Whats going on in Canada?

[Momus--]

Originally posted by Toad
Indeed, you are But just keep watching and see how the UK attempt to ban firearms works out for organized crime. As the years pass it'll become more clear to you my droogie.  
 

It's been posted before but I'll repeat it for your benefit: the most recent tightening of the UK handgun laws was in response to an incident where a lunatic went postal with legally held weapons and offed a number of kindergarten-age children. Whether the ban was a knee-jerk reaction or not is debatable but one thing is certain; there has not been a repeat of the incident since.

As for your claim regarding the effect of the ban on organized crime, are you seriously arguing that the relatively small number of enthusiasts who had to turn in their weapons back in the mid '90s, many of whom were already obliged to keep their weapons on gun club premises and none of whom had the right to concealed carry, were the only force preventing the explosion of armed criminal anarchy that you seem to think is imminent?

[lazs2]

momus.... no there has not been a repeat of the incident.... course..... it had never happened again and..... it might happen next week with an illegal gun or might never have happened again with a legal one if there had been no ban....

that is like saying that banning crashing into buildings with passenger jets has saved us from it ever happening again since it.... hasn't happened again...

banning handguns has not made you any safer from crazy people.

lazs

[lazs2]

momus.... no there has not been a repeat of the incident.... course..... it had never happened before and..... it might happen next week with an illegal gun or might never have happened again with a legal one if there had been no ban....

that is like saying that banning crashing into buildings with passenger jets has saved us from it ever happening again since it.... hasn't happened again...

banning handguns has not made you any safer from crazy people.

and... No, I do not think that your gun owners restricted as they were had much of an effect on stopping crime... some of your laws tho combined with that (like making it illegal to use force) have no doubt caused the increase in crime.   There is no doubt in the U.S. that more guns equal less crime and more gun control laws equal more crime.

lazs

[Rotax447]

In general terms, homicide is the death of a human, caused by another human.  State laws further define specific types of homicide as first, second, third degree murder, manslaughter, vehicular homicide, etc.

Our Founding Farthers were not stupid.  They knew guns killed people, yet, they felt that  private gun ownership was vital enough to be given Constitutional protection.  Let’s look at some of the reasons why they did this.

As Beetle and Nash point out, 10,000 Americans are murdered each year by guns.  Let’s use that figure as our baseline.  It will take 100 years for Americans to kill 1,000,000 Americans.  It will take us 150 years to kill 1,500,00 Americans.  It will take us 2,000 years to kill 20,000,000 Americans.  Sum these numbers up, and we have 2,250 years to kill 22,500,000 people.

Between 1846-1849  1,000,000 of Britain’s Irish ’subjects’ died from starvation.  This, while Ireland was a net *exporter* of food to Britain.

Between 1800-1849  1,500,000 of Britain’s Indian ’subjects’ died from starvation.  This, while India was a net *exporter* of food to Britain.

Between 1850-1899  20,000,000 of Britain’s Indian ’subjects’ died from starvation.  This, while India was a net *exporter* of food to Britain.

Care to site one example in the history of the US, where any state, territory, or possession under US control, experienced 1,000,000 deaths due to starvation?

Our Founding Fathers knew precisely what they were doing.  The death rate of ‘subjects’ at the hands of ‘subjects’ pales in comparison to what a government can inflict on it’s own people.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Mr. Toad
No Beet, as Nuke said you're just being hypocritical again. Gun deaths = Bad/Unacceptable but Drunk Driver Deaths = OK/Acceptable.

You're OK with someone getting sloshed and driving a 3000 pound bullet going 70 mph and hitting an innocent bystander but you're outraged at someone under the influence that unleashing a 150 grain bullet going 1200 fps and hitting an innocent bystander.

I suspect those who have lost friends or family due to either causation would find your position hypocritical.

I never said that drunk driving deaths = OK/Acceptable. You made that up. Indeed it is not acceptable, which is why everyone I know including myself walks or uses a taxi service if travelling to a venue at which alcohol will be consumed.

Banning alcohol in the US simply resulted in bootleg liquor being manufactured and distributed by organised crime syndicates. The same thing might happen here. DUI is already banned, and the vast majority of people in this country respect this and the reasons behind it, just as I do.

Unfortunately, there are always a few bad apples. But please don't suggest that our DUI laws "don't work". Some Americans on this board need to develop a sense of proportion. No law works perfectly. I believe that homicide is a crime in the US, and that there's a law against it. And yet that law was broken more than 14,000 times in 2004 alone. That doesn't mean that the law "doesn't work" - even if it doesn't work perfectly.

[lazs2]

rotax... of course that is the point of the founders.. Jefferson realized that nobody can murder like governments can murder... no grief can compare to what governments can dish out.   Reading about the Boer war now.  

One thing most everyone here on this BB has in common... they all seem to think that one or most or all of the other posters governments are mass murderers..   and... it would seem they are correct.

I would not want to have been anyone that had anything to do with british imperialism for instance... soldiers, subjects and tyrannized peoples all died at prodigous rates.

One thing tho... if we could remove every firearm from America there is no gurarantee that we would not have 11000 homicides the next year.  

lazs

[Toad]

Originally posted by beet1e
I never said that drunk driving deaths = OK/Acceptable. You made that up. Indeed it is not acceptable, which is why everyone I know including myself walks or uses a taxi service if travelling to a venue at which alcohol will be consumed.

[/b]


You don't accept drunk driving deaths? Hmmm.... you vigorously support gun bans in England to save lives but oppose banning alcohol despite the fact that your drunk driving deaths greatly exceed your gun homicides?

Sorry, it won't wash.

Using the above logic, I guess that US gun homicides are not acceptable but as long as everyone I know uses their guns at ranges on paper targets or in the field hunting there would then be no need for a ban?

Banning alcohol in the US simply resulted in bootleg liquor being manufactured and distributed by organised crime syndicates. The same thing might happen here. DUI is already banned, and the vast majority of people in this country respect this and the reasons behind it, just as I do.[/b]

And what has your hangun ban done? How's the conversion rate of replicas to "zip guns" going? Give it some more years and I think you'll see a similar situation occur with the UK Prohibition of firearms. The organized crime syndicates will grow ever bolder.

Unfortunately, there are always a few bad apples. But please don't suggest that our DUI laws "don't work".  [/B]

No one suggested that. In fact the exact same case can be made for gun homicides in BOTH the UK and the US without bans. The homicide laws worked before your ban; there are just always a few bad apples. No reason to punish the entire population for a few bad apples.

The point is the hypocritical position you take. You see no need to ban alcohol although, truth be told, alcohol is probably the root cause in much of your violence of any sort, your gun homicides AND your drunk driving deaths. It's the "common denominator".  Yet you support the need to ban handguns (and mostly likely all firearms eventually).

Alcohol is a much greater cause of violence and cause of death than firearms. Period. Indisputable. But I don't see you calling for a ban on that.

DUI laws are sufficient to regulate drunk driving deaths but prison terms for gun homicides are insufficient so handguns must be banned?

And you wonder why people jeer and see you as a hypocrite.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Momus--
Whether the ban was a knee-jerk reaction or not is debatable but one thing is certain; there has not been a repeat of the incident since.

[/b]

Oh, I think it's pretty well accepted that it was a "knee jerk" reaction. IIRC even Nashwan says that.

You'll note there wasn't an incident like prior to the ban either, really. And you'll noter there is no absolute guarantee that it won't happen again, ban notwithstanding. See, there's laws against all sorts of things that seem to happen despite being "banned".

As for your claim regarding the effect of the ban on organized crime, are you seriously arguing that the relatively small number of enthusiasts who had to turn in their weapons back in the mid '90s, many of whom were already obliged to keep their weapons on gun club premises and none of whom had the right to concealed carry, were the only force preventing the explosion of armed criminal anarchy that you seem to think is imminent?

No, I'm not arguing that at all. You're just building a strawman.

[Rotax447]

The murder rates between the US and the UK are very interesting.  We run 4 per 100,000, and the UK runs 1 per 100,000.  If we remove inner city gang related murders from the equation, then we are 2 per 100,000, or twice that of the UK.  

Consider that in half the murders, the victim knew the assailant.  Remove easy access to guns, and we could probably half that.  So, that would give us 1.5 per 100,000, versus the UK 1 per 100,000.

There you have it.  If we starve our inner city subjects into oblivion, and confiscated our guns, we can be just like the UK.

No thanks .. I would rather live with the high murder rate, and be American.

[Momus--]

Originally posted by Toad


Oh, I think it's pretty well accepted that it was a "knee jerk" reaction. IIRC even Nashwan says that.

You'll note there wasn't an incident like prior to the ban either, really. And you'll noter there is no absolute guarantee that it won't happen again, ban notwithstanding. See, there's laws against all sorts of things that seem to happen despite being "banned".

I'd probably agree that it was an over-reaction, but actually, the ban pretty much guarantees that there will not be another incident involving legally-held weapons such as the Dunblane massacre.

No, I'm not arguing that at all. You're just building a strawman.

Actually, I just asked you a question. Given that you answered in the negative, what did you mean by this statement?

But just keep watching and see how the UK attempt to ban firearms works out for organized crime

Its been nearly a decade since the ban was enforced. Can you elaborate as to what effect removing handguns from the ownership of a relatively small number of enthusiasts has had on "organised crime"?

Also, in this thread you wrote:

Congrats... you've successfully disarmed the folks that were never a threat, while making the criminals even more dangerous as they are now the only ones with guns now.

which also seems to suggest that you think removing weapons from a small number of enthusiasts equates to making things easier for criminals.

Maybe you could clarify your view?

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Mr. Toad

You don't accept drunk driving deaths? Hmmm.... you vigorously support gun bans in England to save lives but oppose banning alcohol despite the fact that your drunk driving deaths greatly exceed your gun homicides?

Sorry, it won't wash.

Using the above logic, I guess that US gun homicides are not acceptable but as long as everyone I know uses their guns at ranges on paper targets or in the field hunting there would then be no need for a ban?

You're trying to make a US thesis fit the UK model. Sorry, it won't wash.

I have never said that Americans should give up their guns. That would be unfair in light of the way your constitution has so systematically armed all your criminals. As I've said before on this board, I am opposed to unilateral disarmament.

What I have said is that like the vast majority of Brits, I support the status quo with regard to gun control legislation in Britain. I don't want to see our country flooded with guns. Like most Brits, I enjoy that Church bingo night feeling too much to see it eroded by a guns free for all of the type you espouse.

The point is the hypocritical position you take. You see no need to ban alcohol although, truth be told, alcohol is probably the root cause in much of your violence of any sort, your gun homicides AND your drunk driving deaths. It's the "common denominator". Yet you support the need to ban handguns (and mostly likely all firearms eventually).

Alcohol is a much greater cause of violence and cause of death than firearms. Period. Indisputable. But I don't see you calling for a ban on that.

You're applying US logic to a UK scenario, and can't figure out why it doesn't make sense. OK, let me explain. The vast majority of people in this country (around 95%) drink socially. Of those, the vast majority walk or use public transport/taxi if they're going out for a drink, or a meal at which alcohol will be consumed. These forms of enjoyment form the basis of a substantial part of our social integration.

But how many of those same people see any need for a handgun? Not too many. We've got enough trouble with gangs in Britain - exactly the same type of activity which was the original basis of this thread. A flood of guns would make it much, much worse. But because you persist in using US logic in an attempt to understand the situation in Britain, you just don't get it.

As for being called a hypocrite, yeah, it's like being kicked - by a grasshopper. The last time was in a thread about global warming. Apparently it's fine for the US to emit billions of tons of greenhouse gas every year, but if I and five others embark on a week long boat trip that will use ~90 litres of diesel fuel, that makes me a hypocrite. LOL - physicians heal thyselves.

The murder rates between the US and the UK are very interesting. We run 4 per 100,000, and the UK runs 1 per 100,000. If we remove inner city gang related murders from the equation, then we are 2 per 100,000, or twice that of the UK.

Consider that in half the murders, the victim knew the assailant. Remove easy access to guns, and we could probably half that. So, that would give us 1.5 per 100,000, versus the UK 1 per 100,000.

There you have it. If we starve our inner city subjects into oblivion, and confiscated our guns, we can be just like the UK. - rotax

Classic deployment of Lazsmatics™ if ever there was one! Apples and oranges. Did you ever stop to think that just as gang related murders are a significant proportion of the US total, the same thing is true in the UK? Did you read the start of this thread, and that the same thing is happening in Canada?

If you want a like for like comparison, by all means take your gang murders out of the equation. But to arrive at a meaningful comparison, you will also have to take out the UK gang murders. But then again, maybe you don't want a meaningful comparison. You just want the figures to be manipulated to support what you want to believe.

The other Lazsmatic™ formula you need to understand is that of removing black people from the crime stats, but then adding them back in again to arrive at the total population count, so that the total "white" crime is spread over as many people as possible (white AND black) to arrive at a more "favourable" per capita crime rate.
:aok

[Curval]

Originally posted by Rotax447
The murder rates between the US and the UK are very interesting.  We run 4 per 100,000, and the UK runs 1 per 100,000.  If we remove inner city gang related murders from the equation, then we are 2 per 100,000, or twice that of the UK.  

Consider that in half the murders, the victim knew the assailant.  Remove easy access to guns, and we could probably half that.  So, that would give us 1.5 per 100,000, versus the UK 1 per 100,000.

There you have it.  If we starve our inner city subjects into oblivion, and confiscated our guns, we can be just like the UK.

No thanks .. I would rather live with the high murder rate, and be American.

Why does the Inner City gang related murders get removed from the equation in the US but not in the UK?  If you reduce the US figure for that SURELY you need to reduce it in the UK also to be comparable?

Remove easy access to guns and "we could PROBABLY half that".  lol...and you got that number from where?  Thin air?  Off the top of your head?  PROBABLY?  

Then you say that "if we starve our inner city subjects into oblivion".  Huh?  What has that got to do with anything...other than your India example above.  Are you just trying to tie the two together?

[Toad]

Originally posted by Momus--
Maybe you could clarify your view?

Sure.

I believe predators become emboldened over time as their prey become weaker.

Still confused?

What do you think will happen in a society where the penalty for resisting someone burgling your home is greater than the penalty for being the burglar?

[Toad]

Originally posted by beet1e
You're trying to make a US thesis fit the UK model.

[/b]

I'm sure you've named your fishing boat the "Red Herring". Looks like a record catch in this one post.

 

What I have said is that like the vast majority of Brits, I support the status quo with regard to gun control legislation in Britain.

[/b]

Which is not in the least germane to what we're discussing. We're discussing your enthusiastic support of allowing people to drink when it's clear far more people abuse alcohol and wreak havoc upon their fellow citizens in comparison to citizens abusing the use of firearms. You've a clear double standard and it makes you look foolish.

 

The vast majority of people in this country (around 95%) drink socially. Of those, the vast majority walk or use public transport/taxi if they're going out for a drink, or a meal at which alcohol will be consumed. These forms of enjoyment form the basis of a substantial part of our social integration.

[/b]

Good for you lad! But, alas, not germane.

Here's what we're discussing: Violent crime figures rise by 11%

The Home Office estimates alcohol is the root cause of around half of all violent crime, and connected to 70% of late-night admissions to hospital emergency rooms.

Now, "social integration" aside, it's clear that alcohol is causitive factor in HALF of all your violent crime. Yet you see no need to ban it whilst that ban would probably lower your gun homicide rate to a greater degree than banning handguns.  Especially since your stats show that banning handguns had no noticable effect on gun homicides.

It would undoubtedly save more lives in one year by decreasing drunk driver incidents than you have lost to handguns in the last ten years.
 
Clearly, alcohol is a greater factor in needless loss of life (and violence in general) in the UK than firearms of any sort.

Yet you persist in defending the right to drink whilst cheering the firearms ban.


 

[weaselsan]

Our right to keep and bear arms was put into the Bill of Rights as a means to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government. It was not put there to defend against criminal behavior, even though it has become useful for that purpose from time to time. If at any time the American people feel that it is no longer necessary to keep that right, they can change the constitution through an ammendment. For those of you that for what ever reason don't like the idea of a "right to keep and bear arms" Listen carefully...................t hat long silence is the sound of a vast majority of Americans not giving a chit.