• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

School shooting: but don't mention guns!

mike3 said:
And I suppose also, not so "quite strict" yet very effective. So what are the "right" controls?
Click to expand...

Exactly. And that's a very good question. I doubt I am remotely qualified to answer it, though I could certainly offer up some potential options to be explored. In fact I already have in this very thread, several times.
 
StankApe said:
Which may work for an isolated nation like yours. But, you don't have the gateway to South America at your doorstep. Gun ban= 1920's style prohibition at the border . We think the Cartels at the border are bad now? Let them have billions in guns running across the border along with the coke and the weed!!! it'll be a slaughter like we've never seen in this country.
Click to expand...


You'll note the very first point I raised in my post was the security of the US border. If the US seriously wants to address gun crime, and if the Mexico border is genuinely a source of high levels of firearms, it goes without saying that addressing border security must be a major element of any gun control measures.
 
NWO Sentryman said:
source please.
Click to expand...

Here

The UK violent crime rate is 2,034 per 100,000, the US violent crime rate is 466 per 100,000.

And I apologise, it is only 4.34 as bad, not 5x.

Of course, lionking is right, there are variations in how violent crime is measured that affect statistics, however the difference is enormous, and the difference in accounting cannot account for such a great discrepency.

The UK is one of the most violent countries in the world. But it has a very low homicide rate. Why? No guns.
 
Multivac said:
I've seen a few minutes* of FOX NEWS, so understand what you're saying, but surely there must be more to it.

* only watched a few minutes of it, as it didn't seem to relate to the planet i inhabit.
Click to expand...

I think Fox has created a captive market that feeds on fear it broadcasts to them. The more fearful they get, the more they have to watch. The more they watch, the better the ratings. The better the ratings, the fear Fox wants them to feel. It's a degenerate positive feedback loop.
 
!Kaggen said:
Really, the Dutch?
As a South African this is news to me.
I would have attributed our problems to
South Africans.
Click to expand...


I think it would be fair to say that your problems started with rascist colonial policies, and I think it would be fair to say that these rascist colonial policies were driven more strongly by Dutch colonists than British colonists. The same thing happened in New Zealand, except that we really only had the British, and their enthusiasm for rascism wasn't as great as the Dutch, and didn't last as long. Ditto for Australia.
 
gumboot said:
Here

The UK violent crime rate is 2,034 per 100,000, the US violent crime rate is 466 per 100,000.

And I apologise, it is only 4.34 as bad, not 5x.

Of course, lionking is right, there are variations in how violent crime is measured that affect statistics, however the difference is enormous, and the difference in accounting cannot account for such a great discrepency.
Click to expand...

"Cannot"? Are you quite sure about that?

There are quite significant differences between countries regarding what is classified as violent crime, as well as what will be recorded if it is reported, and, furthermore, what is likely to be reported in the first place. For example, in terms of kidnapping, Australia and Canada appear to have the highest levels, or Sweden is the place with the highest levels of rape in Europe. I haven't found a similar review for violent crime, per se, but given the variation shown in that one, I don't think we can rule out reporting differences at this stage.
 
zooterkin said:
"Cannot"? Are you quite sure about that?

There are quite significant differences between countries regarding what is classified as violent crime, as well as what will be recorded if it is reported, and, furthermore, what is likely to be reported in the first place. For example, in terms of kidnapping, Australia and Canada appear to have the highest levels, or Sweden is the place with the highest levels of rape in Europe. I haven't found a similar review for violent crime, per se, but given the variation shown in that one, I don't think we can rule out reporting differences at this stage.
Click to expand...

In the report I linked above only 11% of BCS violent incidents, from 2002/03 BCS interviews, even required attention from a doctor (which may be precautionary) a mere 2% of violent incidents resulted in a hospital stay. I think it's fair to say that the UK definition of violent crime is pretty broad. I'd be very surprised if the US equivalent wasn't more 'robust'.
 
StankApe said:
I have been listening to nothing but anti-american insults in most of these threads. irrational arguments, appeals to emotion. so I'm not supposed to mention them?

would you allow this method of argument to fly in any other thread?

I wouldn't.
Click to expand...

read my posts.
I am not anti american.
I am not insulting

If you have been listening to nothing but anti american insults then I can only strongly suggest that you either haven't bothered to read my posts or your judgement of what you have read is tainted by your own emotional response to my points.
 
StankApe said:
I wonder if the anti-gun people notice how much they sound like Pro-lifers? It's the same appeal to emotion, irrational fear mongering, and both based on "think of the children!!!!"

equally useless
Click to expand...

Again no.
I am anti gun and I do not sound like a pro lifer. This is because I have never made any reference to the abortion debate in this thread. The only way in which you could tell if I was a pro lifer is through my direct references to that issue. If you mean to be insulting by insinuating that I am a pro lifer because of my stance on guns, you have succeeded. I am suitably insulted.



I am pro choice.
 
It does seem strange to me the emotional attachment some people in the US have to guns, I suspect it is more an attachment ot the idea of a frontier culture than anything else and the guns are jsut the totemt/fetish object.

Like the emotioanl attachment to football in the UK, I do not get that either.
 
Kestrel said:
Some criminal managed to acquire a handgun, therefore all regulation of handguns is pointless?
Click to expand...

Actually, Canada has had a bad year reference the criminal use of handguns. There have been several high profile shootings. Montreal has seen some Mafioso related type hits, British Columbia has been struggling with the Asian/East Indian drug gangs and Toronto with the local gang-bangers shooting up parades, social gatherings and shopping malls.

It reached a point so bad in Toronto this year that the civilians started screaming for the city to ban the sale of bullets within the city limits. Someone I guess forgot to mention that unlicensed criminals are not able to legally purchase ammunition from the retail stores anyway. But as with most gun control initiatives, simple logic and rationality are largely ignored.

Apparently, it seems that there's more than just one gun-waving clown out there...
 
Last edited:
Dcdrac said:
what about the Americans who do not own guns are they unAmerican?
Click to expand...

Non-gun owners have the option to call on someone with a gun for help when the threat is immediate and the chips are down. Sounds more like something that the French might be inclined to do...
 
Dcdrac said:
It does seem strange to me the emotional attachment some people in the US have to guns, I suspect it is more an attachment ot the idea of a frontier culture than anything else and the guns are jsut the totemt/fetish object.

Like the emotioanl attachment to football in the UK, I do not get that either.
Click to expand...

Or they own guns that were owned by their fathers and grandfathers and handed down to them...and will be handed down to their sons...
 
Autolite said:
Non-gun owners have the option to call on someone with a gun for help when the threat is immediate and the chips are down. Sounds more like something that the French might be inclined to do...
Click to expand...

I really hope you are joking when you said this. if not, it's an unpleasant dig at the occupation that the French endured which is in very poor taste.
 
lionking said:
Just let me say that while its quite valid to compare homicide rates between countries, comparing "violence" is another thing altogether as the way assaults and crimes against the person are measured varies wildly from country to country.
Click to expand...

You saved me some typing there
 
NoahFence said:
Groovy.

Lets do nothing then. Don't talk about change, don't imply change, nothing. Just ignore it. It'll go away!
Click to expand...

I suppose what I've been trying to say is that the trend seems to be to focus laws on the gun (the implement used in the crime) rather than on the criminal, or criminal behavior.

Gun control laws are restrictions, rules, controls, prohibitions and regulations that law abiding gun owners will abide by, whereas those with criminal intent will simply ignore.

This is akin to a law requiring a muzzle to be worn on a dog with no teeth. People aren't aware that the dog hasn't any teeth, so seeing that dog muzzled only creates the illusion of safety.

Perhaps the laws should focus on the behavior of those bad dogs, who still have all their teeth, but refuse to wear the muzzle...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom