Whats going on in Canada?

[Toad]

Originally posted by beet1e
The fact is no "gun culture" was ever allowed to develop. And that's why the number of gun deaths in Britain is fewer than 100 per year,

[/b]

If  this is true, then again, by your own hand, you show there was no reason to ban handguns in England in 1997. It accomplished NOTHING. But, it wasn't your ox, so..... I'm all right, Jack!

So there you have it. For me, there's enough evidence coming from Finland and America, both of whom dabbled with the disastrous experiment of banning alcohol.

[/b]

But you support other bans now don't you?

November 19, 2005

Rise in gun crime linked to gangs
By David Rose

THE number of offences involving firearms in England and Wales has been increasing each year since 1997, according to the Home Office. Firearms incidents recorded by the police have nearly trebled in eight years.

Provisional figures released last month showed that firearms offences had increased by 5 per cent on last year, to a total of 11,160. There were 4,903 such offences in 1997.

The possession of handguns was banned in Britain that year after the Dunblane massacre. Yet the illegal ownership of handguns is believed to be higher than it has ever been, with nearly 300,000 illegal guns estimated to be in circulation.

I think Laz has the right idea for England, especially considering the high rate of cirrhosis over there.

put "restrictions" on it... you can't store it at home say.... Who could that hurt? you could have drinking clubs where one glass of wine a day was metered out if you were licenced to drink and had a responsible person to drive you and the police chief approved your application..

Quite right!

[Toad]

BTW, Beet... let's do a test.

Holden proved you wrong on the cirrhosis numbers. See if you've progressed enough to say:

Holden, you're right and I was wrong.

Bet you can't do it.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Toad
BTW, Beet... let's do a test.

Holden proved you wrong on the cirrhosis numbers. See if you've progressed enough to say:

Holden, you're right and I was wrong.

Bet you can't do it.

I was right at the time I originally said it, but things have changed. What I said in this thread was

As for alcohol, the per capita rate of cirrhosis of the liver is higher in the US than it is in Britain. Last time I researched this I came up with a figure of 26,000 for the US and 4,000 for Britain. (I can provide links, but I can't be arsed to do it now)

That's as I remembered it from THIS thread from 2003. My figures of 26,000 (US) and 4,000 (UK) were correct at that time. Here are the links: 1)  US 2) UK I'm so VERY sorry that my information wasn't bang up to the minute. It was well after midnight, and I should have waited till morning, but didn't want to deprive you of my reasoned response. Besides, even though the UK rate has increased, it's not THAT far ahead of the US now.

If this is true, then again, by your own hand, you show there was no reason to ban handguns in England in 1997. It accomplished NOTHING. But, it wasn't your ox, so..... I'm all right, Jack!

The 1997 legislation didn't change much because getting a gun permit was already extremely difficult, thanks to nearly a century of progressive legislation. As you know, I don't support the current govt. and its emphasis on headline grabbing initiatives. As for that "ban" being against the wishes of the people, I should point out that despite having passed this "draconian" measure, T. Blair was re-elected in 2001 with a majority of ~160. No other PM has ever achieved such a feat since before the 20th century. Clearly, the "ban" didn't put any noses out of joint - unlike the poll tax.

You accuse me of "hopping over the fence", but that's because YOUR fence and MY fence are at rightangles. By some strange rationale which I don't understand, you persist in believing that if guns are banned, then alcohol must be banned too. Or that both should be allowed, but not one without the other. My fence is different. I am on the side of maintaining the status quo for the common good, versus making a change which will be detrimental viz. banning alcohol (for the reasons mentioned above ^) or legalising guns for free distribution as in the US. But as long as you try to interpret the status quo in the UK from an American perspective, you will never understand.

But you support other bans now don't you?

YES, and I don't see why a ban of guns has anything to do with NOT banning alcohol. Guns are banned because that's what most people want. Alcohol isn't banned because that's what most people want. And... let's not forget that you are a retired captain of the industry that banned sharp instruments. DO PLEASE tell me what impact the ban on sharp instruments has had on the number of hijackings of civil aircraft since it was introduced in 2001. Has the ban on sharp instruments reduced the number of terrorist atrocities within the US?

Lazs said

We don't worship our government like you do.

Who, Me? Or the public at large? Did you download and watch the poll tax demo? Probably not, as you only ever like to read accounts/watch film footage that tells you what you want to hear. Let me remind you that the 1990 poll tax demo brought about the demise of Thatcher, who had enjoyed a 101 seat majority in the House of Commons. FFS! What more do I have to provide to dislodge your blinkered beliefs!

Your death from booze stats show that if you banned it (or severely restricted it) you would have a ban that was 20 times more effective in saving lives than a useless gun ban.

Unlikely. The US example showed that deaths went up: "Deaths from poisoned liquor rose from 1,064 in 1920 to 4,154 in 1925." And, from the same article: "Although towards the beginning of Prohibition this purpose seemed to be fulfilled, the crime rate soon skyrocketed to nearly twice that of the pre-prohibition period."

But, demonstrations are not a legitimate political process. It is obvious that some people in england feel strongly about the right to bear arms... they may be a minority but at least 10%.... say 5 million people would want to own and keep firearms including handguns.... that is a lot of folks

So where are these people? How come Blair got re-elected in 2001 with a huge majority, if the issue of guns was so important, and the measures taken by his govt. were so "draconian"? And - for the third time of asking - where are the pictures/videos of the dispossessed handgun owners marching on Whitehall in their millions?

Simply because they don't demonstrate does not make them not exist.

They exist - in your mind.

So, it looks like canadians aren't quite the doormats the brits are?

Canada is a commonwealth country. They have the same queen as we do, and her mug is on the coinage, I do believe.

[lazs2]

Toad has it...  It isn't about saving lives... even beet has backed off of that now.... If it were then "sensible" restrictions on booze would get his nod.

I bet that very few in england would disobey "progressive" alchohol bans like.... first restricting how much a person drank a day and how much he bought at government licenced stores.... not being able to store alcohol at home....  that sort of thing.... penalties of 10 years in prison for illegal possesion of alcohol (or ones exactly like possesion of say a handgun)... None of those measures would even phase the doormat brits.

But...  beet has backed off his "handguns bans are worth it cause they save lives"  now that it is pointed out that his hobby (drinking) kills twenty times as many people and.....  If you allowed everyone the same firearms rights they had in 1900... you would not increase homicides and probly lower crime...

If you restricted booze... you would probly save thousands of lives a year...  

Now it appears that he is justifiying his gun ban ideas and the slaughter of countless thousands by booze as..... as.. a part of democracy?   The people want the slaughter so it is ok?  Let's just allow everyone to drink as much as they want with no restrictions on how much they buy a week or store at their home?

lazs

[beet1e]

Originally posted by lazs2
even beet has backed off of that now.... If it were then "sensible" restrictions on booze would get his nod.

I haven't budged an inch. I know there are problems with alcohol both here and there. But as I was able to prove, using the American and Finnish examples, a ban on alcohol would be a disaster.

As for lives saved by not allowing guns, refer to my sig.

[lazs2]

No.... you were able to prove that in countries where the citizens are not doormat subjects that a total ban would not work

I am saying that incramentalism would work on your type of population...  Your countrymen would not give one whit about your rights.   What could happen is "sensible" and "progressive" restrictions.

High penalties for possesion.... regestration of people who drink.... safe storage laws (no storage at home)   that sort of thing....

Your countrymen have a proven record of responding positively to losing rights if it is done incramentaly.... You even make fun of other countries who refuse to "comprimise" and adopt "sensible regulations" when it comes to the dreaded firearm for instance..   Your people are totaly conditioned.  

you allready accept some restrictions.... do you feel their should be restrictions to driving after drinking?      

lazs

[beet1e]

Originally posted by lazs2
la la la la la - I'm not listening because you're not telling me what I want to hear la la la...

OK.

Got to hit the sack now. And from tomorrow, there is to be an extended period of toodle pippage - back Thursday.

Still waiting for Mr. Toad to explain how the ban on sharp instruments reduced civil airliner hijacks.  

Still waiting to find out how that ban has been instrumental in the war on terror.

Still waiting for Thrawn to provide examples of British acts of parliament being prevented from becoming law because of the royal assent being withheld.

Still waiting for Lazs to provide evidence of the disquiet amongst the ~5 million people who were dispossessed of their handguns, and to provide pics of their march on Whitehall.

[Toad]

Originally posted by beet1e
I was right at the time I originally said it, but things have changed.

[/b]

Here, try this: "Holden was right and I was wrong."

See if you can type it; bet you can't.

 

The 1997 legislation didn't change much because getting a gun permit was already extremely difficult, thanks to nearly a century of progressive legislation.

[/b]

That would be "regressive legislation". So, you agreee, the ban did NOTHING. Therefore, there was no point in the ban; you agree the legal handgun holders were not the problem and since your gun homicide rate hasn't changed you must agree that it's always been the illegal handgun holders that were...and STILL are... the problem. An ever-increasing problem, as the Home Office points out. What is it you were pointing out about the effects of any ban?

you persist in believing that if guns are banned, then alcohol must be banned too. Or that both should be allowed, but not one without the other.

[/b]

I persist in pointing out that if the intention is to save lives, then alcohol is a much, much larger problem/threat than handguns. It follows that if a minor threat like handguns MUST be banned then alcohol should be banned as well. Since alcohol is a causal factor in 50% of your violence, it's clear that banning alcohol would have reduced your handgun homicides to a greater degree than banning handguns. Should have been banned first actually; it's the greater threat.

My fence is different. I am on the side of maintaining the status quo for the common good, versus making a change which will be detrimental

[/b]

Actually, what you've put forth is this:

Guns are banned because that's what most people want. Alcohol isn't banned because that's what most people want.

[/b]

Which is a bit of new wrinkle for you after all. So NOW you say that anything the "people want" to ban should be banned? Is that your litmus test now? The current whim of "the people"?

Let's see... we've got "It's not my ox being gored", "It would be too hard" and now... "Ban what the people want to ban."

DO PLEASE tell me what impact the ban on sharp instruments has had on the number of hijackings of civil aircraft since it was introduced in 2001.

[/b]

Oh, I'd say that ban has had exactly the same effect on hijackings as the English ban on handguns has had on English gun homicides.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Toad


Here, try this: "Holden was right and I was wrong."

See if you can type it; bet you can't.

I'm not going to type it! And here's why. On your side of the camp in this debate, you have amongst others Lazs and Thrawn. And during one of many trollposts Lazs said "queen knows what's best eh wot?", a suggestion that as "subjects" we are bound to do whatever the queen says! I pointed out that the queen plays no part in formulating legislation. It's done in parliament and, IIRC, for historical reasons the Monarch isn't even allowed to enter the house of commons while parliament is in session. Thrawn's considered response to this was "Bull", and later added "The law doesn't exist if she doesn't sign it. Her authority is essential to it being created". As I was able to prove (with a $50 credit still in my paypal account) the queen's authority means bugger all, and these days is no more than a formality, a rubber stamp. Not since 1707 has Royal Assent ever been withheld. We have a democratically elected parliament. The last Monarch who tried to defy parliament got involved in a civil war and was himself executed in 1649. But it is clear that people like Lazs, who are fond of referring to the British public as "subjects"  have no understanding of the difference between a monarchy, and an absolute monarchy. The absolute monarchy is one in which the monarch has absolute power to govern and the people really were subjects. As you can see, that scenario has not existed in centuries.

I don't see you correcting Lazs or Thrawn for these errors, or asking them to admit they were wrong when I was right. The alcohol stats being disputed were correct at the time I originally posted them, 2½ years ago. So I don't see why I should apologise for using material that's only 2½ years out of date after having made clear that I hadn't checked it in the time since, when guys like Lazs persist in making references using data that is hundreds of years out of date.

That would be "regressive legislation". So, you agreee, the ban did NOTHING. Therefore, there was no point in the ban; you agree the legal handgun holders were not the problem and since your gun homicide rate hasn't changed you must agree that it's always been the illegal handgun holders that were...and STILL are... the problem. An ever-increasing problem, as the Home Office points out. What is it you were pointing out about the effects of any ban?

Well we can do a few more laps around the circuit with this one if you like. I don't see Lazs waving the chequered flag, so here we go! The 1997 legislation was a codicil to earlier legislation going back to 1903, 1920 etc... It was already almost impossible for private citizens to acquire a handgun. There were no gun shops selling them over the counter. So in a sense I agree with you that 1997 was no big deal - it's the earlier legislation that counts. Or do you seriously believe that we went from a scenario akin to America's Wild West of the 1880s - gunfights at the OK tea shop - to having no guns at all in one fell swoop in 1997?

I persist in pointing out that if the intention is to save lives, then alcohol is a much, much larger problem/threat than handguns. It follows that if a minor threat like handguns MUST be banned then alcohol should be banned as well. Since alcohol is a causal factor in 50% of your violence, it's clear that banning alcohol would have reduced your handgun homicides to a greater degree than banning handguns. Should have been banned first actually; it's the greater threat.

You have learned nothing from your own country's Prohibition of Alcohol (18th Amendment?) of 1920-1933. It was tried and failed. Crime went up, not down. Alcohol consumption increased, not decreased. The number of deaths caused by (illicit) alcohol went up, not down. Banning alcohol would make things worse, not better.

Which is a bit of new wrinkle for you after all. So NOW you say that anything the "people want" to ban should be banned? Is that your litmus test now? The current whim of "the people"?

Yes, I'm saying that all legislation with respect to guns has been passed by a democratically elected parliament. The current government was elected by a democratic vote, giving it a mandate to govern. I hasten to add that I didn't vote for this government! But I respect the process by which it was elected, even though I don't agree with everything they've done while they've been in power. I'm sure the situation is much the same in any democracy, including the USA.

The FAA ban on sharp objects - can you please enlighten me on the decision making process that resulted in this ban being put in place? Would love to hear! If YOU didn't agree with it, how come it came about? Oh wait, don't tell me... a vote was taken and decided by a majority? Wow, what a concept!


STILL waiting for those pics and/or video footage of the dispossessed handgun owners marching down Whitehall in their millions in protest against the 1997 gun "ban"...

[lazs2]

LOL... I never said the queen made laws.... I said that you guys think the queen is royalty and knows best..  I say that she does have some effect in your lawmaking process no matter how slight.

I also say that before about 1904 you had no firearms restrictions and up until very recently you didn't even consider shotguns a firearm and anyone could buy one with no restrictions... Shotguns are them most deadly of all hand held firearms.

I also said that an instant ban on booze was not the way to go in england....  you could first regester drinkers and ban private sales of booze (government stores work in some states)...if the rate didn't fall of alcohol related deaths (and even if it did) then pass a law that made it illegal to have booze in your home and make it only available at drinking clubs...  then ration it out with severe penalties (as sever as gun penalties) for possesion..

You claim that in the huge U.S. a couple more thousand a year died from bad booze during prohibition... in your little island that might be 500 extra poisoning deaths... a pitance compared to how many alcoholics die there every year in other alcohol related ways...  besides...  people would obey the laws if they were "sensible" restrictions... those who broke the law would be criminals...  what could they do.... demonstrate?

As for the millions of firearms people in your country and why they don't demosnstrate.... You do know that a lot of em have illegal guns stashed away right?  I don't think they want to call attention to that fact...

even so... say there were a hundred hard core pistol aficianados in your country.... are their rights any less important than if they were 5 million or... a mere 10% of the population?   Does only might make right in england?   I mean.... these people cause no increase in your homicide or crime rate.... why do you punish them?

soo... you have backed off the reason for firearms bans is saving lives and now you say that it is a pure democracy (or representitives) that should decide rights.   or is it that the weapon used in a homicide is the real important issue as proven by your inane sig?

lazs

[Toad]

Originally posted by beet1e
I'm not going to type it!

[/b]

I thank you sir!

The 1997 legislation was a codicil to earlier legislation going back to 1903, 1920 etc... It was already almost impossible for private citizens to acquire a handgun. There were no gun shops selling them over the counter. So in a sense I agree with you that 1997 was no big deal

[/b]

No, it wasn't impossible; difficult but not impossible.

The important thing here is that you agree that the 1997 ban was pointless and merely a knee-jerk reaction. There's absolutely no reason why handguns should have been banned in '97. Thanks again.

Banning alcohol would make things worse, not better.

[/b]

An unproven hypothesis as you know; the Brits as a whole are quite orderly and lawful as you know. I think Laz may be on to the right track. I think you ease into it....much the way you portray gun legislation. After all pubs are licensed now, it's merely a progression of more and more regulation from there.

A little bit of information and perhaps a test to get your "Alcohol license" from the local Chief of Police. Membership in a club at a Pub by all means. No keeping alcohol at home; I daresay not! (Probably end half the domestic violence right there.) Pubs to monitor alcohol consumption and end the pour after a shot or two.  A very good start, I'd think. We can go for a ban sometime after that by simply increasing the restrictions.

I think it'd work; the profile has been proven in England at least once already.

 But I respect the process by which it was elected, even though I don't agree with everything they've done while they've been in power.

[/b]

Good show! Then you wouldn't move to another country if alcohol were banned in England? I mean you respect the process right? And it would be the whim...er... will of the people.

 

The FAA ban on sharp objects - can you please enlighten me on the decision making process that resulted in this ban being put in place?

[/b]

No. The FAA has amazing powers, much like our IRS. They wrote a rule and air carriers had to comply. No one voted, no majority was consulted. They have their own little fiefdom and they rule like a King.

Speaking of sharp objects, another few years and we'll be able to discuss the English ban on butterknives that came about as a result of "what the people wanted".

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by beet1e
I pointed out that the queen plays no part in formulating legislation.

"Government Bills

Public Bills can be introduced into either the House of Commons or the House of Lords. As a rule, government bills likely to raise political controversy start in the Commons, while those of a technical but less party-political nature often go to the Lords first. Bills with a mainly financial purpose are always introduced in the Commons. If the main object of a public bill is to create a public charge - involving new taxation or public spending - it must be introduced by a government minister in the Commons


The procedure of passing a Public Bill is similar in both Houses. The stages are:

first reading
 
second reading
 
committee stage
 
report stage
 
third reading

passage through the other House
 
Royal Assent"

http://www.parliament.uk/works/newproc.cfm

Not since 1707 has Royal Assent ever been withheld.

That doesn't mean that legally, a bill isn't given royal assent at the King or Queen's pleasure.

I don't see you correcting Lazs or Thrawn for these errors, or asking them to admit they were wrong when I was right.

That's because you are wrong, and I am right.  Before critizing American laws, or lack there of, you might want to brush up on grade school level civics of your own country.

[Curval]

"That's because you are wrong, and I am right. Before critizing American laws, or lack there of, you might want to brush up on grade school level civics of your own country."

Whoa..slow down there cowboy.  Beet didn't deny the existance of the "Royal Assent", he just said it was irrelevant in practice.

From the web site you linked:

"Royal Assent was last given in person by the Sovereign in 1854. The Royal Assent has not been refused since 1707, when Queen Anne refused it for a Bill for settling the militia in Scotland."

1707?  Hmmm.  That's sixty nine years before there was such as a thing as American laws.  

It was refused at that point for a pretty good reason by the sounds of it, particularly if you happen to have been Scottish.

[NUKE]

Thrawn thinks he knows a lot about the world and how other countries work, because he's "read" some second or third hand garbage and sucked it all up like a filthy crack potato.

For instance, did you know that Thrawn is the ultimate authority on world economics and the coming crash of the US economy?

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by NUKE
Thrawn thinks he knows a lot about the world and how other countries work, because he's "read" some second or third hand garbage and sucked it all up like a filthy crack potato.

For instance, did you know that Thrawn is the ultimate authority on world economics and the coming crash of the US economy?

Wanted to quote that one for posterity.