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

[XitUp]

The constitution/bill of rights was one of greatest things ever written. It is still pretty much valid, imo.

Prof Beard said:

The Swiss are prone to shoot themselves rather frequently though you will find...

Indeed. But the suicide rate of a country has no impact on my safety when I'm there. The murder rate may well do.

LuS1fer said:

Probably more to do with the degree of crowding and the expectation of what is unrealistically contained in the Bill of Rights like the right to have bare arms.
Not to forget The American Dream.
The Swiss have no dream, they've already achieved it.

America has a huge gap between rich and poor, which is more linked to crime than overall levels of wealth (or lack of it).

jaedba2604 said:

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

I have. See above.

martin84 said:

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.

If I trusted the police and government more I would agree with you.
Certain parts of America have too little gun control. We, in the UK have too much.

martin84 said:

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

What about it?
Of course gun crime will be higher if there is more guns. But overall crime rate may not necessarily be higher.

Jimbeaux said:

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.

What has it got to do with PC?
Most of that black on black drug crime was in the 80's-early 90's I think.

[jaedba2604]

martin84 said:

Jimbeaux said:

The constitution was adopted 225 years ago, not 300.

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

there's a couple of posters on this thread that are quite vociferous in their assertion and quite flippant in their defence.

[jaedba2604]

XitUp said:

America has a huge gap between rich and poor, which is more linked to crime than overall levels of wealth (or lack of it).

jaedba2604 said:

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

I have. See above.

a lot of your opinions (never stated as opinions, always stated as facts, amusingly - but we have covered that weeks ago) do seem to hinge on people with lower wealth not having a choice, which is rather patronising.

means do not make a dream, ambition, or a work ethic.
lack of means do not make an excuse.
people who have worked and achieved should not be forced by establishments populated by idealists such as yourself to bolster people with limited means who use that as an excuse to do as little that is constructive as possible.

[XitUp]

I think you're missing the point.

My opinion doesn't matter, neither does yours. Facts do. Facts show the correlation between wealth gap and crime rate.

Sorry if that upsets you or doesn't fit your politics. But as I said, your politics (and mine) don't really matter.

Some reading for you:
http://psych.mcmaster.ca/dalywilson/iiahr2001.pdf
http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resources/slides

Edited by XitUp on Thursday 24th May 17:38

[martin84]

doogz said:

So any law that has stood for 225 years or more, we should just ignore?

Groovy!

Laws should be reviewed as years go by to judge whether they're still relevent or right for the times. 225 years ago such a law was probably fitting and made sense, but in 2012 it doesnt.

Plenty on here feel the 70 limit is outdated and should be changed, so you do know what I mean.

[XitUp]

The laws are reviewed all the time.

You know there have been other firearm laws in the US since then. Yup?

[martin84]

XitUp said:

The laws are reviewed all the time.

You know there have been other firearm laws in the US since then. Yup?

They come out with mickey mouse firearm laws every year in the US, tiny little amendments here and there like longer waiting times for grenade launchers (or something like that) but its just the Americans scrabbling around putting sticking plasters on a broken nuclear reactor. They wouldnt need all these firearm laws if they just scrapped the second amendment. They know that as well, they just dont like to admit it.

The other firearm laws are just an attempt to reduce the damage done by the first one. Quite pathetic really.

[XitUp]

I think you're being overly emotional about the issue. Wanting things banned because they have the potential to be dangerous in the wrong hands is a strange point of view to take on a motoring forum.

[martin84]

XitUp said:

I think you're being overly emotional about the issue. Wanting things banned because they have the potential to be dangerous in the wrong hands is a strange point of view to take on a motoring forum.

A car is a useful item which people have to pass two tests to be allowed to use legally. A gun's only use is to shoot something.

[KB_S1]

Jimbeaux said:

Have you thought about looking inward to what causes your skyrocketing rate of crime and violence?

Where are we talking about here?

[TTwiggy]

XitUp said:

I think you're being overly emotional about the issue. Wanting things banned because they have the potential to be dangerous in the wrong hands is a strange point of view to take on a motoring forum.

And yet the Americans pursue a rigorous ban on certain narcotics...

[Jimbeaux]

KB_S1 said:

Jimbeaux said:

Have you thought about looking inward to what causes your skyrocketing rate of crime and violence?

Where are we talking about here?

As he was talking all of the U.S., I would say everywhere over there. If you say that makes no sense, I will say thank you for agreeing with my point.

[Jimbeaux]

martin84 said:

Jimbeaux said:

The constitution was adopted 225 years ago, not 300.

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

That's right, ignore a founding principle because it is old and unfashionable.

[Jimbeaux]

XitUp said:

The constitution/bill of rights was one of greatest things ever written. It is still pretty much valid, imo.

Prof Beard said:

The Swiss are prone to shoot themselves rather frequently though you will find...

Indeed. But the suicide rate of a country has no impact on my safety when I'm there. The murder rate may well do.

LuS1fer said:

Probably more to do with the degree of crowding and the expectation of what is unrealistically contained in the Bill of Rights like the right to have bare arms.
Not to forget The American Dream.
The Swiss have no dream, they've already achieved it.

America has a huge gap between rich and poor, which is more linked to crime than overall levels of wealth (or lack of it).

jaedba2604 said:

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

I have. See above.

martin84 said:

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.

If I trusted the police and government more I would agree with you.
Certain parts of America have too little gun control. We, in the UK have too much.

martin84 said:

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

What about it?
Of course gun crime will be higher if there is more guns. But overall crime rate may not necessarily be higher.

Jimbeaux said:

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.

What has it got to do with PC?
Most of that black on black drug crime was in the 80's-early 90's I think.

I appreciate your thoughtful response but I must take issue with a couple of points. First, black on black crime is at an all time high, not sure why you would think that the 80s and 90s was a peak. Secondly, to simply say that the income gap is responsible is not entirely true. There are many lower income communities that do not have high crime rates. The high crime rates fall into those communities that glorifies a culture of violence through dress, music, etc. as something to be respected, have 90% single mother households, and do not foster a sense of community.

[Jimbeaux]

TTwiggy said:

XitUp said:

I think you're being overly emotional about the issue. Wanting things banned because they have the potential to be dangerous in the wrong hands is a strange point of view to take on a motoring forum.

And yet the Americans pursue a rigorous ban on certain narcotics...

You don't?

[TTwiggy]

Jimbeaux said:

TTwiggy said:

XitUp said:

I think you're being overly emotional about the issue. Wanting things banned because they have the potential to be dangerous in the wrong hands is a strange point of view to take on a motoring forum.

And yet the Americans pursue a rigorous ban on certain narcotics...

You don't?

We didn't until you lot told us to

We didn't have a drug 'problem' before 1972, when we adopted your approach of criminalising the users.

For the record though, I do love the USA, and I support the second ammendment. It's just a shame that your government is 'happy' for you to all be armed, but doesn't want you to have a good time. Damn puritans.

[KB_S1]

Jimbeaux said:

As he was talking all of the U.S., I would say everywhere over there. If you say that makes no sense, I will say thank you for agreeing with my point.

Is US crime and violence rates on the increase?

[jaedba2604]

XitUp said:

I think you're missing the point.

My opinion doesn't matter, neither does yours. Facts do. Facts show the correlation between wealth gap and crime rate.

Sorry if that upsets you or doesn't fit your politics. But as I said, your politics (and mine) don't really matter.

Some reading for you:
http://psych.mcmaster.ca/dalywilson/iiahr2001.pdf
http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resources/slides

Edited by XitUp on Thursday 24th May 17:38

i'm not missing the point.

1) if it is your opinion, please state it thus. interpretation of facts is opinion, not fact.
2) it doesn't upset me, i am not disputing the gap between wealth is correlated to gun crime, it was me who made that point iirc, my problem is with how you deal with the wealth gap, that was the whole nub of my post. your politics merely papers over the cracks (or gaps if you prefer), my contention suggests dealing with the underlying cause, and the attitudes which create a wealth gap, and then resent that gap that they have created.

i do not really need to read your academic out takes.

every time you pop up i am reminded of that scene in good will hunting, in the bar, where some smug tt keeps regurgitating passages from text books without any consideration whatsoever for their application, or really giving it any thought. he ended up looking silly too.

if you wish to attempt to earn your intellectual stripes by posting one dimensional responses on an internet forum, then i hope it works for you. i cannot question your self confidence, and that, in some ways, is admirable.

[Jimbeaux]

TTwiggy said:

Jimbeaux said:

TTwiggy said:

XitUp said:

I think you're being overly emotional about the issue. Wanting things banned because they have the potential to be dangerous in the wrong hands is a strange point of view to take on a motoring forum.

And yet the Americans pursue a rigorous ban on certain narcotics...

You don't?

We didn't until you lot told us to

We didn't have a drug 'problem' before 1972, when we adopted your approach of criminalising the users.

For the record though, I do love the USA, and I support the second ammendment. It's just a shame that your government is 'happy' for you to all be armed, but doesn't want you to have a good time. Damn puritans.

[Jimbeaux]

KB_S1 said:

Jimbeaux said:

As he was talking all of the U.S., I would say everywhere over there. If you say that makes no sense, I will say thank you for agreeing with my point.

Is US crime and violence rates on the increase?

On the overall, I believe no.