Conquer Club

Gun restriction won't work. If Guiscard seriously believes gangs can't find ways to procure weapons on an international black market, he is deluded. His simplistic observations concerning gun crime in the UK aren't serious analysis, it's him trying to run from the hard facts : gun crime is on the rise in the UK.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Gun restriction won't work. If Guiscard seriously believes gangs can't find ways to procure weapons on an international black market, he is deluded. His simplistic observations concerning gun crime in the UK aren't serious analysis, it's him trying to run from the hard facts : gun crime is on the rise in the UK.

Gun restriction DOES work you idiot.

From the UK crime suvey 2006/7:

# The number of overall offences involving firearms fell by 13% in 2006/07 compared to the previous year.
# Firearms were involved in 566 serious or fatal injuries in 2006/07, compared to 645 the previous year - a drop of 12%.


566 serious or fatal injuries in a population of 60 million. Let's say the US has 300 million people - do you think for one second the number of serious or fatal gun injuries that year in the US was 2,500?

Were the kids who shot up their schools in gangs?

Why are so many kids being stabbed in London and the UK? Wouldn't it be easier, and cooler, to shoot rather than stab? Why is almost every shooting reported on the news here?

Do you think before you post your recylced bullshit? (rhetorical Q)

heavycola wrote:
Do you think before you post your recylced bullshit? (rhetorical Q)

OMG! Heavycola, you used a rhetorical question! Not onlyis it hilarious, but also rhetorical! You mus be right!

If you bothered to actually read or expand your general culture a little, you'd realise a 15% variation in one year isn't a serious statistic to measure policy effects in a country in which gin laws have been in place for decades.

If you look at statistics sine 1998, it went up 110%. The rise in gun crime is a well documented phenomenon as is the complete lack of effectivem=ness of gun laws.

There were over 400 shooting murders in the city of Philadelphia alone last year, and that's not counting the folks who got shot and didn't die (and there were LOTS of them) or the folks who offed themselves. Everybody and their fucking mother has a gun in this city, and they are quite obviously easy to get. The organized crime crowd aren't the main ones doing the shooting in the crime-ridden parts of the US, so the argument that the gangs and organized crime crowd will find a way to get guns regardless of increased gun regulation is ridiculous. In this city, there are 10-year olds bringing guns to school. I don't see how anyone can reasonably argue that tighter gun laws wouldn't help eliminate that demographic of the US gun-toting public. At the very least, tighter gun laws would make the average police raid of some grandmother's house yield only five or ten guns instead of the hundreds they routinely find here in philly.

What ever happened to fist fights? It takes no balls to shoot somebody, but you gotta have some serious grit to hold your own in a good ol' fashioned brawl. Back when I was in school, if you had a beef with somebody, you friggin' tackled 'em at recess and punched them a few times, you didn't bring in a gun and shoot them during gym.

The simplest reason that gun control will not work in the U.S. is money.

I cannot recall any substantial business interest ever been legislated out of business, except for two examples: slavery and alcohol. One required a war, the other was overturned.

Those were simpler times in America's history before the US went from a republic to the pseudo-corporate fascist entity based upon consumerism that the US is turning into today.

We americans have the personal freedom to spend our money on whatever products or activities that we want; that is the state of Freedom in the US today.

You cannot tell us that we can't buy guns; we will anyway (with a hyped-up constitutional argument as support). You can't tell us not to spend money on drugs; we will anyway.

Is that logical? No. I own guns. However, I would turn in my handgun if necessary. I would argue against turning in my shotguns or rifle. But I believe that semi-automatic/automatic weapons have one purpose and that is to kill.

But I am not against killing. Some people/animals need killing. But I can kill with a double barrel or pump shotgun also appropriately without the appearance of a machine gun to hunt deer.

Restrict the capabilities of firing rate on long guns with significant enforcement. Restrict handgun ownership to one handgun per person. Those are laws that I could see passing in the next 10 years, but the U.S. government will NEVER outlaw guns. The pro-gun lobby/manufacturers is just too powerful and well financed.

Oops - didn't realize there was already an ongoing thread for this...

Curmudgeonx wrote:The simplest reason that gun control will not work in the U.S. is money.

I cannot recall any substantial business interest ever been legislated out of business, except for two examples: slavery and alcohol. One required a war, the other was overturned.

Those were simpler times in America's history before the US went from a republic to the pseudo-corporate fascist entity based upon consumerism that the US is turning into today.

We americans have the personal freedom to spend our money on whatever products or activities that we want; that is the state of Freedom in the US today.

You cannot tell us that we can't buy guns; we will anyway (with a hyped-up constitutional argument as support). You can't tell us not to spend money on drugs; we will anyway.

Is that logical? No. I own guns. However, I would turn in my handgun if necessary. I would argue against turning in my shotguns or rifle. But I believe that semi-automatic/automatic weapons have one purpose and that is to kill.

But I am not against killing. Some people/animals need killing. But I can kill with a double barrel or pump shotgun also appropriately without the appearance of a machine gun to hunt deer.

Restrict the capabilities of firing rate on long guns with significant enforcement. Restrict handgun ownership to one handgun per person. Those are laws that I could see passing in the next 10 years, but the U.S. government will NEVER outlaw guns. The pro-gun lobby/manufacturers is just too powerful and well financed.

Not to mention that they have also (whether people like it or not) helped shape American history for 200+ years.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

heavycola wrote:
Do you think before you post your recylced bullshit? (rhetorical Q)

OMG! Heavycola, you used a rhetorical question! Not onlyis it hilarious, but also rhetorical! You mus be right!

If you bothered to actually read or expand your general culture a little, you'd realise a 15% variation in one year isn't a serious statistic to measure policy effects in a country in which gin laws have been in place for decades.

If you look at statistics sine 1998, it went up 110%. The rise in gun crime is a well documented phenomenon as is the complete lack of effectivem=ness of gun laws.

Provisional statistics are available for police recorded crimes in 2006/07 involving firearms other than air weapons (referred to as ‘firearm offences’ in the remainder of this section).

* Firearms are taken to be involved in an incident if they are fired, used as a blunt instrument against a person, or used in a threat. Most offences involving a firearm are violent crimes and more than half (55%) occurred in just three metropolitan forces: London, Greater Manchester and the West Midlands.
* In 2006/07 there were a provisional 9,608 firearm offences recorded in England and Wales, a 13% decrease on 2005/06, and the lowest number recorded since 2000/01.

* There was a significant increase in the number of firearm offences recorded between 1998/99 and 2001/02, though figures may have been partially influenced by some forces implementing the principles of the National Crime Recording Standard prior to its national introduction on 1 April 2002.

* The increases have slowed since 2001/02, and the 2006/07 fall is the first since 1997/98.

Source:http://www.connected.gov.uk/facts/guncrime/index.html

Are you suggesting that the role of guns in American history is justification for the absence of gun laws? It seems to me that the majority of the role of guns in the formation of American society relates to the days when there was still an American frontier...well before automatic weapons and assault rifles were on the streets. I can't imagine that the founding fathers would be all about John Q. Public having possession of a weapon that can kill dozens of people in seconds.

That's just cyclical fluctuation snorrarse and you know it.

The rise in UK gun crime is a long term trend that is apparently unaffected by the state of UK firearms legislation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politi ... m#_note-14

Muy-thaiguy wrote

Not to mention that they have also (whether people like it or not) helped shape American history for 200+ years.

And opium has shaped China history for 200+ years, and religious intolerance has shaped the Mideast for 1000+ years.

I am not persuaded that the historical perspective forces our future hand.

Care to elaborate?

Curmudgeonx wrote: And opium has shaped China history for 200+ years, and religious intolerance has shaped the Mideast for 1000+ years.

opium was the economic fuel behind the crippling corruption (through the Gang of Four, etc) that held China back, and was systematically standardized into their communist regime.

religious intolerance really wasn't much of a problem before Western involvement, and that was under 1000 years ago. i mean, just barely, but i'm being ornery.

but you're right about how the intolerance has shaped the Mideast and opium shaping China's history. the problems in the Mideast came in many ways from the growing rift (at the time) between Shi'a and Sunni, and taking it out on the Jews and Christians who had all coexisted there for centuries prior to 1080. things were compounded by the people coming from Europe, making pilgrimages there and getting robbed by bandits, etc.

i could tell an anecdote from that time period, but i know you are bored by them curmudegeonx.

ah, what the hell... people had a lot more callous on their feet in those times, so to avoid having a pouch of coins the bandits could steal, they'd cut slits in their heels, in the callous, and hide the coins in there. then they cut open the callous when the got to the holy land, and use the money.

so bandits would just cut off people's legs, and cut out the coins later.

kind of a brutal time.

So opium -> corruption -> communism

So religious intolerance -> violence -> amputees


Nonetheless, it appeared Remi that you agreed with the facts, what about the hypothesis that Muy-thaiguy expressed: that because guns made America great, guns are great for America?

Curmudgeonx wrote:So opium -> corruption -> communism

So religious intolerance -> violence -> amputees


Nonetheless, it appeared Remi that you agreed with the facts, what about the hypothesis that Muy-thaiguy expressed: that because guns made America great, guns are great for America?

AMerica is not great, and there is no way in the world that guns even provided any of our greatness (which is very little)

Curmudgeonx wrote:So opium -> corruption -> communism

So religious intolerance -> violence -> amputees


Nonetheless, it appeared Remi that you agreed with the facts, what about the hypothesis that Muy-thaiguy expressed: that because guns made America great, guns are great for America?

You are putting in words into my mouth. I said they were a vital part in US history, which as a nation, is only a little more then 200 years old.

An example? Lexington & Concord. The roads between them were filled with minutemen who were continually harassing the Redcoats. However, the minute men only had access to inaccurate weapons (of the time anyways) where only 1 in 8 shots or so would actually hit the target.

Another? The repeating rifle which was introduced in the North during the Civil War which helped change the tide in many battles there.

These are just a couple of numerous examples on how the gun has made a vital impact on US history.

Also Fir, guns didn't make the US great, the people (like 'em or hate 'em) did. From people like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Ben Franklin to those like Teddy Roosevelt, Andrew Jackson (made it possible for the average man in the US to vote), and many many more people. The US is great (love it or hate it) because in a course of 200 years, it went from a struggling Confederacy to the most powerful nation in the world. How many other countries, empires, and nations can say that they did that in such a short time? Not to mention being the first country to effectively fight a war on 2 fronts and come out victorious.

You know, I saw this documentary the other day about prisons...completely changed my way of thinking. Essentially, the problem isn't so much about guns (although the laws are too loose in some states, in fact five states have more gun shops than gas stations) as much as it is the people with guns. Two thirds of the people convicted of felonies have been in prison before - two thirds of the people that commit violent crimes will again in the future.

Here's the problem. Prison isn't about rehabilitation. In fact, quite the opposite holds true. To survive in prison, you must be violent. Overcrowded prisons because the system gets no funding means that there are sometimes three people in a single 6x8 cell. With 25% of people in gangs and over 50% with drug habits, its not easy to get by like that. One argument could get you killed. So you need to stay on your toes.

What I'm getting to is this: People leave prisons with a violent mindset. Two thirds go back to prison, and not for no reason. The point is that it is too easy for them to get guns. They all get them illegally (assuming the US uses a law that felons are not legally allowed to own guns). So here's the thing. We can either try to stop ex-cons from getting guns, or we can invest more into the prison system. I find the latter to be easier.

Fircoal wrote:I'm not sure about God's existence (more no the lack of existence side) and yet I have some of the strongest morals out of people I know.

People all base God's morals on theirs, not the other way around. Nobody has the mindset 'I'm a sinner' because in their eyes, they do just what God wants them to do.

Muay_ThaiGuy wrote:

These are just a couple of numerous examples on how the gun has made a vital impact on US history.

I stated previously:

I am not persuaded that the historical perspective forces our future hand.

So far, your response was to support the historical perspective of firearms in the development of the US. What does that tell us looking forward?

Napoleon Ier wrote:

heavycola wrote:
Do you think before you post your recylced bullshit? (rhetorical Q)

OMG! Heavycola, you used a rhetorical question! Not onlyis it hilarious, but also rhetorical! You mus be right!

If you bothered to actually read or expand your general culture a little, you'd realise a 15% variation in one year isn't a serious statistic to measure policy effects in a country in which gin laws have been in place for decades.

If you look at statistics sine 1998, it went up 110%. The rise in gun crime is a well documented phenomenon as is the complete lack of effectivem=ness of gun laws.

nappy, again please don't try to patronise me. if you can provide any sort of data that shows no difference in statictics between gun crime in a country with severe gun controls and the a country with much more lax gun laws then please share. Otheriwse, admit your 'argument' is redundant and shut up. I have no time for your bullshit and certainly no time to indulge recycled arsetalk. K tks.

heavycola wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

heavycola wrote:
Do you think before you post your recylced bullshit? (rhetorical Q)

OMG! Heavycola, you used a rhetorical question! Not onlyis it hilarious, but also rhetorical! You mus be right!

If you bothered to actually read or expand your general culture a little, you'd realise a 15% variation in one year isn't a serious statistic to measure policy effects in a country in which gin laws have been in place for decades.

If you look at statistics sine 1998, it went up 110%. The rise in gun crime is a well documented phenomenon as is the complete lack of "effectivem=ness of gun laws.

nappy, again please don't try to patronise me. if you can provide any sort of data that shows no difference in statictics between gun crime in a country with severe gun controls and the a country with much more lax gun laws then please share. Otheriwse, admit your 'argument' is redundant and shut up. I have no time for your bullshit and certainly no time to indulge recycled arsetalk. K tks.

What a ridiculous load of bullshit. The fact your friday night trip didn't go as planned doesn't mean you can post your laughable ignorance everywhere. If you want toprove to me that the gun laws in the UK have had a direct effect on crime, and give me causation, then fine. But after the Dunblane ban, crime rose.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ngun28.xml

An you know, even using your ridiculous, simplistic standards, I can find you countries with liberal gun policy and spectacularly low crime, Switzerland and Israel. And all your infantile squeals are redundant, "bullshit", since correlation obviously implies causation...

Napoleon Ier wrote:

heavycola wrote:
Do you think before you post your recylced bullshit? (rhetorical Q)

OMG! Heavycola, you used a rhetorical question! Not onlyis it hilarious, but also rhetorical! You mus be right!

If you bothered to actually read or expand your general culture a little, you'd realise a 15% variation in one year isn't a serious statistic to measure policy effects in a country in which gin laws have been in place for decades.

If you look at statistics sine 1998, it went up 110%. The rise in gun crime is a well documented phenomenon as is the complete lack of effectivem=ness of gun laws.

Methinks Napoleon did some selective reading on that particular Wikipedia page.
Although the page does say that gun injury increaced by 110%, on the line below that it also states that "87% of such injuries were defined as "slight," which includes the use of firearms as a threat only."

23% "variation in one year isn't a serious statistic to measure policy effects in a country in which gin laws have been in place for decades", I would think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politi ... ed_Kingdom

Neutrino wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

heavycola wrote:
Do you think before you post your recylced bullshit? (rhetorical Q)

OMG! Heavycola, you used a rhetorical question! Not onlyis it hilarious, but also rhetorical! You mus be right!



If you bothered to actually read or expand your general culture a little, you'd realise a 15% variation in one year isn't a serious statistic to measure policy effects in a country in which gin laws have been in place for decades.

If you look at statistics sine 1998, it went up 110%. The rise in gun crime is a well documented phenomenon as is the complete lack of effectivem=ness of gun laws.

Methinks Napoleon did some selective reading on that particular Wikipedia page.
Although the page does say that gun injury increaced by 110%, on the line below that it also states that "87% of such injuries were defined as "slight," which includes the use of firearms as a threat only."

23% "variation in one year isn't a serious statistic to measure policy effects in a country in which gin laws have been in place for decades", I would think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politi ... ed_Kingdom

So what? Does this have any relevance to anything? Guns are being used increasingly, does it matter? Seriously, learn to apply analytical thinking to these prolems, not post whatever first comes into your otherwise dull and vacuous mind.

to be fair napoleon not two posts before hand, you cite israel as a place that because it has relatively lax gun laws, it is a safe place to live. Or at least thats your extension by coupling it in with the swiss.

Clearly when i think of peaceful places to live that dont have problems, israel is on the top of my list.

pot meet kettle.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

heavycola wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

heavycola wrote:
Do you think before you post your recylced bullshit? (rhetorical Q)

OMG! Heavycola, you used a rhetorical question! Not onlyis it hilarious, but also rhetorical! You mus be right!

If you bothered to actually read or expand your general culture a little, you'd realise a 15% variation in one year isn't a serious statistic to measure policy effects in a country in which gin laws have been in place for decades.

If you look at statistics sine 1998, it went up 110%. The rise in gun crime is a well documented phenomenon as is the complete lack of "effectivem=ness of gun laws.

nappy, again please don't try to patronise me. if you can provide any sort of data that shows no difference in statictics between gun crime in a country with severe gun controls and the a country with much more lax gun laws then please share. Otheriwse, admit your 'argument' is redundant and shut up. I have no time for your bullshit and certainly no time to indulge recycled arsetalk. K tks.

What a ridiculous load of bullshit. The fact your friday night trip didn't go as planned doesn't mean you can post your laughable ignorance everywhere. If you want toprove to me that the gun laws in the UK have had a direct effect on crime, and give me causation, then fine. But after the Dunblane ban, crime rose.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ngun28.xml

An you know, even using your ridiculous, simplistic standards, I can find you countries with liberal gun policy and spectacularly low crime, Switzerland and Israel. And all your infantile squeals are redundant, "bullshit", since correlation obviously implies causation...

I am not sure what your 'friday night trip' jibe means, frankly. is it a drugs reference? Jesus I hope not. Take some, come back here, we'll talk.

We are talking about UK gun laws. At least I was. You spout, nappy. It's all you do. You declare gun restriction has no effect; I ask you to compare US vs UK gun crime levels. You do no such thing. Instead you offer weird pseudo drug references, at least i think that's what you are doing. So, realising I will get no answer to any actual question, I ask again:~ who feeds you your opinions? rightwing dad? I'm guessing it's clever rightwingdad. Correct me. Please.

Well no, I gave you statistics and links. You give me poor syntax vomited accross this server. Then somehow expect me to take seriously the notion that the acid test for gun regulation is UK and US crime rate. You're just a pathetic, insulting clown with a keyboard.

As for "clever rightwingdaddy", he supports Clinton and once called me a redneck.

What about you? Which one of your daddies supplies your opinions? The one which deprived you of oxygen at birth or the one which abused you? Or were you raised by hippies on your mythical socialist utopia where protectionnist tariffs keep the nasty capitalists at bay and all the animals and fairies dance around with you, as you wave bony little arms around delighted by every tax raise proclaimed by Kimg Gong Brown?