232 years ago we as a people decided we cared no longer to be “in touch” with out oppressive monarchist forbears. We created something entirely new, something civilization had never experimented with before. And it succeeded grandly. So grandly that “the beacon on the hill” analogy has applied splendidly for over two centuries.
We wanted to be “out of touch”; we actively sought it.
But now for some reason, a citizen of the very country whose yoke we threw off violently (not that long ago in the big scheme of things), comes along and tells us we’ve been doing it all wrong. We’re still the simple-minded lil colonists that should look to the Mother Country for the shining example of what we should aspire to be?
Ha!
Sorry, Cock, I’m going have to tell ye the same thing me great-great-great-great grandpappy told King George, “Go fuck yeself. We don’t want ye and we don’t need ye.”
Sorry it that breaks up your little sense of proper website forum decorum.[/quote]
232 years and you still seem worried that we are going to come back and take over. What you don’t realise is that we let you win, it was a plan to get rid of the rednecks, bible bashers and overeaters that were starting to be a pain in the arse
By the way, the fact that you keep typing Cock means that I can’t avoid hearing your posts in the voice of a middle aged mancunian woman. Certainly makes the content amusing.
For a country that is so keen on personal liberties, you sure seem to be getting into the colonisation businness yourself pretty heavily.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Precisely. You can’t.
232 years ago we as a people decided we cared no longer to be “in touch” with out oppressive monarchist forbears. We created something entirely new, something civilization had never experimented with before. And it succeeded grandly. So grandly that “the beacon on the hill” analogy has applied splendidly for over two centuries.
We wanted to be “out of touch”; we actively sought it.
But now for some reason, a citizen of the very country whose yoke we threw off violently (not that long ago in the big scheme of things), comes along and tells us we’ve been doing it all wrong. We’re still the simple-minded lil colonists that should look to the Mother Country for the shining example of what we should aspire to be?
Ha!
Sorry, Cock, I’m going have to tell ye the same thing me great-great-great-great grandpappy told King George, “Go fuck yeself. We don’t want ye and we don’t need ye.”
Sorry it that breaks up your little sense of proper website forum decorum.
232 years and you still seem worried that we are going to come back and take over. What you don’t realise is that we let you win, it was a plan to get rid of the rednecks, bible bashers and overeaters that were starting to be a pain in the arse
By the way, the fact that you keep typing Cock means that I can’t avoid hearing your posts in the voice of a middle aged mancunian woman. Certainly makes the content amusing.
For a country that is so keen on personal liberties, you sure seem to be getting into the colonisation businness yourself pretty heavily.[/quote]
Don´t you understand?
They see the damage their government does to other countries and they start to worry.
Varqanir, you might want to go back and re-read those
“In 2007, there were an estimated 6,024,000 police-reported traffic crashes, in which 41,059 people were killed and 2,491,000 people were injured; 4,275,000 crashes involved property damage only.”
NHTSA?s National Center for Statistics and Analysis
“Violent crime rates in 2007 were not significantly different from those in 2005”
2005 Actual number of serious violent crimes 1,823,400
Source: National Crime Victimization Survey and Uniform Crime Reports
So you are 3 times more likely to be involved in a car crash serious enough to be reported than you are to be involved in a violent crime.
“With the exception of the 2003 study by John J. Donohue, these studies generally contend that there seems to be little or no effect on crime from the passage of license-to-carry laws.”
This was the opposing viewpoint you posted in response to my posting of the wikipedia article.
Wouldn’t even the opposing viewpoint you posted contradict your feelings that having more guns around in the hand of citizens increase our mortal danger? If that were true, wouldn’t license-to-carry laws increase crime?
Some studies show a reduction in crime, opposing studies show no change. Either way, crime doesn’t increase, and we aren’t plunged into mortal danger.
“The issue of “home defense” or protection against intruders may well be misrepresented. A study of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998).”
and
“In another study, regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and suicide in the home (Dahlberg, Ikeda and Kresnow, 2004). Persons who own a gun and who engage in abuse of intimate partners such as a spouse are more likely to use a gun to threaten their intimate partner. (Rothman, et al) It would appear that, rather than beign used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families.”
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Again, Cock (said in my very best imitation of a Mancunian dialect), you can’t possibly be “worry(ing) about solving Mexico and Britain’s problems…and…actively envolved (sic) in trying to improve the situation in Mexico” because you’re too obsessed with America’s problems to have the time. [/quote]
My wife’s friend is from Mexico City. Her family owned several guns while they lived there regardless of the gun laws because of the kidnappings. Most Mexicans feel the same way.
No, 232 years later I am worried that your failed, stupid, hopeless, worthless philosophy about gun ownership will take over. It has made headway, no doubt about it, and that concerns me greatly.
[/quote]
Do you seriously think that is likely? I can’t see it myself, not in the near future anyway.
Well maybe if your lot had got in the game quicker instead of letting Blighty hold back the might of the dastardly Hun single handed (still tongue in cheek everyone) we would have been in a stronger position to support ourselves.
People from Manchester are welcome to chime in here.
I don’t think that it is totally irrelevant, the national attitude to guns informs government policy.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Again, Cock (said in my very best imitation of a Mancunian dialect), you can’t possibly be “worry(ing) about solving Mexico and Britain’s problems…and…actively envolved (sic) in trying to improve the situation in Mexico” because you’re too obsessed with America’s problems to have the time.
My wife’s friend is from Mexico City. Her family owned several guns while they lived there regardless of the gun laws because of the kidnappings. Most Mexicans feel the same way. [/quote]
Whilst a fair chunk of the Mexican population lives in DF, it is not approaching most yet. One of the reasons that I don’t live in DF is the kidnappings, as a white guy with a young kid, regardless of how much money I actually have, my daughter would be a target there.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Cock (said in my very best West Virginia drawl), you seriously fucked up here. This exposes your ignorance about the American scene. We have had steady, constant erosion of the 2nd Amendment since the 1930s. We (gun rights advocates) have won some battles but the conflict reckons to something along the line of the Hundred Years War.
[/quote]
But do you think it would go so far as to end up with a total ban like there is in the UK? I doubt that it would be effective given the insane number of guns that are out there.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Again, Cock (said in my very best imitation of a Mancunian dialect), you can’t possibly be “worry(ing) about solving Mexico and Britain’s problems…and…actively envolved (sic) in trying to improve the situation in Mexico” because you’re too obsessed with America’s problems to have the time. [/quote]
I have plenty of time to burn whilst I am on extremely dull conference calls with people in the Philippines and India talking to each other about things that I don’t really care about. (probably explains the typos as well)
‘Shooting accounted for seven per cent of homicides (50 victims) in 2005/06.’
Yep, looks like there was a massive problem with shootings in England, christ, you probably have that per city block in some areas based on the real need for guns in the US that you are going on about.
Yes total crimes has increased by a factor of four, but the numbers are extremely low and the total number of people killed last year was the same as the number just after the latest legislation change.
Also, as I keep pointing out, the change in legislation actually had virtually no real terms effect on the availability of guns. Availability of illegal guns has increased due to changes in the political situation in Eastern Europe.
I didn’t misrepresent the numbers. I did not say that the numbers weren’t low. The relative lowness or highness of the numbers were not my point.
My point was that gun crimes did not go down, they actually went up, after gun control legislation was enacted, and total number of people killed remained the same. This means that the gun control legislation did not work, which you also point out, so we are in agreement.
Your last point is one that I agree with if I get to add a bit to your sentence: change in legislation has virtually no effect on the availability of guns to the criminal populace.
So, I was using the numbers to say the exact same thing as you, no misrepresentation. We seem to be coming to different conclusions though.
I see that the legislation doesn’t reduce crime or murders, and that it has no affect on the availability of guns (we are in agreement here), so I conclude that anti-gun laws are a stupid idea.
It seems to me, correct me if I have misinterpreted you, that you think that the legislation doesn’t work, but that it’s a good idea.
The reason that the legislation had no effect was that no-one had guns before the legislation you dullard. I keep pointing this out and you can’t seem to get your head round it.
People were not handing in guns in 97 because they didn’t have them before that.
The date is meaningless. The legislation in place before 97 meant that you couldn’t have a gun in your house for self defence. Therefore you have to look to something else to build your argument.
