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.
Snrub wrote: What was so wrong about his post? (Assuming you were refering to Metal Oxides post and not Whembly.)
You mean this?
MetalOxide wrote: Only in America is having a gun a right but access to medical treatment with no large bills (like NHS) is a privilage. What a strange country. At least that will be a lot of money for the hospitals fixing up all those gunshot wounds.
Well... he sorta does have a point.
We are a strange country...
....
....
....
....
....
From a non-American view that is.
I'd imagine though that every country seems strange to an outsider.
At least we drive on the right side of the road. (What side do Aussie drive on?)
EDIT: Does anyone know the source why the Brits (and some colonies) drive on the left side of the road? It was due to horses/donkeys being trained to walk on the left side.
We drive on the left hand side of the road, which incidently is the correct side.
Now i could be wrong, but i believe driving on the left hand side harks back to the days of when a gentleman was out for a stroll with his lady friend and he would stand on the on the side closer to the road, so that in the event of a horse drawn cart came by and splashed water upon them he would take the brunt of it and spare his female companion the indignity of being soaked. Which is why we drive on the left and park so that the driver has to exit the car onto the road, thereby "protecting" the passenger from the dangers of getting spashed... with car.
OK go into a pub in Britain, start talking gak, and tell me how many of them are running away and not confronting you.
Haha you are such a joker!
I just love how in the previous gun threads there were charts and graphs showing the UK to be more violent than the US, and now you guys are apparently all fleeing from fights. Just dumb.
How about this? UK members can't understand our fascination with guns. US members can't understand why they can't understand our fascination with guns. We're not changing any societal views on this on Dakka, Seriously. All we're doing is rehashing small differences for the umpteenth time. Americans have different views than those in the UK. This isn't shocking, so why are we still debating it?
That's because most UK citizens don't need to defend themselves every time they step out of the front door. Also you cannot compare crime rates of two completely different countries because they will have different ways of reporting and recording crimes as well as a different ratio of crime to population. We may have a higher crime to population ratio (one of the worst in Europe apparently) but claiming that there is more crime overall in the UK than the US is just stupid when the US has a population of 313,914,040 whereas the UK has a population of 63,181,775 so by defult the US should have more crimes committed.
I would also like to point out that most US citizens don't need to defend themselves every time they step out of the front door... Like I said in another thread, I've been living in the same place/city for 10 years, and our house has never been broken into, I've never been held up at gunpoint/knifepoint/phallic silicon... point. The worst that has happened is that I was in a restaurant when some guy flipped out because he was hammered and didn't like what he ordered... I've been hassled by homeless, sold popcorn in bad neighborhoods, and played baseball in the inner city of Cleveland... Nothing has ever happened to me... Those that carry guns do so because they don't wish to be caught off guard. I've said it before, I wouldn't conceal carry because there is no legal point for me to do so. I work in an office building that explicitly says that concealed carry is illegal in the building. I don't need CCW at home because well... I'm at home. The 3 minutes I'm in a parking lot twice a day doesn't worry me.
Others have it far worse than I do...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/09 04:54:25
DR:80+S++G+M+B+I+Pwmhd11#++D++A++++/sWD-R++++T(S)DM+ Ask me about Brushfire or Endless: Fantasy Tactics
2013/02/09 04:56:21
Subject: Re:So... not having guns makes you safer?
I have played Grand Theft Auto San Andreas and I've seen people play Saints Row the Third... I've never been accosted by such a thing before... I think those video games are inaccurate representations of real life.
DR:80+S++G+M+B+I+Pwmhd11#++D++A++++/sWD-R++++T(S)DM+ Ask me about Brushfire or Endless: Fantasy Tactics
Oh god... i remember those purple monstrosities in GTA. The first time i ever found one in the copshop i wasn't sure what it was. I was young and so wonderfully naive. Then i gave it as a gift to someone and then all of a sudden it clicked and i figured out what it was.
Mattman154 wrote:
He's from the UK. They seem to be born and raised with the "Why fight when I can flee" mentality.
Breotan wrote:Seriously? You had to go all the way back to the Battle of Britain? How long ago was that? While I share Mattman154's view that there is a serious sheep-like passivity being engrained into British society today, surely you can find a more recent example to support your viewpoint?
Ah, such brave words from men extolling the virtues of hiding behind firearms instead of throwing down in the traditional manner.
Know what I've found since coming over here? Your lot talk a really good fight, all wavy arm gestures and hollywood threats and then??? They stand around and wait for their friends to hold them back. 'No bro, you come at me'...
Both of you take your tough guy asses over to The Swordfish in Newlyn, UK, where you won't be allowed to carry guns. Try and pick a landing day when the harbor's full of trawlers, then you tell those chaps your wonderful theories and I'll run a book on how many pieces you end up in. In fact, wander into any town in the UK on a Friday night and tell them all they're pussies and see what your brave talk gets you.
I highly recommend it.
My bar buddies can beat up your bar buddies!
My bar buddies would bore you to death with pics of their kids. We don't need guns. We have IPADs full of mind numbing pics.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2013/02/11 17:25:51
Subject: Re:So... not having guns makes you safer?
Mattman154 wrote:
He's from the UK. They seem to be born and raised with the "Why fight when I can flee" mentality.
Breotan wrote:Seriously? You had to go all the way back to the Battle of Britain? How long ago was that? While I share Mattman154's view that there is a serious sheep-like passivity being engrained into British society today, surely you can find a more recent example to support your viewpoint?
Ah, such brave words from men extolling the virtues of hiding behind firearms instead of throwing down in the traditional manner.
Know what I've found since coming over here? Your lot talk a really good fight, all wavy arm gestures and hollywood threats and then??? They stand around and wait for their friends to hold them back. 'No bro, you come at me'...
Both of you take your tough guy asses over to The Swordfish in Newlyn, UK, where you won't be allowed to carry guns. Try and pick a landing day when the harbor's full of trawlers, then you tell those chaps your wonderful theories and I'll run a book on how many pieces you end up in. In fact, wander into any town in the UK on a Friday night and tell them all they're pussies and see what your brave talk gets you.
I highly recommend it.
My bar buddies can beat up your bar buddies!
My bar buddies would bore you to death with pics of their kids. We don't need guns. We have IPADs full of mind numbing pics.
My bar buddies would make you roll up a character before any violence is enacted.
Mannahnin wrote:A lot of folks online (and in emails in other parts of life) use pretty mangled English. The idea is that it takes extra effort and time to write properly, and they’d rather save the time. If you can still be understood, what’s the harm? While most of the time a sloppy post CAN be understood, the use of proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling is generally seen as respectable and desirable on most forums. It demonstrates an effort made to be understood, and to make your post an easy and pleasant read. By making this effort, you can often elicit more positive responses from the community, and instantly mark yourself as someone worth talking to.
insaniak wrote: Every time someone threatens violence over the internet as a result of someone's hypothetical actions at the gaming table, the earth shakes infinitisemally in its orbit as millions of eyeballs behind millions of monitors all roll simultaneously.
In Illinois, it’s been more about guns than the state’s gaping pension debt this winter. And that is not about to change, as the top Democratin Illinois has set the agenda for at least one major overhaul of the state’s gun laws.
House Speaker Mike Madigan on Thursday set a pair of public hearings for later this month to focus on concealed-carry legislation.
“In light of events in recent months in Illinois and in other parts of the country, it’s appropriate and necessary that we give a full vetting to proposed state legislation on this matter,” Madigan said.
Illinois is the only state in the nation that does not allow people to carry a weapon in some fashion and with some regulations.
Madigan said the hearings, one in Chicago and the other at the state Capitol, will give advocates, opponents and police officers a chance “to offer their views and argue their cases to legislators and the people of Illinois.”
But the case for concealed carry already may be closed.
In December, a federal appeals court struck down Illinois’ law that stops people from carrying a weapon.
And Todd Vandermyde, a lobbyist for the Illinois State Rifle Association, said that ruling closed the door on many of the “negotiations” that surrounded concealed carry legislation in the past.
"There are certain things that are not negotiable in the process," Vandermyde said last week at a public hearing.
Concealed carry “will be a ‘shall issue’ permit, there will be no discretion by some bureaucrat as to whether you get to exercise your right,” he said.
“It will be a statewide permit, there will be no carve-out for Chicago. There will be no carve-out for Cook County,” Vandermyde said.
State Rep. Brandon Phelps, D-Harrisburg, who has authored several concealed-carry laws during his time in Springfield, said the federal court ruling goes even further.
"The clock is still ticking. June 10 is the deadline," Phelps said. "We filed a bill, a lot of people didn't think we were going to because we don't have to. Constitutional carry will set-in if we don't do something."
Phelps’ plan would require gun owners be trained, pass a background check and obtain a permit. Phelps said he is fine with some limits on where people could take their weapon, including schools, libraries, taverns, amusement parks, airports, government buildings or anyplace prohibited by federal law.
So if lawmakers must act to stop everyone from being able to carry a gun, but will not be able to place broad limits on just who can carry a gun, what can lawmakers do?
State Sen. Kwame Raoul, D-Chicago, will have to figure that out.
Raoul will now head the Illinois Senate’s push to legislate who can carry a weapon in Illinois.
“The negotiations I lead will respect firearm owners’ constitutional protections as interpreted by the Supreme Court and lower courts, and it will acknowledge the fact that there are many law-abiding Illinois gun owners who legitimately wish to use guns for sport and self-protection,” Raoul said in a statement on Thursday. “At the same time, we will also acknowledge the alarming prevalence of gun violence and the need to keep guns out of the hands of those most likely to use them for harm.”
But on Wednesday, Raoul said the focus on guns should not just be on concealed carry or even an assault weapons ban.
"I understand there was a great tragedy that happened at Newtown (Conn.), and Aurora (Colo.), and Columbine (High School in Colorado)," Raoul said. "But on a day-to-day basis, in my neighborhood, in my district, it's these guns being transferred through straw purchases to gang-bangers and people we know will do harm with them."
Raoul said he wants to address that problem as well.
The first House hearing is set from Feb. 19 in Springfield, the second on Feb. 22 in Chicago.
Long past time it happened. I'm hoping to get an assignment real soon, so I'll be leaving shortly after this deadline. Won't affect me much, but i'm glad for the people of Illinois.
Full Frontal Nerdity
2013/02/11 22:18:29
Subject: Re:So... not having guns makes you safer?
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
*evil Palpatine voice*
I will keep the Senate bogged down in procedures, they will have no choice but to accept your right to bear arms
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Mannahnin wrote:A lot of folks online (and in emails in other parts of life) use pretty mangled English. The idea is that it takes extra effort and time to write properly, and they’d rather save the time. If you can still be understood, what’s the harm? While most of the time a sloppy post CAN be understood, the use of proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling is generally seen as respectable and desirable on most forums. It demonstrates an effort made to be understood, and to make your post an easy and pleasant read. By making this effort, you can often elicit more positive responses from the community, and instantly mark yourself as someone worth talking to.
insaniak wrote: Every time someone threatens violence over the internet as a result of someone's hypothetical actions at the gaming table, the earth shakes infinitisemally in its orbit as millions of eyeballs behind millions of monitors all roll simultaneously.
whembly wrote: EDIT: Does anyone know the source why the Brits (and some colonies) drive on the left side of the road? It was due to horses/donkeys being trained to walk on the left side.
I heard it that horse riders wore swords on their left, and you kept oncoming 'traffic' to your right.
So, you could see whether their sword hand was empty.
And, as mentioned, curtesy states that if a gentleman is walking with his lady, he stands to the right.
Look at walkabouts of the Queen, with Prince Philip to her rear-right.
So, men would pass each other, and the women on the outside.
I doubt it's anything to do with horses on canal tow-paths.
AFAIR, boats 'drive' on the right here. Towing a barge on the right would mean that the horse would have to be on the right, if there's a choice. Most canals only have a towpath on one side.
As for guns:
"If you outlaw guns, the only people with guns will be the outlaws."
There's usually no need to carry a gun here in the UK, unless you expect to need it. Gun-fight, knife-fight, it's not something the majority of people need to worry about.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/02/15 11:40:48
I would add that the easy availability of guns would actually increase the amount of outlaws in the first place.
It's much easier to hold up a store when you have a gun anyway. I mean, most of the people that do this are probably in a very desperate situation where they feel this is the only way for them to get any money. And well, since you have a gun for " self defense" anyway, might as well use it for this.
Besides, I don't get how this still needs to be discussed, just check the statistics from every western country without these kind of gun laws (so, just about everyone else) and you'll see the difference in gun related violence.
Soladrin wrote: I would add that the easy availability of guns would actually increase the amount of outlaws in the first place.
Gun amnesties. We often have them, about once a decade or so, IIRC. Any time there's a big shooting in the UK, there's another furore, and a call to 'get guns off the streets'. Doesn't work, of course. See what happened after Dunblane...
Besides, I don't get how this still needs to be discussed, just check the statistics from every western country without these kind of gun laws (so, just about everyone else) and you'll see the difference in gun related violence.
Since gun related violence =/= all violent crime, the stats are usually skewed. I guess that US and gun-carrying countries do not count their gun-death apart from knife-deaths, etc.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/15 12:03:57
When did I ever say gun violence represents all violence? That said, there is a lot less violence in general anyway so I think it's a moot point.
As for the call to get guns off the street, yeah, it doesn't work. You know why? Because the people who have them in countries without acces to legal fire arms most likely feel they need them for their "business".
I'd also add this plays out almost exactly like legalizing drugs. Every country that has done it has seen a rapid decline in drug related crimes, deaths, abuse etc. etc..
More people per capita use drugs in the USA then in the Netherlands. Let that roll about in your head for a bit.
Edit: To clarify, I'm not arguing Legalization vs Banning. I'm just pointing out that people seem to be really good at ignoring things that are obviously proved by the stats.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2013/02/15 12:16:51
Edit: To clarify, I'm not arguing Legalization vs Banning. I'm just pointing out that people seem to be really good at ignoring things that are obviously proved by the stats.
It is easier to remember talking points by influential power brokers rather than nerdy facts dug up in research and statistic papers that don't prove a charged point.
Soladrin wrote: When did I ever say gun violence represents all violence? That said, there is a lot less violence in general anyway so I think it's a moot point.
As for the call to get guns off the street, yeah, it doesn't work. You know why? Because the people who have them in countries without acces to legal fire arms most likely feel they need them for their "business".
I'd also add this plays out almost exactly like legalizing drugs. Every country that has done it has seen a rapid decline in drug related crimes, deaths, abuse etc. etc..
More people per capita use drugs in the USA then in the Netherlands. Let that roll about in your head for a bit.
Edit: To clarify, I'm not arguing Legalization vs Banning. I'm just pointing out that people seem to be really good at ignoring things that are obviously proved by the stats.
Jos, the issue with gun-violence stats is that they're often lumped in with violence stats. And then once you have your violence stats, you had to discern what each country counts as violence. KillKrazy has mentioned in other threads (and possibly this one) that there are some types of crimes that are committed in the UK that aren't considered violent crimes in the US (or vice versa). To truly get valid research on run related homicides (which is what we care about). Then you would have to openly ask major cities in the US how many homicides (not including suicide or suicide by cop) that included guns, and technically... but that's hard arduous work that no one anywhere seems to want to do.
DR:80+S++G+M+B+I+Pwmhd11#++D++A++++/sWD-R++++T(S)DM+ Ask me about Brushfire or Endless: Fantasy Tactics
Soladrin wrote: I'd argue that the overwhelming difference would still be rather telling.
Anyway, that leaves me with only one valid argument:
'MURICA!
Except that the "MURICA" attitude is an attitude held by a vocal minority of the population. There are plenty of us that agree we live in a good country, and that we have our feth ups, but at least we're not a third world country yet...
DR:80+S++G+M+B+I+Pwmhd11#++D++A++++/sWD-R++++T(S)DM+ Ask me about Brushfire or Endless: Fantasy Tactics
Soladrin wrote: When did I ever say gun violence represents all violence? That said, there is a lot less violence in general anyway so I think it's a moot point.
As for the call to get guns off the street, yeah, it doesn't work. You know why? Because the people who have them in countries without acces to legal fire arms most likely feel they need them for their "business".
I'd also add this plays out almost exactly like legalizing drugs. Every country that has done it has seen a rapid decline in drug related crimes, deaths, abuse etc. etc..
More people per capita use drugs in the USA then in the Netherlands. Let that roll about in your head for a bit.
Edit: To clarify, I'm not arguing Legalization vs Banning. I'm just pointing out that people seem to be really good at ignoring things that are obviously proved by the stats.
Jos, the issue with gun-violence stats is that they're often lumped in with violence stats. And then once you have your violence stats, you had to discern what each country counts as violence. KillKrazy has mentioned in other threads (and possibly this one) that there are some types of crimes that are committed in the UK that aren't considered violent crimes in the US (or vice versa). To truly get valid research on run related homicides (which is what we care about). Then you would have to openly ask major cities in the US how many homicides (not including suicide or suicide by cop) that included guns, and technically... but that's hard arduous work that no one anywhere seems to want to do.
All that data is available from the FBI website, which uses the Uniform Crime Reporting definitions to classify the different crimes.
I know it is difficult to compare all violent crimes between US and UK, since the US apparently does not record violent crime unless it involves a weapon of some kind.
Soladrin wrote: Yeah, but I'm not from the UK and I was the one making that point in the first place.
Silly SWEEEEOOOOOO!
sweeeeoooooo?
Also I realize you're not from the UK, but the point(s) that you've brought up have been brought up and extensively argued by both people from the UK and America... though providing some stats might give your argument more weight
DR:80+S++G+M+B+I+Pwmhd11#++D++A++++/sWD-R++++T(S)DM+ Ask me about Brushfire or Endless: Fantasy Tactics
I don't know if the French publish their crime stats. I expect it is easier to research in French government web sites if you read French well, and so on for other countries.
Wikipedia publishes a lot of this kind of info with sources. As long as you check the sources, you can quickly find if Wikipedia just makes up the stats or whether they are at all useful for analysis.
Similarly, the WHO, the UN and the CIA publish a lot of this kind of information. In fact the Wiki info is often copied and/or summarised/tabulated from those other sources.
It isn't actually too hard to find info that is roughly comparable. Of course you need to be aware of differences in methodology, and year of collection, but they needn't invalidate all comparisons.
POSTED AT 12:41 PM ON FEBRUARY 15, 2013 BY MARY KATHARINE HAM
I don’t usually post video of myself, but this got a lot of reaction this morning. I imagine my visceral annoyance speaks for a lot of people being accused of not caring about children who die at the hands of murders just because we happen to disagree with President Obama’s preferred federal remedies for said murders (most of which have already been implemented and failed spectacularly).
Juan and I are friends, and as I say at the end of the clip, we will make it up later. But please notice that I do not impugn Juan’s motives. I would have appreciated the same consideration. I have no doubt that he cares deeply about those affected by gun violence, but I think he puts far too much emphasis on the emotional catharsis of passing a law to “fix” a problem, which then doesn’t fix the problem. If one supports a remedy, such as the Assault Weapons Ban, which has already demonstrably failed to prevent mass shootings on a national level (Columbine) and a state level (Newtown), and yet wants to implement that failed policy again, isn’t that effectively just as bad as not caring about the problem? If one supports stricter gun laws, which have demonstrably failed in places like Chicago and Washington, D.C., while ignoring the deeper social problems that cause gang-related shootings and Newtown-like single shooters, isn’t that effectively just as bad as not giving a damn? Ignoring these failures and repeating failed policies arguably goes beyond indifference into a form of criminal negligence, no matter how well-meaning.
I’ve already been accused of racism online for sticking up for gun owners and wanting to address deeper issues that might actually curb gun violence, so let me add this. One, it’s racist and ignorant to assume there are no minorities among the legal gun owners I’m defending. Two, I think there are deeper social issues at play in both gang war and single shooters, who are almost exclusively white and suburban/rural, and reference both problems in this clip, so no I’m not blaming gun violence on cities or minorities. And, finally, strict gun laws in Chicago often prevent people like Otis McDonald, a 76-year-old black South Side resident, from protecting themselves. I would like Mr. McDonald and 70-year-old Detroit basketball coach Ernest Robinson, and others like them to have that right— not be held hostage by the bad intentions of armed criminals and the failed good intentions of their liberal lawmakers.
Yet I’m the one accused of not caring for having the audacity to point out that law-abiding people shouldn’t be punished for criminals’ crimes and asking a federal law to actually produce something other than the moral superiority of its supporters. The conversation wasn’t even really about gun control. It was about being able to disagree with liberal policies or point out their inefficacy, without being smeared as a heartless racist. (Juan didn’t go there with the racism, just the heartlessness, and I appreciate at least that, although my Twitter feed is full of it.) Juan himself has faced the exact same bullying when he strays from the liberal line on issues like school choice, on which we agree. It’s unfair and unhelpful, and dare I say it, uncaring.
6000 pts - Harlies: 1000 pts - 
4000 pts - 
1000 pts - 
1000 pts 
