I don't think this will be in "The Armed Citizen"

[Creamo]

Blarg. Useless. You feed on his worthless blather so you can spew more, and pong match each other. I thought i knew better.

Get it on tards. Have fun.

[GtoRA2]

The Euro anti guns types mean nothing. They can't vote.


The ones we should worry about are the ones here, and there are enough anti gun americans to really give us cause to worry..


Granted making eurotools like beelte look dumb over and over may convince a few Americans there anti guns stance is stupid.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Toad
Why not? You want to want to have the automobile you want, even if the Autos-4-All policy which enables that results in thousands of avoidable deaths each year.

Something wrong with your feet? Forget how to walk? Walk and save lives, Beet.

I think you have redefined the meaning of "obtuse". As you know, our economy (and yours) could not survive without adequate lines of transport. We saw that as recently as September 2000 in the Fuel Tax Revolt. So, we do what we can to minimise road deaths. Eg. the seatbelt law (1 Jan., 1983) reduced road accident deaths from 5000pa to about 3000pa. So successful was it that we began to suffer an organ donor crisis!

Deaths resulting from road usage are tragic of course, but the simple fact is that in our modern economy/infrastructure, we cannot do without road transport.

However, guns in the hands of private individuals are completely unnecessary and, as the experience in Nottingham shows, make the job of our police harder and more dangerous. BTW it's not just Britain; guns in private hands are deemed unnecessary in most civilised western countries.

While you wonder in awe at old stone houses, I'll be out enjoying Mother Nature

Yeah, I do that too quite often - was out today in fact. So peaceful, the tranquility marred by only the occasional sound of gunfire! No idea what was being shot at, with what or by whom, and care even less.

____________________________
Claiming to be ignoring me, but aren't really - Elfie, Airhead, GTOra2

[Toad]

Actually it's quite apt.

YOUR particular lifestyle requires an automobile, therefore, you can excuse any number of deaths by auto.

Of course, your society existed for thousands of years without autos. Yes, it would be different, but your society would survive.

There are present societies that have far fewer autos than yours and far fewer auto deaths as a result.

However, YOU are personally opposed to it because YOU don't want to live that way. No matter how many grieving mothers your personal choice creates.

[beet1e]

No, you're quite wrong. Our society could NOT survive in its current form. In my part of Britain, it's not unusual for folks to have to travel 30/40/50/60 miles or more to get to their place of work. And I was one of them. Not only did I need to drive, but I needed to live in an area which was central to the industry of which I was a part. Not everyone drives, and I knew a couple of guys who did a similar job to mine and went everywhere by train. But again, there are train crashes, so...

The current government was very fond of advocating travel by public transport - conveniently overlooking the fact that the PT we have now is already working at capacity, so no way for all those commuters to switch from private cars.

And No way could we be like China, with 1 car per 300,000 people while everyone else goes by rickshaw. But it's an entertaining thought!

Now, where did I put my automobile key...

[Jackal1]

If I were a residence of Dixon and Beet were the mayor, there would be an assasination. There wouldn`t be nuttin he could do to prevent it and I aint lie`n.
  There is nothing wrong with him that a few U.S. dollars couldn`t straighten out.
  Get a few of the boys on Harleys, take him for a little ride. Maybe either affixiate the pastey face,cross country dining, stone gawker with a little primer paint or possibly force feed him Visa cards until he choked.
  Just for kicks before his demise it might be interesting to force him to haul a few hundred bales of hay or maybe hoe a few crops until he realized there is a real world and that not everyone in it lives sheltered, pampered lives with housekeepers and maids to cotton to their every whining wish. At least work him hard enough until his thirst level reached the stage to where when given a cold can of beer he realized it can be one of the most pleasurable experiences to have if you actualy labor for a living .
  Of course as a witness or a participant he would definitaely have to be finsihed off because he could identify me by my tattoos if the job were left unfinished.

[Jackal1]

Oh yea...I forgot.......There would have to be a 21 gun salute when he was laid to rest using live ammo.

[beet1e]

  jackal

[Toad]

Oh, most certainly you would survive. It would have to be a slow, measured transition. But the savings in lives would make it more than worth while.

You could still have appropriate government agencies use autos and trucks, of course. Police, Fire, Ambulance, etc. but I'm sure you realize that driving is best left to these governmental professionals. Autos in the hands of you amateurs is simply far to dangerous.

Public transportation would have to increase but there'd be ample roadway available for new trains and buses as most of the autos will be gone.

And then there's HORSES! You folks can return to the glorious days when knights ruled your land. There won't be many 60 mph crash deaths when most of you are horseback.

It'll be wonderful.. and THINK how many LIVES you'll save by removing almost all of those totally unnecessary autos from the roads.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by beet1e
  jackal

Heehee.

[Sixpence]

Gun owners need to get more involved. Irresponsible gun owners are screwing the responsible ones. So many are careless and have their guns fall into the wrong hands. I was reading an article about how police are finding more guns in routine traffic stops. If a gun owner loses or has his guns stolen more than once, he should at least be limited to one gun, and not a hand gun.

I can't wait til technology catches up and a lojack chip can be embedded into guns. Getting guns out of the hands of the public isn't the problem, getting them out of the hands of the irresponsible and the bad guys is the problem.

If we don't get them out of the hands of the wrong people, then eventually the public will get fed up and there will be a backlash. At that point the anti gun people will take the initiative and get legislation passed while the polls don't dare cross public opinion.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Sixpence

I can't wait til technology catches up and a lojack chip can be embedded into guns.  

Which will be immediately followed by the tatooing of six numbers on the forehead of everyone for identitification purposes.

[beet1e]

Mr. Toad,

your utopian view of Britain without private cars is interesting! And make no mistake, I shall toy with the ideas you have suggested.

However, it won't work in practice. I limited impact version of the carless utopia was tried by the current government - twice. Both times it failed.

In 2000, the fuel tax accelerator (a tax by which the cost of road fuel was increased by 6% above the rate of inflation) triggered the fuel tax revolt. (read about it here) In this revolt, drivers basically said they'd had enough. And Tony Blair was forced to listen - something he normally only does every once every 4 years. The accelerator tax was abandoned!

The following year, Labour again tried to establish its vision of motoring Utopia - pretty much like the scenario you described yourself! Did you know that in 2001, not one single inch of new road was built in Britain - the smallest amount of new road building since 1880, and the invention of tarmacadam?

And the result? Mayhem. Traffic jams, outraged motorists. You see we NEED mobility. I might be working in Maidenhead one year, and Croydon the next. I could not relocate on the basis of a 6 month contract. Commuting was the only way to go. I suppose I could have walked the 60 miles to my Croydon office, but I think it might have been closed by the time I got there.

However - guns - sure we needed guns in the days of highwaymen, some of whom targeted areas not so far from where I am now. Gentlemen travelling on the long distance coaches were advised to carry their sidearms!

But last time I drove down the A4, I didn't see any guys on horseback with a silk scarf covering their faces, brandishing a flintlock.

By 1911, when firearms legislation was first considered, only the criminal classes needed guns for their chosen occupation. For this reason, legislation to remove firearms from circulation "sailed through parliament". Remember, said legislation was passed by a democratically elected government, which was reelected two years later. Even the opposition party did not try to reverse this legislation when finally elected in 1924.

We had our gun years, but recognised when they was over. The US, however, still harks back to the days of guys wearing raccoons on their heads and standing on the threshold of their property with a rifle.

[Toad]

Didn't read it, skimmed it.

Anyway, a carless Britain may pave the way for a true "internet commute" economy for the whole world.

Think of the lives saved by getting rid of unnecessary cars...no more drunk drivers either!

Go for it.

[lazs2]

beet ... your "mayor of Dixon" rant should have been tittled "queen of Dixon"... what you are asking for is more youropean than American.

You are essentially saying that guns are ok so long as only the upper class has em..

We don't have a queen or royalty or class system so you will have to make rules that apply to all.

creamo.. maybe I am wrong but it seems to me that making the gun grabbers from other countries show their true colors we are warning Americans who are apathetic and follow these threads.

lazs