Minority ruining it for the majority... again
-
benjymous wrote: What if someone used an oxygen cylinder to inflate kittens? Would they ban kittens? No, they would ban oxygen :) What if schoolbus drowns in the river? Would they ban schoolbuses? Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com
Free your mind and your ass will follow.
I think banning rivers would be easier -- Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit!
-
I think banning rivers would be easier -- Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit!
The final question: What if somebody turns into a grapefruit? Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com
Free your mind and your ass will follow.
-
The final question: What if somebody turns into a grapefruit? Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com
Free your mind and your ass will follow.
You'd have to ban full moons ;P -- Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit!
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Indeed, but a shotgun can still be obtained legally, though it isn't easy. Most criminals who use a SOG will have obtained it from someone who stole it from a legal owner. That's true and you're right that this is much cheaper than getting your hands on a handgun. But it's not exactly reassuring me. I'd rather get shot by a psycho with a pistol than a psycho with a sawn-off any day of the week. And this, frankly, is why there's a stigma attached to handguns in the criminal fraternity: If you have a handgun you obviously know the right people and have the right money. If you own a sawn-off shotgun, you're just an idiot. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Where? The UK is in a position where there is still a relatively small proportion of criminals going out armed. Okay, here's the article I was looking for earlier... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,59866,00.html[^] We are a solid case study for why gun-control laws should not be introduced anywhere. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Arming the police would be a disaster, I assure you. Like I said, ask any criminal. Do you want to live in a society where the average car thief has a gun stuck in his pocket just because the police have? I'm more interested in arming the populace than just the police. Even the odds between perpetrator and victim. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: A total ban is the only solution. If a total ban were possible, I would agree with you. But guns have always been here, it's impossible to get them out. The cost to stop smuggling completely would be too horrific to consider. Unfortunately, it can't be done and the next best thing is to make sure that not only criminals carry guns. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Yep, they did. And do you know where the main increase occurred? With f***ing Yardies in London where carrying a weapon is seen as some kind of f***ing status symbol. Exactly! And do you think it would still be a status symbol if everyone had one? Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Look at how many American kids are shot every year - ... Do you really thing we should follow their lead? Not following their lead, but improving
pdriley wrote: I'm actually impressed by the way the government is relaxing the laws without anyone noticing, by simply not enforcing them. There are websites in the UK now that sell adult DVDs and the government seems to be taking the approach that if they just do nothing then everything will be fine but if they try to slap a proscription order on it Why though? Pornography (hard and soft) is legal in the UK, as it is in most other countries. The only stuff that is illegal is the sick stuff.
8
SIMON WALTON
SONORK ID 100.10024 -
pdriley wrote: I'm actually impressed by the way the government is relaxing the laws without anyone noticing, by simply not enforcing them. There are websites in the UK now that sell adult DVDs and the government seems to be taking the approach that if they just do nothing then everything will be fine but if they try to slap a proscription order on it Why though? Pornography (hard and soft) is legal in the UK, as it is in most other countries. The only stuff that is illegal is the sick stuff.
8
SIMON WALTON
SONORK ID 100.10024Simon Walton wrote: Why though? Pornography (hard and soft) is legal in the UK, as it is in most other countries. The only stuff that is illegal is the sick stuff. Not strictly true. It's legal to own and legal to buy, but selling it has always been dodgy ground, anyone who's tried to do so in the past has been slapped with a proscription order, effectively banning them from advertising in any way, including appearing on shop shelf. (this is what killed the old Red Hot TV - they couldn't even have their decoder cards in shops) It's illegal to host a web site in the UK that contains any pornographic content but it's kind of difficult to stop people using US hosts and US search engines to advertise, so the proscription order would effectively get them nowhere. The only thing they could do is crack down on imports to the company that sells them which to date they've opted not to do. Paul
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Indeed, but a shotgun can still be obtained legally, though it isn't easy. Most criminals who use a SOG will have obtained it from someone who stole it from a legal owner. That's true and you're right that this is much cheaper than getting your hands on a handgun. But it's not exactly reassuring me. I'd rather get shot by a psycho with a pistol than a psycho with a sawn-off any day of the week. And this, frankly, is why there's a stigma attached to handguns in the criminal fraternity: If you have a handgun you obviously know the right people and have the right money. If you own a sawn-off shotgun, you're just an idiot. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Where? The UK is in a position where there is still a relatively small proportion of criminals going out armed. Okay, here's the article I was looking for earlier... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,59866,00.html[^] We are a solid case study for why gun-control laws should not be introduced anywhere. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Arming the police would be a disaster, I assure you. Like I said, ask any criminal. Do you want to live in a society where the average car thief has a gun stuck in his pocket just because the police have? I'm more interested in arming the populace than just the police. Even the odds between perpetrator and victim. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: A total ban is the only solution. If a total ban were possible, I would agree with you. But guns have always been here, it's impossible to get them out. The cost to stop smuggling completely would be too horrific to consider. Unfortunately, it can't be done and the next best thing is to make sure that not only criminals carry guns. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Yep, they did. And do you know where the main increase occurred? With f***ing Yardies in London where carrying a weapon is seen as some kind of f***ing status symbol. Exactly! And do you think it would still be a status symbol if everyone had one? Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Look at how many American kids are shot every year - ... Do you really thing we should follow their lead? Not following their lead, but improving
OK, I'll make this quick - like you, I have work to do... pdriley wrote: We are a solid case study for why gun-control laws should not be introduced anywhere. This article contains the following: The rise in English crime has coincided with the growth of governmental intrusiveness where firearms are concerned. This is bullshit. To link a rise in crime in England with strict gun laws is very poor journalism. Rising crime is caused by many factors - the main one being drugs related crime (theft, muggings, etc.). What a joke - I'll tell you now Paul, one of the reasons more criminals don't carry guns is that if caught, the penalty will be VERY stiff indeed. Relaxing the laws on gun ownership would NOT help. pdriley wrote: Even the odds between perpetrator and victim. Oh pur-lease!!! Let's all walk around armed - that'll stop those damn heroin addicts from trying to steal my car! ha ha ha. Unbelievable. It would simply result in more people being shot - and every pettyy criminal in the land would pack heat. Great. pdriley wrote: Exactly! And do you think it would still be a status symbol if everyone had one? Yes, in fact the problem would be worse because instead of packing an Uzi, you'd have Yardie gangs driving around in a car with a boot full of automatic machine guns, etc. It would be a vicious spiral of gangs trying to get even more powerful weapons. The Yardie thing is a bit different, as there is this cultural fondness for gangland members having weapons in Jamaica - a good reason not to make gun ownership anymore socially acceptable! I wouldn't want to live in an armed society and I think I speak for the majority of people in the UK. Comparing us to the States will never work either as they have the Constitutional question to deal with. As for your other points on censorshjip/drugs ... YAY! Total agreement from this opionated old bastard!
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
-
David Wulff wrote: Dear god! I hope you had an under the limit rifle for your friends sake, else I should be asking if he is still limping! I was teasing. It was a weedy little thing - it stung him and he got me back with his. I was 16 for f***s sake. We've all done stupid things, especially when in our teens. David Wulff wrote: it's called common sense and it does help to reduce accidents. Very patronizing! Lighten up for Petes sake!
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
All the more reason to ban minors from even operating air guns, bb guns, etc, unsupervised. Yes teenagers make perfectly innocent mistakes - heck I've made most of them in the book myself, and writen the apendicies - but by removing the ability to operate any form of gun unsupervised would have prevented your "accident" from ever happening. Being stupid enough to do something like that doesn't have any reflection on the person (I'm sure you'd never do anything like that now), but in all honesty that is exactly what is turning the public against us, and when you get a few loud mouthed wankers marching round Whitehall the politians will end up discussing a ban, and bingo... heavy or total restrictions on air guns, with bb guns shortly following. BTW, obviously air gun laws are not hard enough at the moment then, as 14-17 year olds are not allowed to operate air guns without a post 21 year old present. In this case penalties must be introduced - even it if it just a visit from the local ARU to explain the sever stupidity of abusing guns. I would expect that is enough to have an affect on most teenagers.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
-
OK, I'll make this quick - like you, I have work to do... pdriley wrote: We are a solid case study for why gun-control laws should not be introduced anywhere. This article contains the following: The rise in English crime has coincided with the growth of governmental intrusiveness where firearms are concerned. This is bullshit. To link a rise in crime in England with strict gun laws is very poor journalism. Rising crime is caused by many factors - the main one being drugs related crime (theft, muggings, etc.). What a joke - I'll tell you now Paul, one of the reasons more criminals don't carry guns is that if caught, the penalty will be VERY stiff indeed. Relaxing the laws on gun ownership would NOT help. pdriley wrote: Even the odds between perpetrator and victim. Oh pur-lease!!! Let's all walk around armed - that'll stop those damn heroin addicts from trying to steal my car! ha ha ha. Unbelievable. It would simply result in more people being shot - and every pettyy criminal in the land would pack heat. Great. pdriley wrote: Exactly! And do you think it would still be a status symbol if everyone had one? Yes, in fact the problem would be worse because instead of packing an Uzi, you'd have Yardie gangs driving around in a car with a boot full of automatic machine guns, etc. It would be a vicious spiral of gangs trying to get even more powerful weapons. The Yardie thing is a bit different, as there is this cultural fondness for gangland members having weapons in Jamaica - a good reason not to make gun ownership anymore socially acceptable! I wouldn't want to live in an armed society and I think I speak for the majority of people in the UK. Comparing us to the States will never work either as they have the Constitutional question to deal with. As for your other points on censorshjip/drugs ... YAY! Total agreement from this opionated old bastard!
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: This is bullshit. To link a rise in crime in England with strict gun laws is very poor journalism. Yeah, but it does only say "coincides". You're right that there are many factors but there is very little evidence that banning guns significantly reduces crime, there is at least some evidence that it either makes no difference or worsens the problem. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: What a joke - I'll tell you now Paul, one of the reasons more criminals don't carry guns is that if caught, the penalty will be VERY stiff indeed. Again, you're thinking about areas where you've lived. You should try the rougher places on the out-skirts of major cities. Where I used to live nobody worried one bit about the penalties. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: and every pettyy criminal in the land would pack heat. Great. That didn't happen before the ban was introduced, why would it happen now if the ban were lifted? One of the problems with this country is that we react to assumptions with no basic evidence. Whenever I see Blair and his government coming up with a new knee-jerk reaction to something, I'm always reminded of the little wooden mice in Bagpuss, running round squeaking "we will fix it, we will fix it". :) Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: I think I speak for the majority of people in the UK In polls I've seen, it's either 60-40 anti-guns or 50-50. But again, as we've established, people are generally stupid. I really don't care what the majority think is right, I care what case studies and evidence suggest is right. Paul
-
Incidentally, just cruising around for some more information, I came across this: http://www.scotlandonsunday.com/index.cfm?id=874132002[^] If this doesn't demonstrate my point behind the sickening imbalance between the power of the personal defense argument against the power of the sporting rights argument, I don't know what does. :rolleyes: Paul
Why? These people are highly educated users (if you'll excuse the oxymoron) and not the average Joe and Jane on the street who *think* they are bright enough to handle a hand gun, and carry them for their protection. In my eyes an uneducated gun user is far more dangerous than an armed criminal as they are more likely to end up shooting someone. And if guns where legally available again - even if only to people having undergone a comprehensive safety course - statistics show this will not stop the guns making thier way into the hands of irresponsible idiots. In fact the case that prompted me to start this thread was one of just that. When people are put into a situation that could result in violence, they get the bog-standard fight or flight injection of adrenaline. The normal person would attempt to avoid violence at all costs, an armed person would think "hey I am armed, I will win this" and will fight - whether they draw their gun or not. It is an automatic response that we have very little control over - our instinct makes the descision for fight or flight, not our logic. This is true for both civilians, military servicepeople and the police - the latter two get highly specialised training, the former does not. And even then mistakes are all too common.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: That keeps on happenning to me. Oops! She did it again :) Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com
Free your mind and your ass will follow.
-
Why? These people are highly educated users (if you'll excuse the oxymoron) and not the average Joe and Jane on the street who *think* they are bright enough to handle a hand gun, and carry them for their protection. In my eyes an uneducated gun user is far more dangerous than an armed criminal as they are more likely to end up shooting someone. And if guns where legally available again - even if only to people having undergone a comprehensive safety course - statistics show this will not stop the guns making thier way into the hands of irresponsible idiots. In fact the case that prompted me to start this thread was one of just that. When people are put into a situation that could result in violence, they get the bog-standard fight or flight injection of adrenaline. The normal person would attempt to avoid violence at all costs, an armed person would think "hey I am armed, I will win this" and will fight - whether they draw their gun or not. It is an automatic response that we have very little control over - our instinct makes the descision for fight or flight, not our logic. This is true for both civilians, military servicepeople and the police - the latter two get highly specialised training, the former does not. And even then mistakes are all too common.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
This is all based on the assumption that if we (re)legalised guns, everyone would want one. Was this the case before they were banned? Do you actually see any evidence that things have improved since the ban? I don't, it's as simple as that. The problem here (as with so many things in the UK over the past 10 years) is all down to not being able to enforce laws that already exist. Look, for example, at the suggestion that mobile phones should be banned in moving cars, even on a hands-free kit. Why? If used responsibly, they can save lives; I for one have used a mobile phone to let the wife know that I'm stuck in traffic and I'm going to be late home - thirty second call, no harm, no foul, no need for me to rush home once I get out of the traffic. If used irresponsibly, the driver is driving without due care and attention. We have laws to cover that - enforce those. Why shouldn't someone own a gun? If they use it irresponsibly, then they are breaking the law, whether ownership of guns is legal or not. Paul
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: This is bullshit. To link a rise in crime in England with strict gun laws is very poor journalism. Yeah, but it does only say "coincides". You're right that there are many factors but there is very little evidence that banning guns significantly reduces crime, there is at least some evidence that it either makes no difference or worsens the problem. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: What a joke - I'll tell you now Paul, one of the reasons more criminals don't carry guns is that if caught, the penalty will be VERY stiff indeed. Again, you're thinking about areas where you've lived. You should try the rougher places on the out-skirts of major cities. Where I used to live nobody worried one bit about the penalties. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: and every pettyy criminal in the land would pack heat. Great. That didn't happen before the ban was introduced, why would it happen now if the ban were lifted? One of the problems with this country is that we react to assumptions with no basic evidence. Whenever I see Blair and his government coming up with a new knee-jerk reaction to something, I'm always reminded of the little wooden mice in Bagpuss, running round squeaking "we will fix it, we will fix it". :) Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: I think I speak for the majority of people in the UK In polls I've seen, it's either 60-40 anti-guns or 50-50. But again, as we've established, people are generally stupid. I really don't care what the majority think is right, I care what case studies and evidence suggest is right. Paul
pdriley wrote: Yeah, but it does only say "coincides". Come on - it is trying to make it part of the central argument. Very poor indeed. If the author didn't want people to assume that is what they meant they shouldn't have written the damn sentence. Bet there is some politics behind that article too. pdriley wrote: evidence that banning guns significantly reduces crime If our current laws stop massacres like Hungerford/Dunblane then that is good enough for me. Hard to prove but I'll wager that it has made a difference. pdriley wrote: That didn't happen before the ban was introduced, why would it happen now if the ban were lifted? This was my response to your comment about people carrying guns to even things up. If we went back to pre-1996 laws then it probably wouldn't make much difference other than perhaps help prevent another massacre by some psycho gun-club member (both Michael Ryan and Dunblane bloke were gun club members) - the reason the laws were brought in to begin with. That's good enough to me. Still, living just a few miles from Hungerford and being personally affected by the events of that day in 1987 obviously clouds my judgement (ha!). pdriley wrote: In polls I've seen, it's either 60-40 anti-guns or 50-50. ha ha ha ha. Well, I've never been asked the question by any pollster but 50-50 - ho ho ho ho. Very good. If there were a referendum tomorrow with the question "Should people be allowed to own hand guns" I'd be surprised if as many of 5% of people said "Yes". It's like the fox-hunting question - if the Countryside Alliance are paying for the poll, it'll come out 50-50 (even they woouldn't try to fool people into thinking that the majority of people in this country are pro-hunting) whereas when the RSPCA are paying the results are 70-30 anti-hunting. Shrug. pdriley wrote: I care what case studies and evidence suggest is right. Well, OK, but anything can be proved by case-studies and "evidence" can be manipulated to suit whoever is paying for the study, etc. For every case-study you can find I expect their is a similar opposing study - whatever the question - guns, drugs, crime, etc. etc. etc. It is VERY hard to find any totally independent and reliable studies on anything! Sigh. Politics again. I tried telling someone once that nearly EVERYTHING is political in some shape or form and I got laughed at.
-
Why? These people are highly educated users (if you'll excuse the oxymoron) and not the average Joe and Jane on the street who *think* they are bright enough to handle a hand gun, and carry them for their protection. In my eyes an uneducated gun user is far more dangerous than an armed criminal as they are more likely to end up shooting someone. And if guns where legally available again - even if only to people having undergone a comprehensive safety course - statistics show this will not stop the guns making thier way into the hands of irresponsible idiots. In fact the case that prompted me to start this thread was one of just that. When people are put into a situation that could result in violence, they get the bog-standard fight or flight injection of adrenaline. The normal person would attempt to avoid violence at all costs, an armed person would think "hey I am armed, I will win this" and will fight - whether they draw their gun or not. It is an automatic response that we have very little control over - our instinct makes the descision for fight or flight, not our logic. This is true for both civilians, military servicepeople and the police - the latter two get highly specialised training, the former does not. And even then mistakes are all too common.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
David Wulff wrote: And if guns where legally available again - even if only to people having undergone a comprehensive safety course - statistics show this will not stop the guns making thier way into the hands of irresponsible idiots. Well put you eloquent young whipper-snapper you. :)
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
-
pdriley wrote: Yeah, but it does only say "coincides". Come on - it is trying to make it part of the central argument. Very poor indeed. If the author didn't want people to assume that is what they meant they shouldn't have written the damn sentence. Bet there is some politics behind that article too. pdriley wrote: evidence that banning guns significantly reduces crime If our current laws stop massacres like Hungerford/Dunblane then that is good enough for me. Hard to prove but I'll wager that it has made a difference. pdriley wrote: That didn't happen before the ban was introduced, why would it happen now if the ban were lifted? This was my response to your comment about people carrying guns to even things up. If we went back to pre-1996 laws then it probably wouldn't make much difference other than perhaps help prevent another massacre by some psycho gun-club member (both Michael Ryan and Dunblane bloke were gun club members) - the reason the laws were brought in to begin with. That's good enough to me. Still, living just a few miles from Hungerford and being personally affected by the events of that day in 1987 obviously clouds my judgement (ha!). pdriley wrote: In polls I've seen, it's either 60-40 anti-guns or 50-50. ha ha ha ha. Well, I've never been asked the question by any pollster but 50-50 - ho ho ho ho. Very good. If there were a referendum tomorrow with the question "Should people be allowed to own hand guns" I'd be surprised if as many of 5% of people said "Yes". It's like the fox-hunting question - if the Countryside Alliance are paying for the poll, it'll come out 50-50 (even they woouldn't try to fool people into thinking that the majority of people in this country are pro-hunting) whereas when the RSPCA are paying the results are 70-30 anti-hunting. Shrug. pdriley wrote: I care what case studies and evidence suggest is right. Well, OK, but anything can be proved by case-studies and "evidence" can be manipulated to suit whoever is paying for the study, etc. For every case-study you can find I expect their is a similar opposing study - whatever the question - guns, drugs, crime, etc. etc. etc. It is VERY hard to find any totally independent and reliable studies on anything! Sigh. Politics again. I tried telling someone once that nearly EVERYTHING is political in some shape or form and I got laughed at.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: If our current laws stop massacres like Hungerford/Dunblane then that is good enough for me. Hard to prove but I'll wager that it has made a difference. I don't know. I could argue that when you look back on it, that was a time that encouraged such madness. Much as I despise the guy, I have to admit that life generally seems to have improved under Blair. I could, with more validity, also argue that the events you're talking about were 10 years apart and it's only been six since the last one. But I can't prove anything, any more than you can. What I can do is worry more about day-to-day events than freak "massacres". Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: This was my response to your comment about people carrying guns to even things up. Sure, but the point is that if a burglar thinks there's a reasonable chance that in breaking into this house, he's likely to face a gun, he's not more likely to carry one himself, he's more likely to think twice about breaking in. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Well, I've never been asked the question by any pollster but 50-50 - ho ho ho ho. Very good. If there were a referendum tomorrow with the question "Should people be allowed to own hand guns" I'd be surprised if as many of 5% of people said "Yes". It's like the fox-hunting question - if the Countryside Alliance are paying for the poll, it'll come out 50-50 (even they woouldn't try to fool people into thinking that the majority of people in this country are pro-hunting) whereas when the RSPCA are paying the results are 70-30 anti-hunting. Shrug. You're right in some respects, but at least polls (especially independant phone in votes, on Sky News or The Wright Stuff) are likely to be more accurate than "I'd be surprised if...". And I live in "the country" (I know that when Blair says this, he means outside the M25, but I'm talking about "no, Mr Riley, we're not going to bring broadband that far out of town this millennium" country :rolleyes:), you'd be surprised what a high backing there is for fox-hunting around here. I hate it and despise people who back it but I'm very much in the minority here. Don't assume that your circle is indicative of the nation's view, I certainly don't. Paul
-
This is all based on the assumption that if we (re)legalised guns, everyone would want one. Was this the case before they were banned? Do you actually see any evidence that things have improved since the ban? I don't, it's as simple as that. The problem here (as with so many things in the UK over the past 10 years) is all down to not being able to enforce laws that already exist. Look, for example, at the suggestion that mobile phones should be banned in moving cars, even on a hands-free kit. Why? If used responsibly, they can save lives; I for one have used a mobile phone to let the wife know that I'm stuck in traffic and I'm going to be late home - thirty second call, no harm, no foul, no need for me to rush home once I get out of the traffic. If used irresponsibly, the driver is driving without due care and attention. We have laws to cover that - enforce those. Why shouldn't someone own a gun? If they use it irresponsibly, then they are breaking the law, whether ownership of guns is legal or not. Paul
pdriley wrote: This is all based on the assumption that if we (re)legalised guns, everyone would want one. Not at all, it is based on the fact that people believe they are perfect and are all responsible people. pdriley wrote: Do you actually see any evidence that things have improved since the ban? Yes - if I walk down the street and get involved in a hustle I am at worst only going to take a trip to hospital with a punctured lung from a stab wound, I am not going to be shot (and Tiverton is not a "quiet little town" by any means). Towards the latter part of the 1900s drugs became more widespread and accessible to the average person, and since then crime has gone up almost exponentially compared to the rates beforehand. Arming drug users is a great idea - let them wipe out themselves and anyone unfortunatel enough to be nearby over who gets the last hit or a 20p price rise in a 1/4 of cannibis. :suss: Society has changed, but encouranging vigilantisim is not going to change it back. pdriley wrote: Look, for example, at the suggestion that mobile phones should be banned in moving cars, even on a hands-free kit. Why? The argument about this issue is slighlty more complex than just those points you have mentioned. The main concern is that unlike talking to a passenger in the car, the person on the other end of the conversation cannot react to the situtation you are in, and unlike simply listening to the radio it is very difficult for our brains to tune out of an involved conversation when necessary. For example if you are approaching a junction the passenger will automatically stop or lower the involvement whilst you perform your appropriate actions, and then can pick up again afterwards. A 'mobile phone passenger' cannot do this. Hands free kits do not solve this problem at all.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: If our current laws stop massacres like Hungerford/Dunblane then that is good enough for me. Hard to prove but I'll wager that it has made a difference. I don't know. I could argue that when you look back on it, that was a time that encouraged such madness. Much as I despise the guy, I have to admit that life generally seems to have improved under Blair. I could, with more validity, also argue that the events you're talking about were 10 years apart and it's only been six since the last one. But I can't prove anything, any more than you can. What I can do is worry more about day-to-day events than freak "massacres". Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: This was my response to your comment about people carrying guns to even things up. Sure, but the point is that if a burglar thinks there's a reasonable chance that in breaking into this house, he's likely to face a gun, he's not more likely to carry one himself, he's more likely to think twice about breaking in. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Well, I've never been asked the question by any pollster but 50-50 - ho ho ho ho. Very good. If there were a referendum tomorrow with the question "Should people be allowed to own hand guns" I'd be surprised if as many of 5% of people said "Yes". It's like the fox-hunting question - if the Countryside Alliance are paying for the poll, it'll come out 50-50 (even they woouldn't try to fool people into thinking that the majority of people in this country are pro-hunting) whereas when the RSPCA are paying the results are 70-30 anti-hunting. Shrug. You're right in some respects, but at least polls (especially independant phone in votes, on Sky News or The Wright Stuff) are likely to be more accurate than "I'd be surprised if...". And I live in "the country" (I know that when Blair says this, he means outside the M25, but I'm talking about "no, Mr Riley, we're not going to bring broadband that far out of town this millennium" country :rolleyes:), you'd be surprised what a high backing there is for fox-hunting around here. I hate it and despise people who back it but I'm very much in the minority here. Don't assume that your circle is indicative of the nation's view, I certainly don't. Paul
Phew. This is gonna run and run. Still, I think you and me have a lot in common, so I'll keep this short and then go for some lunch... :) pdriley wrote: I could, with more validity, also argue that the events you're talking about were 10 years apart and it's only been six since the last one. But I can't prove anything, any more than you can. And I could argue that without the draconian laws on automatic weapons and hand-guns, we might not have had to wait so long between these massacres. Unfortunately, unless we find some way of communicating with a parallel universe where the present-day UK has pre-1987 gun laws, nothing can be proved. ;P pdriley wrote: but at least polls (especially independant phone in votes, on Sky News or The Wright Stuff) are likely to be more accurate than "I'd be surprised if...". Not so. Phone in polls are notoriously inaccurate. An example. You and me are passionately antihunting right? If there was a poll on Sky News now, we'd both phone in yeh?. However, most people I know that are anti-hunting are NOT passionate enough about it to bother picking up the phone. The Countryside Alliance members are MUCH more vociferous in their opposition - there are far more passionate PRO-hunting people than there are passionate ANTI-hunting people, hence polls like this are skewed. Even though the majority of people are in favour of a ban on hunting with dogs, very few of them care it about enough to take any action. Years ago, Channel 4 has an evening of programmes about Cannabis - called "Pot Night". At the end of the evening they had a phone in poll - "Should Cannabis be legalised?". The result? 95% in favour of legalisation! ha ha ha - of course, it was only stoners watching so the figures became meaningless. There is a lot of apathy in this country which is disappointing. I wish people would be more vocal - whether I agree with you on something or not, if you are really passionate about it, then I will respect you (within reason obviously. If you are a passionate racist then you can fuck off! ;P). I also lived out in the sticks for a few years, and my wife is from a small village with a big hunting fraternity. The amazing thing is, when you speak to some of the villagers, deep down they actually find fox-hunting distasteful and would NEVER take apart in such a "sport". However, these people see a ban on hunting as the thin end of the wedge - an assault on their way of life by leftie London mandarins -
-
I'll append that with what I was taught. Never show aggressively a gun unless you are going to aim it at someone. Never aim/point a gun unless you are going to pull the trigger. Never pull the trigger unless you are going wound someone. Never wound someone when you have the opportunity to finish them off. Never terminate a life unless you are prepared to do similar to the life's supporters. (friend's family, brothers in arms). I have no trouble with people owning guns, but people waving them around deserve to be cut down. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
Colin^Davies wrote: Never terminate a life unless you are prepared to do similar to the life's supporters. (friend's family, brothers in arms). That would be extreme as a matter of policy, but I can see where it might be necessary at times. You never know what vendetta you might stir up when deadly force becomes the only choice. Best to be mentally prepared for what might follow before the fact. This Signature is Temporarily Out of Order
-
Phew. This is gonna run and run. Still, I think you and me have a lot in common, so I'll keep this short and then go for some lunch... :) pdriley wrote: I could, with more validity, also argue that the events you're talking about were 10 years apart and it's only been six since the last one. But I can't prove anything, any more than you can. And I could argue that without the draconian laws on automatic weapons and hand-guns, we might not have had to wait so long between these massacres. Unfortunately, unless we find some way of communicating with a parallel universe where the present-day UK has pre-1987 gun laws, nothing can be proved. ;P pdriley wrote: but at least polls (especially independant phone in votes, on Sky News or The Wright Stuff) are likely to be more accurate than "I'd be surprised if...". Not so. Phone in polls are notoriously inaccurate. An example. You and me are passionately antihunting right? If there was a poll on Sky News now, we'd both phone in yeh?. However, most people I know that are anti-hunting are NOT passionate enough about it to bother picking up the phone. The Countryside Alliance members are MUCH more vociferous in their opposition - there are far more passionate PRO-hunting people than there are passionate ANTI-hunting people, hence polls like this are skewed. Even though the majority of people are in favour of a ban on hunting with dogs, very few of them care it about enough to take any action. Years ago, Channel 4 has an evening of programmes about Cannabis - called "Pot Night". At the end of the evening they had a phone in poll - "Should Cannabis be legalised?". The result? 95% in favour of legalisation! ha ha ha - of course, it was only stoners watching so the figures became meaningless. There is a lot of apathy in this country which is disappointing. I wish people would be more vocal - whether I agree with you on something or not, if you are really passionate about it, then I will respect you (within reason obviously. If you are a passionate racist then you can fuck off! ;P). I also lived out in the sticks for a few years, and my wife is from a small village with a big hunting fraternity. The amazing thing is, when you speak to some of the villagers, deep down they actually find fox-hunting distasteful and would NEVER take apart in such a "sport". However, these people see a ban on hunting as the thin end of the wedge - an assault on their way of life by leftie London mandarins -
Just a quick one before I go for my lunch :) Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Not so. Phone in polls are notoriously inaccurate. An example. You and me are passionately antihunting right? If there was a poll on Sky News now, we'd both phone in yeh?. Well, no, because I don't pay good money to have an opinion :). But you're missing the point. I'm not saying phone-in polls are accurate, I'm saying it's more accurate than picking a number off the top of your head and saying "I'd be surprised if ti was more than" ;). Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: There is a lot of apathy in this country which is disappointing. I wish people would be more vocal - whether I agree with you on something or not, if you are really passionate about it, then I will respect you (within reason obviously. If you are a passionate racist then you can f*** off!) Hell yeah, as much as I disagree with you on this issue, I can respect your point of view and in some ways I certainly see your point, I just have different priorities. I debate these issues as much to challenge my own point of view as to challenge the other person's. And if neither of us is convinced, maybe some passing reader has read both points of view, thought about the issue and maybe even realised that they have an opinion too. Like you I despise apathy, everyone should have an opinion and everyone should discuss them. Even if you're a violent racist (and I feel pationately enough about racists that I've disowned half my family over the issue, including my parents, I didn't even go to my father's funeral last year), I'll talk to you if you're ready to face and defend your own issues. Unfortunately most violent racists have been brought up that way and have no reason to believe in it beyond "That's the way it is, how dare you challenge me?" Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: I also lived out in the sticks for a few years, and my wife is from a small village with a big hunting fraternity. The amazing thing is, when you speak to some of the villagers, deep down they actually find fox-hunting distasteful and would NEVER take apart in such a "sport". The problem I've always found is this: In rabidly pro-foxing areas, there are two groups of people. The "in" people who do take part and are very much in support of their right to butcher animals with other animals for their own entertainment (even though, as you point out, cock-fighting is clearly evil). And the "out" peo
-
pdriley wrote: This is all based on the assumption that if we (re)legalised guns, everyone would want one. Not at all, it is based on the fact that people believe they are perfect and are all responsible people. pdriley wrote: Do you actually see any evidence that things have improved since the ban? Yes - if I walk down the street and get involved in a hustle I am at worst only going to take a trip to hospital with a punctured lung from a stab wound, I am not going to be shot (and Tiverton is not a "quiet little town" by any means). Towards the latter part of the 1900s drugs became more widespread and accessible to the average person, and since then crime has gone up almost exponentially compared to the rates beforehand. Arming drug users is a great idea - let them wipe out themselves and anyone unfortunatel enough to be nearby over who gets the last hit or a 20p price rise in a 1/4 of cannibis. :suss: Society has changed, but encouranging vigilantisim is not going to change it back. pdriley wrote: Look, for example, at the suggestion that mobile phones should be banned in moving cars, even on a hands-free kit. Why? The argument about this issue is slighlty more complex than just those points you have mentioned. The main concern is that unlike talking to a passenger in the car, the person on the other end of the conversation cannot react to the situtation you are in, and unlike simply listening to the radio it is very difficult for our brains to tune out of an involved conversation when necessary. For example if you are approaching a junction the passenger will automatically stop or lower the involvement whilst you perform your appropriate actions, and then can pick up again afterwards. A 'mobile phone passenger' cannot do this. Hands free kits do not solve this problem at all.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
David Wulff wrote: Not at all, it is based on the fact that people believe they are perfect and are all responsible people. And it's okay to make responsible people suffer because of irresponsible people? Okay, we'd better ban cars next. ;) David Wulff wrote: Yes - if I walk down the street and get involved in a hustle I am at worst only going to take a trip to hospital with a punctured lung from a stab wound, I am not going to be shot Wow, dude, this is your idea of better? I think I'd rather be shot! It is worth noting that death rates from gun-related crime aren't a lot higher than death rates from being stabbed. Besides, as I've said, in some areas in the UK I wouldn't be at all convinced that a fight wouldn't end with a gun being pulled. David Wulff wrote: Towards the latter part of the 1900s drugs became more widespread and accessible to the average person, and since then crime has gone up almost exponentially compared to the rates beforehand. What? Drug use was rife in the late 1800s. I agree that the drug-culture (driven underground) in the late 1900s has made things worse but you can't blame the use of drugs for the increased crime rates, only the increasing number of dangerous chemicals added to drugs and the fact that people have to go through such means to get their hands on it. David Wulff wrote: Society has changed, but encouranging vigilantisim is not going to change it back. I'm not encouraging vigilanties, there's a vast difference between someone who hunts someone down for their own form of justice, believing the system to be flawed and soeone who simply wants to defend themselves. I'm totally with you on the subject of vigilanties. David Wulff wrote: The argument about this issue is slighlty more complex than just those points you have mentioned. The main concern is that unlike talking to a passenger in the car, the person on the other end of the conversation cannot react to the situtation you are in, and unlike simply listening to the radio it is very difficult for our brains to tune out of an involved conversation when necessary. I understand all this. But if I'm calling my wife from a traffic jam, it's nothing more than "quick call, I'm stuck in traffic, I'd guess I'll be half hour late, see you then. ". Anyone I know will understand that if I start a conversation with "I'm on the road" then they
-
Martin Marvinski wrote: Thank god I live in the USA :-) May be all of us outside of the USA agree. :-) Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.