[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Wow, long post, I will try to give short responses.
Sifu wrote:
It has been a few years since I lived there. So I’ve consulted a higher authority, my Mum and Dad who both worked in Mayfair. Mum says it is very posh, Dad agrees but says it could get seedy especially around Soho. Perhaps it being the most expensive property on the Monopoly board has affected my view, but it certainly isn’t as bad as Detroit.
Might want to hand your folks a map, Soho is not in Mayfair. Mayfair is certainly not as bad as Detroit though. [/quote]
Soho Square is only about a mile away from where my Dads office was on Bond street. Mayfair and Soho are right next to each other.
[quote]
I am very aware of headbutting. That is why I don’t let someone I am having a confrontation with get up in my face for a stare down without at least pushing them back. If someone has something to say they can say it at arms length.
Very sensible, especially around Glasweigans.
There is a huge difference between “can be” and is. The jail sentences that are given to violent criminals in Britain are a joke and a national disgrace.
First off everyone gets an automatic half time sentence reduction. So if a man murders someone and gets 3 years that means he will only serve 18 months. But here is some substantiation.
No they don’t. I will not argue that there are not some absolute joke sentences handed out in the UK but I really wouldn’t use the daily mail as a source of reliable information. It is a joke tabloid read by people who are slightly to the right of Gengis Khan on the political spectrum.[/quote]
If they are so right wing why do the BNP call the Daily Mail the Daily Backstabber? The Mail is a lot more reliable than the Guardian which is nothing more than a propaganda organ of the Labour government.
I think the real issue with The Mail is it reports newsworthy stories that are embarrassing to the Labour government instead of ignoring them or spinning them so the government looks better than it really is.
[quote]
In the US local judges are elected. So people can get rid of a bad judge. In Britain the automatic sentence reduction means that even if a judge does hand down a lengthy sentence the criminal is only going to serve half his sentence.
With the level of voter apathy in the UK I doubt this would really help things. Also, there is no automatic sentence reduction. [/quote]
There is a lot of apathy because the nation is suffering from a serious case of learned helplessness.
It is a fairly well known fact that if one goes to jail in Britain they are only going to serve half their sentence because of all the prison over crowding.
[quote]
The incidence of Rape in Australia is the third highest in the world. Yet Australians don’t think that women should be allowed to arm themselves. I think that says a lot about the mentality of the Australians.
Why have you suddenly picked Australia? The UK has a lower rate of rape than the US (less than half) and has stricter gun control laws and a less permisive view of guns than Oz so how is this relevent to the argument? [/quote]
I picked Australia because it is a commonwealth country that politically and legally has a lot in common with Britain. Plus there have been quite a few Aussies who have popped in here for the same discussion over the years.
I see a difference between governmental interference private activist groups like Amnesty International. Don’t you?
[quote]
Brazil is one of the most populous countries. The referendum there was %67 in favor of gun ownership. I think that result or similar could be repeated in a lot of other countries. So you are wrong about the rest of the world.
So you will take a 67% vote in a referendum where the gun manafacturing companies pumped huge sums of money into publicity in a country that has less than 3% of the worlds people and also has an insanely high crime rate as being representative of the whole world? [/quote]
Now you are spouting the same rhetoric that Amnesty International was spouting when their initiative failed. You just will not allow it to creep into your thinking that the Brazilian people voted the way they did because they had good reason to. Instead you have to make excuses and blame gun manufacturers.
Brazil does have a lot of crime, that is why Brazilians voted to keep gun ownership legal, so they can protect themselves.
Another thing that all of South America has had to deal with is dictatorships and corrupt governments. In Brazil the police have a history of summarily executing people.
Here educate yourself.
March 1996
Locked behind barbed wire and treated like a common criminal lives Wagner dos Santos in Brazil - the key witness in the Candelaria massacre. He was shot 3 times in the head and dumped in a field because he happened to be present when the military police gunned down 8 street children.
The reason for the massacre? Because a boy hit one policeman with a stone when he was being arrested for stealing glue. Wagner lives under government protection. Thirty days after the Candelaria massacre, the death squad of the 9th Rio battalion opened fire in Vigario Geral, one of the poorest slums north of Rio. Amongst the stagnant water, the cardboard shacks and the rubbish, one survivor recounts the brutal murder of her entire family. Debilitated by facial paralysis, sight and hearing problems, Wagner is still determined that the police should be punished for what they have done.
Here is a man being arrested and executed in the street.
The family of a three-year old boy shot by police in Brazil is demanding justice. But many are asking if the officers involved will ever be held accountable. Gabriel Elizondo finds out more.
[quote]
If that’s the case why do you keep spouting the rhetoric of gun control nuts?
Because they are valid questions and arguments. [/quote]
A lot of what you are coming out with is boilerplate. Your arguments are weak or flawed.
[quote]
While I would argue that with the availability of firearms to school age gang bangers in Britain shows that the law there hasn’t had an affect except to leave a lot of adults defenseless and has had deadly results.
So we agree that the availability of guns increases the likelihood of this type of thing happening. And you think more guns is a good idea why? [/quote]
No we don’t agree. You are misrepresenting my words. Gun control in Britain has not made it any less likely for school age kids to get shot. Because kids can get guns.
In fact it is probably safe to say that a lot of kids in the UK are better connected to get illegal guns or drugs than their parents.
Allowing people who are law abiding to own guns tips the playing in their favor, because they out number the criminals.
Forcing honest law abiding citizens to surrender their self defensive weaponry does not dissuade criminals. In fact it does the exact opposite, it gives the criminals an incentive get guns because the law renders their prey defenseless.
This is not rocket science. This is simple common sense. Something which the British are very lacking in.
[quote]
I think the gun laws there have also caused a break down in the social structure because older gang members with guns can elicit a sense of awe from young recruits that their parents can’t compete with without being criminals themselves.
but there has been no real terms change in the laws in recent history so why the breakdown now? Is it possible that there are other factors at play? [/quote]
People used to be able to own guns before the laws were changed in 1997. The change may not have been as drastic as it would be in the US but it was a change and the results were dramatic. Within five years the number of crimes committed with a gun in the UK doubled.
This a blatantly obvious cause and effect relationship. Disarm everyone and gun crime goes up because the criminals now have nothing to fear. Before the gun ban when there was limited gun ownership the criminals were playing Russian roulette so they were discouraged. Once that changed a free for all ensued.
Now in regards to the gang culture, there are a variety of factors involved. If you would reread my paragraph below you will see that I didn’t say that guns were the only factor.
What we are seeing today in Britain is an importation of American gang banging culture. To young kids who are deeply immersed into hip hop’s culture of gang banging there is a certain outlaw mystique to a gangbanger with a gun that Mummy and Daddy don’t have.
Those Baikal converted teargas guns that are so ominous and menacing in Britain would get you laughed at in America. A lot of American kids would ask if the Baikal is a toy.
[quote]
I think that Britain’s gun control laws are an aggravating factor contributing to Britain’s problem of feral youths. Because the law empowers children to dramatically change the relationship of child to adult.
I think education standards, stupid sentencing policies, increased inner city poverty and political apathy are far more relevant. [/quote]
The British welfare system has been a big factor too because it breeds dysfunction. And Britain has added it’s own weird cultural twists to gangbanging.
But having all the responsible adults in a community disarmed while kids are able to buy sub machine guns like the converted replica Mac10 is a monumental mistake. Those youth gangs are a force unto themselves that very few adults in the community dare stand up to because of gun control.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
tom63 wrote:
If you did you would not be arguing about something like this, you would look for the books read it and ask questions of those who did.You’re just a liberal who wants to argue, that’s why I say you don’t have the chops. If you did you woudl get it from a source rahter than argue with citizens of a different country on the net.
Gary Kleck is a criminologist at FSU. He did the most extensive research on crime and guns in the US. His stuff is at Amazon.com. Order it , read it, instead of arguing here.
Look up Stephen Halbrook on amazon. Get his stuff. Spend 30$ and some time and get back to us instead of running you mouth.
But you won’t.
So what you are saying is that I am not allowed to voice a different opinion to yours on this website. All I am allowed to do is to ask your advice and opinion.
Once I have read your books and have the same opinion as you I will be allowed back to agree with you.
I seriously thank you for the reading advice, I love to read and particularly enjoy reading things that challenge my viewpoint.[/quote]
Go ahead say what you want that is what the first amendment is for. If we all agreed with each other there would be no point in discussing anything. If that were to happen we should close the whole forum down or not waste our time here.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
The key difference between the governments of America and Britain is the American is based upon a concept known as “separation of powers”. This is why Americas form of government is so superior to Britain"s.
Military power is the most dangerous power that any government can possess. Concentrating all of the military power in the hands of the government makes it very easy for a government to become a dictatorship. It also makes it very easy for a military coup d’etat to occur.
Separating military power between the government and the people places a serious impediment in the way of any would be dictator.
With the existence of so many dictatorships in the world today it is really sad that so many people like you can’t grasp this simple concept.
Then again perhaps simplicity is the problem. Europeans like to think they are more clever than anyone else, so they like to make things much more complicated than they need to be as some kind of proof of superior intellect.
The reality is most Europeans are too stupid to realize that true genius is the ability to pare something down to it’s most essential elements.
You really ought to stop because you are showing up your ignorance of your own political system.
Separation of powers has nothing to do with shared military power between government and the people, it refers to dividing the state into branches with separate areas of responsibility and powers. [/quote]
I am aware of the separation of power that is represented by the legislative, executive and judicial branches of the American government.
The basic concept of separation of power is you don’t want someone to have a monopoly on power.
When only the government has the right to have an army the government has a monopoly on military power.
The founding father wanted the people to be able to have their own citizens army that was a separate, independent entity from the government.
So the militias are a separate power. Therefore my use of the term separation of power is correct.
[quote]
Normally you will see a system that has separated judiciary, executive and legislative bodies. The term comes from the writings of Montesquieu though of course the concepts date back to ancient Rome. Interestingly the example that Montesquieu gave in his writings was the British constitutional system. [/quote]
At that time of Montesquieu Britain was the freest country in the world. So that makes some sense. It is too bad that is no longer true.
[quote]
These days we would normally refer to a system such as Britains as weak separation, whereas a system such as the one in the US is seen as having stronger separation (this is also common in Latin America,) though of course there is not true separation of powers. The Presidents veto is an example of why not. [/quote]
There is very little separation in the British system. The Prime Minister is an MP chosen by the largest party in the house of commons. The way that works today is since none of the Labour back benchers will challenge Gordon Brown and will mindlessly vote with the party he is able to act as a dictator.
[quote]
One traditional problem with strongly separated systems is that they are prone to coup d’etats and civil wars. [/quote]
Care to give some examples?
[quote]
Also when you talk about simplicity then you are total off track. The Mexican political system with a straight popular vote between candidates is far more simple than the collegiate system in the US or the first past the post system in the UK, would you define it as better? [/quote]
The electoral college system is an imperfect solution. But it was intended to make it harder for the states with larger populations to have a monopoly on electing the President. The idea behind it is to give the smaller states a bit more say.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
tom63 wrote:
If you did you would not be arguing about something like this, you would look for the books read it and ask questions of those who did.You’re just a liberal who wants to argue, that’s why I say you don’t have the chops. If you did you woudl get it from a source rahter than argue with citizens of a different country on the net.
Gary Kleck is a criminologist at FSU. He did the most extensive research on crime and guns in the US. His stuff is at Amazon.com. Order it , read it, instead of arguing here.
Look up Stephen Halbrook on amazon. Get his stuff. Spend 30$ and some time and get back to us instead of running you mouth.
But you won’t.
So what you are saying is that I am not allowed to voice a different opinion to yours on this website. All I am allowed to do is to ask your advice and opinion.
Once I have read your books and have the same opinion as you I will be allowed back to agree with you.
I seriously thank you for the reading advice, I love to read and particularly enjoy reading things that challenge my viewpoint.[/quote]
It’s kind of hard not to agree. When you see both sides to pretty easy to agree. I don’t think i’ve ever seen anyone disagree with the progun side if they take the time to really ferret out info. My hat will be off to you if you do the work.
But here’s the deal, if I bet on whether someone will or won’t do the thing, it might be 1/100. A good friend who I met on this site lives in Japan. He’s pretty well built and it’s obvious he works out. People would ask him all the time what they should do in regards to losing weight. after awhile he stopped giving advice and said, " write down everything you eat and drink for three whole days in a notebook and come back to me and we’ll talk about how to handle this".
3 people did,and he helped them. There’s a saying, God helps them who help themselves. I’ve done similar with weights and guns. I see you trying , I help. Otherwise, I’m just wasting energy.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Soho Square is only about a mile away from where my Dads office was on Bond street. Mayfair and Soho are right next to each other.
[/quote]
yes Soho is next to Mayfair but you were still wrong. This is not really relevant to the argument so lets drop it.
The mail is badly written right wing bollocks, the guardian is better written left wing bollocks. The standard of journalism is better in the Gaurdian and the general education level of its readers is higher. They both have an obvious agenda though. The only real reason to read the Guardian is that they have good sports coverage.
No it’s the fact that it is happy to print xenophobic badly researched badly written sensationalist articles.
No the apathy is caused by a two party system where it benefits both parties to move to the centre to gain voters. This causes the public to have problems distinguishing a reason to vote one way or the other. Also under a parliamentary system where votes are counted in discrete areas, people feel that their votes do not truly count, either they are voting for a guy who is almost guarenteed a win or their vote is a drop in the ocean of opinion in favour of the other guy. This leads to low turn out, which allows the papers to report on voter apathy, which allows people to justify their own apathy, after all, the whole country feels the same way as them. Ok, lets read the front page news about the big brother winner instead…
It is a fairly well known fact that after a period of half of your sentence, certain people will be eligible to apply for parole which may allow them to serve the rest of their sentence using electronic tagging or a similar system.
[quote]I picked Australia because it is a commonwealth country that politically and legally has a lot in common with Britain. Plus there have been quite a few Aussies who have popped in here for the same discussion over the years.
[/quote]
So not because the stats for the UK totally went against your argument as did those for most of the rest of the world however the stats for Australia where people have very different attitudes to people in the UK indicated one of the few countries with a higher incidence than the US then? (I know there are differences in the reporting rate which make these stats very dubious.)
yes, the government is pandering to the views of it’s electorate, the activist group is pandering to the views of its membership.
Yes, the people in Brazil at the time had believed the arguments that were put in front of them by a rich gun lobby and voted in that way. Were I brought up in a Brazilian favela I may well do the same. Still isn’t indicitive of world opinion.
This is not news to me and is not relevent to the US attitude to guns which is what we are discussing. We could just as well argue that the situation in Brazil is due to the populace having access to guns (this would be equally ridiculous.)
How so?
So the rates of school shootings in the UK are the same as in the US? Utter rubbish and you know it. People who have easier access to guns are more likely to use guns in a crime.
Many of the guns that have been used in these rare but horrifying events in the US were legally owned. All of the guns used in the very very rare events in the UK are illegally owned.
Of course they are, whereas everyone in the US has far easier access to guns, which is why they are used more often in criminal and accidental shootings than they are in the UK.
From a country where they have to print ‘caution contents may be hot’ on their coffee cups in case someone doesn’t realise that coffee is usually served hot.
No they didn’t, this is exactly the point, nobody had legal guns before the change, nobody had legal guns after. Therefore your point is totally ridiculous.
It obviously isn’t cause and effect because, to repeat myself, nobody had legal guns before the change in the law, nobody had legal guns afterwards. This single point underlines the problem in your ability to follow a logical argument. And you call my arguments weak. You have not been able to claim that a gun is for self defence since the early 1940s.
So american permissive attitudes to guns have a global effect on gun violence by your own argument. I wasn’t even going that far, but if you like.
And you are proud of this fact, underlying the fact that you consider a gun to be an essential part of strength. In Britain traditionally we put more weight in character.
Whereas in the US where there is less welfare their are also less gangs obviously…Oh.
[quote]
But having all the responsible adults in a community disarmed while kids are able to buy sub machine guns like the converted replica Mac10 is a monumental mistake. Those youth gangs are a force unto themselves that very few adults in the community dare stand up to because of gun control. [/quote]
It has nothing to do with gun control, if it did, the violence levels would be higher in countries with tight gun control such as Japan and China(as relevent as your Australian example earlier)
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
tom63 wrote:
If you did you would not be arguing about something like this, you would look for the books read it and ask questions of those who did.You’re just a liberal who wants to argue, that’s why I say you don’t have the chops. If you did you woudl get it from a source rahter than argue with citizens of a different country on the net.
Gary Kleck is a criminologist at FSU. He did the most extensive research on crime and guns in the US. His stuff is at Amazon.com. Order it , read it, instead of arguing here.
Look up Stephen Halbrook on amazon. Get his stuff. Spend 30$ and some time and get back to us instead of running you mouth.
But you won’t.
So what you are saying is that I am not allowed to voice a different opinion to yours on this website. All I am allowed to do is to ask your advice and opinion.
Once I have read your books and have the same opinion as you I will be allowed back to agree with you.
I seriously thank you for the reading advice, I love to read and particularly enjoy reading things that challenge my viewpoint.
Go ahead say what you want that is what the first amendment is for. If we all agreed with each other there would be no point in discussing anything. If that were to happen we should close the whole forum down or not waste our time here. [/quote]
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
And you are proud of this fact, underlying the fact that you consider a gun to be an essential part of strength. In Britain traditionally we put more weight in character.
[/quote]
[quote]Sifu wrote:
The basic concept of separation of power is you don’t want someone to have a monopoly on power.
[/quote]
I see you have done some quick reading on the subject, good! See, not just an argument but an education as well
But not part of any elected or accountable system so no, not really in terms of politics. Otherwise you could argue that any system that tends to democracy has separation of powers because you can vote the incumbant out.
Not really and we actually have greater separation now.
The back benchers challenge him on a daily basis, and he can be thrown out by a simple vote. I think there are lots of problems with the British system, I am not enough of an expert on parliamentary systems to sujest an improvement though.
Pick any latin american country.
[quote]
The electoral college system is an imperfect solution. But it was intended to make it harder for the states with larger populations to have a monopoly on electing the President. The idea behind it is to give the smaller states a bit more say. [/quote]
But it is more complicated that way which totally goes against your previous argument that the American system is based around simplicity. Again you are contradicting yourself and not even understanding your own arguments.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Soho Square is only about a mile away from where my Dads office was on Bond street. Mayfair and Soho are right next to each other.
yes Soho is next to Mayfair but you were still wrong. This is not really relevant to the argument so lets drop it. [/quote]
Okay.
[quote]
If they are so right wing why do the BNP call the Daily Mail the Daily Backstabber? The Mail is a lot more reliable than the Guardian which is nothing more than a propaganda organ of the Labour government.
The mail is badly written right wing bollocks, the guardian is better written left wing bollocks. The standard of journalism is better in the Gaurdian and the general education level of its readers is higher. They both have an obvious agenda though. The only real reason to read the Guardian is that they have good sports coverage. [/quote]
There is a huge difference between the Mail and the Guardian. Because the Guardian is subsidized by the Labour government, they don’t bite the hand that feeds them. So the Guardians journalistic standards are a joke. Because they will not hold the government accountable.
The Mail on the other hand does not owe the Labour government it’s loyalty. That is why they report stories that show how badly the Labour government is fucking up the country.
[quote]
I think the real issue with The Mail is it reports newsworthy stories that are embarrassing to the Labour government instead of ignoring them or spinning them so the government looks better than it really is.
No it’s the fact that it is happy to print xenophobic badly researched badly written sensationalist articles. [/quote]
You are going to have to prove that.
[quote]
There is a lot of apathy because the nation is suffering from a serious case of learned helplessness.
No the apathy is caused by a two party system where it benefits both parties to move to the centre to gain voters. This causes the public to have problems distinguishing a reason to vote one way or the other. Also under a parliamentary system where votes are counted in discrete areas, people feel that their votes do not truly count, either they are voting for a guy who is almost guarenteed a win or their vote is a drop in the ocean of opinion in favour of the other guy. This leads to low turn out, which allows the papers to report on voter apathy, which allows people to justify their own apathy, after all, the whole country feels the same way as them. Ok, lets read the front page news about the big brother winner instead… [/quote]
Or maybe there is so much apathy because normal people can’t identify with the political class. Because the political class is an insular group made up of career politicians who have never done anything else. Which makes them out of touch so they pursue agendas that their class think is important, while ignoring what is best for the common folk.
[quote]
It is a fairly well known fact that if one goes to jail in Britain they are only going to serve half their sentence because of all the prison over crowding.
It is a fairly well known fact that after a period of half of your sentence, certain people will be eligible to apply for parole which may allow them to serve the rest of their sentence using electronic tagging or a similar system. [/quote]
The criminal justice system in Britain is a joke. ie The leader of the gang that murdered Gary Newlove was released on bail the morning he murdered Newlove. The reason why he was in jail is because he had committed another assault, while he was again released on bail for committing yet another assault against a person who had a personal protection or restraining order against him.
Britain’s revolving door justice system is constantly releasing violent criminals who immediately re offend. If one reads the British newspapers on a regular basis they will see that stories like Gary Newlove’s are not unique.
It beggars disbelief that the British are so irrational that they are so worried absolutely paranoid about law abiding citizens owning self defensive firearms yet violent criminals with a criminal history of violence get released back into the community where they can reoffend and it is no big deal.
[quote]
I picked Australia because it is a commonwealth country that politically and legally has a lot in common with Britain. Plus there have been quite a few Aussies who have popped in here for the same discussion over the years.
So not because the stats for the UK totally went against your argument as did those for most of the rest of the world however the stats for Australia where people have very different attitudes to people in the UK indicated one of the few countries with a higher incidence than the US then? (I know there are differences in the reporting rate which make these stats very dubious.)[/quote]
Crime reporting in Britain is unreliable and rape is the most under reported violent crime in the UK.
A big part of that is witness intimidation against defenseless women. I personally know a British rape victim who dropped the charges against her attacker because his mates threatened her.
Witness intimidation is a prime example of how gun control makes the police less effective at doing their job. Because people can’t protect themselves from reprisals if they go to the police.
[quote]
I see a difference between governmental interference private activist groups like Amnesty International. Don’t you?
yes, the government is pandering to the views of it’s electorate, the activist group is pandering to the views of its membership.
Now you are spouting the same rhetoric that Amnesty International was spouting when their initiative failed. You just will not allow it to creep into your thinking that the Brazilian people voted the way they did because they had good reason to. Instead you have to make excuses and blame gun manufacturers.
Yes, the people in Brazil at the time had believed the arguments that were put in front of them by a rich gun lobby and voted in that way. Were I brought up in a Brazilian favela I may well do the same. Still isn’t indicitive of world opinion. [/quote]
You remind me of a something I learned about people who have serious chemical dependency problems. One of the primary coping strategies they will use to avoid facing up to the realities of their addiction is they use a technique known as Rationalization.
ie An alcoholic will say “I don’t have a drinking problem, if my wife would just get off of my back about my drinking I would be able to do something about it”.
Your rationalization about the vote in Brazil is the evil gun lobby must have used the Jedi mind trick through some kind of magical use of words. It is because you absolutely refuse to admit that maybe, just maybe the gun manufacturers presented their case in a way that was logical and made sense to the overwhelming majority of people.
Then you continue to rationalize by blaming it on people in the favela. Or in other words the poor unwashed masses who are uneducated. You are displaying a common prejudice that British people use to justify gun control. The mentality you reflect the false assumption that it is only ignorant, stupid or somehow backwards people who own guns.
But hey maybe you can prove me wrong by presenting the gun lobbies propaganda that mislead people into giving the wrong vote. It should be easy for you because after all you are British, that means you are much smarter than those simple minded Brazilians.
The Brazilian vote may not be indicative of the world but it is indicative of the largest country in South America which puts it inline with the biggest country in North America. So the Americas are in favor.
Most importantly the vote in Brazil was a referendum on gun ownership where the people were allowed to specifically vote on the issue. Which totally different from how most countries in the world have gotten their gun laws. ie In Britain there wasn’t a popular vote on gun ownership, the government took it upon itself to impose it’s view irregardless of how the people felt.
[quote]
Brazil does have a lot of crime, that is why Brazilians voted to keep gun ownership legal, so they can protect themselves.
Another thing that all of South America has had to deal with is dictatorships and corrupt governments. In Brazil the police have a history of summarily executing people.
Here educate yourself.
This is not news to me and is not relevent to the US attitude to guns which is what we are discussing. We could just as well argue that the situation in Brazil is due to the populace having access to guns (this would be equally ridiculous.) [/quote]
Americans are human beings just like the Brazilians. Because of this shared humanity they face the same issues we do and they have come to the same conclusion, people should be able to defend themselves.
[quote]
A lot of what you are coming out with is boilerplate. Your arguments are weak or flawed.
How so? [/quote]
We have heard your arguments before. They are weak or flawed, yet when we point out the flaws you choose to ignore them.
[quote]
No we don’t agree. You are misrepresenting my words. Gun control in Britain has not made it any less likely for school age kids to get shot. Because kids can get guns.
So the rates of school shootings in the UK are the same as in the US? Utter rubbish and you know it. [/quote]
The issue of school shootings is blown way out of all proportion to their rate of occurrence. These are very rare isolated incidents, that is why they make it on the national and international news when they happen. Yet when they do happen twats like you are happy, because you can use it as an excuse to disarm people.
The simple fact of the matter is a school is only a building nothing more. But opportunists like you take advantage of the psychology involved. Schools are associated with kids so you are able to take advantage of that to get people emotional and not thinking logically.
People who are logical realize that if a child is murdered at a school it is no more a tragedy than if the were murdered somewhere else. But it is an international news story if a school is involved. I’ll prove this.
When 11 year old Rhys Jones was gunned down in front of a pub walking home from soccer practice by a 16 year old, who used a BMX as his getaway vehicle. It wasn’t an international news story reported around the world. Because it didn’t happen at a school.
Yet I seriously doubt that anyone who learned about his murder reacted by saying thank god he was murdered in front of a pub and not a school. Because if he had been murdered at school it would have been an international tragedy reported around the world.
But since it didn’t happen at a school his murder can’t be milked for maximum emotional impact. Plus it demonstrates that Britain’s gun control laws have not made children safe from being shot by other children who aren’t old enough to drive.
[quote]
People who have easier access to guns are more likely to use guns in a crime. [/quote]
No. Criminals who have access to guns are more likely to use them to commit a crime. They are also more likely to use a gun if they know that their target doesn’t have one of their own.
[quote]
Many of the guns that have been used in these rare but horrifying events in the US were legally owned. [/quote]
Bollocks. America has a black market for guns just like Britain.
[quote]
All of the guns used in the very very rare events in the UK are illegally owned. [/quote]
So you admit that the criminals can get guns through illegal channels. Which means that the only people who are impeded from obtaining guns are non criminals. Which also means that the law gives criminals an unfair advantage.
You say that violent crime is very very rare in Britain yet there are over 400 stabbings every week. I would not call that rare.
[quote]
In fact it is probably safe to say that a lot of kids in the UK are better connected to get illegal guns or drugs than their parents.
Of course they are, whereas everyone in the US has far easier access to guns, which is why they are used more often in criminal and accidental shootings than they are in the UK. [/quote]
So what Switzerland has more guns than Britain and lower crime. America’s crime rates are the result of cultural factors, like the war on drugs. If Britain fought the war on drugs as aggressively as the US it would see much more crime.
Accidents will happen but reasonable people keep them in perspective. ie Recently there have been several air ambulance crashes where victims and rescuers have been killed. But noone is suggesting that we should stop flying air ambulances. Because they save lives, more lives than have been lost in a handful of accidents.
[quote]
This is not rocket science. This is simple common sense. Something which the British are very lacking in.
From a country where they have to print ‘caution contents may be hot’ on their coffee cups in case someone doesn’t realise that coffee is usually served hot. [/quote]
That is called a legal disclaimer. If they don’t do it and some idiot burns themselves they can get sued.
[quote]
People used to be able to own guns before the laws were changed in 1997. The change may not have been as drastic as it would be in the US but it was a change and the results were dramatic. Within five years the number of crimes committed with a gun in the UK doubled.
No they didn’t, this is exactly the point, nobody had legal guns before the change, nobody had legal guns after. Therefore your point is totally ridiculous. [/quote]
If that is true then why did they change the law after Hungerford and Dunblane?
Ryan had been issued a shotgun certificate in 1978, and on 11 December 1986 he was granted a firearms certificate covering the ownership of two pistols. He later applied to have the certificate amended to cover a third pistol, as he intended to sell one of the two he had acquired since the granting of the certificate, and to buy two more. This was approved on 30 April 1987. On 14 July he applied for another variation, to cover two semi-automatic rifles, which was approved on 30 July. At the time of the massacre, he was in licensed possession of the following:
* Zabala shotgun
* Browning shotgun
* Beretta 92 semi-automatic 9 mm pistol
* CZ ORSO semi-automatic .32 pistol
* Chinese "Type 56" copy of Kalashnikov AK-47 7.62x39mm semi-automatic rifle[4]
* M1 Carbine .30 7.62x33mm semi-automatic rifle (a rare "Underwood" model)
Ryan used the Beretta pistol, and the Type 56 and M1 rifles, in the massacre. The CZ pistol was being repaired by a dealer at the time.[5] The Type 56 was purchased from arms dealer Mick Ranger. [4
Eight years after the Hungerford massacre, the Dunblane Massacre was the second time in less than a decade that unarmed civilians had been killed in the UK by a legally licensed gun owner.
[quote]
This a blatantly obvious cause and effect relationship. Disarm everyone and gun crime goes up because the criminals now have nothing to fear. Before the gun ban when there was limited gun ownership the criminals were playing Russian roulette so they were discouraged. Once that changed a free for all ensued.
It obviously isn’t cause and effect because, to repeat myself, nobody had legal guns before the change in the law, nobody had legal guns afterwards. This single point underlines the problem in your ability to follow a logical argument. And you call my arguments weak. You have not been able to claim that a gun is for self defence since the early 1940s. [/quote]
Yes people did have legal guns before the law was changed. The Hungerford and Dunblane massacres were committed with legally owned guns. That is why those events were used as an excuse to change the law.
[quote]
What we are seeing today in Britain is an importation of American gang banging culture. To young kids who are deeply immersed into hip hop’s culture of gang banging there is a certain outlaw mystique to a gangbanger with a gun that Mummy and Daddy don’t have.
So american permissive attitudes to guns have a global effect on gun violence by your own argument. I wasn’t even going that far, but if you like. [/quote]
The modern day minstrel show known as hip hop is in no way representative of America as a whole nor is it representative of African Americans as a whole.
But hip hop does glorify being a gangster. Some of the British hip hoppers have taken to the gangster aspect with a vengeance. Jamaican Reggae can also get nasty too.
[quote]
Those Baikal converted teargas guns that are so ominous and menacing in Britain would get you laughed at in America. A lot of American kids would ask if the Baikal is a toy.
And you are proud of this fact, underlying the fact that you consider a gun to be an essential part of strength. [/quote]
It is nothing to do with pride. It is just the way things are. It is hard for a thug to impress a kid with a Saturday night special when his father has something way better at home.
I don’t consider a gun an essential part of strength. I do consider a gun to be a useful tool for self defense however. A tool which can allow the weak to protect themselves so they can enjoy a life of independence.
[quote]
In Britain traditionally we put more weight in character. [/quote]
Bollocks! Don’t be a tosser. The character of the British is not what it used to be. Besides character isn’t going to stop a bullet.
[quote]
The British welfare system has been a big factor too because it breeds dysfunction. And Britain has added it’s own weird cultural twists to gangbanging.
Whereas in the US where there is less welfare their are also less gangs obviously…Oh. [/quote]
In America there is a lot less welfare dependency. Americans are a lot less dysfunctional than the British because of it.
In Britain every postal code has it’s own gang. So you probably are right, there are more gangs in Britain, fighting over smaller turf.
[quote]
But having all the responsible adults in a community disarmed while kids are able to buy sub machine guns like the converted replica Mac10 is a monumental mistake. Those youth gangs are a force unto themselves that very few adults in the community dare stand up to because of gun control.
It has nothing to do with gun control, if it did, the violence levels would be higher in countries with tight gun control such as Japan and China(as relevent as your Australian example earlier) [/quote]
The Japanese are the worlds most orderly people. But there are a lot of Japanese in America who own guns and enjoy going to the range and shooting them.
In China the criminals with the guns shooting people are the government. Which just proves that the Second Amendment is still relevant, because government tyranny still exists so people need a way to free themselves from it and prevent it. We always have and we always will.
…Cockney Blue: settlers introduced gunpowder on a continent where there was none. They colonized that continent without a previous existing government. Fighting native peoples for land, fighting other settlers to keep their land, and then having to fight corporations and government who, for whatever other reasons, wanted their land required guns, and a lot of them…
…i think it’s perfectly understandable that, from the american POV, you should be able to own any gun you want. Western europeans often think that, in this case, the illness [possession of firearms] comes before the symptoms [gun related violence]. The logical thing to do in order to cure this disease is to fight the symptoms [gun control]…
…but where i, who never even touched a gun in my life, might perceive the normalcy of possession of firearms ridiculous, looking at the subject from the POV of a culture that depended on them for their survival, a gun is to americans as normal as sliced bread…
…i think it’s perfectly understandable that, from the american POV, you should be able to own any gun you want. Western europeans often think that, in this case, the illness [possession of firearms] comes before the symptoms [gun related violence]. The logical thing to do in order to cure this disease is to fight the symptoms [gun control]…
[/quote]
Well if you narrow it down to that yes, without any guns, no gun related crimes.
That is what I do not get about Europe in general, our governments have disarmed their people and committed the greatest atrocities known to mankind in the 20th century and every statistic shows that the average citizen very rarely abuses his right to own a gun.
The lesson most Europeans draw from this:
Oh yeah, let us hand over our weapons to government.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…Cockney Blue: settlers introduced gunpowder on a continent where there was none. They colonized that continent without a previous existing government. Fighting native peoples for land, fighting other settlers to keep their land, and then having to fight corporations and government who, for whatever other reasons, wanted their land required guns, and a lot of them…
…i think it’s perfectly understandable that, from the american POV, you should be able to own any gun you want. Western europeans often think that, in this case, the illness [possession of firearms] comes before the symptoms [gun related violence]. The logical thing to do in order to cure this disease is to fight the symptoms [gun control]…
…but where i, who never even touched a gun in my life, might perceive the normalcy of possession of firearms ridiculous, looking at the subject from the POV of a culture that depended on them for their survival, a gun is to americans as normal as sliced bread…
[/quote]
Thank you, you have pretty much summed up the point that I have been making all along (and in a lot less words.)
[quote] Fighting native peoples for land, fighting other settlers to keep their land, and then having to fight corporations and government who, for whatever other reasons, wanted their land required guns, and a lot of them…
…i think it’s perfectly understandable that, from the american POV, you should be able to own any gun you want. Western europeans often think that, in this case, the illness [possession of firearms] comes before the symptoms [gun related violence]. The logical thing to do in order to cure this disease is to fight the symptoms [gun control]…
…but where i, who never even touched a gun in my life, might perceive the normalcy of possession of firearms ridiculous, looking at the subject from the POV of a culture that depended on them for their survival, a gun is to americans as normal as sliced bread…
[/quote]…to Which Cockney Blue then responded:[quote]
Thank you, you have pretty much summed up the point that I have been making all along (and in a lot less words.)[/quote]
Which completely baffles me now, because I thought that the point you were making all along was that:
So which is it, Cockney? Are American citizens’ perceived need to be armed, and the laws which permit them to be so, a natural and understandable result of their cultural experience (which included several real and dire needs for weapons), as Ephrem suggested, or are they, as you suggested, simply the result of a cynical campaign by an influential lobby group to keep the populace in fear, thereby increasing its own power?
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Or maybe there is so much apathy because normal people can’t identify with the political class. Because the political class is an insular group made up of career politicians who have never done anything else. Which makes them out of touch so they pursue agendas that their class think is important, while ignoring what is best for the common folk.
[/quote]
Shows you know nothing about politics in the UK (which is not surprising as we have already seen that you do not understand your own system), the MPs are in the house of Commons, any elite class would be in the Lords.
The majority of MPs had previously pretty mundane jobs. My local MP when I grew up was a dustbin man. Maggie Thatcher was the daughter of a green grocer.
[quote]The criminal justice system in Britain is a joke. ie The leader of the gang that murdered Gary Newlove was released on bail the morning he murdered Newlove. The reason why he was in jail is because he had committed another assault, while he was again released on bail for committing yet another assault against a person who had a personal protection or restraining order against him.
Britain’s revolving door justice system is constantly releasing violent criminals who immediately re offend. If one reads the British newspapers on a regular basis they will see that stories like Gary Newlove’s are not unique.
It beggars disbelief that the British are so irrational that they are so worried absolutely paranoid about law abiding citizens owning self defensive firearms yet violent criminals with a criminal history of violence get released back into the community where they can reoffend and it is no big deal.
[/quote]
There are big problems in the UK criminal justice system, they are nothing to do with the criminalisation of gun ownership.
Crime reporting is unreliable in all countries. Rape is probably the most under reported violent crime in all countries due to the difficulty of proving consent and the emotional problems attached. So you have no point.
Also you have failed to account for why the crime in the US is worse than the UK, or why you picked Australia out of the blue so do you cede the point that it was because of hapenstance of the table that you found?
[quote] You remind me of a something I learned about people who have serious chemical dependency problems. One of the primary coping strategies they will use to avoid facing up to the realities of their addiction is they use a technique known as Rationalization.
ie An alcoholic will say “I don’t have a drinking problem, if my wife would just get off of my back about my drinking I would be able to do something about it”.
[/quote]
Totally irrelevant unless you are talking about your own rationalisation of the terrible gun crime problems in the US.
Finances of the campaigns
After the referendum, the blog of a journalist at the Folha de S. Paulo revealed the main donators to the two sides:
“No” received practically all its donations from Taurus (R$2.4 million) and the Companhia Brasileira de Cartuchos (Brazilian Cartridge Company) (R$2.6 million), Brazilian manufacturers of guns and ammunition, respectively.
The “no” campaign stayed on top financially, spending only what it received in donations.
“Yes” had as its main contributors the beverage company Ambev (around R$400,000), the Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (R$100,000) and the Prestadora de Serviços Estruturar (R$400,000), with a total of R$2.4 million in donations.
The “yes” campaign had a deficit of R$320,000.
The blog reported that politicians who supported the “no” campaign said they were embarrassed to learn that the campaign had been financed by the arms industries. In fact, the president of the “no” campaign, representative Alberto Fraga (PFL-DF), said: “We didn’t want that. But the amount of money involved was large and we didn’t have any other way to pay for these expenses.” (“Não queríamos isso. Mas o volume de dinheiro era grande e não tivemos como cobrir essas despesas com outras doações”).
So did you lie or were you mistaken previously when you stated that it was indicitive of world opinion?
The way that decisions are taken in the UK is that we vote for representatives to work on our behalf, we are then able to lobby them if we want them to make a point on our behalf. If they do not do what we want, we vote them out.
And not at all because the adverts indicated that the drug gangs were supporting the yes vote?
More uneccessary irrelevant filler that does not relate to any point in the discussion.
Which is why you pick random countries to support your arguments when even given free time to search for stats you cannot come up with ones that support your arguments?
No we hate when it happens anywhere and feel that it is a crime that people like you feel that it is not important enough to change their attitudes and try to trivialise it.
It was an international news story and it was horrific.
anwhere in the world, criminals can get their hands on illegal guns and use them for crime. Had there been open or concealed carry laws in the UK, the little kid would still not have a gun and would still have been shot so again, this is irrelevant and I don’t know why you are wasting space on this discussion with it.
[quote]No. Criminals who have access to guns are more likely to use them to commit a crime.
[/quote]
And if there is easier access to guns then criminals will have more of them so you agree with me. But again, my point is not that we need to change the law in the US it is that the US attitude to guns leads to more gun violence than in other countries.
Here we disagree if this were the case, there would be more shootings in the UK than the US.
This doesn’t change the fact that legally owned guns are used to shoot people illegally in the US and at an alarming rate.
No, criminals and non criminals are impeded from getting guns. And anyone with a gun is a criminal which gives the police an advantage. But again, this is not the argument.
No, I said shootings in the UK are very, very rare. Please try to address the actual point made.
The lost war on drugs is a different argument. I agree that if the US gave up floggin that particular dead horse and actually did the sensible thing (which the UK is also yet to do.) Then we would see a less violent situation in both countries and also in the supplier countries such as Mexico and Columbia.
[quote]Accidents will happen but reasonable people keep them in perspective. ie Recently there have been several air ambulance crashes where victims and rescuers have been killed. But noone is suggesting that we should stop flying air ambulances. Because they save lives, more lives than have been lost in a handful of accidents.
[/quote]
Irrelevant argument yet again!
So there is either a lack of common sense amongst your general population or amongst your legal system.
OK exageration on my part to say nobody, there were a few people with guns and yes their were two incidence in 10 years where legally owned guns were used in shootings. The point was that the second they had taken the guns out of their homes they were breaking the law, had they been intercepted by a police officer the crime would have been prevented.
In the US they would not have commited a crime until the point they pulled the trigger, this makes it a teensy bit harder to prevent the crime. But again, this is not the argument so please, please try to stay on track.
So was that a yes or a no to agreeing that American permissive attitudes to guns effect the rest of the world?
Exactly, you consider it to be a vital part of independence, I don’t.
[quote]Bollocks! Don’t be a tosser. The character of the British is not what it used to be. Besides character isn’t going to stop a bullet.
[/quote]
sorry, forgot the italics on the tongue in cheek comment. Keep forgeting to do that…
Utter rubbish and you know it, also irelevant to the argument.
This is again total bullshit. The only truth is that the UK is smaller.
[quote]
The Japanese are the worlds most orderly people. But there are a lot of Japanese in America who own guns and enjoy going to the range and shooting them.
In China the criminals with the guns shooting people are the government. Which just proves that the Second Amendment is still relevant, because government tyranny still exists so people need a way to free themselves from it and prevent it. We always have and we always will. [/quote]
So you need a gun in the US to protect you from the Chinese government? That’s a very '60s viewpoint.
…i think it’s perfectly understandable that, from the american POV, you should be able to own any gun you want. Western europeans often think that, in this case, the illness [possession of firearms] comes before the symptoms [gun related violence]. The logical thing to do in order to cure this disease is to fight the symptoms [gun control]…
Well if you narrow it down to that yes, without any guns, no gun related crimes.
That is what I do not get about Europe in general, our governments have disarmed their people and committed the greatest atrocities known to mankind in the 20th century and every statistic shows that the average citizen very rarely abuses his right to own a gun.
The lesson most Europeans draw from this:
Oh yeah, let us hand over our weapons to government.[/quote]
…look, i’ve never owned a gun [but i might want to], my father never owned a gun [and i never heard him speak about wanting one], as far as i know his father never owned a gun. In fact, nobody i’ve ever known has owned a gun [not for sport, hunting or otherwise].
So, for lack of a gun culture in Holland, i/we’ve never felt cheated out of the right to possess firearms. The dutch might be the odd one out in Europe, i grant you that, but as far as i’m concerned guncontrol measures in Holland are not infringing on a desire to own guns amongst the general populace…
…that makes it difficult for me to put myself in your, and american shoes, regarding this issue…
G’day to you as well!