|
marcosgt
6,192 posts
45 months
|
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.
|
|
|
jaedba2604
706 posts
16 months
|
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
5,366 posts
22 months
|
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 f  ked 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 The second amendment is about 300 years old so sensible people would conclude its horrifically outdated and should be ignored/scrapped by now, this is 2012 after all.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
25,725 posts
100 months
|
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 f ked 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
5,366 posts
22 months
|
Jimbeaux said: The constitution was adopted 225 years ago, not 300. Either way, its long enough ago for it to be ignored by now.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
XitUp
7,690 posts
73 months
|
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
706 posts
16 months
|
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.
|
|
|
doogz
18,670 posts
56 months
|
martin84 said: Either way, its long enough ago for it to be ignored by now.  So any law that has stood for 225 years or more, we should just ignore? Groovy!
|
|
|
jaedba2604
706 posts
16 months
|
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
7,690 posts
73 months
|
|
|
martin84
5,366 posts
22 months
|
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
7,690 posts
73 months
|
The laws are reviewed all the time.
You know there have been other firearm laws in the US since then. Yup?
|
|
|
martin84
5,366 posts
22 months
|
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
7,690 posts
73 months
|
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
5,366 posts
22 months
|
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
5,938 posts
98 months
|
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
3,730 posts
73 months
|
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
25,725 posts
100 months
|
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
25,725 posts
100 months
|
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
25,725 posts
100 months
|
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.
|
|
