Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Clearly.

FITZZ wrote:

VoidAngel wrote:I think he was saying he such an incredible badass that he could be victorious against the most effective and hardened fighting force in the world, with the least-scary-imaginable weapon. Nothing to require his death over.

See how dangerous and controversial used tissue has become...clearly it should be banned.

Won't someone please think of the children?

Monster Rain wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

VoidAngel wrote:I think he was saying he such an incredible badass that he could be victorious against the most effective and hardened fighting force in the world, with the least-scary-imaginable weapon. Nothing to require his death over.

See how dangerous and controversial used tissue has become...clearly it should be banned.

Won't someone please think of the children?

No...Children have the potential to become dangerous too...ban them as well.

True. They won't all grow up to beat an old lady to death with a hammer... but one of them might!

In my own subtle way,I'm attempting to make a statement about the slippery slope of "Safety Legislation".
...I know it's an "unpopular" view in some peoples opinion,but there honestly is a point when "For the good of the people" becomes a bad thing.

FITZZ wrote: In my own subtle way,I'm attempting to make a statement about the slippery slope of "Safety Legislation".
...I know it's an "unpopular" view in some peoples opinion,but there honestly is a point when "For the good of the people" becomes a bad thing.

Like in I, Robot when the Three Laws of Robotics make them decided the best way to keep us safe is to enslave us?

I see what you're saying.

Monster Rain wrote:True. They won't all grow up to beat an old lady to death with a hammer... but one of them might!

If I might make A Modest Proposal of sorts...

FITZZ wrote: In my own subtle way,I'm attempting to make a statement about the slippery slope of "Safety Legislation".
...I know it's an "unpopular" view in some peoples opinion,but there honestly is a point when "For the good of the people" becomes a bad thing.

Witness Great Britain. Almost total gun ban goes into effect. Law-abiding Britons dutifully turn in their guns for destruction. Violent crime skyrockets. Lesser thugs take to the use of knives. Britain enacts "knife control" - to the point where you maybe don't get one on your table in London restaurants. I think I heard something about toothpicks being next. What then, harsh words?


I apologize in advance that I could find no article in the Old England Journal of Medicine, but lest anyone think I'm "making things up":

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4581871.stm

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/justice/article684784.ece

dogma wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:True. They won't all grow up to beat an old lady to death with a hammer... but one of them might!

If I might make A Modest Proposal of sorts...

Sheer brilliance!

I live in HI. This is just funny. The land of rainbows and bored stupid politicians.

Check out this one from last year.

http://www.kitv.com/news/20679481/detail.html

The government here is so useless that people just get together to solve their problems and write off their taxes as a loss. There are a ton of private schools because all the public schools are horrible. There are private environmental groups that enforce good policies because the department of land and natural resources is asleep at the wheel. The examples are endless and the politicians are focused on toy guns and BO...

Fateweaver wrote:I think we should ban all guns so that I can turn on the evening news and read "Death by spoons".

That'd make my evening.

You needn't worry. It's illegal to ban guns in the USA.

Thank God for the Supreme Court!

VoidAngel wrote:

FITZZ wrote: In my own subtle way,I'm attempting to make a statement about the slippery slope of "Safety Legislation".
...I know it's an "unpopular" view in some peoples opinion,but there honestly is a point when "For the good of the people" becomes a bad thing.

Witness Great Britain. Almost total gun ban goes into effect. Law-abiding Britons dutifully turn in their guns for destruction. Violent crime skyrockets. Lesser thugs take to the use of knives. Britain enacts "knife control" - to the point where you maybe don't get one on your table in London restaurants. I think I heard something about toothpicks being next. What then, harsh words?


I apologize in advance that I could find no article in the Old England Journal of Medicine, but lest anyone think I'm "making things up":

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4581871.stm

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/justice/article684784.ece

I think you will find there was a very great deal more violent crime in Britain before guns were invented.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you will refer to this page here...

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/hub/crime-justice/crime/violent-and-sexual-crime

You will see that:

1. Violent crime trended upwards quickly from 1991 to 1995, not after the gun laws following Hungerford and Dunblane.

Violent crime trended downwards quickly during the era of the Dunblane laws coming into effect.

2. The long term murder rate trended upwards fairly regularly from 1954 to 2001, regardless of the status of law regarding guns.

On the face of it, there is no connection between the availability of legal guns and violent crime in the UK.

Or in the US for that matter, as the NRA is annoyingly proud to point out.

Hard to say.

The murder rate in the USA is roughly triple the UK's rate per capita, and about 1/3rd of US murders involve guns.

On the face if it, getting rid of guns would reduce the murder rate.

However it is unlikely it would drop by 2/3rds, due to social factors.

What I mean is that crime is driven by social and psychological factors such as poverty and the acceptability of violence in society, not simply by availability of weapons.

VoidAngel wrote:

FITZZ wrote: In my own subtle way,I'm attempting to make a statement about the slippery slope of "Safety Legislation".
...I know it's an "unpopular" view in some peoples opinion,but there honestly is a point when "For the good of the people" becomes a bad thing.

Witness Great Britain. Almost total gun ban goes into effect.

Nah, you can still own a gun here. We just have stricter controls. Guns aren't 'banned' in the UK, as some US gun-nuts would have you believe, you just need a good reason to own one.

Law-abiding Britons dutifully turn in their guns for destruction.

Hmm. Not quite. Many guns handed in during those sorts of amnesties are illegal. That's why it's called an amnesty.

Violent crime skyrockets. Lesser thugs take to the use of knives. Britain enacts "knife control" - to the point where you maybe don't get one on your table in London restaurants. I think I heard something about toothpicks being next. What then, harsh words?

Where do people get this crap?

If you like guns, then fine - but there's no need to make up stupid myths about places that have stricter gun-laws in order to reinforce one's position. That's just juvenile. The idea that, by law, a person wouldn't be allowed a table knife at a restaurant is absurd to the point that it reflects really badly on the person daft enough to believe it.

Violent crime skyrockets. Lesser thugs take to the use of knives. Britain enacts "knife control" - to the point where you maybe don't get one on your table in London restaurants. I think I heard something about toothpicks being next. What then, harsh words?



Where do people get this crap?

Allow me to draw your attention to the words "maybe", "think" and "What then, harsh words?" - it's called sarcasm. Look it up, mate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:Hard to say.

The murder rate in the USA is roughly triple the UK's rate per capita, and about 1/3rd of US murders involve guns.

On the face if it, getting rid of guns would reduce the murder rate.

However it is unlikely it would drop by 2/3rds, due to social factors.

What I mean is that crime is driven by social and psychological factors such as poverty and the acceptability of violence in society, not simply by availability of weapons.

No, it is not hard to say, and it definitely would not reduce the murder rate - it would increase it.

To demonstrate this to yourself, you need only to look at where gun laws are most strict (i.e., guns are essentially "banned") vs. where the laws are least restrictive. Almost invariably, the cities/states with the most restrictive laws have higher murder rates (even when you isolate for population density). Why? Oh yeah, criminals ignore laws. Which means, the people who would attempt to obtain guns legally for their own defense against these criminals...can't get them. Easier to murder helpless people, no?

Perhaps part of the problem is what you might mean by "get rid of" which is different from "banning". As someone with great experience in self-defense - I contend that waving a magic wand and making all guns disappear would simply set women's self-defense back to the stone age. Never mind the "might makes right" issue, where less combat able MEN are now the playthings of any larger, meaner thug.
Most of the women I encounter in my classes are anti gun. Sure, with a few weeks of training they can become far more dangerous and less helpless than they were (same for men) - but they'll STILL be at huge disadvantage against a determined male attacker (nevermind an intoxicated one).
Now train that same woman with a small revolver. Oh, hmmm, not getting raped tonight, is she? Now it doesn't matter if she's attacked by a 250lb Grandmaster in Kill-yu-do - or what he's high on.

The point is, those "social factors" you mention are all important - and the best reason for not making it harder to get or carry guns legally.

Oh, and to my English friend. Yes, you can "own" your bolt-action hunting rifle, still, sure. Tell he how much good it is to you (locked in your government approved container at your gun club) when 3 punks with chains and screwdrivers begin to follow you to your car one night leaving the soccer game?

Thanks to the collected wisdom of OT, we seem to have solved the problem.

Everyone should have more guns.