What is Wrong with Britain?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
122

[quote]orion wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
orion wrote:
doc_man_101 wrote:
orion wrote:
So, while he cannot prove his point, it pretty much ruins the argument that more guns mean more crime because then we would have expected the crime rates to go up with more concealed carry laws, not down.

So, more guns might not mean less crime, but they for sure do not mean more crime which pretty much destroys the argument for gun grabbing and thank you for playing.

Nice try, but that wasn’t the argument.

I’m perfectly happy to concede that the gun grabbing legislation in the UK has had a negligible impact on crime - in either direction. Sifu was trying to suggest that it does.

Well I agree with him , but the point was that “even though correlation does not equal causation”, the causation correlation relationship is such that gun prohibition was at best worthless and at worst harmful.

That is by no means a sufficient reason to take away a right that is considered to be very fundamental by many.

I�??�?�´d be worried about a government that does that and a population that meekly accepts it.

But the point is that they were not really taking away any right that the country at large held dear. The only people who had guns were hobbiest collectors and competition target shooters.

The right to bear arms that was the basis of the 2nd amendment in the US had not been around in the UK for over a century. The law in 97 was a knee jerk reaction to the media frenzy surrounding the Dumblane shootings. All it in effect did was tighten up the 1988 laws that the conservative government had knee-jerked in after Hungerford. It has been estimated that the '97 law effected less than 57,000 people.

The biggest effect was on our Olympic Shooting team who now have to train in the Channel Islands or the Isle of Mann.

I get that.

And it scares me.

People with guns do not scare me.

People who do not even care when they are disarmed scare me very much.

[/quote]

Disarming implies the taking aware of arms, the point is that this was not a disarming as the arms were not there in the first place.

Incidentally this is also why English Football Hooligans get fucked up in Turkey. British people fight with their fists. Turkish guys who get into a fight pull knives.

124

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
If you have to have a gun in your hand to feel safe you have power issues, and are not someone I would like to be around, period.

That is not the point. This has been mentioned at least a hundred times, but in effect it goes like this—I am safe all day long, and comfy without a gun. However, I am not truly free because I lack the ability to defend my freedom from those who would take it away. Freedom is not only the will to act as one chooses, but ALSO the ability to keep your will to self-determination from being taken away.

Example–a man breaks into your house at midnight. He has a knife. You have no weapon. Now, you are not free because he holds power over you. Now, if you have possession of a gun, you are in fact free because he cannot force you to his will–you have the ability to defend your powers of self-sovereignty.

I have lived all my life without the need for a gun (in a city, not rural). I feel completely safe without a gun, as do the vast, vast majority of my countrymen. I have no real expectation of ever needing it. However, if I by some freak chance DO need a gun, I have it available to defend myself at home. Brits do not, legally. They lack the ability to defend their will to self-determination, and thus lack true freedom.

(And yes, I do know how to handle the gun, and how to shoot it)

But distilling all of that down, you equate the ability to protect yourself to having a gun.

What happens if the guy has a bigger gun, or a rocket launcher or a tank? Yes I am taking this to the absurd but that is how much of the world views the US gun obsession. In the same way that I rely on a professional baker to make my bread I rely on a professional police force and army to keep the peace. Were I to live in an area where I had no faith in the professional abilities of the police and army I would either get a gun myself or hire bodyguards. Fortunately I don’t.

Still stumbling along, are you? You just don’t get it. You deserve to be penned with the rest of the sheep. You truly deserve it. Whatever you do, don’t emigrate to the US. The sound of bleating is like fingernails on a chalkboard to me.

[Insert Ben Franklin quote (BFQ) again][/quote]

As long as I know that you and your gun are there to protect the world against government tyranny then I sleep safely in my bed at night. Thank you.

You go on being free behind your guns and your barricades and I will continue to be repressed out in the open without the need of a gun.

Obviously I am a sheep because I donâ??t follow you and your groupâ??s beliefs but gods damn it, I am a happy sheep here in Mexico, sipping my Michelada and playing with my daughter in the sunshine.

125

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
If you have to have a gun in your hand to feel safe you have power issues, and are not someone I would like to be around, period.

That is not the point. This has been mentioned at least a hundred times, but in effect it goes like this—I am safe all day long, and comfy without a gun. However, I am not truly free because I lack the ability to defend my freedom from those who would take it away. Freedom is not only the will to act as one chooses, but ALSO the ability to keep your will to self-determination from being taken away.

Example–a man breaks into your house at midnight. He has a knife. You have no weapon. Now, you are not free because he holds power over you. Now, if you have possession of a gun, you are in fact free because he cannot force you to his will–you have the ability to defend your powers of self-sovereignty.

I have lived all my life without the need for a gun (in a city, not rural). I feel completely safe without a gun, as do the vast, vast majority of my countrymen. I have no real expectation of ever needing it. However, if I by some freak chance DO need a gun, I have it available to defend myself at home. Brits do not, legally. They lack the ability to defend their will to self-determination, and thus lack true freedom.

(And yes, I do know how to handle the gun, and how to shoot it)

But distilling all of that down, you equate the ability to protect yourself to having a gun.

What happens if the guy has a bigger gun, or a rocket launcher or a tank? Yes I am taking this to the absurd but that is how much of the world views the US gun obsession. In the same way that I rely on a professional baker to make my bread I rely on a professional police force and army to keep the peace. Were I to live in an area where I had no faith in the professional abilities of the police and army I would either get a gun myself or hire bodyguards. Fortunately I don’t.

Still stumbling along, are you? You just don’t get it. You deserve to be penned with the rest of the sheep. You truly deserve it. Whatever you do, don’t emigrate to the US. The sound of bleating is like fingernails on a chalkboard to me.

[Insert Ben Franklin quote (BFQ) again]

As long as I know that you and your gun are there to protect the world against government tyranny then I sleep safely in my bed at night. Thank you.

You go on being free behind your guns and your barricades and I will continue to be repressed out in the open without the need of a gun.

Obviously I am a sheep because I donâ??t follow you and your groupâ??s beliefs but gods damn it, I am a happy sheep here in Mexico, sipping my Michelada and playing with my daughter in the sunshine.
[/quote]

If that helps I think most American conservatives grab their guns and try to prevent a revolution that was already over before they were born.

Pretending to be free because they let you keep your pretty toys is not really any better than being a sheep.

Ignorant wolves vs complacent sheep.

Oy vey.

126

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

But the thing is, it doesn’t need to be a gun. Could be a knife (also outlawed in Britain I believe, for personal carry, could be wrong), or whatever. The point is ultimately that you have the ability to curtail whatever attempt is being made on your freedoms. A man that has to rely on others to protect his personal freedom is not free–he is beholden to his protectors and ultimately a sort of pseudo-serf.

The point is that the specific weapon utilized is irrelevant. What matters is the ability to protect your right to self-determination.

it’s the ability to defend your personal sovereignty, YOURSELF, without fear of persecution by the authorities. That’s why someone above said we had a “freedom obsession” instead of a gun obsession.

That’s why YOU, individually, must possess the capability to defend your own individual sovereignty.[/quote]

I like the points you make. You speak of self-sufficiency; The right to stand as a complete man, a complete woman. Self-mastery in the sense that ultimately it is your gut honor to protect your boundaries and recognize that of others.
At the end of the day no one should have greater authority over you than yourself.
Co-dependency on someone else to safeguard your life is to become like a vulnerable child again waiting on a parent that may or may not be there. That may or may not care.

127

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

I would sooner die than waive my rights. ANY of them. Life is by definition not safe or sanitary, but you don’t get anywhere trying to make it so. Instead you simply kill off what vitality there was.[/quote]

Amen.

129

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
Aragorn wrote:

But the thing is, it doesn’t need to be a gun. Could be a knife (also outlawed in Britain I believe, for personal carry, could be wrong), or whatever. The point is ultimately that you have the ability to curtail whatever attempt is being made on your freedoms. A man that has to rely on others to protect his personal freedom is not free–he is beholden to his protectors and ultimately a sort of pseudo-serf.

The point is that the specific weapon utilized is irrelevant. What matters is the ability to protect your right to self-determination.

it’s the ability to defend your personal sovereignty, YOURSELF, without fear of persecution by the authorities. That’s why someone above said we had a “freedom obsession” instead of a gun obsession.

That’s why YOU, individually, must possess the capability to defend your own individual sovereignty.

I like the points you make. You speak of self-sufficiency; The right to stand as a complete man, a complete woman. Self-mastery in the sense that ultimately it is your gut honor to protect your boundaries and recognize that of others.
At the end of the day no one should have greater authority over you than yourself.
Co-dependency on someone else to safeguard your life is to become like a vulnerable child again waiting on a parent that may or may not be there. That may or may not care.

[/quote]

THANK YOU! :slight_smile: That’s what it’s all about.

131

SIN BINS FOR WORST FAMILIES
Story Image

Children’s Secretary Ed Balls

Thursday July 23,2009
By Alison Little

Comment Speech Bubble Have your say(12)

THOUSANDS of the worst families in England are to be put in â??sin binsâ?? in a bid to change their bad behaviour, Ed Balls announced yesterday.

The Childrenâ??s Secretary set out £400million plans to put 20,000 problem families under 24-hour CCTV super-vision in their own homes.

They will be monitored to ensure that children attend school, go to bed on time and eat proper meals.

Private security guards will also be sent round to carry out home checks, while parents will be given help to combat drug and alcohol addiction.

Around 2,000 families have gone through these Family Intervention Projects so far.

But ministers want to target 20,000 more in the next two years, with each costing between £5,000 and £20,000 â?? a potential total bill of £400million.

Ministers hope the move will reduce the number of youngsters who get drawn into crime because of their chaotic family lives, as portrayed in Channel 4 comedy drama Shameless.

Sin bin projects operate in half of council areas already but Mr Balls wants every local authority to fund them.

He said: â??This is pretty tough and non-negotiable support for families to get to the root of the problem. There should be Family Intervention Projects in every local authority area because every area has families that need support.â??

But Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: â??This is all much too little, much too late.

â??This Government has been in power for more than a decade during which time anti-social behaviour, family breakdown and problems like alcohol abuse and truancy have just got worse and worse.â??

Mr Balls also said responsible parents who make sure their children behave in school will get new rights to complain about those who allow their children to disrupt lessons.

Pupils and their families will have to sign behaviour contracts known as Home School Agreements before the start of every year, which will set out parentsâ?? duties to ensure children behave and do their homework.

The updated Youth Crime Action Plan also called for a crackdown on violent girl gangs as well as drug and alcohol abuse among young women.

But a decision to give ministers new powers to intervene with failing local authority Youth Offending Teams was criticised by council leaders.

Les Lawrence, of the Local Government Association, said they did â??crucialâ?? work and such intervention was â??completely unnecessaryâ??.

132

[quote]orion wrote:

SIN BINS FOR WORST FAMILIES

[/quote]

That’s not real is it??

Please tell me that’s not fucking real…

133

This conversation has gone a little too far for me to comment on a lot of the replies, though I would like to. So this is going to address several of the recurring themes in these conversations.

The school shootings arguement might make a good excuse for a gun grab but it is a stupid reason. These events are so rare, so exceptional that they can be refferred to by name and people know what is being discussed. What we can’t refer to by name and everyone knows what we are talking about is convenience store clerks who have been shot and killed even though there is a lot more of those than school shootings.

It makes absolutely no sense to make policy that affects millions of people in their normal daily lives because of a one time event that is totally exceptional. The 1997 gun control act as a reaction to Dunblane is a perfect example of how easily the British can be swayed by media hype into letting the government fuck them.

Next point, the doubling of gun crimes in the five years following the 1997 gun control act is a well known figure. I am not someones bitch who is going to do google searches for them because they are too uninformed to knwo widely known information.

Cock you come out with a lot of rubbish but the holding a gun to someones head remark is some of your best work. In the context of Britain if anyone is holding a gun it is the British government because except for criminals no one else has them.

It is astounding to observe the amount of blind faith that Brits like you will put in the government. Politicians are not saints! Tony Bliar sure as hell wasn’t. But the British people just rolled over and gave him all the power.

Multiple times in history the British government has gunned down unarmed British subjects because they protested against it depriving them of their freedom. Inspite of the history Britain is full of idiots who will insist that the British government can now be trusted not to do that again. Then they will go on to say how stupid and gun obsessed the Americans are because they insist on maintaining the ability to assert their mastery over their government.

The OP aked what is wrong with Britain. What is wrong with Britain is the mentality of the British people. They take their freedom for granted and are completely in denial of all the threats to their freedom that they are allowing to happen.

134

It’s real.

137

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

As long as I know that you and your gun are there to protect the world against government tyranny then I sleep safely in my bed at night. Thank you.

I see here you apparently concede the argument. Your ineffective diatribes and weak position certainly force you to become facetious at some point. Can’t say that I blame you; if I were in your position I would see the need to become playfully silly too.

You go on being free behind your guns and your barricades and I will continue to be repressed out in the open without the need of a gun.

Of all places to live, regardless of the relative safety or your particular neck of the Mexican woods, you employ this misguided attempt to paint a picture of utopia in a land where tyranny both from the criminal and from the state has reared its ugly head for hundreds of years. I’m tempted to type “I feel sorry for you,” but in reality I don’t. We all get what we deserve. If enough Americans acquire your ethos on this idea we too collectively will get what we deserve as well. You can take consolation in that fact.

Obviously I am a sheep because I don�¢??t follow you and your group�¢??s beliefs but gods damn it, I am a happy sheep here in Mexico, sipping my Michelada and playing with my daughter in the sunshine.

Regardless of where on this earth one sips his Michelada and plays with his daughter, if he does so in in peace and tranquility it is because others have inevitably shed their blood to make it so. If that is not the case it is a temporary sense of euphoria. On this we need not speculate, we have the volumes of history to substantiate it.

And here is where you and I have a fundamental difference of opinion: you believe in the innate transcendent goodness of your fellow man and your government. I believe he (and it) is innately evil and left unchecked will always eventually evolve into a force of malignancy. Again I would have to say history wholeheartedly and unarguably supports my view over yours.
[/quote]

Pretty neatly sums it up. As I have stated before, had I had a different upbringing in a different area I am sure that I would have different views. With this kind of argument there is no right and wrong other than what is right and wrong for you or for me personally and that is something that we both have to decide.

I am pretty optamistic (though with an underlying cynical caution), I treat people as I find them and try to be fair with everyone that I come into contact with. It has worked well for me so far in a large range of places, environments and social settings therefore that is the way that I will continue to lead my life.

I feel no need to go and get a gun or to rally against the gun laws here in Mexico or in the UK. Whilst I disagree with you about your need for a gun I also respect your choice especially given that you are breaking no laws.

What I do object to is Sifu claiming that the British are repressed by changes in gun laws in 1997 that were only controversial because they were not really necessary given that virtually no-one (less than 0.1% of the population) actually had or wanted a gun.

138

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
orion wrote:

SIN BINS FOR WORST FAMILIES

That’s not real is it??

Please tell me that’s not fucking real…[/quote]

Given that it is in the Express I would imagine that they have grabbed some output from a ‘think tank’ that has no chance of being passed into law and then exagerated the worst bits of it and passed it off as something that is about to happen.

140

[quote]Sifu wrote:
This conversation has gone a little too far for me to comment on a lot of the replies, though I would like to. So this is going to address several of the recurring themes in these conversations.

The school shootings arguement might make a good excuse for a gun grab but it is a stupid reason. These events are so rare, so exceptional that they can be refferred to by name and people know what is being discussed. What we can’t refer to by name and everyone knows what we are talking about is convenience store clerks who have been shot and killed even though there is a lot more of those than school shootings.

It makes absolutely no sense to make policy that affects millions of people in their normal daily lives because of a one time event that is totally exceptional. The 1997 gun control act as a reaction to Dunblane is a perfect example of how easily the British can be swayed by media hype into letting the government fuck them.

Next point, the doubling of gun crimes in the five years following the 1997 gun control act is a well known figure. I am not someones bitch who is going to do google searches for them because they are too uninformed to knwo widely known information.

Cock you come out with a lot of rubbish but the holding a gun to someones head remark is some of your best work. In the context of Britain if anyone is holding a gun it is the British government because except for criminals no one else has them.

It is astounding to observe the amount of blind faith that Brits like you will put in the government. Politicians are not saints! Tony Bliar sure as hell wasn’t. But the British people just rolled over and gave him all the power.

Multiple times in history the British government has gunned down unarmed British subjects because they protested against it depriving them of their freedom. Inspite of the history Britain is full of idiots who will insist that the British government can now be trusted not to do that again. Then they will go on to say how stupid and gun obsessed the Americans are because they insist on maintaining the ability to assert their mastery over their government.

The OP aked what is wrong with Britain. What is wrong with Britain is the mentality of the British people. They take their freedom for granted and are completely in denial of all the threats to their freedom that they are allowing to happen. [/quote]

OK Sifu, let me repeat the question as you are the expert.

Please give us an example between 1930 and 1997 of a non police, non military person in Great Britain using their own gun in self defence to stop a crime and not being prosecuted for either manslaughter or murder.

Based on your claim that there was a deterent to crime inherent in the legal status during this period and your evident great depth of knowledge on guns in the UK then this should be really easy for you.