Choggie she's in a wheel chair at the end so yes, her knees are pretty fucked. I still would but hey, that's not saying much. Every time this comes on TV here we joke about how shitty her reactions are, and how it's a hell of a way for her to lose her virginity, lame stuff like that, so I don't think it's been very effective. They're always really stereotyped, with a cute girl being the most focused on victim and a young man being at fault. I know young guys are who they are trying to get to but it fails on me and just comes across as contrived and insulting.

I don't think it's Irish, I think it's British but I'm not sure (I live in Northern Ireland at the border so I get British and Irish channels ... and the cheapest petrol in the UK ). Maybe it's a joint one, they do that sometimes. Often with the voices dubbed to/from a Dublin accent for some reason.

Look, I understand that there pretty much will always be those that think the best deterrent against someone with a gun is for yourself to have a gun. My view is to keep guns out of as many hands as possible.

"Bad guys will always be able to get guns" I hear you cry (I do really, it's a weird power I have)... But strict gun control laws and a general feeling that guns are damn hard to come by mean that far fewer crimes are committed with them, far fewer deaths result because of them. And while you say that there are many ways to kill someone, shooting them dead seems to still be the quickest and most effective. I know I'd feel like I had a bit more of a chance against someone with a knife vs a gun. (I could run away for starters).



In reply to your comment:
“well i can't seem to find any solid statistics on violent deaths across countries, mainly because i dont subscrube to resources like those, but heres a BBC article
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm

or maybe its because:
Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.

i agree with what you're saying about more guns might cause crimes of passion on impulse, but what makes Switzerland different?

United Kingdom vs Switzerland

A European example would be to compare the violent crime levels of the United Kingdom, which has very strict rules against gun ownership, with Switzerland, which has fully automatic assault rifles in 14% of homes. [1] According to the British Home Office, Switzerland had a homicide rate per 100,000 of 1.2 average over the years 1999-2001, which is less than England & Wales at 1.61, although Scotland is higher at 2.16, while Northern Ireland - with its historically exceptional conditions - is at 2.65. The latter compares with the Irish Republic (with similar gun control laws to the UK) at 1.42. [2]

These data indicate a negative correlation between gun ownership and crime. However, simple correlative evidence concerning two examples is inconclusive as to causation. Put another way, these data do not conclusively indicate that the higher gun ownership rate in Switzerland is a cause of that country's lower homicide rate, although that conclusion is frequently drawn.

Data can be skewed to say that there is a positive correlation between guns and crime, and that there is a negative correlation betweeen the two depending on what countries and how you poll etc. This correlation, does it necessarily imply causation? I think theres much more at hand than just how many guns are floating around, its definately got something to do with their culture and how they view guns and violence in everyday life.

i dont know about you but i'd think twice about waving around a gun when everybody has access to those same guns. Its sort of like when everyone has nukes what an awesome deterrent huh.. (btw, what an ugly truth)
besides, if someone is intent on kiling somebody they dont need a gun to do it (one way or another, see: milions of pissed off wives who drug their husbands to death when they come back home smelling like perfume)

on the other hand, not having guns only does the opposite, it prevents the people who can put a stop to a situation like VT massacre and renders them useless while they wait for the SWAT team to arrive. (last incident over there was stopped by a man with a gun) and it like i said you dont need a gun to kill, not having guns wont prevent the millions of other ways to render a person not breathing.

In reply to your comment:
“And?
Where in that does it say anything in regards to gun ownership and a link to gun violence?

Check out this greaph which shows a strong link between suicides with guns and gun ownership levels. (and in case you were going to say... "and shows that there is little evidence that rates of homicide and suicide by means other than firearms increase where gun ownership is lower.")

It's just basic common sense isn't it? Don't give guns to more people, how is that going to make things better? "FUCK YOU MAN, I DESERVED A High Distinction ON THAT PAPER!" BANG, BANG, BANG... Having guns easily accessible means that in the heat of the moment people have the opportunity to do really stupid, deadly things.

Not having guns during heated situations means that there may be fist fights, yelling etc. but not deaths, not anything that can't be apologised for and made right. You can't make right shooting someone in the head.

In reply to your comment:
“i'll play devil's advocate and link you to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_policy_in_Switzerland

In reply to your comment:
“I SO HATE those that try and suggest 'If others had had guns, he could have been stopped'... because we all know to stop violence, just arm more people.

F*cktards.””””

well i can't seem to find any solid statistics on violent deaths across countries, mainly because i dont subscrube to resources like those, but heres a BBC article
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm

or maybe its because:
Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.

i agree with what you're saying about more guns might cause crimes of passion on impulse, but what makes Switzerland different?

United Kingdom vs Switzerland

A European example would be to compare the violent crime levels of the United Kingdom, which has very strict rules against gun ownership, with Switzerland, which has fully automatic assault rifles in 14% of homes. [1] According to the British Home Office, Switzerland had a homicide rate per 100,000 of 1.2 average over the years 1999-2001, which is less than England & Wales at 1.61, although Scotland is higher at 2.16, while Northern Ireland - with its historically exceptional conditions - is at 2.65. The latter compares with the Irish Republic (with similar gun control laws to the UK) at 1.42. [2]

These data indicate a negative correlation between gun ownership and crime. However, simple correlative evidence concerning two examples is inconclusive as to causation. Put another way, these data do not conclusively indicate that the higher gun ownership rate in Switzerland is a cause of that country's lower homicide rate, although that conclusion is frequently drawn.

Data can be skewed to say that there is a positive correlation between guns and crime, and that there is a negative correlation betweeen the two depending on what countries and how you poll etc. This correlation, does it necessarily imply causation? I think theres much more at hand than just how many guns are floating around, its definately got something to do with their culture and how they view guns and violence in everyday life.

i dont know about you but i'd think twice about waving around a gun when everybody has access to those same guns. Its sort of like when everyone has nukes what an awesome deterrent huh.. (btw, what an ugly truth)
besides, if someone is intent on kiling somebody they dont need a gun to do it (one way or another, see: milions of pissed off wives who drug their husbands to death when they come back home smelling like perfume)

on the other hand, not having guns only does the opposite, it prevents the people who can put a stop to a situation like VT massacre and renders them useless while they wait for the SWAT team to arrive. (last incident over there was stopped by a man with a gun) and it like i said you dont need a gun to kill, not having guns wont prevent the millions of other ways to render a person not breathing.

In reply to your comment:
“And?
Where in that does it say anything in regards to gun ownership and a link to gun violence?

Check out this greaph which shows a strong link between suicides with guns and gun ownership levels. (and in case you were going to say... "and shows that there is little evidence that rates of homicide and suicide by means other than firearms increase where gun ownership is lower.")

It's just basic common sense isn't it? Don't give guns to more people, how is that going to make things better? "FUCK YOU MAN, I DESERVED A High Distinction ON THAT PAPER!" BANG, BANG, BANG... Having guns easily accessible means that in the heat of the moment people have the opportunity to do really stupid, deadly things.

Not having guns during heated situations means that there may be fist fights, yelling etc. but not deaths, not anything that can't be apologised for and made right. You can't make right shooting someone in the head.

In reply to your comment:
“i'll play devil's advocate and link you to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_policy_in_Switzerland

In reply to your comment:
“I SO HATE those that try and suggest 'If others had had guns, he could have been stopped'... because we all know to stop violence, just arm more people.

F*cktards.”””

This is a companion piece to my previous post: http://www.videosift.com/video/Scotlands-Secret-Shame-sectarianism-bigotry-football


This 1995 documentary by Paul McGuigan examines the sectarian divisions which exist between Scotland's Protestant and Catholic communities. It explores the lives of two communities living in the same country but divided by family, church, school, and football. Scotland’s sectarian divisions are directly linked to the troubles in Northern Ireland. Two flute bands with strong Irish ties illustrate the seemingly irreconcilable struggle between Republicans and Loyalists.

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3X5tOK4AAYM
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbGY-lUcHRo
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TF9hMnrzmvU
Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4L7iSl6Y1ZU

Very interesting. I watch The Panel occasionally, it's a good laugh. God knows (joke intended) what someone like Dawkins was doing on it but it's interesting and the panellists do show themselves to have a brain between them, at the very least. Most interesting was Ed Burns asking why religion exists and why isolated communities have consistently formed religion. I always thought it was a need for understanding that gave birth to religion, primitive societies unable to comprehend gravity, the solar system, quantum physics etc inevitably hit upon the theory that a larger, all powerful version of themselves is responsible and can't take the theory any further than that. This is sort of the answer he gives but he takes it further and asks why we need understanding.

On an unrelated topic, I can't help but giggle when someone with an Irish accent slags Donegal for being a bunch of culchies (that's a slang term for a rural living person, vaguely like a red neck). I live a couple of miles from Donegal and is isn't the most modern place (I only ever go there to walk the dog and fill up on cheap petrol!) but it's not like the rest of Ireland is a shining star of modernism. That's coming from someone in Northern Ireland and I'm sure there are more than a few who would consider us to be culchies! To be fair, it was a good joke, so what the hell!

I wonder how long ago the idea of discussing atheism on Irish telly would have been viewed with shock.

Does England count.... What about the Wales and the Scotland and the northern Ireland, Damn it the U.K. Really thank the spirit of the trees we aren't the 51st state

I think his point was that the Bible is filled with war and killings of other people. So calling it a message of peace and other such non-sense is kind of insane. Such as slaughtering Philistines was kind of ok in the view of the Bible.

The great George Carlin put it this way: "Murder. ...when you think about it, religion has never really had a big problem with murder. More people have been killed in the name of god than for any other reason. All you have to do is look at Northern Ireland, Cashmire, the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the World Trade Center to see how seriously the religious folks take thou shalt not kill. The more devout they are, the more they see murder as being negotiable. It depends on who's doin the killin' and who's gettin' killed."

EDIT: This was also copied and pasted from another site, so I didn't run it through a spell checker as the kind person below pointed out.