Teen actor in upcoming 'Harry Potter' film killed

Teen actor in upcoming 'Harry Potter' film killed

news.yahoo.com

LONDON - A British teenage actor playing a minor role in the upcoming "Harry Potter" film was stabbed to death during a brawl in London on Saturday, police said.

Rob Knox, 18, was stabbed after he got caught up in a fight outside a bar in southwest London early Saturday, London's Metropolitan Police said in a statement.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Well, it seems that we have yet another example of how guns really make little difference when it comes to crime. People will always find ways to kill eachother, and from what I hear, the Brits are having a real hard time now with people using blades.

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Originally posted by jackinthebox
Well, it seems that we have yet another example of how guns really make little difference when it comes to crime. People will always find ways to kill eachother, and from what I hear, the Brits are having a real hard time now with people using blades.

OK, clear this up for me because I'm not clear on it. Is this thread about the tragic death of a young man or about how great the 2nd Amendment is?

reply to post by intrepid


Well, I would say the issues are intimately tied in this case. Another tragic example of how disarming a people has done very little to protect them. The fact that this time it happens to be a person of some renown, only serves as an exclamation point to a problem that London has been having for some time now, with the youth becoming particularly violent with the use of knives.

The death of this young man is indeed tragic. I will refrain from making too much of the "Harry Potter" aspect and how that may tie in with the "alternate" crowd here at ATS. I'm sure people will want to know about this, and be saddened by the news, but I also welcome constructive debate on how this tragedy might have been avoided.

I think the OP is using this as a way to show that if the 2nd Amendment were done away with and guns removed from the citizens of the U.S. that murder and killing WILL continue. There are some people (for whatever reason) who believe that if you remove "guns" from the equation...that is the answer to violent crime...and this article along with THOUSANDS of others prove...thats just BS....the human nature to kill will remain...the only difference will be that murder/killing will become much more personal, up close, and alot more messy....BUT WILL NEVER STOP!

Originally posted by rcwj75
....the human nature to kill will remain...the only difference will be that murder/killing will become much more personal, up close, and alot more messy....BUT WILL NEVER STOP!

Uh-huh. The thing is that dead is dead. The method doesn't matter. Someone still gets buried. The thing with guns is that there is a much greater chance of collateral damage. Not so, "up close" but just as messy. Read that as MORE body bags.

That being said, I still maintain that this is a sensational piece with a political agenda. No offence meant but that's how I see it.

Edit to add link:

en.wikipedia.org...

If knives were used here Jane would still be alive.

[edit on 24-5-2008 by intrepid]

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764)


Its quite related. It shows another instance where a good guy is unarmed and scum is armed. Another innocent dies because of a government who wants the innocent disarmed. A disarmed society is a society that cant fight a tyrannical government.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.-Thomas Jefferson

enough said.

Originally posted by mybigunit
enough said.

Apperently not, see my edit.

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by mybigunit
enough said.

Apperently not, see my edit.

OK I see your point but how many more people were killed that shouldnt of been killed because of being unarmed than collateral damage cases? I guarantee you more people die because they were not armed in comparison to collateral damage. Both suck I agree.

reply to post by jackinthebox


may ask so what
does him staring in harry pothead make his death any more diffrent then anyone else?

Originally posted by bodrul
reply to post by jackinthebox

 

may ask so what
does him staring in harry pothead make his death any more diffrent then anyone else?

I dont think that was jacks point I think the point is its another death by someone who shouldnt of been killed. I cant remember what state did this but they pushed for every house to get a gun or required it one or the other and since then home invasions are down to nothing. What state was this?

reply to post by intrepid


It is a sad story you posted, but still does not change the fact that tragedy is going to happen no matter what. The shooter in your story there, did he have his gun legally?

I can tell you this, I was shot in the fourth grade on my way home from school. Caught in the crossfire of a gang-related shootout. I am still offended by the infringements on the Second Amendment.

I also know of one case personally, in which someone was accidentally stabbed to death during a melee one night at a local nightclub.

EDIT to add: Well, not really "no matter what" but regardless of how restricitve the laws become. Laws don't change people. Society must be responsible to itself.



[edit on 5/24/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by bodrul


Only in that it may hit a bit "closer to home" for some people. People hear about street violence everyday, but when it happens to someone that they can identify with, then suddenly people seem a bit more concerned. I'm not saying it's right, just an observation. I suppose I fall into that category as well though, to some extent, having actually said out loud, "oh my god," when I saw the article.

[edit on 5/24/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by mybigunit

What state was this?

That would be Georgia I believe. I don't think it was a state law though. It was a county, or even a town perhaps in Georgia. Point still stands though.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by mybigunit

 

What state was this?

That would be Georgia I believe. I don't think it was a state law though. It was a county, or even a town perhaps in Georgia. Point still stands though.

Umm I think it was in Utah or something like that it might be a town there it was somewhere out west I think it was like 2 years ago when they implemented this and since then there have been no home invasions. Im a firm believer in the second amendment. I personally dont own a gun as of now but am in the market and have been shopping around. But I still feel that if more people were armed we would see less crime. Its kinda like the mutual destruction theory like during the cold war. If everyone in the world had nukes that might end all wars because of mutual destruction. Then again it might end the earth

reply to post by mybigunit


Ask people in some gun loving states if they even know what a car-jacking is, and you're bound to get a few puzzled looks. Then ask some peeps from here in NY and you might get a response like, "# yea, I learned to drive in a car-jack when I was fourteen."

EDIT to add:

Gun crimes are lowest in states and cities with the most relaxed gun restrictions.



[edit on 5/24/0808 by jackinthebox]

Originally posted by jackinthebox
EDIT to add:

Gun crimes are lowest in states and cities with the most relaxed gun restrictions.

Could you provide some stats on that? Balanced with stats from outside the US?

Below is a map of gun control laws in the United States in which the darkest blue states have the most restrictive gun control laws and the white (uncolored) states have the least restrictive gun control laws.

reply to post by intrepid


And this lady, Magda Pniewska, who was killed after a shoot out in London.

Not to mention the daily accounts of gun crimes we have in the UK:

news.bbc.co.uk...

news.bbc.co.uk...

news.bbc.co.uk...

news.bbc.co.uk...

The less we have, the better if you ask me.

Although it has to be said, 80% of stabbings and shootings are gang-related and not indicative of a gun less society being preyed upon but rather of stupid thugs, usually young inner city black men, having no regard for human life.

reply to post by mybigunit


Seems to me that the more relaxed states have higher instances of gun-related deaths.

Looks like jackinthebox is quite wrong in his assertion here then.