There's a Lot Wrong with Britain

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
361

[quote]300andabove wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Edit: That stated, even though crime in London is worse at the moment than NY, London is still a pretty safe place. Your chances of being hit by violent crime are very low in both. And most violent crime is between drunk people so guns are probably not a good idea!

Come now GUN crime in London is higher than in US States ???

Are you on drugs ?

The Saturday night fight night after a load of drink yes but thats harmless.

Your students getting Pa’s gun and shooting up a school NOT so harmless.

Your presuming ALL crime is crime. Theres a MAJOR difference between some rough and tumble and shooting people.

Add to that our Nation drinks FAR to much, adding guns to the mix = utter chaos.

As for histrionics as was stated we are a passionate people.

No offense but the US lecturing any country on how to run it’s own boggles my mind, ye have enough problems than debating ours thank you.[/quote]

I didn’t lecture shit to anybody. You came into this thread and posted up a bunch of barely literate hysterics. And yes I know you were responding directly to Cockney but your post was a general one meant for everyone. You also opened the door to retort by calling the US “one of the most VIOLENT places on earth”.

The survey in question that I posted was considering VIOLENT crime, not white collar. Assault, rape, murder, you know.

362

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

I didn’t lecture shit to anybody. You came into this thread and posted up a bunch of barely literate hysterics. And yes I know you were responding directly to Cockney but your post was a general one meant for everyone.

The survey in question that I posted was considering VIOLENT crime, not white collar. Assault, rape, murder, you know. [/quote]

And that differentiates me from any other poster in here how ?

Assualt = Saturday Night Fight night or at any Soccer game.

Every club has its “association” which is where i would wager 30-40% of the assaults stem from.

Maybe i didn’t make alot of sense earlier, but it boils down to:

Cameras = Good

Shooting = Bad

The day England puts metal detectors into our schools THEN i’ll be worried.

363

[quote]300andabove wrote:
Aragorn wrote:

I didn’t lecture shit to anybody. You came into this thread and posted up a bunch of barely literate hysterics. And yes I know you were responding directly to Cockney but your post was a general one meant for everyone.

The survey in question that I posted was considering VIOLENT crime, not white collar. Assault, rape, murder, you know.

And that differentiates me from any other poster in here how ?

Assualt = Saturday Night Fight night or at any Soccer game.

Every club has its “association” which is where i would wager 30-40% of the assaults stem from.

Maybe i didn’t make alot of sense earlier, but it boils down to:

Cameras = Good

Shooting = Bad

The day England puts metal detectors into our schools THEN i’ll be worried.
[/quote]

I will confine my reply to simply saying that the study was talking about all violent crime, guns and all other weapons included. The total violent crime is higher in England than the US, and we are not even in the top 10. I reiterate that I prefer to live in my violent place rather than your violent place, especially once the home invasion rate is taken into account. I believe you chaps may lead the world in that category.

Your response was astoundingly simplistic and I regret to say has weakened my opinion on the British command of the english language, in addition to showing incredibly weak reasoning.

364

[quote]300andabove wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Cockney–

This was a poster from London I found. This scares me. I know it’s all dramatic and shit, but still…it’s creepy isn’t it?

I can only think that someone did that one for a joke and it was put through by mistake. It is really sinister.

I’m all for more cameras and shit.

I don’t commit crime so i don’t have to worry… i REALLY don’t get your reaction to some cameras ???
[/quote]

I wouln’t have so much of an issue with them if they worked

365

[quote]300andabove wrote:
Aragorn wrote:

I didn’t lecture shit to anybody. You came into this thread and posted up a bunch of barely literate hysterics. And yes I know you were responding directly to Cockney but your post was a general one meant for everyone.

The survey in question that I posted was considering VIOLENT crime, not white collar. Assault, rape, murder, you know.

And that differentiates me from any other poster in here how ?

Assualt = Saturday Night Fight night or at any Soccer game.

Every club has its “association” which is where i would wager 30-40% of the assaults stem from.

Maybe i didn’t make alot of sense earlier, but it boils down to:

Cameras = Good

Shooting = Bad

The day England puts metal detectors into our schools THEN i’ll be worried.
[/quote]

Lol at trusting any government with the power the UK government has now. Double lol at trusting those narcisstic, corrupt, hypocrites that are labor MP’s with the kind of power they have. I wouldn’t trust Gordon Brown with a 24 colour crayon set. They have shown time and time again they love to make rules for everyone else, just as long as they don’t have to live by them.

The country is so far down the road to tyranny it’s sad.

366

[quote]300andabove wrote:
i REALLY don’t get your reaction to some cameras ???
[/quote]

It’s the presumption that WE’RE the ones that need to be watched!! Who is watching them? That’s what I want to know.

367

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu 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.

Nuclear Submarines? So you are still resorting to over the top histrionics. What is even worse is you point out the complete failure of gun control in Mexico and then present more of your histrionics in the form of a question.

In Mexico it would do a lot to redress the balance of power between the people and the criminals if they loosened up their gun control laws.

How is it histrionics? Where do you draw the line as to what arms someone has the right to bear? Either you allow them free rein to use whatever they want or you decide that some weapons are not practical for the public. If you decide that some weapons are not practical, where is that line?

Personally I don’t have a problem with private gun ownership as long as that person can show that they are responsible and well trained enough to handle the gun.

We expect people to pass a test before they drive on the roads but in some states I can just wander into a store and buy a gun. That doesn’t make sense to me/[/quote]

What you are using is a typical tactic. Since you can’t form a cogent argument that can stand on it’s own merits, you try to put words into my mouth that I have not said. You putting wild over the top exaggerations out there and then trying to play it off as if that is what I am suggesting in order to make my suggestions sound crazy and irresponsible. Making wild exaggerations like that is histrionics.

So you don’t have a problem with gun ownership if it gives the government away to involve itself in peoples lives.

You have to get a drivers license because driving a car is a priviledge not a right. It makes sense that rights do not require licensing.

368

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

…We expect people to pass a test before they drive on the roads but in some states I can just wander into a store and buy a gun. That doesn’t make sense to me/

It’s readily apparent that a lot of things don’t.

You’re either willfully blind or incredibly stupid. I really don’t think it’s the latter - to your credit, I guess.

So do you feel that people should be able to drive on the roads without a license and with no testing or training? If not, why not?[/quote]

Because people use cars and trucks on a daily basis. It makes sense that if people are not safe to be driving we should regulate that.

369

[quote]Sifu wrote:

You have to get a drivers license because driving a car is a priviledge not a right. [/quote]

No its not.

371

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu drooled:
When this country was founded we still had a frontier. People on the frontier were living on their own far away from any settlements. They had to be able to protect themselves from Injuns, brigands and wild animals. The need could arise without any warning at any time of the day and people would be armed 24/7.

Sifu also drooled:

You need to qualify that statement because you are making absolutely no sense. What does “they were living in a very different time” mean? Other than our modern technology what is different?

Way to answer your own question!

Then I will take it from your answer that you concede that I am right and that the worn out cliche of “times were very different then” is completely false.

So you can’t even follow your own arguments now? You talk about how different it was at the founding then ask me what the difference is. [/quote]

You are so full of shit. There are still people living in rural ares who are far far away from anyone. There are people out in the Plains States who have to get into a car and drive a hundred miles just to get to the nearest town. The only way that they can secure their homes and protect their families is by arming themselves. There are even places in Britain where people are in rural areas are far removed from their neighbors or any help that could be called for from a far away town. ie the famous farmer Martin who was sent to jail for defending himself from a violent home invasion.

Also there still are people who travel form one area to another. It isn’t too hard for someone from one part of the country to unwittingly find themselves in a bad area when they are traveling to another part of the country. Even Britain has areas that would be very dangerous for an unsuspecting tourist to end up in.

Last but not least. Just recently in Tehran we saw peaceful people protesting for democracy get gunned down by their government! So even government Tyranny still exists in this world.

So tell us Cock, what has changed?

[quote]
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.

What’s the matter Cock can’t you understand plain English? Bear means carry. And securing yourself in a state of freedom with firearms means that you can use them to defend yourself. It would make absolutely no sense to give the right to use firearms to secure your free state if you cannot use them.

  1. To carry from one place to another; transport.

what about the other 13 definitions on that page. Anyway the point was about self defence which is not mentioned in the amendment.

Well I am quite certain that “bear arms” wasn’t refferring to the arms of a bear. The Supreme court ruled in the Heller case that the second amendment does grant a right to self defense so again you are wrong.

No I am not wrong, it doesn’t say that the second amendment refers to self defence, it says that the second amendment doesn’t infringe on any pre existing rights to arms for self defence. That is subtly different. Also, they specifically state that there should be an allowance to restrict certain types of arms and arms to certain types of people.

There are also still a lot of far more erudite legal minds than mine in the US who feel that the case has actually created a federal constitutional right that didn’t previously exist. [/quote]

The Supreme court says you are wrong. Another reason why you are wrong is because in addition to the US constitution there are also 50 state constitutions some of which specifically state self defense is a right. Here are some examples.

Alabama Constitution Article I, Section 26
That the great, general and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare… That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

Connecticut Constitution Article I, Section 15
Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

Delaware Constitution Article I, Section 20
A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.

Florida Constitution Article I, Section 8(a)
The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.

Michigan Constitution Article I, Section 6
Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.

Pennsylvania Constitution Article I, Section 21
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

372

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

No, now answer my question. Do you think that a person should require training, testing and a license before driving a car on the roads?[/quote]

How many times do we have to explain this to you? As I have told you before in previous threads. Driving a car on the road is a priviledge not a right. The second amendment makes gun ownership a right. If a right is subject to licensing it is no longer a right it is merely a priviledge. That is why none of our constitutional rights have clauses requiring people to prove they qualify to recieve them.

ie Freedom of speech. Because we have freedom of speech as a right you were not required to prove that you aren’t an idiot before you were allowed to come on this board and bludgeon us with your idiocy.

Also as has been pointed out to you driving a car and the right to bear arms are very different.

373

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Can someone give me a quote from the founders, explaining that the right to keep and bear arms was meant for those approved by, and registered with, the government?

Edit: Honestly, I don’t understand how there’s still an argument after one of the parties conceded that the founders would say that a man had the right to K&BA (too lazy) in the defense of his property. That’s game over.

The argument is whether they would still support that right in today’s world. Actually, the argument was whether the scout association in the UK has banned knives and this was answered by posting a document from the scout organisation stating no in about the 5th post. Does seem to have slightly gone off track since then.[/quote]

You aren’t going to kill this thread off by limiting it to the Boy Scouts Cock. The name of this thread is “There’s a Lot Wrong with Britain” so it is perfectly reasonable for us to use this as a general dicussion to discuss the myriad of things that are wrong with Britain.

The founding fathers would very much support the right in todays world. There is still Tyranny and there is till crime. So the need still exists.

Your todays world arguement is a load of crap. I have repeatedly challenged you to qualify that statement and you have repeatedly failed to do so because you can’t back it up with facts.

374

[quote]aussie486 wrote:
pushharder wrote:

What are you, the fuckin Question Czar? You dip your scepter and we here at TN are obligated to answer you but you will do likewise in your own good time?

Bingo, now you have it, you and sifu have far more patience than me. Everything that Sifu has posted in re to England can be applied to Australia as well, we are going down the shit chute as well.

[/quote]

Besides Britain I also have quite a few relatives living in Australia. I see the politics over there have a lot in common with the UK. That is why I bother to argue these issues with Cockney and others. So it isn’t really a matter of being patient.

For the most part Cockney et al. just regurgitate the same old cliches that are common currency in those countries. Because almost noone over there has spent a lot of time living in the US and been able to get a real accurate picture of what it is really like here they don’t know how to challenge the cliches.

If you read my replies you can see that there are legitimate counters to his cliches and once I put them out there he can’t come back with anything logical that disputes what I have stated, so he starts resorting to histrionics.

My whole reason for continuing to argue with him is so open minded people like you can learn the counter arguements so that when you encounter that dogma over there you will have the neccessary understanding to be able to intelligently counter it.

Another reason is because there are people over here who will use the same comparisons of America to other countries to argue for gun control here. Or they say other countries see what we are doing as wrong so why don’t we? That’s why you won’t see me saying you’re not from America so you should shut up about America, like some of the other posters here do.

375

[quote]300andabove wrote:
So what if there is cameras everywhere ? They don’t do bloody anything as no one is watching them ! Murder is UP in our country, convictions are DOWN. Hurrah ![/quote]

Because the actual effectiveness of CCTV really isn’t the issue. The real problem is the conditioning of peoples minds from an early age to be accepting of and comfortable with constant government monitoring and control.

The mentality of the British is that the government should extensively control the people while the people should have limited control over the government. The British do not have a healthy distrust of government so they are incrementing their way into an ever more controlling police state.

[quote]
And for the Gun laws HELL NO would i allow people guns in this country. USA is one of the most VIOLENT places on earth… ever stop and think it may be your GUN LAWS that are the problem ? NO-ONE should own a gun for gods sake, human behaviors is FAR to erratic at best, all it needs is one crazy excuse and BAM someones dead. [/quote]

Scotland is the most violent country in Europe. No the USA is not one of the most violent places on Earth. In a lot of ways it’s less violent than Britain. Just because they have less guns that doesn’t stop the British from finding other ways to perpetrate some vicious violence. ie Glassing. There are over 5000 glassings a year in the UK. In the US glassing is so rare that you never hear about it.

In Australia a country which is closely related to the UK,the State of New South Wales have had over a 25 percent rise in the rate of glassings in the last 5 years.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/audio/2008/09/30/2377996.htm

[quote]
As for “Mufasa’s” Islamic law is coming in, the BNP will reach power in the next 10 years. Watch this post because it WILL happen. That or all out crazy riots, the amount of loonies we are letting into our country went out of control YEARS ago. [/quote]

Why did you have to mention the BNP? Now Cockney is going to get his knickers in a knot. You should have seen how he whinged earlier this year when I pointed out they were gaining support and would be the future of the country or it was going to become an Islamic state. Five months later when they have two MEP’s all he could do is try to rationalize why they won and spin it as not really showing a gain in their support.

I think you are wrong about ten years. If Cameron makes it next June and that is a big IF because of next months vote, he is only going to get one term to straighten things out or he is done. Just remember that I wrote here that a lot can happen in the next 8 months.

The EU is an undemocratic disaster, that takes much and gives very little in return.

376

[quote]Sifu wrote:
aussie486 wrote:
pushharder wrote:

What are you, the fuckin Question Czar? You dip your scepter and we here at TN are obligated to answer you but you will do likewise in your own good time?

Bingo, now you have it, you and sifu have far more patience than me. Everything that Sifu has posted in re to England can be applied to Australia as well, we are going down the shit chute as well.

Besides Britain I also have quite a few relatives living in Australia. I see the politics over there have a lot in common with the UK. That is why I bother to argue these issues with Cockney and others. So it isn’t really a matter of being patient.

For the most part Cockney et al. just regurgitate the same old cliches that are common currency in those countries. Because almost noone over there has spent a lot of time living in the US and been able to get a real accurate picture of what it is really like here they don’t know how to challenge the cliches.

If you read my replies you can see that there are legitimate counters to his cliches and once I put them out there he can’t come back with anything logical that disputes what I have stated, so he starts resorting to histrionics.

My whole reason for continuing to argue with him is so open minded people like you can learn the counter arguements so that when you encounter that dogma over there you will have the neccessary understanding to be able to intelligently counter it.

Another reason is because there are people over here who will use the same comparisons of America to other countries to argue for gun control here. Or they say other countries see what we are doing as wrong so why don’t we? That’s why you won’t see me saying you’re not from America so you should shut up about America, like some of the other posters here do. [/quote]

Keep on fighting the good fight :slight_smile: Us Australians aren’t all stupid.

377

Dunno about Cameron lol.

Doubt he will even get one term.

I’d vote for the BNP, better than voting for the other 2 muppeteer parties.

378

[quote]300andabove wrote:
Gregus wrote:
I didn’t mean to insult you. But ask your self, why would someone want you to be disarmed? Where is the trust? Why be denied that power? Don’t you see how that diminishes you as a human being? Guns are the ultimate equalizers. If you think of them as an EQUALIZER and you’ll perhaps see that its good for the society. Fact is all statistics prove that crime is DIRECTLY proportional to gun prohibition. Gun prohibition give power and shifts the balance of power away from the people.

WHAT ???

Put USA crime up against British crime… there is NO comparison.[/quote]

Oh yes there is a comparison. In a lot of ways Britain is a lot worse than the US. The reality of the US (which you obviously have no idea about) is we have a handful of really bad areas that are bad enough to drive the statistics for the entire country.

Comparing statistical averages for a country the size against small countries is never going to give an accurate picture. I’ll give you an example of how unrealistic of a picture averaging can give.

The city with the highest murder rate Detroit has a population of 900,000 and a murder rate of 48 per 100,000. The city with the lowest murder rate Honolulu has a population of 900,000 and a murder rate of 1 per 100,000. If you average the two rates you get 24 per 100,000. That is half of Detroit’s rate which makes Detroit look better than it really is, but Honolulu in that average would be 24 times higher than it really is.

Glasgow has two thirds the population of Honolulu but the murder rate in Glasgow is 5.9 per 100,000 or six times higher.

The American city with the second lowest murder rate is Plano Texas which has a population half the size of Glasgow with real cowboys and lots of guns. The murder rate in Plano is 1 per 100,000

In the quote I took from the Independent below Londons murder rate in 2002 was 2.6 per 100,000 which means even London has two and a half times the murder rate of the two safest cities in the US.

[quote]
Put your gun shootings up against our… NO comparison. [/quote]

Whatever you do don’t compare US shootings to Britains stabbings because there were over 21,000 reported stabbings in the UK last year. Also the police and BCS estimate that only one in five stabbings was reported so the estimated number of actual stabbings is well over 100,000 which roughly averages out to 160 stabbings per 100,000

[quote]
WHERE are you getting those fancifull ideas from ?[/quote]

GLASGOW has emerged with an increase in murder rates according to a United Nations report. And in the country, the murder rate as a whole, is the fastest rising in western Europe.

The UN survey covered the period 2005 to 2006. In Scotland, the murder rate rose from 1.59 per 100,000 people to 2.1, an increase of 3.4 per cent.

Of the 109 killings logged in Scotland, 31 of those were in Glasgow, which saw the murder rate rise from 4.49 to 5.34.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/glasgow-is-britains-murder-capital-as-knife-crime-spirals-737329.html

Glasgow is Britain’s murder capital as knife crime spirals

Scotland is now behind only Finland and Northern Ireland in the European Union in murder rates.

Figures for 2002 showed that Glasgow had a homicide rate of 58.7 people per million of population, the highest rate of any city in western Europe. Belfast was on 55.9, Madrid on 18.4, Paris on 20, London on 26, Amsterdam on 31.3 and Dublin on 18.8

Can US crime ‘miracle’ help Glasgow?

The authorities in Glasgow have begun a series of ground-breaking face-to-face meetings with street gangs to urge them to put down their weapons.

The strategy is based on the so-called Boston Miracle, named after the American city where murder rates were drastically reduced in the 1990s.

BOSTON MURDER RATE
1990 - 153
1991 - 116
1992 - 76
1993 - 99
1994 - 85
1995 - 98
1996 - 61
1997 - 43
1998 - 35
2007 - 66
Source: Boston PD

[quote]
I wouldn’t trust my best mate with a gun nevermind most of the dumbfucks on welfare who would have access to them in your dreamworld. FUCK NO unless you do an IQ test 1st. [/quote]

379

[quote]300andabove wrote:
You put all your high school shootings together… why do you think they happen ??[/quote]

What about the Rhyse Jones shooting? It happens in Britain too. So you need to stop being so sanctimonious.

[quote]
Hormonal teenagers with some f*cked up reasoning decide “people must die” and they have EASY fucking access to a MEANS TO DO IT. [/quote]

You are on a hysterical rampage, come back to reality. Sticks and stones can kill too and they are everywhere but you aren’t worried about those are you. Kids aren’t as violent as you are trying to make out.

[quote]
HOW in gods fucking name do you LOGICALLY think this is “OK” i love the US, i have been there twice, my brothers are in the Marines (British) served in the 2 wars we helped ye with. But fucking hell you sit here and think Britain is bad due to our GUN LAWS ??? My god y’all need to get over your gun fetish and get onto some other fetish.

As teenagers get more and more fucked up, your high school shootings will become a REGULAR thing, having METAL DETECTORS in school IS NOT A GOOD THING. [/quote]

Britain is bad because people are not allowed to defend themselves. It’s immoral. Then look at the weak sentences they give if someone does get convicted of murder. Over here in some states and certain federal crimes you can get the death penalty for murder. And life with no parole means exactly that life. Plus over here murderers don’t get anonymity so that when they get out they can hide their past from their neighbors. Compared to the US Britain is a violent criminals paradise.

380

[quote]orion wrote:
300andabove wrote:
So what if there is cameras everywhere ? They don’t do bloody anything as no one is watching them ! Murder is UP in our country, convictions are DOWN. Hurrah !

And for the Gun laws HELL NO would i allow people guns in this country. USA is one of the most VIOLENT places on earth… ever stop and think it may be your GUN LAWS that are the problem ? NO-ONE should own a gun for gods sake, human behaviors is FAR to erratic at best, all it needs is one crazy excuse and BAM someones dead.

As for “Mufasa’s” Islamic law is coming in, the BNP will reach power in the next 10 years. Watch this post because it WILL happen. That or all out crazy riots, the amount of loonies we are letting into our country went out of control YEARS ago.

Time for Britain to get the hell out of Europe and tell everyone to pack your stuff and get the fuck out. And yes i despise Europe and everything to do with Europe.

Well, 40% of Austrian households have guns and our murder rate with guns is practically nonexistent.

I grant you that we are far superior to the British, compared to us you are practically animals, however we could supply behavioral trainers so that more guns would not necessarily lead to more violence.

Hell no, I agree, the British are a far too passionate people and lack any discipline and self control.
[/quote]

It’s really really sad what has become of the British. They used to be all about stiff upper lip and self control. Now they are all about wear your emotions on your sleeve and be hypersensitive. It’s because of all the alcoholism.