Minority ruining it for the majority... again
-
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.
-
What if one guy bites another to death? Are we going to let gov't put our teeth off? Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com
Free your mind and your ass will follow.
-
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
pdriley wrote: What? Drug use was rife in the late 1800s The requirements to support a drug habbit (which typically goes into many different types of drug nowadays) are much higher with only a small change in the ability to meet them. Drugs have gone hand in hand with the gang culture that took hold during the late 1900s and is still growing. Yet another compelling reason for my mandatory neutering idea btw... pdriley wrote: what harm am I doing? The first thing that will become apparent when you talk to a driver is that they believe they are the best driver in the world and everyone else is at fault. No matter how well you think you can cope with the situation mobile passengers are a threat to your total concentration - they cannot react instantly to any situations that may arrise. You may not, god forbid, always have time to say "hold on" before you have to manouvre your vehicle into oncomming traffic to avoid a stray deer... pdriley wrote: 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 Oh of course there is, if executed correctly (if you'll pardon the phrase), but it just doesn't happen like that most of the time. There are two reasons to consider: 1. Carrying a gun is like consuming alcohol - it gives you undue confidence in your abilities, and indirectly it could very well result in the "I am bigger than him" syndrome. 2. The vast majority of armed criminals have no intention whatsoever of using a firearm against a victim - it is there purely for intimidation and if necessary for a "if I go down I am taking you with me" mentality. A victim faced with such a situation gets the adrenaline and number (1) above and will likely attempt to face off the attacker. The result is a big mess. As I have said numerous times before, and as every police force and specialist department in the world has agreed on for decades if not longer - you never ever ever let an armed man feel his total control over a situation is challenged in any way if there is a life directly at risk. Even their own. Many thousands of murders are commited each year by people who would not otherwise be murderers were it not for people suffering from number (1) and not understanding this simple and logical rule. Victims of violent crime and intimidation can be couns
-
pdriley wrote: What? Drug use was rife in the late 1800s The requirements to support a drug habbit (which typically goes into many different types of drug nowadays) are much higher with only a small change in the ability to meet them. Drugs have gone hand in hand with the gang culture that took hold during the late 1900s and is still growing. Yet another compelling reason for my mandatory neutering idea btw... pdriley wrote: what harm am I doing? The first thing that will become apparent when you talk to a driver is that they believe they are the best driver in the world and everyone else is at fault. No matter how well you think you can cope with the situation mobile passengers are a threat to your total concentration - they cannot react instantly to any situations that may arrise. You may not, god forbid, always have time to say "hold on" before you have to manouvre your vehicle into oncomming traffic to avoid a stray deer... pdriley wrote: 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 Oh of course there is, if executed correctly (if you'll pardon the phrase), but it just doesn't happen like that most of the time. There are two reasons to consider: 1. Carrying a gun is like consuming alcohol - it gives you undue confidence in your abilities, and indirectly it could very well result in the "I am bigger than him" syndrome. 2. The vast majority of armed criminals have no intention whatsoever of using a firearm against a victim - it is there purely for intimidation and if necessary for a "if I go down I am taking you with me" mentality. A victim faced with such a situation gets the adrenaline and number (1) above and will likely attempt to face off the attacker. The result is a big mess. As I have said numerous times before, and as every police force and specialist department in the world has agreed on for decades if not longer - you never ever ever let an armed man feel his total control over a situation is challenged in any way if there is a life directly at risk. Even their own. Many thousands of murders are commited each year by people who would not otherwise be murderers were it not for people suffering from number (1) and not understanding this simple and logical rule. Victims of violent crime and intimidation can be couns
David Wulff wrote: The requirements to support a drug habbit (which typically goes into many different types of drug nowadays) are much higher with only a small change in the ability to meet them. Which is pretty much what I was saying but my methods for dealing with this would be different. David Wulff wrote: The first thing that will become apparent when you talk to a driver is that they believe they are the best driver in the world and everyone else is at fault. Far from it. If anything I'm far too quick to take the blame for other people's mistakes. All I'm saying here is that I was in more control talking to someone on the phone for five minutes than I would have been had I tried to continue as I was. The second I got chance to get off the road, I was off the road and drinking my good old friend coffee. Until then I was a danger and I did what I could to limit that danger. David Wulff wrote: You may not, god forbid, always have time to say "hold on" before you have to manouvre your vehicle into oncomming traffic to avoid a stray deer... Hence I would just say nothing, I can blank out someone talking to me as quickly as I can blank out the radio. If they continue to talk then they'll have to repeat themselves. Simple. But, okay, let's assume that you're right. Let's assume that I am a danger the second I start talking to someone else. Fine, sue me. I'm a negligent driver, driving without due care. Why is there a need to prosecute me with anything else other than the laws that exist? Why remove something that could be a benefit in another situation? David Wulff wrote: Carrying a gun is like consuming alcohol - it gives you undue confidence in your abilities I don't buy this. Hell, if I actually had a gun I'd have to be pretty damned threatened before I'd even draw it, let alone use it. I'm sure a lot of people, while talking a good game, would be hard-pushed to actually convince their brain functions that taking a human life was right. It's just not that easy to kill someone. BUT if my life and more importantly my family's lives were threatened, that would make a difference. I'd rather get shot trying to defend my wife than sit back and watch someone hurt her. Given that scenario, I'd quite like a fighting chance though. At the moment, the best I've got is throwing my cat at an intruder. I guess she might do some damage and they'd probab
-
David Wulff wrote: The requirements to support a drug habbit (which typically goes into many different types of drug nowadays) are much higher with only a small change in the ability to meet them. Which is pretty much what I was saying but my methods for dealing with this would be different. David Wulff wrote: The first thing that will become apparent when you talk to a driver is that they believe they are the best driver in the world and everyone else is at fault. Far from it. If anything I'm far too quick to take the blame for other people's mistakes. All I'm saying here is that I was in more control talking to someone on the phone for five minutes than I would have been had I tried to continue as I was. The second I got chance to get off the road, I was off the road and drinking my good old friend coffee. Until then I was a danger and I did what I could to limit that danger. David Wulff wrote: You may not, god forbid, always have time to say "hold on" before you have to manouvre your vehicle into oncomming traffic to avoid a stray deer... Hence I would just say nothing, I can blank out someone talking to me as quickly as I can blank out the radio. If they continue to talk then they'll have to repeat themselves. Simple. But, okay, let's assume that you're right. Let's assume that I am a danger the second I start talking to someone else. Fine, sue me. I'm a negligent driver, driving without due care. Why is there a need to prosecute me with anything else other than the laws that exist? Why remove something that could be a benefit in another situation? David Wulff wrote: Carrying a gun is like consuming alcohol - it gives you undue confidence in your abilities I don't buy this. Hell, if I actually had a gun I'd have to be pretty damned threatened before I'd even draw it, let alone use it. I'm sure a lot of people, while talking a good game, would be hard-pushed to actually convince their brain functions that taking a human life was right. It's just not that easy to kill someone. BUT if my life and more importantly my family's lives were threatened, that would make a difference. I'd rather get shot trying to defend my wife than sit back and watch someone hurt her. Given that scenario, I'd quite like a fighting chance though. At the moment, the best I've got is throwing my cat at an intruder. I guess she might do some damage and they'd probab
pdriley wrote: Why remove something that could be a benefit in another situation? They are ways to use them safely, and stuck in traffic would seem to be fine, whereas doing 90 on the M5 would not be. pdriley wrote: I don't buy this. Hell, if I actually had a gun I'd have to be pretty damned threatened before I'd even draw it, let alone use it. You assume a lot of people are the same as you - it isn't so. Just ask your local Jehovas Witness for the proof to this... some people actually let them in! :-D Back to being serious again, a lot of people own guns *for* the confidence it gives them. I know - I've spoken with a whole bunch of them before face-to-face, and see them everywhere in our perfectly little societies. They are not the minority. pdriley wrote: It's just not that easy to kill someone Killing a person is as easy as making one split second misjudgement. how many split second misjudgements have you made under the influence of alcohol, testosterone or adrenaline? I can't count my own. pdriley wrote: BUT if my life and more importantly my family's lives were threatened, that would make a difference. I'd rather get shot trying to defend my wife than sit back and watch someone hurt her. Given that scenario, I'd quite like a fighting chance though. Should the situation physically involve the victim (your wife) being hurt, then by all means move in with appropriate action, but under threat alone you should not move in with force (real or perceived) or you are putting the victim in even more *real* danger. Again the police use the same tactics every time - they never strike until the agressor has shown they are willing to cross the thin grey line between intimidation and physical harm. There is another saying that the SAS use in hostage situations - you don't move in until the first hostage is down. It may sound brutal but their aim is to save the most lives not assit with a bloodbath. Remember: good intentions and assumptions have little ryhmes that go with them. They say my personality is introverted intuitive thinking and judging...
David Wulff
-
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.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Well put you eloquent young whipper-snapper you Why thank you, you loud-mouthed tired old fart... :rolleyes: ;P
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
-
pdriley wrote: Why remove something that could be a benefit in another situation? They are ways to use them safely, and stuck in traffic would seem to be fine, whereas doing 90 on the M5 would not be. pdriley wrote: I don't buy this. Hell, if I actually had a gun I'd have to be pretty damned threatened before I'd even draw it, let alone use it. You assume a lot of people are the same as you - it isn't so. Just ask your local Jehovas Witness for the proof to this... some people actually let them in! :-D Back to being serious again, a lot of people own guns *for* the confidence it gives them. I know - I've spoken with a whole bunch of them before face-to-face, and see them everywhere in our perfectly little societies. They are not the minority. pdriley wrote: It's just not that easy to kill someone Killing a person is as easy as making one split second misjudgement. how many split second misjudgements have you made under the influence of alcohol, testosterone or adrenaline? I can't count my own. pdriley wrote: BUT if my life and more importantly my family's lives were threatened, that would make a difference. I'd rather get shot trying to defend my wife than sit back and watch someone hurt her. Given that scenario, I'd quite like a fighting chance though. Should the situation physically involve the victim (your wife) being hurt, then by all means move in with appropriate action, but under threat alone you should not move in with force (real or perceived) or you are putting the victim in even more *real* danger. Again the police use the same tactics every time - they never strike until the agressor has shown they are willing to cross the thin grey line between intimidation and physical harm. There is another saying that the SAS use in hostage situations - you don't move in until the first hostage is down. It may sound brutal but their aim is to save the most lives not assit with a bloodbath. Remember: good intentions and assumptions have little ryhmes that go with them. They say my personality is introverted intuitive thinking and judging...
David Wulff
David, You know what... neither of us is going to convince the other and as with Robert, I don't think we actually disagree all that much, it's all a matter of priorities. I just typed out a bunch of answers and then (believe it or not, it's true) my cat came over, headbutted the keyboard a few times and lost all my text (beyond even "undo" - how does that happen?) before I managed to stop her. I can't be bothered to type it all out again and you've just given me an idea for a much more light-hearted thread for the evening session ;). If you particularly want to pick this up another day, I love this debate. If not then we'll agree to disagree. Paul
-
David, You know what... neither of us is going to convince the other and as with Robert, I don't think we actually disagree all that much, it's all a matter of priorities. I just typed out a bunch of answers and then (believe it or not, it's true) my cat came over, headbutted the keyboard a few times and lost all my text (beyond even "undo" - how does that happen?) before I managed to stop her. I can't be bothered to type it all out again and you've just given me an idea for a much more light-hearted thread for the evening session ;). If you particularly want to pick this up another day, I love this debate. If not then we'll agree to disagree. Paul
pdriley wrote: beyond even "undo" - how does that happen? Press escape twice - bingo, no more message. :( pdriley wrote: If you particularly want to pick this up another day, I love this debate. If not then we'll agree to disagree I'll take the latter so I can spend some time working today. ;P On another note though I do have a good debate in the works using tree frogs as proof against the existance of a god, with a touch of sci-fi thrown in for good measure, but It will take me a few days to get a draft worked out so that it offends each of the major religions and countries equally...
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
-
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: Bet there is some politics behind that article too. There are politics behind *every* article, *every* case study, *every* poll. No human is unbiased so trying find some group that is unbiased to conduct such an article, case study, or poll is like the search for the fountain of youth. What gets me is how many people are so willing to proclaim a particular group biased but yet are blind to other groups bias. James "And we are all men; apart from the females." - Colin Davies
-
Another wanker has just made the district news for brandishing a cheap £17 "springer" bb gun in public. This makes two high profile cases in as many weeks (the first of which made the national news). District police are now asking people to hand in all their bb guns voluntarily. :(( As the owner of alomost $3,500 worth of high-end airsoft weaponry (AEGs and gas guns) there is no way in hell I will be giving them up now or when they make it illegal to own them - which they will do, mark my words, as long as these fucking idiots are allowed to own them. This will not only inconvienience me but cost retailers and sites around the country well into the hundreds of thousands of pounds. If you are in the UK and dont want to see the hobby and increasingly popular sport of hundreds and hundreds of people in this country going the same way as hand guns, write to your local police force and lobby them to ban the sale of bb guns to minors. They may be classed as toys, but there appearance alone should qualify them as dangerous weapons, and they should fall under the same legal restrictions as knifes. (I say legal as many retailers - quite rightly - self regulate the sale of these cheaper toys to children, but sadly not all). Personally I think the ARUs should shoot the little bastards if they are stupid enough to jepordise their lives and the public opinion of our sport. :mad:
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
Get a real gun. More bang for the buck. ;) Preferred storyline: - I am your father. Search your feelings and you'll know it's the truth. Together we can rule this galaxy like father and son. - Ok dad. Let's kick some butt!