Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: NUKE on January 05, 2003, 05:59:32 AM
-
Beet1e wrote
In Britain we've never had more than 100 gun murders in any year
So I ask, why does Beet1e feel there was a need to ban most guns after 1996?
-
So I ask, why does Beet1e feel there was a need to ban most guns after 1996?
It wasn't Beet1e's descision, it was a choice made by a *democratically elected* government. why should you care anyway? Get over it.
-
Originally posted by moggie
So I ask, why does Beet1e feel there was a need to ban most guns after 1996?
It wasn't Beet1e's descision, it was a choice made by a *democratically elected* government. why should you care anyway? Get over it.
I didn't say it was Beet1e's descision, I asked why he feels there is a need for a gun ban.
And I will "get over it" as soon as Beet1e "gets over" his American fetish.
-
Ok, but what Beet1e thinks is largely irrelevant as to the reality of the ban; you'll find that rightly or wrongly most Britons support it.
-
Originally posted by moggie
Ok, but what Beet1e thinks is largely irrelevant as to the reality of the ban; you'll find that rightly or wrongly most Britons support it.
You are correct is in that what Beet1e thinks is irrelevant.
I was looking at the BBC talking point yesterday regarding the gun ban....... seems most Brits that posted didn't support the ban.
Be interesting to have an official poll of Brits regarding the issue.
-
Be interesting to have an official poll of Brits regarding the issue.
And how 'official' would that be? I think you'd maybe have only 4 replies, and one of those would be beetle himself.
Let's see. That would be 4 out of 60 million. Hardly representative, statistically.
You overestimate the importance of gun control to most Britons.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
And how 'official' would that be? I think you'd maybe have only 4 replies, and one of those would be beetle himself.
Let's see. That would be 4 out of 60 million. Hardly representative, statistically.
You overestimate the importance of gun control to most Britons.
Dowding, I didn't estimate at all, so how could I overestimate?
I said it would be interesting.
was looking at BBC posts on issue, seems it is important enough to have BBC ask the question..... with more than 4 replies even.
Most Brits that replied seem to think gun laws are not the answer BTW
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/2624539.stm
-
What are the statistics for murders using sand filled garden hoses tho :D
-
You are talking about the banning of handguns I presume?
Handguns are and have always been prohibited in my country (Iceland), while other weapons for hunting are allowed. (For that you need a clean criminal record, 2 guarantors, a course etc.).
The reason, I belive, is that handguns have no practical application (for hunting), while also being an easiy conceilable weapon. And its forbidden to shoot humans anyway.
As a result, the criminal world here is much less armed than in many other countries, and murders are rare, I belive we had only 1 last year. (drugged up burgler with an axe)
I can only recall 1 shootout between the police and a gunman in my life, - he was drunk and carrying a shotgun. BTW, the police is not armed, - the gunman was cornered off and captured without injury by a special team (armed)
I must say, that I understand quite well what the Britons are trying to do, and keeping things this way certainly seems to work well up here.
Just thinking of the accessibility of any geek to heavy weapons in the USA runs shivers through my spine.
-
As your immigration and drug problems increase you will indeed see a rise in concern over gun bans for the law abiding..
People are people... here, when it is a case of a "nut" going on a suicidal shooting spree.... there is a huge outcry for "gun control", "help us nanny... save us from ouselves...."
When there is a riot or a stalker or a rash of armed robberies you see the gun stores selling out all their handguns... "mind your own buisseness nanny.. you can't defend us..."
Best of both worlds is to increase penalties for gun crime while at the same time liberalizing gun ownership and concealed carry laws.
lazs
-
Americans: you miss a point:
Guns are not prohibited in Britain, neither are they up here in Iceland.
I have 3.
However, I can't just walk into a shop and buy myself a .45 or whatever. And I can't Hide my arms, - my clothes are not baggy enough to conceil a rifle.
Since we have no handguns, we also have no conceil laws.
Another point:
In the U.S. more people get shot (mostly with small handguns) every year, than in any other western country.
Does that not indicate that there is something wrong? And how would that be countered? By INCREASING the arsenal?
Duhhhh.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Americans: you miss a point:
Guns are not prohibited in Britain, neither are they up here in Iceland....
...Since we have no handguns, we also have no conceil laws.
:D
-
angus... what are the restrictions on firearms... You say you can't have the useful and fun ones like handguns... what about semi auto rifles and shotguns? how bout pump shotguns? Can you keep them in your home and can you do your own reloading at home? What restrictions on ammo? What restrictions on purchase of firearms? We have welll stocked gun stores in every town... Can you shoot on your own land outside city limits? You can shoot an intruder tho right?
In the U.S. it has been proven over and over that the more guns.... the less crime. An armed society is a polite society. When I was in limeyland the people seemed trustworthy enough but perhaps you have some special knowledge as to why they can't be trusted with firearms? I guess a clue would be all the signs I seen to "watch your bags" "watch for pickpockets" must be a country with very low morals I guess? Still... the ones I met seemed fine.
lazs
-
Cripes, I'm getting sick of this topic. Let the American kill each other, for crying out loud.
-
We can own rifles with the standard Mauser lock and with a magazine up to 5 bullets.
Pumps, yes, and semi-auto shotguns capable of 4 cartridges, yes.
Rifles varying from .22 all the way to 30-06.
You can reload your own casings, yes.
You can have a gun in the house, and you can shoot on your own land outside populated boundaries.
Usefulness of handguns, I fail to see.
You can NOT shoot an intruder, - that will just bring you to jail, unless the cirkumstances are extremely in your favour.
NB, most intruders are drunk and missing the right door, or looking for a party.
Burglars are rare, and almost never armed, and thereoff never with handguns.
People where I live, in the countryside usually never lock their houses, nor do they take the keys out of their cars!
(I take mine out on friday nights when there is a dance nearby)
I cannot see how more guns would improve such a status, and the US crime rate would certainly not support such a theory!
-
Originally posted by Angus
Usefulness of handguns, I fail to see.
Usefulness of rum, I fail to see also. But some people like it, I guess.
In fact there's quite a few things others seem to like that I cannot see the usefulness of, but then that's their business.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Beet1e wrote
So I ask, why does Beet1e feel there was a need to ban most guns after 1996?
Wouldnt you have to compare britons land mass to ours for this to be relative? :D
-
I can't understand the endless debate on US/UK gun laws.
Being British, I can't even remember a time when guns had been popular even before the banning of certain calibres & types.
I feel safe without guns, I know the Police aren't crazy enough to point a gun at me if I crash my car; I know the chances of anyone attacking me aren't going to have a gun; I know if someone breaks into my home the chances of them having a gun is remote too. I can cope with that. It feels more like a level playing field if that makes sense? Of course the freedom to buy a gun and to join a gun club would be good, but I can live without them; if the majority have never really had them then what is there to miss?
As for murders, guns are easier to kill with than a knife. You simply point and shoot, then run! Very little to be left at the scene of the crime. With a knife you have to get close, stab, get covered in blood, probably end up in a physical fight leaving more clues at the scene of the crime. So unless the person is a complete lunatic then surely they'd think twice attacking someone with a knife rather than a gun?
-
Actually, according to Home Office statistics, your murders favor using sharp instruments over guns by a three to one margin. ;)
-
I don't care what Europe does with guns. The thing I fear is that Europe is rubbing it off onto us. We already have all these stupid bans.
-
Actually, according to Home Office statistics, your murders favor using sharp instruments over guns by a three to one margin.
That's because they can't get guns.
In the US, where both are freely available, (knives even more so than guns), the criminals choose guns.
-
Yep, they're using knives.
Dead is dead. By golf club, gun, sharp instrument or cricket bat.
And the stats are "very stable" according to the Home Office.
-
Everybody is missing the point!
It is not the guns people Its the morons who cant control there emotions and use them to kill!!!!!!
If there where no guns trust me people would still find creative ways of killing one another.
I own guns not for protection but for the pure sport of trying to hit a target up 1000 yards away.
It is indeed a sport that commands all of your senses.
We as a race (HUMANS) need to put back the value of human life.
It simply is not ours to take ..........................
The fact that some people choose to use a gun in the offence of a crime is indeed sad but the real sad part is there need to commit the crime in the first place.
Look Americas past was in part formed by the firearm its part of our history and i dont see it going away any time soon.
We are the most heavly armed country on the planet thats one reasone why we will never be invaded easely.
I think it sad that the peoples of europe have to go thrue all the watermelon just to own a hunting weapon but it was you who let you governments strip you of your rights a long time ago.
Say if someday some nut (HITLER RING A BELL) comes alond and says gee i dont like those britts i think there weak and i am going to gas them all to hell.
What will you as citizene do then??
Cant always count on your military can you.
Oh I know what you will do you will call good old uncle sam and his country of pistol packin cowboys to come save your butts once again!!
-
Originally posted by NUKE
You are correct is in that what Beet1e thinks is irrelevant.
I was looking at the BBC talking point yesterday regarding the gun ban....... seems most Brits that posted didn't support the ban.
Be interesting to have an official poll of Brits regarding the issue.
Gee I wonder how many of those who posted don't want their guns banned???
That's because they can't get guns.
In the US, where both are freely available, (knives even more so than guns), the criminals choose guns.
I wonder when it will sink in that IF guns were as available in Britain (as well as Aus) as they are in the US just how higher the killed by a firearm rates would be.
Tronsky
-
Who gives a toejam what Beet1e thinks? If he's happy to live without handguns great. If he's naive enough to believe that handguns magically act on their own and kill people, that's his right, and good on him. Whatever the case, he's not interested in an adult argument...he's just trying (and succeeding) to piss you off and set the hook in your mouth.
Just let it go and enjoy the fact that you have the right to own a handgun if you so choose. Once I get out of school and have cash again, I'll enjoy excercising my right to learn how to properly fire and care for my handguns...until then, I'll pray that they don't get angry at me and take my life!
SOB
-
quote from far above:
"As your immigration and drug problems increase you will indeed see a rise in concern over gun bans for the law abiding.. "
Up here, you would have to have full citizenship to get a gun permit. And with one, still no handgun. But in the US....naa
A buddy of mine lived in Oklahoma, - it was not a long time untill he owned a .45. And he is NOT a US Citizen..........
Now I must confess, that I envied the fellow, - always wanted to try out a heavy handgun. However, on second thought, if that came together with the sacrifize of all the small time crooks and speed eaters also carrying one, I'd rather not.
In a society flooded with guns, and thousands being shot dead every year it must be hard to imagine how things were working otherwise, and it must be hard to turn back.
Of course guns don't act on their own and kill people. Neither do grenades, - hey- they would be fine for home protection!!!
But the handgun is quite kill inspiring. Its easily conceiled so its handy for robberies etc. Its quick and deadly at short range and can be used to hold back multiple opponents. Bigger calibers are more popular, - hell, a mere .38 probably does more damage to the human body at short range than my hunting rifle!
It is true that for a deliberate murder, one needs no handgun, - the humans with their wicked minds always find some way.
However consider how many people get shot in the frenzy of a moment, how many shooters didn't mean to really, and such.
Hell, I'd always trade a blue eye or a gash for a .45 in my belly!
BTW, where can one access online criminal statistics...worldwide?
-
Ya know ... if you guys were neutered you would be better off too. When everyone was neutered it would be a level playing field and... what you never had.... you wouldn't miss. You would have a civilized rape statistic that the "home office" could point to.
A handgun is a very useful firearm. Just as a semi auto rifle is. The fact that you think they are useless is proof that you don't know anything about em... the fact that you don't know anything avbout em is proof that you are deprived.
lazs
-
This is funny!
hell, a mere .38 probably does more damage to the human body at short range than my hunting rifle!
You are speaking of tbhings you know little of my friend.
with out getting into modern ballistics i can give you an graphic example of how wrong the above statement is.
A 38 on average will haave a muzzel velocity of800-900 fps
my 300 win mag on the other hand is 3000 fps .
It dont take a lot of knowlege to see that the rifle is not only more accurate but will cause more enternale damage.
Dont believe me?
What the films on the Kennedy assination!!
I doubt a 38 would have removed his head like that rifle round did.
In the hands of a good shooter a hunting or sniper rifle is the most deadly weapon out there but no body is whinning about those huh.
-
Originally posted by SOB
Who gives a toejam what Beet1e thinks? If he's happy to live without handguns great. If he's naive enough to believe that handguns magically act on their own and kill people, that's his right, and good on him. Whatever the case, he's not interested in an adult argument...he's just trying (and succeeding) to piss you off and set the hook in your mouth.
Just let it go and enjoy the fact that you have the right to own a handgun if you so choose. Once I get out of school and have cash again, I'll enjoy excercising my right to learn how to properly fire and care for my handguns...until then, I'll pray that they don't get angry at me and take my life!
SOB
Lol, Beet1e doesn't piss me off, I just like to point out the fact that he stymies himself with his own words if you give him time :)
He's for guns being banned, yet he can't answer why there was a need to ban them in the first place.
If the UK never had more than 100 gun murders in any year as he says. That's a .0000016% chance of being murdered by a gun in the UK.
Because one guy killed some people at a school in 1996, the law obiding hangun owners lost their privilage to own a gun....... and are left at the mercy of criminals.
Makes a lot of sense.
edit
<------- I'm Nuke at work b.t.w. , just to be clear
-
Originally posted by Crumb
Because one guy killed some people at a school in 1996, the law obiding hangun owners lost their privilage to own a gun....... and are left at the mercy of criminals.
Most firearm owners were not permitted to keep their weapons at home anyway, so it's irrelevent about the laws following the murders in 1996. The major reform came in 1987 following the Hungerford massacre. Again the main people that were affected were members of shooting clubs.
I guess the only people that kept their firearms at home were farmers/gamekeepers/clay pigeon shooters. The majority were kept in safes within the shooting club premises.
-
You in effect have a law that had no impact on the crime rate past, present or future, and only penalized law abiding citizens. It makes sense how? It's popular why? What is it gun advocates understand that others do not?
-
angus.... then see? it all works out. you not living here (and especially not voting here) works out for both of us. We can have our firearms and you can have your envy.
lazs
-
lazs2 and rc51
I will have to reply to you. Your statements are now becoming temper based and you are throwing stuff around according to that.
1st: (and thereby also quoting myself: "hell, a mere .38 probably does more damage to the human body at short range than my hunting rifle! "
Did I tell the caliber of my "hunting rifle?" ??
naa. ok, will do so now. It's a mere 22 magnum, lol.
Very little punch, very small bullet, but with it I still am able to hit better at 100 yards than any 38...yes. And at 200 yards I am able to hit you in the head, at 100 in the eye ;)
Serves me allright as my hunting rifle (birds)..hehe
Will do also if somebody enters my hall in a bad arse mood, however I cannot conceil it.
Now again, please point out for my how useful a handgun is, since you mentioned my ignorance of the subject?
1b: I know my little stuff about how firearms affect the tender flesh and bones. I've shot horses, cows, sheep, geese, ptarmigans (grouse), gulls, ravens etc etc (dunno the english words) with a few sorts of calibers. (comes with being a farmer, sadly). Brainparts and splinters you know, and still the loadout and size of handgun ammo like 38 and especially 45 or 357 just amaze me. Made to rip and tear/beyond repair, it is very much enough for killing bigstock, say alone a human.
And a big, wide bullet with low velocity can make some ping-pong with you that a fast light one will not do.....
2nd: "We can have our firearms and you can have your envy. "
This is not the way it is, but "You can keep your corpses and also my pity". For you are the ones to feel sorry for, - its been years since anybody got shot dead in my country! We only had ONE convicted murder last year, some manslaughter, but none by a firearm. Not a single bankrobbery (only had 2 gun armed ones so far, - 1st one was done by an american, lol), no shoototout, Not a single act of terrorism (again, the 1st and only so defined were done by americans, ROFL), the police does not need to nor carry firearms, etc, etc. Yes, my friend I envy you indeed. After all, in a lapse of 6 years, you will have more people slain by a bullet than in even the biggest battles of WW2...(wild guess and a flamer, hehe, but eat it anyway)
So....Beetle rulez :):) :)
-
When America was running the convoy's in Iceland, were you ignorant rants prevelant? I doubt. When BOMBS not handgun murders were rampant in 1940 over Britain, were these pathetic attitudes voiced? I doubt it. I do believe all around London, undetonated bombs are all over.
I think you fashionable "America bashers" need to get a life. Canada, I can live with them, since I am a Canucks fan and have been for 29 years living in Michigan.
Oh yeah, I come from a anti-gun, anti-hunting family. I hunt and love my Heckler & Kock USP .45. It has NEVER killed anyone, why shouldn't be allowed to own it? Please, I won't bother responding to furter ignorance. Rip on your own countries, I could, but I have class and don't. Don't know you either. Get a life.
Anti-Gun politics ALWAYS NO BEARING on current issues.
Case in Point.
two years ago CCW legislation was in limbo at the State Sentate.
I had to sit through a disgusting anti-gun campaign at my church. The SOLE ARGUMENT of this was the Mt. Morris school shooting, where a kid grabbed a .22 handgun from his Uncles CRACKHOUSE, where it WASN'T even registered. The kid shot another at school over a petty issue. Mind you this has NOTHING TO DO WITH CCW ISSUES AT ALL. The long was long, they got the signatures, not mine. Comparing a crackhouse laden school shooting to a CCW issue was and is not relavant. But humans are easily duped sometimes thinking they are doing the right thing, like the Native Americans running herds of Bison off of cliffs. Oh, the CCW legislation passed anyways.
To get a CCW, you had(ve) to still pass a THOROUGH FBI background check. The county I live in wouldn't even allow them. When Karl Marlenga became Macomb County Prosecutor, the CCW permit issuances rose dramatically. The Crime Rate DROPPED 86%. Not one issue has spawned from these save two idiots that brandished and lost ALL priviledges to own a gun, and the CCW priviledge, since 1995.
Karaya2
-
Guns are designed to maim and kill people, why would any emotionally mature adult want one?
Don't give me the self defense roadkill, by the way, i've surivived long enough without having to maim or kill anyone, and i've probably seen more toejam than most. I've lived on the streets of Dublin when it was Europe's bigest entrepot for drugs, in Newcastle as a student and in South Manchester during the highest rates of gang and gun crime. I've had a gun pulled on me, I've had the toejam kicked out of me more than i've kicked it out of others, I've had my nose broken seven times. I still see absolutely no need to carry a weapon, i say this in the hopes of skipping the usual ad hominem attacks.
-
Dohh,Masherbrum etc this is becoming too silly.
Iceland was occupied by the British, and thank god that not so many firearms were around in town at the time, - it probably prevented shootouts in the first hours of confusion, while the army was just pouring in.
Most of the convoys were british, while americans entered escort duties and took over the island before Pearl Harbour.
Now war is war, and even us Icelanders had the sour taste of that. One of my great uncles was in the RAF as a volunteer, 2 of my great uncles were killed by German U-boats, and relatively we lost a lot more people than USA!
The occupation force, first British, then American, behaved very well, and there were very few conflicts between us and them, - much more friendship and gratefulness.
Can't see where handguns could have improved anything in there!
Anyway, my point is merely about handguns, and not hunting weapons. After all, I am a hunter!
And this thread was raised about limitations of civil arms ownership, not a military issue.
Handguns of the most common calibers are mostly useful against people, - that's my point. Why flood your society with a gadget who's sole "usefulness" is to pop or threaten someone in a hurry?
Handguns are fun, but sadly they are a lot more useful by the baddies, and them being around, no matter how hard-to-get the licence is, a lot of them will always find a way to the baddies. Sad but true.
And here is something for Rc51:
quote:
"We are the most heavly armed country on the planet thats one reasone why we will never be invaded easely.
I think it sad that the peoples of europe have to go thrue all the watermelon just to own a hunting weapon but it was you who let you governments strip you of your rights a long time ago.
Say if someday some nut (HITLER RING A BELL) comes alond and says gee i dont like those britts i think there weak and i am going to gas them all to hell.
What will you as citizene do then??
Cant always count on your military can you.
Oh I know what you will do you will call good old uncle sam and his country of pistol packin cowboys to come save your butts once again!!"
ROFL, did you read this!
Basically silly of me trying to answer this babble, but I shall try.
It was the British who declared war on Hitler. USA did not join, but started selling weapons to the Brits. The trade was cash, British firms and assets in the US, and intelligence. If not for Roosevelt, USA might have stayed out completely or even been on the German Side, and if not for Pearl Harbour, I wonder also if the USA had joined at all....
The Brits also bombed Germany heavier than the US did, and the RN was a more decisive factor in the North-Atlantic Campaign than the USN. Brits squeezed the Germans on to the run in North Africa, and the Brits held the naval supremacy in the Med.
Those poor poor defenceless Brits waiting for the gas, being saved by armed US civilians...
Now the USA is hard to invade from anywhere (save Canada, hehe) due to the sheer distance from other possibly hostile countries. And in case a Panzer knocks on your door, no handgun is gonna save you.
So: wanna arm the nation properly with bazookas, SAM's, heavy MG's and landmines? Wonder what civilians would be the first to use such.........
:D
-
I'm confiedent in my shooting. I have that edge on a gang-banging POS who holds the gun to the side or up in air pointing at an angle. I made the reference to the handguns.
After ALL OF THIS what is Karaya2 trying to say? The one thing that ignorant human beings seem to ignore. It is far EASIER to blame the HANDGUN, rather than the PEOPLE behind the trigger. :rolleyes:
Enjoy life ;)
Karaya2
Like I said before, my gun has NEVER been pointed at another human being. Will it? I pray not, but toejam happens.
-
angus... I can hit fairly well out to 400 yards with my 44 mag handgun. I think that not being in a gun culture has made it so that you have no understanding of guns, especially handguns. when hunting wild boar or bear in the U.S. we carry large caliber handguns like 44's as "backup" I have killed a wild boar that was gutshot with a ought six and was in the group... the rifles were missing the fast moving and close in animal.. One shot from the 44 was all it took. My brother in law killed a bear on a path with his 44.. he drew and fired. His scoped 270 was still slinged and on his shoulder. Alsakan guides still carry handguns.. In a home a rifle is clumsy especially in the dark. An inrtruder with a knife or club or even bare hands could kill you or your loved ohnes after being shot by a 22.... why you have this aversion to tools is beyond me. you obviously know very little about handguns and what you know is all wrong.
I don't care if I kill an intruder but I want him to cease. large bore handguns work well for this... Your own government learned this while they were "civilizing" other cultures... the 455 webley is not a 22. If you need to know anything about handguns just ask... If someone here doesn't know the answer off the tip if their tongue we can look it up in a few minutes.
lazs
-
Been on a wild boar hunt with a .357 as a backup....I must confess that there is a practical application then.
Hmm. We also have single shot and rifled .22 pistols here. Butcher's guns or sheep guns we name them, for that is what they are for. Once shot a raven from a fencepole from a 100 yards with one, not sure which one was more surprized, me or the raven! Caught another one flying past the window by shooting through it as well, hehe.
(ravens are a pest up here)
Now I cannot totally agree that I come from a non-gun culture. We are simply deprived of multi shot handguns and automatic rifles (beyond 22, or lever op 22 magnum). So its a different gun culture, and the bottom line about it is that PEOPLE DON'T GET SHOT HERE nearly as much as in your country. I would call that a better culture :)
-
angus... 22's kill a lot of people here. they are also fun to shoot and to learn with. I have nothing against 22's mighrt even have a couple.... They are not the best tool for the job in most cases tho. I believe in using the right tool.
as for concealed.... It is proven that concealed handguns are very uwseful here and that they stop crime... I feel better in a place where I know some of the people around me may be armed... In Israel I bet they feel safer knowing thier fellow citizens are armed. It is all a matter of what you are used to. and... a small matter of freedom and our constitution. Believe what you want about what is best for us but we will make our own decisions and you have added nothing new or even reasonable to the gun ban crap we hear all the time from some of our own clueless (know nothing about the very thing they are trying to ban) citizens. For concealed carry a handgun is the perfect tool.
lazs
-
>>It is far EASIER to blame the HANDGUN, rather than the PEOPLE behind the trigger<<
Oh no, i blame the people behind the trigger.
That would be anyone who researches weapons, manufactures them, votes for them, markets them, sells them, buys them, owns them, glorifies them in film and video.
>>gang-banging POS who holds the gun to the side or up in air pointing at an angle.<<
I think you'll generally find that the gang members in your inner city ghettoes are generally only encouraged to kill each other. Unless you're an underprivileged coloured kid brought up in some american hellhole with no hope, you're statistically quite unlikely to get shot like this.
>>I have killed a wild boar that was gutshot with a ought six and was in the group... <<
Wow, and you admit to this? Why don't you pick on someone your own size. Go cruise missile some peasants who are already being repressed by their own U.S. funded and armed government.
>>why you have this aversion to tools is beyond me.<<
Ludicrous argument, if you apply this to guns you might as well apply it to someone who keeps a nuke in their garage.
>>I don't care if I kill an intruder but I want him to cease.<<
If you've got a lot of murderous intruders then there's probably something seriously wrong with your neighbourhood. Perhaps it's got a highly developed gun culture. Also, if you think it's likely that someone will break into your house, then it's highly irresponsible of you to keepo a gun for them to steal.
I still see only two arguments for owning a gun:
1. i want to kill someone.
2. it's my toy, it makes me feel like a man when it goes bang, you can't take it away from me.
sadly, the mentality of the people who use defense number 2 means they're quite likely to flip over into 1 anyway.
-
so angus... if we banned swimming of any sort and you had thousands of deaths more per year from swimming than we did as a result.... would ours be a better "culture"?
lazs
-
crowbaby... why does anyone need a car with more than say ... 50 horsepower? makes em feel like a man? why don't we all wear uniforms?
yeah... we should do like you do in safe ol limeyland and get cages installed in our homes that we can hide behind when our house is burglarized... LOL... in your gunless culture you have 50% of your burglaries that are "hot" the fact that so many of us are armed is exactly why we have safe neigborhoods... your country is the proof. I put it to you that you have no idea what the U.S. is all about or even like.
lazs
-
if we banned swimming of any sort and you had thousands of deaths more per year from swimming than we did as a result.... would ours be a better "culture"?
By extension of your piss-poor logic, you're saying that most gun deaths in America come from lack of education about guns?
-
>>why does anyone need a car with more than say ... 50 horsepower? makes em feel like a man? why don't we all wear uniforms? <<
Hey, i'd actually agree with you on the car front! Stupidly big engines just mean more pollution and America has to go to war more often to ensure its oil supplies.
However, the big difference is that cars and clothes are not designed for the sole and express purpose of killing people.
Again, if your society has degraded to the extent that the only thing preventing burglaries is the burglar's fear of getting shot, then there's something very wrong. It wasn't always like that. In any case, research has shown that most criminals are convinced that they will not be caught, deterrents don't work, only changing social conditions to remove the impetus toward crime.
-
no dowding.... I am saying that freedom has a price. I am saying that the drowning deaths are acceptable for the freedom as are hiking deaths and race car deaths and gun related deaths... the one difference is that guns prevent crime.
I say that freedom is useful in and of itself. I don't think being terrorized by thugs is freedom... in england you are used to it and don
't give it a second thought but then you come on here and tell us we should adopt your wussy ways and listen to your nanny "home office". we have a completely different culture and country than you. We want less government in our lives while you feel more government makes life better... we have completely different views on personal freedom.... personal freedom costs....
you in your country are more willing to trade security for freedom here... we believe that you not only shouldn't do that but that it is impossible in any case.... you end up with neither..... hiding behind barricades in your home while a burglar loots it is an example.
lazs
-
Dowding,
You see no need for us to possess a weapon because you yourself have no need for one.
At least, not at the present time, or under present circumstances. And you will not need one unless your present circumstances change. Your government is kind and benevolent and respects your rights. You cannot conceive of them becoming abusive or restrictive or, in the worst case, destructive of your rights and violent in its actions. Can you guarantee that it will NEVER happen? Forever is a long time.
Shuckins
-
Don't know where you got the bizarre barricades in your home idea from. Never heard of it before.
>>we have completely different views on personal freedom.... personal freedom costs.... <<
This is true, and why it must be limited. Any form of society means having restraints on personal freedom.
Because we have more diverse press and media over here, i feel we have a better understanding that our freedoms to act must be controlled at the point where they interfere with other peoples. This is what governments are for, and gun law is a classic case of everybody elses freedom overcoming the freedom of the individual to own a gun.
Godwineson; your .22 is not going to save you if your government comes knocking on the door. Stop watching the Hollywood movies.
-
no dowding.... I am saying that freedom has a price. I am saying that the drowning deaths are acceptable for the freedom as are hiking deaths and race car deaths and gun related deaths... the one difference is that guns prevent crime.
Your swiss cheese logic is just that. It makes me wonder how you get on at the grocery store, particularly when confronted by the fresh fruit section selling apples and oranges.
I'll ignore the usual jingoistic roadkill that your so apt to spout and ask you to point out where I have said the US should ban guns or follow the UK's path on gun control. I'd like you to find the post where I "tell us we should adopt your wussy ways and listen to your nanny "home office".
If not, then I accept your apology in advance.
Lastly, I don't live in fear of getting burgled or mugged or murdered. And I don't own a gun. I must not be living in the crime ridden hell hole that is the 'pissant little country' otherwise known as the UK, right?
Shuckins - I'm happy with this situation. I'm happy that we have extremely low gun crime. The chances of Great Britain, which has had one the most liberal and progressive society in the world for 400 years suddenly going fascist or communistic are very slim. I'm more likely to get shot by an intruder, I should think. Which is quite ironic.
Do I support the ban? I'd prefer for people to have the right to shoot at clubs and keep registered weapons at home. But I'm not overly concerned with it - I don't want or need a firearm in my house.
-
we do limit personal freedom so far as firearms go. You are not allowed to shoot inoccent people. It can't be proven that guns are endangering others freedoms here. In fact... the oppossite is true.. guns are preventing crime. If you take out the black on black crime then you can't even say that guns are causing us to have a significantly higher honmicide rate than you... guns are win/win here.
you have over 50% of your burglaries that are "hot" the people are home... we have only a very small percent and the perpetrator is usually insane or mistaken. Guns are the tool that prevents hot burglaries. How much is that worth? And...
as has been said... we don't trust our government over here. well, not unless we are women or womenly men anyway.. We certainly don't want anyone telling us what is "for our own good". That all seems very acceptable to a majority of brits tho so.... there is no pioint in us discussing it since our cultures are so different. I could not live in england... it is far too restrictive for me.
lazs
-
>>we don't trust our government over here. well, not unless we are women or womenly men anyway.. We certainly don't want anyone telling us what is "for our own good". That all seems very acceptable to a majority of brits tho so.... there is no pioint in us discussing it since our cultures are so different. I could not live in england... it is far too restrictive for me. <<
Yes, i'm relieved to say that women got the vote over here quite a while ago. We've even had a female Prime Minister. You should give women a try, you'd probably find you had a lot in common with her.
-
dowding... but you seem perfectly happy with banning firearms and restricting the rights of law abiding citizens in your own country... You support a BAN.
If you can find one place where I have suggested that you adopt our gun laws then we will have something to talk about... I don't care if you don't have any personal freedom at all. I simply don't want to hear your opinion on ours especially when you know absolutely nothing about our culture or about the subjedt you are talking about.... guns...
the one thing that all people who would ban guns, from every country, have in common is..... none of em know anything about guns. Those of us who enjoy the shooting sports and the right to defend ourselves allways notice.... first thing.... that the effenminate hystrionic gun banners are allways completely devoid of any knowledge about the subject that they are trying to ban.
why is that?
lazs
-
crowbaby, I think you need to drop the "crow" in your name.
lazs2, you hit the nail on the head with the .22. I have talked to people that use this caliber as Self-Defense and it is horrible to use. I tell them simply, "When firing a .22LR handgun or rifle, you need to also worry about what is behind the intruder. The bullet will go through them and through drywall. That split-second thinking about what is behind the intruder, could be your last thought.
Crow, enjoy life in GB. Leave your silly comments on the other side of the Atlantic. We really don't care what you think or have to say about gun ownership.
Karaya2
-
Apology accepted.
I simply don't want to hear your opinion on ours especially when you know absolutely nothing about our culture or about the subjedt you are talking about.... guns...
I don't think I have given my opinion on your gun laws. Same routine, search for a post that shows otherwise, apology accepted in advance.
You are hypocrisy personified. You claim you don't want to hear anyone else's opinion on guns and say:
"I simply don't want to hear your opinion on ours especially when you know absolutely nothing about our culture or about the subjedt you are talking about..."
...but come up with pearlers like:
"... that the effenminate hystrionic gun banners..."
"England would make a good theme park if it was closer and had a roof over it"
"[The UK is a]... pissant little country..."
You went to the UK once. Once. Does that make you an expert on our culture? Does that make your 'people having opinions about things they know nothing about' statement inapplicable to yourself?
Do you not realise how offensive those comments are? Do you assume patriotism and national pride are an American commodities?
You are a mirror image of beetle with dash more vitriol.
-
>>crowbaby, I think you need to drop the "crow" in your name.<<
O.k. i surrender, they're bringing out the intellectual big guns.
>>We really don't care what you think or have to say about gun ownership<<
Then don't read it :) I, on the other hand, am fascinated by what you guys spout.
>>the effenminate hystrionic gun banners are allways completely devoid of any knowledge about the subject that they are trying to ban. <<
I know plenty about guns. However, your repressed homosexual fear of femininity and women does confirm the link i'd always suspected between inadequacy and desire to own a gun.
-
crowbaby... I am all for ending womens sufferage here.... when we do we can shame the men that are womenly into voting like men.. So far as your prime minister goes.... I will admit... the woman you had was more manly than any of the men since churchill. You don't really have a lot of choice do you?
lazs
-
>>crowbaby... I am all for ending womens sufferage here.... <<
Ah, now i've lost interest completely in this whole topic. Either you've run out of arguments and sunk to inane, distasteful jokes, or you really mean that, in which case i suggest turning your precious guns on yourself.
-
My dear British fellows, I am totally with you on this subject. You have also shot down your rivals here with better logics, hehe.
Oh, almost forgot, - we also had a woman President :D
-
If not for Roosevelt, USA might have stayed out completely or even been on the German Side,
Well ANUS I think the your TARD is now showing LOL.
Do not ever think that I am anti britt!!!
They have allways been there for use as our friends and allies in times of need.
This should never be forgotten.
If i can make some sense out of the genisis of this whole mess is that some britts think we need gun control?
I disagree a gun is nothing but i piece of steele and wood.
It take a human to use it .
We as Americans do have some BIG problems with gun violence that do need to be fixed and FAST!!
Too many young people every day are dying on our streets.
This is stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So on that This Yank can agree w/ the britts.
But taking away the guns is not the answer at all im afraid.
-
A few years back when I lived in an apartment, I stopped a burglary of my next door neighbor's apartment by pointing my Kimber at the bad guy(an illegal from Mexico), thus convincing him he should hold still until the police arrived. The apartment was rented by an English couple...the woman was a nurse who worked nights and was home asleep at the time. Later that evening the woman's husband came over to thank me, both he and the police felt that the would be intruder had rape on his mind more than burglary. The gent told me that in England, a neighbor might have called the police, and then locked himself in his apartment. I don't know what the rest of the Brits feel, but the man was thankful that an armed American was watching out for his neighbors, and willing to intervene w/ a gun during their plight. The US is a different place from the UK, so comparing the gun ownership scenarios between the two countires is exactly an apples/oranges thing. It is not our permissive gun ownership laws that have caused so many gun deaths in the US(aside from the occasional accident). What has, and continues to fuel our gun deaths each year is our liberal immigartion laws, along w/ our proximity to Mexico. Castro exiled many criminals from his country once.. they came here, not to the UK. Thousands of illegal immigrants pour over our border each year..most are just looking for a way to feed their family...but many are those w/ criminal intent. Drugs flow easily into our country from South America via Mexico, fueling the continous killing that goes on in our inner cities. The UK is, at least geographically, an island without the same challenges/problems faced by the US. I'm confident that if the UK were in a simialr scenario as ours, gun laws would more closely reflect the needs of the citizenry. I'm not criticizing the UK(or other country's) policy in any way.. if it works great. I am certain however, that if the US were to adapt and actually enforce such a policy, all manner of crime would skyrocket. Although simplistically explained, I hope some of you non-Americans understand why allowing gun ownership here is a good thing.
-
Angus, I take great affront that you suggest the Americans might have sided with the Germans, were it not for Roosevelt. While many Americans had an isolationist approach to the world, there was NO significant movement to support the Germans. any informantion you have on this is either contrived, or simply incorrect. I understand that emotions are running high in this thread but that comment was grossly out of line.
Your comments about the brits and their efforts as opposed to ours in WWII: The Brits did what I consider an heroic job of stemming the tide of German advance. However, they could not have accomplished this without the lifeline from the US. There was a time that the brits recognized and appreciated this, just as Americans appreciated the heroic acts of the British people. Memory fades and people change history. Now the US is villified in some of the very nations we bled for as a country. The Afghanies and Saudies hate us...yet we are the LARGEST supplier of aid to them... and we were BEFORE 9-11....tell me, what sense does that make?
-
Originally posted by Angus
My dear British fellows, I am totally with you on this subject. You have also shot down your rivals here with better logics, hehe.
Better logics? Fool yourselves some more. Rivals?! I've kept the gloves on so far. Rivals? I think the score is 2-0 then.
Steve was it the Kimber Classic? My buddy has one, I might have to get one myself.
Dowding - you can't own one anyways. Well, probably for a foxhunt or something.
You guys are implementing British twists on US issues. We are a more diverse populus than GB. You don't live here, you see our politics through CNN (don't tell me you believe the media). Your country basically created tabloids.
I shoot for sport, and again......my gun has never been pointed at anyone.......yet. If it does, someone else made me do it
Masher
-
Masher, it's a Stainless Kimber Gold Match .45 ( I believe they are now available in .40 as well)
-
I couldn't own half a kilo of finest Columbian legally even if I wanted to.
Does that make my point clearly enough for you? I'm not interested in guns in the slightest, in exactly the same I'm not interested in owning illegal drugs. I have no desire to have either.
Yet again, as I've stated over and over in this thread, I have no interest in the gun debate in the US.
-
Steve, you have a nice point, and I mostly agree with you. Sorry, have to confess that I was flaming/teasing a bit.
However, the US did abuse the Brits dismay a bit in the beginning.
Britain was basically bankrupted by the first major arms/ships/planes purchases from the US, as early as 1940/41.
Oh, have some more to add. Will in a few hours..
Ta
-
Originally posted by Angus
Steve, you have a nice point, and I mostly agree with you. Sorry, have to confess that I was flaming/teasing a bit.
However, the US did abuse the Brits dismay a bit in the beginning.
Britain was basically bankrupted by the first major arms/ships/planes purchases from the US, as early as 1940/41.
Oh, have some more to add. Will in a few hours..
Ta
Britain entered the war in may 1940 and paid for arms from the US only through November 1940.
After that, the US "Lend-Lease" took effect: We lent all the arms and equipment to the UK at no charge with the idea that when the war was over, we would get the equipment back.
quote on the matter from Winston Churchill's " Memoirs of The Second World War" :
"I described this to Parliment later as".....
"The most unsordid act in the history of any nation" " There was no provision for repayment. There was not even to be a formal account kept in dollars or Sterling."
I believe that only the November Presidential election and political climate slowed the US from helping sooner. The US new that it would have to go to war and that the fate of the US was tied to the fate of the UK. ( At that time, Russia should be considered an enemy)
We did what was right, just as the UK would have done for us if the situation was reversed.
Now Russia..... that's for another thread, but I loath what they did and feel they reaped what they sewed in the war.
-
Originally posted by Dowding (Work)
Your swiss cheese logic is just that. It makes me wonder how you get on at the grocery store, particularly when confronted by the fresh fruit section selling apples and oranges.
I'll ignore the usual jingoistic roadkill that your so apt to spout and ask you to point out where I have said the US should ban guns or follow the UK's path on gun control. I'd like you to find the post where I "tell us we should adopt your wussy ways and listen to your nanny "home office".
If not, then I accept your apology in advance.
Lastly, I don't live in fear of getting burgled or mugged or murdered. And I don't own a gun. I must not be living in the crime ridden hell hole that is the 'pissant little country' otherwise known as the UK, right?
Shuckins - I'm happy with this situation. I'm happy that we have extremely low gun crime. The chances of Great Britain, which has had one the most liberal and progressive society in the world for 400 years suddenly going fascist or communistic are very slim. I'm more likely to get shot by an intruder, I should think. Which is quite ironic.
Do I support the ban? I'd prefer for people to have the right to shoot at clubs and keep registered weapons at home. But I'm not overly concerned with it - I don't want or need a firearm in my house.
Totally agree. If I had the desire to own a gun in the UK its more than likely i belong to a gang which seeks to emulate the 'gangs of america'.The recent rise in gun culture in the UK is linked to gangs and drug dealing.Theres a strong conection to jamacan yardies too.Now I have seen these yardies and Im aware there are some that carry guns but as its such a small number it really odoesnt concern me much.Its unlikely in the UK that I'll ever even see a real handgun let alone get shot by one.
Seems to me thats a better way to live. I like dowding dont really care about it because it isnt a major concern with regards to my or my families safety.
Can you Americans say the same? thought not.
-
Hazed: "Can you Americans say the same? thought not
Hazed, you just don't get it.. and unless you open your anti-american mind you never will. Let me sum up my previous post: the geographics of our nations are greatly different. If GB were located by land mass to the drug supplies of South America, you'd have the same problems the U.S has with drugs and guns. Americans are proud to have the right to carry guns it's true, it represents our many freedoms... it doesn't mean we all carry them. In fact only a small percentage of Americans own guns... even less carry them. Our Liberal immigration laws and proximity to South America is the root of our gun violence problems, the guns themselves are not. So pull your head out of your ass, it's not that the folk of GB are any better or more civilized than Americans, you are just fortunate to that your country is in a different part of the world. By the way, GB has a MUCH higher crime rate than the US...why? because you don't allow your citizens to own guns. Just read the following link that I pulled up today w/ a simple Yahoo search. "British crime rate"
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/3/21/205139.shtml
The below link shows that England reported that 26% of it's people were victims of crime. The US had only 21%... significantly lower. The first link also depicts how the british vastly under-report crime when compared to how the US reports it. In spite of this discrepancy, England has a full 5% higher crime rate. so Hazed, keep your smug remarks to yourself... your Country has a MUCH higher crime rate than mine.
http://www.civitas.org.uk/data/crimeMyths.php
-
total crap.
take a look at how many murders were commited in LA and compare it to London. I garentee the rate is higher in the US.
As to me being anti-american what the f*ck you talking about?
All im saying is the way we have it over here you as a human being and members of your immediate family are less likely to be shot. You saying this isnt true?
As to your proximity to south america so what? take a look at eastern europe and africa why dont you?
so rather than imply i need to take my head out of my bellybutton perhaps you should try to veiw your own country objectively.
I was in the US last year and while i was there in LA there was a murder about 2 miles down the road! I was in my hotel room with friends when a resteraunt we had driven past the day before was robbed.The clerk was killed by gunshot wounds.Your Tv then went on to describe other incidents that had happened in the same area.I was also talking to police officers on the beach in LA and they warned us to leave the beach before it got dark as there was a likelyhood we could be singled out by drug users/ex gang members who frequent the beach!.we laughed about it for weeks.
Now I suggest you go to any beach in the UK and ask a policeman if you are likely to be robbed. It just doesnt happen.
Now i realise this means little in the overall picture but COME ON!! we decided to move on to the grand canyon a little earlier because LA just didnt feel that safe.
The US is well known to be a dangerous country to visit if you go to the wrong places and yes the same could be said of the UK. BUT in the UK you are unlikely or at least less likely to be shot ergo more likely to survive.
what else can i say?
as to your first link its quite hilarious that you claim we in the UK under-report whilst the US is somehow perfect in its reports.Your more likely to find BOTH countries act rather much the same.Neither wish to lose tourism and neither wish to admit to high crime rates.The differnce WE are talking about is the likelyhood of being shot.I still maintain youre more likely to be shot in the US.
-
I never said the US reporting is perfect.. I said it reports crime differently... the article supports that.
so you are predicating your knowledge of American crime by a visit to L.A.? Let me clear something up for you, there are less Americans in L.A. than foreigners. Crime in L.A. is bad... but it hardly represents the bulk of America.. in fact it has more crime than almost any city in the States.. so your view is anything but objective, so don't spew to me about objectivity. Face it Hazed.. the crime rate is HIGHER in England than here. You call the articles I pulled up "crap". how many more would you like me to pull up that say the same thing? Hazed, I own beachfront property in the US... never been robbed.. never even heard of a crime being committed in the area... you know toejam about what goes on here.. but the stats that are readily available in NUMEROUS articles say that crime is HIGHER in England...how can you denounce that? Do all of the sources lie in some great conspiracy? Eastern Europe and Africa may very well have drug problems... you would know more than me. But you don't know if the problem is worse than South America or Mexico. What we both know is that England doesn't share over 1000 miles of unsettled border with one of the most corrrupt, drug infested places in the world(Mexico). Any place in the world is dangerous if you wander into the "wrong part of town". The gun violence and murder in London is increasing at alarming rates.. according to more sources on the 'net... want them? or will you denounce them all as crap too? Hazed you may not like it, but crime is MORE prevalent in England than in the US. Both countries... almost all countries have crime problems... just face it. Now, if you still aren't concerned about your family's safety, I pray that your ignorance remains bliss. Me, I've taken the conservative approach and armed myself...at least one British family is grateful to for it. Hazed, I'm glad you feel safe where you live... but feeling safe isn't being safe. Frankly, I live in what is considered an upper middle class neighborhood.. the only crime in my town is the silly stuff... juvenile antics...but I work in a big city, and thus am prepared what the dangers of the big city can bring... feel safe Hazed... but if you are with me.. you will BE safe. God bless the US and England
-
Here comes the bulk of America.
Does seem that you DO fire your guns sometimes .....:D
-
Not to mention other applications.....
-
Steve, I finally found what I promised. I remember seeing something similar elsewhere, but it's a thick book and I haven't got there yet.,
anyway, strongly put as it is, I would like to know if this is really correct...:confused:
QUOTE:
IN ONE OF HIS FAMOUS SPEECHES Churchill asked America 'Give us the tools and we will finish the job'. But America wouldn't 'give' anything without payment. After two years of war, Roosevelt had drained Britain dry, stripping her of all her assets in the USA, including real estate and property. The British owned Viscose Company, worth £125 million was liquidated, Britain receiving only £87 million. Britain's £1,924 million investments in Canada were sold off to pay for raw materials bought in the United States. To make sure that Roosevelt got his money, he dispatched the American cruiser, 'Louisville ' to the South African naval base of Simonstown to pick up forty two million Pounds worth of British gold, Britain's last negotiable asset, to help pay for American guns and ammunition!. Not content with stripping Britain of her gold and assets, in return for 50 old destroyers, he demanded that Britain transfer all her scientific and technological secrets to the USA. Also, he demanded leases on the islands of Newfoundland, Jamaica, Trinidad and Bermuda for the setting up of American military and naval bases in case Britain should fall. (Of the 50 lend lease destroyers supplied to Britain, 9 were lost in WW11)
QUOTE. Lord Beaverbrook was later to exclaim 'The Japanese are our relentless enemies, and the Americans our un-relenting creditors'.
That's also a "tard for" you Rc51, hehe.
Anyway, although we disagree on the gun policy, at least we agree on the problem. To many people die in the streets
-
Originally posted by Soviet
I don't care what Europe does with guns. The thing I fear is that Europe is rubbing it off onto us. We already have all these stupid bans.
This is the truth of it................
We Brits want guns banned...... our government wants it .......our opposition parties want it ...... our media is in support of it....... the massive majority of our populace (when asked) support it.
Guns are not a subject of our constitution..........
Nobody here even remotely believes that crime would go down if guns were available to the average citizen....... (here the idea is laughable)
We (Brits in general) do not link guns to freedom........to us it's a ridiculous concept.
We are broadly happy with a 5 year sentance for the illegal possesion of a fire arm.
Now of course there will be a few crack pots who may hold an alternative view here. But few thinking people can claim the gun to be a benefit to British society.
In the States the perspective is totally different......... its difficult for a Brit to understand just how different.................. equally its difficult for Americans to understand the view of the average Brit in this respect.
You only have to live a while in each country and read newspapers listen to radios and talk to people and you realise how different it is.
But Soviets point is the one that fuels these debates.......... UK gun laws and whether they work here or not are banded about between US pro gun lobbyists and US anti gun lobbyists to fuel each others arguements for fear of the consequences should they not.
Statistics are bent, twisted and misrepresented............... . apples are compared with lemons from both sides.
Brits are refered to as slaves of their establisment (laughable) I have even seen apparantly thinking people consider our democracy still subject to the whims of Royalty and the feudal system.
The US view of appropriate defence of self , kin and property is totally different to ours. We consider the shooting of an intruder without knowledge of threat excessive........ Americans consider this view the one of a fool who would hand him self/family/property over to the will of any criminal.
The right to own a gun is enshrined in an Americans constitution it is a part of the document that describes his/her freedom and civil rights ....... its a part of what makes him/her American.
To us its something that we don't really want or need.
-
tilt... you are correct mostly. I also feel that steve is correct. If you had our borders lasw and geography your population might feel the need to be armed. If you had as vibrant an economy as ours you might feel differently.. lot's of differences.... there are reasons that guns are a "right" in our constitution and it is probly one of the defining differences in our cultures.... A place where our cultures can never meet. At least I hope not.... for both our sakes.
I hope your population continues to get along without guns if that is what you want and I insist that ours continue to have the right to keep and bear arms.
crowbaby said... "Ah, now i've lost interest completely in this whole topic. Either you've run out of arguments and sunk to inane, distasteful jokes, or you really mean that, in which case i suggest turning your precious guns on yourself."
so... crow... you are not aginst guns or gun killings... you just want to pick and choose who dies? You are a very violent man. Lose and arguement and then wish death on the opponent? for shame... tsk tsk..
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
If you had as vibrant an economy as ours you might feel differently
Whilst the average US standard of living (convertable income) is higher than the UK.......... I do not think that vibrance of economy is so different........... and I believe has little to do with it......
Wealth distribution in the UK is not greatly different a curve as that found in the US its just lower down the x axis........... hence the "wealth motive" as an incentive to crime is IMO much the same........
in fact reading on Bush's latest attempts to stimulate US economy (which is currently falling faster than the UK's) i note that like the UK, the US 's main flywheel is retail sales............. it has always been thus for the US and recently (15/18 years) for the UK.
However US retail sales have never needed propping up in a post war US economy..............(Reagans tax measures were to stimulate votes and government revenue (which Bush senior then had to pay for))............ now Bush junior seems to be doing just that......... very concerning long term when you look at the US national debt per capita compared to other G7's.............
Concerning because the US imports far more goods than it exports, it technology and manufacturing knowhow exports are fueled by its own demand for the goods made by those foriegn customers.
Whilst having massive energy wealth, US consumption of energy is so high the balance is tipped unless energy efficiency is brought to european levels or better. (interms of total KW's per capita)
A dollar in free fall would change the shape of worl politcs considerably............ so yanks..........please keep buying those toys
I digressed.....sorry....US national debt has always worried me...........
-
tilt... there is more to the economy than simply what each person makes and the way it is distributed.. firt of all.... you need to factor in how much of it you get to keep and then what the goods cost if.... individuals are what is being considered here. If you make say 30K a year in either country but keep 90% of it in one and 70% in another then they are not the same standard of living... if gasoline costs 1.50 in one and 4.50 in the other they are not the same. If one has an electronics store the size of my livingroom with very expensive goods and no choices and the other has ones bigger than football stadiums with cheap goods and huge variety they are not the same... They are not both "vibrant" economies IMO.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
tilt... there is more to the economy than simply what each person makes and the way it is distributed.. lazs
:)
-
tilt... there is more to the economy than simply what each person makes and the way it is distributed.. firt of all.... you need to factor in how much of it you get to keep and then what the goods cost if.... individuals are what is being considered here. If you make say 30K a year in either country but keep 90% of it in one and 70% in another then they are not the same standard of living... if gasoline costs 1.50 in one and 4.50 in the other they are not the same. If one has an electronics store the size of my livingroom with very expensive goods and no choices and the other has ones bigger than football stadiums with cheap goods and huge variety they are not the same... They are not both "vibrant" economies IMO.
You haven't actually spent much time over here at all, or it was a long time ago. We do have huge warehouse sized electronics stores almost everywhere. There has been large decreases in prices over the last ten years. Due to the nature of the electronics market, it could never be as cheap as the US or Japan. Who does much retail shopping nowadays? I buy online - I get more choice and usually cheaper, especially electronics. They days of small, specialised electronic shops have gone really.
You might keep more of your wages, but have to spend it on things like health insurance - which is where our extra tax goes. It's swings and roundabouts.
Although we could never match the US in terms of size of economy, we have lower unemployment than the US, low interest rates and low inflation. Things are quite good at the moment, especially compared to continental Europe.
-
You don't know much about how it is here then either... most get health insurance as part of their salary... even fast food places offer health care (why not, their employees are young and healthy) older people get medicare and those with no income get free healthcare... Even factoring in healthcare we have higher salaries and keep more of em... out benifiets portion of our salaries is not taxed either.
You are not seriously saying that there is any comparisson bettween socialst england and the U.S. so far as price and availability goes on goods are you? I have seen your "shopping centers"... not much to choose from by our standards.
lazs
-
You're still paying for the health insurance - it's still coming out of your wages. How about higher education? How much does it cost to get a degree over there? All these things are paid for through higher taxes over here. Swings and roundabouts.
I wonder how Americans per capita go to university, compared to Britain? It would be an interesting comparison of funding system.
Of course the US is a richer country - your population is nearly five times larger. You have huge expanses of land, lots of natural resources. Britain (BTW, refering to England all the time is erroneous - England is only one part of the Union) has neither.
Your point was about electronics stores, implying there are only small shops with poor choice. I'm telling you are wrong. There really is no argument there. Out of town retail parks with large warehouse like stores are everywhere.
Lastly, I wouldn't call Britain, socialist. Labour may be in power, but they occupy the middle ground more than anything. But then expecting you to understand British politics is a bit of a forlorn hope. You're just a typical Yank Brit-basher.
-
Lazs, the US federal government spends 18.3% of US GDP. The UK government spends 19.3% of British GDP.
Our healthcare is included in that 19.3%, yours isn't included in the US figure (not much of it, anyway)
-
Typical yank brit basher... lol Most Americans consider the Brits our brethren....you really need to reign in that temper, Dowding.
-
Obviously different governments spend differently on different items and for different reasons.
-
A quick question for you Brits: Do the regular police carry firearms? (didn't notice this point in the thread so far, although I haven't read each and every post) I've been to the U.K. twice now for short periods of time (not long enough to really notice), and lived in Germany doing internships while attending university - I love learning about other cultures.
Anyway - I've always had the understanding that British regular police do not carry firearms. Based upon that assumption, I heard a "joke" if you will, that is meant entirely in jest (for my part) and will now share with the rest of us:
An American police officer apprehending a fleeing criminal:
"Stop or I'll shoot!"
An English police officer apprehending a fleeing criminal:
"Stop! Or I'll say 'Stop' to you again!"
-
nash... what are you saying? I can't see where that has anythinfg to do with what we are talking about. Our saleries are higher (health care not counted as salary) and our goods are cheaper . We are also allowed to keep more of what we make. What our government spends the money we give them is not relevant to the thread. Although.... we would of course be better off if they spent even less and we gave them even less.
while I agree that our govenment gets too much of our money.... I certainly wouldn't trade for your brand of socialism. We are still much better off.
lazs
-
I wasn't tarring all Americans with the same brush, Steve. But laz posts anti-British crap over and over again on this board. He's a Brit-basher, he's a charicature of a Brit-basher.
Looking at Beetle's posts, he was called an American-basher repeatedly. Many Brits, including me, asked him to tone it down.
Now take Laz' posts. He has repeatedly written stuff that is equally offensive. More so, in fact. Did Beetle ever write anything that could be compared to:
"The UK is a pissant little country"
"England would make a good theme park if it was closer and they put a roof over it."
I could find more of his little gems if I could be arsed.
Did any Americans ask him to be quiet? Did anyone actually challenge what he was/is saying?
No. Anyone want to explain why that is?
Yet as soon as I defend my own country, that's somehow unacceptable? Of course I'm going to lose my temper - or is patriotism an American owned commodity?
-
are you saying that england wouldn't make a good theme park (assuming that it could be weather proofed)? Are you saying that you wouldn't be better off as employees of some U.S. theme park corporation? The improvement in dental care alone would be worth it I would think.....
lazs
-
You've got issues, I can see that. I shouldn't give you the opportunity to air them in public.
-
Asking Lazs to tone it down would just pull me into an argument with him. If I actually thought he was a person that could be reasoned with, I'd bring it up. Judging by his posts, I wouldn't consider him to be a person who can be swayed beyond his overt distaste for GB. There, now I'm open to Lazs vitriol. As for defending your country, by all means... and with verve. :) but that patriotism thing wasn't necessary...I'm not stepping on you like you seem to think I am.
-
We are also allowed to keep more of what we make. What our government spends the money we give them is not relevant to the thread.
Where does the government get it's money? It doesn't matter if they blow it all on potatos, that's the proportion of the US economy (ie your money) your government spends. When you add in locally raised state taxes, it's higher than in Britain.
The US government takes money from it's citizens, the corporations they own, and borrowings. If the government is taking less than 18.43% tax (I left out the 4 first time) then they are borrowing it. Government borrowing is your borrowing. You "own" part of that debt.
-
Are you saying that people in GB get to keep more of their income than people in the U.S.?
I have nothing against the british. I simply haven't found much about their country that I find Iwould like to have here. I like our idea of personal freedom better is all.
lazs
-
Well I hope you can understand the way I reacted, Steve.
The last few months have been a bit stupid, here in the O-club. :)
-
Dowding- If the Brits have always been our allies, then why did you guys sink the Maine in Liverpool in 1898????
-
I was bored, and it was a very tempting target for a prank.
There I was having a stroll along the docks, avoiding the advances of perverted sailors, when suddenly this huge ship hoved into view. I said to myself 'What's this?'. Well there it was, just sort of parked, and so I went aboard. The rest, as they say, is history.
Looking back, some 105 years later, perhaps it was a silly thing to do. But it was during my wild youth, and who hasn't done some silly things as a child?
-
I forgive you, Dowding, but you ought not to have blamed it on the Spanish cause we got pissed and beat the stuffing out of them.
Speaking of perverted sailors, this reminds me of a joke... A pirate walks into a bar and he has a steering wheel stuffed down the front of his pants. He says "Barkeep, gives me a beer."
The bartender brings him a beer and says "Hey, did you know you have a steering wheel stuffed down the front of your pants?"
The pirate says "Aye matey, it's drivin' me nuts." :)
-
In Britain, a few hundred years ago, most sports were banned. Playing sports took time away from archery. Archery was the one sport that was encouraged. Britain wanted a well armed, very skilled population. A country of experienced archers meant a very effective army. (Sorry, I can't recall where I read this...)
It's ironic that this same country practically bans gun ownership.
Just an observation.
eskimo
-
I'm surprised more chefs arent killed over there........
-
Somebody asked whether British policemen carry a firearm.
Well, as far as I know, generally not.
Its been a long time since civil war or hoodlums were ruling life, and the necessity of personal archery knowledge has now lost it's spark.
Today, guns in general are not banned in the UK, neither are all guns to be banned, but some types of them are, and some people can carry none at all. Getting guns will be harder, especially handguns (I belive..?)
It may be hard for the Americand to understand that, since the British have very much less violent crimes in all capital categories already (Murder, Rape and armed robberies).
But the Brits want to improve the status even further, and I must say that such an effort should be looked at with respect rather than mocking it, and off all people, the Americans should look at this attempt as something to learn from, since they seem to have about the worst capital crime statistics in the western world.
Doesn't seem to may that the way of the gun is doing a good job there at least.
So once again, a Hurray to that theme park called Britain.
END
-
lol Airhead - I actually haven't heard that before. :D
Eskimo - it would only be ironic if Britain lacked a standing army, like it did back then. During the middle ages (when a good company of archers was worth its weight in gold), conscription of the general populace was the only way an army was created. Fortunately, these days we have one of the best trained professional armies of the world, even if their rifles are crap.
Also, I don't think sports were banned per se, only that Sundays had to be used for target practice - previously a time for sport.
Thankyou Angus my Icelandic farming friend. Is it cold up there at the moment? :) I once saw a program about 'Glacier Safari' in Iceland, where they take huge monster truck things onto the ice and drive around, before stopping for a pic-nic. Looked a laugh. Especially where they reinflated a tyre using light fluid.
-
angus... people in solitary confinement are safe too. It's all a matter orf degree. At one time the soviet Union had and extremely low crime rate.
solitary confinement... old soviet union... england... U.S.A. hmm... U.S.A. seems the best comprimise to me.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Angus
. If not for Roosevelt, USA might have stayed out completely or even been on the German Side,
:D
I consider this an insult.
All I have to say now is consider yourself damn lucky we were on your side.
You prevailed when you most certainly would not have.