That’s one source you’ve offered. Other sources say differently. I wouldn’t be surprised if the official “home office” report smudged the statistics, anyway, in order to justify their gun politics.
Handgun crime ‘up’ despite ban.
From the BBC.
Not only that but knife crime is also a huge problem, according to that article.
I would rather be shot to death than stabbed to death any day of the week.
Also, I reported your post, because you said I was lying, which is prohibited by our forum’s rules.
How are they going to do it?
Door to door searches? Cops going down a list of everyone who owns a gun, and asking for them to hand it in?
What if I don’t want to? What are they going to do, arrest me? (Yeah, I guess so.)
And you don’t think people are going to hide their guns? Everyone with a backyard will bury their guns or seal them up behind a wall, or hide them in the insulation in the attic, or something. And then cops are going to have to tear up people’s houses looking for the hidden guns.
You’re talking about fucking Gestapo tactics.
Anyway a criminal isn’t going to give a shit about the guns being legal or not. He’ll get one somehow. If thousands of PEOPLE can sneak past our border with Mexico, thousands of guns can too. If 90 percent of ships can dock at our ports without being searched, guns will get through. This is a big, big place. It’s not the UK or Germany. It’s a giant country, with a lot of great hiding places.
The Home Office is of course likely to be lying, but the Countryside Alliance Campaign for Shooting are clearly entirely unbiased and above board.
Interestingly, this article appears to have come out in 2001. Do you have anything more recent?
Statistics aren’t particular helpful in this case without context. Compare to some before the ban. Compare to stats (proportionally adjusted) in the U.S…
Why? You’re still dead either way.
You claimed that “violent crime in the UK is on the rise”. Neither of those articles justifies that statement, or is relevant to it at all. Your first article discusses only a small subset of crimes, and says nothing about the overall trend in violent crime. The second article mentions nothing about any trends. Do you have any justification whatever for the statement that “violent crime in the UK is on the rise”? If not, why did you make that statement?
Do you have any evidence of this smudging of statistics?
So would you prefer that I stick to polite tactics such as saying that anyone who disagrees with me is worse than Stalin?
Because being stabbed to death is fucking barbaric and bloody? Being shot is at least quick. I mean, if it’s in the right place.
Of course the Home Office is likely to be biased. Why wouldn’t they want everyone to think that everything is hunky-dory? What’s their incentive not to fudge the statistics to keep the little lambs happy? I have no doubt that my own government does the same thing. Governments are not the most trustworthy entities out there, in my opinion, but that’s just the lunatic ranting of one crazy gun-loving gun fetishizing gun nut in gun-crazy Indiana in the gun-obsessed United States of America, the world’s last holdout of self-defense rights, gravely endangered though it may be.
There’s a difference between an insult directed towards Democrat lawmakers, and one directed towards a member of our forum. You called me a liar, you violated the rules, I reported your post.
I believe that this makes them idiots for the same reason that believing that 2+2=5 would make them idiots. If you can’t come up with a single explanation for why an intelligent person would think the way they do, then please, don’t bother with the “You’re mean!” response, okay?
That sounds about right.
If guns are buried or sealed behind walls, that will be a vast improvement over the current situation.
I’m not aware that it’s possible to have sex with the Gestapo’s tactics.
Mexico’s gun laws are strict, so that won’t be a problem. As for the fact that the USA is large, that doesn’t prevent us from enforcing other laws.
And if it isn’t, a shooting death can be quite barbaric and bloody, too, and not necessarily quick.
Honesty?
Nah, i’m messing with you. I’m sure the numbers are probably fudged to at least some extent. My point was more that if the Home Office, with their fingers in many pies, should be assumed to be biased, then the Campaign for Shooting, for whom their entire existence revolves around one purpose, should pretty much be on that list too. What’s their incentive not to fudge the statistics?
I don’t recall calling you any of these particular things, and indeed I rather seem to recall agreeing with you that keeping guns in the U.S. is what i’d want, too.
Now that that’s out of the way; the cites, please.
You know what, I’m done arguing with you. You’re right, I’m wrong. I’m a liar, and I’m crazy. OK? You win, alright?
I’m not wasting my time on an “anti.” You obviously want people to live at the complete mercy of their government, Communist-style, and you obviously want people to have no means of protecting themselves against violent criminals. You think that a 90 pound woman should have to walk home at night through dangerous neighborhoods defenseless, and you think that an 80 year old man in a wheelchair should have to sit by while his home is ransacked by burglars.
In other words, you are - as I’ve already said - right in line with your friend Barack Obama. So have fun living in your little fantasy Obamaland in Obama County or whatever the fuck. I’m done with you, you win.
The last time Democrats tried to get a gun ban passed they lost control of the house and the senate…
I keep hearing people say that but where’s the proof that their attempts to ban guns are what cost them the House and the Senate? And if it’s such a deadly issue, why on earth are they still supporting a renewal of the AWB?
You are being played for a sucker. the repubs do not have a majority in this country, They have to lure fringe elements in to win. They pushed the defense of marriage act last election. What did they do about it, Nothing ,they just wanted the votes. They make a big pitch to the religious right and pretend those are their peeps. They will cut their hearts out if it makes money or gives them power. They push gun right defense inspite of the fact they actually have made moves against the NRA positions. If they can convince gun nuts they are on their side they can win. But as i’ve shown before they do not do the legislation. They do not intend to. Vote for them and they will do exactly what they want. They have demonstrated they will take guns like in New Orleans. But forget that. You are their peeps. Another sucker voting against his own interests. Congatulations on a great analysis…
Argent Towers writes:
> A complete lack of logic. Street name: stupid.
No, the street name for that is “wrong.” Stupidity is the lack of intelligence. You can’t tell from a single statement whether a person is stupid. You have to test them on a wide variety of things. You also have to find out if they’re merely ignorant on the particular subject on which they have made a wrong statement. Doesn’t it occur to you at all that someone who disagrees with you about some subject on which you claim to be an expert might simply be ignorant about the finer details of the subject?
> I don’t see an official rulebook for style in Great Debates.
I’m not talking about following the official rules. I’m talking about actually persuading anyone to change their minds. Do you really want to persuade anyone else to agree with you, or are you merely interested in insulting other people for the fun of it?
Grumman writes:
> I believe that this makes them idiots for the same reason that believing that
> 2+2=5 would make them idiots. If you can’t come up with a single explanation
> for why an intelligent person would think the way they do, then please, don’t
> bother with the “You’re mean!” response, okay?
Have you ever met anyone who believes that 2 + 2 = 5? That wouldn’t make them stupid. That would make them insane or maybe a liar, but I can’t imagine anyone who had already studied grade school arithmetic believing that 2 + 2 = 5. The fact that someone knows less about guns that you do (or so you claim) does not make them stupid. It makes them ignorant. You, however, appear to believe that the best way for you to persuade someone of the validity of your arguments is to insult them.
That’s why I hate them. I’ve never liked the Republican party at all, and I wish they would drop their gay marriage and drug war bullshit. Despite all that, it’s the Democrats who have been screwing the gun owners over and over. Believe it or not, this thread used to have a point, and the point was that Democrats are the ones responsible for the utterly ridiculous and ignorant “Assault Weapons Ban,” pushed by Democratic lawmakers and signed by a Democrat president. That’s how it is, plain and simple. And Barack Obama is on board with it.
Conservative states have liberal gun laws. Liberal states (NY, CA, and others) have Communist-like gun laws. It’s left-wingers who have been doing everything they can to infringe on the 2nd Amendment, and so it’s left-wingers who I am going to oppose.
I don’t like either party. I hate George W. Bush.
Oh and Wendell Wanger - enough. I am going to say what I want, and there is absolutely nothing in the entire universe that you can do about it. Sorry.
I’m not going to debate the semantics of the word stupid. Some things are fucking stupid and you have to call it like you see it. The AWB is stupid the same way marijuana being illegal is stupid. This stuff gets you fucked up, and it’s in a bottle, so that’s OK, but this thing is a plant, so it’s not OK. It’s fucking stupid.
The fact that they want the law to reflect their ignorance does.
Argent Towers writes:
> I don’t like either party. I hate George W. Bush.
So you apparently believe that everyone other than you is stupid. Everyone else is wrong about something that you are sure about, so they must be stupid. It must be lonely to be the only one who’s right about everything.
“*f enough people think like this”? No, whatever draconian legislation you’re anticipating would still have to pass through the legislature and either pass constitutional muster or be preceded by a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Our culture would have to evolve quite a bit for there ever to be “enough people” to undo the 2nd Amendment, so what kind of science fiction are you peddling here?
Take a look at how broad-based, well-organized, and committed the effort among conservatives is to ban abortion–and yet thus far they’ve largely failed, even though abortion rights rest on what I’ll concede are some fairly shaky constitutional grounds.
Now look at how disorganized and divided the effort to ban guns is. There are too many Democrats who continue to support the basics of gun rights even if some of them are open to some of the various tighter regulations that might be contemplated. But a few people wistfully wishing for a world without weapons should be taken as a harbinger of jackbooted thugs.
Despite the apparent missing word(s), this does look to be a pretty direct violation of the rules.
Do not do this again.
If you have not seen this thread, stickied at the top of the Forum then you need to go read it now. (Interesting that you know all about the rule against calling people liars but cannot seem to recall any rule against calling them idiots. I am aware that you have tiptoed behind the line just barely avoiding any direct insult to any poster, however, in the quoted post you appear to be prepared to violate the rules with a claim of ignorance and I am afraid that that will not be tolerated.)
= = =
At any rate, this thread has long since moved away from a debate, turning into a pissing contest. It is closed.
Anyone who wishes to open a new thread on the same topic is welcome to do so, but any arguments that are based on “that position is stupid” will cause the thread to be closed (and, possibly, the poster to be Warned), so I would suggest that anyone re-opening the topic include a link to this post.
[ /Moderating ]