StreetScooby 5 #126 May 31, 2006 Quote Bollox - you made youself sound like that. In your perception. You're welcome to keep that perception. Doesn't have any impact on my life, at all. There is a fundamental difference between my country and your country. We're allowed to have guns. You're not. Some of us in America choose to exercise that right. You don't have that right. For ya'll, that's probably not a bad thing.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #127 May 31, 2006 Quote Fuck off! I've been stateside enough times alright? Guess who I met - but shit - must have just been my unlucky day right? We actually went shooting! We met them in your gun clubs! I thought you guys spelled shit as shite. You're starting to sound confused. Had a few too many pints? I doubt very seriously that you went to a gun club and met people who were not responsible. You may not have agreed with their philosophy, but that doesn't make them shit.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #128 May 31, 2006 QuoteQuote Bollox - you made youself sound like that. In your perception. You're welcome to keep that perception. Doesn't have any impact on my life, at all. There is a fundamental difference between my country and your country. We're allowed to have guns. You're not. Some of us in America choose to exercise that right. You don't have that right. For ya'll, that's probably not a bad thing. Doesn't have any impact on your life? Why reply then? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #129 May 31, 2006 QuoteQuote Fuck off! I've been stateside enough times alright? Guess who I met - but shit - must have just been my unlucky day right? We actually went shooting! We met them in your gun clubs! I thought you guys spelled shit as shite. You're starting to sound confused. Had a few too many pints? I doubt very seriously that you went to a gun club and met people who were not responsible. You may not have agreed with their philosophy, but that doesn't make them shit. It depends on the tense, and perhaps a few other factors as well - being a colonial cousin you perhaps don't quite have the grasp of the English language as British people do - don't worry about it. If I'm sounding confused deal with it - whatever you doubt is your choice - but there existed at the time hundreds of British paratroopers with a similiar opinion. Guess we're all full of shit/e eh? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #130 May 31, 2006 Quote If I'm sounding confused deal with it - whatever you doubt is your choice - but there existed at the time hundreds of British paratroopers with a similiar opinion. Sounds like a culture difference. Did all the lads have access to a timely copy of the Sun? Quote Guess we're all full of shit/e eh? Your words. Not mine. I've met many really nice people in the UK. Hell, I'm even related to some. I've thrown down more than a few pints with them, and will do so whenever the opportunity presents itself. Quote Doesn't have any impact on your life? Why reply then? You're right! We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #131 May 31, 2006 QuoteQuote If I'm sounding confused deal with it - whatever you doubt is your choice - but there existed at the time hundreds of British paratroopers with a similiar opinion. Sounds like a culture difference. Did all the lads have access to a timely copy of the Sun? No. Quote Guess we're all full of shit/e eh? Your words. Not mine. I've met many really nice people in the UK. Hell, I'm even related to some. I've thrown down more than a few pints with them, and will do so whenever the opportunity presents itself. Bollox - you'll have a couple of bud's, gob off for a bit, then get dropped Quote Doesn't have any impact on your life? Why reply then? You're right! All the best mate 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #132 May 31, 2006 Quote Sounds like a culture difference. Did all the lads have access to a timely copy of the Sun? No. LOL Quote Bollox - you'll have a couple of bud's, gob off for a bit, then get dropped The best I did was on a pub crawl in Edinburgh. 16 pints of Guiness in one night. For about the next week, thought I was gonna die PS - I'm actually a Becks guy. Can't stand American beer We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #133 May 31, 2006 16 pints of Guiness? Sorry mate - unless your massive - I think that has to be: BS 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #134 May 31, 2006 Quote I think that has to be BS Smile I've only done it once, and I'll NEVER do that again. We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #135 May 31, 2006 hahahahaa! I'll bet you do!! Anyway I need to get my fat obvious down.(It's a Brit thing) See y'later 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #136 May 31, 2006 Cheers! We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #137 May 31, 2006 QuoteNice irrelevant quoting on your part. How on earth is Quade posting the content of the report you posted a link to irrelevant? If the content of the report is irrelevant then so was your post at the bottom of page 4 which introduced it to this thread!! And please tell us did you: a) simply not think to read the content of the report you posted and thus not even realize that it actually supported the position of the guy you were arguing with or b) did you know the content defeated your argument and selectively quote it anyway in an attempt to knowingly mislead everyone on here again? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #138 May 31, 2006 QuoteOnce again, you're ignoring the other statistics which don't suit you - crimes actually reported to police. No John, I simply put less weight on evidence which is always prefaced by a paragraph reading: "police recorded crime figures do not provide the most accurate measure of crime... The British Crime Survey (BCS) gives a more accurate picture of crime levels and trends". (Home Office introduction to police recorded crime figures 2004/5) We've been through this now more than a dozen times. You know that the way police recorded crime changed drastically after we had a change of government in 1997. You know no one but you suggest police recorded crime stats can be used comparatively in this country. You know this and yet you still try to rely on them. Is it willful ignorance or willful deceit? QuoteAnd you're also ignoring the fact that gun crime went up after guns were banned. No I'm not. I don't dispute the fact that gun crime has increase since dozens of new firearms offences were created. However correlation does not indicate causation - the issue is much bigger than you are trying to make out. For example, in 1998 there were 1,245 prosecutions for possession of a prohibited weapon under the new laws – prosecutions which could not have occurred before the law was passed as... well the law didn't yet exist. Each and every one of those prosecutions counts as a "firearms offence" and make a substantial contribution to subsequent increases in crime stats. But again, that's not the whole story. The issue is much bigger than you are trying to make out. QuoteThis later drop in crime Don't try and characterize it as something temporally unrelated because it seems to hurts your argument – people see through it and it undermines your position. The drop in crime coincides directly with the gun ban. First we had the highest crime rates this country has ever seen; then we banned guns; then we have the lowest crime rates since records began. As I said though, correlation does not indicate causation. I am not about to suggest that the gun ban caused the drop in crime. I am not dumb enough to undermine my position by attempting to lie to people as others do on here simply because it appears on the face of things to score an easy point. As I said; the issue is much bigger than you are trying to make out. Quotedoesn't change the fact that the gun ban accomplished nothing. The gun ban had one and only one aim: a reduction in the likelihood of slaughters such as that which occurred at Dunblane. It did not seek to reduce crime. It did not seek to prevent assaults. It did not seek to prevent burglaries. It did not seek to make people safer from common-or-garden crime or even the more common varieties of firearms crimes. It sought to achieve one very specific and very limited goal. To quote Home Secretary Charles Clarke's response to the House of Commons on this very question: "The ban on handguns was a direct response to the tragic shootings at Dunblane Primary School in March 1996, which were carried out with legally held handguns. It did not purport to solve the more general problem of armed crime, the vast majority of which is carried out using illegally held firearms." Now you and I agree that the cost to personal freedoms was too great to justify this one goal. Neither of us like the content of the 1997 legislation. We differ in that you insist on trying to relate the ownership of a pistol kept in a gun safe in 1995 to the prevention of street crime between Yardi and Eastern European gangs in 2005. As for the accomplishments of the 1997 legislation; well we have not had a Dunblane since the ban. Once again however, correlation does not indicate causation. The issue is much bigger than you are trying to make out. We could simply have been lucky; it might simply be that no one decided to go "postal" in the last 8 years. Only time will tell... if indeed we will ever know. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CornishChris 5 #139 May 31, 2006 QuoteGun crime went up in England after guns were banned. Generally crime increases after things are banned. Before they are banned it is not illegal to have them, after it is. Therefore if even one person keeps there gun or buys one then the crime rate increases. An analogy - when Branson took over Virgin trains he put complaint notes on each seat and some people filled them in. The headlines all read 'Train complaints up 200%', but that was misleading as all he had done was make it easier to complain. Continually repeating that gun crime increased in the UK after the gun ban actually achieves nothing as the response is - of course it did, they are illegal now duh! CJP Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #140 May 31, 2006 QuoteQuoteGun crime went up in England after guns were banned. Generally crime increases after things are banned. Before they are banned it is not illegal to have them, after it is. Therefore if even one person keeps there gun or buys one then the crime rate increases. You weren't being serious, were you? The change in the law didn't make it any more illegal for people to carry weapons or use them to commit crimes. I can't imagine that the number of registered crimes for simple possession of guns at homes amounted to anything. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #141 May 31, 2006 Yes but a large number of firearms which were once legally held were now illegally held. As possession is an offence which counts towards the total annual number of firearms offences then yes - the law in and of itself did actually increase the number of firearms offences occurring each year. Just like if you banned spitting. You wouldn't necessarily see an increase in the number of times people spat but you would certainly see an increase in the number offences committed as what was once legal was now prohibited. QuoteI can't imagine that the number of registered crimes for simple possession of guns at homes amounted to anything. I posted above that in 1998, the year after the ban was introduced, there were 1,245 prosecutions under the 1997 legislation for possession; legislation which did not exist the year before. It's not by any means the whole story, but it is undeniably a part of it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #142 May 31, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote Guns and the manufacture and sale of, are the most resgulated item in the US. Somehow I doubt this. I'm -almost- certain nuclear power and aviation lead the way. Oh oh oh, I know the answer! Pick me, pick me! It's pharmecueticals. No, I meant to say automobiles. No, no, wait a minute; did I say automobiles. I changed my mind, it's stepladders. Oops, I thought it was litigation, not regulation. I'll go back to drugs." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #143 May 31, 2006 Quote1) What's with the data that's 20+ years old? Is there data supporting your viewpoint for the last 10 years? 2) The 'Someone's dreamed-up hypothetical scenarios and assumptions don't represent real-life.' comment was incorrect. He had numerous case and personal experiences. If memory serves he was on in the police force in Namibia. 1) That's how old the book is that I have which Kleck wrote. He might have a more current version of the same thing, I don't know. But I don't think the nature of criminal encounters has changed any in the last 20 years, which would alter those results. Thugs are thugs. 2) Numerous other studies support the same conclusion as Kleck. Guns are used up to 2.5 million times per year in self defense in the U.S. If your friend's theory that "armed defense is futile" were correct, I don't think that number would be that high. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #144 May 31, 2006 Quotei can't think why people think of yanks as John J Rambo wanabees I can't think why people think that defending oneself from criminal attack makes you an undesirable "Rambo". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #145 May 31, 2006 QuoteYou title makes pro-gun folks look to be crazy rednecks looking to double tap someone. Maybe you should try reading the story underneath the title. "You can't judge a book by its cover." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #146 May 31, 2006 QuoteQuoteNice irrelevant quoting on your part. How on earth is Quade posting the content of the report you posted a link to irrelevant? If the content of the report is irrelevant... It's not the report that is irrelevant, but his interpretation and application of the report. We were talking about the effect of the British gun ban on crime in England, and he went off on a tangent and started comparing British crime rates to American crime rates. That's another topic altogether, unrelated to the British gun ban and its efficacy at stopping armed criminals. You can't determine the effect of a gun ban in England by talking about America. You only have to compare crime rates in England both before and after the ban. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,114 #147 May 31, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteNice irrelevant quoting on your part. How on earth is Quade posting the content of the report you posted a link to irrelevant? If the content of the report is irrelevant... It's not the report that is irrelevant, but his interpretation and application of the report. We were talking about the effect of the British gun ban on crime in England, and he went off on a tangent and started comparing British crime rates to American crime rates. That's another topic altogether, unrelated to the British gun ban and its efficacy at stopping armed criminals. You can't determine the effect of a gun ban in England by talking about America. You only have to compare crime ratess in England both before and after the ban. OK, Chicago is in America, has a gun ban, and its homicide rate is decreasing.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,085 #148 May 31, 2006 >OK, Chicago is in America, has a gun ban, and its homicide rate is decreasing. Irrelevant! You can't take that statistic seriously unless you can correlate the protective effects of deep-dish pizza with the number of armor-piercing bullets owned by dead Gun-o-phobes who were recently shot in the chest. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #149 May 31, 2006 Quote>OK, Chicago is in America, has a gun ban, and its homicide rate is decreasing. Irrelevant! You can't take that statistic seriously unless you can correlate the protective effects of deep-dish pizza with the number of armor-piercing bullets owned by dead Gun-o-phobes who were recently shot in the chest. You also can't take that statistic seriously if you only look at recent history when you get a favorable trend, whereas that gun ban has been in Chicago much longer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #150 May 31, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteNice irrelevant quoting on your part. How on earth is Quade posting the content of the report you posted a link to irrelevant? If the content of the report is irrelevant... It's not the report that is irrelevant, but his interpretation and application of the report. We were talking about the effect of the British gun ban on crime in England, and he went off on a tangent and started comparing British crime rates to American crime rates. That's another topic altogether, unrelated to the British gun ban and its efficacy at stopping armed criminals. You can't determine the effect of a gun ban in England by talking about America. You only have to compare crime rates in England both before and after the ban. I was responding DIRECTLY to a very selective quote YOU had made; Quote "Crime rates as measured in victim surveys are all higher in England than the United States. Crime rates as measured in police statistics are higher in England for half of the measured crime types..." Uh . . . kinda seems like you were "comparing British crime rates to American crime rates." My quote came from the EXACT same source you had provided a web link to. My quote is entirely relevant. For you to say otherwise is hypocritical in the purest sense of the word.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next Page 6 of 8 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
JohnRich 4 #143 May 31, 2006 Quote1) What's with the data that's 20+ years old? Is there data supporting your viewpoint for the last 10 years? 2) The 'Someone's dreamed-up hypothetical scenarios and assumptions don't represent real-life.' comment was incorrect. He had numerous case and personal experiences. If memory serves he was on in the police force in Namibia. 1) That's how old the book is that I have which Kleck wrote. He might have a more current version of the same thing, I don't know. But I don't think the nature of criminal encounters has changed any in the last 20 years, which would alter those results. Thugs are thugs. 2) Numerous other studies support the same conclusion as Kleck. Guns are used up to 2.5 million times per year in self defense in the U.S. If your friend's theory that "armed defense is futile" were correct, I don't think that number would be that high. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #144 May 31, 2006 Quotei can't think why people think of yanks as John J Rambo wanabees I can't think why people think that defending oneself from criminal attack makes you an undesirable "Rambo". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #145 May 31, 2006 QuoteYou title makes pro-gun folks look to be crazy rednecks looking to double tap someone. Maybe you should try reading the story underneath the title. "You can't judge a book by its cover." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #146 May 31, 2006 QuoteQuoteNice irrelevant quoting on your part. How on earth is Quade posting the content of the report you posted a link to irrelevant? If the content of the report is irrelevant... It's not the report that is irrelevant, but his interpretation and application of the report. We were talking about the effect of the British gun ban on crime in England, and he went off on a tangent and started comparing British crime rates to American crime rates. That's another topic altogether, unrelated to the British gun ban and its efficacy at stopping armed criminals. You can't determine the effect of a gun ban in England by talking about America. You only have to compare crime rates in England both before and after the ban. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,114 #147 May 31, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteNice irrelevant quoting on your part. How on earth is Quade posting the content of the report you posted a link to irrelevant? If the content of the report is irrelevant... It's not the report that is irrelevant, but his interpretation and application of the report. We were talking about the effect of the British gun ban on crime in England, and he went off on a tangent and started comparing British crime rates to American crime rates. That's another topic altogether, unrelated to the British gun ban and its efficacy at stopping armed criminals. You can't determine the effect of a gun ban in England by talking about America. You only have to compare crime ratess in England both before and after the ban. OK, Chicago is in America, has a gun ban, and its homicide rate is decreasing.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,085 #148 May 31, 2006 >OK, Chicago is in America, has a gun ban, and its homicide rate is decreasing. Irrelevant! You can't take that statistic seriously unless you can correlate the protective effects of deep-dish pizza with the number of armor-piercing bullets owned by dead Gun-o-phobes who were recently shot in the chest. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #149 May 31, 2006 Quote>OK, Chicago is in America, has a gun ban, and its homicide rate is decreasing. Irrelevant! You can't take that statistic seriously unless you can correlate the protective effects of deep-dish pizza with the number of armor-piercing bullets owned by dead Gun-o-phobes who were recently shot in the chest. You also can't take that statistic seriously if you only look at recent history when you get a favorable trend, whereas that gun ban has been in Chicago much longer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #150 May 31, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteNice irrelevant quoting on your part. How on earth is Quade posting the content of the report you posted a link to irrelevant? If the content of the report is irrelevant... It's not the report that is irrelevant, but his interpretation and application of the report. We were talking about the effect of the British gun ban on crime in England, and he went off on a tangent and started comparing British crime rates to American crime rates. That's another topic altogether, unrelated to the British gun ban and its efficacy at stopping armed criminals. You can't determine the effect of a gun ban in England by talking about America. You only have to compare crime rates in England both before and after the ban. I was responding DIRECTLY to a very selective quote YOU had made; Quote "Crime rates as measured in victim surveys are all higher in England than the United States. Crime rates as measured in police statistics are higher in England for half of the measured crime types..." Uh . . . kinda seems like you were "comparing British crime rates to American crime rates." My quote came from the EXACT same source you had provided a web link to. My quote is entirely relevant. For you to say otherwise is hypocritical in the purest sense of the word.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
