There's a Lot Wrong with Britain

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
281

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pushharder wrote:
phaethon wrote:

I know. As an Australian it disgusts me. The other day a group of 5 or 6 of us were talking about gun rights and gun control and one person said that if lots of people had guns and a criminal opened fire then nobody would know who the shooter was as everyone was armed. Instead the law abiding citizens would start shooting other thinking each thinking one of the others was the gunman. And of course it would turn into a huge gunfight.

I was the only person in the group who found that idea to be absurd. Everyone else was circle-jerking about how stupid Americans are. My simple counter: Why aren’t there huge gun fights involving dozens of law abiding people turning on each other in the US then?

Their response: “Wow you are such a brainwashed gun nut” and “I hope one of your family members gets shot. Then you won’t be such a gun nut”. So rather than provide a reasonable argument they wished death upon my family and called me a nut.

Typical of young Australians attitudes on firearms.

Remind your friends that everywhere in the U.S. where gun ownership by common citizens is high and gun control is low, violent crime is relatively low - in fact in many cases it’s downright rare. Inversely, everywhere in the U.S. where gun ownership is severely restricted violent crime is relatively higher. The statistics, the facts, and good common sense refute your buddies’ sillines. Google Gary Kleck.

That is in part because the government allows people in ‘safe’ areas to have guns, but doesn’t trust people to have guns in ‘dangerous’ places like New York.

The safe areas are safe because the armed citizenry can provide their for own security without having to call, beg and wait for a delivery service come and provide such service according to it’s own priorities. They are also safer because when citizens are armed it is easier for the police to get people to talk to them. Overall it makes the police much more effective

In New York it is a free for all where the only protection people have is a handful of over worked police. It is also a place where people can be threatened with retaliation for going to the police and people know the police can’t be there for them and they can’t defend themselves. Which is the same situation they now have in Britain. Gun control makes the police much less effective.

So why has the crime and murder rate dropped significantly since the law was changed?[/quote]

Because now people can defend themselves whereas before they couldn’t. This obviously will come as a surpirse to you but criminals are people who tend to look for instant gratification and don’t engage in long term thinking.

The thought that they might at some point in the future get arrested for a crime and go to jail is too abstract of a concept for them because it requires long term thinking.

On the other hand the thought that “hey that victim I am sizing up right now, might have a gun that she could shoot me with and I could be dead with in the next minute” has enough immediacy to it that their short term instant gratification thinking can process it. They can process it and will react positively to it because it is an instant non-gratification and an immediate consequence to their actions.

282

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:

If owning a gun is such a natural right, why is that right taken away from convicted felons who have served their sentence? Once a sentence has been served they regain their natural rights to liberty, life and property. Why not the right to defend themselves?

The reason is because guns NEED to be regulated. Ownership of a gun is not a natural right, it is a privilege. If it wasn’t, then convicted criminals who’ve done their time and the harmless but mentally insane could not, in good conscience, be denied the natural right of gun ownership.

I can see why these discussions get heated and personal. It’s like explaining life to a 2 year old.

A convicted felon, or someone who is insane has proved that he is a danger to society and is likely to misuse a gun, therefore he isn’t allowed to have them. He could still defend himself and his property, but without a gun he is at a severe disadvantage. And you say, guns need to be regulated. Well they are. Law abiding citizens can purchase a gun, felons can’t. What more do you want?

So if I commit a non violent felony, go to prison, serve my time, show contrition, turn my life around, why do I lose my natural right to defend myself?

Again, like talking to a fucking two year old. You do not lose your right to defend yourself or your property. Read before you respond. You may lose your right to do so with a gun, but different states have different laws regarding non violent felons and gun ownership.[/quote]

But if the gun is a natural right then you shouldn’t lose it. If however it is a privilege that we only trust certain people with then your argument makes perfect sense.

283

[quote]orion wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
orion wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
What the amendment says nothing about though is the right to carry a gun for self defence purposes or to use the gun to defend your property.

That’s where you get nutty. Why would anyone want to give up their natural right to defend themselves or their property? You’ve admitted that you’re not a utopian and you accept that their will always be violence. What would you have to gain by giving up your right to defend yourself from that violence?

How is a gun a natural right? I still don’t get that part. Also I wasn’t arguing about the rights or wrongs of gun ownership I was pointing out that the second amendment doesn’t mention anything either way about self defence.

Don’t act stupid. Defending yourself and your property is a natural right. The second amendment doesn’t have to point out the obvious.

Defending yourself and your property is a natural right, I would agree with that for the most part, what has that got to do with guns?

Well if other people have clubs, you need a club, if they have guns you need a gun.

Ever heard of “never bring a knife to a gunfight”?

To exercise a right you need the means to exercise it.

Next you will argue that the right to life hardly includes the right to oxygen.

Oxygen is a privilege, right?

OK so if the criminals have hand grenades, rocket launchers and helicopters like they do here in Mexico does that mean I should be able to have them?

The government in the UK has nuclear submarines, where do I sign up for mine?

Your argument is clearly ridiculous unless you are saying that anyone should be able to buy anything. If you argue anything else then you come down to where the line should be drawn and guns are not therefore a natural right.

Well at least theoretically I pay for a military that takes care of the big stuff.

If not I would obviously assume it to be my natural right to unite with others to create an organization to protect our life, liberty and property.

Naturally I would keep some guns, just in case this organization, we could call it a “government” gets uppity.

[/quote]

You also pay for a police force so that argument is moot.

284

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

OK so if the criminals have hand grenades, rocket launchers and helicopters like they do here in Mexico does that mean I should be able to have them?

[/quote]

I don’t know about all that, but I bet these kids wished they’d had at least a few handguns on them at the time.

285

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
orion wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
orion wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
What the amendment says nothing about though is the right to carry a gun for self defence purposes or to use the gun to defend your property.

That’s where you get nutty. Why would anyone want to give up their natural right to defend themselves or their property? You’ve admitted that you’re not a utopian and you accept that their will always be violence. What would you have to gain by giving up your right to defend yourself from that violence?

How is a gun a natural right? I still don’t get that part. Also I wasn’t arguing about the rights or wrongs of gun ownership I was pointing out that the second amendment doesn’t mention anything either way about self defence.

Don’t act stupid. Defending yourself and your property is a natural right. The second amendment doesn’t have to point out the obvious.

Defending yourself and your property is a natural right, I would agree with that for the most part, what has that got to do with guns?

Well if other people have clubs, you need a club, if they have guns you need a gun.

Ever heard of “never bring a knife to a gunfight”?

To exercise a right you need the means to exercise it.

Next you will argue that the right to life hardly includes the right to oxygen.

Oxygen is a privilege, right?

OK so if the criminals have hand grenades, rocket launchers and helicopters like they do here in Mexico does that mean I should be able to have them?

The government in the UK has nuclear submarines, where do I sign up for mine?

Your argument is clearly ridiculous unless you are saying that anyone should be able to buy anything. If you argue anything else then you come down to where the line should be drawn and guns are not therefore a natural right.

Well at least theoretically I pay for a military that takes care of the big stuff.

If not I would obviously assume it to be my natural right to unite with others to create an organization to protect our life, liberty and property.

Naturally I would keep some guns, just in case this organization, we could call it a “government” gets uppity.

You also pay for a police force so that argument is moot.[/quote]

Not really, because a bigger threat needs some time to assemble because of its size a mugger does not.

Furthermore as the US supreme court has ruled you have no individual right to be protected by the police.

Finally, my right to defend myself includes my right to defend myself against the police too if necessary.

287

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pushharder wrote:
phaethon wrote:

I know. As an Australian it disgusts me. The other day a group of 5 or 6 of us were talking about gun rights and gun control and one person said that if lots of people had guns and a criminal opened fire then nobody would know who the shooter was as everyone was armed. Instead the law abiding citizens would start shooting other thinking each thinking one of the others was the gunman. And of course it would turn into a huge gunfight.

I was the only person in the group who found that idea to be absurd. Everyone else was circle-jerking about how stupid Americans are. My simple counter: Why aren’t there huge gun fights involving dozens of law abiding people turning on each other in the US then?

Their response: “Wow you are such a brainwashed gun nut” and “I hope one of your family members gets shot. Then you won’t be such a gun nut”. So rather than provide a reasonable argument they wished death upon my family and called me a nut.

Typical of young Australians attitudes on firearms.

Remind your friends that everywhere in the U.S. where gun ownership by common citizens is high and gun control is low, violent crime is relatively low - in fact in many cases it’s downright rare. Inversely, everywhere in the U.S. where gun ownership is severely restricted violent crime is relatively higher. The statistics, the facts, and good common sense refute your buddies’ sillines. Google Gary Kleck.

That is in part because the government allows people in ‘safe’ areas to have guns, but doesn’t trust people to have guns in ‘dangerous’ places like New York.

The safe areas are safe because the armed citizenry can provide their for own security without having to call, beg and wait for a delivery service come and provide such service according to it’s own priorities. They are also safer because when citizens are armed it is easier for the police to get people to talk to them. Overall it makes the police much more effective

In New York it is a free for all where the only protection people have is a handful of over worked police. It is also a place where people can be threatened with retaliation for going to the police and people know the police can’t be there for them and they can’t defend themselves. Which is the same situation they now have in Britain. Gun control makes the police much less effective.

So why has the crime and murder rate dropped significantly since the law was changed?

Because now people can defend themselves whereas before they couldn’t. This obviously will come as a surpirse to you but criminals are people who tend to look for instant gratification and don’t engage in long term thinking.

The thought that they might at some point in the future get arrested for a crime and go to jail is too abstract of a concept for them because it requires long term thinking.

On the other hand the thought that “hey that victim I am sizing up right now, might have a gun that she could shoot me with and I could be dead with in the next minute” has enough immediacy to it that their short term instant gratification thinking can process it. They can process it and will react positively to it because it is an instant non-gratification and an immediate consequence to their actions. [/quote]

But New York has some of the tightest gun laws in the country and they have been getting tighter so surely the crime should be getting worse…

288

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

If anyone is displaying insanity and brainwashing it is the gun control faithful who see nothing wrong with innocent lives being sacrificed for their beliefs.

The flip side is that you have been bombarded with messages that gun = liberty therefore any percieved attack on guns is seen by you as an attack on your liberty.

The only problem with your theory is there is a very solid basis for the idea that guns = liberty. Afterall we did have to fight for many years to gain our liberty. And when we look around the world at countries where the people don’t have arms they don’t have liberty. Just a few months ago we saw democratic protestors in Iran getting gunned down by their government. So you need to stop fronting.

So before guns there was no liberty?[/quote]

Fuck you. You know what I mean. A lot of good people who at the time were considered British subjects lost their lives fighting the British government so they could enjoy freedom and liberty in this country. You are just another typical, shit talking, jealous, Brit who wants to get pissy because unlike the British, the Americans have not forgotten the lessons that they learned from history.

[quote]
To borrow a phrase from the NRA, a gun is just a tool, liberty comes from people not from tools. [/quote]

Typical high minded crap that would appeal to a tosser like you.

We have liberty in this country because people had the tools to fight for it and keep it.

[quote]
Innocent people die regularly due to guns in the US, they are being sacrificed for your beliefs.

According to the US Departmentof Justice there are over 400,000 people alive today because they were able to defend themselves with a gun. There are a lot more people alive than dead because of guns and the places with the highest death tolls are the ones with gun control laws that stop people from defending themselves. If anyone is dying for someone elses beliefs it is people who are dying because gun control has rendered them defenseless.

What a ridiculous statistic? That number is totally meaningless. What timescale are you talking about? how is it estimated? I have a stat for you from a report written in 2000

‘Since 1962, more than one million Americans have died in firearm homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings.’ Trumps your 400,000. [/quote]

Thank you for that. This proves the weakness of your argument. Suicides are totally irrelevant to this discussion. The total US suicide rate is still lower than many of the countries of Europe that have gun control and the number one country for suicides is Japan which has the worlds strictest gun conrol.

The only reason why you would bring such an irrelevancy into this discussion is to pad your figures to make things seem worse than they really are. And because you either think we are too stupid to realize that suicides are irrelevant or you yourself are too stupid to understand that they are irrelevant. So which one is it Cock? Did you think we are stupid or is it because you are stupid?

Without the ability for people to defend themselves we would be adding the 400,000 that are still alive to your figures, the suicide rate would not be any lower it might even be higher and the ghetto’s would be a free for all so there would be even more murders, assaults, rapes and worse gang problems.

[quote]
Personally I think the issue is far deeper than gun control. Whether people have guns or not, crimes happen. What needs to be worked on is the cause of those crimes. This is more important than arguing back and forth over gun control.

There is no realistic chance that within our lifetimes that all of the guns in private ownership in the US will be taken by the government. There is also no realistic chance that the UK will repeal it’s gun laws.

If there is no realistic chance that Britain will repeal it’s gun laws then there is no realistic chance that they can reduce their rising violent crime without even more draconian steps to turn the country into even more of a police state.

The US has plenty of areas that have a rising crime rate so guns are evidently not the answer. [/quote]

Do you have some figures to back that up? Even if you do historically crime rates have been tied to the economy. When times are bad crime goes up. This is nothing new. The rates of increases that the US is seeing are less than Britain despite turning into an Orwellian police state to deal with it.

289

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:

If owning a gun is such a natural right, why is that right taken away from convicted felons who have served their sentence? Once a sentence has been served they regain their natural rights to liberty, life and property. Why not the right to defend themselves?

The reason is because guns NEED to be regulated. Ownership of a gun is not a natural right, it is a privilege. If it wasn’t, then convicted criminals who’ve done their time and the harmless but mentally insane could not, in good conscience, be denied the natural right of gun ownership.

I can see why these discussions get heated and personal. It’s like explaining life to a 2 year old.

A convicted felon, or someone who is insane has proved that he is a danger to society and is likely to misuse a gun, therefore he isn’t allowed to have them. He could still defend himself and his property, but without a gun he is at a severe disadvantage. And you say, guns need to be regulated. Well they are. Law abiding citizens can purchase a gun, felons can’t. What more do you want?

So if I commit a non violent felony, go to prison, serve my time, show contrition, turn my life around, why do I lose my natural right to defend myself?

Again, like talking to a fucking two year old. You do not lose your right to defend yourself or your property. Read before you respond. You may lose your right to do so with a gun, but different states have different laws regarding non violent felons and gun ownership.

But if the gun is a natural right then you shouldn’t lose it. If however it is a privilege that we only trust certain people with then your argument makes perfect sense.

Cock, give it up. You’re looking more foolish than normal. And that’s saying something.
Personal freedom is also a natural right but one that is forfeited upon a felony conviction.

I do agree that people convicted of non-violent felonies and are released from prison after serving their punishment should regain their right to bear arms.

As far as the guy canucking that the “the people” in the 2nd Amendment do not actually refer to the people as stated but rather the National Guard, that argument has been a strained one from the beginning. It has been beaten to a pulp and is a tired and battered one. By that reasoning I guess only the National Guard can “peaceably assemble” as guaranteed by the First Amendment. The right of the people themselves to assemble would then also by extension become a mere “privilege”.

And when the Fourth states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” it also REALLY means that the National Guard cannot be searched illegally.

Go ahead, Froggie Dearest, and continue to chase this one down. You will continue to get whacked by good common sense and basic reading comprehension. You will never get any traction with this argument. You’d be better off to just lobby for the repeal of the Second Amendment.[/quote]

So do you forfeit your personal freedom for the rest of your life when you commit a felony? Or is it actually suspended due to your incarceration? And if a gun is a natural right, why can poor people not claim their guns on social security?

Self defence can be a natural right, a tool cannot be and to state otherwise is clearly ridiculous.

290

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

OK so if the criminals have hand grenades, rocket launchers and helicopters like they do here in Mexico does that mean I should be able to have them?

I don’t know about all that, but I bet these kids wished they’d had at least a few handguns on them at the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tlatelolco_massacre[/quote]

Some of them did, didn’t help them much.

291

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
So before guns there was no liberty?

Fuck you. You know what I mean. A lot of good people who at the time were considered British subjects lost their lives fighting the British government so they could enjoy freedom and liberty in this country. You are just another typical, shit talking, jealous, Brit who wants to get pissy because unlike the British, the Americans have not forgotten the lessons that they learned from history.
[/quote]

So you can’t argue the point and instead decend into insults. Typical.

Again, no atempt to address the point just insults.

No I plucked a random stat to show how meaningless your random stat was. Thank you for agreeing with me.

[quote]

Personally I think the issue is far deeper than gun control. Whether people have guns or not, crimes happen. What needs to be worked on is the cause of those crimes. This is more important than arguing back and forth over gun control.

There is no realistic chance that within our lifetimes that all of the guns in private ownership in the US will be taken by the government. There is also no realistic chance that the UK will repeal it’s gun laws.

If there is no realistic chance that Britain will repeal it’s gun laws then there is no realistic chance that they can reduce their rising violent crime without even more draconian steps to turn the country into even more of a police state.

The US has plenty of areas that have a rising crime rate so guns are evidently not the answer.

Do you have some figures to back that up? Even if you do historically crime rates have been tied to the economy. When times are bad crime goes up. This is nothing new. The rates of increases that the US is seeing are less than Britain despite turning into an Orwellian police state to deal with it. [/quote]

Which is exactly the point I was making, crime rates are not related to gun control they are related to poverty and education. You totally agree with me on this but still want to scream on about the UK being an Orwellian Police state (which also implies to me that you haven’t actually understood any Orwell.)

293

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

…Self defence can be a natural right, a tool cannot be and to state otherwise is clearly ridiculous.

What is clearly ridiculous is saying self defense is a right but to employ tools in that regard is a privilege.[/quote]

That.

Because to claim that a right exists and yet deny people the tools to exercise it rings hollow.

294

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

…Self defence can be a natural right, a tool cannot be and to state otherwise is clearly ridiculous.

What is clearly ridiculous is saying self defense is a right but to employ tools in that regard is a privilege.[/quote]

That’s one of the best statements for gun rights I’ve ever heard!

296

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

So do you forfeit your personal freedom for the rest of your life when you commit a felony? Or is it actually suspended due to your incarceration? And if a gun is a natural right, why can poor people not claim their guns on social security?

Self defence can be a natural right, a tool cannot be and to state otherwise is clearly ridiculous.[/quote]

Your argument style is an obvious attempt at mockery, but when the case you are arguing against is stated in language that even a 3 year old could understand and you still pretend like you don’t get it, you are the one who ends up looking rediculous.

297

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

Excuse me, I went to a state run school and scraped together enough education to get into a decent university on a grant assisted place.

Cutting poverty is not about giving money to poor people as welfare payments. You are right about the risks of that. Cutting poverty is about having the right financial policies in place to ensure that people are not exploited by financial institutions and that the right grants and funding are in place to allow people to develop businesses and improve impoverished areas.[/quote]

With this one you show your mindset. You think government is the answer. In order for the government to be giving grants it has to be taking money away from people through taxes. Because of processing fees, mismanagement, corruption, that system will always be much less efficient than merely lowering taxes which gets the government out of the way so motivated entreprenurial people can save their own money and do it themselves.

Your life in Britain has conditioned you to believe that dependence on the government is preferrable to independence. America was founded on Independence and Americans are an Indepedent people we even have a national holiday that is dedicated to Independence. This is why the British and a lot of Europeans for that matter resent Americans so much because they are deeply jealous of Americans and their Independence.

The reason why Europeans and liberals have such an intense hatred for the second amendment is because firearms enable people to be able to Independently provide their own security instead of being disabled and totally dependent on the government, like they are in Britain.

[quote]
Yes there will always be violence in the world but the amount of it can be cut by improving the conditions that people live in.[/quote]

298

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

…Self defence can be a natural right, a tool cannot be and to state otherwise is clearly ridiculous.

What is clearly ridiculous is saying self defense is a right but to employ tools in that regard is a privilege.[/quote]

Why arbitrarily choose one tool and equate it with freedom, that is what is clearly ridiculous.

299

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

…Self defence can be a natural right, a tool cannot be and to state otherwise is clearly ridiculous.

What is clearly ridiculous is saying self defense is a right but to employ tools in that regard is a privilege.

Why arbitrarily choose one tool and equate it with freedom, that is what is clearly ridiculous.[/quote]

You can use a melee weapon, if you want.

300

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

…the point I was making, crime rates are not related to gun control they are related to poverty and education.

I’m not getting this. You state “crime rates are not related to gun control” but you still insist on doing the rooster strut on this thread crowing about how necessary gun control is and how guns are unnecessary for self defense.

You arguments are circular. Your reasoning is brittle. And you still haven’t answered my questioned posted two days ago, "If you know that AND in your misguided opinion it doesn’t affect the crime rate AND you don’t live here, never have and likely never will, why does this issue consume you so??[/quote]

Your mind is evidently viagra addled again Push. I have not been crowing about gun control on this thread. The thread was about the boy scouts and pen knives. The various gun nuts on here started getting a hard on about how the UK had high crime due to their gun laws and I said that was ridiculous.

I have not on this thread stated that I feel gun laws should be tightened anywhere. Actually what I have stated is that they are pretty much irrelevent to overall crime levels.

Of course more people get shot if there are guns around but doesn’t mean crime goes down if there are not guns around.

All I did say is that the 2nd amendment doesn’t address personal protection in any way and therefore is not really relevent to the discussion.