There's a Lot Wrong with Britain

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
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.

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.[/quote]

Guaranteed?

I do not think you really understand what that word means.

The threat was that only the US and the USSR had them. Now China has them too…and we trade with them even.

Iran needs to hurry up and get one too so we can trade with them also.

122

[quote]Sloth wrote:
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?

I’d probably 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.[/quote]

Wait a second! Now you’re getting into an area I’m really passionate about. Go back to where you came from, you soda swilling sodomite! :slight_smile:

You are very right about the number of vehicle related deaths, but those typically aren’t intentional killings. Murder is a lot harsher in my book than Vehicular Manslaughter. But I do agree that more effort needs to be made on reducing drinking and driving. That is NOT a right any way you cut it.

123

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
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.

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.

Guaranteed?

I do not think you really understand what that word means.

The threat was that only the US and the USSR had them. Now China has them too…and we trade with them even.

Iran needs to hurry up and get one too so we can trade with them also.[/quote]

If Canada starts arming itself with Nukes will you guys drop the Made in the USA movement that’s taken hold? We’re really needing some jobs up there. I mean, I know we’re just hokey Canucks, but we’ve been building cars and making steel just for your benefit. Don’t leave us out in the cold.

125

[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Wait a second! Now you’re getting into an area I’m really passionate about. Go back to where you came from, you soda swilling sodomite! :slight_smile:

You are very right about the number of vehicle related deaths, but those typically aren’t intentional killings. Murder is a lot harsher in my book than Vehicular Manslaughter. But I do agree that more effort needs to be made on reducing drinking and driving. That is NOT a right any way you cut it.[/quote]

You support the legality of alcohol? Alcohol is involved in more deaths than guns are, period.

126

[quote]Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Wait a second! Now you’re getting into an area I’m really passionate about. Go back to where you came from, you soda swilling sodomite! :slight_smile:

You are very right about the number of vehicle related deaths, but those typically aren’t intentional killings. Murder is a lot harsher in my book than Vehicular Manslaughter. But I do agree that more effort needs to be made on reducing drinking and driving. That is NOT a right any way you cut it.

You support the legality of alcohol? Alcohol is involved in more deaths than guns are, period.[/quote]

I hope you’re joking.

127

[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Wait a second! Now you’re getting into an area I’m really passionate about. Go back to where you came from, you soda swilling sodomite! :slight_smile:

You are very right about the number of vehicle related deaths, but those typically aren’t intentional killings. Murder is a lot harsher in my book than Vehicular Manslaughter. But I do agree that more effort needs to be made on reducing drinking and driving. That is NOT a right any way you cut it.

You support the legality of alcohol? Alcohol is involved in more deaths than guns are, period.

I hope you’re joking.[/quote]

Nope. Whatever the intent, I see alcohol as a greater risk factor.

128

[quote]Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Wait a second! Now you’re getting into an area I’m really passionate about. Go back to where you came from, you soda swilling sodomite! :slight_smile:

You are very right about the number of vehicle related deaths, but those typically aren’t intentional killings. Murder is a lot harsher in my book than Vehicular Manslaughter. But I do agree that more effort needs to be made on reducing drinking and driving. That is NOT a right any way you cut it.

You support the legality of alcohol? Alcohol is involved in more deaths than guns are, period.

I hope you’re joking.

Nope. [/quote]

To alcohol! The cause of - and solution to - all of life’s problems! - HS

I got nothing to argue with here. I’m gonna get me a gun and protect my God given right to drink. Come and try and take it from me, I dare you.

129

[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:

To alcohol! The cause of - and solution to - all of life’s problems! - HS

I got nothing to argue with here. I’m gonna get me a gun and protect my God given right to drink. Come and try and take it from me, I dare you.[/quote]

Now that’s the spirit!

130

[quote]Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:

To alcohol! The cause of - and solution to - all of life’s problems! - HS

I got nothing to argue with here. I’m gonna get me a gun and protect my God given right to drink. Come and try and take it from me, I dare you.

Now that’s the spirit![/quote]

Wait… I see what you did there. You, my friend, are top shelf!

131

[quote]Sifu wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS 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.

That isn’t the definition of freedom I know.

However, self defense is an inseparable part of being free which does require certain means. If one has to rely on someone else for his protection he can never be free.

What you describe is mere thuggery.

Interesting post. My question for you is - where do you draw the line? I could protect myself better if I had grenades and landmines at my disposal as well. Or a tank. Or some surface to air missles. Maybe a couple of ICBMs.

In any society there’s some limit to the tools that are available for self defense. Where the limit is depends on where your right to defend yourself becomes a safety risk to the public. Some, like myself, think that handguns and assult rifles are proven risks to society as a whole if they are not regulated. To be more specific, because handguns and assault rifles are designed for the sole purpose of killing another human being, I beleive there is no merit in permitting ownership of these weapons to any person not in law enforcement.

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?

Reading your posts I can see that you like to spew a bunch of ignorant bullshit, while exagerating or misrepresenting facts along with a liberal use of histrinoics. It’s no wonder why you are afraid of people turning violent on you. Because your level of ignorance is astounding.

To see how your ignorant ideology works in the real world one only needs to look across the border of Texas into Mexico. Mexico is a lawless free for all with a national murder rate that is as high as Detroit.

All the fighter jets, attack helicopters, tanks and missiles in the world can’t change the basic fact of life that it still takes an infantryman with a rifle and or hand gun to go into an area and control it. If the American army couldn’t subdue and control 2 million Iraqis in Sadr city there is no way they could subdue and control 300 million Americans.

Last but certainly not least. What record numbers of killings are you referring to? It certainly can’t be the US because the murder rate here has been declining every year for the last 17 years!

Or are you referring to Toronto and their 2005 “year of the gun”? Or is it 2007 when the 2005 record was broken?

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/archive/2007/12/27/murder-rate-surpasses-quot-year-of-the-gun-quot-2005.aspx

Murder rate surpasses “Year of the Gun” 2005

TORONTO â?? The stray bullet that struck and killed 15-year-old Jane Creba while she was shopping on a busy downtown street on Boxing Day 2005, left an indelible mark on the psyche of Canadaâ??s largest city.

In Toronto, 2005 is still known as The Year of The Gun.

Yet two years later, murder rates have spiked to even higher levels.

[/quote]

You are right, it is a lawless hell hole. I don’t know how I survive here with all the horrific crime.

132

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
GhorigTheBeefy wrote:
The Eagle Scout part of me weeps like the Indian having garbage thrown at his feet. What’s next? Are they going to take away matches? For fucks sake I joined the Boy Scouts to shoot, cut, fire, and canoe my way to excellence.

They are not taking anyone’s knives away. A sensationalist newspaper in the UK has misrepresented the facts to stir up people who don’t bother fact checking into a rage against the nanny state.

You are so predictable in your posts. It doesn’t matter what they do in Britain you will come up with a way to minimize and/or rationalize any British nonsense rather than face up to the essential facts of the matter.

I seriously cannot understand how or why this would not raise some concern with you that people in Britain are so out of touch with reality are that they are worried about Boy Scouts with Swiss Army knives. This is the Boy Scouts they are worrying about. Not Britians legions of alcoholic, drug addled, feral children who go around gang banging with Rambo knives.

Your ability to just tune things out and rationalize what is going over there is astounding. I am at a loss for words with this one. You have beat me. If you cannot see something inherently wrong when the British people are so paranoid and deeply distrusting of their fellow Britain that they view a Boy Scout with a Swiss Army knife as a danger to society there is something seriously wrong with you mentally.

[/quote]

The facts are that the scout organisation is warning it’s members that the laws in the UK mean that carrying a knife with a blade longer than a certain length is illegal unless you have a reason to be carrying it and just saying I am a boy scout doesn’t count as a reason, therefore they are suggesting that their members only carry knives to events where they will need them such as camping trips, not for other events such as a trip to the cinema.

I understand that for someone who comes from a country where people feel a need to take an assault rifle to a speech by their President but are appalled that someone might vocally criticise the same President during a speech this might be confusingly logical but for the rest of the world, it’s pretty normal.

133

[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
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.

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.[/quote]

I was doing it from memory and it has been about a year since I looked it up. Here is the link.

Racial differences exist, with blacks disproportionately represented among homicide victims and offenders
In 2005, homicide victimization rates for blacks were 6 times higher than the rates for whites

In 2005, offending rates for blacks were more than 7 times higher than the rates for whites

My numbers were off about 30 percent, but my basic point remains. Half the murders are blacks who are only 12 percent of the population. Another important factor to consider is that even amongst the blacks you can subdivide them into groups that are more or less prone to kill or be killed. ie 35 percent of blacks are middle class who can afford to live in a nice area. So that is a third off of 12 percent. To that you can add blacks who are poor but they live in rural areas where there just isn’t a lot of crime. Or blacks who live in the city and don’t have a lot of money but they do have a strong sense of values. What you end up with is there is a hardcore minority of this minority that is driving the numbers.

The bottom line is America is nowhere as bad as is made out in the foreign press.

134

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Gregus wrote:
The table has been set. The British have now been thoroughly disarmed. Panic tactics worked nicely. Fools.

Now the only people with weapons are the criminals and those in charge of the British sheep. LoL. Good for them.

Here’s a snot rocket for Britain.

Erm, did any of you actually read the post showing that the original post is BS?

I looked over the second post, it more or less much confirmed the first.

You might want to work on your reading comprehension then:

[i]The Daily Mail is, as usual, misrepresentating people. This time it has picked on the Scout Movement and is �?�¢??reporting�?�¢??

as the fight against Britain�?�¢??s growing blade culture intensifies, Scouts have been told not to take penknives on camping trips.

Except that it�?�¢??s a load of rubbish. If they had actually read the section on knives, they would know that it is actually only a reminder of the laws around knife use and guidance about safety.

What the article in Scouting magazine says is that

knives of any sort should not be carried by anybody to a Scout meeting or camp, unless there is likely to be a specific need for one. [Emphasis added]

If there is a need for a penknife, such as on a backwoods camp, then obviously Scouts would be allowed to carry them. But on a normal Scout evening or an activities-based camp, penknives should be left at home because they�?�¢??re not needed.
[/i]

I read that. It’s a bunch of bullshit. I learned important life skills in Boy Scouts like “be prepared”, “be trustworthy”. This guidance dictate goes against being prepared. More importantly it impunes the honor and trustworthiness of the Boy Scouts.

Obviously this is going over your head but. It is an extremely sad commentary on where British society has gone in the last hundred years when today Boy Scouts are considered too untrustworthy and too unreliable to handle responsibility like their forefathers. It says that British society is not progressing it is regressing.

The new message is even if you are a Boy Scout you are not to be trusted without an authority figure to monitor you and to control you. [/quote]

I was in the scouts as a kid and there is no reason that I can see that a boy scout should have a different set of laws to the rest of the country. You can argue wether the law is wrong, fine but don’t try and claim that anything has changed. All that has happened is that the scouting association has sensibly informed their members of the law as it pertains to carrying knives.

The Mail has done what it normally does, misrepresented the facts to get mental midgets’ knickers in a twist. Seems to have worked!

136

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I think I could take a knife wielding boy scout. Probably a couple of them. In fact, I’d say 5 might be the upper limit. They can’t have much of a chin at that age, so the knockouts would come fast. True, Boy Scouts are trained and honed for survival, but with or without a blade, I’m still going to have reach advantage and a berzerker rage triggered by being cornered by evil children (they freak me out). Besides, I’ve seen some knife disarms on youtube.[/quote]

Also the blades arent very long on penknifes, would leave meer flesh wounds!

137

[quote]pushharder wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:

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

Nah. No dodge. Look at my fuckin’ post count. I spend too much time on this website as it is. I’ve put in my time on this subject and somewhat recently for that matter.

So a guy likes you shows up here at the Galveston air show with his P-51 Mustang converted to a manure spreader. The crowd is expecting some loops and rolls and instead they get dusted with bullshit dredged from a Thunder Bay sewage treatment lagoon.

Then Froggie the Mad Pilot does a ground-hugging fly-by right down the main runway and squeals, “Catch me if you can, you Yankee bastards.”

Meh, I aint doin’ it. This time.[/quote]

You’ve quite the imagination.

I didn’t ask for you to repost the evidence you CLAIM to have submitted in a previous thread, just some help locating the thread(s) in question. I can see what your ultimate goal is - to send me off on an impossible errand to gather up all the pieces of questionable evidence you’ve littered throughout the forums. Once I’m off on some insurmountable task of trying to reassemble your brain-vomit, you’ll say that I’ve given up on the debate and claim victory.

Asserting that you’re right isn’t the same as demonstrating it.

139

He´s no fun.

He avoids all the hard questions.

140

[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
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.

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

To be fair, this subject has been done to death ad nauseum, and push has contributed lots of facts. I wouldn’t want to rewrite them either. You can do your own leg work if you’re really that interested. This may be the 1st go-round for you but we’ve been through this so many times before it gets tiring. Besides which a google search takes all of ten seconds.