Interesting
-
Oh Matt - you should know better than to cite personal anecdotes of evidence of anything. The evidence that carrying guns lowers crime is sketchy, to say the least. I could cite numerous studies refuting it, and no doubt you’d then come back with others (no doubt funded by the NRA) that support it – but even if it’s true that it helps locally, it does not help in the wider community – all you do is push the violence elsewhere. Because there is one indisputable fact that no-one needs an academic study on to see: The USA has lots of guns, and a high rate of gun crime and deaths by gunshot. Countries that don’t have many guns have fewer gun crimes or people killed by them. So far so simple. And the USA has, by far, the highest number of guns per person in the world (and if you restrict that to guns above a certain calibre, the numbers are even higher). But still, the real question is: why does it have the problems it does with them? And until they start addressing this and finding a way to deal with it, there will continue to be a problem there. No problem is ever until you get to the root of it. And you surely cannot be serious in suggesting that Britain would be better off if we legalised guns here as well.
A_Griffin wrote:
The evidence that carrying guns lowers crime is sketchy
Didnt say it did. That is your assumption about what I meant because you want an argument. :)
A_Griffin wrote:
Countries that don’t have many guns have fewer gun crimes or people killed by them
And there, as always, you are completely wrong. Canada has far more guns per capita than the US but a very low gun crime rate. You really shouldnt imagine the world Griffin, you should experience it. ;P
-
Oh Matt - you should know better than to cite personal anecdotes of evidence of anything. The evidence that carrying guns lowers crime is sketchy, to say the least. I could cite numerous studies refuting it, and no doubt you’d then come back with others (no doubt funded by the NRA) that support it – but even if it’s true that it helps locally, it does not help in the wider community – all you do is push the violence elsewhere. Because there is one indisputable fact that no-one needs an academic study on to see: The USA has lots of guns, and a high rate of gun crime and deaths by gunshot. Countries that don’t have many guns have fewer gun crimes or people killed by them. So far so simple. And the USA has, by far, the highest number of guns per person in the world (and if you restrict that to guns above a certain calibre, the numbers are even higher). But still, the real question is: why does it have the problems it does with them? And until they start addressing this and finding a way to deal with it, there will continue to be a problem there. No problem is ever until you get to the root of it. And you surely cannot be serious in suggesting that Britain would be better off if we legalised guns here as well.
Weapons are easy to find illegally, and cheaper too. UK and Australia are islands, which severely limits the ways illegal stuff can cross the border. In the continent the story is different - those :elephant:s that shot on people at Bataclan got their full automatic (illegal anywhere) weapons on the black market for 200€ each, while a cheap chinese semiauto Type56 costs at least 700€. In Italy mafia is well armed... and criminals manage to steal hundreds of guns from polic departments (when corrupt policemen don't directly sell the confiscated weapons [and drugs too]). See Switzerland for gun crime - it's the most armed nation in Europe and yet...
GCS d-- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
-
Many people, common honest workers, in Italy are now packing at least a knife for self defense, risking more jail time than the perpetrators (if you have something to lose the system f***s you, if you are a criminal the system protects you because "poor guy"). Still they (we, actually) accept the risk because it's easier to get out of jail than from a casket.
GCS d-- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
Do you have trial by jury in Italy? In the UK we do, and people will generally side with the defendant in this case (as do the police). I remember a story my wife, ex PC, told me. She went to a break in where the owner had hit the burglar over the head with a cricket bat as he was leaving. Her sergeant, who was with her, said, "No, you hit him AS he was coming to wards you, because you felt threatened". Eventually the owner caught on and agreed that is what happened. :)
-
A_Griffin wrote:
The evidence that carrying guns lowers crime is sketchy
Didnt say it did. That is your assumption about what I meant because you want an argument. :)
A_Griffin wrote:
Countries that don’t have many guns have fewer gun crimes or people killed by them
And there, as always, you are completely wrong. Canada has far more guns per capita than the US but a very low gun crime rate. You really shouldnt imagine the world Griffin, you should experience it. ;P
-
Do you have trial by jury in Italy? In the UK we do, and people will generally side with the defendant in this case (as do the police). I remember a story my wife, ex PC, told me. She went to a break in where the owner had hit the burglar over the head with a cricket bat as he was leaving. Her sergeant, who was with her, said, "No, you hit him AS he was coming to wards you, because you felt threatened". Eventually the owner caught on and agreed that is what happened. :)
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Do you have trial by jury in Italy?
Only in very specific cases and they are becoming rarer as the time passes. Besides, a typical trial lasts 5 to 20 years and the judicial system is heavily left-wing leaned. Anedocte: judges (even those who can act only on civil causes for less than 30k€ damage requests) and prosecutors can buy, deteain and carry waepons on themselves without so much as the mandatory mental health visit common people need to do to simply access a gun range.
GCS d-- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Do you have trial by jury in Italy?
Only in very specific cases and they are becoming rarer as the time passes. Besides, a typical trial lasts 5 to 20 years and the judicial system is heavily left-wing leaned. Anedocte: judges (even those who can act only on civil causes for less than 30k€ damage requests) and prosecutors can buy, deteain and carry waepons on themselves without so much as the mandatory mental health visit common people need to do to simply access a gun range.
GCS d-- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
Ah, all big cases, ie beyond basic affray and motoring crimes, go before a jury in the UK. You have to be judged by your peers here. As in the US. We try to have a fair system. Right, you see this is why the US has laws that allow citizens to carry guns, so that the system is not biased against them.
-
Quote:
Canada has far more guns per capita than the US
Don't know where you get that figure from, but it doesn't appear to be from this planet.
I heard it on a program about gun crime. It was either guns per capita, or gun crimes per guns. One of the two. Anyway the point is that countries with high gun ownership dont mean high gun crime.
-
Weapons are easy to find illegally, and cheaper too. UK and Australia are islands, which severely limits the ways illegal stuff can cross the border. In the continent the story is different - those :elephant:s that shot on people at Bataclan got their full automatic (illegal anywhere) weapons on the black market for 200€ each, while a cheap chinese semiauto Type56 costs at least 700€. In Italy mafia is well armed... and criminals manage to steal hundreds of guns from polic departments (when corrupt policemen don't directly sell the confiscated weapons [and drugs too]). See Switzerland for gun crime - it's the most armed nation in Europe and yet...
GCS d-- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
I know a Moroccan (boy friend of an old female friend I have) who has relative in Lyon. They have AK 47s and are involved in some shady stuff. Guns are VERY easy to get on the continent, especially since the wall came down.
-
I heard it on a program about gun crime. It was either guns per capita, or gun crimes per guns. One of the two. Anyway the point is that countries with high gun ownership dont mean high gun crime.
The point is, countries with low gun ownership do have low gun crime rates. D'uh. And the USA has an especially high ownership rate. But, as I said before, we all know guns don't fire bullets themselves - someone has to pull the trigger. And, as I keep saying, the real question the USA has to ask itself is why it has this problem with guns.
-
The point is, countries with low gun ownership do have low gun crime rates. D'uh. And the USA has an especially high ownership rate. But, as I said before, we all know guns don't fire bullets themselves - someone has to pull the trigger. And, as I keep saying, the real question the USA has to ask itself is why it has this problem with guns.
A_Griffin wrote:
countries with low gun ownership do have low gun crime rates
No, Canada has a high gun ownership and low gun crime rate.
-
A_Griffin wrote:
countries with low gun ownership do have low gun crime rates
No, Canada has a high gun ownership and low gun crime rate.
-
Goodness sakes Matt - that does not refute my statement. Where did you not learn logical thinking?
Yes it does, by refuting the opposite. If you want what you wrote directly refuted consider ireland: Ireland, lower guns per capita than the UK[^] An Independent.ie analysis of homicide rates over the last decade reveals that you are almost six times more likely to be shot and killed in the 26 counties as you are in England/Wales.[^] You do make a habit of being completely wrong dont you? :)
-
I found this in a comment to a news story relating to the call to repeal of the 2nd Amendment. My only editing was to provide white space between paragraphs. ------------------ There are NO LAWFUL CIRCUMSTANCES under which any governmental entity in America can take weapons of military utility from the American people. All regulation of arms in effect in America are UNCONSTITUTIONAL because the government has NOT been enumerated any power to regulate our "arms" and are, in fact, specifically ENJOINED from infringing upon our RIGHT TO ARMS or even a small part of it, in any way whatsoever. Any "sworn officer" enforcing unconstitutional legislation upon their fellow Americans are "UNLAWFUL ACTORS" and are, in fact, committing Federal Felonies that are punishable by death pursuant to their own "code." Re. 18 USC 241, 242. Background Checks are BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL because they violate numerous provisions of our Supreme Law. It's not even arguable, to wit: FIRST AMENDMENT Right to a Presumption against the Imposition of PRIOR RESTRAINTS on the exercise of guaranteed rights/liberties/immunities which actually withstood the government's claim of a NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST! 2ND AMENDMENT Rights - "Arms" are "weapons of military utility" and the government is ENJOINED from "infringing" our right to arms in any way as: ABSOLUTELY FORBIDDEN TO VIOLATE. "Penumbra" rights (see 9th below) guarantee us access to attachments, ammo, appurtenances, accessories we desire. FOURTH AMENDMENT Right to be secure in our “effects”. Rights are “effects”. FIFTH AMENDMENT Rights to Due Process BEFORE being deprived of unalienable rights, to remain silent (Do we have to fill out a questionnaire before we can vote, or write a letter to the newspaper? Should we have to?), to not self-incriminate (just answer any of those questions wrong!)! NINTH AMENDMENT - numerous "Penumbra Rights” related to the Amendments mentioned and possibly other related fundamental, individual rights retained! And, FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT prohibition on states passing and enforcing laws which abridge the rights (“immunities”) of citizens and the right to Due Process – again! To name a few! And, a public vote of the ignorant people in NO WAY diminishes our fundamental, inherent, creator endowed, unalienable RIGHTS! No political entity has any lawful power to disparage or deny such RIGHTS. It's NOT the "Bill of NEEDS" and every "sworn officer", state or federal, in America is required to execute a sacred Oath of Office pledging to "su
-
Yes it does, by refuting the opposite. If you want what you wrote directly refuted consider ireland: Ireland, lower guns per capita than the UK[^] An Independent.ie analysis of homicide rates over the last decade reveals that you are almost six times more likely to be shot and killed in the 26 counties as you are in England/Wales.[^] You do make a habit of being completely wrong dont you? :)
Oh ffs Matt grow up. OF course it isn't a simple linear correlation between gun ownership and crimes using them, but the trend is obvious. If you don't have guns you can't use them. But of course in countries with particular social or political problems there will still be violence. I said all along, that t it's the causes of this that needs to be addresses, not gun control per se.
-
Oh ffs Matt grow up. OF course it isn't a simple linear correlation between gun ownership and crimes using them, but the trend is obvious. If you don't have guns you can't use them. But of course in countries with particular social or political problems there will still be violence. I said all along, that t it's the causes of this that needs to be addresses, not gun control per se.
A_Griffin wrote:
OF course it isn't a simple linear correlation between gun ownership and crimes using them, but the trend is obvious
3/4 ths the guns, 26 times the gun crime. Ireland VS the UK. No, there is no correlation, no trend. Why can't you admit that what you imagine is not the reality?
-
There's a common trend among people who bang on about their rights...they rarely understand their responsibilities.
Have I demonstrated that I don't understand my responsibilities?
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
Have I demonstrated that I don't understand my responsibilities?
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013My comment was aimed at the author of that (undoubtedly inaccurate) article and anyone who agrees with it or supports it. So if that hat fits, then wear it :)
-
I found this in a comment to a news story relating to the call to repeal of the 2nd Amendment. My only editing was to provide white space between paragraphs. ------------------ There are NO LAWFUL CIRCUMSTANCES under which any governmental entity in America can take weapons of military utility from the American people. All regulation of arms in effect in America are UNCONSTITUTIONAL because the government has NOT been enumerated any power to regulate our "arms" and are, in fact, specifically ENJOINED from infringing upon our RIGHT TO ARMS or even a small part of it, in any way whatsoever. Any "sworn officer" enforcing unconstitutional legislation upon their fellow Americans are "UNLAWFUL ACTORS" and are, in fact, committing Federal Felonies that are punishable by death pursuant to their own "code." Re. 18 USC 241, 242. Background Checks are BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL because they violate numerous provisions of our Supreme Law. It's not even arguable, to wit: FIRST AMENDMENT Right to a Presumption against the Imposition of PRIOR RESTRAINTS on the exercise of guaranteed rights/liberties/immunities which actually withstood the government's claim of a NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST! 2ND AMENDMENT Rights - "Arms" are "weapons of military utility" and the government is ENJOINED from "infringing" our right to arms in any way as: ABSOLUTELY FORBIDDEN TO VIOLATE. "Penumbra" rights (see 9th below) guarantee us access to attachments, ammo, appurtenances, accessories we desire. FOURTH AMENDMENT Right to be secure in our “effects”. Rights are “effects”. FIFTH AMENDMENT Rights to Due Process BEFORE being deprived of unalienable rights, to remain silent (Do we have to fill out a questionnaire before we can vote, or write a letter to the newspaper? Should we have to?), to not self-incriminate (just answer any of those questions wrong!)! NINTH AMENDMENT - numerous "Penumbra Rights” related to the Amendments mentioned and possibly other related fundamental, individual rights retained! And, FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT prohibition on states passing and enforcing laws which abridge the rights (“immunities”) of citizens and the right to Due Process – again! To name a few! And, a public vote of the ignorant people in NO WAY diminishes our fundamental, inherent, creator endowed, unalienable RIGHTS! No political entity has any lawful power to disparage or deny such RIGHTS. It's NOT the "Bill of NEEDS" and every "sworn officer", state or federal, in America is required to execute a sacred Oath of Office pledging to "su
-
First of all, I want to make it clear that what I'm going to say is in support of what John Simmons posted but what we are taking about ARE NOT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS! The American Declaration of Independence predated the US Constitution by many years. The US Constitution is not about granting rights to citizens, it is about citizens delegating powers to a government, those powers being the power to defend and maintain rights predating the US Constitution. That is important because what government grants it can deny. The Declaration of Independence makes it clear that these rights are "unalienable", they can't be alienated from us. They are not something that we have, they are what we are. It is not correct to say "I have a right to arm myself". It is correct to say "I AM right to arm myself". I AM right to defend myself and my property. I AM right to speak freely. I AM right to worship how I chose. I AM right to not allow unreasonable searches and seizures of my things. I AM right to not answer your questions. Now this is important because people say "well, we can change that law - we can repeal that amendment". Yes, you can. But that would be tyranny. Because even if you repeal the entire bill of rights, or for that matter, the entire US Constitution, it does not change that I AM right to arm myself. I AM right to defend myself and my property. I AM right to speak freely. I AM right to worship how I chose. I AM right to not allow unreasonable searches and seizures of my things. I AM right to not answer your questions. HUMAN RIGHTS PREDATED ANY GOVERNMENT - THEY ARE UNALIENABLE. And this is the dirty little secret that leftist liberals just don't like.
dlhale wrote:
HUMAN RIGHTS PREDATED ANY GOVERNMENT - THEY ARE UNALIENABLE.
No, they don't. You have as much rights as any other living being, including bacon. All your examples are privileges, and all of them were non-existent at the start. Your Miranda-rights aren't something that predated government, as without government that idea is nonsense.
dlhale wrote:
And this is the dirty little secret that leftist liberals just don't like.
Any realist would have trouble with the concept of "unalienable" rights.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
dlhale wrote:
HUMAN RIGHTS PREDATED ANY GOVERNMENT - THEY ARE UNALIENABLE.
No, they don't. You have as much rights as any other living being, including bacon. All your examples are privileges, and all of them were non-existent at the start. Your Miranda-rights aren't something that predated government, as without government that idea is nonsense.
dlhale wrote:
And this is the dirty little secret that leftist liberals just don't like.
Any realist would have trouble with the concept of "unalienable" rights.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
Precisely: "your" (pardon my use of second person but I'm not as proficient in English as I would like to be) rights are unalienable as much as you're strong enough to defend them. Human rights are a fresh invention, quite useful to punish some obscene dictatorships but still a new and local invention, which is being turned to waste by the new wave of snoflakes who'd insert any sort of amenity in the human rights, bloating them to usefulness.
GCS d-- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
