[quote]Varqanir wrote:
ephrem wrote:
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…
…to Which Cockney Blue then responded:
Thank you, you have pretty much summed up the point that I have been making all along (and in a lot less words.)
Which completely baffles me now, because I thought that the point you were making all along was that:
…the gun laws in the US have nothing to do with people being able to protect themselves and are more to do with a small but influential group of people who use scare tactics to promote their own selfish agenda.
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]
If you go back to some of my earliest posts on this thread I stated that I feel that US attitudes to guns are a result of history and culture and that had I grown up in the US I might share them
My point is that these attitudes are now outdated and of course I base this on my own cultural upbringing.
…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.
…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…
[/quote]
I am in the same boat from a different European country. The only people I know that owned guns were farmers who used them to shoot rabbits etc. And some friends who owned military equipment that is used in film making.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…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.
…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…
I am in the same boat from a different European country. The only people I know that owned guns were farmers who used them to shoot rabbits etc. And some friends who owned military equipment that is used in film making.[/quote]
So, what was the reason for the UK´s gun ban then?
[quote]orion wrote:
So, what was the reason for the UK´s gun ban then?
[/quote]
They were thinking of the children.
“For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own, for the children, and the children yet unborn.” --Rod Serling
…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.
…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…
I am in the same boat from a different European country. The only people I know that owned guns were farmers who used them to shoot rabbits etc. And some friends who owned military equipment that is used in film making.
So, what was the reason for the UK´s gun ban then?
[/quote]
…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.
…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…
[/quote]
What if the Americans are right and it is not particularly a good idea not to want to own any guns?
[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]
I think some other factors that you should also bear in mind is the experiences of the Americans leading up to the revolution and then the actual revolution.
One of the observations of the founding fathers was that people have a tolerance for pain. So when a government starts acting tyrannical it can usually get away with quite a lot before the people decide to act and do something about it.
What followed from that observation is that when the people are disarmed and therefore have no means of rebellion that threshold of pain is much higher than it would be if they were armed and had the ability to do something. When the people are disarmed thing have to be so bad that even the military rebels. When the people are armed they don’t have to wait for the military.
Then there is the actual experience of the revolutionary war. On the government side there was the British Empire’s Army and Navy. The British were well funded and the army was made up of highly trained professional soldiers with the best equipment who were the most fearsome fighting force in the world. The Royal Navy was an even more formidable.
On the American side there was initially a ragtag band of untrained farmers who had no military training whatsoever. They had to beg, borrow and steal to keep the army going. The winter they spent in Valley Forge was a nightmare. The battles against the British did not go well. Because they did not have the necessary supplies and training. That is why the war of independence lasted all the way from 1775 - 1783. It was a long bloody hard fought war that needed foreign intervention to finally win.
Half the troops at the Battle of Yorktown where Cornwallis surrendered were French regulars sent by the king of France. In fact the French support was so extensive that it bankrupted the French and caused the French revolution.
That is why the Second Amendment specifically states that the people shall have the right to form militias so they can practice the military arts to be prepared and they shall also have the right to stockpile the necessary weapons and supplies so they won’t have to go begging for them from others.
But also so the government will think twice before they put the people in that position again.
The Second Amendment has great symbolism for Americans because it underscores the fact that the government is the slave of the people. Not the other way around.
…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. [/quote]
Or in other words the Utopian dream.
Never mind the fact that even prisoners in Jail have been known to make guns. Somehow they will make their Utopian dram come true in a free society. Or perhaps we shall have to sacrifice free societies in order to have Utopia.
[quote]
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. [/quote]
Exactly. The historical record of European governments is scary. Yet they all demand that the people put blind faith in them to remain trustworthy, while telling the people that they can’t trust them.
[quote]
The lesson most Europeans draw from this:
Oh yeah, let us hand over our weapons to government. [/quote]
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
ephrem wrote:
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…
…to Which Cockney Blue then responded:
Thank you, you have pretty much summed up the point that I have been making all along (and in a lot less words.)
Which completely baffles me now, because I thought that the point you were making all along was that:
…the gun laws in the US have nothing to do with people being able to protect themselves and are more to do with a small but influential group of people who use scare tactics to promote their own selfish agenda.
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]
Yet when people like Cockney hysterically whinge that the schools are going to get shot up or we are all going to have accidents or commit suicide that isn’t to be considered fear mongering.
Not only that but if anything plays into the hands of a “small but influential group of people who use scare tactics to promote their own selfish agenda” it would be disarming the majority of the people so they can be much easier for them to control.
Cockney Blues posts on this thread have been a classic case of pots and kettles.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
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.
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]
No. Britain’s class system applies very much to politics. The vast majority of British politicians are very much career politicians who have no significant experience in life other than being politicians. The only reason why most of them did mundane jobs was to pay the bills while they were waiting to get into government.
ie Labour front bencher Harriet Harperson the minister for Equality is the niece of the Earl of Longford. Former Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was her cousin.
[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.
There are big problems in the UK criminal justice system, they are nothing to do with the criminalisation of gun ownership. [/quote]
You are crazy. The criminal justice system is not locking up violent criminals who are a threat to society. Instead it just lets them loose upon society to commit more crimes. Which increases the peoples need to be able to defend themselves.
[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.
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]
There is better reporting in the US than Britain that is why it higher.
Australia has very similar laws to Britain but is a similar size to the US. You see one big difference between Britain and Australia is if someone is being threatened they can move two thousand miles away and still be in the same country. In Britain there is nowhere to run. So Australia and the US have more accurate crime reporting
[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”.
Totally irrelevant unless you are talking about your own rationalisation of the terrible gun crime problems in the US. [/quote]
Not at all. You keep rationalizing every fact you are confronted with. There are specific quantifiable reasons why some parts of the US experience a lot of crime while most of the country experiences very little crime.
[quote]
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.
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”). [/quote]
Brazil has a population of 200 million people. A $5 million dollar advertising budget to reach that many people is not a lot. The EU spent more than that in it’s failed attempt to get the Irish to vote in favor of the EU Constitution and there are only 5 million people in Ireland.
The yes campaign spent $2.7 million and one of the sponsers was the CBF. Maybe you don’t realize it, but Football is the national sport in Brazil. This gives the CBF the ability to have a significant impact with a modest advertising budget.
[quote]
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.
So did you lie or were you mistaken previously when you stated that it was indicitive of world opinion? [/quote]
You are the one who keeps claiming that he is speaking for the whole world. Yet you have provided not one poll that supports you. I on the other hand have presented referendum results from one of the worlds largest countries.
If anyone here is lying it is you with your ridiculous claim that the entire world favors gun control.
[quote]
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.
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. [/quote]
No the way decisions are made in the UK is the commoners elect a party of political class elites who make promises that they don’t intend to keep. Then when they get into power they proceed to ignore the peoples wishes and do whatever they feel like.
ie. I2005 the Labour party said that they would hold a referendum on the EU constitution. They never held the referendum and an essentially unelected Prime Minister had to sneak into Lisbon to sign it.
The reaction of the British people as was to be expected was spineless, non existent and demonstrative of no character.
[quote]
Brazil does have a lot of crime, that is why Brazilians voted to keep gun ownership legal, so they can protect themselves.
And not at all because the adverts indicated that the drug gangs were supporting the yes vote? [/quote]
Since it is a lot easier for gangs to threaten and kill unarmed people it makes a lot of sense that the drug gangs would have supported the yes vote. It is also quite obvious that if the drug gangs have no problem getting ahold of drugs to sell that they would have no problem getting ahold of guns either.
[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.
More uneccessary irrelevant filler that does not relate to any point in the discussion. [/quote]
Not at all. We are people who are just like them. We share the same genes. We face the same issues of crime and the ever present threat of government tyranny that all people face. We have come to the same conclusion as to the correct answer.
[quote]
We have heard your arguments before. They are weak or flawed, yet when we point out the flaws you choose to ignore them.
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? [/quote]
I have presented you with plenty of statistics. Yet you have still not presented election results to back up your claim that you are speaking for the entire world.
[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.
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. [/quote]
So you feel that anyone who doesn’t agree that they should have no defenseless against crime and government tyranny is a thought criminal. Interesting.
If you feel so bad about it happening anywhere why do you and your compatriots keep going on about schools?
If anyone is trivializing it is you. School shootings account for an extremely small fraction of all violent crimes but they are repeatedly brought up by gun control nuts in order to fear monger and push their agenda.
[quote]
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.
It was an international news story and it was horrific. [/quote]
No it wasn’t. How could it be horrific if it didn’t happen in a school?
[quote]
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.
anwhere in the world, criminals can get their hands on illegal guns and use them for crime. [/quote]
So you freely admit that the criminals can get guns. But despite that, you don’t want law abiding citizens to be able to confront them with guns of their own
[quote]
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]
Obviously an 11 year old wouldn’t be packing. However there were adults in the area. If the gunman’s calculus had to include the possibility of a third party opening up on him as he gunned down the 11 year old he might not have been so quick to shoot. But that wasn’t my point anyway.
My point again is that a school aged kid shot and killed another school aged kid. The law that was trumpeted as being something to keep school children safe from being shot failed.
There have been scores of unnecessary adult deaths because of a law that has failed to achieve it’s stated purpose.
A law that prevents adults from having self defensive firearms has failed to prevent a 16 year old criminal getting a gun and killing an 11 year old. If you can’t see something wrong with that picture there is something seriously wrong with you.
The Rhys Jones case is most relevant to this discussion. But you don’t want to debate it because you know you will come out the loser.
[quote]
No. Criminals who have access to guns are more likely to use them to commit a crime.
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. [/quote]
I have news for you. It is much easier to buy guns off of the black market than it is to go through the FBI background check.
You don’t know what you are talking about when it comes to violence in the US. There are plenty of areas in this country that are just as safe as Switzerland and have just as many guns.
When you talk about all the violence in this country what you are really referring to is just a small handful of ghetto areas that are populated by a minority group that has had a lot of bad things done to it and have a lot of problems as a result.
[quote]
They are also more likely to use a gun if they know that their target doesn’t have one of their own.
Here we disagree if this were the case, there would be more shootings in the UK than the US. [/quote]
What is the case here is there are criminals who are shot law abiding citizens who are defending themselves.
In the UK all the shootings are victims of crime. Let’s also not forget the 22,000 stabbing victims last year and the 5000 glassing victims.
[quote]
Bollocks. America has a black market for guns just like Britain.
This doesn’t change the fact that legally owned guns are used to shoot people illegally in the US and at an alarming rate.[/quote]
Bullshit. The majority of guns used in crime 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.
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. [/quote]
Bullshit. The only people who are kept from owning guns are the ones who obey the law. And people who would not otherwise break the law are forced to become criminals if they want to be able to defend their lives. It is bullshit.
[quote]
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.
No, I said shootings in the UK are very, very rare. Please try to address the actual point made. [/quote]
They are not as rare as they used to be before the 1997 gun ban. Plus the British compensate for a lack of guns by using other deadly weapons that honest people can’t defend themselves from.
[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.
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]
Like most other laws Britain does not enforce it’s drug laws with anywhere near the ferocity that America does. That is why drugs a much cheaper in the UK which makes the drug trade less competitive.
[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.
Irrelevant argument yet again! [/quote]
If accidents are irrelevant why do you keep bringing them up?
[quote]
That is called a legal disclaimer. If they don’t do it and some idiot burns themselves they can get sued.
So there is either a lack of common sense amongst your general population or amongst your legal system. [/quote]
Nothing like Britain’s. But that was just a legal disclaimer because someone spilled hot coffee on themselves sued Mcdonalds and won. So stop being a retard.
[quote]
If that is true then why did they change the law after Hungerford and Dunblane?
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.
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. [/quote]
Your whole argument has been based upon serious exaggerations.
Nobody knew who owned a gun and who didn’t. That uncertainty caused a lot of criminals to hesitate and limited crime. Once the limiter of legal gun ownership was revoked the crime rate took off. More people are getting shot and stabbed in Britain now than ever before.
[quote]
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 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.
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.
So was that a yes or a no to agreeing that American permissive attitudes to guns effect the rest of the world? [/quote]
What permissive attitudes? The vast majority of American gun owners handle their guns responsibly.
[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.
Exactly, you consider it to be a vital part of independence, I don’t. [/quote]
Are you crazy? In Britain the people are completely dependent upon the government for protection and security because they are not allowed to do it for themselves. Since the government isn’t too interested in taking care of them they are fucked.
No. The has sought to systematically render the British people as dependent upon it for everything in their lives as it possibly can.
The Labour government is committed to achieving abslute control over the British people. Welfare dependency is one rung of the ladder, security dependency is another. The way things are going they will eventually have a database recording everyone’s emails, phone calls, movements, DNA etc… The British will just sheepishly go along with it because they are a nation of spineless sniveling cowards who don’t have the stones to stand up for themselves.
[quote]
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.
This is again total bullshit. The only truth is that the UK is smaller. [/quote]
‘Postcode gangs’ stalk East End
London’s East End youngsters are being intimidated by gangs - based on which postcode they live in.
Teenagers marked as “E5” or “E9” risk being attacked for straying into the wrong area.
Simply crossing to the other side of a street which borders two postcodes could end in violence.
Teenagers Biko and Wez have to deal with the situation every day.
They are “E5” - and walking down the wrong road into neighbouring E9 could get them into trouble.
[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.
So you need a gun in the US to protect you from the Chinese government? That’s a very '60s viewpoint. [/quote]
You know damn well what my point was. Besides the Tiananmen Square massacre did not happen in the sixties dumbass.
Tiananmen square disproves your absurd theory that government tyranny no longer exists in this world so we can now let our guard down and surrender our only defense.
So you can’t come up with anything on your own, other than to reference a bunch of liberals pissing and moaning.
The mail in the UK is shorthand for xenaphobic rabble rousing. It’s a joke paper, deal with it.[/quote]
You answer is not good enough. In Britain anyone who simply disagrees with the Labour governments policy of unrestricted immigration and anti-white discrimination is slandered as a racist or called a xenophobe.
…i went on a little road trip last september, to the Ardennes, and wanted to make a detour into Germany where, as far as i understand it, small caliber handguns are sold over the counter, and get me one. I never got round to it on that trip, but still would like to buy one…
…but, as far as i’m concerned, there aren’t pressing reasons for the dutch to be able to own guns. I’ve been a doorman for eight years, four of which spent on the Rembrandt square in Amsterdam, and during that time i’ve never encountered a weapon of any kind. Guns aren’t prolific over here, and the chance that you are mugged on the street by someone carrying one is small. I have never been mugged, robbed or threatened. I do not know of someone who has been mugged or robbed at gunpoint [or with any weapon]…
…what reason is there, at this point in time, besides wanting a gun just for the coolness factor, to own a firearm in Holland at the moment? Actual reasons, not what might happen in the future…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…what reason is there, at this point in time, besides wanting a gun just for the coolness factor, to own a firearm in Holland at the moment? Actual reasons, not what might happen in the future…
A teaching student was just inches from death after she was glassed in the face by a drunken woman.
Laura Clarke, 21, was dancing with a friend in a city centre club when she was left scarred for life by 23-year-old Lisa Scraggs.
One of the cut narrowly missed her left eye, while a second was just an inch from her jugular vein.
Laura, a teaching student at Manchester Metropolitan University, said: 'The ambulanceman said if the wound had been an inch lower it could have hit the vein and it could have killed me.
