Gun controll?

[The Painter]

So much for democracy.

May I quote Chairman Mao?

“There is a serious tendency toward capitalism among the well-to-do peasants”

( Kind of prophetic)

Oops, not that one, this one;

“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

Sure was true when we threw your bloody British ass out of here.


------------------------------------------

to become a UK resident

And Canada. And France. And Germany. And Norway. And Sweden. And Austria. And so on......

Why on Earth would I want to leave the USA and go to one of these other countries. I lived outside the USA. Moving back to the states was like going in to the future, compared to the rest of the world. First world baby.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

May I quote Chairman Mao?

( Kind of prophetic)

Oops, not that one, this one;



Sure was true when we threw your bloody British ass out of here.

I may well be wrong, but I thought the only reason the USA won the war of independance was due to French aid.

 

[The Painter]

Not the only reason, but one of them.

 

[Architect]

Sure was true when we threw your bloody British ass out of here.

Ancient history. What's your point?

Why on Earth would I want to leave the USA and go to one of these other countries. I lived outside the USA. Moving back to the states was like going in to the future, compared to the rest of the world. First world baby.

I see. Western Europe. Not first world. Despite, say, having universal healthcare systems which give us longer life expectancy. Despite welfare systems that care for our poor in a way yours doesn't even aspire too. Despite, for example, statutory minimum holidays for employees which are in excess of your national norms.

I think you have a political view on "the rest of the world" which is unsupported by reality, but there you go.

 

[Architect]

I may well be wrong, but I thought the only reason the USA won the war of independance was due to French aid.

Indeed. And quite a lot of their countrymen fought for Britain. Many of whom then moved to Canada. Which didn't exactly rush to rebel. So not really a great comparison, is it?

 

[Drudgewire]

No problem missus we're doing a two for one special deal on imagined threats this week. Buy big gubberment, get crack addicted negroes for free. Only the freshest tastiest paranoia - best in the market or your money back.

Sweet, I'll take three. Shooting at stupid pieces of paper is no longer satiating the blood lust that comes with being a responsible gun owner.

 

[JoeEllison]

Hi




He's right, you know. Gun control doesn't lead to fascist government!

The communists were very fond of it too.

The communists were really fond of vodka. Vodka doesn't cause communism. You don't have any point whatsoever. You have a ton of gun nuttery.

 

[Architect]

Sweet, I'll take three. Shooting at stupid pieces of paper is no longer satiating the blood lust that comes with being a responsible gun owner.

Then join the army!

 

[Drudgewire]

Then join the army!

They keep asking me to stop doing drugs. Prudes.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

I am reflecting on the accidental death through firearms figures you presented. If we had a similar rate here the gun deaths would increase from 50 a year to 216.

I am wondering if I have got that calculation correct.

Not exactly, I think.

Our gun-owning population, the only population capable of having a firearm, "accidental death," is about 75 million (because, if you're a criminal, and you have an accidental death, it's felony homicide because you aren't supposed to HAVE a gun).

You guys actually seem to have about about 1.9 million registered firearms.

We have 800 accidental deaths in a population of 75 million.

You have 50 accidental gun deaths in a population of 1.9 million, assuming that every firearm is owned by a different person. This is fair because it gives you the largest population of gun owners to account for the 50 deaths, hence the lowest multiplier.

If we adjust the gun-owning population of 1.9 million to 75 million, we get a multiplier of something like 38.73.

All other things being equal, you'd have something like 1,936 accidental firearms deaths.

I believe your real rate would be much lower. Possibly as low as 800.



As rates per 100,000, 50 deaths in 1.9 million is about 2.58, while 800 in a population of 75 million is about 1.07.

THIS ASSUMES, and incorrectly, I think, that your 50 deaths are accidental. I believe that's a national total, so we'd need different comparisons.

If, in fact, those 50 deaths are a national total as I suspect but can't find, your rate of firearm deaths per 100,000 is something like 0.07, while the US rate (using total firearms deaths) is something like 10.22.

In an earlier post you said that you have all sorts of training and safety procedures. It would take us a while to get used to them so I presume our death rate would initially be higher.

Nah. We'd help you out.

Heck: The NRA'd be doing back flips and would probably pay for qualified US firearms instructors to go over and get you started.

Also as you pointed out we have huge alcohol problems, although I am pleased to report that the latest stats show the girls are catching us blokes up. Would you say that arming aggressive drunks would put the gun death rate up or down ?

I am just trying to get a picture of what things could be like.

Arming aggressive drunks is a generally bad idea.

If, on the other hand, you're committed to a policy of, "innocent until proven guilty," instead of peremptory containment, you kind of have to let them do what they want as long as they stay within the law, then come down as hard as you can when they jackassulate.

The point was that you guys can suffer fewer, "needless deaths," if you banned alcohol than we'd have, "needless deaths," if we banned firearms.

I think that Great Britain's likelihood of banning booze is approximately the same as the US's likelihood of banning firearms.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

The communists were really fond of vodka. Vodka doesn't cause communism. You don't have any point whatsoever. You have a ton of gun nuttery.

Hey! The counterpoint was that gun control is fascist. The point was that it was NOT fascist.

I PROVED YOUR POINT!

Sheesh - some guys can't accept help gracefully.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Yeah, but he'd also have an extremely competent army, navy and air force to compete against. Being sniped at on every corner certainly wouldn't help, but he would also have bigger fish to fry.

It may have been the WWII opinion that the US had an infinite supply of manpower and armaments, but the military was stretched so skinny that my father, too old for service, was in the, "home guard," and armed.

The west coast is huge, and the Japanese used submarines as troop transports. A foothold could have been accomplished, with a little planning, with ease.

...but for one thing.

Americans tend not to leave stuff like that to the military. In the US, until very recently, the People held themselves as the nation's Militia.

They weren't alone. From the Cornell University Law School US Code Collection website:

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.​

It didn't make much difference that they were unorganized.

I don't doubt that a bunch of determined Americans with rifles can make a damned nuisance of themselves, and I don't doubt they could cause a good number of casualties. But consider the situation in Iraq, where the insurgents are in effect (and ignoring the ideology for a moment) in the position being proposed, that of fighting a resistance against a government they do not want.

It's not so much the small-arms that cause the problems for the allies but mainly the use of HE - artillery rounds improvised into bombs, rocket-propelled grenades, mortars and suchlike - that is making the insurgency work. Without those, you're really reduced to sniping around the edges of the problem. And (unless I'm mistaken) those are already highly restricted in the USA. And even with those, they're not really winning (although I suppose blowing people up until the other side loses the will to go on and gives up may count as such).

I don't really want to derail here, perhaps it's an argument for a different thread.

You can't win a revolution with small arms. You can't win it with tanks and planes and bombs, either.

You WIN a revolution with the support of the people of the nation, and the recognition of the international community of nations.

The American revolutionaries didn't stand much of a chance against an organized and entrenched military with infantry, cavalry, and cannon, either.

By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
Their flag to April's breeze unfurled;
Here once the embattled farmers stood;
And fired the shot heard round the world.​

With small arms, you can only START a revolution.

 

[JonathanClement]

The first step to recovery is recognising you have a problem. Now that you've done that, seriously, get real help from a real world professional. You'll never regret it.

Now, about paranoia.

I just watched the video that started all this. I've never seen such a dishonest, slanted, lying piece of [rule-10] in my life.

I'm not going to comment on the Australian stuff, let Mobyseven and others do that. But as far as the British stuff goes, it's lies.

There have never been public protests against any gun control legislation in Britain. For the very simple reason that a dozen or so people don't make a good show.

Note that all the interviews were with individuals, a very few individuals who were miffed that their pet hobby had been interfered with. Their annoyance had some justification to it, because in fact the measures taken in 1997 were unlikely to make any real difference to gun safety, and were introduced more to appease strong public demand for more legislation. They were cross, and some were over-reacting, but that's it.

Did you notice one man's reference to "60,000 people"? That confirms our earlier information that only 0.1% of the population were affected by these new laws. And you can bet that the speaker didn't minimise the number he quoted either. Why is this? Because before the new legislation, practically nobody kept these sorts of guns. This was a minority interest in a minority sport.

What the NRA are doing in that film is letting US viewers imagine that the British situation is like the American one, with high levels of gun ownership. Then the assumption is that the new legislation affects many many people who are having their civil rights interfered with by a cruel and oppressive government. No. It was a very few people who were cross about having their pet hobby banned. The film makers then sought out the most narked of these people, the few who were prepared to voice their annoyance in the language of the US gun nut, and they had their programme.

What they didn't show was the actual public protests demanding that gun legislation. Now these had quite a respectable turnout and significantly affected the decision to go for more legislation.

What they did show was, as has been pointed out, footage of a demonstration about a diametrically opposed matter. The new legislation which actually required people who wanted to control foxes to use a gun! These people marching en masse were specifically objecting to being told to use guns because they wanted to go on chasing the foxes with dogs.

How dishonest is it to use such footage to imply that this was a reaction to gun control legislation?

There was one particularly nasty part where an old guy turned to the camera and said that if this legislation went through, his way of life was finished. Well, that's what he thought, though I'll bet if you found him now he's still doing what he always did, more or less. However, his concerns had nothing to do with guns being taken away. The use of this clip was just monstrous.

And where did they get that small boy in the school uniform? One ten-year-old who could be persuaded to say that he wanted his dad to take him shooting? One?? One little private schoolboy with an upper-class accent, that was it?

There was another clip (towards the end) of a smart chap talking to camera with the march in the background, exhorting the US not to give in to gun control. He spoke in an English accent, but who was he? The fact is that the march in the back of the shot had nothing to do with gun control. This was a contrived shot, either getting someone to express an opinion on an unrelated matter at the scene, or simply setting it up with an English supporter.

So if you want paranoia, you really need to worry about the NRA guys of yours. They are so dishonest that they are prepared to lie and misrepresent and deceive to get their twisted point of view across. They're your real concern.

Just read through the thread again and note the responses of the British posters here. Everybody is telling you that we're entirely comfortable with strict gun controls. That the gun nut lobby is so small it could probably fit into a single taxi. That while we may think our government are a bunch of morons, we really don't worry at all about the gun issue, because we like it that they clamp down on the bloody things.

You need to realise that the US attitude is the aberration. Almost alone in the developed first world, you have this weird fixation with guns, and they are invested with all sorts of symbolism of freedom and manliness and so on. To the rest of us they're just lethal weapons we're all better off without.

Maybe you'd feel better if you travelled a bit and saw that the US psyche really is quite screwed up on the issue. Don't let is screw you up too. Realise that the manipulative [rule-10s] here are the NRA. They are your enemy, becuase they want you to believe what simply isn't true, to make you afraid and paranoid, for their own purposes.

Don't give in to them. Get help.

Rolfe.

Okay, okay, I get it... But just out of curiosity, did you see the movie called "Zeitgeist"?

 

[JoeEllison]

They keep asking me to stop doing drugs. Prudes. [qimg]http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/colbert.gif[/qimg]

Since you're not a law-abiding citizen, why should you be allowed to have a gun?

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

I demonstrated that the deliberate gun deaths in the UK is quite low. The chances of been murdered with a gun in the UK in a year is 1 in 1,215,524. It follows that guns are 3.3 times more likely kill accidentally than deliberately. How would you suggest we do a cost benefit analysis on these figures ?

US Accidental deaths with firearms: About 800
US Deliberate deaths with firearms: About 29,700

How do you arrive at the accidental rate being 3 times the deliberate rate.

I'd have to know that before we do a C/B analysis.

 

[JoeEllison]

Okay, okay, I get it... But just out of curiosity, did you see the movie called "Zeitgeist"?

Maybe you shouldn't consider YouTube, home of farting dogs and bad sing-alongs and and people getting smacked in the package, as a source of information.

 

[Drudgewire]

Since you're not a law-abiding citizen, why should you be allowed to have a gun?

I swear gun control advocates are even easier to work than animal rights advocates.

Carnies and rubes, my friends. Carnies and rubes...

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

I bounced that idea off my history buff father in law. He just laughed saying that there's no way the Japanese could have mustered the needed manpower to mount such an invasion, let alone hold anything.

Kind of like how they couldn't attack Pearl Harbor because of the patrols, radar, ship defenses, air defenses, and the study done by the American fleet folks that pretty much outlined how it happened, done some time before the attack?

 

[JonathanClement]

Maybe you shouldn't consider YouTube, home of farting dogs and bad sing-alongs and and people getting smacked in the package, as a source of information.

Actually, it has it's own website.

 

[JoeEllison]

I swear gun control advocates are even easier to work than animal rights advocates.

Carnies and rubes, my friends. Carnies and rubes...

So, which are you? A liar or a criminal?