Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Yeager on December 26, 2005, 11:28:39 PM
-
I am not surprised to hear this news, but it is very sad and troubling. I would llike to think that this sort of thing doesnt happen in Canada
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/12/26/canada.shooting.ap/index.html
-
from linky: "The Toronto zone was also the site of two other recent shootings. There have been 78 murders in Toronto this year, including a record 52 by gunfire -- twice as many as last year.
"I've seen this city change, and I'm not pleased with it," Belza said. "It seems to be so brazen, so little regard for anyone else's safety."
The rash of recent gun deaths in Toronto prompted Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin to announce earlier this month that his government would ban handguns if he were re-elected in the January 23 elections."
Nothing like treating law abiding citizens like criminals. Just let the criminals have em.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I am not surprised to hear this news, but it is very sad and troubling. I would llike to think that this sort of thing doesnt happen in Canada
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/12/26/canada.shooting.ap/index.html
It happens up here far too often these days. Although we can't expect much else when judges in Manitoba hand down 2 year sentences for "manslaughter" when the perp got annoyed with someone in a bar, went home and picked up a baseball bat went back to the bar and ambushed the guy who annoyed him and then proceeded to beat him about the head until gray matter starting leaking out. That 2 years of course included time served (4 mths), less an automatic 1/3 of the sentence off for good behaviour and another 1/3 off for when he gets parole and your looking at 4 mths for 2nd degree murder up here if the judge likes you. Of course, there's the recent incident in Quebec, a convict on parole was granted the "right" to own a firearm on his promise he'd only use it for hunting purposes. So my guess is that judicial attitude is nation-wide. The parolee used his rifle to kill a young female officer a few weeks ago. Go figure.
'Tis definitely surreal up here.
asw
-
Its all messed up there..
Law obiding citizens are prohibited from defending themselves, or carry guns, while criminals are running around armed and unchalenged..Canadian police?? What police.. these guys incapable of anything...
Then this corruput idiot Paul Martin says he'll ban the guns in Canada, well guns are already banned i dont see how another ban would solve or reduce Toronto murders...just more of his BS talk... It will only get worse.. time to let people arm and defend themselves.
-
yep...never understood why if the government or the bad guys were out shooting people....
any sane man would not want to be armed.
lazs
-
Canadian bacon
-
It's all Boooshes fault....
-
That's the Christmas Spirit!
-
You do know that the United States is responsible for Canadian murders?
Canada blames U.S. for gun violence (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/12/27/canada.crime.ap/index.html)
"It's a sign that the lack of gun laws in the U.S. is allowing guns to flood across the border that are literally being used to kill people in the streets of Toronto"
"The U.S. is exporting its problem of violence to the streets of Toronto"
'the illegal flow of weapons from the United States is causing the noticeable rise in gun violence'
-Toronto Mayor David Miller
======================
"What we saw yesterday is a stark reminder of the challenge that governments, police forces and communities face to ensure that Canadian cities do not descend into the kind of rampant gun violence we have seen elsewhere"
-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin
Apparently it's a problem of guns? Nothing to do with the people using the guns or why they are using them.
======================
On the other hand, Canadian 'swingers' cheer ruling on sex clubs (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/12/26/canada.swingers.reut/index.html) the Canadian Supreme Court just made moving to Canada more appealing.
-
yea.. the easy way out.. blame someone else for your problem.
:mad:
-
The solution seems clear... Shut the Canadian border. They've been jacking up the anti-US rhetoric for a few years now so it sounds like they're a step away from digging a moat. Well, we can help with that. In fact, after they told us they don't want to have anything at all to do with our ballistic missile defense program, it'll probably save us a few bucks too.
The only thing that will really be missed are the Canadian high-flow toilets...
:noid
Yea it's funny, laugh. The real point is that politicians are the same everywhere and right now, it's politically hip to trash the US so the politicians are grabbing headlines while they can. That's alright, 'cause in a couple of years it'll be another US presidential election cycle and you can bet some of the candidates will provide entertainment by firing right back. Fun :)
-
This shooting took place in a crowd of people on a major street with hundreds of people packed into a small area.
If guns were allowed to be carried legally in Toronto do you think that somehow this incident could have been prevented? In other words, would (or should) citizens have returned fire?
Based on the fact that an innocent bystander (15 years old) was killed in the initial exchange would citizens have made the situation better..or worse...if they had been legally armed?
Also, its amusing to see all the "Canadians are blaming the US" backlash when in practically every single gun thread US posters on this board always blame:
1. A loose border to their own South, where "illegal" guns flow freely into the US.
2. Minorities...specifically blacks for the most part.
for their massive number of gun related deaths each year.
It is okay for the Americans on this board to blame others but when faced with the fact that over 50% of the gun crime in Canada can be traced to guns coming in from the US there should be no blame pointed at your country?
:rolleyes:
-
-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin
Apparently it's a problem of guns? Nothing to do with the people using the guns or why they are using them.
BS by Martin. All one has to do is look at the ethnic origin of the shooters, in the Toronto cases.
-
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If they don't have guns they'll use knives, hammers, baseball bats or whatever works that is handy.
If you pass laws so ordinary citzen's can't legally have a gun, only the crooks will have guns. You going to outlaw kitchen knives and baseball bats next?
The problem is deeper than that, sometimes you need to get at the root of a problem, not just the symptom.
You can NOT legislate morals. Everyone on both sides of the border seems to want to try. But its doesn't work, it won't work, it can't work.
The answer is not more laws, nor even tougher borders.
The answer is to find out why people are killing each other. Then change the situation.
-
I live in Toronto and shop sometimes where this all went down. Had citizens as one of you put it been able to defend themselves with guns then more people would have died and most of the dead would have been more innocent bystanders. Allowing people to carry guns is most certainly not the answer. That would just make it even easier for this kind of senseless violence to occur.
Having said that, I do not agree that banning handguns would stop this kind of violence. The guns involved in this kind of crime are definately not bought legally. In fact, many of them are smuggled into Canada from the US. Don't get me wrong...I'm not trying to place blame on Americans. I'm simply stating fact.
What we do need is a no-tollerance for illegal gun possesion in this country. If you are caught with a gun you get a ten year min sentence and if you use one in a crime you get 25 to life.
We also need tough laws on gangs. Most of the violence can be traced to a couple of gangs in the Jane/Finch area. Get these bastards off the street. I'm tired of hearing about how gang members are victims of the system. Lots of kids grow up under privledged in this country and they don't turn to gangs and start shooting each other.
It is most certainly true though that we must stop the cycle which turns some kids to this life. We must work to resolve the issues which create broken families and poverty. We must support education and activities for youth in lower income areas and we MUST increase the police presense there.
At the same time African and Jamacian Canadians must stand up for themselves and stop allowing these thugs to run their lives. It's incredible to me that a boy can be shot in front of a few hundred people and the police can't get one witness to stand up. And when they do find one brave enough he's assinated on the steps of his church as he attends another victims funeral. We need the police in force in those communities and we need them to change some of their own attitudes so that people in these communities start feeling as if they can trust them to protect them.
And finally...if you are convicted of being involved in any kind of gang activity and you are NOT a Canadian citizen then you should be deported immediately. I don't care how violent your home country is. Don't bring your attitudes and violence here. We have to ask some tough non-politically correct questions here too. Why do some Black Canadians devalue theirs and others lives so? Why does the frustration of the situation some black Canadians find themselves in result in them killing each other and how do we help community leaders turn this around?
We can no longer turn our backs on this. We can no longer be happy to isolate the violence to ghettos. These are people...just like us and we all need to stand up and say enough is enough. And not just say it when the violence spills out to touch other communities.
Oh and let's keep this in perspective....Chicago is about the same size as Toronto and it had over 300 homicides last year. We've had about 78 of which 58 were gun related. It's not good to be sure but, it's no where near as bad as it is in major US cities.
Regards,
HH
-
I will add one more to the sentencing HH.
Undeniable caught in the act murder, You get the Death sentence.
Canadians in general are not blaming the US. Its those spineless corrupt Politicians looking for votes from a fed up public who are.
-
Originally posted by Ping
I will add one more to the sentencing HH.
Undeniable caught in the act murder, You get the Death sentence.
Canadians in general are not blaming the US. Its those spineless corrupt Politicians looking for votes from a fed up public who are.
Yep Martin's "ban guns" platform is a sickening example of politicing to be sure. No other issue in this current campaign has more clearly defined the parties philosophies then this one incident. I wonder if the Bloc will even care enough about it to issue any kind of statement of policy...I doubt it. And that sums up the bloc's POV as well...clear as crystal.
Personally I don't care if you ban handguns or wave a magic wand and turn them all into balloon animals. I could care less what you do with them. I certainly don't have any need for one but, it's not the answer to this problem and Martin damn well knows it and if he doesn't then he sure as hell is not qualified to be PM.
However, let's not get the DP involved in this discussion because it will just take us on another tagent. These bastards have no repsect or fear of a death penalty. The only thing which would make them fearful would be the certainty of aprehension. We've all seen what cowards these gang members are. Being in a gang is a clear statement that you are indeed a sniveling coward with no self respect or courage. Let's work to make that a reality first.
Regards,
HH
-
Its not the fear of the death penalty I'm thinking of.
Its the cost of coddling them in a prison and the likelyhood of re-offending after release that I consider the issue. How many murders could have been prevented by this?
I wholeheartedly agree with your view on stiffer penalties and working on solutions to prevent, But its time we start looking for true justice for those who are the victims and not the guilty.
-
Originally posted by eagl
The solution seems clear... Shut the Canadian border.
You do realize that Canada has been, and will continue to be, the largest supplier of crude oil INTO the United States, yes?
After Canada, the next largest supplier of oil INTO the Untied States is Mexico.
The combined imports of Canada and Mexico exceed the combined imports from Saudi Arabia + Iraq + Kuwait by 942,000 Barrels per Day.
Source:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
At Yesterday's (12/27/2005) crude oil price of $57.71us, and using the 11/2005 per day average import of crude oil, for each day of November 2005 $168,974,880.00us dollars crossed the the borders into Canada and Mexico. :O
-
Which makes me ask.
WHY am I paying 94 cents a litre for Diesel for my Enviro killing, Global warming, Road Killing F-350 7.3 litre commuter vehicle.
-
Originally posted by JCLerch
You do realize that Canada has been, and will continue to be, the largest supplier of crude oil INTO the United States, yes?
After Canada, the next largest supplier of oil INTO the Untied States is Mexico.
The combined imports of Canada and Mexico exceed the combined imports from Saudi Arabia + Iraq + Kuwait by 942,000 Barrels per Day.
Source:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
At Yesterday's (12/27/2005) crude oil price of $57.71us, and using the 11/2005 per day average import of crude oil, for each day of November 2005 $168,974,880.00us dollars crossed the the borders into Canada and Mexico. :O
I think eagl meant to say "Annex Canada" (http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/annexcanada). ;)
-
Its a deal Rip. On condition you get rid of Bush and then send ALL of the Canadian Parliment on one of those secret flights.
-
My thought is that the canadian politicians secretly are thrilled with the gun violence as a few minority gang members killing each other (and the occassional bystander) is just what they need to convince people like huge head that they need tougher gun control laws... more power for the government... more police and bigger budgets to work with.
What most fail to see is that the shooting is financial... drugs and crime will allways cause killings to gain local control of the vice money..
This particular situation would not maybe have been helped by an armed populace except.... it may never have happened in the first place. Our concealled carry states do show a decrease in crime in general. and...
Far from the wild west shootout that is predicted here.... our concealled carry holders do not make the situation worse in a shooting situation...
Curval... would it have made you happier if the gang guys started driving cars into crowds where rivals might be in order to run em down?
What kind of a head in the sand woman fears guns so much that they would allow their government to disarm them?
Who believes that they are safer with only the government and the criminals being armed? How did you guys every get convinced of that?
Is is just a big city rat mentality or is it a product of liberal education?
It is beyond comprehension to me that anyone faced with gangs of mionority thugs and criminals would not want to arm himself... It is like you are selling out your humanity to socialism..
lazs
-
I used to be OK with the US annexing us before we had our own Taco Bells and Krispy Kremes. Now...I just don't see the point. And yes, it's just popular polictical sport to toss **** at each other. Our politicians use the US as a handy excuse for everything and the US politicians do the same damn thing. I don't bother listening to the crap from them anymore.
Wasn't there some idiots in the US recently suggesting you should build a fence across our boarder? I hope if you do that at least you'll make it a nice pine fence and not one of those crappy chain link things.:lol
And Laz I think I was quite clear that gun control is not the primary issue here and I stated quite clearly that Martin's stance that we should ban handguns will do nothing to help. If you want to have people wandering around your streets with concealed weapons and the right to use them then so be it. You have a differen history and culture. More power to you. However, please don't get it in your head that your way is the only way. However, I do appreciate your POV even if I think it's flawed.
We have no desire to remove your right to carry guns. As Canadians we simply don't wish to emulate you.
Your solution is as much a Panacea as what you are accusing me of swallowing. Adressign the root of the violence is the only thing which will stop it. That can't be done in a four year political term which is why politicians never bother to consider it seriously. More's the pitty.
Regards,
HH
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Curval... would it have made you happier if the gang guys started driving cars into crowds where rivals might be in order to run em down?
I wouldn't be happy at all...thing is though that would mean they would have INTENTIONALLY driven into a crowd of innocent bystanders meaning to kill innocents. They didn't. They were shooting at their "enemies" and missed...striking a little girl and killing her.
How would legal gun carry by citizens have prevented this?
Let's assume this took place in a mall in Dixon (if there is one....any place highly populated during shopping hours would do). Would you have drawn your gun and shot back? Would your actions have saved this little girl's life? Would you be able to guarentee that you would hit the right person...or guarentee the same of your trusted fellow citizens for that matter?
-
One question in all seriousness for the gun owners/experts here. Are not handguns nortoriously inaccurate in a crowd situation and at any real distance? Would not more guns in this situation just made it more likely that more people could have been killed?
I have to be honest and say I don't want to put my safety or that of my family in the hands of anyone with a gun unless he or she is a police officer. At least I know that person is a professional.
Regards,
HH
-
I do believe that Canadian people should be allowed to arm and defended themselves.
Im not saying that it would help in the praticular shooting screnario on a busy street. But i think it would help the overall situation.
Fact is that criminals know noone is armed.. they know noone from the public can challenge them..., makes it that much easier for them to engage in these sorts of activities.
Just recently, person got stabbed for honking at a car that was blocking the traffic.... Person honked, guy just jumped out of the car, walked over to him and stabbed him bunch of times and his passenger too. Now if people were allowed to be armed and carry concealed weapon, I'm sure every crimilnal or person would think twice before starting some stupid ****..
I want to have a right to be able to defend myself my family and my property........ hell with the police, they cant protect me.....
just my 2 cents
-
huge head.... You are welcome to your views and...you are welcome to go around unarmed. It is only when you tell your neighbors to not be armed that the trouble starts... You prove the point that not everyone would arm themselves...even here in places with easily gotten concealled carry permits only about one percent to 5% of the population avails themselves of the right...it is enough tho to deter crime. Even in israel... only about 10% arm themselves. It is enough to matter.
curval... how would people with guns have made the situation worse? Do you think that happens here? It does not. Do you really think that a gang member would not run over an innocent that was standing next to a rival? do you think he would not put a bomb in a rivals car if it might hurt an innocent? You are assuming that guns in the hands of citizens would make things worse... You are assuming that in an armed society that criminals would leave their ghettos and confront us. Both assumptions are not born out by what happens here.
the situation you describe does not happen here in small towns with a lot of armed citizens... except rarely... in most cases... if there is shooting... most people react by running away or hiding... I might shoot at a gunman if I had a good shot... one safe to take.... otherwise... I would wait till he ran into the parking lot or got into his car... after a few of them died like that.... we might not see it happen very often...
In the U.S. it used to be the style of the late 1800's bandits and 1930's gangsters to rob banks by shooting up the town. After about 20 gangs were decimated by gunfire from citizens.... the big gang daylight robberioes ceased...
We had one pair in LA that thought they could do it with full autos and body armor... they died. Police used civilian weapons from a gunshop (hope we allways have gunshops eh?) none have tried it since.
Your solution would have been to pretty much disarm the populace and close the gunshops... I think those guys would have liked that.
lazs
-
hugehead.... If I am given the time to aim.... I can hit a man sized target pretty eaisily at 100 yards or more with my 4" barreled handguns. It would take me about 5 seconds to get on target and be sure.
I am probly a better shot with one than 99% of police. Police do not compete in most handgun sports because they do not do well against civilians. My bet is that of the 1-5% of civilians that get permits... most of them will be better shots (more surviavability for you and your family) than police who are trained to shoot entire magazines of 15 round handguns into a crowd if someone is shooting at them.
My point is... if you are in such a situation as a civilian... you will not be the target of the badguy most likely...he will be shooting at his rivals and any uniform that shows up... I think that I could work my way into a very good shot at him with a high chance of putting a stopping round into him. I would not fire at him while everyone was running and screaming in every direction..... plenty of time.
lazs
-
Laz,
I respect your commitment to your POV but, you are really oversimpleflying it. Comparing small towns to large urban centres just doesn't cut it and claiming that the LA robbery has not been repeated because of the weapons used by the police rather then the heroic actions of the police more supports the oposing view then it does yours. However, it's something you can interpret to support any view. That incident was extreme and was not indicative of any kind of trend which was stopped by weapons.
Im not telling you not to arm yourself. I'm simply saying that Canadians dont wish to emulate you. Countless studies and almost 2 centuries of history back this up. We view guns because of that history in an entirely different way then you do.
It's just not so simple as you wish to believe. The only real way to resolve this violence is to address the root causes and ask the tough and often non politically correct questions which we have become so fearful of asking.
Trust me...you and I are not so far apart...we simply have a different idea of how to fix the issue. I absolutely do NOT want anyone other then a trained police officer to have anything to do with defending or protecting my family or myself.
People in this country at least can put their money where their mouths are and first shell out for more police on the streets (rather then *****ing about taxes to support them) then they can start howling for guns if they wish. With out the former the latter POV is completely without any credibility whatsoever.
Thanks for the data on gun accuracy and if you could assure me that 99.9999 percent of all private gun owners were just as good and perferably better;) as any cop then I would breath easier. Laz are you saying you are that accurate in a tactical situation where all hell is breaking loose? Can anyone say that? On a range and on the street are two very different things.
Regards,
HH
-
hugehead... we are not far apart at all on the matter of making criminals pay for crime.
We are worlds apart on what is to me... the human right to defend oneself from powerful enemies.
I would also say that you have a large percentage of fellow canadians that feel as I do on this. You seem to feel (I could be wrong tho) that the vote of the majority trumps the rights of the few? Is that correct? I would say that many fellow canadians would be even less polite to you and your views than I am. they would (and rightly so) feel that you are tyrannizing them and that you are an enemy that will get them and their family killed. Your intentions are not important.
I understand that the rat people in cities are different. I don't care how they solve their problems so long as they leave me alone to do it.
My example was in reply to curval but... yes... the bad guys are often stopped by aremed citizens... 1.5-3 million times a year here. 1/3 of all school shootings were stopped by armed civilians. criminals interviewed are much more frightened of armed citizens than they are of police.
do I want gang violence to end? sure. Am I angry when something like the LA shootout happens? sure... but it just proves to me (and the bad guy) that the world is an dangerous place and that if you take up arms against an armed society... you will probly go down in a hail of bullets... Every decade or so tho... some gang will try...they will die and the politicians will use it to try to disarm the citizens... laughable.... can't believe you buy into it.
Look at air marshalls... would it be better if they were in uniform? NO. the bad guys don't know who they are... gun control pansies on this board told me way back when (when I suggested restarting the air marshal program) that it would just make things worse.... like arming pilots...
that is not what happened. What happened is what I said would happen.
lazs
-
as for the gun accuracy thing... I answered your question... I told you about inherant accuracy. (about 2" at 25 yards or 6" at 100 for most handguns)
I did not say that I could hit a running man who was shooting at me at that distance. I wouldn't even try. I have missed running rabbits at 20 yards. If he is running there is no point in shooting at him. if he stops and aims at someone else or is running in a line away from the crowd to his car with and unobstructed shot....
if he is in his car...
Point is... he won't be paying attention to me in the crowd... but I will be paying attention to him. He doesn't know if I am a threat or not. I have a lot more options than he does.
more fearful to me would be a robbery situation in a bar or resteraunt or store.
lazs
-
Lazs,
Canada and the US are totally different where gun control is concerned due to our history and frame of reference. Polls bare this out. A massive majority of Canadians do NOT want to see hand guns legalized. Long guns are another story and I do NOT support the Liberal parties outrageous gun registry nor, do I wish to take guns from hunters or farmers or enthusiasts as long as they are responsible in the use of these weapons. So, you are operating from a misconception in that Canadians would view remarks such as mine as an imposition on their freedoms. Quite the opposite.
I respect your skill as a marksman but, I also respect the random nature of such violence and how you can not ever predict how such a situation will go. Let's keep in mind these animals were shooting at each other and managed to take down 5 innocent people.
IMHO the more concealed guns on the street the more likely it is for someone innocent to die as it happened this weekend; regardless of who has the gun in their hands. I do not wish to have any private citizen in my community weilding a concealed weapon with the mindset that they have some kind of responsibility to use it to protect those I love.
I also respect your thoughtfulness and honesty in this debate and I appreaciate it sir.
Regards,
HH
-
HH... first of all... What do you mean by "vast majority"? Do you mean like 55%? 60% 80%? does it really matter? do you feel that because you are in the majority that you have the right to vote away say.... 20 million peoples rights? a million peoples rights? half a million?
Your claim that concealled handguns on the street causes such deaths or increases them is not born out by fact. The U.S. states with concealled carry do not have the problems that you assume would happen.... quite the opposite is true. Israel and other countries with open carry of firearms do not have the problems you imagine.... Armies of hormone heavy youths with machine guns and automatic rifles do not have the problems you suggest. Why do not the soldiers serving in iraq for instance shoot each other after an arguement?
As for the situation in question...every situation is different of course. In this one... It would appear that if an armed citizen took a shot from cover and knowcked out one or more of the shooters..... lives would have been saved... He would not have to be a great shot.... just a good one who knew his limits. If there was no easy shot.... he would just refrain and the situation would be no worse.... but.... I contend that, like here.... canadian minorities would confine their bloodbaths to the ghettos if they were met with armed resistance. I am going by history here (as I have shown) not by what I think might happen.
I have no problem discussing the whole gun control thing with you but when you try to take away what I consider my rights.... We are enemies...I feel that anything up to killing you is justified to keep them. I think that you would be surprised that a lot of canadians who have had their right removed by your idea of "democracy" feel much the same.
No reasonable discourse can happen once one group feels that they have the right to vote away anothers human, inalienable rights.
lazs
-
QUOTE]Originally posted by HugeHead
I do not wish to have any private citizen in my community weilding a concealed weapon with the mindset that they have some kind of responsibility to use it to protect those I love.
Regards,
HH [/QUOTE]
theres a diffrence between gun crazy wanna be cops and reponisble gun owners who want to protect themselves.
If you dont want to protect your familay thats, fine.. thats your choice..
But why can't I as a responsible, taxpaying citizen have a choice to protect myself,my property and my family?
Or..keep the gun ban, but give me a cop to protect me 24/7 and i'll never complain.
Police is useless and can't protect me at the time crime occurs.. They always come to the scene AFTER the crime(and that takes some time), and by then its too late..
I think guns can save lives too.
-
Are we talking the same thing here?
Canadians do have the right to own long arms and if trained to own handguns.
We just dont have the Carry conceal rights.
Think of it as in the wild west where you had to hand over your side arms to go to the bar in town. Canada is just one big bar :D
Canada has not allowed CC for many many years and up till now it has been fine. What we do need to act on is the lax laws and punishments for serious crimes that has eroded this.
The US and Canada are very different in this regard. But at the same time we do operate in entirely different environments. What works for one may not work for another.
If it comes down to living in the same conditions you have in some of your troubled sections of cities, then hand me a pistol and I will pack.
As for home invasion...I'm prepared, consequences be damned.
-
The wild west again? More myths... In the "wild west" no one was asked to hand over their guns... they just were not allowed to carry openly. There were no laws against concealed carry. This brought out the popularity of the "pocket gun" and the "saturday night special".
I will concede that what works for one country may not work for another but... it does seem that you are having the same problems with the same minority groups over about the same things in countries that have a lot of the same laws and customs and share a language, border and trade and the sense to drive on the correct side of the road.
You are welcome to believe that you are in more danger from your neighbors with concealled carry permits (the 1-5% who will bother to get em even if given out freely) than you are from minority gangs.
I find it hard to believe that is the case tho.
You do seem willing to break your laws to protect yourself and your property tho. Don't get me wrong.... I believe that you have a human right to do so but.....
How do you justify protecting yourself with a firearm but dennying your countrymen and neighbors that right?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
... it does seem that you are having the same problems with the same minority groups over about the same things in countries that have a lot of the same laws and customs and share a language, border and trade and the sense to drive on the correct side of the road.
HH : I'm in favour of removing the effective ban on hand guns in Canada. Do I see a need to carry one for my own protection? No. Not here, at least not yet. But they are a lot of fun to shoot and should the unthinkable happen a useful tool in defending ones self, loved-ones or home. You can't say the same for long-guns in enclosed spaces.
The problem is that the judicial system in this country seems to believe that its duty is to nurture these poor, unfortunate, oppressed thugs and protect them from the meanness of society. Guns, other than having become the weapon of choice for the gangs in this country have little to do with the problem. If guns weren't available they'd be using knives or machetes, or whatever else was handy.
The cure for the situation isn't making guns easier or more difficult for law-abiding citizens to acquire. The cure is to hold individuals responsible for their actions and make judicial punishments fit the crime. When the Canadian judicial system stops being the joke it is we'll see an improvement.
laz2 - the quote above Explain please. Which minority groups are you referring to? Blacks, Philipinos, Chinese, Mexicans, Vietnamese, Ghanians, Nigerians or Europeans... who? And why does the ethnic origin matter. I am curious.
asw
-
Originally posted by Ping
I will add one more to the sentencing HH.
Undeniable caught in the act murder, You get the Death sentence.
Canadians in general are not blaming the US. Its those spineless corrupt Politicians looking for votes from a fed up public who are.
Well those guys, and Curval of course :)
-
Lazs, just m 2 cents.
More than 50% of Toronto population are first generation immigrants, and most of them came here from the third world countries. They have neither traditions nor experience to carry guns. Moreover, some of them came from "hot" places, where usage of weapons for solving family or neighborhood problems is good tradition.
I am strictly against concealled gun. But if handguns were permitted I would get it for sure. And most of others would do the same. First, because most of us had no chance to do that in our own countries, and prohibited stuff is always attractive. Second, it would be really dangerous to be unarmed in crowd of armed people most of whom are keeping handgun for the first time in his life.
So, I would say that we will get not 1-5% of those who will buy handgun but 50-60%. And huge percentage of them came from really wild places few years ago. For example, from Russia :) where alcohol intoxication is the result of tens of thousand homicides every year.
-
Very thoughtful, perceptive and provactive comments to be sure. Can you make the case that ethnicity is at issue here or is this simply a case of people being conditioned by a cycle of violence both in their country of origin and in the communities they live in here?
What makes one 12 year old turn to gangs and another not?
Shouldn't we all be outraged that life could possibly have come to mean this little to some people in our community? I'm not talking about the thugs who pulled the trigger this past weekend. I'm talking about that 12 year old kid who might be holding a gun in his hand right now. Am I a bleeding heart in your view for finding that incredibly abhorent?
Regards,
HH
-
HH:
I don't beleive any of us are saying that its because they are (example) Somali that they are doing this. But the facts are Ethnic gangs, irregardless of reasons, are a serious problem.
You are right that the root problem needs to be addressed, but I for one am not going to be PC as regards race or religion, If a certain race based gang is causing a problem in certain areas we should be able to state that. And this also applies to gangs of white scum. ie. biker gangs in Montreal during the biker wars.
We are not branding entire races or ethnic groups by labling gangs by their makeup.
Laz: The wild west comment was just a small attempt at humour. I also am not making a case against CC laws. Somene having a concealed weapon doesn't bother me. Just that we do have a very different situation between countries, tho ours is getting worse.
If someone is stealing our Cars then so be it, I can use the insurance money
:D , However if someone is going to break into our house to cause us harm then I feel morally obligated to protect the lives of my family.
I am also rural so the response time for the police would prolly be in excess of 20 minutes.
-
More guns, less crime! :aok
:lol
-
Originally posted by beet1e
More guns, less crime! :aok
:lol
more guns=less (as in zero) criminals in my neighborhood :aok
-
Originally posted by storch
more guns=less (as in zero) criminals in my neighborhood :aok
No guns (as in zero) = less (also as in zero) criminals in my neighborhood :aok
-
Originally posted by beet1e
No guns (as in zero) = less (also as in zero) criminals in my neighborhood :aok
really? shouldn't that be no tools (as in zero, going back to the dawn of man ) still = criminals in your neighborhood because you would be A). implementless and B). are far too soft to defend yourself and prevent a strong armed assault? :D
-
as for minorities or ethnic groups... I have no answers as to why.. I am merely being pragmatic. In the U.S. a very small portion of our population commits over 50% of the homicides. I make no claims or excuses as to why this is so... that is for other people to work out.
I will say that I don't care who is doing the shooting or gang activity... I want to be armed in any case.
There seems to be some misconception here as to how many people would apply for pemits and then carry handguns... the history of such use indicates that on average... Only about 1-5% of the population that could get permits and carry actualy would.
I am not trying to be offensive here (you will know when I am) but...
How is it that the people here who know allmost nothing about firearms and handguns especially.... How is it that you are so against them? Where did you get these myths and ideas? Don't you realize that it has all come from the media that in other circunstances... you would laugh at much less, use as a basis for a position?
Seriously... HH where did you learn these things about handguns?
lazs
-
vaed and HH.. while I make no suggestions on how to handle your criminal classes... I point out that unlike the scenario you point out... Concealled carry would not make it legal for gangsters and criminals to carry... nothing would change for them... being caught with a handgun would be the same penalty as it is now.
I would suggest concealled carry for citizens and tougher penalties for criminals.
Taking away the guns from society and making them difficult to get will not make the country any less murderous or crime ridden...
Beet likes to point at the low murder rate of his country (except of course.... scotland).... His criminals still exist tho.... the murder rate in england is the same as before any of the draconian gun bans and the crime rate is actually higher... people have to cringe under their beds when gangs of burglars come.... If you shoot one with an illegal gun you would be in worse trouble than a lifelong criminal.
Is that what you want?
Our crime rate and murder rate continues to fall while 3 million guns a year are added to our inventory of guns in the hands of private citizens... Women are the fastest growing group of gun owners... millions of concealled carry permits have been issued and the people with them are the most law abiding of any group of people.
lazs
-
All these things about handguns? I don't believe I made any claims regarding the technical aspects of handguns except challenging the accuracy of one in a panicked crowd with multiple people shooting. I base that challenge primarily on my awareness of the "random factor" so prevelent in such events.
What you can't do is assure me your resolution to this kind of tragedy would not result in the potential for more innocent victims being just as likely as less. Primarily this is where you and I have a disagreement. The rest is basically akin to "metaphysics".
I appreciate your passion and I respect your views however, all I've really said here is that it's highly unlikely the Canadian public would support legalizing hand guns even if they were convinced of your (and Im not even arguing them) statistics. Polls to-date bare this out.
I understand you may find it a violation of personal freedoms that 85 percent of my country is able to dictate laws to the remaining 15% but, currently thats how democracy works here. Add to this the different history of my country compared to yours and I really don't see this as an issue in any kind of doubt.
I have used long guns. It's part of my family traditions and heritage and at a young age I was introduced to the old dependable 22 and moved up from there. And although I have had a handgun pointed at me, I myself have never pointed one back.
Regards,
HH
-
Originally posted by storch
really? shouldn't that be no tools (as in zero, going back to the dawn of man ) still = criminals in your neighborhood because you would be A). implementless and B). are far too soft to defend yourself and prevent a strong armed assault? :D
Storch - no, I meant what I said. And I've lived in this three horse town for the past 23 years. In that time, there has never been a shooting or a murder. Or if there was, I've never heard about it - which seems unlikely in a town with only 6400 people.
When you said that more guns = less crime in your neighbourhood, less than what? "Less than" is a relative quantity. I'm asking you what you're using in this comparison.
-
HH.. sorry... but I don't think that 85% of the population have the right to remove human rights from the other 15%.
I can't assure you that there would not be an ocassional wrongful or accidental death by a concealled carry holder but history of such use in the U.S. and other countries shows that it simply is not a factor.
I was responding to you and to vad so there may be some confusion but.. I was refering to your lack of understanding on.... accuracy... amount of people who would actually carry guns if it were permited and... your feeling that you couldn't trust your countrymen with a concealled gun... or more to the point that, your family would be in more danger, not less.
The fact that there were 1-5 out of 100 citizens with a concealled gun would (and does) make criminals think twice about assaulting or harming your family around other people....
The scenerio you are fostering will in effect, give the thug who is willing to break the law with an illegal handgun or a club or a group of his friends... you want to give him all the power... you want to put your family at his mercy... I, on the other hand, would be grateful to know that someone in the crowd may be able to do something other than run away and maybe call 911.
The worst types of crimes against your family go down when you are allowed concealled carry... Some may go up... you may have more late nite or parking lot breakins of your car for instance.. but that is minor compared to assault and burglary and rape wouldn't you say? These major crimes are somewhat detered by the criminal wondering if the helpless victim may be armed.
lazs
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Storch - no, I meant what I said. And I've lived in this three horse town for the past 23 years. In that time, there has never been a shooting or a murder. Or if there was, I've never heard about it - which seems unlikely in a town with only 6400 people.
When you said that more guns = less crime in your neighbourhood, less than what? "Less than" is a relative quantity. I'm asking you what you're using in this comparison.
other neighborhoods, but it's not really a fair comparisson because we are a gated community and have a ten man private security force and it is in turn bolstered by off duty metro-dade police personnel who patrol in here. a few years back a resident was assaulted by her gardener because she refused to lend him money. even with all the security in here it was her neighbor who came to her aid with a pistol and subdued the man until the security team arrived seconds after the phone call was placed by the neighbor's wife, followed by the police and later the sensation seeking news crews. other than that I cannot recall another incident occurring here but we are only 188 homes.
-
Originally posted by storch
we are a gated community and have a ten man private security force and it is in turn bolstered by off duty metro-dade police personnel who patrol in here.
Goodness. Is this in the US or South Africa?
-
Originally posted by Curval
Goodness. Is this in the US or South Africa?
LOL - that was exactly my thought too!
-
Originally posted by Curval
Goodness. Is this in the US or South Africa?
the gangy types usually don't invade each other's homes they invade the homes of those who have more and better stuff than they do. nothing is ever stolen in this community.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Our crime rate and murder rate continues to fall
Nope. In the years 1999-2003, the homicide tally went up each year - from 13,011 in 1999 to 14,408 in 2003. In about 70% of these homicides, a firearm was used, and of those firearms homicides, about 77% involve handguns. Now I know you're going to very quick and point to the "per capita" statistics, but I can tell you that according to the US Census Bureau, the US Population rose by about 4.7% between 2000 and 2003, but homicides rose by nearly 9% in the same period. So you're still wrong.
There has been a slight dip in 2004 however, but it's too small a shift to be considered as an overall trend, besides which 2004 was the first year this century in which the US homicide total actually fell - down by around 300 on the previous year.
Source: FBI website .XLS document (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/documents/04tbl2-9a.xls)
For anyone interested in analysing US homicide stats in greater depth, there is a whole series of reports in .XLS format on the Murder page of the FBI website: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html
-
Well hey...whatever makes you feel safe in the "land of the free" I suppose.
Beet1e...in deep, dark and dangerous England, where only the crimminals are armed and "people have to cringe under their beds when gangs of burglars come" do they have these gated communities, or are they only reserved for the gentry or something?
How have you managed to protect yourself from these roving gangs or angry money borrowers without such?
-
Originally posted by Curval
Beet1e...in deep, dark and dangerous England, where only the crimminals are armed and "people have to cringe under their beds when gangs of burglars come" do they have these gated communities, or are they only reserved for the gentry or something?
How have you managed to protect yourself from these roving gangs or angry money borrowers without such?
I don't know, Curv. Lazs has been here himself and even in a relatively high risk area of London, he said he felt as threatened as he might feel at a Church bingo night, so maybe he doesn't even know.
Not that many gated communities here that I know of.
I'm hoping to hire a gardener next year, but I'm scared he might threaten me with a trowel and demand money from me.
-
Originally posted by eagl
The only thing that will really be missed are the Canadian high-flow toilets...
Hold on...you mean that high flow toilets are still available in Canada? I am OTW to Windsor RIGHT NOW to get me some of that...
-
Originally posted by beet1e
No guns (as in zero) = less (also as in zero) criminals in my neighborhood :aok
Yet, Scotland has the highest incidence of violence in the western world. Hmmm...No guns there, either.
When I was in London this month, the news carried many stories about shootings in the area, particularly about a shooting that happened that week. I wonder where the gun came from??
By the way, did they get that oil terminal fire put out yet? Darned thing stank up my trip!
-
no beet.. the per capita murder rate has gone down... the only rise was if you counted the 911 deaths from the twin towers for that year..
you might want to check these figures from the Department of Justice..
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/gvc.htm#Violence
they show that all violent crime in the U.S. is down and that "Homicide has recently declined to lower levels than it has been since 1960"
This while the U.S. adds 3 million firearms a year to the homes of it's citizens and issues thousands of concealled carry permits every year.
One should probly not fear homicide or violent assault tho since it is as unlikely as getting into a car accident where a seatbelt would save you... No real reason to have a firearm or, at least.... no more than to put on a seatbelt. I suppose it is safe to say that seatbelts and firearms are for the paranoid.
lazs
-
Rshubert - I'm not saying there aren't problems and no law works perfectly - not even UK gun control laws. I was speaking about my neighbourhood. London is not my neighbourhood.
Lazs, I have posted stats from the FBI website. According to the FBI, there were 13230 homicides in 2000, and 14465 in 2003. That's a rise of 9.33%.
In 2000, the US Census Bureau stated that the population was 281,421,000. Source: http://www.census.gov/population/pop-profile/2000/chap02.pdf
Right now, the American Factfinder states the US population size as 297,982,178. Source : http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en
As you can see, the population has risen by only 5.88%, and that's all the way through to Dec. 29, 2005. In 2003 it would have been less, ie ~4% up on the 2000 figure, at a time when homicides rose by 9.33%.
Are you saying that data from the FBI, US Census Bureau, and American Factfinder is... wrong? Where does the BJS get its data from. Are you sure they don't use Lazsmatics™ - removing blacks from the number of homicides committed, and then adding them back in to arrive at the population count?
For whatever reason, the BJS data is at odds with the FBI data. We need Nashwan.
-
Well...Ill tell you guys...I dont see guns as the root of the problem.
The real problem in america is young people with: lack of education + poverty + drug addiction. Guns come into the equation very late in the game and really arent the problem generally speaking.
I suspect its a similar thing in Canada. Plus Im not about to allow my gun rights to go down the drain because Canada is having problems, Im all for stopping the flow of illegal guns into Canada. Perhaps Canada can do more to stop the illegal flow of drugs into the US. Im sure theres a criminal relationship there....
-
The problem in Toronto is black ghetto culture.
-
thrawn educate me here...where did toronto get a black ghetto culture?
I know where the US got theres but where did Canada get one?
I know the bovious answer, the US but, I suspect there is more going on with your opinion than meets the eye....
Please discuss
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Well...Ill tell you guys...I dont see guns as the root of the problem.
The real problem in america is young people with: lack of education + poverty + drug addiction. Guns come into the equation very late in the game and really arent the problem generally speaking.
Well... I sort of agree that guns are not the root of the problem. That would be like blaming car accidents on the petrol. But it has to be said that car accidents could be avoided if there were no petrol available! It also has to be said that America is not unique in having a society with lack of education and poverty and drug addiction. The same problems can be found in many other countries in places like Europe and Africa, but with the exception of South Africa, where guns are freely available, those other countries don't have anywhere near the amount of homicides as America does because the general public does not have easy access to guns. The guns are just the props in the show. Guns don't turn law abiding people into criminals, but they do turn criminals and wackjobs into much more dangerous criminals and wackjobs. What's happening now in Canada is what I predicted would happen in the UK if guns were to be made freely available. No thank you.
-
Lazs2,
We have a fundamental difference of opinion here. While I completely see where you are coming from in most regards. I simply do not share those views or wish to emulate the actions/policies of some US communities here in Canada. Nor, do I think this is likely to happen.
No country to my knowledge is without out the same problems and issues. We know education and options are the key and not hand outs. However, since there is not a "magic" solution for this problem which would bare fruit within in one political term -- we have yet to see a sincere attempt to resolve it, at least in North America that I recall.
As for the guns being "freely available"...well, this is where we run into all the stickiness with our neighbours don't we? Who is carrying these guns into Canada? If it's American thugs then let's work with US investigators to shut them down. If it's Canadian punks then let's shut the hell up and shut them the hell down.
Regards,
HH
-
HH... I can only say that I am not basing my defense of my human right to defend myself on "feelings" but on fact. I am saying that fact would point out that you have very little to fear from your countrymen being armed as they please and as is their human right. Facts would point out that removing these rights is very dangerous and only aids the criminal.
beet... regardless of if you use the FBI or DOJ stats... the trend for the last couple of decades is downward. It is also clear that all violent crime in the U.S. is down not matter which figures you use.
As for your car and gun analodgy... it is a good one... without cars there would be no car accidents but... people would still die.. they would die from not haveing transportation.. probly in at least as many numbers... so... it is a necessary evil as are guns... the bad guys will continue to maim and kill and humiliate and rob and rape and assault. They just won't do it with guns (like in your country for example) in fact. like in your country... they will be even more bold... the rate they do it at will be increased like it is in your country since there will be no deterent.... in fact.... if you are unlucky enough to be their victim.... you will be totaly at their mercy.
lazs
-
Lazs2,
As thoughtful as I may find you and as provacative as I may find some of your arguments...over all I find you far more dogmatic than I. Your reply to beet is an example of this. I assure you this comment is not intended as a personal flame but, only an honest observation.
Your right to your opinion simply does not mean your opinion is right;)
Regards,
HH
-
HH which reply? beet and I do this all the time.
As for your and my opinions... I believe that being able to defend yourself is a human right. It has been since the beginning of time.
While I am not a countryman of yours... I still think that you and your countrymen are humans with the same inalienable rights as me. I do not believe that you have the right to remove others human rights no matter how many people you get to agree with you.
There really is no way to reconcile this. If we are just talking that is fine. If you wish to join the forces that want to remove my right to defend myself then really.... all you are is an evil enemy... a tyrant. It is my human duty to fight you. You on the other hand have no choice but to coerce me into giving up my rights by killing or imprisoning me.
How do we reconcile that?
I do believe that you have the right to kill or imprison anyone (and thereby disarm them) if they commit crimes against other men. this does not include putting them in jail for 5 years or killing them because one of their firearms might be 1/8" too short to suit you.
It would include him commiting unprovolked violence on others.
You don't remove my right tho because a tiny little minority can't handle freedom or perverts it. You are welcome to punish those who would harm others.
Most arguements about gun control break down at this point. The point where one or the other side says... "I don't care what the facts are... I don't feel you should be armed...it doesn't feel good to me to know you are"... or... "I don't care how many die at the hands of armed criminals my rights are not yours to vote away."
At this point.... both sides have no recourse but to kill or imprison the other.
It is exactly the same as free speech to me... it matters not how you or I feel about it... it is a right. If it were to be taken away then men of good concience would war on the tyrants who did so.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
HH... I can only say that I am not basing my defense of my human right to defend myself on "feelings" but on fact. I am saying that fact would point out that you have very little to fear from your countrymen being armed as they please and as is their human right. Facts would point out that removing these rights is very dangerous and only aids the criminal.
Lazs, surely many of the gun crimes that occur in your country are committed by your "countrymen" even if they happen to live in say...Compton. Right? Or do you not consider these people countrymen, despite the fact that they may be born in the US or are citizens of the US?
-
and... I agree that I am indeed "dogmatic" on the subject for the above reasons. Being "dogmatic" about the right to defend yourself is only "wrong" or short sighted if society were such that there were no possibility of any evil perpetuated on anyone by force or any chance of tyranny ever happening again but...
If this were the case then there could still be no objection to my having firearms to collect and carry and do as I pleased with.
In short... as long as there is evil then we need a way to defend ourselves... if there is no evil then owning guns is a harmless thing that is no ones business.
lazs
-
curval.... you are correct... for the most part (not counting illegals) the people commiting crimes with guns are my countrymen. they are not however concealled carry permit holders.
What they are is a very small (miniscule) and, for the most part psycotic, minority of the people that make up any country. They will still be there no matter what laws we make. they will kill in the same numbers no matter what weapons we ban. They may even kill in greater numbers once the decent citizens are disarmed.
Right now.... 1.5-3 million times a year... in the U.S., citizens with firearms stop criminals... If we were disarmed... Who knows? Facts point to the places like DC and Detroit that are disarmed to be slaughterhouses and crime meccas.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I do not believe that you have the right to remove others human rights no matter how many people you get to agree with you.
A fascinating point of view. You are confusing an opinion shared by the lawful majority with a coerced one. Understandable since your position really doesn't allow for you to see it otherwise but, this is indeed how democracy and civilized society works.
And while I am most certianly not making a comparison between you and them -- the very elements you wish to protect yourself against also have no regard for the majority view or the laws which come from that.
The only legitimate exception you can really take is that you feel that majority opinion is not informed.
Regards,
HH
-
Nope.... that may be how democracy works (3 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner) but it is not how human rights work.
Our founders realized that people are instilled with god given inalienable rights that no man or group of men can take from them... Do you agree with this premis?
They realized that democracy was good only if first of all.... these inalienable rights were protected from the whim of the majority who.... historicaly have murdered and tortured and maimed millions of their fellow citizens for such things as not saying the right things.. All in the name of civilization.
If you believe in a civilization that can vote away human rights then I want nothing to do with your version of civiliaztion... I will not be joining the crusades or the inquisition or the genocide pogum that you vote for. sorry bout that.
so far as I can tell.... there is only one human right that has worked to keep your version of "civilization' from destroying more lives than it has... the right to bear arms and defend oneself.
and of course the other flaw in your statement is that you say that the "lawful majority" and then use not coerced for the rest... the lawful majority is indeed coercing up to 49.9999% of the population.
lazs
-
And... I would contend that it is indeed a fact, proven over and over that the majority of people who espouse gun control are indeed uninformed or.... more correctly missinformed.
A very simple book to start with on the subject is "the seven myths of gun control" work up to Lott's "more guns, less crime"
I on the other hand will be glad to read any books you have on a workable pure democracy or any book that proves that removing the human right to defend yourself (or removing any inalienable right) is in the end.... not dangerous or best for every human. Any book that contends that the right to defend yourself in not a human right.
I think that you will find with even the most cursory examination that your "feelings" are based on intentionally biased media reporting and outright missinformation and that there really are not well researched tomes that would support your position...
In short... yes... the majority are missinformed... this is not an unusaual thing historicaly by the press or the government.... One could say that it is happening as we speak... either bush was "missinformed" or we were for example. regardless... the press bought it and the "majority" bought it.
It can not be argued tho in my opinion, that democracy needs safeguards.... checks and balaces and.... a bill of rights.
lazs
-
They realized that democracy was good only if first of all.... these inalienable rights were protected from the whim of the majority....
Well said .....
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Our founders realized that people are instilled with god given inalienable rights that no man or group of men can take from them... Do you agree with this premis?
They realized that democracy was good only if first of all.... these inalienable rights were protected from the whim of the majority who.... historicaly have murdered and tortured and maimed millions of their fellow citizens for such things as not saying the right things.. All in the name of civilization.
Out of curiousity...how many of your "founders" were slave owners? I think you will find quite a few of them were. Sort of dulls the effect of such majestic ideals.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
beet... regardless of if you use the FBI or DOJ stats... the trend for the last couple of decades is downward. It is also clear that all violent crime in the U.S. is down not matter which figures you use.
Oh FFS. Only in the branch of Mathematics known to this board as Lazsmatics™ could this be construed as a true statement. As you've apparently omitted to follow my FBI links - presumably because they don't tell you what you want to hear - I will post the relevant FBI spreadsheet data here.
In Lazs's world, the laws of Lazsmatics™ state that 14,465 is less than 14263, which in turn is less than 14,061, which is less than 13,230.
:rolleyes:
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/mv2004.jpg)
-
not at all curval... In point of fact, many recantred their views on slavery. Once the founders recognized that colored people were indeed people they upheld their inalienable rights too. It is not so much a discussion of what are human rights but.. who was human. Who could blame them at the time since the colored peoples were the ones selling their own people into slavery. They had no real human values that we could recognize at the time.... as we became more familiar with then of course, this changed.
Those who fought to end slavery also believed in the constitution. Sooo... are you saying the founders were wrong but.... say.. Lincoln was right? he was a firm believer in the bill of rights.
Perhaps you can explain how having a bill of rights is a bad thing for a democracy?
Perhaps you can show me an example of how a pure democracy with no provisions for protection of human rights works?
It seems that your idea of government has brought humans a lot more grief than anything the U.S. bill of rights (including the second amendment) has brought us. Your government has a history of disarming and subjegating peoples.
lazs
-
beet.... 3 years is not "decades" it is a bump.
look at real stats for decades
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/hmrttab.htm
You will see that the rate has gone from 10.5 per hundred thousand in the 90's to down to around 6 for 2002 and another drop in 2004
It continues to drop.
lazs
-
Also... by looking at the chart I showed it is obvious that the least amount of homicides was when there was the least amount of gun control..
The hysterical gun control nannies of the sixties increased homicide rates for decades and only when concealled carry and the relaxing of gun control took effect have the rates been dropping back to "wild west" numbers.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Once the founders recognized that colored people were indeed people they upheld their inalienable rights too.
Awwww....that was nice of them. Curiously it only took them almost a hundred years to recognise it. Imagine the subjugation that went on during the interveneing period! :eek: The British outlawed slavery before the Amurikans...btw...and actually sent their navy to destroy the trade....against the wishes of the United States, I might add.
-
Curvie.. what in bloody blue blazes has the slave record got to do with anything?
Shall we delve into englands religious persecution? Their debtors prison system that made slaves of millions? the colonization period? englands imperailisim, india?
has nothin ta do with anything relevant. Quit peeing into the wind. looks unseemly, ruins yer makeup.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Curvie.. what in bloody blue blazes has the slave record got to do with anything?
It has to do with lazs' patriotic usage of the Founding Fathers and Inalienable Rights in this typical gun discussion.
See, its all wonderful to use this as justification for all that is good, clean and democratic within the US...but the reality is that they (The Founding Fathers) were a bunch of slave owners who had no intention of giving those rights to anyone that they considered "non-human"...their slaves.
That's all.
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
lol
Next thing you know you are gonna "sic" the NRA on me.....
"Oh no...Hangtime and Lazs' buddies...the NRA!!!"
-
He most certainly does but he really doesn't care since he is pretty much.... british.
funny story.. my girlfriend and I were watching a show and some foppish guy with a brit accent was on... I said something like "is that guy gay enough or what?"
she said...."all brits are gay tho" I said that I didn't think they ALL were... she said "well... the ones that aren't are all bisexual tho".... I said "yeah..probly"
I really don't want to hear about human rights from someone who comes from a people who's history is rooted in imperialism and the political ideal if disarming and then subjegating whole peoples. I don't think the average zulu or afrrican for that matter felt that the U.S. was more of a threat to their humanity than the brits were.
lazs
-
...and as usual the discussion decends into British people being called gay and womanly.<- insert gay rolley eyes thingy.
Geeze you guys are starting to "sound" so much alike now.
ASSimilation must be complete.
wtg lazs, another one to add to the collective.
:aok
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
For those of you that missed it, the thread title is "Whats going on in Canada?"
-
Thrawn,
Indeed. However, it is a stimulating discussion overall.
Lasz,
You are operating perhaps under a misconception in regards to my country. The right to bear arms was not guaranteed at any time that I at least am aware of in Canada. Perhaps a countryman will correct me here if I am wrong.
Most certainly I am not offering any POV on US issues or concerns. I simply have been stating the facts and my opinions regarding Canada.
I said: "You are confusing an opinion shared by the lawful majority with a coerced one."
Indeed, I believe this is your perception is it not? You believe even 85 percent of the people here in Canada should not be able to decide what is lawful here regarding handguns? Should we maintain that handguns should not be legal to carry, you feel we are imposing our will on 15 percent unlawfully?
In the context of Canada at least, as of this moment the last statement of my previous post remains factual: "The only legitimate exception you can really take is that you feel that majority opinion is not informed. "
Regards,
HH
-
HH... yes, I understand that human rights like the right to defend yourself are not constitutionaly defended in your country. It apears that since they are not that the oversight is now going to cost millions of your people their property and or liberty and loss of their human rights.
I maintain that, even tho not called out and protected by your obviously flawed constitution, they are a human right and..... that no democracy (or any other form of government) can take precidence over human rights.
I am also saying that yes.... if indeed you have 85% of the population that thinks there should be no handguns in the country then... I say that there is a simple solution. Those 85% should not be forced to own handguns.
If, on the other hand they tell the others (the other 15%) that they should not own handguns that is fine also... so long as that is as far as it goes... it would also be fine to make the handguns illegal so long as there were no penalties or restrictions involved...
The coercion comes when you wish to confiscate property and or imprison people (millions of them) for simply owning an object that they can use to defend themselves. They would not give up their rights without coercion.
You are not asking them to see reason and voluntarily give up their rights... You are imposing the might of the government and armed troops to do it. You will even have said troops shoot and kill anyone who refuses to be coerced.
How can we reconcile these "differences of opinion" ?
How do you have a sensible discussion with those you would have government troops kill?
lazs
-
You are taking what I consider a moderate view and going to the absolute extreme with it. Certainly I know you are not atributing the points you included in your last post to me.
If you keep the issue within reasonable limits then it would seem you and I both agree making handguns illegal in my country is just fine should the majority support it. However, we differ in the penalty issue. I've no desire to toss some guy in Manitoba in jail just becuase he still has Dad's service revolver. However, I very much do want much stronger laws and penalties for anyone carrying a concealed weapon or in possesion of an unregistered weapon.
Let me just clarify my point regarding "registered". For those in the know, I absolutely do not support that idiotic gun registry. I do support background checks and permits, even for grandpappy's trophy luger.
Fundementally (and not in regards to the current Canadian issues) you and I differ where those sacred basic human rights intersect. Those being your right to carry a gun and my right to personal safety. You see your right as being a positive while I honestly see concealed weapons as a threat in and of themselves.
Regards,
HH
-
HH no, we are not understanding each other. I do not agree that it is the right of the majority to take away the minorities human rights.
You claim that your security is good enough reason. You offer no proof that you would be safer tho and certainly.... no proof that everyone would be safer.. If one person is killed because he/she was denied the right to arm themselves then your unproven security has just caused someone their life.... you have removed their rights for no reason.
I maintain that a handgun ban or concealled carry ban makes you less safe not more. You are advocating not only taking away peoples rights and putting them in mkortal danger but.... you are even making things worse for your family... england and australias crime rates for violent crime are going up.... scotland is the most violent of civilized countries with laughable knife bans now being propossed.
I would suggest that you do some study on the subject.
"The Seven Myths of Gun Control" is a good place to start... It is well documented and draws on the work of much more dry tomes and studies. It is very easy to read tho and entertaining.
You could have anyone here suggest anti gun works but..... there are none that have any real data or don't appeal to the emotional.
I don't believe I am extreme in the least. I belive that people should have the right to own and carry firearms until such time as they commit a crime with them. and then... they should be charged and punished.
If half the effort to ban guns was spent to hunt down these gangsters and bring them to justice then the public would be infinetly better served.
If on the other hand you are projecting your lack of contro onto your fellow man then I simply feel sorry for you.
I do not believe that is the case with you tho. I think you are simply missinformed/uninformed and going on the media bias that you are not even aware that you have bought into.
Prove me right and read up a little on the subject.
If you are the type who likes more dry works that are footnoted every sentace and rife with charts and graphs.... "More Guns, Less Crime" by Lott is good as is Kopels study.
lazs
-
I'm quite well read and educated (even on this subject) thank you. I'm also intelligent to know that quoting facts to someone who is as fanatically dogmatic as you is not going to solve anything.
As for Minority human rights. Well you should read about your history and that of the world. It's not new that the majority dictates rights to the minority. Sometimes it's in the best interests of the community and sometimes it is not. Ufortunately the world is not black and white as you like to believe it is. Nor is it only populated with those who share your views. So, get used to the frustration of believing you are right even when the majority does not agree. I perceive that as one of the major life frustrations which drives you based on what I've read here.
Based on your passionate comments here...one has to wonder if you jump off your couch every time a minority is subjected to what could be percieved as injustice and denial of basic human rights in the interest of the majority but, I'm betting you are a one trick pony.
Send me those photos of you with Habitat for Humanity or perhaps you at this years food drive stuffing bags. I can't imagine a more basic human right than the right to shelter and food. I would expect a true champion of human rights to fight for all of them. Not just the ones which suit his dogmatic view of reality but, in the end that's the real problem with dogma isn't it? It doesn't allow one to percieve the shades of gray which make up our reality.
Where your rights put my life in danger you and I have a difference of opinion which will not be resolved here. I simply do not wish (as does the majority of my countrymen) to have people (even self proclaimed experts such as you) wielding concealed weapons on the streets where I live. Shooting cans off your fence on the farm is one thing but, carrying weapons in public is another kettle of fish in Canada and thank God that won't change anytime soon. What the US does within it's boarders is it's own affair.
I don't want you defending my family. I didn't hire you with my taxes to do this. A basic human right of mine is to decide this and not have you force your viewpoint on me or take it upon yourself to wield a weapon in a situation where someone I love could be injured by your actions either directly or indirectly. I will thank you for not imposing on it as you would thank me for not imposing on yours.
I find it curious that it seems the very same people who yell for the right to carry guns also are among the first to yelp when someone suggests we raise taxes for more police. Perhaps if all the special interest lobby money spent on gun rights were spent on supporting police we wouldn't have a problem. Right back at you sunshine;).
I suggest you sir, read up on my country's history before you deem to impose your own views on our citizens. Since you seem so concerned about the rights of the individual I would think you would see the hyprocracy in this.
I find it tiring sometimes to listen to people pontificate on Canadian issues when they have made no effort to aquaint themselves with the Canadian frame of reference and insist on shoe-horning us into an American boot.
Where those extreme views relate to your own country I could care less but, when you try to prove that your way is right for any community including the one I live in (and you don't)...well...being polite I could only call that poor form ol' chum.
You are looking for a fight while I'm simply stating facts and a few personal observations as they relate to the country I live in. This thread was at one point about events in Canada. I felt the need to comment since I live all of 20 minutes from where the shooting took place. Aside from an opportunity to leap on your soapboax and spew dogma...What's your excuse? :rolleyes:
Regards,
HH
-
^
(http://forums.checksix.net/smileys/smiley32.gif)
-
Originally posted by Ripper29
^
(http://forums.checksix.net/smileys/smiley32.gif)
'You sleep well in your bed at night only because a few rough men are willing to do violent things on your behalf´
George Orwell.
Rough men in uniform such as my Father, Uncle, Great uncles etc who served....all the way back to the war of 1812. Men in Uniform with public mandates to protect.
Exactly my point Ripper;)
Regards,
HH
-
Idiots know no boundries and are all over this world.
I personaly wish guns had never been invented but seeing as there are
any and all citizens should carry a weapon to protect themselves against the oxegen thieves who pray apon the unarmed.
-
HH... Ok so you have read some works on gun control? mind if I ask which ones?
You made a very long speech and seem to be angry that I would inject data but.... you claim that I am unabled to digest your data. So far as I see... in this whole thread... you have injected nothing but emotion with no factual data at all.
You say that historicaly the majority rules. Is this a good thing? is that what you are saying? I say no. I say that before the U.S. constitution and the shot heard round the world..... all countries were run by kings with no guarentee of human rights.
I say that democracy can only work when it guarentees human rights... 3 wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner is democracy.... the same group voting on it with a constitution that points out that no person shall be eaten is a democracy with a bill of rights.
As for if I and millions of others are "right" when the majority doesn't agree... maybe maybe not... who knows? sometimes the majority is wrong you would agree? In this particular case... in the U.S. we have been told that it may happen that a government may wish to disarm it't people and therefore we needed to gurarnetee the right to keep and bear arms.
I am also telling you that you are safer with people in your population with concealled carry permits. I am saying that no more than 1-5% of your population would apply and that they would cause little or no harm for all the good they would do.... you tell me I am wrong but you base it on nothing but..... what? how you feel about it? the un named books you have read?
I also notice that when we started out you felt that you could prove your point with little or no work and were amiable and liberal smiley.... now when challenged....you become accusatory and preachy and angry...
You have no case so you attack me. that is fine but it gets us nowhere.
lazs
-
And.... as for "everyone deserves a house" No... if you are unwilling to work for one or do not want one that is your business... I owe no one a house.
My dad was very high in the southern area of habitat for humanities... I worked for free on several homes. They were by no means "given" to the people... I can only conclude that you have as little idea of what habitat is as you do about gun control.... that is.... you only claim to.
Habtiat works like this.... it is a purely non governmet program (or was) and the rules were.... if you wanted a house then they would sell it to you but.... at a very low rate based on the fact that you would put in 2000 hours of labor...you had to be married and at least one of you had to have a full time job... often the land and materials were donated and the labor was donated or done by other habitat owners who still owed time.
This is far from a group that believes that every person has a "right" to a home no matter how little they are willing to do for it.
If these people defaulted on the (addmitedly) low payments.... they were out on the street again...
The houses have been well maintained and pride is evident...not because they were given them as a "right" but because these people felt that they had a large part in earning them.
Government housing projects on the other hand are.... well... even you know what they are... even tho they were free and were extrememly nice to start.
The right to defend yourself is a real right. the "right" to a home is silly and counterproductive.
I give a substantial amount to charity (and have taxes extorted from me)... the taxes are all wasted of course but the charities I pick are ones that take little and do a lot with it. I don't know but I would guess that I have done more to help people help themselves over the years than you might have.
I found your insinuation that I don't help people in need to be insulting. I expected it but was still.... somehow.... disapointed...
My guess is that you have coopted any real charity and have justified it by voting for more social programs. You want the government to sooth your concience.
Self defense is taking control of your own defense. I have nothing against police and work with and help them more than you do probly... I have never met a cop who did not believe that it was a right for civilians to own firearms.
lazs
-
and... to disect your speech a little more... You do not want me to protect you... you want more police that you pay... fine. I am not here to protect you or your family but... you should know that police shoot more innocent people that concealed carry people do.
I don't know how it is in canada but I suspect that it is the same as here and everywhere else that I know of...
The police have no duty to protect individual citizens. The people you give your taxes to do not have a duty to protect you or your family... they have a duty to take reports after you are victimized.
How does this work in real life? Ok... let's say that you..no... your daughter.. has a bad relationship and here former husband/boyfriend calls her up and tells here that some nite when she is getting off work in that lonely parking lot he will be waiting and beat her to death.
No problem ritht? you have an entire police force to "protect" her.... heck... you can even get a restraining order. He wouldn't dare violate that peice of paper right? and if he did.... he would be in trouble if you could prove it right?
So... he does just what he said he would do to your unarmed and helpless daughter... the cops come and take the report.
You claim that you don't want me to protect you but that is bull.... what you really want is for me to not harm you or yours.... That is understandable. Concealed carry holders show much more restraint tho than the police.
If, your country had a liberal concealled carry program with say..5% of the population being armed.... might not the disgruntled boyfriend/exhusband not even take the chance? Us having firearms rights is protection in itself...
Your daughter may even be armed so far as he knows.
Take burglary... do more cops prevent burglary? no, of course not. They take burglary reports. Where citizens own guns... the burglars either don't exist or make damn sure no one is in the home to possibly shoot them...
Would you rather your daughters home be burglarized when she is home or not home? Again... the mere fact that people own firearms is the deterent not police.
And how many police is enough? Are you willing to have a police state?
in the case of the mall... I have been asked if more guns would not have made it worse. I think I have made the case that more guns would probly have made the situation not even exist... the scum would do their shooting in their own hell hole of a ghetto.
I also disagree with the person who wished that guns had never been invented. I say that guns have been used for evil but war does not require guns.... guns make the old and infirm as safe and protected as anyone.... no longer are we dependent on the strength of our biceps or the hand eye coordination and stamina needed to prevail in sword fight..
firearms have empowered the weak and allowed civilization to flourish where before the law of the strong sujugating the weak prevailed.
lazs
-
There we go... Its Jan 1st and we have our first gun victim of 2006 in Toronto.
Who can police protect? maybe themselves, but certainly not the public...
What good is solving a crime if someoe i love is already dead.
Its easy for hugehead to talk about not wanting people to have guns, when his family is already armed (father and grandfather being cops) and can probabbly protect him anytime.
When your father and your granfather are willing to give me 24/7 protection, then i wont need a gun.
Until then.. I'm probably gonna get a gun for myself this year, legal or not. I dont feel safe in this city. Its quite clear cops cant protect anyone....I'd rather go to jail for illegal weapon possesion then into a funeral home.
It is my most basic right to defend my own life any way possible.
Cheers, and happy new year.
-
calisto... you seem to feel (as do I) that you "would rather be exposed to the inconvieneces of too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it" (Jefferson)
In september 1990 catherine latta applied for a gun permit saying that her ex boyfriend was going to kill her. The clerk at the sheriffs office told her that there would be a 2-4 week waiting period....
Like you, and unlike HH who could summon relatives to protect himself... she rightly deduced and said that she would be dead by then and promptly bough an illegal handgun that day off the street.
Her boyfriend attacked her 5 hours later and she shot him dead. The police took the report just as they would have if she had died instead and arrested her. No charges were filed tho. What would her fate have been in HH's world? In england say? even if she had obtained a gun and killed the attacker I recon that she would have been charged and still in prison today in such a draconian socialist society where the criminal has more rights than the victim.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Self defense is taking control of your own defense. I have nothing against police and work with and help them more than you do probly... I have never met a cop who did not believe that it was a right for civilians to own firearms.
Sorry Lazs, but your last two posts sound like a couple of paranoid rants.
When you came to Britain, you told this board that even unarmed in a supposedly "high risk" area of London, you felt as threatened as you might have felt at a Church bingo night. That's as it should be. But how safe would you have felt if you knew that all the schmucks you passed along the way had easy access to guns, just as they do in your own country?
I always find it ironic that you felt completely safe unarmed in London, but feel so threatened within the security of your own home in the good ole USA that you need to sleep with a gun by the bed. The only only possible explanation is that in London, you knew that no-one you ran into would have a gun, whereas in your own country, any old schmuck can get a gun.
I enjoy the freedom of being able to go as I please and not feel threatened. I enjoy the "Church bingo night" feeling wherever I go. I don't want to lose that and that's why I wouldn't want to see a guns free for all here. I expect that Curval and HH feel much the same way about this.
"Self defence" does not mean having a gun. People have always needed to defend themselves - long before guns were invented.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Sorry Lazs, but your last two posts sound like a couple of paranoid rants.
When you came to Britain, you told this board that even unarmed in a supposedly "high risk" area of London, you felt as threatened as you might have felt at a Church bingo night. That's as it should be. But how safe would you have felt if you knew that all the schmucks you passed along the way had easy access to guns, just as they do in your own country?
I always find it ironic that you felt completely safe unarmed in London, but feel so threatened within the security of your own home in the good ole USA that you need to sleep with a gun by the bed. The only only possible explanation is that in London, you knew that no-one you ran into would have a gun, whereas in your own country, any old schmuck can get a gun.
I enjoy the freedom of being able to go as I please and not feel threatened. I enjoy the "Church bingo night" feeling wherever I go. I don't want to lose that and that's why I wouldn't want to see a guns free for all here. I expect that Curval and HH feel much the same way about this.
"Self defence" does not mean having a gun. People have always needed to defend themselves - long before guns were invented.
Hi Beetle. Hey, what’s the deal in Scotland? They have some kind of big sale on Ginsu Knives? People are getting sliced and diced there, quicker than a pepperoni in a Chicago Pizza Parlor. Doesn’t seem too much better in Australia or New Zealand either.
Ya know, we have an old saying here in the US. “Never bring a knife to a gunfight.”
Ah yes, the link … http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4257966.stm
-
beet... I am 6' tall and in good shape and street wise. I just found it hard to be afraid of people who talked like sissies.
I also know that the murder rate for brits is historicaly low... guns or not.
Now, I will not allways be in good enough shape to put up a good enough front to deter people who would rob or assault me but.... I will allways be strong enough to pull the trigger.
With bad guys... it is all about attitude and appearance... if you look or act helpless then they will sense it. Also... I was not alone. I was with a group of about 5 guys some of which were from london and all young and in good shape (baring dental work and smokers hack).
That is why I "felt safe". I would not have felt safe in back alleys by myself seeing a group of 2 or 3 coming towards me.... unless... I was armed.
I was in clubs and on crowded streets. Not in my home alone at night or on the street by myself like your citizens have to be. I was a tourist and in crowded places.
You have as much chance of being mugged or being the victim of a violent crime as you do being in a car wreck where a seat belt would help you..
Is wearing a seatbelt the act of a paranoid?
lazs
-
as for Scotland... where my grandparents came from..
Good going there gun control nuts... now everyone is at the mercy of knife wielding bad guys. But wait.. The police chief says that the victims and perps "know" each other... that should make you relieved... The same is for our violent crime and homicide. don't know any black gang members? the murder rate drops in half for you here...
Point is.. you are letting the thugs run your life instead of taking personal responsibility... Your government is only too happy to take your life and your money over to do help you let the thugs run your life too.
the mommy solution of "play nice or no one gets to play with the toy" never worked when we were kids and it doesn't work now... the bad guy allways figures out another way to injure.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Not in my home alone at night or on the street by myself like your citizens have to be. I was a tourist and in crowded places.
But Lazs, I live alone just like you do, and I sleep just fine, without having a gun at the side of the bed. In fact... I woke up this morning at 5:22. I just lay there thinking how quiet it was.
Rotax! Scotland is for the most part beautiful and peaceful. And then you've got Glasgow, parts of which are very rough indeed. Highest rate of heart disease in the world, possibly because of all the drinking and smoking. Then there's Edinburgh - heroin capital of Europe. I was in Scotland last year and passed by Glasgow on the way to Onich - a quiet little town on the shores of Loch Linnhe. Funnily enough, the guy running the front desk at the hotel was an American, who had moved to Scotland because he liked the peace and quiet. I am not drawn to the rough areas where Lazs seems to feel at home.
Not too many knife fights here, and no-one attacked us.
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/ll.jpg)
-
beet... think of what you are saying. Scotland is three times as dangerous as the U.S. and you think we need to have firearms taken away for our own good?
It was very peacful at my house too. At most peoples houses... crime is low risk for allmost everyone not living in a ghetto... so what?
chances of getting into a car wreck where you need a seatbelt are allmost nill.... I just drove around this morning and didn't even come close to getting into a wreck.... does that make a person who wears seatbelts "paranoid"?
Probly never need a gun again... If I do tho... I will be glad I have it. Plus... unlike seatbelts... guns are fun... they are fun to collect and work on and shoot and have around. Some are no more of a burden to carry around than a cell phone. Can you say that for seatbelts or helmets? No... they are just a pain in the butt and uncomfortable under any circumstance. They are totaly worthless for most people yet... most people wear em every day.
It should all be about choice.
lazs
-
And... any American that couldn't find an isolated place in America that didn't have better weather than Scotland is a joke.
I drove all around Scotland and visited lots of little hamlets. they were much less isolated than some of the areas I have been to in the states... You allways knew you were on an island full of people that were only a few miles away.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I drove all around Scotland and visited lots of little hamlets. they were much less isolated than some of the areas I have been to in the states... You allways knew you were on an island full of people that were only a few miles away.
I don't think you know about some of the Inner Hebridean islands which are all part of Scotland. You're still talking about Scotland as "an island" in the singular. It's actually dozens of islands - between 150 and 200 islands. On our second day, we went to the Isle of Mull. We had to take the car on two ferries to get there. Mull is one of the larger islands. Some of the smaller ones have only a few dozen inhabitants and can only be reached by boat. No bridges or airfields. And... any American that couldn't find an isolated place in America that didn't have better weather than Scotland is a joke.
I've dealt with the isolation factor. Apparently, much of Scotland is so isolated that you couldn't even find it yourself. As for the weather, yes - it was perishing cold when we went to Ft. William on Sept. 7 - only 11° while the south of England was basking in 25°+. But what Scotland has that America (with the exception of Alaska) does not is around 20/24 hours of daylight during the summer months. BTW, I just watched the Al Pacino movie, "Insomnia" - set in a part of AK where it doesn't get dark in summer.
All of which is off topic. I'm just saying that most of Scotland is tranquil and crime free.
As for seatbelts, they don't bother me in the least. If yours is chafing your neck, adjust the upper anchorage point to be lower than it is - shoulder height is good.
-
"In point of fact, many recantred their views on slavery. Once the founders recognized that colored people were indeed people they upheld their inalienable rights too. "
I will need to be enlightend on this one I think. It would seem to be at odds with what I know of early american history but maybe I missed it. Black people had rights in the colony befor the founding of the country. Saying that no one recoginzed they were "people" is interesting.The founding fathers were all long dead before slavery was abolished in America. Which would seem to make that statement look like a delusional lie..but maybe I am missing something.
As far as gun violence in Toronto.
It would be uncomfortable for Micheal Moore but we have a demographics issue in Toronto.
Thats my left wing socialist politically correct way of saying our black folks are expressing their unique cultural identity by taking adantage of the longest open border in the world to bring Americas last export into Canada to kill each other to see who is the coolest.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
"In point of fact, many recantred their views on slavery. Once the founders recognized that colored people were indeed people they upheld their inalienable rights too. "
I will need to be enlightend on this one I think. It would seem to be at odds with what I know of early american history but maybe I missed it. Black people had rights in the colony befor the founding of the country.
As for rights in the Colonies apparently Blacks had the right to be slaves in Massachucetts until 1783. Pennsylvania ended Slavery in 1780.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
our black folks are expressing their unique cultural identity by taking adantage of the longest open border in the world to bring Americas last export into Canada to kill each other to see who is the coolest.
:rofl
-
Pongo..are you saying that parts of the "black culture" are simply criminal, violent and murderous acts disguised as a culture?
Still... I don't see how you could object.... unless of course.... you are a white biggot trying to oppress minorities?
Beet most of every civilized country is very peaceful and free from car wrecks where a seatbelt would help you. You like to wear seatbelts and feel that they will maybe save your life fine. I don't find em all that fun to wear tho.
lazs
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I don't think you know about some of the Inner Hebridean islands which are all part of Scotland. You're still talking about Scotland as "an island" in the singular. It's actually dozens of islands - between 150 and 200 islands. On our second day, we went to the Isle of Mull. We had to take the car on two ferries to get there. Mull is one of the larger islands. Some of the smaller ones have only a few dozen inhabitants and can only be reached by boat. No bridges or airfields. I've dealt with the isolation factor. Apparently, much of Scotland is so isolated that you couldn't even find it yourself. As for the weather, yes - it was perishing cold when we went to Ft. William on Sept. 7 - only 11° while the south of England was basking in 25°+. But what Scotland has that America (with the exception of Alaska) does not is around 20/24 hours of daylight during the summer months. BTW, I just watched the Al Pacino movie, "Insomnia" - set in a part of AK where it doesn't get dark in summer.
All of which is off topic. I'm just saying that most of Scotland is tranquil and crime free.
As for seatbelts, they don't bother me in the least. If yours is chafing your neck, adjust the upper anchorage point to be lower than it is - shoulder height is good.
Beetle, you talk about the quiet and isolation of your village, and the low crime rate that seems to convince you that you don't need any form of self-protection. All well and good.
But what about the poor schmuck who lives in Edinborough, or Glasgow, and is faced with the criminal element there? Why should that person be denied the right to self protection? It is already evident that the police can't prevent the crimes and protect the life of the victim.
-
I was perfectly clear laz.
-
Originally posted by rshubert
Beetle, you talk about the quiet and isolation of your village, and the low crime rate that seems to convince you that you don't need any form of self-protection. All well and good.
But what about the poor schmuck who lives in Edinborough, or Glasgow, and is faced with the criminal element there? Why should that person be denied the right to self protection? It is already evident that the police can't prevent the crimes and protect the life of the victim.
I didn't say I didn't need any form of self protection. I said I don't need a gun. It's not the same thing.
I do feel that the home occupier should be free to use whatever force is necessary to ward off an attack from outside, without fear of prosecution, even if that results in the death of the intruder.
The problem with where I see you coming from is that there is no way to arm law abiding people without simultaneously arming the criminal classes. Statistics from around the world show that countries which allow the free supply of handguns also have the highest homicide rates and the highest level of violent crime - USA and South Africa. In recent weeks, there was rioting in dozens of cities across France. Only one person died, and he was not shot. But in 1992 when similar violence erupted in the USA, around forty people died, most of them shot, and that was in only ONE city.
The trouble with arming citizens is that despite the obvious pleasure that so many people on this board get from owning/shooting guns, many others do not want to be armed and are therefore put at greater risk. I have many friends in the US who are not connected with this board, and only one owns a gun even though he doesn't want to. That total includes two women I know who live alone in New York - one on the upper west and one in midtown. The guy who does own a gun lives not far from Oxnard,CA. He bought his gun because of a one man crime wave that was happening in his neighbourhood many years ago. He tried it out shortly after buying it, and then returned it to its box where it has remained in the 15 years since. Clearly these people are at a disadvantage, given that your criminals have easy access to guns, whether through not owning a gun or not being in current practice. But you have to accept that many people simply do not want to go out, weekend after weekend, shooting at beer cans just to stay in practice, should the need arise.
In 2004, 57 heavily armed US police officers were killed in the line of duty, 17 of those in arrest situations. 54 of these 57 officers were shot dead, even though 31 of them were wearing body armour.
In 2005 in the UK, ONE officer was shot dead, and she was unarmed. Some people equate being armed to being safe. But as the homicide stats of the UK and US police forces show, this is not the case.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I didn't say I didn't need any form of self protection. I said I don't need a gun. It's not the same thing.
Beetle uses a combination of the Crane and the Dragon Kung Fu styles.
(http://www.albertspage.it/sigle_tv/foto/Kung%20Fu13-p.jpg)
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/773_1136375547_cdtec.gif)
-
well.... if two women in new york city don't like guns then I guess that about does it for Americans eh?
Women are the fastest growing group of new gun owners and are the largest group of people enrolled in firearms courses.
and beet... there is no other weapon that would allow you to fend off 2 or 3 assailants... in a very few years, at your age, there will be no weapon short of a firearm that will allow you to fend off even one.
and... Switzerland has a very large amount of firearms and a very free use of them and a much lower crime rate than any UK country with draconian bans.
You are saying that you "feel" that more handguns in your country (less restrictions) would increase homicides. Your history does not bear that out. Your crime does seem to go up tho after every ban.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
and... Switzerland has a very large amount of firearms and a very free use of them and a much lower crime rate than any UK country with draconian bans.
Most of those are long guns/rifles. Very few handguns, and no social underclass - you know, the socio economic group you blame for most of the crime in the US. You are saying that you "feel" that more handguns in your country (less restrictions) would increase homicides. Your history does not bear that out.
It's never been tried, so how would history bear it out? Oh wait, there were a few guns around before WW1 - and 92 police were shot in the Metropolitan district in the years 1908-12. That number has gone down since.
As for crime going up - there are many factors involved, not just gun crime.
-
There are plenty of countries that have outlawed guns, yet have very high levels of violence and murder.
And homicide rates are the only measure of homicides, not "gun" homicides verses all other forms of homicide.
How many alcohol related homicides does the UK have each year? A ban on alcohol should be considered, since it's impossible to allow law abiding people access to alcohol without supplying the criminals with it as well.
Alcohol caused more death and destruction in the UK each year than guns ever have, yet there is no weeping or cries for an alcohol ban. Beetle, if you follow your own logic, you would agree that alcohol should be banned.
-
In switzerland people carry rifles around or have them by their side at resteraunts.... It was like that in kalifornia when I was a kid... we carried em on our bikes. In Arizona and other states people still do with no harm.
States that allow concealled carry have lower crime here. even the most pessimistic studies show that. Your country never had high homicide rates but you did have some firearms freedoms... If you didn't... then why pass the 96 ban?
I really don't care why the bad guys are doing bad things... it is for others to debate... me having a handgun is not why they are bad men tho or even why they are dangerous.... me (and millions of others) haveing handguns and firearms is why they don't burglarize our homes in organized gangs while we cower under the bed like in your country.
lazs
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Beetle, if you follow your own logic, you would agree that alcohol should be banned.
The thing that surprises me about you, NUKE, is that you completely understand the logic of not allowing wackjobs to have nuclear weapons. Why? Because the wackjobs can't be trusted. You have even started your own thread about this.
But what you don't seem to get is that it's the SAME logic as my not wanting guns to be freely available where I live.
Alcohol does not enter into it. People who abuse alcohol have made their own choice, whereas people who get shot are generally having their fate decided for them by the person holding the gun. Apples and oranges, my old fruit!
-
People who use alcohol and then drive kill people. They also can get very violent and kill people, like after a soccer game perhapse.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
In switzerland people carry rifles around or have them by their side at resteraunts....
I've never entered Switzerland, but I suspect that's BS. Have you been to Switzerland? haveing handguns and firearms is why they don't burglarize our homes in organized gangs while we cower under the bed like in your country.
More BS. I have never been burgled. You HAVE been burgled. And.... I don't cower under my bed. I feel as threatened as I might at a Church bingo night. You feel the exact same way when you're in Britain, unarmed. You said so yourself.
-
beet... you have nothing but a few anecdotal examples.... you "know of a place in scotland that you didn't get harmed" so therefore all the data on scotland is wrong...
You "know two women in new york who don't like guns so all of America wants to get rid of em" so therefore all the data is wrong.
you have been to switzerland and didn't see firearms so therefore they don't have laws allowing the carrying of firearms to and from shooting events or in their homes.
You have not been burgled so therefore all the data that clearly shows that 50% of your burglaries are done when the people are home is...... wrong? I have been burgled but... it was kids and..... I WASN'T HOME.. get it? Your burglars come in teams... you would simply get stomped if you resisted. I would simply shoot. I have choice... you don't
Someone shows that the data is that Scotland is three times more dangerous than the U.S. and you show a picture of the scottish countryside?
Burgled? You live in a nice area.... so far you have been lucky.... i drive without seatbelts in my Lincoln... so far I have been lucky. At least I don't post a picture of a deserted road to prove how smart it is to drive without a seatbelt.
lazs
-
Originally posted by beet1e
whereas people who get shot are generally having their fate decided for them by the person holding the gun. Apples and oranges, my old fruit!
People who get crushed by a drunk driver are generally having their fate decided for them by the drunk driving the car. Apples and apples, my old fruit!
-
Originally posted by beet1e
The thing that surprises me about you, NUKE, is that you completely understand the logic of not allowing wackjobs to have nuclear weapons. Why? Because the wackjobs can't be trusted. You have even started your own thread about this.
But what you don't seem to get is that it's the SAME logic as my not wanting guns to be freely available where I live.
Alcohol does not enter into it. People who abuse alcohol have made their own choice, whereas people who get shot are generally having their fate decided for them by the person holding the gun. Apples and oranges, my old fruit!
You are saying that UK citizens are whack-jobs who can't be trusted? Fine, but why do you allow them access to aclohol when they clearly get drunk and drive, kill people and cause mayhem probably every day?
Apply your same logic to the problem of alcohol, otherwise you seem hypocritical.
-
Well, off to work. On my drive home, I hope I don't drive close to any drunken drivers who may cross into my lane and kill me.
I don't mind driving next to armed drivers.
-
yep nuke.... that is exactly what he is saying.... the peasants can't be trusted with firearms...
There are allways reasons for people to not trust their fellow man with the means to defend himself.... none are noble.
1) Ignorance.. they don't know anything about the subject except the negative foisted on em by....
2) royalty... upper class people fear the loss of control peasants with the means to defeat tyranny represent. and... liberals who see armed citizens as a threat as firearms cause individual thinking and independence from the "protection" offered by a socialist/commie/facist big government.
3) projection.... many who fear guns say that crazy people would shoot at every fender bender or when they get angry... they think this because they themselves commit cowardly violence when they are angry or drunk and project that.... if they do it...surely... everyone must?
4) back to two... people who can afford to stay out of high crime areas or afford bodyguards or extra police attention want a "safer" world where the bad guys have even less chance of getting through their formidable defenses...
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
beet... you have nothing but a few anecdotal examples.... you "know of a place in scotland that you didn't get harmed" so therefore all the data on scotland is wrong...
I've been all around Scotland - right up to Dunnet Head. I've been to islands you didn't even know existed. Most of Scotland is like the picture I posted.
Of course, not all of it is as pleasant. There's also this...
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/twtis.jpg)You "know two women in new york who don't like guns so all of America wants to get rid of em" so therefore all the data is wrong.
I said I knew at least two women who live alone in New York, neither of whom has a gun. You invented the rest.you have been to switzerland
No, I said I had NOT. Your burglars come in teams... you would simply get stomped if you resisted. I would simply shoot. I have choice... you don't
Yours come armed. Ours generally don't. But what would I know? I've never been burgled, whereas you understandably have an in depth knowledge of the subject. The closest I came to it was one Saturday evening at about 1130pm. I'd already gone to bed. 8 unoccupied houses in my neighbourhood got burgled by the same person - same M.O. The burglar skipped our house - presumably because some lights were still on and my car was on the driveway. So much for my "getting stomped" by the "team". Someone shows that the data is that Scotland is three times more dangerous than the U.S.
I haven't seen any figures. Besides, it depends where you go. In 99% of Scotland, I get that Church bingo night feeling.
Mr. Toad!! People who get crushed by a drunk driver are generally having their fate decided for them by the drunk driving the car. Apples and apples, my old fruit!
People who do that aren't generally in any condition to make decisions of any kind. The offence for such actions is causing death by dangerous driving. I don't know too many who get convicted of "murder".
Maybe we should ban alcohol, but then again we saw what happened when America tried it in the years 1926-1933. It didn't work out too well, did it? Biggest fillip that organised crime ever had. :confused:
You are saying that UK citizens are whack-jobs who can't be trusted?
That assessment certainly applies to a great many, just as it applies to a great many Americans. Apply your same logic to the problem of alcohol, otherwise you seem hypocritical.
Apply your same logic to the problem of ayatollahs with NUKEs, otherwise you seem hypocritical.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
People who do that aren't generally in any condition to make decisions of any kind. The offence for such actions is causing death by dangerous driving. I don't know too many who get convicted of "murder".
But of course people who kill other people with a gun are many times "under the influence" of either alcohol or drugs and so aren't "generally in any condition to make decisions of any kind." So I guess we shouldn't count those gun deaths as "gun deaths" right?
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.
Maybe we should ban alcohol, but then again we saw what happened when America tried it in the years 1926-1933. It didn't work out too well, did it? Biggest fillip that organised crime ever had. :confused:
[/b]
Indeed, you are :confused: 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. ;)
Oh...and be careful where you swing that butterknife. They're watching you, you know. And waiting, just waiting, to pounce.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Indeed, you are :confused: 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?
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=133048&perpage=50&highlight=guns&pagenumber=2) 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?
-
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. :lol 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.
:rofl:aok
-
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?
-
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?
-
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% (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3669407.stm)
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.
:lol
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I believe predators become emboldened over time as their prey become weaker.
Still confused?
I'd say you were confused. I've produced two statements from you where you suggest the UK handgun ban has emboldened or otherwise made life easier for the criminal classes. I've asked you outright if this is your opinion; you have answered in the negative but then made a wooly generalising statement that would seem to contradict this.
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?
Why don't you enlighten us? I'm sure you can produce umpteen examples to support whatever case you think you're making?
-
OK Mr. Toad, let's go through this one more time - a side by side comparison of Britain (and Bermuda, and France, and Germany and... lots of other countries) versus the US, and look at some of the things that you have spoken about that should be banned in addition to guns, if we're to maintain consistency.
1) Cars. In previous threads, you have put it to me that as far more people die in road accidents than are shot, if guns are to be banned then cars should be too. But as we both know, in the modern age we are dependent on transport to sustain a thriving economy. If we did not have roads and cars, lorries, vans etc., we would be driven back to the middle ages. Indeed, given the size of the population, life would be unsustainable without road transport.
2) Alcohol. I have given some reasons why alcohol is not banned. The US example in the years 1926-1933 shows what happens if alcohol is banned. The problem is driven underground, and alcohol supply becomes controlled by organised crime. Not only that, but a huge swathe of the economy (restaurants, pubs, hotels) would be affected. With France just ~20 miles off the Kent coast, there would be fleets of small craft importing it. I'm sure the police could be bought off to look the other way when the boat comes in. In short, it wouldn't work. Alcohol IS banned in strict muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, but even the saudis realised that the foreign workers who live in compounds off limits to the indigenous population had to be allowed alcohol. In Qatar, with its large (75%) expat population, they realised there was no way of maintaining an alcohol ban, so now the expats who live there can get a liquor licence and a well stocked sideboard of booze.
3) Guns. It is obvious from the volume of threads on this board about guns that shooting is enormously popular in the US, whether at beer cans or at game birds or larger animals. And as you know, the shooting of game birds like pheasant is an established activity here in Blighty. BUT... guns never had so central a role in Britain as they did in the US. The lines on the map were established long before guns were invented. Battles like Bosworth Field, Naseby and Cropredy Bridge were fought with pikes, not guns. So we never ended up with a "gun culture" as you have in the US. Clearly, a gun ban in the US is never going to happen. It would be unworkable. Your NRA is firmly established and lines the pockets of politicians with millions of $. But here in Britain??? We have no NRA. There is bugger all interest in handguns. That John Lott book Lazs wanted me to read sold on eBay for a mere £2. That should tell you something about the level of interest in guns here. So yes, a ban on guns works here - because it's what most people want, whether you choose to believe it or not.
You're fond of quoting your NRA claptrap which suggests that as downtrodden "subjects", we were unable to prevent the government taking away guns - 1920 and all that. And it's bollocks. As I've said before, the government that passed the 1920 Firearms Act was reelected two years later!!. The act may have "sailed through parliament", as your NRA puts it, but that's the way the vast majority wanted it. There was no protest. Another two years on and Britain had its first Labour government, representing the workers - the "downtrodden" masses. And guess what? They did not repeal the Firearms Act. Funny that...
So as you can see, we are doing what we can. The availability of Cars, Alcohol and Guns all result in thousands of deaths - that much is true. Neither the US or the UK could ban cars or alcohol. And the US could never ban guns, although assault weapons were banned. But here in Britain, a gun ban IS workable. No "gun culture" has ever developed.
So I don't see anything wrong with our status quo. What you're saying is that if we ban guns, we must also ban alcohol and cars, or else it's hypocritical. Well hey, I wasn't Prime Minister when guns were banned, so don't blame me. Your logic seems to originate from the Ripsnortian school of thought that says that either all laws must work perfectly, or there should be no laws at all.
Now if you post back, do try to keep it on topic. DO NOT bring up an aside, and then cite my answer as "not germane to the discussion". YOU were the one who spouted at length about alcohol usage in Britain - this is a thread about Canada.
And... one more time - the 1997 legislation was not a "ban". Guns were already as rare as hens' teeth before that or, as Dowding put it "Gun ownership before the ban, sod all, gun ownership after the ban, sod all".
-
Originally posted by lazs2
In switzerland people carry rifles around or have them by their side at resteraunts....
lazs
That was back when you were 20 in 1883, I go to Lausanne periodicaly, an have yet to see anyone with a rifle in a restaurant. Seriously, find your info somewhere else than in the "Dixon daily". (Edit: it comes to mind that you & I do not share the same type of restaurant... that must be it!)
Also, there is almost no/low crime because... well, it's Switzerland. A country where you will be reported to the police by civilians if you drive 1MPH over the speed limit or if your fart doesn't sound like the national anthemn.
-
That was back when you were 200 in 1883
-
Oh, and Mr. Toad - one more thing. How come drugs like heroin and LSD are banned in the US, but cars and alcohol are not? Doesn't this seem to you to be a wee bit... hypocritical??? :D
Originally posted by Saintaw
"Dixon daily"
:lol
-
Originally posted by Momus--
I'd say you were confused.
I'd say I'm amazed you fail to see my meaning.
Try this:
I believe criminals become emboldened over time as their victims become weaker. Clearly, the restrictions on firearms and the restrictions put upon those resisting crime have weakened the victims.
Can't be anymore clear for you, sorry.
-
Lovely boatload of red herring again, Beetle. Do try to stay on the point, please.
The point under discussion is why YOU...just YOU... find it so necessary and proper to ban handguns and restrict firearms in general in Britain to "save so many lives needlessly lost" whilst totally ignoring the carnage caused in your society by alcohol.
50% of the violence in the UK is alcohol related. This means far more lives could be saved, far more battered wives and battered children could be spared and your healthcare system unburdened if only Britain would take the obvious next step in protecting her citizens.
Why don't you support an alcohol ban if you are SO concerned about saving lives, as evidenced by your support of the handgun ban and firearms restrictions?
I'll offer the obvious answer: You have no interest in firearms, so you don't care what your government does to other citizens in that regard.
You DO have an interest in drinking alcohol, so you object to any restrictions placed upon your "right" in that regard.
In other words, it's all "whose ox is being gored". Your concern over "saving lives" is merely a smokescreen and is quite selective.
You're all for saving lives if it doesn't inconvenience Beetle[/i]. That's the sum of it.
-
Originally posted by Toad
The point under discussion is why YOU...just YOU... find it so necessary and proper to ban handguns and restrict firearms in general in Britain to "save so many lives needlessly lost" whilst totally ignoring the carnage caused in your society by alcohol.
It's not just ME. Handguns are banned, and other firearms are restricted. I had nothing to do with it. But the status quo is the way MOST Brits want it. Alcohol has a place in our society, handguns do not.
What percentage of crime in the US is alcohol related? I bet it's not much different from Britain. 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.
Well, the US government allows the purchase and consumption of alcohol and tobacco, but not class A drugs like heroin, despite the fact that alcohol and tobacco are responsible for far more deaths than heroin. In your own parlance, this represents a clear double standard which makes the US government look foolish. And... you yourself are fond of 25 year old single malt, whereas I doubt very much that you'd be in favour of legalisation of heroin. - Another double standard, and it is clear that your denunciation of me as a hypocrite is itself hypocritical.
-
I'd say I'm amazed you fail to see my meaning
I get your meaning quite clearly. You made several statements to the effect of suggesting that a reduction in legal handgun ownership in the UK from a previously very low level to a zero level was somehow giving the green light to the criminal classes, the implication being that they were hitherto being deterred from their nefarious activities by a handful of weapon owners, a large proportion of whom already kept their weapons off-premises and NONE of whom had the right of concealed-carry.
You then denied saying this, but then when pressed resorted to vague statements regarding "predators and prey".
What is amazing is your inability to give a simple answer to a direct question. You either think that removing weapons from a tiny proportion of the population not previously involved in law enforcement encourages crime or you don't.
So which is it?
Another direct question. You stated above that in the UK the penalty for resisting a burglar is greater than the penalty for burgling someone's house. What evidence have you got for this assertion? Can you give real-life examples to support your contention?
-
:)
I get your meaning quite clearly.
Finally. I think about everyone else had it first go round. I think it would be up to you to clip quotes and clearly show where I had said anything contrary to that previously.
I suspect it was vague only to you; I doubt it was vague to very many others.
So which is it?
I thought you just said "I get your meaning quite clearly"? So which is it?
You stated above that in the UK the penalty for resisting a burglar
No, I didn't. Go back and read it again.
-
first of all.... momus... you are indeed wrong if you think that the gun ban for handguns will guarentee that no massacre ever happens again...
I will explaing it logicaly for you. In all the gun bans that have been enacted it has been pretty much a proven fact that not more than 20% of all the handguns in england have been turned in. It is a fact that any criminal in england can "rent" a firearm from another criminal.
With a few hundred thousand handguns stashed away and more being smuggled in.... How will any law guarentee you imunity from murderous criminals and from the insane? You have one massacre that even you admit is rare and then make a gun ban and claim that the problem of insane people is over? that all guns are now gone from your country? that never the two (insane and guns) shall ever meet again? that is beyond silly...
some nut is gonna find grandpa's webley stashed in the sock drawer soon enough and use it. You can't prevent it. And why should you try?
Beet is right... you are different than us... even without firearms we kill at 2-3 times the rate you do. as your country dies....you will see an increase tho.
Beet is right that you don't want guns... You have never had a tradition of them and your people are far more subservient and less individualistic. You have more respect for your government than we do and trust it much more.
when you had no gun control and....up till recently you had no shotgun control at all... you had the same rate of homicides as you have now... A shotgun is the most deadly close quarters weapon there is..... yet... you had no restrictions at all on them until recently in the 20th century..
By your logic... if there had been one mass shotgun killing before your new shotgun laws... you could now claim that the new laws had prevented all new massacres. There are millions of these deadly weapons in your country.
A very good book for those interested in the various countries and their gun control is "The samouri, The Mounty and the Cowboy" by Koppel.
It is a little outdated now (our homicide and crime rate has dropped since '92 and we have removed some gun laws) but the historical stuff is still good...
Even in '92 tho the black homicide rate was 34 per 100k compared to 3 per 100k for non hispanic whites. It is a little less for whites now.
lazs
-
Originally posted by beet1e
It's not just ME.
[/b]
Indeed, sir, that is the focus of our discussion.
I ask again, how do you justify your support of the handgun ban/firearms restrictions whilst remaining totally unsupportive of banning alcohol, all with respect to your country?
Is your support of the various firearms restrictions based on saving lives or not? If not, why DO you support it? Because "most people want it"? What?
Is your failure to support a similar ban on alcohol based upon the fact that most people "don't want it" even though it would save more lives than any amount of firearms restrictions?
Again, it's my belief that your opposition/support of these issues comes down to a simple matter of whose ox is being gored. Show me this is not so.
-
Thanks Toad, I'll take that refusal to elaborate further on your previous statements as an admission that you can't actually do so despite being afforded repeated opportunities. I'll leave you and Beet to your mutual trolling now.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I ask again, how do you justify your support of the handgun ban/firearms restrictions whilst remaining totally unsupportive of banning alcohol, all with respect to your country?
The reason you have to ask again is because you didn't read my answer the first time. I've already explained it. ^ As you didn't get it the first time, here it is again: Alcohol. I have given some reasons why alcohol is not banned. The US example in the years 1926-1933 shows what happens if alcohol is banned. The problem is driven underground, and alcohol supply becomes controlled by organised crime. Not only that, but a huge swathe of the economy (restaurants, pubs, hotels) would be affected. With France just ~20 miles off the Kent coast, there would be fleets of small craft importing it. I'm sure the police could be bought off to look the other way when the boat comes in. In short, it wouldn't work. Alcohol IS banned in strict muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, but even the saudis realised that the foreign workers who live in compounds off limits to the indigenous population had to be allowed alcohol. In Qatar, with its large (75%) expat population, they realised there was no way of maintaining an alcohol ban, so now the expats who live there can get a liquor licence and a well stocked sideboard of booze.
Is your support of the various firearms restrictions based on saving lives or not? If not, why DO you support it? Because "most people want it"? What?
YES. Surely you know this much, after all the gun threads we've had? As Nashwan once put it, making tools available which are specifically designed for killing people is "a bit silly". The homicide stats around the world bear witness to this. Is your failure to support a similar ban on alcohol based upon the fact that most people "don't want it" even though it would save more lives than any amount of firearms restrictions?
No. Refer to the self quote above. It's true that most people wouldn't want it, but that's not the only reason I wouldn't want to see it. We saw what happened when the US tried to ban alcohol in the years 1926-33.
Now let me ask YOU some questions: 1) Do you support the continued legalised sale of alcoholic liquor in the US? 2) DO you support the legalisation of class A drugs like heroin in the US?
-
Alcohol kills 33,000 people in the UK each year. BAN IT! The subjects cannot be trusted with alcohol! ;)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/alcohol/
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Thanks Toad, I'll take that refusal to elaborate further on your previous statements as an admission that you can't actually do so despite being afforded repeated opportunities. I'll leave you and Beet to your mutual trolling now.
Take it anyway you like.
I've answered your questions repeatedly; I can't help it if you're not satisfied with the answers. I seriously doubt anyone that's read this far is unaware of my position, including you.
As for trolling... are you just unhappy that your bare hook got the attention it deserved?
-
Originally posted by beet1e
It's true that most people wouldn't want it, but that's not the only reason I wouldn't want to see it. We saw what happened when the US tried to ban alcohol in the years 1926-33.
[/b]
Bear with me a bit longer.
You now say you don't want to see it because it would be hard to do successfully? Is that the new criteria?
I'm sure we both agree that if you totally banned alcohol in the UK there would be an immediate and significant drop in deaths caused by drunk driving, a reduction that would likely far exceed your total of handgun homicides by several multiples. Surely you don't dispute that? Not to mention the other deaths from drunken violence with sharp objects, spousal abuse, etc., etc..
So we both agree banning alcohol in England would save far, far more lives than banning any or all firearms, right?
We would also both agree that there would be an attempt at illegal alcohol production/sales. This would have to be dealth with using the same no-tolerance vehemence your government currently uses upon illegal firearms.
Illegality or no, the massive reduction in alcohol availability would save THOUSANDS of lives.
But you won't support it because it would be too difficult?
So saving lives is only worth it if it's an easy effort? Please do clarify; I can't believe you'd take that position.
Now let me ask YOU some questions: 1) Do you support the continued legalised sale of alcoholic liquor in the US? 2) DO you support the legalisation of class A drugs like heroin in the US?
I'm essentially a Libertarian. I pretty much believe you can do what you like (within Constitutional boundaries) as long as your actions don't impinge on the freedoms of others and as long as society isn't expected to coddle you when you screw yourself up.
With rights come responsibilities. If you wish to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, do so. If you are seriously brain damaged in a crash as a result, expect that society will let you experience the result of your choice without interference.
Same with drinking. Same with heroin. Same with guns for that matter.
-
different peoples... different way od looking at things. We are citizens they are subjects.... They belive that, through government, their neighbors have a right to tell them what to do (unless they are upper class of course).
We don't... We believe in limited governments where the bill of rights is a contract that is explicit... In order to ban booze we had to make an amendment.
We took the hard way and we did it no matter what the cost. we only stopped when the amendment was repealled. Americans ignored the ban on booze... I am positive that...
A ban on booze in england would work... the brits would grumble and then some royals and lords would make speeches and then the brits would all just drink tea in the pubs.
That is why it was so easy to ban guns there.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Toad
Bear with me a bit longer.
You now say you don't want to see it because it would be hard to do successfully? Is that the new criteria?
No Toad, no new criteria. Nothing has changed at my end. The only thing that's changed is that your powers of comprehension have drifted a little further south. I'm sure we both agree that if you totally banned alcohol in the UK there would be an immediate and significant drop in deaths caused by drunk driving, a reduction that would likely far exceed your total of handgun homicides by several multiples. Surely you don't dispute that? Not to mention the other deaths from drunken violence with sharp objects, spousal abuse, etc., etc..
I agree that if everyone who drinks now stopped drinking, and did not switch to an alternative intoxicant, that your utopian scenario could become a reality. BUT... the reason it would not work is that the British people simply would not accept it, and any government trying to implement such measures would find that there would be riots in the streets - worse than any alcohol fuelled violence which occurs in the big cities on Friday and Saturday nights. A crisis of confidence in the government would occur, and it's entirely possible that they'd be bounced out of office on a vote of no confidence - it happened in 1979, for different reasons. But hey - this could be the big chance for the Liberal Democrats led by Charles Kennedy! :lol (Brit joke - you wouldn't get it)
In a Muslim country, it IS possible to ban alcohol - without much of a protest - because alcohol has never been an ingredient of their social pattern, and is therefore not an issue in countries like Saudi Arabia. For the same reasons, there is no protest when gun legislation was introduced here. Gun ownership has always been sod all, and guns are simply not an issue. Conversely, guns are very much an issue in the US, and it would be impossible to ban them there.
Now Mr. Toad, do me a favour. READ this. ^ Don't make me type it all again, as it gets tedious after the first three times.
Lazs! That is why it was so easy to ban guns there.
The reason it was easy to ban guns here is because guns were not an issue. In 1920 came the Firearms Act which, according to your NRA, "sailed through parliament". Well, as a nonissue, of course it did. Don't believe your NRA when they try to tell you that it was a "draconian measure" and that the British public was powerless to protest. There was no protest because it's what most people wanted. The law was passed by a democratically elected government which was reelected two years later in 1922. In 1924, the first Labour government, representing the masses/workers/(peasants, if you will) was formed and did not repeal this legislation. Reason: it was what most people wanted. But your NRA plays an interesting card. They know that few Americans would be capable of conceiving the notion of a country which does not want guns, so it's easy for them to gull you into believing that the government stomped all over its people in the process of passing this legislation. The sad thing is that you and Toad seem to believe your own bullshirt. If the 1997 gun "ban" (as you are fond of calling it) was so Draconian, then how do you explain that Tony Blair got reelected in 2001, and again in 2005? Answer: 99.5% of Brits couldn't give a fork about guns.
There have been at least three occasions in my lifetime when governments have been ousted and/or the PM has been sent packing as a result of public protest. - the miners' strike (1974), the poll tax riots (1989 - led to demise of Thatcher) and the winter of discontent (1979) - brought about the downfall of Callaghan's Labour govt., and was followed by 18 years of Tory Rule. :aok: If you think that we as a country will take any old crap from the government, better think again. different peoples... different way od looking at things.
Very true. We are citizens they are subjects....
Is that what it says on the NRA website? Funny that - my passport says this....
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/passport2.jpg)
-
If they passed a law in england that banned booze the people there would grumble and then comply... "queen knows what's best eh wot?"
Compliance would be ten times what it was in the U.S. Millions of british subjects meekly complied with gun laws that they knew were wrong.
It's bred into em.
lazs
-
Lazs, you have no clue. The Queen plays no part in formulating new legislation. That's done by Parliament. The last Monarch who tried to defy Parliament suffered the ignominy of having his head separated from the rest of his body. That was way back in 1649. But take heart, you're about 100 years more up to date than Jackal!
:rofl
-
Didn't say that queen passed laws.... said that you would listen to the old bag and comply.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Didn't say that queen passed laws.... said that you would listen to the old bag and comply.
lazs
still wrong
-
Nothing you've said has changed my view of your position in the least.
In my opinion, after reading your responses in multiple threads on this subject, you support the various firearms restrictions because you have no interest in guns, not because it "saves lives". That it was easy to do really isn't a factor; the key is that your ox isn't being gored.
Conversely, in my opinion, you oppose the banning of alcohol because it IS one of your interests. Clearly it would save far more lives than firearms restrictions, would reduce overall violence in your society, would reduce the load on your free healthcare system significantly and it WOULD be largely successful after the initial phase in. But it would be a huge inconvenience to YOU, so you don't support it.
You've posted nothing that convinces me this isn't the actual fact of your position despite the smoke you blow in other directions.
Toodle.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
The Queen plays no part in formulating new legislation.
Bull, royal assent.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Didn't say that queen passed laws
She does.
-
fact is... if the majority of people in england wanted booze banned then beet would comply. Their whole country would comply and it would never be repealed...
They would just get more draconian about the ban every time that anyone found a way to get drunk... they would ban any medicines that had alcohol in em for instance... all kind of new laws... brits would comply.... even if millions didn't agree... it would be.. "well... it's the law"
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
fact is... if the majority of people in england wanted booze banned then beet would comply.
No, I'd move to France. Or Spain. Or Italy. Or... :p
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Bull, royal assent.
The royal assent is not part of the formulation of a new law. In other words *she* did not create that law, parliament did. Besides, she signs anything. :lol
-
Originally posted by Toad
Nothing you've said has changed my view of your position in the least.
I can't help what you think.
Pip.
-
A relative handful of lives lost to abuse of legally held handguns and you support the ban.
~33,000 lives lost per year to alcohol abuse (BBC: Science of Alcohol (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/alcohol/) ) and you see no point in a ban.
Just wanted you to know that we both realize you're not being honest with yourself.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
The royal assent is not part of the formulation of a new law. In other words *she* did not create that law, parliament did. Besides, she signs anything. :lol
The law doesn't exist if she doesn't sign it. Her authority is essential to it being created.
-
Originally posted by Toad
A relative handful of lives lost to abuse of legally held handguns and you support the ban.
~33,000 lives lost per year to alcohol abuse (BBC: Science of Alcohol (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/alcohol/) ) and you see no point in a ban.
Just wanted you to know that we both realize you're not being honest with yourself.
Nope. You still don't get it. I know that there are alcohol problems - both here and in the US. But banning alcohol in Britain wouldn't work, and would be electoral suicide. I'm NOT typing it all again. Read what I said in earlier posts.
And in the US, there's a huge obesity crisis. I had a friend over from Arkansas this week, and he's bigger than me - about your size - 230lb and about 6-2 in height. And he was telling me that all three of the main guys he works with are at least 42lb (he said 3 stone because he was talking to me) heavier than he is. Many lives will be lost to heart disease because of the way people overeat - digging their graves with a knife and fork. Probably even more people that will be killed by guns. But before you ask, the answer is no - I do not support a ban on food. Does that make me a hypocrite too?
Now, I don't know where your analysis of my beliefs is leading, as what I think makes bugger all difference to whether guns are legal or not. And I don't see why if one thing is banned, we need to ban something else. Guns are banned. Alcohol isn't. So freaking what? That's the way 99.5% of the British electorate wants it. What's that NY expression... no need to go "busting my chops" about it - or something like that.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
The law doesn't exist if she doesn't sign it. Her authority is essential to it being created.
Thrawn, I'm aware of the process involved in which a government bill becomes an act of parliament. The Royal Assent is just a rubber stamping process. The Queen does not make any laws of her own, and she never refuses to sign a bill which has passed through the house of lords.. I'll make a bet with you: You Google your way through British parliamentary history since 1952, the year the current queen became queen. Find me a bill that was prevented from becoming law because the Queen refused to give it the Royal Assent, and I'll donate $50 to a charity of your choosing.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
No, I'd move to France. Or Spain. Or Italy. Or... :p
Your position is just "whose ox is being gored".
Guns are banned. Alcohol isn't. So freaking what?
So it's clearly not about saving lives at all.
-
Originally posted by Toad
So it's clearly not about saving lives at all.
Of course it is. Look, we've never had a gun culture here. You know that, I know that, the rest of the world knows that. And everyone can see that the countries which allow the free distribution of handguns have the highest homicide rates - eg. USA, South Africa. It's not just Britain that doesn't allow handguns. It's many other countries around the world as well. And why is that? Think of it - if unarmed countries around the world suddenly decided to make handguns available, we could have a gun tax - the government(s) could raise billions of £ in gun tax revenues. But none of this is happening. Why's that then? 1) It's not what the public at large wants; 2) There would be an enormous surge in the number of deaths.
There is no public outcry at the fact that guns are not available. I have seen great protest about the ban on foxhunting, and widespread, well publicised defiance of same in the time since. There was also a large demonstration in London against going to war in Iraq. But I've yet to see folks parading down Whitehall with banners stating "We want guns. Give us our handguns."
There's no way to ban alcohol. That suggestion is as fatuous as your earlier suggestion to ban cars. The outcry and turmoil that would arise from that would be akin to the outcry in the US if your government were to ban guns.
Still waiting to hear why your government bans heroin but not alcohol which, according to data you yourself have submitted, causes far more deaths than heroin.
-
LOUD NOISES!
-
Originally posted by beet1e
There's no way to ban alcohol. That suggestion is as fatuous as your earlier suggestion to ban cars. The outcry and turmoil that would arise from that would be akin to the outcry in the US if your government were to ban guns.
[/b]
Again you merely show it's not about lives. When you're not on "whose ox is being gored" you switch over to "it would be too hard".
Still waiting to hear why your government bans heroin but not alcohol
Because I am not the Emperor of the United States?
-
yep... It is allways about whose ox is being gored with the ban everything crowd.
Booze could be successfully banned in england. It was tried in the U.S. but.... as many have pointed out.... we just don't respect our government of the nannying of our neighbors enough... we are a lawless people compared to the japs and the brits who worship their "betters".
You could eaisily ban alcohol in japan and england and.... unlike banning firearms... it would save lives.
No one has proved that banning guns saves any lives at all but no one would disagree that banning booze would not save lives.
probly some "sensible" controls at first like....one glass of wine per day but no more than a weeks supply ever in possession..... maybe 10 years in prison for possesion (like handguns) of more. 5 years for drunk. Little things like that...
All drinkers would have to be regestered and the booze locked in a safe place where the cops could search without warrant... maybe a $300 a year regestration..
It would be simple and....It would save thousands of lives a year.
lazs
-
Why would banning booze save lives? It didn't during the prohibition. The only ones who would lower their alcohol consumption is the most law respecting citizens, who are the least likely to develop problems with alcohol anyway. In the group most prone to alcohol related problems it would have have a negative effect. It was tried here from 1919-1932 with disasterous results, alcohol related deaths rose significantly as people started drinking smuggled 96% spirit. It didn't work because we had an "alcohol culture". There was a significant demand for alcohol, even if a portion of the people decided to abide the law, and a criminal underworld developed. In some Islamic countries alcohol prohibtion works because there's no "alcohol culture" to begin with.
In America there is a significant "drug culture", and I doubt many people here agree that the drug prohibition is working well? You have higher levels of drug use than in countries with a more liberal approach, and proportionally higher numbers of drug related death and crime. Then again it works better in some countries where there's no significant drug culture and the people are more law abiding.
I think that Beetle's "culture" theory is viable, and historically proven. OTOH the workability of a prohibition has a lot to do with the general respect for higher authority and law aswell. I don't personally support any prohibition as I believe they are bound to develop more problems than they solve, and they also reduce the general respect for the laws. No victimless "crimes" like owning a gun or drinking alcohol should be outlawed. Neither alcohol or guns kill people, it's the lack of personal responsibility that does.
-
mora... I agree... no victimless crime like owning or bearing arms or drinking booze or using drugs should be banned.
using guns or booze or drugs in such a way that it injures or endangers others should be punished tho.
I am saying that we do have different cultures in england and the U.S.
In the U.S. we have little respect for authority ("who made you my boss?")
Even with "good" laws... we all routinely break laws... Prohibition made booze a fun thing in the U.S. it was even more fun to break the law.
That would not happen in england... they would obey and lives would be saved. No drunk drivers etc.
I don't drink but I know how harmful drugs and booze can be and are. I have no desire to tell people they can't tho... that is the difference.
I don't feel that I have the right... even if "most" of my countrymen feel that they would like these things to be banned.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Toad
Again you merely show it's not about lives. When you're not on "whose ox is being gored" you switch over to "it would be too hard".
I think you're full of ***t on this point. As I have already shown, there was NO protest when any UK gun legislation was passed - in the years 1903-1997. There has been NO parade through Whitehall demanding that we be given the right to possess guns. NO person has ever chained themselves to the gates of Buckingham Palace, demanding the right to own a handgun.
So just eaxctly WHOSE ox is being gored as a result of our laws which prohibit possession of handguns? Are you saying that the new policy should be a gun shop on every corner, to facilitate a handful of people whose hobby is pistol shooting, at the same time creating a huge increase in the number of gun homicides? Few people believe that would not happen - that's why there's no protest with regard to gun laws.
Too bad if you find gun prohibition to be immoral. My utopia might result in a handful of people giving up a hobby. Your utopia results in thousands of people giving up their lives. But what do you care? Most of those deaths occur in black ghettos, and not in the prairie land of the midwest. In other words it's OK - because it's not YOUR ox that's being gored.
-
I say that at least a few million gun owners ox is being gored... You don't need a gun shop on every corner to accomadate them.. let supply and demand take care of it... they can also buy from the internet like a lot of us do... Most of us buy surplus guns and ammo off the internet or.... FFL dealers who will come right to your home.
Not really a problem. Let the brits who want to own firearms buy them.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I say that at least a few million gun owners ox is being gored...
Unlikely. There would have been protests over the anti-gun legislation if it affected as many as that - just as there were riots over the poll tax in 1989, and just as there was the march on London by the Countryside Alliance in protest at the proposed ban (now in effect) on hunting foxes with hounds. Even though only a small minority of people participate in foxhunting, the wave of protest saw scenes like this.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38270000/jpg/_38270604_message300.jpg)
Full article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2274129.stm
Now, if you can find me any pictures of folks protesting at the introduction of the 1997 gun "ban", post them here. I'd be very interested to see them.
-
(http://www.ohioccw.org/files/CPZSign.jpg)
-
Originally posted by beet1e
So just eaxctly WHOSE ox is being gored as a result of our laws which prohibit possession of handguns?
[/b]
The folks who used handguns legally and properly prior to the ban, of course. Sort of like the folks that would have used alcohol legally and properly prior to a ban.
You're espousing the military way of punishment: Punish all for the transgressions of the very few. You must find it interesting to be on that side for handguns but then have to jump over the fence when it comes to drunk drivers.
But then...since YOU have no interest in handguns or firearms in general.... it's not important that they are banned. It might be important for those who did have an interest in handguns but.... up the ladder, Beet's aboard. I'm all right, Jack.
Now, were we to ban alcohol to save tens of thousands of lives per year....HEY! Wait a minute there mate! I'm moving to Spain! :rofl
-
Originally posted by Toad
The folks who used handguns legally and properly prior to the ban, of course. Sort of like the folks that would have used alcohol legally and properly prior to a ban.
They still can, as far as I know. It's just that the guns have to be kept locked away safely at the shooting club, and not left lying around at the member's home, from which they could be stolen. I don't see the problem. You're espousing the military way of punishment: Punish all for the transgressions of the very few. You must find it interesting to be on that side for handguns but then have to jump over the fence when it comes to drunk drivers.
Now really, Mr. Toad, you're being quite unfair. Just because I'm one of the overwhelming majority of Europeans who enjoys a drink, that doesn't mean I condone drunk driving. Nothing could be further from the truth. I think you know this, so I would appreciate a retraction. Now, were we to ban alcohol to save tens of thousands of lives per year....
Read Mora's post. ^ I didn't even know that Finland had a prohibition on alcohol. But as Mora points out, that ban on alcohol resulted in a significant increase in the number of alcohol related deaths, owing to people turning to smuggled spirit. This is exactly what I said would happen, in addition to which the whole smuggled spirit enterprise would line the pockets of criminals. That sound you can hear is the last wheel falling off your argument. :rofl
Ah, I see that I'm still waiting for Thrawn to come up with an example of the Royal Assent having been withheld by the queen, and I'm still waiting for archive footage from you or Lazs, showing us the protest marches along Whitehall, led by a throng of dispossessed handgun owners. There's obviously so much material that it's taking a while to go through it all. :lol While we're waiting, I thought I'd lay to rest a few popular American myths about Britain.
- Myth 1: "The British are mere subjects living under a Draconian government which took away their guns c1920, to prevent them rising up against the government" This is a popular myth, much used by America's NRA in their propaganda to convince their members and readership of the need to remain armed. Most of their readers have no concept of a society which chooses not to be armed. Most of them have no concept of history going back more than 230 years, and the NRA further capitalises on this by pointing out how things used to be in the days of the absolute Monarchy, when the King had absolute power and the people really were subjects. The same propaganda engine doesn't like to go too deeply into the 17th century, and neatly sidesteps the conflict between King Charles I and the Parliamentarians, which led to King Charles being beheaded in 1649. For 11 years after that, England did not have a King or Queen (how can there be "subjects" when there's no Monarch to which they are subjected?) but had the Commonwealth, until Charles II ascended to the throne in 1660. In more recent years, the Monarch is a figurehead, and has no absolute power. Indeed, the last time a bill was prevented from becoming law was in 1707. (Sorry Thrawn, I already knew that my money was safe!) If you still believe that the monarch has absolute power, go here (http://www.parlianet.com/background/process_ns.asp) to see how bills work their way through parliament. Do this only if you are interested in the facts, ie. don't bother if you're only interested in trolling. In Britain there was no firearms legislation until 1903, when the Pistols Act was passed. In 1920 came the Firearms Act. NRA propaganda is fond of citing how this bill "sailed through parliament" in its attempts to bolster the belief of its readers that the people had no choice in the matter. What they don't tell you is that this law was passed by a democratically elected government, and was not done on the whim of some King or Queen. What they also don't tell you is that in 1922, two years after the passage of the Firearms Act, is that Andrew Bonar Law whose Conservative Party had formed a coalition with the Liberals led by David Lloyd George, was elected. Thus the party that had served during the WW1 wartime coalition was re-elected. So much for the "Draconian government" bullshirt. A brief synopsis of David Lloyd George's premiership can be found here (http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page139.asp), and as you will see, the 1920 Firearms Act isn't even mentioned. It sailed through parliament because the whole thing was a nonissue.
- Myth 2: "The British are so compliant that they will allow government to pass any law, without protest". I have already posted from the archives ^ some material covering the Countryside Alliance march on London in protest at the ban on foxhunting. Remember, foxhunting was (is - LOL) a sport enjoyed by a relative minority, and yet 400,000 joined the protest. In 1989, the way property taxes was collected was changed and the "Poll Tax" was introduced. This was hugely unpopular. It affected everyone, because we all had to pay it. However, some were much more badly hit than others. Living where I did with only two people in the household, it didn't make much difference to me. But to the lower middle classes with large families, it was devastating. Do you think the British people simply bowed down and took it? Think again. I have a film clip from the BBC archives. It's 17MB but worth a look. There were running clashes between demonstrators and mounted police. The government was thrown into disarray, and PM Thatcher who once had huge power was forced to resign later that year. Source http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/ca_bbc_polltaxdemo_250.wmv
Protest pic
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/calc/clips/images/00/00/02/50/ca_bbc_polltaxdemo_main_00000250.jpg)
-
still... till 1900 you had really no firearms laws and until the last few years you had no restrictions on the most deadly close quarters firearm.... the shotgun... yet. your murder rate was not high. No higher than now. Wasn't it like 1 per 100k in 1900 when you had no restrictions?
Part of the confusion comes from the fact that shotguns were not considered firearms... they were not restricted till quite a bit later.
As for the brits not beintg compliant..... LOL... of course they are. And the protest only heightens that. They were protesting because their "lords" couldn't participate in the royal sport of running down vermin with pack dogs... Allmost as much as of a tradition and conditioning as having a queen.
If they passed a ban on booze the brits would whine a little and comply. And... it would save thousands of lives because... unlike some other countries... the brits would comply... the only way that it wouldn't save lives is if criminals ignored the law.
You wouldn't even have to totaly ban booze to make it work.... just do as I have suggested and 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..
Bet anything the brits would go for that.
lazs
-
Originally posted by beet1e
They still can, as far as I know. It's just that the guns have to be kept locked away safely at the shooting club, and not left lying around at the member's home, from which they could be stolen.
[/b]
Incorrect, Mr. Beetle; do try to keep up. Your country totally BANNED handguns in 1997 in the wake of Dunblane. I guess since YOU personally have no interest in handguns this slipped by you unnoticed.
Just because I'm one of the overwhelming majority of Europeans who enjoys a drink, that doesn't mean I condone drunk driving.
[/b]
I certainly never said that.
I said you're one of the overwhelming majority of Europeans that will blithely support a ban on handguns and highly restrict all firearms to "save" a mere handful of lives because you are not personally interested in firearms.
At the same time, you're one of the Europeans that will ignore the role alcohol use has in killing your citizens. This despite the fact that it is without doubt the single common denominator in half the violence in your countries and is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths EACH YEAR, many of those innocent bystanders that are victims of drunk drivers.
Ban handguns to save a very few lives.... ignore the problem of 33,000 alcohol influenced deaths each year. Right-O! I'm all right Jack!
But as Mora points out, that ban on alcohol resulted in a significant increase in the number of alcohol related deaths, owing to people turning to smuggled spirit. This is exactly what I said would happen, in addition to which the whole smuggled spirit enterprise would line the pockets of criminals.
[/b]
Rise in gun crime linked to gangs (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1878913,00.html)
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.[/size]
You've been without an argument from the start, I'd say.
As I've pointed out before, with respect to crime, the English handgun ban accomplished.....nothing.
(Before you attack the source, please do show the Home Office data is incorrect.)
-
Lazs - still waiting for pictures of the throng of dispossessed handgun owners marching on Whitehall in their millions. I've provided pics of the countryside alliance march and the poll tax riots. I got them from the BBC archives. You might want to begin your search there.
Originally posted by Toad
Ban handguns to save a very few lives.... ignore the problem of 33,000 alcohol influenced deaths each year. Right-O! I'm all right Jack!
Did you download and watch the poll tax protest link I supplied? One thing strikes me about that protest. No one was shot or killed. Had the same riot taken plave a couple of years later (1992) in Los Angeles, we could have expected to see around 40 shot dead and hundreds injured. OK so my way involves people giving up a hobby. Your way involves people giving up their lives.
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) Shouldn't you be lobbying your congressman to ban alcohol in the US? Oh wait - I was forgetting: You're partial to 25 year old single malt MacAllan. Never mind...
It's after midnight, so toodle-pip! :cool:
-
13.2 per 100,000 men died from chronic liver disease or cirrhosis in USA 2001 (NCHS, 2003)
6.2 per 100,000 women died from chronic liver disease or cirrhosis in USA 2001 (NCHS, 2003)
UK Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=P8&xml=/health/2006/01/09/nliver06.xml) [/i]Between 1957-1961 and 1997-2001, the number of deaths from liver cirrhosis in England and Wales jumped from 3.4 to 14.1 per 100,000 in men and from 2.2 to 7.7 per 100,000 for women.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
OK so my way involves people giving up a hobby. Your way involves people giving up their lives.
[/b]
People giving up their hobby for no purpose. Dont' forget that. Your gun homicide rates haven't changed.
And don't forget to hope over to the other side of the fence when you defend a handgun ban and then opposing an alcohol ban.
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.
Does it perhaps strike you that prohibiting handguns has had the same result you predict for banning alcohol? :rofl But since you drink, you can ignore that; wouldn't want your ox punctured, would we? I'm all right Jack!
Shouldn't you be lobbying your congressman to ban alcohol in the US?
[/b]
Not at all; don't you remember the questions you just asked me? I not for banning either handguns or alcohol in the US. I'm essentially libertarian. I just ask that people that do abuse alcohol or handguns be held responsible and punished accordingly. Quite a bit different approach than you supporting a ban because you think you know what's best for everyone else.
-
Too funny, Holden.
Give Beet a hanky to get that egg off his face. ;)
-
Toad = awesome.
-
People giving up their hobby for no purpose. Dont' forget that. Your gun homicide rates haven't changed.
You're forgetting that 1997 was not the first gun control measure Britain ever had. There was a whole line of laws passed, stretching right back to 1903. As I have told you about 500 times, the 1997 measures did not constitute a "ban", as it would have been next to impossible to acquire a handgun even in the years leading up to that. Of course, it suits NRA propaganda merchants to think of it as a "ban" so they can do what you have done and say the homicide rate hasn't changed. 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, while in the US it's about 100 times that. And, for the 500th time, many of those "firearms" you speak of are replicas, even BB guns. And don't forget to hope over to the other side of the fence when you defend a handgun ban and then opposing an alcohol ban.
Better read up on your own history, and that of Finland 1919-32. Mora posted about the Finnish prohibition of alcohol. According to Mora... It was tried here from 1919-1932 with disasterous results, alcohol related deaths rose significantly as people started drinking smuggled 96% spirit. It didn't work because we had an "alcohol culture". There was a significant demand for alcohol, even if a portion of the people decided to abide the law, and a criminal underworld developed.
And the story in the USA isn't much different. Bootleggers produced cheap, low grade "liquor", often mixed in an old bath tub, using any old ingredients they could lay their hands on. I've just found a long article, and will quote from it. OK I admit I was wrong - I thought it started in 1926, not 1920. ;)
Thirteen years that damaged America
“Prohibition did not achieve its goals. Instead, it added to the problems it was intended to solve” (Thorton, 15). On Midnight of January 16, 1920, one of the personal habits and customs of most Americans suddenly came to a halt. The Eighteenth Amendment was put into effect and all importing, exporting, transporting, selling, and manufacturing of intoxicating liquor was put to an end. Shortly following the enactment of the Eighteenth Amendment, the National Prohibition Act, or the Volstead Act, as it was called because of its author, Andrew J. Volstead, was put into effect. This determined intoxicating liquor as anything having an alcoholic content of anything more than 0.5 percent, omitting alcohol used for medicinal and sacramental purposes. This act also set up guidelines for enforcement (Bowen, 154). Prohibition was meant to reduce the consumption of alcohol, seen by some as the devil’s advocate, and thereby reduce crime, poverty, death rates, and improve the economy and the quality of life. “National prohibition of alcohol -- the ‘noble experiment’ -- was undertaken to reduce crime and corruption, solve social problems, reduce the tax burden created by prisons and poorhouses, and improve health and hygiene in America” (Thorton, 1). This, however, was undoubtedly to no avail. The Prohibition amendment of the 1920s was ineffective because it was unenforceable, it caused the explosive growth of crime, and it increased the amount of alcohol consumption.
It's a long article, so I'll just add a few bullet points here... - As a result of the lack of enforcement of the Prohibition Act and the creation of an illegal industry an increase in crime transpired.
- 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.
- Serious crimes, such as homicides, assault, and battery, increased nearly 13 percent, while other crimes involving victims increased 9 percent.
- The major crimes, however, such as homicides, and burglaries, increased 24 percent between 1920 and 1921.
- The contributing factor to the sudden increase of felonies was the organization of crime, especially in large cities. Because liquor was no longer legally available, the public turned to gangsters who readily took on the bootlegging industry and supplied them with liquor.
- “Seldom has law been more flagrantly violated. Not only did Americans continue to manufacture, barter, and possess alcohol; they drank more of it”
- Another downfall of prohibition was that the illegally made products had no standards. Deaths from poisoned liquor rose from 1,064 in 1920 to 4,154 in 1925.
- The drop in alcohol related deaths before prohibition quickly rose during prohibition. Arrests for drunkenness and disorderly conduct increased 41 percent, while arrests for drunk driving increased 81 percent during prohibition
- “The results of the experiment [prohibition] are clear: ...organized crime grew into an empire; ...disrespect for the law grew; and the per capita consumption of the prohibited substance -- alcohol -- increased dramatically”
[/b]
Article source: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/4399/
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. These are the reasons I don't want to see alcohol banned in the UK. It would make things worse, not better.
Well Mr. Toad, you seem to have a bit of egg on your face. Would you like to borrow HoldenMcGroin's hanky? :rofl
-
I know this thread isn't about alcohol prohibition, but here's a few funny articles about it:
http://www2.helsinginsanomat.fi/english/archive/news.asp?id=20020409IE18
http://www2.helsinginsanomat.fi/english/archive/news.asp?id=20020409IE20
http://www2.helsinginsanomat.fi/english/archive/news.asp?id=20020409IE21
-
Beet, dialog, as opposed to monologue, is a two-sided affair.
Is that avatar first degree, or can you just not be entertained by anything else than your own posts?
Or is Toad's point just flying over your head?
-
beet you are proving our point not yours... Of course prohibition didn't work in the U.S. We don't worship our government like you do.
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.
I pointed out that you had just as low of a murder rate with or without guns.... You now have more crime and it is on the rise... Your people are defenseless over it.
Traditionaly... your police being unarmed has helped to make people feel less like they need firearms but now... what is it 20% of your police are armed and going up? soon, most of your police and criminals will be armed and the only people who won't be will be the law abiding subject (also know as "victim")
Then you might get those demonstrations you asked for.
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 Simply because they don't demonstrate does not make them not exist.
You speak of our riots... you are 97% white and...except for soccer...you kill veryu few people in riots.. fine... How many of our riots involving only white people have ended in deaths?
to get back to canada.... I don't think that they are the doormats that british subjects are and I think that there may be a lot more than a few million who don't want this law.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
to get back to canada.... I don't think that they are the doormats that british subjects are and I think that there may be a lot more than a few million who don't want this law.
There was a crapload of criticism in the press, and then it died off as an issue. What's more, the Conservative Party has made big gains in the polls and it looks like they will form the next government as a minority.
-
So, it looks like canadians aren't quite the doormats the brits are?
lazs
-
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? :rofl
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!
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=95082&perpage=50&highlight=cirrhosis&pagenumber=2) thread from 2003. My figures of 26,000 (US) and 4,000 (UK) were correct at that time. Here are the links: 1) US (http://www.stjohnsmercy.org/healthinfo/adult/liver/stats.asp) 2) UK (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fglobal%2F2003%2F07%2F24%2Fbralc24.xml) 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. :D 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? :rofl
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! :eek: 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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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? :rofl
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. :rofl
-
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. :D 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? :rofl 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! :D
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"...
-
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
-
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".
-
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.
-
"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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Whoa..slow down there cowboy. Beet didn't deny the existance of the "Royal Assent", he just said it was irrelevant in practice.
"The Queen plays no part in formulating new legislation."
Yes she does, as the information I posted and linked to states.
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.
Sure, but just because the Kings and Queens decided not to exercise thier perogative in not granting Royal Assent doesn't mean that they don't have authority to do so.
-
Curval, if the queen has to sign before it is law then why aren't you and beet admitting that you are wrong?
I admit that I didn't know that she is as useless as you say.. No bill not signed since the 18th century? but.... useless tradition is pretty much the english way so I shouldn't have been.
Fact is... she can still screw up or improve things if she wants. and... I don't know how it works over there but here.... Mostly guys don't work on bills that they know will bet a presedential veto (there are exceptions... bills passed to make a point). soo... she probly does influence what laws are allowed to be put before her..
pretty much tho... you guys are saying that the old bag is a laughable anochronism.
lazs
-
The Queen does NOT formulate new laws.
From that website the "Royal Assent" is granted (again quoting your own source) "When a bill has completed all its parliamentary stages". This means that the law has already been formulated and the Queen's "Assent" is basically a rubber stamp.
-
so... you can have a bill become a law without her approval?
You are (starting?) to look foolish.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Curval, if the queen has to sign before it is law then why aren't you and beet admitting that you are wrong?
Beet1e can fight his own battles, I was responding to Thrawn...thusly:
"Beet didn't deny the existance of the "Royal Assent", he just said it was irrelevant in practice."
You want me to admit to being wrong when I'm right?
-
LOL! I go away for a quiet midweek outing (included a curry and some beers!), and when I get back there's a fight going on!
Originally posted by lazs2
LOL... I never said the queen made laws.... I said that you guys think the queen is royalty and knows best..
So you're still wrong. even so... say there were a hundred hard core pistol aficianados in your country....
Oh? Last time you posted, it was five million.
Mr. Toad! You're welcome! :):) No, it wasn't impossible; difficult but not impossible.
I did say almost impossible. I certainly never knew anyone who knew anyone who had a friend who knew someone who had a handgun... As you seem so convinced it was possible, please give examples of the people in Britain who had handguns. Shouldn't take you too long to come up with a full list! An unproven hypothesis as you know;
No, banning alcohol has been tried - in the US and in Finland, at roughly the same period. In both countries it was a disaster. Quod erat demonstrandum, my old china. But what's this - in one post you describe the lawlessness caused by alcohol, and now it's the Brits as a whole are quite orderly and lawful as you know.
with regard to your suggestions about drinks measures... 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.
Spirits have not been "poured" in British pubs in over 40 years! Measures are served from optics. I am not a spirits drinker (except the od bottle I get at xmas, and the post-curry freebies), but as I recall, spirits in pubs in England are sold in measures of one sixth of a gill. In Scotland I think its one quarter of a gill. And... if someone has had too much, the bar staff are required by law to stop serving that person. Sure, if you go to Spain it's a pour from the bottle - glug-glug-glug-glug... I prefer to stick to beer and wine, although when I was out with curval and the lads, Ravells did introduce us all to an excellent single malt - Oban, I think it was. 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.
Yes, I respect the process. But that doesn't mean I have to like who has gained power in accordance with that process, and does not tie me to living here if I chose not to. 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.
Wow! An absolute monarchy - within the USA! :lol
Thrawn - the queen plays no part in formulating new laws. To maintain that she does is a bit silly. Sure, the queen signs the royal assent using a pen. Clearly the pen must have ink in it for this to be possible. What you're saying is akin to arguing that the manufacturer of the ink inside the pen is "part of the law formulation process". Of the monarchs who have tried to defy parliament, one was executed in 1649, and the other was overthrown (James II - 1688-1689).
so... you can have a bill become a law without her approval?
Yep - I'm sure she doesn't approve of some of the bills coming through, but she never refuses to sign them. If she did, I'm sure that T. Blair would find some way to circumvent her, just as he circumvented the house of lords in order to railroad through the ban on foxhunting with hounds. But I don't think the queen would be beheaded or overthrown - unlike Charles I and James II.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I certainly never knew anyone who knew anyone who had a friend who knew someone who had a handgun...
[/b]
That's just because you don't run with the right crowd in England. I'll wager I know far more people over there that owned a pistol than you do. I met several. All of them rather bitter about the ban, old chap; after all, they'd never done ANYTHING illegal with any firearm. Not cricket. I daresay some of them still have pistols, so no list for you.
No, banning alcohol has been tried - in the US and in Finland, at roughly the same period.
[/b]
Not a factor of "when", is it? You're all some much more socialized and compliant now. It's merely a matter of how. Start slow, lots of "saving lives", "decreasing violence", "better health" campaigning; then slowly tighten up the regs and finally...the Ban. Think long term; a 20-50 year campaign if that's what it takes; after all...we're saving liveshere and with proper technique we can make the people "want" it which is ever so much more important. :rofl And, since you will be a stalwart, I know you won't leave England just because you can no longer drink...after all the "people" will want your ox well-gored and that's all that's necessary. Surely you'll comply with what the people want.
-
Originally posted by Toad
That's just because you don't run with the right crowd in England. I'll wager I know far more people over there that owned a pistol than you do.
Well that's hardly a wager, given that I've already told you that I never knew ANY. they'd never done ANYTHING illegal with any firearm. Not cricket. I daresay some of them still have pistols, so no list for you.
The mere possession is itself illegal. Surely you'll comply with what the people want.
You seem fascinated with all this thing about "the people". I wondered why you found it so amusing, so I had a look at the first three words of the US constitution, and find it begins "We the people".
:rofl
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Well that's hardly a wager, given that I've already told you that I never knew ANY.
[/b]
Well, I suspect it's that fact that makes you such an erudite commentator on the feelings of gun owners in England; the entire gun scene there, for that matter.
The mere possession is itself illegal.
[/b]
Indeed it is, and, as we have seen, the illegality of it has not changed your gun homicide rate to any noticable degree.
You'll note that I said "they'd never done ANYTHING illegal with any firearm", "they'd" being an abbrieviation for "they had", which is past tense. They are mighty, formidable, dangerous criminals now, I'm certain. These yeomen of the English countryside, formerly an assest of Empire now a dastardly part of the criminal class who are destroying the country from within like termites in mighty English oak. :rofl Oh... wait.... your gun homicide rate really hasn't changed. Nevermind; it's what the people want.
Which brings us to:
You seem fascinated with all this thing about "the people". I wondered why you found it so amusing,
[/b]
I find is so amusing in juxtaposition to something else you said here.
Beet: No, I'd move to France. Or Spain. Or Italy.
[/b]
Beet: Guns are banned because that's what most people want. Alcohol isn't banned because that's what most people want.
[/b]
That makes it very clear you have no respect or regard for what "the people" want. You don't give a fig what "the people" want. You only want what Beet wants.... and if the people happen to agree with your prejudice, well then... there you are.
Which takes us back to whose ox is being gored.
Pretty much sums up your entire argument. It's all about Beet.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Indeed it is, and, as we have seen, the illegality of it has not changed your gun homicide rate to any noticable degree.
It's been illegal to own handguns for the overwhelming majority of the British population for many decades. That's because only a tiny minority were eligible for permits. And between us, we can't come up with any names to see any pattern in ownership. But it's funny, isn't it, that whereas there is a high profile protest (400,000 marching on London) against the ban on hunting foxes with hounds, no-one has posted any pictures of the protest against the ban on handguns. Given the status this issue enjoys as an international spectacle, I thought either you or Lazs might be able to find some. That makes it very clear you have no respect or regard for what "the people" want. You don't give a fig what "the people" want. You only want what Beet wants.... and if the people happen to agree with your prejudice, well then... there you are.
I don't understand what you're saying here. Sure, I can move to France/Spain/Italy if I wanted to... what bearing does that have on the legal status of guns? As for what "the people want", the entire package of gun legislation dating back to 1903 was passed by a succession of democratically elected governments, ie governments that were elected by an electoral process which determined that they were the choice of more people than any other party. I don't see what any of this has to do with ME, since I wasn't even born when key elements of gun legislation became law. Yes, I do believe that the way our gun legislation is now is the way most people want it. If it was not, people would protest - just as they did against the poll tax, and just as they did against the foxhunting ban. But guess what? They haven't. The way the law is now suits me fine - I don't really give a toss either way about the 1997 law, but one thing I do know is that along with ~99% of the population, I don't want to see a guns free for all as in the US.
...and I don't see any Brits on this board disagreeing...
-
Originally posted by Curval
The Queen does NOT formulate new laws.
From that website the "Royal Assent" is granted (again quoting your own source) "When a bill has completed all its parliamentary stages". This means that the law has already been formulated and the Queen's "Assent" is basically a rubber stamp.
beetle didn't say the Queen the doesn't formulate new "bills", he said she didn't formulate new "laws".
"Beet didn't deny the existance of the "Royal Assent", he just said it was irrelevant in practice."
No he didn't. As I quoted he, said the Queen didn't forumulate new laws. And as I posted, the Queen's Royal Assent is essential to the formulation of new laws.
Originally posted by beet1e
Yep - I'm sure she doesn't approve of some of the bills coming through, but she never refuses to sign them.
Which doesn't mean she hasn't the legal authority deny Royal Assent.
If she did, I'm sure that T. Blair would find some way to circumvent her, just as he circumvented the house of lords in order to railroad through the ban on foxhunting with hounds.
Yeah, and if wishes were horses beggars would ride. Why the hell are you talking what may happen in the future. I'm talking about the Queen's authority now.
-
either she has the authority or she doesn't..... either her signature is needed or it isn't... black and white.
Toad put it best on the gun owners thing... He has met brits who wanted handguns but can't have em... I have heard brits on this board express their dismay that they couldn't have em..... there are hundreds of thousand of illegal gun owners in england right now. They simply have not turned in their handguns or rifles.
The compliance rate is very low. More guns are coming into the country every day.
lazs
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I don't understand what you're saying here. Sure, I can move to France/Spain/Italy if I wanted to...
[/b]
Indeed, you posted that if alcohol were banned in England you'd move.
No, I'd move to France. Or Spain. Or Italy.
[/b]
So much for your belief in / support of / compliance with "what the people want" in the way of law.
Once again:
That makes it very clear you have no respect or regard for what "the people" want. You don't give a fig what "the people" want. You only want what Beet wants.... and if the people happen to agree with your prejudice, well then... there you are.
Which takes us back to whose ox is being gored.
Pretty much sums up your entire argument. It's all about Beet.
-
United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Royal Assent is granted by the Sovereign (currently Elizabeth II). Once a bill is presented to the Sovereign or the Sovereign's representative, he or she has three formal options. Firstly, the Sovereign may grant the Royal Assent, thereby making the bill an Act of Parliament. Secondly, the Sovereign may withhold the Royal Assent, thereby vetoing the bill. Finally, the Sovereign may reserve the Royal Assent, that is to say, defer a decision on the bill until a later time.
Under modern constitutional conventions, the Sovereign usually acts on the advice of his or her ministers. Since these ministers most often maintain the support of Parliament and are the ones who obtain the passage of bills, it is highly improbable that they would advise the Sovereign to withhold Assent. Hence, in modern practice, the Royal Assent is usually granted; a refusal to do so would only be appropriate in an emergency requiring the use of the monarch's reserve powers.
It would seem that Royal Assent is required for a bill to become an Act of Parliament.
Is this true or not? Seems pretty simple; either it is or is not required.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Indeed, you posted that if alcohol were banned in England you'd move.
Clearly that was a tongue in cheek remark to Lazs - I even included a :p at the end of it. Besides, I might move anyway - regardless of any alcohol bans - because I can. That makes it very clear you have no respect or regard for what "the people" want. You don't give a fig what "the people" want. You only want what Beet wants.... and if the people happen to agree with your prejudice, well then... there you are.
What I want and what I get are not necessarily the same. An alcohol ban is not what people would want, and would prove to be disastrous - just as it was in both the USA and Finland, early in the 20th century. As for guns being banned, that too is what most people want. If it wasn't, there would have been a massive public outcry - just as there was against the poll tax and, to a lesser degree, the ban on foxhunting. You're trying to argue that just because the status quo with regard to gun laws and alcohol laws in Britain suits me personally, that makes me a hypocrite. There's no logic in that, as I was not personally responsible for enacting any laws. I could understand your point of view perhaps, if I'd ever worked for the company that produces the ink that goes in the queen's pen. :rofl I think you'll find that the way things are in Britain today suits the vast majority and, as I said before, I don't see any Brits on this board jumping up and down in protest. It would seem that Royal Assent is required for a bill to become an Act of Parliament. Is this true or not? Seems pretty simple; either it is or is not required.
Royal Assent is required, but that does not mean that the queen signs bills herself. Indeed, I have found an interesting link which points out that no monarch since the 16th century has done this, and adds that "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." These days it's apparently done by some sort of notification procedure. Based on what I googled up this morning, the monarch gives both houses of parliament a carte blanche at the start of the parliamentary session. Link:
http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/demow/const1.html
Now Mr. Toad, you seem to be doing some fence hopping of your own. One moment you say people abuse alcohol and wreak havoc upon their fellow citizens
and then in another post it's the Brits as a whole are quite orderly and lawful as you know.
Which is it? Careful, those fences are made from barbed wire, and with one leg either side of the fence, tearing your trousers should be the least of your worries! :lol
-
A place where the majority rules without any guarentee of human rights that can not be infringed no matter how many want em is not a place that I would like to live.
lazs
-
I think the Brits are law-abiding people when sober but have a serious alcohol problem that kills ~33,000 of their fellow citizens a year.
Sad but true; if we removed alcohol, their judgement wouldn't be impaired to the point that they would break the law.
You can't trust them with an Olympic .22 target pistol; mass murder and mayhem breaks out at the very thought of a handgun. Can't really trust them with a deadly fifth of Scotch, keg of beer or bottle of wine either.
But of course, you keep saying a ban would only make things worse.
Whatever do you base that upon?
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.[/size]
:rofl
-
Originally posted by lazs2
A place where the majority rules without any guarentee of human rights that can not be infringed no matter how many want em is not a place that I would like to live.
What, like the right to carry a manicure kit in your hand luggage on a plane? - (a right that was swept away at the stroke of a pen by the FAA fiefdom) The right to take pictures of trains, dealt a blow by the Homeland Security act?
-
Beet, better ask for Holden's hanky again:
This from the Exeter Airport's web site:
Aircraft Cabin Prohibited Items
The following are examples of items that are not permitted in Hand (cabin) Baggage or on the person travelling:
• Scissors
• Toy or replica guns (metal or plastic)
• Catapults
• Household cutlery
• Knives with blades of any length
• Razor blades
• Tools
• Darts
• Hypodermic needles
(unless required for medical reasons)
• Sporting bats
• Billiard, snooker or pool cues
• Corkscrews
Any other item, considered by security officers to be a risk to passengers or crew, will also not be permitted in the aircraft cabin and will be confiscated in the security search area.
Place such items in Hold (checked-in) Baggage.
And this from the TSA here in the US:
Items prohibited from aircraft cabins:
The following items will not be allowed through the security checkpoint. Please note that this list is not all-inclusive. In addition to items specifically listed here, other items that may be deemed to present a potential threat may also be prohibited.
Ammunition
Automatic weapons
Axes
Baseball bats
BB guns
Billy clubs
Blackjacks
Blasting caps
Bows and arrows
Box cutters
Brass knuckles
Bull whips
Cattle prods
Compressed air guns
Corkscrews
Cricket bats
Crow bars
Disabling chemicals or gases
Dog repellent spray
Dynamite
Fire extinguishers
Flare pistols
Golf clubs
Gun lighters
Gunpowder
Hammers
Hand grenades
Hatchets
Hockey sticks
Hunting knives
Ice axe/Ice pick
Knives (any length)
Kubatons
Large, heavy tools (such as wrenches, pliers, etc.)
Mace
Martial arts devices
Meat cleavers
Metal scissors with pointed tips
Numchucks
Pellet guns
Pen knives
Pepper spray
Pistols
Plastic explosives
Pool cues
Portable power drills
Portable power saws
Razor blades (not in a cartridge)
Religious knives
Replica weapons
Revolvers
Rifles
Road flares
SCUBA knives
Sabers
Screwdrivers
Shot guns
Ski poles
Spear guns
Starter pistols
Straight razors
Stun guns/shocking devices
Swords
Tear gas
Throwing stars
Toy transformer robots (this toy forms a toy gun)
Toy weapons
What is there on the US list that is prohibited here that would be allowed as carry-on baggage in the UK? Do tell.
-
Originally posted by Mr. Toad
But of course, you keep saying a ban would only make things worse.
Whatever do you base that upon?
I've told you - repeatedly. It's already been tried. Twice - in the USA and in Finland. The results were disastrous in each case.
STILL waiting for those pictures, and that archive film footage of the 1997 gun "ban", in which the crowd goes wild - just as it did against the poll tax in 1990, and the proposed foxhunting ban in 2001 which later became law in 2004. I'm surprised it's taking you so long. After all, it was such a momentous occasion, if you are to be believed. I would have thought that there would be news teams from all over the world showing the 5 million people that it affected, marching down Whitehall. Or maybe the police, doing door to door gun collections?
:rofl
Whatever, take your time. I'll be waiting to view those protest pictures after you've finished the long and arduous task of collating them! :D
-
[size=8]STILL[/size] waiting to hear what items are prohibited as airline carry-on baggage in the US that are allowed in the UK.
And, btw, YOU keep saying bans don't work. Have you any proof?
[size=8]...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....
... 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.[/size]
:rofl
-
NOW I need HMcG's hanky!
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/lmao.gif)
-
Think about it a while. The yolks on you.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Think about it a while. The yolks on you.
No, silly! I'm laughing at the way the two of us have been going on at each other like a pair of old women! I can't take it seriously any more! :rofl
Time for a beer!:cool:
-
The handgun ban was a stupid, knee-jerk reaction that did nothing to lower the gun homicide rate in England. All it did was punish people who were not guilty of anything. It's political posturing at it's worst.
Now that we both agree on that, I'll have a beer with you.
-
now see toad.... now you are just being mean.
lazs
-
Petty...not mean.;)
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Royal Assent is required, but that does not mean that the queen signs bills herself. Indeed, I have found an interesting link which points out that no monarch since the 16th century has done this, and adds that "Royal Assent was last given in person by the Sovereign in 1854.
So, the method by why which the Queen gives Royal Assent doesn't change the fact that she gives it. Royal Assent is necessary to pass a law, the authority to give Royal Assent comes from the Queen.
If she wanted to she could tell parliment to go **** themselves. At that time Britain, and/or the dominions could decided to become Republics, but until they do the Queen still has her reserve powers.
Of course, MPs swear an oath of alliegence to the Queen and her lineage. So I guess they would have to be treasonous, dishonourable bastards to try and remove her as head of state.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Petty...not mean.;)
Illuminating, not mean or petty.
-
from beetle's sig:
"What I find funny is some Americans claiming Britain's 68 gun murders last year prove gun control doesn't work, but America's 10,000 gun murders a year prove more guns = less crime."
You ever stop to think that our gun culture was a result of the tyrannical oppression of Britain over the American colonies? That maybe our second amendment was a direct result of the fact that every citizen needed to be armed to win and keep our freedom. Once anything is granted (2nd amendment for example) it gets really hard to take away.
-
Originally posted by Mr. Toad
Exeter
Ah yes, Exeter - I know it well. It's in Devonshire! ;) Do you fly in there when you visit your friends for the shooting party?
ASTAC said "You ever stop to think that our gun culture was a result of the tyrannical oppression of Britain over the American colonies? That maybe our second amendment was a direct result of the fact that every citizen needed to be armed to win and keep our freedom."
No, I don't think Britain had anything to do with it. Remember, in the 18th century, Britain owned a third of the world and had the most powerful navy in the world. In the last few centuries, numerous former colonies (I was going to say dozens, but I haven't counted them all) in addition to the USA have gained independence from Britain, but none has spawned a gun culture on such a huge scale as can be seen in the USA. I think your gun culture has more to do with cowboys and indians. The indigenous red indians were booted off their own land and banished to reservations. Understandably, the indians were pissed off about that, and so the new settlers had to protect themselves and their property. Still, you have to admit - it's a cracking sig! :cool:
-
No beet... our gun culture has more to do with our enlightened constitution that guarnetees that some petty governement can't tyranize the people...
besides spelling out human rights that the government can not infringe on it is a dicument of limited government. You can't have limited government without the right to keep and bear arms.
england did indeed inspire our gun culture... We used a lot of english law to form our government... it was good law but had no guarentees... the rights of the people came from the government... rights that english people thought they had could be taken away at a moments notice by kings or politicians. All the brilliant thinking that went into english law was simply a waste of time... there are no guarentees.
english and colonials all just assumed that under british law they wouls never be disarmed... the very first thing that started the revolution was that.....
Brits demanded that the Americans disarm...
The last thing the brits asked the Boer to do before they invaded them was.... to disarm.
So yes... the distrust of the imperialistic and decietful brits and their useless laws did indeed have a great deal to do with the gun culture in this country.... you just about guarenteed that there would be a constitutions with amendments and... that the one second only to free speech would be...
The right to keep and bear arms.
lazs
-
and your sig? if says pretty much that..
"yeah... we still have the same amount of homicides per capita as when we actualy had free people but now, more of em get stabbed to death and... Americans seem to kill each other at a few more per hundred thousand than we do. we kill each other at about 1.5 per 100k like allways and they kill each other at like 5 per 100k or so and dropping"
Least... that's the way I read it.
lazs
-
Originally posted by beet1e
No, I don't think Britain had anything to do with it. Remember, in the 18th century, Britain owned a third of the world and had the most powerful navy in the world. In the last few centuries, numerous former colonies (I was going to say dozens, but I haven't counted them all) in addition to the USA have gained independence from Britain, but none has spawned a gun culture on such a huge scale as can be seen in the USA.
If my memory of history serves me, I think that the difference is that the USA is the only one who took its freedom from the crown, the rest were given theirs by the crown.
-
The boers allmost did... they kept their tradition of gun ownership also... they were a very limited government and they learned from the gentle minstations of the brits that.... free men needed to be armed.
lazs
-
The right to bear arms did not necessarily have any positive bearing on those nations who gained their independence from Britain or other countries. In countries like Zimbabwe and South Africa, it was legal to purchase and own guns. But that was no protection from the fate which awaited those countries. Zimbabwe (formerly Southern Rhodesia) declared UDI in 1965, and became an independent state in 1980 under Robert Mugabe - it's been downhill ever since, with most of the indigenous white population having been forced to leave, having been dispossessed of their property in Mugabe's "land grab" campaign. South Africa became independent of Britain in 1910. But despite the public's right to purchase and own guns, crime has spiralled out of control. Tens of thousands of indigenous South Africans have given up their right to own guns and have sought refuge in Britain.
-
Beet..look wher eyou are talking about..a place that has never got away from the tribal mentality. They can't even run a country between themselves because of tribal fueding.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
Beet..look wher eyou are talking about..a place that has never got away from the tribal mentality. They can't even run a country between themselves because of tribal fueding.
I was making the simple point that guns are not the panacea to all ills that some people would like to think. As a matter of fact, Zimbabwe and South Africa were highly civilised in their day. In Zimbabwe, the indigenous whites had a very high standard of living - with homes on 3 acre plots, large houses with separate pavilions, swimming pool, several servants... When the whites were forced out, it was bad news for the blacks who were left too. Suddenly they had no jobs, later they would have no food...
-
beet... in south africa people with bigger armies and bigger guns took away the ability of the south africans to keep order. and look how it turned out? real paradise there now eh?
lazs
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Ah yes, Exeter - I know it well.
You know it well? Excellent.
Then you should be able to answer the question that you dodged regarding carry on baggage:
What is there on the US list that is prohibited here that would be allowed as carry-on baggage in the UK?
-
Originally posted by Toad
You know it well? Excellent.
Then you should be able to answer the question that you dodged regarding carry on baggage:
What is there on the US list that is prohibited here that would be allowed as carry-on baggage in the UK?
Oh I doubt that there's much! The power of the FAA fiefdom extends globally!
Are you returning to Devonshire any time soon?