The Gun Issue thread

[rickschoppers]

Thread merged with a two year old Barbara thread? Like there aren't enough of those being bumped already?

Where did your Rolling Stone thread go Ant?

[AntRobertson]

It's in this thread now, page or two back I think.

[hazz]

^ You're making . . . which point?

During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, and,

The homicide rate in England and Wales has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban.


Tongue-in-cheek:

As is shown in the above two citations, statistically speaking, it is shown that there is a direct correlation, an easy to connect the dots “cause-and-effect”, that enacting gun control(s) causes a direct and significant increase in murders.

i.e. There are far more murders when gun control legislation is in place. 73% and 52% respectively (apparently DC crooks are nastier than England & Wales crooks, or perhaps more scared of armed victims).

It is shown above that the criminal element is bolder when they know the victims cannot defend themselves.


How would you interpret those two statistics?

the deal we ahve in the uk is that we have criminalsed arming yourself, guns or otherwise. It has the advantage that we don't have to wait for an armed criminal to commit an offence.... as they are a walking violation. Its very much the same in most advanced nations around the world.... apart from the united states.... who's rates of homicide are massivly out of live with its economic peers... more on pare with war zones and banana republics.

now getting back to you rather nice demonstartion on how to lie with statitics.

believ it or not you can have guns in the UK if you are a member of a gun clud or have a professional reason for needing one. there are I believe about 2 million legally owned guns in the UK.

The key thing is that before and after these bans, these guns have to be kept in a secure cabinet bolted to a secure wall. bullets have to be kept in a separate locked container. you are not allowed to transport the gun without a legitimate reason, and you are expected to separate the gun into two non function parts in addition to the ammunition kept separate. the storage is inspected periodically by specialized police.

So it is hard to imagine anything other than an insincere mind could imagine how those bans could have emboldened British murderers.

but then 'fear' and 'insincerity' seem to be the hall marks of many aspects of modern american culture.

[panama hat]

It's called an amendment - the simple definition of the word 'amendment' answers your post

^^ You mean like the 2nd amendment?

Again, the answer is in your question.

but then 'fear' and 'insincerity' seem to be the hall marks of many aspects of modern american culture.

It's what drives the country, unfortunately. Everything is fear mongering.

[rickschoppers]

^
I have a problem believing anyone who can not capitalize the first word in a sentance and misspells every other word.

To trust or believe someone without a real education can be disasterous. Just take a look at some of the world leaders.

[panama hat]

^
I have a problem believing anyone who can not capitalize the first word in a sentance and misspells every other word.

Again, the answer is in your question.

It's what drives the country, unfortunately. Everything is fear mongering.

Where are these mistakes in the two sentences above?

I have a problem believing anyone who makes ridiculous statements, criticises others' spelling and does wonderful things like this:

sentance

To trust or believe someone without a real education can be disasterous. Just take a look at some of the world leaders.

Luckily you have a highly educated president, sadly for you he is black


Excellent contribution on the issue, as usual

[Humbert]

The second, third and seventh amendment are anachronisms. They really have no relevance today. The tenth forbids excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment including torture - I think we pretty well shit canned that one already.
The constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, has been re-interpreted by the courts countless times over the years. Anton Scalia trampled on the 200 year old precedent of the federal government's authority to maintain gun controls by interpreting the second amendment as strictly about the unfettered right to own firearms. In fact, the second amendment was about the establishment of a citizen armed militia because there was no federal military. This myth about gun control being unconstitutional is a farce bought and paid for by the NRA.

[panama hat]

Anton Scalia trampled on the 200 year old precedent of the federal government's authority to maintain gun controls by interpreting the second amendment as strictly about the unfettered right to own firearms. In fact, the second amendment was about the establishment of a citizen armed militia because there was no federal military. This myth about gun control being unconstitutional is a farce bought and paid for by the NRA.

I mentioned this a while ago - it is amazing what a brilliant job the NRA and their political acolytes have done to spread this misinformation

[rickschoppers]

Thank you for the history lesson Humbert. Why don't you explain it all to the US Supreme Court when they make their decisions based on any ammendment you consider not relevant.

[Humbert]

^It was a 5-4 decision. He wrote the majority opinion. A lot of people disagreed. A lot of people think Scalia's decision was flawed. A lot of people including yourself are ignorant on this subject. A lot of people, including yourself, would rather sit back and pretend that guns are not a problem.

[spliff]

If there were not an armed citizenry, said folk would not have means of redress against a tyrannical government/state apparatus. We could end up like England.

[rickschoppers]

Your statement was about the 2nd, 3rd, 7th and 10th ammendments Humbert, not just the 2nd. You have no clue about who I really am, so your statements about what I know are flawed as well. You just seem to be a flawed individual Humbert.

[rickschoppers]

If there were not an armed citizenry, said folk would not have means of redress against a tyrannical government/state apparatus. We could end up like England.

You are wasting your words on this lot about the 2nd ammendment. They all seem to only equate it to their own homeland where guns are not allowed. You get kudos for trying though.

[AntRobertson]

If there were not an armed citizenry, said folk would not have means of redress against a tyrannical government/state apparatus.

I've just had an image of a bunch of heavily armed paranoid rednecks, holed up in a compound somewhere, thinking that if the gubmint did decide to come grab their guns they'd stand a snowballs chance in hell of actually stopping them.

It's funny.

[AntRobertson]

They all seem to only equate it to their own homeland where guns are not allowed

In whose homeland are guns not allowed? Certainly not mine.

[rickschoppers]

^
What is funny Ant is that this is the erroneous picture most here have of America. Anyone living in America can tell you that is pure folly, but believe what you want.

[AntRobertson]

What is funny Ant is that this is the erroneous picture most here have of America. Anyone living in America can tell you that is pure folly, but believe what you want.

Goodo, but I never said it was. I explicitly stated it was an image that popped into my head. But that having been said you can't deny the presence of wackjob, paranoid, militias and their compounds either. Very much the minority certainly, but they exist.

[rickschoppers]

They all seem to only equate it to their own homeland where guns are not allowed

In whose homeland are guns not allowed? Certainly not mine.

Maybe I should have said allowed as in the US second ammendment. Does that clarify it for you Ant?

[misskit]

If there were not an armed citizenry, said folk would not have means of redress against a tyrannical government/state apparatus.

I've just had an image of a bunch of heavily armed paranoid rednecks, holed up in a compound somewhere, thinking that if the gubmint did decide to come grab their guns they'd stand a snowballs chance in hell of actually stopping them.

It's funny.

That about sums it up, too. It's a red neck fantasy.

Do any of these people who thinks anyone should have all the guns and ammunition they want, actually think the USA government is going to turn tyrannical in their lifetime?

[rickschoppers]

What is funny Ant is that this is the erroneous picture most here have of America. Anyone living in America can tell you that is pure folly, but believe what you want.

Goodo, but I never said it was. I explicitly stated it was an image that popped into my head. But that having been said you can't deny the presence of wackjob, paranoid, militias and their compounds either. Very much the minority certainly, but they exist.

Yes, very much in the minority of 350 million citizens.

[rickschoppers]

If there were not an armed citizenry, said folk would not have means of redress against a tyrannical government/state apparatus.

I've just had an image of a bunch of heavily armed paranoid rednecks, holed up in a compound somewhere, thinking that if the gubmint did decide to come grab their guns they'd stand a snowballs chance in hell of actually stopping them.

It's funny.

That about sums it up, too. It's a red neck fantasy.

Do any of these people who thinks anyone should have all the guns and ammunition they want, actually think the USA government is going to turn tyrannical in their lifetime?

Can you guarantee it wont?

[AntRobertson]

They all seem to only equate it to their own homeland where guns are not allowed

In whose homeland are guns not allowed? Certainly not mine.

Maybe I should have said allowed as in the US second ammendment. Does that clarify it for you Ant?

Yep, cheers.

The sarcasm's a bit unnecessary though (it was your unclear comment to begin with afterall).

[AntRobertson]

That about sums it up, too. It's a red neck fantasy.

I'm paraphrasing here, but...

Why is it some people fallaciously equate gun regulation to a complete ban on guns, cite the 2nd Amendment, but conveniently ignore the "well regulated" bit.

[rickschoppers]

They all seem to only equate it to their own homeland where guns are not allowed

In whose homeland are guns not allowed? Certainly not mine.

Maybe I should have said allowed as in the US second ammendment. Does that clarify it for you Ant?

Yep, cheers.

The sarcasm's a bit unnecessary though (it was your unclear comment to begin with afterall).

My apologies Ant. I do respect your exactness.

[panama hat]

You have no clue about who I really am

A know-nothing blowhard? Just a guess

If there were not an armed citizenry, said folk would not have means of redress against a tyrannical government/state apparatus.

Indeed. You mean the government YOU vote for?

We could end up like England.

Tyrannical government of England . . . It's Milkman/blackheart/barbara

Yes, very much in the minority of 350 million citizens.

Indeed, there has been a poll about just this and 130% of the population agrees

We must remember that this Rick guy is the one who stated that only Americans can understand what goes on in USA and others shouldn't bother posting in US issues threads - it is (and I quite) 'innate'