Why the British Jealousy(?) and negativity, RE cars?

[jaedba2604]

XitUp said:

Sorry, I'll take evidence over your opinion any day.

martin84 said:

Less people in Canada, more room for people to run away from those with guns.

I wouldn't say gun ownership has very little to do with it. Nations with tight gun control have far lower gun death rates than America, so either Americans are naturally homicidal - more so than everybody else - or its because other countries put less guns in peoples hands.

Switzerland. Very high gun ownership, very low murder rate.

I was wrong about Canada having more guns by the way, just looked it up.

But still, the correlation between gun ownership and murder rate is pretty weak.

try looking at the correlations between gdp per person, gun ownership and murder rate.

[martin84]

Jimbeaux said:

I disagree. We have had them for hundreds of years. You think only the government should be armed? Perhaps it is your view that is stupid.

Only people with extensive Police or Military training should be allowed to own a gun of any description. You shouldnt be able to pick up a shotgun in a supermarket alongside milk and bread. Civilians are stupid, the general public are idiots and I wouldn't trust them with a flower basket let alone a loaded gun, so yes, only authorities should be armed.

XitUp said:

But still, the correlation between gun ownership and murder rate is pretty weak.

What about the correlation between gun ownership and people shooting at people?

[Jimbeaux]

What you folks fail to acknowledge, probably due to the PC, is that a vast majority of those high statistics are centered in very small geographical areas and consist of black on black gang-related crime. Not PC but fact.

[Marquis Rex]

Jimbeaux said:

XitUp said:

jaedba2604 said:

XitUp said:

It's slightly safer. Murder rate of 0.81 vs our 1.23. Thankfully neither are close to the 4.8 of where you live.

slightly?? looks like the UK is 50% less safe from your figures...

And 400% safer than America. So 'slightly' is relative.

Referring to us as "unsafe"; I should whack you for that comment!

Yes it's so so unsafe here, I'm suprised me and Jimebeaux haven't been killed yet

[marcosgt]

jaedba2604 said:

XitUp said:

Sorry, I'll take evidence over your opinion any day.

martin84 said:

Less people in Canada, more room for people to run away from those with guns.

I wouldn't say gun ownership has very little to do with it. Nations with tight gun control have far lower gun death rates than America, so either Americans are naturally homicidal - more so than everybody else - or its because other countries put less guns in peoples hands.

Switzerland. Very high gun ownership, very low murder rate.

I was wrong about Canada having more guns by the way, just looked it up.

But still, the correlation between gun ownership and murder rate is pretty weak.

try looking at the correlations between gdp per person, gun ownership and murder rate.

I think the earlier poster will also find that Canadian bullets are very nearly as fast as American or Swiss ones

Easily fast enough to beat even Ben Johnson!

M.

Edited by marcosgt on Thursday 24th May 16:38

[martin84]

Jimbeaux said:

is that a vast majority of those high statistics are centered in very small geographical areas and consist of black on black gang-related crime.

Oh well thats fine then.

[Jimbeaux]

martin84 said:

Jimbeaux said:

I disagree. We have had them for hundreds of years. You think only the government should be armed? Perhaps it is your view that is stupid.

Only people with extensive Police or Military training should be allowed to own a gun of any description. You shouldnt be able to pick up a shotgun in a supermarket alongside milk and bread. Civilians are stupid, the general public are idiots and I wouldn't trust them with a flower basket let alone a loaded gun, so yes, only authorities should be armed.

XitUp said:

But still, the correlation between gun ownership and murder rate is pretty weak.

What about the correlation between gun ownership and people shooting at people?

Aren't you the conformist. Are you up for this year's EU poster boy?

[Jimbeaux]

martin84 said:

Jimbeaux said:

is that a vast majority of those high statistics are centered in very small geographical areas and consist of black on black gang-related crime.

Oh well thats fine then.

Not fine but fact....still begins with an "f" though, so you have that going for you.

[martin84]

doogz said:

You're not doing yourself any favours with this post. Making yourself look a bit daft.

Mate, tune in to the news every now and then or have a look at the comments sections on news websites. Maybe check out the fact a member of the public mistook a high vis scarecrow for Jeremy Clarkson and you will realise the public are thick. Are these the sort of people you really want to trust with guns?

[Jimbeaux]

Marquis Rex said:

Jimbeaux said:

XitUp said:

jaedba2604 said:

XitUp said:

It's slightly safer. Murder rate of 0.81 vs our 1.23. Thankfully neither are close to the 4.8 of where you live.

slightly?? looks like the UK is 50% less safe from your figures...

And 400% safer than America. So 'slightly' is relative.

Referring to us as "unsafe"; I should whack you for that comment!

Yes it's so so unsafe here, I'm suprised me and Jimebeaux haven't been killed yet

Cover me Rex, I am going to the fridge for two cold ones!

[LuS1fer]

Jimbeaux said:

I disagree. We have had them for hundreds of years. You think only the government should be armed? Perhaps it is your view that is stupid.

Perhaps you and the government should shoot it out to decide who has the right to make laws and oppress. After all, you live by the gun, you die by the gun, you can't really have both.

[Jimbeaux]

martin84 said:

doogz said:

You're not doing yourself any favours with this post. Making yourself look a bit daft.

Mate, tune in to the news every now and then or have a look at the comments sections on news websites. Maybe check out the fact a member of the public mistook a high vis scarecrow for Jeremy Clarkson and you will realise the public are thick. Are these the sort of people you really want to trust with guns?

The comments section of news sites? Can't get more factual than that, can we?

[Jimbeaux]

LuS1fer said:

Jimbeaux said:

I disagree. We have had them for hundreds of years. You think only the government should be armed? Perhaps it is your view that is stupid.

Perhaps you and the government should shoot it out to decide who has the right to make laws and oppress. After all, you live by the gun, you die by the gun, you can't really have both.

We have had both for better than two centuries now, so yes, I believe we can. A bit of checks and balances keeps things civil.

[martin84]

Jimbeaux said:

The comments section of news sites? Can't get more factual than that, can we?

What I'm saying is if you allow civilians to own guns you're therefore giving guns to the lowest denominator. Bad idea.

[Jimbeaux]

martin84 said:

Jimbeaux said:

The comments section of news sites? Can't get more factual than that, can we?

What I'm saying is if you allow civilians to own guns you're therefore giving guns to the lowest denominator. Bad idea.

You are so informed!

[marcosgt]

Jimbeaux said:

martin84 said:

doogz said:

You're not doing yourself any favours with this post. Making yourself look a bit daft.

Mate, tune in to the news every now and then or have a look at the comments sections on news websites. Maybe check out the fact a member of the public mistook a high vis scarecrow for Jeremy Clarkson and you will realise the public are thick. Are these the sort of people you really want to trust with guns?

The comments section of news sites? Can't get more factual than that, can we?

Even in America, few states let ANYONE have a gun.

Undoubtedly gun crime rates are high there, but keeping guns out of the hands of law abiding people isn't the way to stop criminals using guns and the fear of 'gun nuts' running amok (although horrible when it happens, even in Switzerland!) is much greater a problem than the reality.

The handgun ban bought in after Hungerford hasn't stopped nutters killing people and it hasn't done anything to stop criminals acquiring guns in ever increasing numbers.

Wherever you stand on gun ownership, it's hard to say that the UK legislation of the last few years has actually helped much and it has penalised many perfectly rational, law abiding people (including Olympic competitors!).

M.

Edited by marcosgt on Thursday 24th May 16:46

[jaedba2604]

martin84 said:

Jimbeaux said:

The comments section of news sites? Can't get more factual than that, can we?

What I'm saying is if you allow civilians to own guns you're therefore giving guns to the lowest denominator. Bad idea.

are you for real boss?!

define 'civilians' and 'public'..

[martin84]

marcosgt said:

Even in America, few states let ANYONE have a gun.

Theres so many guns in America though that it doesnt take much for one to land up in the hands of someone who shouldn't have it.

marcosgt said:

Undoubtedly gun crime rates are high there, but keeping guns out of the hands of law abiding people isn't the way to stop criminals using guns and the fear of 'gun nuts' running amok (although horrible when it happens, even in Switzerland!) is much greater a problem than the reality.

Oh I agree America has fked itself up so thoroughly on this issue there is no going back. The second amendment is about 300 years old so sensible people would conclude its horrifically outdated and should be ignored/scrapped by now, this is 2012 after all. However theres so many guns in America now it's impossible to get them all back, so they're in a never ending spiral.

marcosgt said:

Wherever you stand on gun ownership, it's hard to say that the UK legislation of the last few years has actually helped much and it has penalised many perfectly rational, law abiding people (including Olympic competitors!).

The problem is for every rational law abiding person theres somebody who isnt. All you need is for 1 in 100 to not be rational or law abiding and you've got increased sales of bodybags.

[Jimbeaux]

martin84 said:

marcosgt said:

Even in America, few states let ANYONE have a gun.

Theres so many guns in America though that it doesnt take much for one to land up in the hands of someone who shouldn't have it.

marcosgt said:

Undoubtedly gun crime rates are high there, but keeping guns out of the hands of law abiding people isn't the way to stop criminals using guns and the fear of 'gun nuts' running amok (although horrible when it happens, even in Switzerland!) is much greater a problem than the reality.

Oh I agree America has fked itself up so thoroughly on this issue there is no going back. The second amendment is about 300 years old so sensible people would conclude its horrifically outdated and should be ignored/scrapped by now, this is 2012 after all. However theres so many guns in America now it's impossible to get them all back, so they're in a never ending spiral.

marcosgt said:

Wherever you stand on gun ownership, it's hard to say that the UK legislation of the last few years has actually helped much and it has penalised many perfectly rational, law abiding people (including Olympic competitors!).

The problem is for every rational law abiding person theres somebody who isnt. All you need is for 1 in 100 to not be rational or law abiding and you've got increased sales of bodybags.

The constitution was adopted 225 years ago, not 300. Small fact correction in case facts begin mattering to you. Have you thought about looking inward to what causes your skyrocketing rate of crime and violence?

[martin84]

Jimbeaux said:

The constitution was adopted 225 years ago, not 300.

Either way, its long enough ago for it to be ignored by now.