Author Topic: What do you brits think of this book and author? (Read 4883 times)

lazs2 · « **Reply #45 on:** November 03, 2003, 03:57:35 PM »

curval.. knew she wrote the other book (it is in her jacket blurb on the current book)... I have no idea what is in that book tho... I will finish this one first. I thought she was from england but could be wrong.

Still.... I guess I would like to see some british subjects read and tell me their opinions of the book as I don't really fathom the british culture and.... it seems that her research is pretty cut and dried... when the stats are unclear she gives the best and worse case scenarios for why they would say what they do.

It does appear that in all countries homicide is a given rate per culture and that weapons vary.... most being hands and feet or blunt objects.. You can cut down on firearms homicide with draconian laws but you don't cut down on overall homicides.

Like they say.... would you rather they all be pushed out windows?

The whole concept of people giving up their right to defend themselves and their familys and fellow men from theives, pshychos and monarchs is simply unfathonomable to me. I thought that the book would help explain why, say, the british would do so but so far it seems to point out that the brits feel much as we do about self defence and tyranny..

Seems most of the excuses for disarmming people were fear of the people by the monarchy or..... fer chrisakes..... Poaching! We forget what a little isle england is with our vast resources.... perhapsm poaching was worth putting people to death for in 17th 18th century england.... even then... simply possesing a firearm was no crime while possessing traps was.

anyhow.... interesting book and it doesn't seem to force any conclusions.... I think you would still be free to consider yourself better off without guns after reading it.
lazs
lazs

lazs2 · « **Reply #46 on:** November 03, 2003, 03:59:23 PM »

Oh... and I only like to be around strong willed people.... it's no fun pushing wussies around.
lazs

beet1e · « **Reply #47 on:** November 03, 2003, 04:16:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dago
Despite your fixiation and beliefs, the USA is not the root cause of all things evil, everything in this country is not hosed up, we don't all run around carrying guns and killing each other, we are not all drunk drivers, and our government doesn't control everything in our lives.

Now you know I never believed that.

Curval · « **Reply #48 on:** November 03, 2003, 04:45:29 PM »

Lazs..don't forget in the 17th and 18th centuries England was a fuedal society. It only stands to reason that the Kings and the nobles didn't want armed peasants running about the place...those in power kept it that way by force..brute force.

Starvation was a weapon used by the nobility in those days and poaching was dealt with swiftly and brutally. Land ownership was the cornerstone of wealth...and everything on that land BELONGED to the person who owned it...including the peasants.

Dago · « **Reply #49 on:** November 03, 2003, 04:46:25 PM »

Quote

Now you know I never believed that.

If I wasn't too lazy, I think I could do a search of threads you have started and put your statement in doubt.

dago

Shuckins · « **Reply #50 on:** November 03, 2003, 05:09:36 PM »

Beetle,

With all due respect, how can you contend that the only thing that is certain is that there would be a big increase in gun homicides if the gun ban were lifted in Britain? What do you base that on? According to previous statements that you have made, gun homicide was almost non-existent in the U.K. before the ban went into effect. The mere presence of guns does not automatically lead to increased violence and mayhem. There quite a number of nations across the world that allow widespread gun ownership which do not suffer from high gun homicide rates, such as Sweden and Switzerland. Despite your protestations to the contrary, there is no verifiable corelation between the presence of of guns and gun homicide.

As I said in my previous post, the law-abiding do not feel an inclination to slaughter their fellow-men because of the mere presence of a weapon.

Regards, Shuckins

lazs2 · « **Reply #51 on:** November 03, 2003, 06:00:16 PM »

I believe that the author points out that during the peaks of gun ownership by private citizens there was also a decrease in both homicides and crime. Gun homicides may go up somewhat but homicides in general continue to go down..
lazs

cpxxx · « **Reply #52 on:** November 03, 2003, 08:25:21 PM »

As Momus pointed out the handgun ban in the UK was precipitated by the Dunblane massacre. The laws were brought in to prevent another massacre like that. It was demanded by the public and the media and the govenment of the day could not afford to ignore the mass of public opinon. It was an overreaction but in point of fact nothing like that has happened since and only a brave politican would try to repeal it. The paranoid argument that you need guns to protect yourself from the government is strictly an American or even an NRA idea. The truth is most people in Britain see no reason why anyone should own a handgun. So they are banned, period! If crime is on the increase the attitude is that the government should do more and the police should crack down harder. Every incident out of America, like Columbine, employees shooting their co-workers, disgruntled client's trying to shoot their lawyers convinces, them of the wisdom of gun control. What happens in the US heavily influences public opinion all over Europe. That attitude will not change.

I've said this before and I'll say it again, the increased gun crime in the UK is nothing to do with the gun laws. Partly it's to do with drug pushers and partly to a rise in gang rivalry among British blacks pushed in part by the 'Gansta Rap' culture imported from, you guessed it: The USA! I know, blame the US for everything.

Again I've made this point before and it was pointedly ignored by everyone. If guns are not the issue and there is a case to be made for that. Then the problem must lie elsewhere. If thousands upon thousands of crimes are prevented every year by gun owners in America.

What does that say about the society you live in?

That story by Toad 'They didn't plan to leave witnesses' is not very reassuring. The idea of killers out there in the countryside with guns, so much so that you need a Mini 14 to protect yourself is very scary indeed.

If I'm to believe the NRA then should I ever go to America to live then I would definitely need a gun for protection even if I lived in a nice safe middle class area.

If guns are not the issue then it must be the people who have access to them?

Isn't that the underlying issue to all this. Is America a more fearful place to live than the UK? Or is it simply that America has the balance wrong. It does seem to me that there are vested interests like the gun manufacturers who want to maintain the status quo. It always seems odd to me that in a litigation happy country like America that gun manufacturers and dealers never seem to get sued. Sure, the victiim of a gun attack sues the makers of the Grand Theft Auto PC game but not the manufacturer of the guns used to attack them or even the dealer who supplied them?

Can someone answer that question?

NUKE · « **Reply #53 on:** November 03, 2003, 08:36:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by cpxxx
It always seems odd to me that in a litigation happy country like America that gun manufacturers and dealers never seem to get sued. Sure, the victiim of a gun attack sues the makers of the Grand Theft Auto PC game but not the manufacturer of the guns used to attack them or even the dealer who supplied them?

Can someone answer that question?

What does a gun ( an inanimate object) do that can cause someone to feel like going on a crime spree?

If I get attacked by someone with a baseball bat, can I sue the manufacturer?

I prefer short, simple, yet strong points.

cpxxx · « **Reply #54 on:** November 03, 2003, 09:27:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by NUKE
What does a gun ( an inanimate object) do that can cause someone to feel like going on a crime spree?

If I get attacked by someone with a baseball bat, can I sue the manufacturer?

I prefer short, simple, yet strong points.

Ok in line with your philosophy, short, simple. Why not? They sold the bat to a criminal who used it to hurt you. Airplane manufacturers have been sued when the pilot runs it out of fuel. The 911 relatives are suing Boeing. What makes gun dealers and manufacturers immune?

NUKE · « **Reply #55 on:** November 03, 2003, 10:01:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by cpxxx
Ok in line with your philosophy, short, simple. Why not? They sold the bat to a criminal who used it to hurt you. Airplane manufacturers have been sued when the pilot runs it out of fuel. The 911 relatives are suing Boeing. What makes gun dealers and manufacturers immune?

The manufacturer sold the bat to a distributer who then sold it to a store. You gonna sue the store? Are bats illegal to buy? Under what circumstances could you conceive of the bat manufacturer being responsible for what the bat was later used for? How would the manufacturer be responsible?

What about a rope manufacturer? Can you sue them if someone hangs a person using the rope they produced?

What if a guy used a chainsaw to kill someone ( has been done), would the chainsaw maunfacturer be liable? LOL!

As for the 911 folks suing Boeing? I'd love to see the argument .

Maybe somone could sue God being hit by lightning.

beet1e · « **Reply #56 on:** November 04, 2003, 02:13:43 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dago
If I wasn't too lazy, I think I could do a search of threads you have started and put your statement in doubt.

dago

You were the one who portrayed Britain as a nation of drunks. I did some research on alcohol related road deaths and incidence of cirrhosis of the liver, and found that America's difficulties with alcohol are worse than ours. I don't see anything anti-American about setting the record straight.

Curval - yes, those were brutal times. I've just watched a two-part serialisation about Henry VIII, and I'm glad I was born when I was, and not back then at a time you could be burned at the stake for having religious beliefs which differed from those of the King. Henry was a self-indulgent stunninghunk. He had his second wife, Anne Boleyn, beheaded. Her only crime was to bear Henry a daughter instead of a son, and then a stillborn son. As a result, she was tried for treason, found guilty by the usual Henry-ordained kangaroo court, and executed. The daughter became Elizabeth I (1558-1603).

Where I live is on an old coaching route from London to the west. It was notorious for its highwaymen, and gentlemen riding the coaches that travelled along this route (now known as the Bath Road, the Old Bath Road, the Great West Road or simply the A4 in places) were advised to carry their sidearms!

Of course, we don't do that now. But I don't recall anyone in my parents' generation or my grandparents' generation harking back to the "good old days" when we had guns.
_________________________
Knickers, cabbages... it hasn't got a beak!

Engine · « **Reply #57 on:** November 04, 2003, 02:28:08 AM »

Thanks for the sig material, beetle. Two whole pages and no one found it amusing.

cpxxx · « **Reply #58 on:** November 04, 2003, 07:34:10 AM »

QUOTE]Originally posted by NUKE
The manufacturer sold the bat to a distributer who then sold it to a store. You gonna sue the store? Are bats illegal to buy? Under what circumstances could you conceive of the bat manufacturer being responsible for what the bat was later used for? How would the manufacturer be responsible?

What if a guy used a chainsaw to kill someone ( has been done), would the chainsaw maunfacturer be liable? LOL! [/QUOTE]

Maybe but I bet someone has sued a chainsaw manufacturer when they accidentally cut their own arm off. So why not sue a gun manufacturer when you shoot yourself in the foot? If you can sue McDonald's when you spill coffee in your lap or for making you fat you can sue anybody. Gun manufacturers are immune somehow, odd that??????

Here's a point, all guns in the hands of criminals must have started of as legitimate. The gun manufacturer sold it to a gun dealer (unless he "lost" it) who sold it to a 'law abiding citizen'. Who either lost it or had it stolen or sold it to a criminal. This means people have to buy a gun from the same manufacturer who made the gun that threatens them. Talk about a win win situation for manufacturers. Fear of criminals with guns means big profits for everyone in the gun trade. Paranoia and gun crime is good for business.

Conspiracy theory anyone? Think of all those dealers and manufacturers going out of business if gun control took hold.

No one answered my other questions either, too uncomfortable and too close to the bone I think.

Edit: I saw this on the other gun thread. It seems I'm not such an original thinker.
http://www.cbc.ca/disclosure/archiv...lackmarket.html

NUKE · « **Reply #59 on:** November 04, 2003, 08:27:12 AM »

Quote

Maybe but I bet someone has sued a chainsaw manufacturer when they accidentally cut their own arm off. So why not sue a gun manufacturer when you shoot yourself in the foot? If you can sue McDonald's when you spill coffee in your lap or for making you fat you can sue anybody. Gun manufacturers are immune somehow, odd that??????

You don't get it. If a guy cuts off his arm because the chainsaw was defective, maybe he could sue the manufacturer.

If McDonalds is negligent and serves coffee at 200 degrees and somone gets scalded, they can be sued.

If a gun manufacturer made a defective gun that somehow caused somone injury, maybe they could be sued.

But you can't just sue a manufacturer just because someone uses the product in a crime . Could somone sue GM because somone uses one of their cars to plow into people on a sidewalk?
Can I sue Sony if somone throws one of their monitors off a building and it hits me?