But the UK's gun control works

[carguy67]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/30/ukcrime1



Oh, you mean gun related crimes are on the rise and criminals are importing them... What a concept! If a nation can not keep drugs out how do they think they can stop criminals from obtaining guns.

I know someone will post here about how it does work because they have less gun crimes than the US. Look at the over all violent crimes in the UK vs the US. For such a law rich country filled with cameras watching every move you make it is far from a peace filled land of unicorns & rainbows.

[iverglas]

1. hey, how 'bout those speed controls in the US?

... Car guy.

Those speed controls sure work, don't they?? Nobody ever speeds in the US of A.

Especially not those Canadian tourists that the US just can't seem to keep from seeping over its borders. If it can't keep the pot out, how does it expect to keep the tourists out??

For a country with so little remaining in the way of freedom, you sure do got a lot of speeding going on, on those highways ...

[carguy67]

2. Speed

Speeding? No! Never! It's wrong to light up the tires on a straight lonely country road.

[joshcryer]

3. Heh, ironically, speeding arguably kills more people than guns ever thought about killing...

...heh.

Of course, the flu still kills far far more than all violent crimes and accidents combined, but we'll stick to obsessing about trivialities.

Don't get me started about how many people die miserable deaths from the common fucking cold (no really).

[tburnsten]

5. The concern is GUN VIOLENCE

not deaths. If that were the focus than we would stop hearing people justifying their gun control ideas with "kids shot accidentally", who number what, the low hundreds per year? Instead those people would be off crusading against uncontrolled swimming pools. Maybe that's the next target...

[joshcryer]

12. Well, two thirds of all traffic related deaths are the result of *road rage*.

Which is directly equlivent to "gun violence." But I understand your point and that wasn't my intent.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/

[tburnsten]

18. I'm just saying, tehy could care less

how many people die, they just want to control guns. Maybe they have ideas about "gun culture" or some other nonsense, but never have I ever heard a gun control advocate talk about ANY of the real big killers in our country. 20K suicides with a firearm per year, ok, that's not great, but is the issue guns or suicide? If people did not feel suicidal, wouldn't firearm related suicides drop rapidly?

[joshcryer]

19. If they spent a tenth of their energy trying to quell poverty...

...then perhaps the positive effect would be useful, otherwise they are fighting for an irrelevant cause that just fucks society up more (since the ones doing it lose elections on the issue when many of their other good ideas are actually pretty cool, like education funding, and health care and whatnot).

I was just pointing out that speeding laws exist for a reason (primarily so that people can survive crashes at a given speed). Certainly the laws of the past (the 55 mph limit) weren't necessarily for safety, but the people putting the signs up know which parts of the road are safe or not. A DOT guy putting a sign up saying "slow to 55 around this curve" isn't doing it for any other reason. They did local studies, determined that a disproportionate amount of people were losing control or wrecking on the curve, and compensated. You can go to any local DOT facility and ask them about local traffic studies, they're quite comprehensive. The same arguments are used by gun grabbers with regards to guns. That's fine and dandy, a tiny bit of regulation can't hurt and it can be beneficial. But full on bans? Complete and utter restriction? OK.

Ban guns, ban cars, essentially, if you want to be consistant. Otherwise leave me the fuck alone.

[tburnsten]

21. I agree completely

I just wanted to help make it abundantly clear for some of the viewers that the organizations out to ban firearms are not actually concerned with safety or anything else, except their own well being and control.

[joshcryer]

22. 3.2k traffic deaths in the UK... they should get on it.

Banning cars and all.

But yes you're absolutely right that it's about power and control more than it is about safety. They just like to make up the safety shit for spurious reasons.

edit: Just so people know I'm mostly joking, the UK still has the best traffic stats of any country in the EU. Arguably because the cost to drive is so high. They have similar stats to Japan, public transport being the primary mover for most of the population.

[iverglas]

6. actually, joshie

Speeding has never killed anyone.

The effects of impact by a large fast-moving object, now that sometimes kills. Speeding? Nope.

And yet people's liberty is infringed by those speeding laws ... and even more strangely, people continue to speed despite the laws!

How you doing at grasping points these days?

[Indy Lurker]

8. Driving is a privilege

Driving is a privilege, and subject to a great deal of restrictions, including speeding laws.

By contrast, firearm possession, including handguns, is a constitutionally protected right.

[iverglas]

9. maybe for you poor subjects of the imperial presidential dynasties

Not for me it ain't.

If it's a privilege, then somebody, someday, is going to explain to me why any govt that tried to deny driver's licences to Asians or men or Christians would be in a pot o' trouble.

Do you think you have a right to cross the street?

Where would that be in your constitution?

Back to the 18th century once again. I love how you guys have perfected that time travel stuff.

[joshcryer]

13. Are you saying that "driving" is a right?

Seriously?

[TPaine7]

16. LOL

"Equal protection of the laws" is the relevant right.

[joshcryer]

10. Speeding isn't a cause?

Oh OK. Thanks for informing me so eloquently!

[carguy67]

15. True

But with speeding the limiting factors that leads to accidents are driver skill and that grey stuff in your head. A skilled driver can drive faster safer. There are conditions and situations that are very high risk and can negate skill. This is the part where brains comes in. It is not the speed that kills it is stupidity and/or a lack of skill. There are freak occurrences from time to time that can take the best of drivers in the best of situations, these I suppose are best attributed to speed.

[joshcryer]

14. BTW, for those not paying attention, iverglas's silly comment is akin to saying:

"Falling out of an airplane won't kill you! It's the landing."

Of course it's "true" but it's completely assinine. When speeding is accounted for in the stats it is one of the major causes of car accident fatalities (the major cause for teenage deaths).

If you impact something in a car going 1 mph the likelihood of that impact killing you is extremely low. ie, not speeding is survivable.

If you impact something in a car going 100 mph the likelihood of that impact killing you is extremely high. ie, speeding is increasingly not survivable.

I can fall out of a plane sitting on a runway and be quite unskathed. :)

[TPaine7]

17. LOL

iverglas:

Speeding has never killed anyone.

The effects of impact by a large fast-moving object, now that sometimes kills. Speeding? Nope.

And yet people's liberty is infringed by those speeding laws ... and even more strangely, people continue to speed despite the laws!

How you doing at grasping points these days?

This gets my nomination for Transparent Sophistry of the Year.

:rofl:

Let's apply this profound logic.

Falling has never killed anyone, only the rapid stop at the bottom...

"I didn't murder him, your honor, I merely pushed him off the ledge. He stopped at the bottom. It was clearly a suicide."

:rofl:

[milou]

4. Simple solution...

Just make cars illegal, problem solved.

[iverglas]

7. silly milly

Hasn't worked with murder, has it?

How do you make an object "illegal"?

Possession of the object, transfer of the object, certain uses of the object ... yup, those I can see. But an illegal object? Eludes me, that one.

[joshcryer]

11. Yep, that ought to do it.

Should save a lot more lives than banning guns!

[Anexio]

28. //

"For a country with so little remaining in the way of freedom, you sure do got a lot of speeding going on, on those highways ..."

Fortunately my one remaining freedom of laughing at the general direction of Toronto has not been taken away by my oppressive totalitarian government.

[iverglas]

31. I haven't figured out

what you people have against Toronto. I mean, I find it rather risible myself, but for quite different reasons. It's the calling out the army to shovel snow I find funniest.

[MicaelS]

20. UK Gun Control works because..

UK Gun Control is not about reducing crime, UK Gun Control is ultimately about eliminating the potential threat to the powerful, the wealthy and "the state" from an armed populace. It started with the Firearms Act, 1920. This website explains it rather well. http://members.aol.com/gunbancon/Frames/1920.html

[old mark]

23. The UK is a limited dictatorship/fascist society

where the people are subjects, not citizens.
They are used to obedience and subservience to the symbols of power - policeman's uniforms, etc - in a way we in the US anr not, at least not yet. We are becoming more like them thanks to Bush's encroachment on our freedoms under the "Patriot Act", but we still have tha American bad attitude toward authority working in our favor.

Wish the Brits had a website of their own where they could pontificate about what's wrong with the US and how much better their society is, and I wish they'd all go there.

mark

[iverglas]

24. DU is full of ill-mannered morons

Anyone in this century who is unaware of the fact of British citizenship needs to go back to kindergarten and start over.

Anyone who speaks this way about another group of people, about whom s/he plainly knows nothing to start with, needs to do the same thing.

Kindergarten really is a good place to learn about learning facts, and to learn basic manners.

DU is not the place to display one's lack of either.


Wish the Brits had a website of their own where they could pontificate about what's wrong with the US and how much better their society is, and I wish they'd all go there.

Sometimes ya just gotta laugh. Really hard.

[TPaine7]

25. Ah, irony.

[iverglas]

27. yeah, eh?

Wish the Brits had a website of their own where they could pontificate about what's wrong with the US and how much better their society is, and I wish they'd all go there.

It doesn't come much better.

[russ1943]

26. Laughing, really, really, hard.

Well said, iverglas

[Anexio]

29. ..

"DU is full of ill-mannered morons"

Sweet, sweet irony.

[iverglas]

30. you're obviously missing the best

As I said:

Wish the Brits had a website of their own where they could pontificate about what's wrong with the US and how much better their society is, and I wish they'd all go there.

It really doesn't come much better.

Certainly does demonstrate the non-ironic nature of what you've quoted, though.

[joshcryer]

32. Remember how you said your political compass score was -9+,-9+?

Remember how I was surprised? It's statements like that. :)

There are plenty of British political forums on the internet, and the British and Canadians have no problem pontificating about how great they are. This is also partially European in nature, in my experience. It's why I've spent a lot of time studying the 'naughty' aspects of other countries, not because I feel defensive, but because it's silly to attack other countries when your own country has its own failings. People need these sorts of reality checks.

"Americans are benevolently ignorant about Canada, while Canadians are malevolently well informed about the United States."

[iverglas]

33. no, actually

Can you hum a few bars?

Please, please read the header at the top of this thread and the post that accompanies it.

And ponder that "irony" thang.

[joshcryer]

34. Hum a few bars?

Are a few screws loose here? I have no idea what you're trying to say. Must be some Canadian thing.

[iverglas]

35. good lord, you are young, aren't you?

http://www.energizeinc.com/hot/2005/oct05.html

One of the earliest issues of Ms. Magazine, back in the 1970s, had a memorable front cover. Drawn like a Roy Lichtenstein comic-strip painting, it featured a man telling a woman: “Do you know the women’s movement has no sense of humor?” She famously replies: “No, but if you hum a few bars, I’ll fake it.”

Just fr instance.

I don't remember saying what you asked me to remember saying, because I never said it.

I happen to have redone it a few days ago. The results were standard: -8.12 left-right and -7.95 up-down.

Now if you could just give me a clue what that might have to do with my statement of the obvious in the post to which you replied, we'd be getting somewhere.

At least hum a few bars.

[joshcryer]

36. Such a result is suprising for someone who doesn't mind big government.

Big government necessary for the whole, yaknow, "security camera culture." But you must be old so that's why you missed it. Us youngsters have good memories. :shrug:

[iverglas]

37. I'm old enough to know you're making a fool of yourself

Big government necessary for the whole, yaknow, "security camera culture." But you must be old so that's why you missed it. Us youngsters have good memories.

Your imagination seems to be in good working order though, I must say.

No idea what this faerie tale you're spinning is about, and no plans to try to figure it out.

[joshcryer]

38. You disagree with the "security camera culture" with regards to Britian?

C'mon now.

[iverglas]

39. you're still beating your dog?

[joshcryer]

40. I never beat my dog.

And there's nothing in what I have said here to imply that.

[iverglas]

41. Gosh. One would almost think you'd got the point

This little discussion started with me saying -- in response to:

The UK is a limited dictatorship/fascist society
where the people are subjects, not citizens.
They are used to obedience and subservience to the symbols of power ... blah blah blah

DU is full of ill-mannered morons

Anyone in this century who is unaware of the fact of British citizenship needs to go back to kindergarten and start over.

Anyone who speaks this way about another group of people, about whom s/he plainly knows nothing to start with, needs to do the same thing.

Kindergarten really is a good place to learn about learning facts, and to learn basic manners.

DU is not the place to display one's lack of either.


<quoting>Wish the Brits had a website of their own where they could pontificate about what's wrong with the US and how much better their society is, and I wish they'd all go there.

Sometimes ya just gotta laugh. Really hard.

Your utterly incomprehensible response was:

Remember how you said your political compass score was -9+,-9+?
Remember how I was surprised? It's statements like that.

The post of yours I last replied to said:

You disagree with the "security camera culture" with regards to Britian?
C'mon now.

Any idea why you'd be asking me that?

I have no more idea why than you have of why I'd be asking you whether you're still beating your dog.

Getting it at all?

[joshcryer]

42. I have an implied instance of you defending Britians "security camera culture."

Wish the Brits had a website of their own where they could pontificate about what's wrong with the US and how much better their society is, and I wish they'd all go there.

As I said there are political forums in this vein and they do bash the USA. They also ignore criticising their own security camera culture.

This is implied, that you must on some level not have a problem with their security camera culture. Since you refuse to actually say whether or not you do despite my subtle implications (which would have ended this discussion long ago), this conversation is hopeless.

My dog hasn't even been mentioned here.

[iverglas]

43. you have a bag full of shit

Have fun with it.

FYI, there's a question at http://www.politicalcompass.org/test that goes like this:

Although the electronic age makes official surveillance easier, only wrongdoers need to be worried. Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree

My answer is at the top of the list.

Don't assumptions just make an ass out of you?

[joshcryer]

44. Well it's good that you agree with the person you were responding to.

As that wasn't clear at all by your ambigious response!

(I answered the same way.)

[iverglas]

45. what sadly disingenuous nonsense

I agreed with nothing that individual said, as I'm sure you are aware.

I'm sure that if I agreed with anything that individual said about anything, I'd shoot myself as being too stupid and/or evil to live.

[joshcryer]

47. You have a gun?

Whoa.

[iverglas]

50. oh dear; still beating that dog?

Whoa indeed. As in: please stop!

[joshcryer]

52. So you don't have a gun?

I'm confused here!

[apocalypsehow]

54. I never think of anarchy that it doesn't fetch to mind Chilly Willy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGOAsGJ4kk0

I even miss the KOOL cigarette commercials. :cry:

"Fish not biting?
Temper shot?
Clean fresh Kools will
Help a lot!"

Can you believe they used to run cigarette commercials in the middle of a kid's cartoon? And with a penguin that was every bit as cute as Chilly Willy himself!

Ah, as Archie & Edith used to sing, "those were the days....."

Enjoy, Sid.

[iverglas]

46. just because you need it

Do read what the Political Compass actually means, 'k?

My scores -- around -8 on both axes -- mean this:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2

LEFT on the ECONOMIC scale
LIBERTARIAN on the SOCIAL scale

Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper political analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show that Stalin was an authoritarian leftist (ie the state is more important than the individual) and that Gandhi, believing in the supreme value of each individual, is a liberal leftist. While the former involves state-imposed arbitary collectivism in the extreme top left, on the extreme bottom left is voluntary collectivism at regional level, with no state involved. ...

... The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the opposite of fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy).

I'm about twice as liberal and twice as left as Gandhi.

Howzat?

What the quiz does not do is test the limits of tolerance for interference in individual behaviour (i.e. exercises of rights and freedoms) where important public/collective interests are at stake: when speech may be restricted, when religious practice may be restricted, etc. Those areas are where the real issues lie.

While I do not believe that only criminals should be concerned about video surveillance by the state, I also believe that there could be justification for video surveillance in some instances and subject to appropriate controls. Surely you think that video surveillance of airport departure lounges is not unreasonable ...

[joshcryer]

48. You take that test a lot.

It seems you have taken it so much that the results are largely incapable of representing your underlying beliefs, but rather what you want to be *percieved* as being. For instance, you claim social democracy is better than anarchy (a complete contridiction given your supposed score). Don't worry, I only know these things because I googled your nickname and political compass to try to find the time you and I discussed the political compass (I swear we discussed it before, but cannot find the reference).

"Strongly disagree" to the video surveillance question would imply that even in the airport you may not consider it justified. While "disagree" would not have that implication whatsoever. I think it is completely and utterly unreasonable. But then again, I am an anarchist.

[iverglas]

49. what the fuck are you yammering about?

I do the quiz occasionally, if I'm talking about it with somebody and can't readily come up with any record of my own score. I did it the other day because I had proposed that someone I know take it, so I did, to compare. I won, of course. I also wander over to see things like how it's going to rank parties/leaders in the upcoming election. The election on October 14, that is.


It seems you have taken it so much that the results are largely incapable of representing your underlying beliefs, but rather what you want to be *percieved* as being.

It seems that you want to be percEIved (remember? I before E, except after C ...) as being one of these:



You seem to be getting your wish.


"Strongly disagree" to the video surveillance question would imply that even in the airport you may not consider it justified.

"Strongly disagree" would actually mean exactly what it says: I strongly disagree with the statement

Although the electronic age makes official surveillance easier, only wrongdoers need to be worried.

You don't have the first clue what I actually think about the use of electronic surveillance overall, or in any particular situation. I can tell you, though, that I'm extremely unhappy about being under electronic surveillance by corporations as I go about my day-to-day business, and the fact is that I am, and not just by video. Familiar with machine-readable cards, are you?


For instance, you claim social democracy is better than anarchy (a complete contridiction given your supposed score).

For an actual instance, you're talking out of your ass yet again. I have never claimed any such thing, you little bleeder.

I have always said that in the present circumstances I am a social democrat -- I advocate a heavily regulated mixed economy, gradually incorporating more public ownership and control (and on to democratic socialism ...). Life is actually a process, you see.

There really just isn't much fucking point in advocating anarchy just at the moment, is there now?

I mean, unless one really gets off on looking all kewl and hip and rebellious.


Don't worry, I only know these things because I googled your nickname and political compass ...

Too bad you didn't cite the sources, eh?


... to try to find the time you and I discussed the political compass (I swear we discussed it before, but cannot find the reference).

Well, it wasn't that difficult.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=140324&mesg_id=140659
and specifically my post 87 in that thread.

I'lll repeat what I said in that thread.

Anarchist. Anarchists everywhere are puking.

A bit more of yours from that thread:

BTW, if you consider the context of my beliefs and the threads in which we have participated, I think you'll find it funny, really.

I'm not sure what I was supposed to find funny. I recall only finding your musings about women's reproductive rights to be juvenile and nasty.

Though I do wonder why you're for gun control.

And yet it's so simple. I'm not a pig-ignorant self-centred cretin.

[joshcryer]

51. Self-absorbed, are we?

Honestly now, your personality is a dime a dozen. Reading comprehension problems and all. I never claimed to know your position at all, I only said that your response to the question may not be supported by your current ambivilance toward the security camera culture. :) At most I merely suggested you answered wrongly.

If you're a revolutionist and not a reformist, then yes I think advocating anarchy here and now is reasonable. In fact I find it difficult to see how one transisitions from social democracy to anarchy given the place of power and control within the state, and the unwillingness of those with it to give it up.

For instance, it's highly unlikely those who control the guns of the population suddenly decide that the masses can have guns!

No actual anarchist would remotely identify with you, and it's abundantly clear in your history of taking the test that you are attempting to be perceived as less authoritarian than you are, but if only people saw your posts and read your real beliefs.

You are nothing more than a self-absorbed, self-righteous, obsessive compulsive totalitarian.

[iverglas]

53. neener neener

Your mamma's calling you. Beddy-bye time.

Take the TPaine character with you, if you would. The adults need a drink.



Little boy kneels at the foot of the bed
Droops on the little hands little gold head
Hush Hush, whisper who dares
Christopher Robin is saying his prayers

God bless Mummy, I know that's right
Wasn't it fun in the bath tonight
The cold so cold and the hot so hot
Oh God bless Daddy, I quite forgot

Thank you God for a lovely Day
And what was the other I had to say
I said bless Daddy, so what can it be
Oh now I remember, God bless me



Hush now ...

[joshcryer]

55. Pfft, me being childish.

Cute given your obsessive compulsive nature here. :hi: