Don't put yourself down There is a resemblance between the two of you from your profile photo, nothing to be ashamed about - your both very pretty.

Frankly I think the public will only be satisfied when police officers only return fire when they are already shot multiple times. Fucking retards the lot of them. I've been reading people calling for "warning shots" before shooting at the suspect. And then only shooting in the leg or hand! Seriously there needs to be public announcements explaining the reality of close range armed confrontation. Alongside that they should show videos of the final moments of many officers who hesitated too long and paid with their lives. Warning shots! In an urban space! Fucking hell.

If the caller thought it "was probably fake" then perhaps he should have gone up to the kid himself. It's very easy to call a gun a fake if it's not your life you are risking to find out. I don't get some people's reactions to this stuff. "Should have shot him in the legs" etc. There needs to be public announcements on how and why police are trained to shoot center mass and that when someone pulls a gun on them they aren't going to wait until they get shot at before they neutralise the threat.

Walk around with a gun in a public place and point it at people (fake or not) then expect problems. Here's CCTV footage of a young kid in the UK nearly getting shot in the chest for nearly the same scenario. Listen to how he says the officer was squeezing on second pressure by the time the weapon hit the floor. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwFu0wZ6Igg

No, it's a personal attack against the leader of your church. Your beliefs have nothing to do with it. People use that reasoning to justify "blasphemy" laws. People are allowed to criticize whomever they wish - certainly an organization that has taken it upon themselves to dictate to other people how they should live their lives based on the orders of their "God".

Depends where you are. 1961 Suicide Act in UK decriminalized suicide attempts. I personally think it's led to more people just not doing it properly. At least before you had to make sure you finished the job...ah the good old days

Nothing is stopping anyone from killing themselves - in most countries these days suicide is not a crime. No-one is saying that people shouldn't be able to kill themselves if they want to. It's sad but people have that option if they want to. It becomes a delicate problem when you involve third parties - particularly the state, in suicide. It becomes open to corruption. Check out the case of Harold Shipman in the UK - a doctor who was discovered to have killed over 200 people, making him one of the most "effective" serial killers in the UK. He was able to escape detection for a long time because he killed them using morphine (for the most part) and used his position to cover up the real cause of death. Yes, it would be lovely if people who had terminal illness were able to end their lives as and when they wished with the help of others. BUT, you are opening the doors to people such as Shipman to take advantage. Unfortunately there are people in this world who would push their own mothers towards assisted suicide if it meant they could get their hands on their wills quicker. It has absolutely nothing to do with telling people what to do with their own bodies and everything to do with protecting people from being murdered under the guise of "assisted suicide". It's their body, and their choice. I don't see how anyone thinks they should have the right to tell a consenting adult what he or she can do with his or her own meat.

Thin end of the wedge argument works here. There's a danger that it will start off as just for the "terminally ill" and then transition to anyone who wants to kill themselves can. We saw the same with legalized abortion (not that I'm against that) - now anyone can do it. It's a typical pattern for most laws/rules. It's not quite as simple as either side of the debate makes out. I remember this being a hot topic in my philosophy classes in the late 90s - nothing has changed, there are still the same moral and logistical problems.

If you really want to desensitize yourself to it: Bunjee jumps. Holy shit roller coasters have nothing on those things. Pure unadulterated freefall in dead air. The most intense sensation of falling I've ever experienced. Not sure I liked it to be honest but crank out several of those one after the other and I'm sure you'll start to get used to it. I've never experienced the falling feeling on exit from an aircraft but I'm 99.9% sure that what you are feeling will be dwarfed by a true dead air exit. A skydive exit will feel like nothing after that.

Fucking bingo. We're all proud of stuff that we've had no choice in being. One could argue that your entire personality, beliefs, morals, religious views are not really a choice you've made in the first place thanks to a variety of genetic and environmental factors that made you that way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAz-F1QnyCk#t=52

That's what nations are for...that's what professional soldiers are for. That's the point of things like the geneva convention, rules of engagement, rules of war. International sanctions etc.

Surely you can make a moral distinction between putting a round into another human being (regardless of if they deserve it or not) versus providing humanitarian aid to innocent victims of conflict??!