There's a Lot Wrong with Britain

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
It’s the urban gangbangers making us look bad. To hell if my rights should be stripped because of misguided policies, and the self-destructive culture festering in these communities.

http://www.texansforgunsafety.org/houston.htm

I don’t understand the methodology here. The very first 2001 example is of a robber being shot…Are they using self defense situations in their numbers, too? What? Further, it almost seems like they’ve pulled blurbs, brief reports from a crime blotter, from newspapers. Blurbs that may or may not mention a gang connection, because the information wasn’t available at the time.

The purpose of the post was to dispute your assertion that urban gangbangers are making you look bad. If you read many of the reports, brief though they may be, they show that many of the shooting deaths are not due to gang violence.

Yes, they included a case of a robber being shot, but if you remove that from the list of gun related deaths it doesn’t change the fact that people are being killed for a variety of reasons in a variety of situations.

Hold up now. Again, these seem like they’ve been lifted from a crime blotter. Which, again, is usually short on facts, because the facts aren’t always known at the time.

“A John Does kill a friend/classmate/whatever.” Did the friend stiff him for drug money? Was the shooter slinging drugs for a gang?

Another post that disputes your gang violence assertion. I already know what you’re going to say, the Unknown category is probably gang violence - but the fact is the circumstance is unknown.[/quote]

You are on crack. The gang violence graph which was at the top of the chart was over 90 percent it was the number one reason.

102

[quote]doc_man_101 wrote:
Hold on.

The US has poor life expectancy figures compared to other western nations, despite spending nearly twice as much per person (on average) on health-care as the next nearest countries. Orion and others tell us that this is due, in no small part, to the higher incidence of violent deaths: and not because the healthcare system leaves poor people to die.

So which is it? Does the US have a crappy healthcare system, or does the free availability of guns lead to more (not fewer) violent deaths?[/quote]

Neither.

People are not violent because they own guns just as we would never think that people are perverts just because they have access to free internet porn.

People must be held accountable for their actions and not blame inanimate objects for their own short comings.

The higher rate of violent crime has to do with how we nanny violent criminals in this country. Criminals are afforded more rights than the average gun owner…until that gun owner commits a crime with it and then he can get a free tax-payer supported college education whilst serving 25 to life.

It is politically incorrect to treat violent thugs like the animals they are in this country and thus we protect them and get more of them.

103

[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:

The other argument that I’ve heard is that it makes governments accountable to the people. If you’re permitted to carry a handgun, and the government is permitted to operate fighter planes, assault helocopters, tanks and missles, what accountability is there really on the government? They still have the upper hand. Meanwhile the citizens are killing each other in record numbers.
So… where do YOU draw the line?[/quote]

Going back a number of pages, but this needs an answer. Handguns are useful for self defense specifically because they are easily carried, instead of being strapped to your back or whatever. So while they may be used in crimes, they are the most effectual means of securing your own safety, which as Lifticus noted is an integral part of being free–if you must rely on someone else to ensure your autonomy, you’re not really free. You need the means yourself.

But more importantly–there are about 200 MILLION guns in the US, in private hands. It’s not like only 1% of the population owns guns. That’s 2/3rds of the entire US population. If even 10% of those guns were mobilized with intent, the government would have a bitch of a time. What are they going to do, carpet bomb their own cities to root out danger? Not likely. That would align every single other person who wasn’t part of the original revolt against them. The government is made accountable by the sheer mass of widespread use.

Sure, in any squad level firefight, or in straight “conventional” combat, the US gov’t owns. But the point is that warfare of that type is not conventional, it is asymmetric. Look at how much trouble the world’s foremost military power is having with a few thousand insurgents and cave rats in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now multiply that by 1 million.

FYI—it worked in the American Revolution too. Frontiersmen used then unconventional tactics to fight effectively against the worlds most well trained, well equipped army of the century…and look what it got us.

The mistake you make and everyone else that argues this makes is that you assume the citizens and the tyrannical gov’t in this scenario will meet on a battlefield and fight it out using tactics from WW2. That is patently false, and would be ridiculous.

In any case, I would argue that even if the sole reason guns were kept was to potentially control gov’t, it is a sufficient reason to keep free and widespread gun ownership. As it stands now, that is NOT the sole reason we guarantee the freedom in the 2nd Amendment, but it is a sufficient one.

104

[quote]Sifu wrote:
doc_man_101 wrote:
Hold on.

The US has poor life expectancy figures compared to other western nations, despite spending nearly twice as much per person (on average) on health-care as the next nearest countries. Orion and others tell us that this is due, in no small part, to the higher incidence of violent deaths: and not because the healthcare system leaves poor people to die.

So which is it? Does the US have a crappy healthcare system, or does the free availability of guns lead to more (not fewer) violent deaths?

The simple fact of the matter is there are a handful of areas that are super generators that drive the statistics for the entire country .ie Detroit has 900,000 people, Michigan has 10 million. Ninety percent of Michigans murders happen in Detroit.

If you look at the demographics you will see the areas with the highest murder rate also have the highest percentage of African Americans whose economic status is below middle class. This is where the term black on black crime comes from. I posted the figures in another thread where we thoroughly went through these issues. If I remember correctly eighty percent of murderers and eighty percent of murder victims are African American.

If you seperate the statistics for the black ghettos from the rest of the country it is a completely different story. The vast majority of the country is more like Switzerland than Detroit. The Swiss have a lot of guns but Geneva doesn’t resemble Detroit. It is purely a societal issue that has nothing to do with firearm ownership. [/quote]

80% African American murderers and victims is stretching the truth a bit. If you look through the Department of Justice link that I posted earlier you’ll find statistics more in the range of 50%. Still a high percentage considering that African Americans make up roughly 12% of the population.

105

[quote]pushharder wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Froggie, you should’ve just taken my advice and did some reading and kept your mouth shut. Instead you let your masochistic bent get the best of you and now you’re getting flogged just like I told you you would.

Educate me. I dare you. Who’s flogging me? A lot of insults being tossed around but no facts, statistics, or evidence to the contrary. Even if you could just point me in the direction of the thread where you argued this previously, I’d be happy to look at the evidence that was presented. I did a search and came up with stuff all over the map - not pertaining to gun control at all.

I’m not dragging a PWI rookie around again - for now - on this subject because I and many others including Sifu who has done a masterful job on a number of occasions, have been through this over and over again especially with foreigners who think they know just exactly how the cow ate the cabbage when it comes to the U.S.A. and gun control and liberty.

I’m not going to go search for you. Do it yourself. Google my name, Sifu, Cockney Blue, gun control, Varqanir, liberty, freedom, crime, Gary Kleck, statistics, Second Amendment, and foreigner’s bullshit.

You’re bound to get a hit somehow, somewhere, that will lead you either down the path of enlightenment or into the sulfur laden vat of denial.[/quote]

I should have expected as much. I posted statistics and facts to support my argument, you dodge. Well played, sir. rolls eyes

106

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
where do YOU draw the line?

I think there are sages that ate better capable of answering the question than me.

My goal is usually to not offend someone in the first place to cause an escalation. I think they teach that in beginning self defense classes.[/quote]

Why is this such a difficult question for anyone to answer? I was clear about where I would draw the line - handguns and assault rifles.

Just to be clear, my goal was not to offend anyone. In retrospect, it was a poor phrase to illustrate my point, but the time a wrote it I had no idea people would get their panties in such a bunch. In the future I’ll have to keep in mind that some TN members are sensitive about this issue and try to be a little more diplomatic. However, I think there are a few individuals on this forum who’d get in a tizzy no matter how diplomatically I address issues such as this.

107

[quote]Sifu wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
It’s the urban gangbangers making us look bad. To hell if my rights should be stripped because of misguided policies, and the self-destructive culture festering in these communities.

http://www.texansforgunsafety.org/houston.htm

I don’t understand the methodology here. The very first 2001 example is of a robber being shot…Are they using self defense situations in their numbers, too? What? Further, it almost seems like they’ve pulled blurbs, brief reports from a crime blotter, from newspapers. Blurbs that may or may not mention a gang connection, because the information wasn’t available at the time.

The purpose of the post was to dispute your assertion that urban gangbangers are making you look bad. If you read many of the reports, brief though they may be, they show that many of the shooting deaths are not due to gang violence.

Yes, they included a case of a robber being shot, but if you remove that from the list of gun related deaths it doesn’t change the fact that people are being killed for a variety of reasons in a variety of situations.

Hold up now. Again, these seem like they’ve been lifted from a crime blotter. Which, again, is usually short on facts, because the facts aren’t always known at the time.

“A John Does kill a friend/classmate/whatever.” Did the friend stiff him for drug money? Was the shooter slinging drugs for a gang?

Another post that disputes your gang violence assertion. I already know what you’re going to say, the Unknown category is probably gang violence - but the fact is the circumstance is unknown.

You are on crack. The gang violence graph which was at the top of the chart was over 90 percent it was the number one reason.[/quote]

I think you’re reading this differently than it’s intended. Over 90% of gang-related homicides involve guns is not the same as over 90% of homicides with guns are gang-related. Look at it again and you’ll see what I mean.

109

[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
where do YOU draw the line?

I think there are sages that ate better capable of answering the question than me.

My goal is usually to not offend someone in the first place to cause an escalation. I think they teach that in beginning self defense classes.

Why is this such a difficult question for anyone to answer? I was clear about where I would draw the line - handguns and assault rifles.

Just to be clear, my goal was not to offend anyone. In retrospect, it was a poor phrase to illustrate my point, but the time a wrote it I had no idea people would get their panties in such a bunch. In the future I’ll have to keep in mind that some TN members are sensitive about this issue and try to be a little more diplomatic. However, I think there are a few individuals on this forum who’d get in a tizzy no matter how diplomatically I address issues such as this.[/quote]

Well, I cannot stop an invading army with only a hand gun. I need a tank or bomber plane too!

I want to be able to have whatever my government has that it would potentially use against me.

110

Hey, thanks for joining the discussion and giving me something to chew on.

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Going back a number of pages, but this needs an answer. Handguns are useful for self defense specifically because they are easily carried, instead of being strapped to your back or whatever. So while they may be used in crimes, they are the most effectual means of securing your own safety, which as Lifticus noted is an integral part of being free–if you must rely on someone else to ensure your autonomy, you’re not really free. You need the means yourself.

But more importantly–there are about 200 MILLION guns in the US, in private hands. It’s not like only 1% of the population owns guns. That’s 2/3rds of the entire US population. If even 10% of those guns were mobilized with intent, the government would have a bitch of a time. What are they going to do, carpet bomb their own cities to root out danger? Not likely. That would align every single other person who wasn’t part of the original revolt against them. The government is made accountable by the sheer mass of widespread use.
[/quote]

Regarding the gun ownership number you claim, I’ve read elsewhere that, although there may be 200 million guns in the US, there are only around 80 million gun owners. Now if those gun owners mobilized with intent, they only represent about 1/4 of the population. Also, I highly doubt all 80 million owners would see eye to eye on any political issue such that all of the owners would be united in taking down the government. So you have less than a quarter of the population armed and willing to violently overtake the government that was elected by the majority of it’s citizens.

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Sure, in any squad level firefight, or in straight “conventional” combat, the US gov’t owns. But the point is that warfare of that type is not conventional, it is asymmetric. Look at how much trouble the world’s foremost military power is having with a few thousand insurgents and cave rats in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now multiply that by 1 million.
[/quote]

When I multiply a few thousand by 1 million, I get a few billion. Are you sure about this? (in jest, please don’t get offended.)

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
FYI—it worked in the American Revolution too. Frontiersmen used then unconventional tactics to fight effectively against the worlds most well trained, well equipped army of the century…and look what it got us.

The mistake you make and everyone else that argues this makes is that you assume the citizens and the tyrannical gov’t in this scenario will meet on a battlefield and fight it out using tactics from WW2. That is patently false, and would be ridiculous.

In any case, I would argue that even if the sole reason guns were kept was to potentially control gov’t, it is a sufficient reason to keep free and widespread gun ownership. As it stands now, that is NOT the sole reason we guarantee the freedom in the 2nd Amendment, but it is a sufficient one.
[/quote]

But seriously, this brings up an important issue. If the 80 million gun owners statistic is approximately correct, then it seems to reason that the will of the majority is at risk from a minority of gun owners more so than their own government.

111

[quote]Chushin wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Chushin wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:

But I guess you’re only really free if you have the tools at your disposal to blow someone’s head off on a whim.

and

Is it not possible to simply have a civil and respectful discussion …

Hmmm…

Is the first what you Canadians consider an example of the second?

I think it’s quite a bit more civil and respectful than telling someone to go back to where they came from.

Maybe. But you threw the first punch. Don’t bitch about he defends himself.

In fact, from the daily news reports here in Houston this seems to be a very fair judgement of what easy access to handguns results in.

Maybe. But is your mother overweight, or a fat fucking slob of a pig? Basically the same thing, right?

Perhaps you need to learn how to express yourself if you plan on engaging in such discussions. If I talked like you write, I’d be afraid of “discussing” issues in bars, too.
[/quote]

You really need to get over it, guys. Really. You’re acting worse than a bunch of women on their rags. “But you started it… waaaaaa” Perhaps you should learn how get over something and not bitch about it over and over and over and over again. Read a previous post where I indicated that it was NOT my intent to offend. That was my Mea Culpa.

112

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
where do YOU draw the line?

I think there are sages that ate better capable of answering the question than me.

My goal is usually to not offend someone in the first place to cause an escalation. I think they teach that in beginning self defense classes.

Why is this such a difficult question for anyone to answer? I was clear about where I would draw the line - handguns and assault rifles.

Just to be clear, my goal was not to offend anyone. In retrospect, it was a poor phrase to illustrate my point, but the time a wrote it I had no idea people would get their panties in such a bunch. In the future I’ll have to keep in mind that some TN members are sensitive about this issue and try to be a little more diplomatic. However, I think there are a few individuals on this forum who’d get in a tizzy no matter how diplomatically I address issues such as this.

Well, I cannot stop an invading army with only a hand gun. I need a tank or bomber plane too!

I want to be able to have whatever my government has that it would potentially use against me. [/quote]

So… you’re more of the Mutually Assured Destruction type of opinion? Everyone armed to the teeth, with nukes to boot?

113

We have more melee/other weapon homicides than Canada, too. Ban blunt and sharp objects?

114

[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
where do YOU draw the line?

I think there are sages that ate better capable of answering the question than me.

My goal is usually to not offend someone in the first place to cause an escalation. I think they teach that in beginning self defense classes.

Why is this such a difficult question for anyone to answer? I was clear about where I would draw the line - handguns and assault rifles.

Just to be clear, my goal was not to offend anyone. In retrospect, it was a poor phrase to illustrate my point, but the time a wrote it I had no idea people would get their panties in such a bunch. In the future I’ll have to keep in mind that some TN members are sensitive about this issue and try to be a little more diplomatic. However, I think there are a few individuals on this forum who’d get in a tizzy no matter how diplomatically I address issues such as this.

Well, I cannot stop an invading army with only a hand gun. I need a tank or bomber plane too!

I want to be able to have whatever my government has that it would potentially use against me.

So… you’re more of the Mutually Assured Destruction type of opinion? Everyone armed to the teeth, with nukes to boot?[/quote]

That is the only sane position otherwise the balance of power is tilted to those with all the firepower. That is why the US doesn’t want Iran to have a nuke…or any country that it cannot financially control, for that matter.

115

MAD is a myth.

It would never happen, just as the “Old West” was not a society of lawlessness even though everyone, I mean everyone, was armed to the teeth.

In fact, order existed because even grandma packed heat.

116

[quote]Sloth wrote:
We have more melee/other weapon homicides than Canada, too. Ban blunt and sharp objects?[/quote]

That’s not what I’m saying. If you refer to my earlier post I said that I draw the line at handguns and assault rifles. Tools of death only. If we did what you suggested then there would be no kitchen utensils, tools, sporting equipment, etc.

If you look at the above post it is clear than guns are the weapon of choice to murder with. That’s not to say other items like knives and baseball bats won’t be used, but the stats are pretty striking to me. Can none of you see the benefit in reducing the number of murders in your own country?

118

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
MAD is a myth.

It would never happen, just as the “Old West” was not a society of lawlessness even though everyone, I mean everyone, was armed to the teeth.

In fact, order existed because even grandma packed heat.[/quote]

What do you mean it’s a myth? If the Cold War continued indefinitely MAD would have been guaranteed. We’re all very fortunate that Gorby-boy wasn’t a die-hard commie like his predecessors. Have you heard of the Doomsday Clock? There was a real threat.

119

[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
We have more melee/other weapon homicides than Canada, too. Ban blunt and sharp objects?

That’s not what I’m saying. If you refer to my earlier post I said that I draw the line at handguns and assault rifles. Tools of death only. If we did what you suggested then there would be no kitchen utensils, tools, sporting equipment, etc.

If you look at the above post it is clear than guns are the weapon of choice to murder with. That’s not to say other items like knives and baseball bats won’t be used, but the stats are pretty striking to me. Can none of you see the benefit in reducing the number of murders in your own country?[/quote]

I’m more likely to be hit and killed by a car, than murdered with a handgun. I’m not going to allow a phobia to strip away a right. Maybe 3800 white guys died from gun violence in 2005. But, 16,885 drinking and driving deaths in total, the majority being white. Not to mention alcohol showing up so often with rape and violent crime. Yet, you go to the bars. Keep guns, ban booze.

120

[quote]Chushin wrote:

  1. My post was written before I read your “Mea Culpa.”
    [/quote]
    Fair enough.

[quote]Chushin wrote:
2. Took you long enough to post it.
[/quote]
Here we go again. Have you been taking lessons from my ex?

[quote]Chushin wrote:
3. Most of us have had it with foreign geniuses who deign to tell us what our “problem” is.
[/quote]
I appreciate the compliment, but I’m not a genius. I’ve only expressed an opinion based on my observations and experiences while living here in Texas. It’s not as inflammatory as you’re making it out to be. GET OVER IT! If you don’t like the discussion, and don’t have anything constructive to add, you’re always free to leave.

[quote]Chushin wrote:
4. Canada sucks
[/quote]
You can suck a bag of dicks, you annoying gnat.

[quote]Chushin wrote:
Just kidding! I’m sure you’ll get over it.
[/quote]
Apology accepted. I’m officially over it.