Author Topic: Election results. Dont be Gay in Texas or a gun owner in SF (Read 2398 times)

lazs2 · « **Reply #60 on:** November 12, 2005, 09:39:03 AM »

eskimo... that is well thought out... the question is irrelevent however...

A right is not something that can be taken away by the majority... and.... all the stats in the world go out the window when it is you and your family that is being attacked and you want that gun to defend them... just like 1.5-3 million Americans do every year..

Still... your point is... if something is so dangerous... might not the rights of less than half or even the majority be taken away in order to stop the slaughter? Nooo... a right is a right.. it is important enough to be rated #2 in the bill of rights hit parade. A democracy does not apply to inalienable rights... formost of which is the right to defend yourself.

but.. once all the smoke and mirrors are taken away... it is pretty evident that a society is what it is.. regardless of firearms... a society with a high murder rate is still that way even if you add or take away firearms from the mix... englands homicide rate has never really varried much no matter what the laws... same for ours.

What is known tho is this... in an armed society... the more guns the good guys have.. the less crime and... stats show a slight decrease in murder as well... probly as you say.. armed citizens defuse some intent to murder..

reasonable solutions? Well..assuming that punishing the victims (gun control) is a poor solution and that it appears that is the case here... gun bans here lead to more crime in those areas... then..

The reverse is also true... more punishment for those who would use a firearm to tyranize the innocent... stronger laws for criminals and longer sentances... these things do indeed work.

With the former you have increased crime and a tyranized populace ripe for government or criminal acts of tyranny...

With the latter you have the best of both worlds... the innocent able to protect themselves, their loved ones and fellow citizens and the crooks and government either too firiegntened to victimize or.... when caught... taken out of society.

lazs

lazs2 · « **Reply #61 on:** November 12, 2005, 09:51:29 AM »

Ok nashwan... the site I showed was for the UN... it is laughable that the UN is right on everything else but this... you use the individual countries stats that do not communicate with each other... you claim they use no common standard...

Even so... england is crime ridden by your estimate.. I would rather take the chance of a meteor hitting me like murder rate per capita than to be victimized by crime with no defense...

you seem to feel that society will protect you if you dissarm yourselves.. that you will somehow be safer... we here (including our police) know that the only protection we will get in allmost every case is by ourselves or another citizen.

when guns enter or leave the mix.... homicide rates stay fairly constant but crime rates rise when citizens are disarmed and lower when more citizens are armed.

I have not seen one reason that you present that would say that taking away guns has any effect other than to make people commit murders in other ways.

Laws against using firearms in a crime seem much more logical wouldn't you agree nashwan?

lazs

beet1e · « **Reply #62 on:** November 12, 2005, 12:16:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by eskimo2
Who knows how many crimes are prevented simply because many would be criminals are wise enough to realize that they could die in a robbery attempt?

And who knows how many crimes are prevented because the would-be perpetrator is unable to obtain a gun to carry it out?

lazs2 · « **Reply #63 on:** November 12, 2005, 03:07:02 PM »

I can't imagine that anyone anywhere in the world would be prevented from commiting a crime because they couldn't get a gun..

I bet I could get a gun in england if I were only there a week... Know I could make one in that time. Why don't they?

It's not that they are impossible to get... even on a tiny little island surrounded by ocean.... nope.. it is because....

ta da!!!! the penalties are so high for possesing one and for using one...

It is never the law that tyrannizes people to kneel to their government.... it is the penalty..

Now... say that in the U.S. it was an automatic death penalty for using a gun in a crime... one trial... no appeal...How many gun crimes would we have?

say in england... the penalty for owning a gun was a one euro fine... or a warning... a stern talking to and then you were put on your honor to go have the gun destroyed... How many guns would england have?

lazs

eskimo2 · « **Reply #64 on:** November 12, 2005, 03:43:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2

say in england... the penalty for owning a gun was a one euro fine...
lazs

"one euro" like "one person who lives in Europe" or "one European money"?

eskimo

beet1e · « **Reply #65 on:** November 12, 2005, 06:41:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by eskimo2
"one euro" like "one person who lives in Europe" or "one European money"?

eskimo

I think he meant 1 Euro in money, having overlooked the fact that the UK was one of the three countries that did not adopt the Euro as its currency. (Denmark & Sweden were the other two)

StarOfAfrica2 · « **Reply #66 on:** November 12, 2005, 07:46:52 PM »

I figured if I made some general statements Nashwan would chime in. I never dispute his figures. His sources at times, but never the figures.

StarOfAfrica2 · « **Reply #67 on:** November 12, 2005, 07:49:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e

Is it OK with you if we keep this thread civil? We have a new member on board, and I'm sure HTC would appreciate it.

Beetle.............when have I ever been uncivil to you?

Well, other than the one time where I made a comment about your mother dressing you for too long, but ........... well never mind.

I dont think I'm the one you need to worry about when it comes to civility though. You have such an ardent fan club.

Jackal1 · « **Reply #68 on:** November 12, 2005, 10:57:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
And who knows how many crimes are prevented because the would-be perpetrator is unable to obtain a gun to carry it out?

Most anyone with any type of common sense would know.
If he`s professional and he wants a gun, he will have one.
Don`t matter where it is.
If it is a mostly unarmed, (read as no firearms), then a Louisville slugger will achieve the same goal.
When you take away the iright of the everyday person to protect themselves, then the rest is a cake walk for the professional.

eskimo2 · « **Reply #69 on:** November 13, 2005, 06:57:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
I think he meant 1 Euro in money, having overlooked the fact that the UK was one of the three countries that did not adopt the Euro as its currency. (Denmark & Sweden were the other two)

That was a joke beet1e. How can a fine be a person?

eskimo

lazs2 · « **Reply #70 on:** November 13, 2005, 09:02:27 AM »

Ok... let's just say it isn't the law that makes men kneel before the government....it is the penalty for breaking the law. The rich are of course exempt from the law and it's penalties so they are all for more and more "law" for the peasants.

lazs

Widewing · « **Reply #71 on:** November 13, 2005, 09:28:57 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
Ahem - the FACTS are that the total number of gun homicides in the UK have never reached a triple digit value in any calendar year you care to mention. That compares with a 5-digit value (13000+ in 1992) for the US, every year.

From the Telegraph....

Violent crime rising in Britain

Revealed: how the Home Office hides the true level of crime

My regards,

Widewing

lazs2 · « **Reply #72 on:** November 13, 2005, 09:45:41 AM »

thanks wide.... but... did anyone believe the assertions by beet and nashwan that the government was "over reported" in order to... to what? make themselves look like they were doing a bad job? Yeah... that's what governments do...

"low level thuggery" or.... the strong preying on the unarmed. You may have a 2 in 100,000 less chance of getting murdered in limeyland but... you will spend that time hiding from the strong thugs.

lazs

beet1e · « **Reply #73 on:** November 13, 2005, 09:52:43 AM »

Thanks widewing - I readily concede that the Blair government (for which I have never voted on the three occasions when it has been elected) is a goverment of lies and spin. There IS a great deal of spin, and as I said earlier, Blair likes to redefine criteria as a means of misleading the electorate into believing that his government's policies have worked.

But... that has nothing to do with the Home Office homicide stats for this country, and the FACT is that our gun homicide tally has never reached a triple digit value in any calendar year you care to name.

lazs2 · « **Reply #74 on:** November 13, 2005, 10:12:22 AM »

Including before your latest gun ban. Congrats on disarming the weak and innocent... Better to live in fear on your knees than to take that 2 in 100,000 chance that you may get shot instead of beat to death eh?

lazs