mr2mk1g

Up 8% this year, down 12% last year, down 19% over the last 5 years, overall violent crime down by 43% over the last 10 years. Sounds a lot like background noise against an overall downward trend to me - but who knows what it'll look like as part of an overall trend when we look back on it in another 10 years. Homicides by the way are down by 12% - and thats when you include the 7% of the number who were killed in the 7/7 underground bombings (ie they would be down by a much greater proportion if you discount those killed in that single terrorist attack).

Two pages back I invited people to google "a modest proposal" and let yourselves in on the joke. It is evident that few did. Here is a link that should give you all a hint about what this guy is actually saying... and a hint about the rationality of your thoughts on his plans if you actually did anything less than instantly dismiss him as a crank (or satirical genious depending on your point of view). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal

That's a frighteningly misguided opinion!

hahahahaha, I totally missed the title! You guys should google "a modest proposal" and let yourselves in on the joke.

I wonder how often their target acquisition radars are on these days. I'd be surprised if the first time we saw their targeting radar is the first time they fire. I'd also bet we don't have standing orders to fire every time we see their radar switch to target mode. Hell if we did there'd already be open war with China and Russia at the very least – such shenanigans have been commonplace in military standoffs since targeting radar was invented.

As I said – Phalanx et al are not that good. That includes Aegis. No one in their right mind actually expects Aegis to be able to intercept all incoming threats, especially not when were talking about the kind of anti-ship missiles Iran has – sea skimming Ruski ones doing Mac 2.5. Modern Navies are highly vulnerable to missile attack, no matter advertising blurb you've read to the contrary. It only takes 1 hit to take out 5 billion dollar nuclear carrier causing the loss hundreds if not thousands of lives as well as probably around 100 aircraft, costing how many hundred millions of dollars each? and with how many high tech ordinance costing how many dozens of millions of dollars each? And they don't need to hit our subs to kill our guys - the surface ships will be quite enough cannon fodder. I'm not in the slightest indicating that I think they'd win in the long run - just that they most certainly have the potential to give our combined naval forces in the area one hell of a blooding.

The proposal is also probably highly illegal under international law. Deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure simply to cripple a county's economy will get you up before a war crimes tribunal just as fast as gassing Jews will – and that's where you have a justification such as open warfare. Can you imagine what would happen if the US just started doing this with no further provocation other than Iran's continued research into subjects we don't want them to know about? It's also really important to note that the very reason they want nuclear energy is because they recognize they're a single commodity state and want to be able to ensure the lights stay on when the wells run dry. Demonstrating that to them is hardly the way to change their mind about the need for an alternative energy source.

I personally loved his comment that Syria had to "get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit". I found that to be one of the most remarkably insightful things I've ever heard come out of the man! I did think it funny though when he goosed Angela Merkel however. (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Bush_massages_German_Chancellor_Merkel_at_0718.html) ...reminded me a lot of that time a sloshed Yeltsin snuck up on an aid on camera and gave her a similiar shock.

The US has thousands of service personnel on ships in the Persian Gulf. Iran has thousands of anti-ship missiles within range of those ships. Phalanx (et al) aren't that good. The maths would be pretty simple. Casualties would be massive if Iran decided to make a large scale missile attack against US Naval assets... not to mention the trillions of dollars tied up in such large vessels.

You realise it's now spelt "Edjumacational" right?

That was a guess wasn't it Lisa? They're two jumpers from the Bristol University Skydiving club, (UK). Hannah on the left, Neil on the right, well middle, Percy obviously is on the right. Mark is a friend they lost last month.

Yup. Up to 3" and not locking are always legal. Above that they can be classified as an "offensive weapon" unless the bearer has a "reasonable excuse" for carrying it. So; camping - reasonable excuse. Fishing - reasonable cause. Carpet fitter - reasonable excuse. (etc, etc) About to stab some bloke outside the pub - not reasonable excuse – arrested. I love the term "reasonable" when used in it's legal context. It's sublime. It's simple. If it's not reasonable then it's defacto "unreasonable". Who can possible excuse someone for doing something "unreasonable"? – it's unreasonable! If it's not "unreasonable" then it must be reasonable, and you've not done anything wrong. Perfect. Well, as we established above, they're only arrested if they have a large knife and have no reason for carrying it. And as evidenced by the article you posted in the first post in this thread, the VAST majority of people who are found in possession of such an item are given just a "caution" (a verbal telling off by a police officer).

Dimmit, with one of your above posts we almost had absolute and complete agreement. It's a pity we get into these arguments because in real life on a DZ we'd probably just click completely. Seriously, we're both "gun nuts" (my friends are shocked that I essentially regularly post on the "restriction" side of the argument on here. I'm a gun owner and shooter, and proponent of gun rights that knows a frightening amount about military firearms history and generally someone who's viewed by my peers as the stereotypical "gun nut"). Yup, that's probably true so far in the UK at least. I don't propose to comment on anywhere else in the world. Absolutely! (my primary reason for joining these threads is that you usually start with a post appearing to suggest that there is a correlation and then give up by about page four when you finally admit there is no correlation – I get frustrated because I really can't see why we can't just start with that proposition – we both know it's the inevitable outcome of any such argument). Yep, absolutely. Though I have to note that gun crime laws are necessary to punish those who misuse firearms for criminal intent, (though I fully accept there is a distinction between control and crime). Almost got me in agreement here. We aren't the major problem. And control of "us" probably wont solve the major issues there actually are apparent in society. But overall I do see why government can see gun owners as a "problem". In the UK in recent history we have a couple of instances of legal gun owners causing, in one go, a whole quarter of all annual firearms murders in one year during horrific massacres of children and innocents. Remember that by setting this against the background of our respective county's usual firearm homicide rates and population, in the US this would translate to a four figure number somewhere similar to that which occurred on 9/11 ! As such, whilst I do not agree with the stance, I can at least understand it.

No; that's an official statement from the head of the department of the Government that introduced and used their overwhelming majority in the legislature to pass the legislation in question. (Remember this legislation was passed by a system of Government which uses Parliamentary party politics, cabinet responsibility, and the strongest whip system the English Parliament has ever known). What that one man says goes. He's not just someone expressing an opinion; he's a member of the cabinet, and the minister in charge of the department that actually drafted the legislation in question. The statement he made was made in the House of Commons in response to a written question by another Minister of Parliament. In that capacity he is speaking as the voice of the Government elect. It's not just one man's opinion. It is the authoritative statement on the matter by the spokesman for the body which conceived, drafted, and passed the legislation in question. There is a very good reason why I used that statement above all others.

Does give the impression of a sort of Popeye-esque homicide by wound-up uppercut to the jaw doesn't it. You can kind of imagine Bluto soaring off into the distance in a parabola coupled with a "sock" sound effect followed by a falling bomb type "whistle".

Two points. Firstly, I do not consider, (and more to the point I don't think many people consider), the slaughter at the primary school, (kids aged 4-10), in Dunblane to be terribly analogous to your average gun crime. Secondly, John did not comment on what people think the legislature was trying to achieve with the 1997 legislation. He commented on the actual rationale of the legislature. I've posted above a quote from the horse's mouth as to what that rationale was. It specifically excludes any allusion to a theory that the ban would reduce common or garden gun crime.

The clue is in the quote I posted. The legislation was supposed to help prevent Dunblane type incidents. Here's an earlier post of mine... to John... explaining... at length... what the ban was all about. It's one of many: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2253313#2253313 Funnily enough I provide him with the above quote there too - it was only about a month and a half ago. One must wonder why he is now apparently ignorant of the information contained therein. You'll also note I'm not actually a fan of the legislation myself...

No. We are all well aware a stack of pages cannot have "intentions" – but you should also be well aware that the Parliament that drafted that stack of pages certainly can. Re-read my post - I did not say the ban had any intentions. I said "the ban was not intended to have..." - ie intended to have by Parliament. Parliament is sentient; it can have "intentions". A very different statement. My issue is that John is well aware from our previous discussions exactly what the perceived problem was that Parliament was trying to solve when they passed the 1997 legislation. He knows from our previous discussions that Parliament did not intend the 1997 legislation to have any positive effect on run-of-the-mill firearms offences in the UK. Despite this documented knowledge he still posts, "The guns were banned under the theory that it would reduce gun murder." This is the exact opposite of the truth. We can demonstrate that he is aware of the truth because of his past posting history on this subject. He is willfully posting something which is the opposite of what we can demonstrate he knows to be the truth. What would you call that?

Dave

I'm getting tired of pointing out to people when you are lying to them John. We have been over this before and I have previously warned you that I would simply out you as a liar next time you spouted the same old drivel. I shall, once again, quote Home Secretary Charles Clarke who said in Parliament, in response to a direct question relating to the effect of the ban on homicides: "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." One more time John; the handgun ban was not intended to have any positive effect on run-of-the-mill gun crime and was certainly not directed at resolving homicides in general. Would it help if we made a catchy song out of it? This is at least the third time I have given you this quote. What are people to think of you when they know you have repeatedly been made aware of the true rationale for the ban and still say, "The guns were banned under the theory that it would reduce gun murder."? Are they to conclude you simply lack the ability to take in information or should they conclude you willfully present information you know to be false?

Only to be afforded protection under the 3rd Geneva Convention. Otherwise they're afforded protection under the 4th Geneva Convention which specifically covers everyone who isn't already covered by the 3rd, (ie the idea of there being cracks through which people can slip simply by virtue of their being given novel titles like "enemy combatant" is a complete fantasy). Nightingale posted the relevant quote from the 4th Geneva Convention above but I'll repeat it here for completeness:

My local rigger appears to do a sideline in whuffo clothes alteration for jumpers. The number of times I've popped in and seen a jumper with his jeans off and the rigger sewing them for him.

I was in Russia this time last year. While I was there I had guards screaming and waiving AK47's because I couldn't line my ticket bar-code up with the turnstile reader. In Britain they would have casually helped me out. I also caused taxi drives great insult by attempting to use a seatbelt. In Britain it's a legal requirement to use seatbelts in cars. I also bribed travel officials $25 to get my Visa stamped. In Britain I would have probably been arrested. During a conversation with a woman about her cat she, was struggling to describe its food (kibble) and used the phrase, "hard and dry – like bread". In Britain we like our bread soft and fresh. When it gets hard and dry we throw it away. On the first day I got about by flagging down random cars in Moscow and using them as Taxi's with an ad-hoc fee agreed on the side of (sometimes even in the middle of) the road. In Britain I would probably get arrested if I started getting into random people’s cars. When I visited the Kremlin they were adding extensions onto thousand year old castles and churches. In Britain these buildings would be preserved in their original state and not simply glazed over with plate glass and steel. Are any of us Russian? Are we all aware of all the cultural differences there are between Russians and Westerners? Are we all sure that what Putin did is actually considered odd by other Russians? Is it odd when viewed in context with Russian culture? Are we all sure that Western politicians kissing babies on the head would not be seen as equally odd by Russian commentators?

Using those criteria would cause a spontaneous implosion of the entire Universe. I jest not: Things would start off simple enough: an office in the Office of Censorship would conclude that an item of news was harmful to the Nation and thus attempt to censor it. Things would soon escalate however. Someone in another office of the Office of Censorship would rightly conclude that State sponsored censorship of the press is hugely harmful to the Nation and would therefore censor the edict emanating from the first office in the Office of Censorship. This blatant attempt at State sponsored Censorship, being hugely harmful to the Nation, would be instantaneously censored by the Office of Censorship internal control systems leading to the inevitable paradox that the first office's attempt to censor the news would go ahead, instantly generating another office within the Office of Censorship to produce a memoranda censoring the first office within the Office of Censorship, which would instantly be overturned by their own control systems allowing the initial office of the Office of Censorship to go ahead with their censorship which would then be censored. The news item would go ahead as the Office of Censorship was busy with a self perpetuating paradox causing an unavoidable critical mass of red-tape. With further internal memoranda and censorships being generated at such a blinding speed the Office of Censorship would collapse into itself and form a self-generated black-hole causing a tear in the very fabric of space time and the end to reality as we know it. So personally I think it's probably a bad idea.

No, it's a tax on everyone irrespective of whether or not they have AIDS. The proceeds do have a dedicated target of buying medication for tuberculosis, malaria and AIDS, but that's hardly unprecedented.