Author Topic: No (more) guns please - we're British (Read 6681 times)

lazs2 · « **Reply #255 on:** October 23, 2004, 10:57:41 AM »

beetle... we were allready well armed long before there was a need for concealled carry laws. I don't like your plan of making sure that the only person I will ever see with a gun is a criminal or a member of the government.

lazs

Glas · « **Reply #256 on:** October 23, 2004, 11:13:47 AM »

Someone posted earlier, and I dont see what is so difficult to understand about it:

There are so many guns in circulation in the USA that now trying to control them would be completely futile. There is no black market for guns because they are so freely available.

In the UK, the outlawing of guns works well because there are so few guns in circulation. It is therefore much easier for the authorities to control.

Finally, in the UK the majority like the gun laws the way they are. A similiar situation exists in the US afaik.

Dunno why everyone has to try to convince the other that their way is better for everyone.

Widewing · « **Reply #257 on:** October 23, 2004, 11:16:13 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e

Where's Widewing? If anyone sees him, tell him this one is less than 600 words - he doesn't have that many fingers.

I have one finger available...

Your first post was 1,596 words long (including the cut and paste material). Your total to this point is: 7,478 minus the quoted material you respond to.

Heck, you're almost 10% into a doctorate thesis! Think of the possibilities if that effort had been towards something productive!

Beet1e, you should realize that I'm just tugging on your cord....

My regards,

Widewing

beet1e · « **Reply #258 on:** October 23, 2004, 11:39:22 AM »

Widewing - As I said, the newpaper report was not written by me, and was therefore not *my* yelling.

Your latest post was very good. I see you almost understand the problem! I discussed this with Mr. Toad some days ago in this thread...

Quote

Originally posted by Widewing
Private gun ownership has been banned within the city limits of Washington DC for many decades.... Yet Washington is at or near the top of major US cities in shootings....

It's not guns, it's the violent culture. Banning ownership effects the law abiding, not the criminal, most of whom obtain their weapons illegally anyway.

There are about one million select-fire Assault Rifles in the hands of Swiss citizens, issued by their government. Yet, crimes with these weapons are virtually non-existant. Why is that? They don't have a large, violent sub-culture. Guns are not the problem. People are the problem.

I think your viewpoint is slightly biased. Guns are not the problem. People are not the problem. But guns and idiots are two precursors which, although harmless in isolation, combine to produce a deadly cocktail.

The ethnic poor/criminal subculture does not itself result in a high homicide rate. We have those problems in Britain, but our homicide rate is relatively low compared to yours.

Guns by themselves do not result in homicides. Many are in the hands of the Swiss, but there isn't a problem because Switzerland has no real criminal underclass - no drug gangs, no turf war shootouts...

So I don't blame the guns and I don't blame the people. As I said before, it's the two together that causes the problem. Britain has one precursor. Switzerland has the other. Unfortunately, the US has both.

We in Britain can't get rid of our criminal underclass, but we can sure as hell do the next best thing which is to target the supply of the other precursor to the explosion of crime. Right now we're succeeding, but we're slipping. We need more prisons, tougher sentencing, more police etc. - all the things I mentioned in that earlier post. We do NOT need gun shops and an armed populace. To go down that road would open a Pandora's box. We have seen what happens to crime/homicide when a society arms the populace. It cannot be done without also arming the criminal underclass - with dire consequences, as the US example clearly demonstrates.

Toad · « **Reply #259 on:** October 23, 2004, 12:15:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
To be perfectly honest, I don't know exactly what that gun ban did. Something about making it more difficult to buy some guns? There are no gun shops anyway, so what's the difference?

At last. You are on the verge of grasping this concept.

Your gun ban DID NOTHING. It changed NOTHING.

Your crime stats reflect that fact.

In both Britain and Australia, the bans/confiscations merely deprived law-abiding people of legitimate recreational opportunities (or made the process of performing those opportunities) pointlessly cumbersome and onerous.

The same would be true here. Were we to follow the ban/confiscation model, our crime stats wouldn't change significantly. The criminals wouldn't participate and the law-abiding folk that complied and turned in their guns aren't the ones that drive the stats up.

So, again, it isn't your gun laws or even your lack of guns that provide your low stats. The Canadian example stands in clear contrast to that theory. They've got plenty of guns, much less draconian gun laws and stats that rival yours.

Clearly, it's more than gun laws, bans, confiscations or availability of guns. It's much more based in societal mores I think.

Toad · « **Reply #260 on:** October 23, 2004, 12:25:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e

We in Britain can't get rid of our criminal underclass, but we can sure as hell do the next best thing which is to target the supply of the other precursor to the explosion of crime. Right now we're succeeding, but we're slipping.

If only you would open your eyes and examine what you yourself say.

Yes, you will always have a criminal underclass.

Target the supply? LOL! By your own admission, there never really WAS a "supply" in England. No guns, remember? No gun shops on every corner. It should be clear even to YOU that your criminal underclass is arming and re-arming from sources that NEVER were legitimate.

So, England never had many guns and certainly never had the gun distribution system of the US. Nonetheless, your criminals have never had problems getting firearms and they don't now.

In fact, by your own admission, the situation is getting worse, "slipping".

This despite harassing the normal law-abiding citizen in the pursuit of long standing, accepted recreational opportunities. Or depriving him of those opportunities all together. You should be so proud.

You bans didn't change your criminal stats, in fact you say it's getting worse... but at least you showed those law-abiding target shooters and hunters a thing or two!

Bravo, old chap.

beet1e · « **Reply #261 on:** October 23, 2004, 01:46:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
At last. You are on the verge of grasping this concept.

Your gun ban DID NOTHING. It changed NOTHING.

SO WHAT? WHO GIVES A CRAP?

I know I don't. I ask you YET AGAIN - WHO are these law abiding people who were deprived of legitimate recreational opportunities? Name names, or something. Because I don't know who you're talking about. And read Dowding's post: Gun ownership before ban: Sod all. Gun ownership after ban: Sod all. While you're at it, reread my post: Guns don't kill people. Idiots don't kill people. Guns + idiots (the US has both in "no trumps redoubled") are the problem. Jeez, how many more times do I have to type it...

Quote

Target the supply? LOL! By your own admission, there never really WAS a "supply" in England. No guns, remember? No gun shops on every corner. It should be clear even to YOU that your criminal underclass is arming and re-arming from sources that NEVER were legitimate.

Yes, I KNOW that.

<-- one was not enough. That's why guns are difficult (but not impossible) to get here. And that's why we have probably many thousands of them, but we don't have millions. And those that the gangstas can get tend to be old, unreliable and inaccurate - ie not .44 magnums, thank cod.

Quote

Nonetheless, your criminals have never had problems getting firearms and they don't now.

Wrong. That's why so many resort to replicas - two thirds of all "gun" crimes.

I never said we had "no guns". This thread was started in response to a particular gun related situation.

Try again, ole Bufo. Your grand entrances into my threads are becoming such that the toastmaster has to ask who you are, and whether you've been invited to the party. Pretty soon, he'll ask to see your invitation. S'OK, you're always welcome in my threads.

Toad · « **Reply #262 on:** October 23, 2004, 02:28:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
SO WHAT?

So what?

It was POINTLESS, that's what.

It was just stupid.

It didn't make you folks any safer, it just made things more difficult for people who NEVER WERE doing anything wrong.

Name names? I could, old chap. Easily over a dozen. But I don't think it would be appropriate on a BBS without their permission. Recall that I DO visit England and I do interact and actually hunt and shoot with English citizens. The ones that DO maintain some truly grand English traditions of the field.

Also you ignore the "supply" thing, deliberately I'm sure.

Look... your culture NEVER had a huge supply/distribution system like ours. Further, your criminals had far less access to such a system than ours do/did. So your criminals were getting their guns illegally and STILL do. You bans, laws and confiscations DID NOT AFFECT THAT in the least. In fact, as you say, your situation is getting WORSE post-ban/confiscation.

So your "solution" to your non-existent problem was pointless.

beet1e · « **Reply #263 on:** October 23, 2004, 03:10:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mr. Toad
So what?

It was POINTLESS, that's what.

It was just stupid.

It didn't make you folks any safer, it just made things more difficult for people who NEVER WERE doing anything wrong.

Name names? I could, old chap. Easily over a dozen.

A dozen?! Why, that's a whole 0.00002% of our population.

If I'd known the gun ban was going to have that much of an impact, I might have had a word with Tony at the Queen's birthday garden party at BP to suggest he rethink it. (I couldn't make the garden party that year

)

Toad · « **Reply #264 on:** October 23, 2004, 03:25:42 PM »

Well, Beet, if I actually knew 95% of your population I could be a leading source. I'm sorry I haven't met every single Englishman. My fault, I guess.

I can certainly say 100% of the English folks I hunted with think the ban was stupid.

Why?

Because it WAS stupid. Didn't change a thing. In fact, this guy that knows everything has even posted that

Quote

To be perfectly honest, I don't know exactly what that gun ban did. Something about making it more difficult to buy some guns? There are no gun shops anyway, so what's the difference?

Exactly. NO difference.

Pointless. Stupid.

beet1e · « **Reply #265 on:** October 23, 2004, 03:36:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mr. Toad
I can certainly say 100% of the English folks I hunted with think the ban was stupid.

What, BOTH of them?

Toad · « **Reply #266 on:** October 23, 2004, 03:53:27 PM »

No, I suppose one would have to put it at 8 of the really rich guys, one of whom ran the largest food/grocery company in England and then add in about 30 folks that I shot/beat/picked up with on "beaters day" at the Shoot.

Call it about 40.. but I don't recall all their names. A dozen or so I do.

I note that you don't challenge the stupidity of the ban.

SC-Sp00k · « **Reply #267 on:** October 23, 2004, 05:25:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
At last. You are on the verge of grasping this concept.

Your gun ban DID NOTHING. It changed NOTHING.

Your crime stats reflect that fact.

In both Britain and Australia, the bans/confiscations merely deprived law-abiding people of legitimate recreational opportunities (or made the process of performing those opportunities) pointlessly cumbersome and onerous.

The Brits gun ban may have done nothing, but then again, they were hardly a country which possessed a people riddled with gun ownership, now were they.

The Aussie gun ban, did do something. Within 2 years of it being brought in, even I (without my stats) could see the difference in the incidents I attended. No it didnt completely solve the problem. Nothing will, but it went a long way to doing something about it.

Your country men say its too ingrained, it can never change. I say it can providing you have the political base, strong enough to carry it out. Thats why I see it a long distant shot in your country. Your politicians are more willing to sell their souls for the popular vote and getting that one past your population would be one huge political headache. To say its impossible however is not true. Difficult in the extreme? I'll wear that.

Im curious Toad. What exactly were you hunting in the rolling green hills of England?

Toad · « **Reply #268 on:** October 23, 2004, 05:52:14 PM »

The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales

November 2003

by Gary A. Mauser

Quote

....Australia

Following shocking killings in 1996, the Australian government made sweeping changes to the firearm legislation in 1997. Unfortunately, the recent firearm regulations have not made the streets of Australia any safer. The total homicide rate, after having remained basically flat from 1995 to 2001, has now begun climbing again.

The decline in homicide rate in the gun-permissive United States stands out against the trend in Australia. The divergence between Australia and the United States is even more apparent with violent crime. While violent crime is decreasing in the United States, it is increasing in Australia.

Over the past six years, the overall rate of violent crime in Australia has continued to increase. Robbery and armed robbery rates continue to rise. Armed robbery has increased 166% nationwide.

The confiscation and destruction of legally owned firearms cost Australian taxpayers at least $500 million. The costs of the police services bureaucracy, including the hugely costly infrastructure of the gun registration system, has increased by $200 million since 1997.

And for what? There has been no visible impact on violent crime. It is impossible to justify such a massive amount of the taxpayers’ money for no decrease in crime. For that kind of tax money, the police could have had more patrol cars, shorter shifts, or maybe even better equipment. Think of how many lives might have been saved.....

Your stats? Here, right from your government sources and mine.

Yeah.... really supports your position. NOT.

SC-Sp00k · « **Reply #269 on:** October 23, 2004, 06:01:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
facts? what facts? spook, you show us a picture of, I presume (i didn't go there) a child killed by a handgun? that is the facts? The truth is that you have not shown one fact to support your theories and fears and neurosis... You know you can't so you sink to sensationalism.... liberals here try that but most of us have become imune to the silliness of such an "arguement"

You seem a tad upset Laz. Want a tissue?
The reason I dont poke around the internet (extensive and accurate resource that it is) is that I could think of nothing more boring than doing so.

Further more, you ignore the intolerant numbers of your own stats and in the place of intellectual based criticism of those numbers, you hold them up as some form of shining example, for your country, which makes the rest of us shudder when we think of the mentality behind one capable of doing so.

Reality is not sensationism Laz. Those pictures (which are not of child victims) show what happens when your disney land fantasy of a Willy Wonka gun world goes astray. Deal with it you gun weilding peanut. You are not "immune" to the silliness of it. You are ignorant.

we are suppossed to give up our guns and all the advantages they bring and the enjoyment because.... someone got killed?

10,000 someones wasnt it?

maverick again is the voice of reason balancing your hysterical hand wringing. I have seen lots of sensless death. Cars and hiking and boating and swimming and taking baths and riding bikes all cause more deaths in the U.S. than accidental death of toddlers by handguns... more toddlers are killed by drowning in 5 gallon buckets.

Maverick is one voice. I am another. Cars, boats, hiking boots and riding bikes are not designed for the express purpose of killing. Climb out of your target butts for a moment and wake up.

Accidental deaths of toddlers by handguns in the US vs toddlers drowing by accident in buckets eh?
And deliberate deaths? Please get me the stats on that one! LOL.

Oh... and I am not a rangemaster nor do I teach classes. A range facility is under my control. I simply facilitate it's use by about 6 different police forces so that it does not interfere with my plant operations. My experiance is simply as a lifelong hobbiest and I am fortunate to have access to a lot of trainers for police including swat teams. I am very friendly with all of them and we spend time on the subjects I discuss here.... Allmoat all are nike maverick... I have never seen one like spook.

Ahh. So you are a landowner. The way you talk, you'd swear the Police forces over there owed some form of allegiance to you based on your incredible firearms knowledge.

Just so I get this straight. I do tend to get confused by your posts at time. You KNOW some policemen and they use your land to shoot?

Forgive me. Its now obvious to me, the quality and depth of knowledge you possess when you talk about Police mentality and their beliefs in this subject matter.

My ignorance is simply inexcuseable. I'd smack myself if I couldnt stop laughing.

Your arguement is as weak as they get... one incident or picture and destroy an entire countries freedoms and rights?

Now this is the best yet!
You are a countrymen of a Nation under percieved Terrorist threat and I well imagine a patriot, no?
How many freedoms and rights, do you percieve you have lost under the Homeland Security Act?

Gun Control is not about losing a freedom or a right as you well know Laz. That is a pretty p*** poor excuse my friend for nothing more than a "Paranoid" emotional response to an infringement on your consitutional rights.

Given what you tell me about yourself, you would not even be effected by Gun control with the exception of the types of firearms you may be allowed to possess. Guess you'll have to throw away that Commie deterent M60 Machinegun! Ahh the horror!

I can't show you an negative... I can't show you pictures of all the people wjho aren't bloody rags because they had a gun when they needed it... I can't show you the bodies of the kids who weren't killed in school shootings because a citizen with a gun stopped it before it went any further.

Good. Listening to you blokes is negative enough!

so how bout a fact? how bout the FBI fact that bvetween 1.5 and 3 million crimes a year are stopped by firearms... mostly in the hands of citizens... if only a fraction of those were people who would have died...

FACT. Give me the stats that go with it, rather than your Michael Moore version of the truth. Give me the stats that state, How many civilians were killed attempting to defend their homes, loved ones or businesses for that same period.
Give me that stats that show how many of these crimes were induced and escalated by the presence of a firearm and how many that were not. That without the escalation of violence produced with the presence of a firearm, that death or serious in could have been avoided.

You show a one sided arguement with every post that means absolutely sweet b*gger all to me mate. Without the rest of the information, your information isnt worth the ink it would take to print out this page.

Everyone here who is happy with there gun bans lives on an island of mostly white people... and socialism and tradition of being subjects. You know nothing of what it is to be an American... I am glad of that.

Nations of pure white people! Not only do you show a distinct racist attitude in this comment, but I wonder what plane of existance you are on. Where does such a place exist? Not in my country and not in Beetles. Uzbackofnowherestan perhaps?

If you are "A" typical of the American people. Im bloody glad I dont.

lazs [/B]