mnealtx 0 #51 October 8, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Really? The ban wasn't in response to a crime committed by a person with a gun? What was it in response to, pray tell? Yeah, like you don't know already. Her is a nice news article to help jog your memory http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/16/newsid_3110000/3110949.stm It' already been pointed out in one of John's previous "England bashing" threads that there have been no further massacres in England since the ban. It could therefore be argued that the "ban" was 100% effective in achieving its stated goal. Have a nice day. Vale 100% effective in regards to mass shootings...at least until the next one. Too bad it didn't have any effect on the everyday gun crime. Since our last mass shooting, how many have you had in the good old US of A ? Play the ball, not the player - what does that have to do with gun crime in England?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The_Almighty 0 #52 October 8, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Really? The ban wasn't in response to a crime committed by a person with a gun? What was it in response to, pray tell? Yeah, like you don't know already. Her is a nice news article to help jog your memory http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/16/newsid_3110000/3110949.stm It' already been pointed out in one of John's previous "England bashing" threads that there have been no further massacres in England since the ban. It could therefore be argued that the "ban" was 100% effective in achieving its stated goal. Have a nice day. Vale 100% effective in regards to mass shootings...at least until the next one. Too bad it didn't have any effect on the everyday gun crime. Since our last mass shooting, how many have you had in the good old US of A ? Play the ball, not the player - what does that have to do with gun crime in England? LOL Ok, since our last mass shooting of little kids, we brought a law in banning hand guns.... we've had ZERO incidents of mass shootings of little kids since then..... you keep having mass shootings on school and university campuses and you have very liberal hand gun laws..... you're massacres keep on happening......so, our law seems to have worked in adressing the incident that made us bring it in.... while all the time you keep having school blood baths so, who's system seems to stop school blood baths? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #53 October 8, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote 100% effective in regards to mass shootings...at least until the next one. Too bad it didn't have any effect on the everyday gun crime. Since our last mass shooting, how many have you had in the good old US of A ? Play the ball, not the player - what does that have to do with gun crime in England? LOL Ok, since our last mass shooting of little kids, we brought a law in banning hand guns.... we've had ZERO incidents of mass shootings of little kids since then..... you keep having mass shootings on school and university campuses and you have very liberal hand gun laws..... you're massacres keep on happening......so, our law seems to have worked in adressing the incident that made us bring it in.... while all the time you keep having school blood baths so, who's system seems to stop school blood baths? Neither - as long as you have a Victim Disarmament Zone, the thugs will rule. A return question - if the guns are to blame, why hasn't there been a rash of massacres at gun shops, ranges and police stations?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The_Almighty 0 #54 October 8, 2007 Quote Neither - as long as you have a Victim Disarmament Zone, the thugs will rule. so, we bring in a law to stop school massacres, there are no more school massacres after we bring in the law....and it's still not a law that's working? Quote A return question - if the guns are to blame, why hasn't there been a rash of massacres at gun shops, ranges and police stations? how many guns shops do you think there are in England? I couldn't even tell you where there's one in my city...and i live in a big city, same with ranges...we just don't have many of them over here. As for massacres at police stations....genrally, we respect our unarmed police Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #55 October 8, 2007 QuoteJohn, you know damn well that England's "gun ban" was never meant to address the issue of "gun crime". The proposing legislators said so right from the start. This has been pointed out to you dozens of times yet you keep using this same BS strawman argument to prove that the gun ban was "ineffective". Ineffective in addressing an issue it was never meant to address? Big effing surprise! Your continued use of this argument reeks of intellectual dishonesty. Give it up will you? I was wondering how long it would take before someone brought this one up again. Two comments: 1) This is an explicit admission that gun bans are ineffective at stopping gun crime, and that they know it. In other words, they agree with me. 2) Regardless of the stated intent, it nevertheless is a large scale social experiment to see what actually happens when guns are banned from an entire nation. And the result is: it doesn't reduce gun crime. So everyone who thinks that such an action is a good idea, should take this lesson to heart, for both reasons. The politicians know it won't work, but do it anyway. And then it doesn't actually work as predicted, yet an entire nation has meanwhile been deprived of their property. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #56 October 8, 2007 QuoteIt' already been pointed out in one of John's previous "England bashing" threads that there have been no further massacres in England since the ban. It could therefore be argued that the "ban" was 100% effective in achieving its stated goal. Wow, yet another brilliant statistical conclusion! [sarcasm] I haven't seen any pink elephants on a rampage in London since then either, so I guess the gun ban did a good job of stopping those too. Phew, that was a close one! Lets see... there was Hungerford in 1987, and Dunblane in 1996, and the gun ban in 1997. And yet, since only 10 years have now passed, you're ready to conclude that such shootings can't happen again? And you'll do so despite the fact that the news story in the initial post here stated that guns are still easy to get? The truth is, anyone who wants to shoot up a school in England can still do it. And you are just fooling yourself, if you think that this law has done anything to stop such people. Anyone willing to massacre school children, doesn't give a damn about some government gun ban. Another irony here is that the anti-gun folks are making this argument based upon only two previous incidents. That's ironic, because it's the same folks who elsewhere claim that the murder numbers are too small for increases to have any statistical significance. So on the one hand, they claim proof that the gun ban worked based upon small numbers, and on the other hand they claim that rising gun murders don't prove that the gun ban didn't work, because the numbers are too small. You can't have it both ways. To do so is hypocrisy, and reveals the bias and invalid logic used by the anti-gun folks. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #57 October 8, 2007 Quote But if we hadn't had the ban , they would have gone up by double the amount that they actually did, so the ban is working.... you prove me wrong see, quoting they have gone up means fuck all in reality.... what if the increase was only half of what it would have been without the ban? When you confiscate the private property of law-abiding citizens, you should do so with some greater justification than just a "what if". I prefer to stick to actual facts, and not whimsical fantasy. Has gun crime in America doubled because guns were not confiscated. No. In fact crime is down to a 30 year low. Fact. Crime rates do not correlate with gun ownership rates. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vpozzoli 0 #58 October 8, 2007 Quote I was wondering how long it would take before someone brought this one up again. Two comments: 1) This is an explicit admission that gun bans are ineffective at stopping gun crime, and that they know it. In other words, they agree with me. 2) Regardless of the stated intent, it nevertheless is a large scale social experiment to see what actually happens when guns are banned from an entire nation. And the result is: it doesn't reduce gun crime. So everyone who thinks that such an action is a good idea, should take this lesson to heart, for both reasons. The politicians know it won't work, but do it anyway. And then it doesn't actually work as predicted, yet an entire nation has meanwhile been deprived of their property. John, you are making absolutely zero sense, to the point that talking to a stone would probably be less of a waste of time. I'm done arguing with you, enjoy your recipes Vale Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vpozzoli 0 #59 October 8, 2007 QuoteQuote Since our last mass shooting, how many have you had in the good old US of A ? Play the ball, not the player - what does that have to do with gun crime in England? Look up "control group" and you might figure it out. Cheers, Vale Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #60 October 8, 2007 Quote Ok, since our last mass shooting of little kids, we brought a law in banning hand guns.... we've had ZERO incidents of mass shootings of little kids since then..... I don't think the US has seen a mass shooting of little kids since 1989 (Stockton) and I don't think I know of any others that occurred. No, scratch that, one year ago there was the Amish school shootings. Still nothing close to Dunblane. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #61 October 8, 2007 QuoteQuote48 to 59 from one year to the next is probably not statistically valid. So best be getting yourself there. Cherry picking again. Anyone can selectively choose two data points that match their pet theory and try and imply something from them. But look at the long term stats over time, and you'll see that you're wrong. I find it humorous how all the anti-gun people want to use such grossly invalid statistical techniques to try and prove their points. It says a lot. It's also humorous how they have the need to publicly belittle me personally, as if that is somehow a means of lending credence to their own failed arguments. That says a lot too. It's not cherry picking - it's reading your posting. You didn't provide long term stats, you provided a year to year comparison. And yeah, this is one PRO gun person belittling you. You shouldn't be advising other people to learn basic statistics when you need it at least as badly. As I said - you're not helping the cause here. A ban here would cause a spike far worse than what the English have seen because they never had an effective right to self defense to lose. You're sounding as ridiculous as the GOA scare postings about the gun legislation changes wrt mental illness. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #62 October 8, 2007 Quote John, you are making absolutely zero sense, to the point that talking to a stone would probably be less of a waste of time. I'm done arguing with you, enjoy your recipes I am overwhelmed by the factual, logical effectiveness of your eloquent counter-argument. [sarcasm] Perhaps you should try describing what it is that doesn't make sense to you, and why, for starters. Blanket criticisms like that mean nothing. Be specific. Ah, but that's not really the problem, is it? You really just don't have a rebuttal, so a personal insult is the best you can do. Slinking away quietly without a response would have been better than that. But that's okay, because you see, a personal insult from a debate foe is actually a personal compliment. It means that you have been beaten in the field of debate by my facts, logic and explanations. It means that you have surrendered and yielded your points. Touché! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KidWicked 0 #63 October 9, 2007 John, why are you so afraid? It's the only reason I can think of for why you are so obsessed with this topic.Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nigel99 617 #64 October 9, 2007 Quote John, why are you so afraid? It's the only reason I can think of for why you are so obsessed with this topic. You've got to ignore the England part of Johns posts. It used to mildly amuse me or piss me off depending on my mood that John was England bashing again... But I have recently come to see that John is using Englands ban as a defence against gun ownership. John is campaigning against a ban in the US - not pissing on the english (it just comes across that way)Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #65 October 9, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote Since our last mass shooting, how many have you had in the good old US of A ? Play the ball, not the player - what does that have to do with gun crime in England? Look up "control group" and you might figure it out. Cheers, Vale Look up "differing cultures" and YOU might figure it out.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #66 October 9, 2007 Quote John is campaigning against a ban in the US - not pissing on the english (it just comes across that way) No he's not. Posting England bashing threads on DZ.com will do absolutely bugger all for gun laws in the US but a lot to piss off the Brits on this forum. It beats me why anyone bothers to acknowledge his xenophobic little rants. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #67 October 9, 2007 I think his motivation is simply to debate gun laws and crime....I think....If it is English bashing, he's not exactly doing a good job of it, is he? Besides, being Scottish, what could I have against the English being bashed? '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
vpozzoli 0 #68 October 9, 2007 Quote Look up "differing cultures" and YOU might figure it out. I really don't get it. What do "differing cultures" have to do with school shootings? Vale Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #69 October 9, 2007 QuoteQuote Look up "differing cultures" and YOU might figure it out. I really don't get it. What do "differing cultures" have to do with school shootings? Vale It doesn't. It *does*, however, play into the amount and type of crimes that are perpetrated.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vpozzoli 0 #70 October 9, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote Look up "differing cultures" and YOU might figure it out. I really don't get it. What do "differing cultures" have to do with school shootings? Vale It doesn't. It *does*, however, play into the amount and type of crimes that are perpetrated. OK, so your response was totally off-topic then. We were actually discussing the incidence of mass shootings in the UK and in the States, and how the US could serve as the control group in our little thought experiment since handguns have been banned in the UK but not in the good ol' US of A. Please try and stay on topic next time, OK? Cheers, Vale Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #71 October 9, 2007 You may want to revisit the OP - it was about gun crime. It was yourself and other posters that took it to Dunblane.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #72 October 9, 2007 QuoteJohn, why are you so afraid? It's the only reason I can think of for why you are so obsessed with this topic. Then you need to think some more. See Nigel99's message #63. It's not about England. Like I said before, some people just can't get past their national pride to focus on the actual topic, which is: gun control. England just happens to be the place which has enforced the most drastic form of it, and thus, is a test bed for social engineering in that regard. And the lessons learned from it, should be heeded by others contemplating such action. Does that help your thinking any? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stumpy 284 #73 October 9, 2007 Quote ....to focus on the actual topic, which is: gun control. England just happens to be the place which has enforced the most drastic form of it, and thus, is a test bed for social engineering in that regard. And the lessons learned from it, should be heeded by others contemplating such action. and that is fine, part from the fact that you continually miss the aspect that the starting point for the two countries (amount of gun ownership pre ban, culture around guns etc) was completely different, and therefore you cannot compare the two. Its meaningless.Never try to eat more than you can lift Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #74 October 9, 2007 Quote Does that help your thinking any? snicker. pot. snicker. kettle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #75 October 10, 2007 QuoteQuote ....to focus on the actual topic, which is: gun control. England just happens to be the place which has enforced the most drastic form of it, and thus, is a test bed for social engineering in that regard. And the lessons learned from it, should be heeded by others contemplating such action. and that is fine, part from the fact that you continually miss the aspect that the starting point for the two countries (amount of gun ownership pre ban, culture around guns etc) was completely different, and therefore you cannot compare the two. Its meaningless. Again, get past the national pride - I don't believe I've ever seen John assert that what the UK is doing is wrong, or worse than the US. It's usually someone from Europe, or someone that is pro gun-control from the US, that tries to make comparisons.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
