Amazon 7 #26 March 4, 2006 Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't out to get you we are not laughing with you.. DUDE... we are just laughing Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #27 March 4, 2006 QuotePopulation US - c. 300 million Population UK - c. 60 million Therefore US has 5 times the population of UK. Firearms offences in US in 2003 (source http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/guncrimetab.htm) - 347,705 of which 11,041 were homicides We have about .3 BILLION guns in the U.S. Even if each of those offenses were committed by a separate person with a separate gun, that is still a vanishingly small percentage. Do the math: 347,705 divided by 300,000,000 = 0.00115901, or one tenth of one percent. QuoteFirearms offences in UK for 2003 (source http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hosb1004.pdf) - 10,340 of which 68 were homicides Six years after a ban on guns, and you had 10,340 firearms offenses?! How is that? Are you forced to admit that there is a problem with criminals owning guns in an island country where they are banned, and where even the lawful owners of guns were never protected against police intrusion to check on the guns' status? QuotePlease explain how an instigation of your so obviously effective US gun policy in the UK will have anything other than a negative effect on the rate of gun crime and specifically gun related murders in this country. It might give those who would be victims a better shot at fighting back againt their attackers, possibly helping reduce the number of extant attackers who may continue to prey on the population at large. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #28 March 4, 2006 Quote QuoteFirearms offences in UK for 2003 (source http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hosb1004.pdf) - 10,340 of which 68 were homicides Six years after a ban on guns, and you had 10,340 firearms offenses?! How is that? Are you forced to admit that there is a problem with criminals owning guns in an island country where they are banned, and where even the lawful owners of guns were never protected against police intrusion to check on the guns' status? Who's side are you arguing for, PJ? Certainly not our's. That 10k includes armed robberies and attacks on people (5000) - no idea if the other 5k are BS crimes like possession. Meanwhile we saw that many murders alone, you know muggings are well above it. Fighting the Brits on gun crime rates is going to a battle of wits unarmed. You can't win. Crime in general ... maybe. Probably still a stalemate, but at least not a total self pantsing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scoop 0 #29 March 4, 2006 Dont forget our most common firearms offences are more like kids shooting BB guns at others or firing paintball guns at buildings and gennerally not the violent heinous crimes. Even being in possesion of pepper spray/CS gas/Mace is an offence under the Firearms act Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #30 March 4, 2006 QuoteDont forget our most common firearms offences are more like kids shooting BB guns at others or firing paintball guns at buildings and gennerally not the violent heinous crimes. Even being in possesion of pepper spray/CS gas/Mace is an offence under the Firearms act It's not my fault that morons in the British legislature have started calling bb and paintball guns "firearms." Just shows you're living in a country that is legislating itself (nonsensically) to death. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skysquiffy 0 #31 March 4, 2006 QuoteQuoteI find it incredibly disturbing that you seem to find so much pleasure in reporting bad news. I understand that this item fits your agenda, but a little more decorum and little less enthusiam would be far more palatable. I picture you rubbing your hands and running to your pc, barely being able to contain yourself when you got wind of this. Well, you picture a little much. But yeah, when I observe such wrong-headed policy forced onto the lives of civilians and then I observe how it doesn't do any good for that society, I enjoy pointing it out, in the hopes of winning converts to the better way of thinking. That's wrong? Doesn't everyone do that? The more that goes wrong in a society or a locality where guns are banned and the gun ban does not accomplish any positive benefits, the more "ammunition" there is for pro-gun people to use to show how bad gun bans are. - If your true intent is to persuade people to your way of thinking, your approach is less than effective. Sarcasm, aggressiveness and condescension rarely opens minds. Your more likely to be met with defensiveness and resentment, which I think you should realize by most of the reactions to your posts. Very few people will respond favorably to heavy-handed tactics and a mocking attitude. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dropoutdave 0 #32 March 4, 2006 True dat. ------------------------------------------------------ May Contain Nut traces...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfc 1 #33 March 4, 2006 QuoteQuotePopulation US - c. 300 million Population UK - c. 60 million Therefore US has 5 times the population of UK. Firearms offences in US in 2003 (source http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/guncrimetab.htm) - 347,705 of which 11,041 were homicides We have about .3 BILLION guns in the U.S. Even if each of those offenses were committed by a separate person with a separate gun, that is still a vanishingly small percentage. Do the math: 347,705 divided by 300,000,000 = 0.00115901, or one tenth of one percent. QuoteFirearms offences in UK for 2003 (source http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hosb1004.pdf) - 10,340 of which 68 were homicides Six years after a ban on guns, and you had 10,340 firearms offenses?! How is that? Are you forced to admit that there is a problem with criminals owning guns in an island country where they are banned, and where even the lawful owners of guns were never protected against police intrusion to check on the guns' status? QuotePlease explain how an instigation of your so obviously effective US gun policy in the UK will have anything other than a negative effect on the rate of gun crime and specifically gun related murders in this country. It might give those who would be victims a better shot at fighting back againt their attackers, possibly helping reduce the number of extant attackers who may continue to prey on the population at large. - As usual you avoid the point of the original poster that homicide via firearms is way lower in the UK and use some stupid statistic on percentage of guns to say that there is not a problem. Remember guns don't kill people, people kill people. I think you have a serious hangup with the UK for some reason, I don't understand it, you take every opportunity you can to bash the UK. In my mind I have a picture of you franticallly searching the internet for information to be used in you anti-UK propaganda war muttering to yourself about how bad the UK is and squealing with joy when you find something and then rush to post it on dz.com and all other forums you may be a member of. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scoop 0 #34 March 4, 2006 QuoteI think you have a serious hangup with the UK for some reason, I don't understand it, you take every opportunity you can to bash the UK. In my mind I have a picture of you franticallly searching the internet for information to be used in you anti-UK propaganda war muttering to yourself about how bad the UK is and squealing with joy when you find something and then rush to post it on dz.com and all other forums you may be a member of. Dont worry, Ive tipped off MI5 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #35 March 4, 2006 ok.. that was funny... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #36 March 6, 2006 QuoteWas it you who posted that the purpose of this legislation was to stem the overwhelming tide of appx. 300 guns a year from lawful hands to illegal owners? Despite the fact that estimates put the number of illegal firearms in England at between 1,000,000 and 3,000,000? So that was worth taking them away from law-abiding owners with no compensation, huh No Jeffrey, as usual you failed to read my post correctly. Kinda worrying given the fact that you're supposed to be a proofreader. I posted a quote from the Home Secretary which stated: "The ban on handguns was a direct response to the tragic shootings at Dunblane Primary School in March 1996, which were carried out with legally held handguns. It did not purport to vast majority of which is carried out using illegally held firearms. With regards to the numbers you quote I said that there were only 300 legally held weapons making their way into criminal's hands per year prior to the ban, (ie I am also dismissive of the figure, as was the Government of the day), and later noted that your 3 mil figure was one of several suggested figures subsequently dismissed because differing sources ranged all the way down to 250,000 illegally held firearms prior to the ban. Don't ask me to justify the legislation Jeffery - whilst I can at least see the subject objectively enough to understand why the move was made, I did not agree with it. Try re-reading the posts from last week; you have evidently missed something quite significant as this was all explained to you back then. And compensation WAS given. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Duckwater 0 #37 March 6, 2006 Quoteand later noted that your 3 mil figure was one of several suggested figures subsequently dismissed because differing sources ranged all the way down to 250,000 illegally held firearms prior to the ban. Is that the ban on firearms or the ban on PJ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #38 March 6, 2006 Has he been banned again? What did I miss? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #39 March 6, 2006 QuoteIf your true intent is to persuade people to your way of thinking, your approach is less than effective. Sarcasm, aggressiveness and condescension rarely opens minds. Your more likely to be met with defensiveness and resentment, which I think you should realize by most of the reactions to your posts. Very few people will respond favorably to heavy-handed tactics and a mocking attitude. Yeah, well, then, maybe I'm past the point of caring, and maybe I do think that the minds of those who are wrong about this subject will never be changed, and I'm just in "gloat mode" now. Whatcanyadoaboutit? --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Duckwater 0 #40 March 6, 2006 He did get banned...supposedly for 2 weeks......But....Apparently the greenies forgot to flip the switch. Did PJ talk his way out of the ban?????????? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #41 March 6, 2006 QuoteWith regards to the numbers you quote I said that there were only 300 legally held weapons making their way into criminal's hands per year prior to the ban, (ie I am also dismissive of the figure, as was the Government of the day), and later noted that your 3 mil figure was one of several suggested figures subsequently dismissed because differing sources ranged all the way down to 250,000 illegally held firearms prior to the ban. Even if we accept a figure of "all the way down to only 250,000 illegally held firearms" prior to the ban - how many "illegally held firearms" are believed to have been turned in because of the ban? It's hard for me to imagine any, because criminals don't want to give them up -- and they know that because they were illegal (unregistered) they cannot be tracked. - how many legally held firearms were turned in? I had heard it was only somewhere in the neighborhood of a few hundred thousand, if that. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #42 March 6, 2006 The Home Secretary answered exactly that question in 1999. At that point he stated: "Just over 162,000 handguns were surrendered to the police under the terms of the Firearms (Amendment) Acts 1997. As for illegally held firearms... does it matter? The 97 legislation was not intended to have any effect on them besides that very small number of 300 per year already mentioned. This idea that the 97 legislation was somehow going to change patterns of street crime is a pure fantasy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #43 March 6, 2006 QuoteAnd compensation WAS given. How would you like me to compensate you if I were going to take away your right to free speech? Would a couple hundred bucks do the trick? --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #44 March 6, 2006 QuoteThe Home Secretary answered exactly that question in 1999. At that point he stated: "Just over 162,000 handguns were surrendered to the police under the terms of the Firearms (Amendment) Acts 1997. As for illegally held firearms... does it matter? The 97 legislation was not intended to have any effect on them besides that very small number of 300 per year already mentioned. This idea that the 97 legislation was somehow going to change patterns of street crime is a pure fantasy. Then what, exactly, was the alleged benefit to society that was used to sell society on the idea? I think that the ban was the result of strings pulled by people who are just ideologically opposed to the idea of free citizens owning guns. And they managed to get popular support by, pretty much, cynically leading the public to believe that bad people would not be able to possess guns. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #45 March 6, 2006 No comparison can be drawn with rights to free speech - we have never had the right to own pistols in the UK, only the privilege. No ones rights have been removed, just as no ones rights are removed if the vehicle licensing agency refuses to grant someone a driving license. They loose a privilage sure, but not a right. As for the supposed benefits to society, I can't be bothered to repeat myself again. See this post from last week when I explained it to you in the last thread you started on this exact same subject: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2096115#2096115 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #46 March 6, 2006 QuoteNo comparison can be drawn with rights to free speech - we have never had the right to own pistols in the UK, only the privilege. Never having had a right does not rationalize continuing to not have that right, especially when we are talking about an important human right (self defense, which many argue is THE most important human right) It either should be yours or it should not. And if you don't have it, but you should have it, that is an evil. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #47 March 6, 2006 QuoteNo comparison can be drawn with rights to free speech - we have never had the right to own pistols in the UK, only the privilege. San Francisco, CA just passed a law (it is on hold and will be challenged in court) that bans firearm possession by those living in the city. This law orders the surrender of privately owned firearms to the city for destruction -- with no compensation to be made. I don't give a shit whether you think that because your government never came down from on high and granted you this specific human right (it was never the government's to grant, I would have you realize), you are not entitled to it. Here in America, there are idiot zealots trying very hard to take our rights away -- guns are our right, here -- and so it IS very much like, "What kind of compensation do you feel would be appropriate when we take away your right to free speech?" The fact is, nothing can compensate for the loss of either the right to free speech or the right to own guns. And besides, as I said, San Fransissyco is not even offering monetary compensation. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #48 March 6, 2006 Well that's bad for San Fran then - compensation at the very least should be provided... but this is not San Fran. As of 1999 more than £90 million had been paid in compensation for firearms handed in as a result of the 97 legislation. This was not compensation for the loss of a right however but compensation for the loss of a chattel. And there still exists the right to self defence - I can still shoot someone if I need to - I just can't use now illegal automatic pistols to do so. No rights have changed. For example; we have the right to the free movement of goods and people within the EU. Not a privilege, a right. However if the Govt. refused to grant the privilege of driving licenses I would still hold the right to free movement, I'd just have to use busses or trains etc. Driving is a privilege here, as was owning a pistol. Neither affect the underlying rights. Not everyone agrees as to what basic human rights are – fine you feel owning a pistol is a "human right" as you put it. That's fine – I'm happy you have a right you care about. The majority in the UK don't agree with you so here things are different, but then this is here not there so there's really no need to get into such a tizzy about it. Similarly, the residents of tiny Pacific island NORFOLK Island considered it a human right that they be allowed to fuck children. That's the way their society had done things for centuries - that was the man's "right". Worldwide not everyone agreed with their assessment of what constitutes a "human right" however and luckily their island fell within the jurisdiction of a country with a rather more advanced legal system. As such the islander's assessment of what constituted a "human right" was not upheld by the courts the kiddy fucking fuckers went to jail. As for your rights to own pistols in your country – I don't care, those are your rights, I'm quite happy for you to be happy with them. That's your country, your rights; not my problem and none of my business. Equally these are our rights in our country and we really don't give a crap if you have a problem with what we do or do not consider to be basic human rights – they're ours, we voted for them, we wanted them, we got them. And happily we don't fall within your jurisdiction. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #49 March 6, 2006 QuoteBut....Apparently the greenies forgot to flip the switch. I guess so... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #50 March 6, 2006 QuoteWell that's bad for San Fran then - compensation at the very least should be provided... Why would people who think gun owners are evil non-citizens bother to consider compensating them for what amounts to the legalized theft of their property? Anti-gun people consider themselves so superior to gun owners that they really don't give a shit about the rights of anyone who would opt to own a gun. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
