Author Topic: The List (Read 1394 times)

Toad · « **Reply #15 on:** March 11, 2005, 12:34:42 PM »

NIce try Beet.

Because you forgot that where "right to carry" has been implemented, gun crime has dropped. Even in the cities.

So, you're lost again as usual, grasping at straws.

Most restrictive gun laws in cities = highest crime cities.

Least restrictive gun laws, right to carry in cities = reduced crime.

Spin like a top if you like.... the results are obvious to any rational person.

Toad · « **Reply #16 on:** March 11, 2005, 12:45:36 PM »

But of course you digress.

The topic at hand is "what's the basis for using a non-specific, inaccurate, secret list for denying someone their constitutional right?"

Discuss.

Siaf__csf · « **Reply #17 on:** March 11, 2005, 12:47:12 PM »

I didn't know suspected terrorists had _any_ rights in your country Toad.

beet1e · « **Reply #18 on:** March 11, 2005, 01:06:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
NIce try Beet.

Because you forgot that where "right to carry" has been implemented, gun crime has dropped. Even in the cities.

Most restrictive gun laws in cities = highest crime cities.

Ah, but you're being selective. Take my three horse town of about 7,000 people. I bet the gun laws here are tighter than any US city, whether or not the gun laws have been tweaked. And yet there is NO gun crime here at all. I've lived in this town 22 years. But oh! "Gun crime hasn't dropped", I hear you cry. And how could it? There isn't any. The results are obvious to any rational person!

Then consider Baghdad - lots of guns, and lots of crimes! Before Part 2 of the Gulf War, almost every man had a gun. Hehe, it's not changed much.

Maybe Iraq needs MORE guns to solve the crime wave!

Your logic only works in the US - and even there only to a degree.

Siaf__csf · « **Reply #19 on:** March 11, 2005, 01:10:38 PM »

Well if things progress to a point where even normal citizens must arm themselves to the teeth just for self protection, there' s no turning back I guess.

The rest of us can feel lucky to live in a world where you won't even need to consider arming yourself for your personal safety.

lazs2 · « **Reply #20 on:** March 11, 2005, 02:35:58 PM »

right to carry laws reduce crime in any place that they are implemented... if it is an "old fart" town that didn't have right to carry... when they get right to carry they soon have even less crime. that is just the fact of the matter.

Unfortunately... population causes the new york femal democrat syndrome... soon we will all be told what to do by the new york women democrats of the country.

As for seat belt laws.... I am against em. Not against seat belts... just seat belt laws.

lazs

Maverick · « **Reply #21 on:** March 11, 2005, 02:46:08 PM »

BEET, must you try to hijack every thread that has the word "gun" in it? Please try to stay focused on the subject of the thread.

Toad · « **Reply #22 on:** March 11, 2005, 03:01:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Siaf__csf
I didn't know suspected terrorists had _any_ rights in your country Toad.

But then, as we've seen, not everyone on the no-fly list is a terrorist and beyond that they're not really sure who is on the list.

In other words, three John Smiths could show up to fly and if "John Smith" is on the list NONE of them will be allowed to fly.

Or buy a gun perhaps; even if ONE Smith is "the one", the other two would be denied their 2nd Amendement rights.

Beet, England isn't America. We settled that when we tossed you out in the late 1700's.

You have your safe nanny society and you're welcome to it. It's a nice place to visit but.

We have our society, with all it's dangers.... and freedoms. I'll take mine, thanks and you can have yours.

Quote

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Now do try to stay on topic; it's so very un-British of you to rudely hijack the thread.

Siaf__csf · « **Reply #23 on:** March 11, 2005, 03:14:28 PM »

You'll wish that he rudely hijacked the thread if he begins to smile. Them european teeth you know.

beet1e · « **Reply #24 on:** March 11, 2005, 04:04:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Now do try to stay on topic; it's so very un-British of you to rudely hijack the thread.

Bah! I'm wincing in agony - again!

But you have to concede, Mr. Toad, that there's less gun crime in my three horse town than in any of your "liberated" US towns where there are lots of concealed carry guns...

...Which leads me on to Lazs

Quote

right to carry laws reduce crime in any place that they are implemented... if it is an "old fart" town that didn't have right to carry... when they get right to carry they soon have even less crime. that is just the fact of the matter.

Well, Mr. Toad was focussing on GUN crime when he said that crime always drops where concealed carry is allowed. But it wouldn't happen here in my three horse town because there isn't any gun crime to begin with.

In fact the whole US gun rhetoric package only works in a place where gun ownership has always existed, got out of control leading to rampant levels of crime, and then began to decrease once certain steps had been taken to reduce it. Of course, however successful these US initiatives are, there'll always be more gun crime there than there is in almost any other civilised country in the western world.

quod erat demonstrandum.

Siaf__csf · « **Reply #25 on:** March 11, 2005, 04:06:47 PM »

Quote

In other words, three John Smiths could show up to fly and if "John Smith" is on the list NONE of them will be allowed to fly.

Toad, maybe this is a dumb question, but don't you have personal id's in the states?

Is it really possible to mix persons together if they have the same name? I'd be scared sh*tless if a murderer happened to be having the same name with me.

Maverick · « **Reply #26 on:** March 11, 2005, 04:19:21 PM »

Siaf,

Yep ID is a great thing. The problem with the list is this. It only lists a name. No ID, date of birth, height weight, skin color or even gender. You might have wonderful ID but if there is a name like yours on the list, guess what. You do not fly. Now if there is a name just like yours on a terrorist list, guess what. You lose rights because there is a name on the list like yours. That is the point of the problem Toad and I was showing you.

FWIW, there were 3 folks in my home town who had the same first and last name as I did. All 4 of us had the same innitials as well and those 3 were unrelated to me. I had a nice "conversation" with the credit reporting bureau one day when they mixed 2 of us up on my credit report. They wanted to know why I hadn't paid the hospital for the birth of my daughter. It was a big surprise to me to hear I was married and had a daughter....... I got a nice letter of apology and a heartfelt "oops" from them.

Toad · « **Reply #27 on:** March 11, 2005, 04:19:31 PM »

There are forms of ID, of course.

It's just that this "no-fly" list doesn't necessarily include them in every case. In short, one "John Smith" isn't necessarily ID'd as separate from the next "John Smith". It's one of the things they are working on. In typical government fashion, no doubt, they'll have it done in a decade or two.

That's why this idea of the female Democratic Rep from NY is so stupid.

Beet, you're just showing you don't really understand your own history.

Your gun crime rates are essentially the same over the last 50+ years. That covers a period from when Englishman could have a handgun if he merely stated it was for "self-defense" across the years of slowly eroding freedom to the point where handguns are now illegal in your country.

Intuitively, almost everyone sees that if your crime rate is unchanged over all those years it's doubtful your changing gun laws are the reason. Also it is beyond obvious that the post-Hungerford/Dunblane laws had no effect and were just a knee-jerk political reaction that deprived law-abiding citizens of their handguns for no good reason.

Now, if you want to start another "Beet really doesn't understand the history of English gun control and knows less about the US and guns" go ahead. I'll join in until you start denying recorded historical fact like you did last time.

But why don't you quit hijacking this thread? Keep it up and I'm sure the English nannies will be round to chastise you severely.

bustr · « **Reply #28 on:** March 11, 2005, 04:44:22 PM »

Toad,

Look at what beet is saying about his town in england. If it is removed some distance from the southern england and wales population centers and is homogenius white culture in its 7000 population, then they don't have much crime. The same holds true for most of the USA that is removed from our population centers and have primarily white populations with little travel influx from nearby large population centers. Funny when you take a look at that Red and Blue map from the last election, the blue areas, with demographic exceptions, have the highest crime and most restrictions on firearm ownership in the USA.

Most of our violent crime takes place in our large population centers, which also tend to be the most restrictive areas against personal firearm ownership. When you look at the statistics in those centers the majority of firearms related crime is commited by the minority populations males 15-35. From research on the internet this seems to be the pattern in the EU.

beet1e · « **Reply #29 on:** March 11, 2005, 06:23:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Beet, you're just showing you don't really understand your own history.

Your gun crime rates are essentially the same over the last 50+ years. That covers a period from when Englishman could have a handgun if he merely stated it was for "self-defense" across the years of slowly eroding freedom to the point where handguns are now illegal in your country.

I call Bullshirt on this. The reason you KEEP believing that our gun laws don't make a difference is because you PERSIST in your ERRONEOUS belief that there was a time, within the last 50 years to use your own time line, that ordinary Brits - people like my parents - could just walk into a gun shop and buy a gun like lazs's .44 magnum/.45 semiauto for self defence - just because they wanted to, and for no other reason.

And I KEEP telling you, but you REFUSE to believe it, that such a scenario NEVER EXISTED in Britain - never mind what your worshipful company of masterbeaters would have you believe. Although granted, their task is easy because it's what you WANT to believe.

Firearms legislation was first contemplated c1911, and certainly before WW1 which, in our case, began in 1914. Up until that time, police were being shot at and killed (6 killed and 92 wounded between 1908-1912). The firearms legislation was PROACTIVE which is much better than being REACTIVE. That is to say that we never allowed gun crime to get out of hand the way you did in America.

So no, there was no dramatic fall in gun crime because firearms legislation saw to it that gun crime never got a foothold in the first place. That's why there have been no more than TWO British police officers shot and killed since 1983, and why there are about FIFTY shot and killed EVERY year in the US.

Toodle Pip.