Author Topic: UK General Election  (Read 8926 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline FedFanForever

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 3722
  • Gender: Male
Re: UK General Election
« Reply #60 on: June 04, 2010, 06:06:46 PM »
Surely the priority of any law regarding lethal weapons is to reduce violent crime? Given that there's no way of ensuring that you're only using the gun for self-defence, the safest procedure is to take guns off everyone, as countries like the UK have done where we have almost zero gun crime.

No that's the totalitarian method. The other method is you honor the 2nd amendment and simply regulate things like magazine capacity and semi/auto fire. But no, you would ban every last revolver and basic semi-auto pistol in the land.
Then we will fight in the shade.

Offline kickserve

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 12961
  • Gender: Male
Re: UK General Election
« Reply #61 on: June 04, 2010, 06:28:45 PM »
Surely the priority of any law regarding lethal weapons is to reduce violent crime? Given that there's no way of ensuring that you're only using the gun for self-defence, the safest procedure is to take guns off everyone, as countries like the UK have done where we have almost zero gun crime.

No that's the totalitarian method. The other method is you honor the 2nd amendment and simply regulate things like magazine capacity and semi/auto fire. But no, you would ban every last revolver and basic semi-auto pistol in the land.

Which is working so well, as you can see by the statistics you're totally ignoring. I live in the UK where pretty much all firearms are banned, it's great. I don't need a gun for self-defence because nobody else has a gun either.

Offline FedFanForever

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 3722
  • Gender: Male
Re: UK General Election
« Reply #62 on: June 05, 2010, 01:33:27 AM »
Surely the priority of any law regarding lethal weapons is to reduce violent crime? Given that there's no way of ensuring that you're only using the gun for self-defence, the safest procedure is to take guns off everyone, as countries like the UK have done where we have almost zero gun crime.

No that's the totalitarian method. The other method is you honor the 2nd amendment and simply regulate things like magazine capacity and semi/auto fire. But no, you would ban every last revolver and basic semi-auto pistol in the land.

Which is working so well, as you can see by the statistics you're totally ignoring. I live in the UK where pretty much all firearms are banned, it's great. I don't need a gun for self-defence because nobody else has a gun either.

I don't give a s**t about your lousy statistics. I have a 2nd amendment right to defend myself with ARMS.
Then we will fight in the shade.

Offline BGT

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 11546
  • Gender: Female
  • ALLEZ LES BLEUS!
    • Facebook
Re: UK General Election
« Reply #63 on: June 05, 2010, 01:57:39 AM »
And I have a 1st amendment right to think and say out loud that I believe you are an ignoramus.

And ARMS doesn't necessarily mean guns.



Offline kickserve

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 12961
  • Gender: Male
Re: UK General Election
« Reply #64 on: June 05, 2010, 04:09:54 AM »
Surely the priority of any law regarding lethal weapons is to reduce violent crime? Given that there's no way of ensuring that you're only using the gun for self-defence, the safest procedure is to take guns off everyone, as countries like the UK have done where we have almost zero gun crime.

No that's the totalitarian method. The other method is you honor the 2nd amendment and simply regulate things like magazine capacity and semi/auto fire. But no, you would ban every last revolver and basic semi-auto pistol in the land.

Which is working so well, as you can see by the statistics you're totally ignoring. I live in the UK where pretty much all firearms are banned, it's great. I don't need a gun for self-defence because nobody else has a gun either.

I don't give a s**t about your lousy statistics. I have a 2nd amendment right to defend myself with ARMS.

Translates roughly as "I don't care how many people die, I have rights!". AS I was saying earlier, just because something is in the constitution doesn't make it right.

Offline monstertruck

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 12297
Re: UK General Election
« Reply #65 on: June 07, 2010, 06:22:44 AM »
Same argument: if you don't like Obama, go to another country with an elected leader you agree with.....if you can find one.

So you're for anarchy then? You have to abide by the rules of the community you live in. It's called civilization.

 :rofl_2: Talk about "not getting the point". :rofl_2: "if you don't like Obama, go to another country with an elected leader you agree with" does not mean "anarchy", which actually means: "a state of society without government or law."

I wish the Second Amendment could be overturned. No one besides recreational hunters needs a gun. But then, gang members would be  putting each other's eyes out with BBs. ..-)
I think you're wrong.  Criminals would still most certainly have guns.

Banning guns because of gun crime is the equivalent of cutting the penises off from all males because some are rapists.  It makes no sense at all.
CONK da ball!!!

Offline kickserve

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 12961
  • Gender: Male
Re: UK General Election
« Reply #66 on: June 07, 2010, 07:42:01 AM »
Same argument: if you don't like Obama, go to another country with an elected leader you agree with.....if you can find one.

So you're for anarchy then? You have to abide by the rules of the community you live in. It's called civilization.

 :rofl_2: Talk about "not getting the point". :rofl_2: "if you don't like Obama, go to another country with an elected leader you agree with" does not mean "anarchy", which actually means: "a state of society without government or law."

I wish the Second Amendment could be overturned. No one besides recreational hunters needs a gun. But then, gang members would be  putting each other's eyes out with BBs. ..-)
I think you're wrong.  Criminals would still most certainly have guns.

Banning guns because of gun crime is the equivalent of cutting the penises off from all males because some are rapists.  It makes no sense at all.

You're talking as if there aren't societies without guns. It works perfectly well in Europe.

Offline BGT

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 11546
  • Gender: Female
  • ALLEZ LES BLEUS!
    • Facebook
Re: UK General Election
« Reply #67 on: June 07, 2010, 07:44:39 AM »
Same argument: if you don't like Obama, go to another country with an elected leader you agree with.....if you can find one.

So you're for anarchy then? You have to abide by the rules of the community you live in. It's called civilization.

 :rofl_2: Talk about "not getting the point". :rofl_2: "if you don't like Obama, go to another country with an elected leader you agree with" does not mean "anarchy", which actually means: "a state of society without government or law."

I wish the Second Amendment could be overturned. No one besides recreational hunters needs a gun. But then, gang members would be  putting each other's eyes out with BBs. ..-)
I think you're wrong.  Criminals would still most certainly have guns.

Banning guns because of gun crime is the equivalent of cutting the penises off from all males because some are rapists.  It makes no sense at all.

Makes plenty of sense to me :))



Offline FedFanForever

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 3722
  • Gender: Male
Re: UK General Election
« Reply #68 on: June 07, 2010, 12:44:32 PM »
Yeah let's pretend that the criminals don't still have guns despite all the bans.
Then we will fight in the shade.

Offline kickserve

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 12961
  • Gender: Male
Re: UK General Election
« Reply #69 on: June 07, 2010, 01:25:03 PM »
Yeah let's pretend that the criminals don't still have guns despite all the bans.

For the 53rd time, look at the statistics on gun crime in the UK compared to US.

Offline monstertruck

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 12297
Re: UK General Election
« Reply #70 on: June 07, 2010, 02:11:09 PM »
Same argument: if you don't like Obama, go to another country with an elected leader you agree with.....if you can find one.

So you're for anarchy then? You have to abide by the rules of the community you live in. It's called civilization.

 :rofl_2: Talk about "not getting the point". :rofl_2: "if you don't like Obama, go to another country with an elected leader you agree with" does not mean "anarchy", which actually means: "a state of society without government or law."

I wish the Second Amendment could be overturned. No one besides recreational hunters needs a gun. But then, gang members would be  putting each other's eyes out with BBs. ..-)
I think you're wrong.  Criminals would still most certainly have guns.

Banning guns because of gun crime is the equivalent of cutting the penises off from all males because some are rapists.  It makes no sense at all.

Makes plenty of sense to me :))
Thank God you're not a 'wise Latina woman' just elected to the Supreme Court. :)~
CONK da ball!!!

Offline monstertruck

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 12297
Re: UK General Election
« Reply #71 on: June 07, 2010, 02:23:40 PM »
According to the facts on the link you provided Kicker, nearly 6 out of 10 gun deaths /100k are suicide.
It might be interesting to compare suicide info between U.S. and a country with stricter gun control to see if there is a corresponding drop in suicides.

Additionally, out of the remaining 4 out of 10 /100k gun deaths, there is no accounting for justifiable shootings.
It may seem nit picky, but if you're going to use "facts" from a study to base your opinions, let's go ahead and try to get as much info as possible in order to have an informed discussion.


My opinion is that if I'm not causing harm to anyone else then they have no claim over any of my personal property. 
CONK da ball!!!

Offline kickserve

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 12961
  • Gender: Male
Re: UK General Election
« Reply #72 on: June 07, 2010, 02:47:52 PM »
Come on monster, you're better than that: you saw the table with the US suicide rates at approx. 60% of all gun deaths, you could've at least checked the other stats in the same table: of the other 9 countries in the table, only Italy (55% suicide) and UK (57% suicide) have lower proportions of suicide, but Switzerland, Finland and France are all over 90% suicide, Canada and Australia are over 80%. If you look at purely homicides, the US has nearly 5 times as many gun-related deaths as any of the other countries.

As for accounting for 'justifiable' deaths, let's assume a man with a weapon comes into your home/workplace/pub, intend on massacre. Let's assume we want to minimise the number of people that die before the intruder is disarmed/leaves/dies. How large do you think that number is likely to be if he has a gun versus him having a knife/baseball bat? Very obvious question, with a very obvious answer.

You're labouring under the assumption it's impossible to get guns off criminals: it's not, Europe has managed it (though the fact we never allowed every idiot with psychiatric problems to have an assault rifle probably helps us reduce numbers anyway...).

I'm sure you having a gun is no danger to anyone, but you have to look at the bigger picture: there's no way of telling who's going to go nuts, and it is safer for the majority to take lethal weapons off everyone. But of course, your personal rights take precedence over the majority  :whistle:

Offline FedFanForever

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 3722
  • Gender: Male
Re: UK General Election
« Reply #73 on: June 07, 2010, 04:11:01 PM »
Come on monster, you're better than that: you saw the table with the US suicide rates at approx. 60% of all gun deaths, you could've at least checked the other stats in the same table: of the other 9 countries in the table, only Italy (55% suicide) and UK (57% suicide) have lower proportions of suicide, but Switzerland, Finland and France are all over 90% suicide, Canada and Australia are over 80%. If you look at purely homicides, the US has nearly 5 times as many gun-related deaths as any of the other countries.

As for accounting for 'justifiable' deaths, let's assume a man with a weapon comes into your home/workplace/pub, intend on massacre. Let's assume we want to minimise the number of people that die before the intruder is disarmed/leaves/dies. How large do you think that number is likely to be if he has a gun versus him having a knife/baseball bat? Very obvious question, with a very obvious answer.

You're labouring under the assumption it's impossible to get guns off criminals: it's not, Europe has managed it (though the fact we never allowed every idiot with psychiatric problems to have an assault rifle probably helps us reduce numbers anyway...).

I'm sure you having a gun is no danger to anyone, but you have to look at the bigger picture: there's no way of telling who's going to go nuts, and it is safer for the majority to take lethal weapons off everyone. But of course, your personal rights take precedence over the majority  :whistle:

The point of my life is not to serve "the majority".  :\
Then we will fight in the shade.

Offline BGT

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 11546
  • Gender: Female
  • ALLEZ LES BLEUS!
    • Facebook
Re: UK General Election
« Reply #74 on: June 07, 2010, 04:22:06 PM »
Well, if you live in the US and pay taxes to support schools you'll never go to, roads you'll never drive and welfare programs you'll never partake of, you are serving the majority.



Offline kickserve

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 12961
  • Gender: Male
Re: UK General Election
« Reply #75 on: June 07, 2010, 04:46:28 PM »
Come on monster, you're better than that: you saw the table with the US suicide rates at approx. 60% of all gun deaths, you could've at least checked the other stats in the same table: of the other 9 countries in the table, only Italy (55% suicide) and UK (57% suicide) have lower proportions of suicide, but Switzerland, Finland and France are all over 90% suicide, Canada and Australia are over 80%. If you look at purely homicides, the US has nearly 5 times as many gun-related deaths as any of the other countries.

As for accounting for 'justifiable' deaths, let's assume a man with a weapon comes into your home/workplace/pub, intend on massacre. Let's assume we want to minimise the number of people that die before the intruder is disarmed/leaves/dies. How large do you think that number is likely to be if he has a gun versus him having a knife/baseball bat? Very obvious question, with a very obvious answer.

You're labouring under the assumption it's impossible to get guns off criminals: it's not, Europe has managed it (though the fact we never allowed every idiot with psychiatric problems to have an assault rifle probably helps us reduce numbers anyway...).

I'm sure you having a gun is no danger to anyone, but you have to look at the bigger picture: there's no way of telling who's going to go nuts, and it is safer for the majority to take lethal weapons off everyone. But of course, your personal rights take precedence over the majority  :whistle:

The point of my life is not to serve "the majority".  :\

I didn't say that. I said that no individuals rights should be promoted when they sh!t all over the rights of the majority.

Offline FedFanForever

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 3722
  • Gender: Male
Re: UK General Election
« Reply #76 on: June 07, 2010, 05:02:28 PM »
I didn't say that. I said that no individuals rights should be promoted when they sh!t all over the rights of the majority.

What rights?
Then we will fight in the shade.

Offline kickserve

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 12961
  • Gender: Male
Re: UK General Election
« Reply #77 on: June 07, 2010, 05:33:37 PM »
I didn't say that. I said that no individuals rights should be promoted when they sh!t all over the rights of the majority.

What rights?

Right to life. As you can see, if you look at the statistics, that right is often violated in your country because of your total lack of gun control.

Offline FedFanForever

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 3722
  • Gender: Male
Re: UK General Election
« Reply #78 on: June 07, 2010, 06:06:02 PM »
Right to life. As you can see, if you look at the statistics, that right is often violated in your country because of your total lack of gun control.

What are you blathering about? People already have a right to life as defined by the government not having the ability to take it away. The Constitution says nothing about private actors.
Then we will fight in the shade.

Offline kickserve

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 12961
  • Gender: Male
Re: UK General Election
« Reply #79 on: June 07, 2010, 06:30:19 PM »
Answer this question: do you consider your right to own a lethal weapon more important than the deaths of all the people in the US every year who die because of your lax gun laws?