Political Ramblings

[hemet dennis]

Quote:
I added extra springs and heavy duty shocks.

 

[Q9]

Violent crime in the UK these days is probably related more to the illegal drug trade than anything else. Mostly, the dealer gangs attack each other. Street robberies are mainly confined to certain inner city areas. I know that there are exceptions, including the incident in Cumbria, but the issue, to be realistic, is to reduce gun crime rather than fancifully think that it can be eradicated.

The common denominators that you mention don't often affect Western civilian society, other than gangs in certain urban areas, perhaps. The current debate is mainly about guns used in massacres and none of those events have involved gangs, Muslims or terrorists. I haven't heard anyone argue for a complete gun ban, only a ban or restrictions on those weapons being used today in massacres.

You are quite possibly the only pro-gun control person I actually enjoy talking to.

Gun crime or violent crime? There's not really any evidence to indicate that the UK's handgun ban had any actual effect on violence. Violent crime went up after the ban, but it was part of an ongoing trend, so that can't really be attributed to the law.

Take a look at this: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

Does this seem ill advised to anyone else?

 

[hemet dennis]

Does this seem ill advised to anyone else?

I wish them luck with that.

 

[hemet dennis]

Violent crime in the UK these days is probably related more to the illegal drug trade than anything else. Mostly, the dealer gangs attack each other. Street robberies are mainly confined to certain inner city areas. I know that there are exceptions, including the incident in Cumbria, but the issue, to be realistic, is to reduce gun crime rather than fancifully think that it can be eradicated.

The common denominators that you mention don't often affect Western civilian society, other than gangs in certain urban areas, perhaps. The current debate is mainly about guns used in massacres and none of those events have involved gangs, Muslims or terrorists. I haven't heard anyone argue for a complete gun ban, only a ban or restrictions on those weapons being used today in massacres.

Like the restrictions on those weapons that they have in Mexico ? How is that working out for them ?

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

Any opinions on HR 140?



Quote:

I think I am for the change they are trying to make but I dont think it is constitutional...

 

[duckinnut]

Does this seem ill advised to anyone else?

That sign will help the neighborhood residents feel more comfortable as well as the local criminals. They probably post on Facebook when they are going on vacation too.

 

[Q9]

#!

 

[thaiturkey]

You are quite possibly the only pro-gun control person I actually enjoy talking to.

Gun crime or violent crime? There's not really any evidence to indicate that the UK's handgun ban had any actual effect on violence. Violent crime went up after the ban, but it was part of an ongoing trend, so that can't really be attributed to the law.

Take a look at this: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Well thank you for that!

I'm not sure how closely connected are gun violence and other forms of violence in the UK. Guns were used mainly by and between drug gangs and the individuals who went on shooting rampages. There weren't many of the latter before the law was changed but gang shootings were becoming frequent. The present level of violence is probably due to changes in society and I might point to the EU labour migration laws as one explanation for that. The banning of rapid fire guns and then hand guns was principally intended to reduce the chances of more massacres.

Knives are less likely to be used in mass killings than rapid fire guns. Mass killings seem to be the topic of debate in the US at the moment so comparing guns with knives isn't really relevant.

Something I notice on my infrequent trips home is that people feel generally safe at home, school, university and work but are at risk during the hours of darkness in a few inner city areas where crime figure are high. The answer for individuals is not to go to those areas at night. In fact, they are so unappealing that there is no good reason to do so.

There's no simple, single solution to gun violence in any country. I respect anyone who recognises that there is a problem and is thinking about what might be done to reduce it. Shouting down those with different views from ones own is immature and unproductive and the examples we see of that on the TV at the moment are becoming tiresome.

Illegal guns are still around, of course, and so are illegal knives. Perhaps the numbers will decrease in time as such weapons are traced.

I'll look closely at your interesting link when I have more time.

 

[Q9]

Well thank you for that!

I'm not sure how closely connected are gun violence and other forms of violence in the UK. Guns were used mainly by and between drug gangs and the individuals who went on shooting rampages. There weren't many of the latter before the law was changed but gang shootings were becoming frequent. The present level of violence is probably due to changes in society and I might point to the EU labour migration laws as one explanation for that. The banning of rapid fire guns and then hand guns was principally intended to reduce the chances of more massacres.

Knives are less likely to be used in mass killings than rapid fire guns. Mass killings seem to be the topic of debate in the US at the moment so comparing guns with knives isn't really relevant.

Something I notice on my infrequent trips home is that people feel generally safe at home, school, university and work but are at risk during the hours of darkness in a few inner city areas where crime figure are high. The answer for individuals is not to go to those areas at night. In fact, they are so unappealing that there is no good reason to do so.

There's no simple, single solution to gun violence in any country. I respect anyone who recognises that there is a problem and is thinking about what might be done to reduce it. Shouting down those with different views from ones own is immature and unproductive and the examples we see of that on the TV at the moment are becoming tiresome.

Illegal guns are still around, of course, and so are illegal knives. Perhaps the numbers will decrease in time as such weapons are traced.

I'll look closely at your interesting link when I have more time.

I can understand that; mass shootings seem to be what spurs most major gun laws. I think, though, that we need to be very, very careful when emotions run high. Statistically speaking, a person is far more likely to be killed in a home invasion, carjacking, or other crime than they are in a mass shooting. I don't believe a ban on a class of weapons would accomplish anything - after all, the Columbine shooting happened during the Clinton ban, and crime was not impacted to any degree.

The costs and benefits, as well as the right to self-defense, have to be weighed very carefully. Consider Senator Feinstein's bill - it would not only ban AR-15s and the like, it would also ban M1 Garands (a WWII antique rifle) and the SKS (a rifle with a ten-round internal magazine) for no good reason. In addition, the wording would also ban the sale of any semi-automatic handgun that uses a detachable magazine, since they are technically capable of accepting magazines of more than ten rounds. If you already own one, you have to pay $200 (per gun) to keep your own property, and you have to go through masses of paperwork to register it as an NFA firearm.

It's an insult to everyone, in my opinion. Thai, I know that you and most other pro-control folks have the best intentions, but I am convinced that Feinstein and her ilk are gleefully standing on the graves of dead kids to further their agenda. To them, it's not about protecting anyone, it's about controlling everyone.

I agree, the shouting is completely unproductive. While I found it hilarious, the Alex Jones interview made me cringe when I thought about it. He did far more harm than good (even if Piers had it coming after his treatment of Larry Pratt). My favorite interview so far has been this one, between Piers and Joshua Boston, where they were both very respectful to each other: