The Gun debate sandbox

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 3361 - 3380 of total 5785 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Feb 19, 2013 - 10:15am PT
You're right. It's very easy. As easy as googling "per capita homicide rate by year by country".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate_by_decade

So easy you probably could have done it yourself, to check first, before posting your lunatic screed.

monolith

climber
SF bay area
Feb 19, 2013 - 10:16am PT
Chaz hasn't really studied English history, or maybe he just read the children's book version.
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Feb 19, 2013 - 10:19am PT
Where am I wrong? When did England have a homicide rate higher than the U.S. ?
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Feb 19, 2013 - 10:19am PT
That only goes back to 1900.

Just because a country was violent at one time, does not mean they can't take steps to reduce violence. England proves that point.

You should really study up on England's history. Extreme, bloody, violent.
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Feb 19, 2013 - 10:20am PT
chaz, come on man, we've been through this over and over and over.

The violent crime rate is correlated to population density. England has 3x the population density and as expected 3x the violent crime rate.

The U.S. has always been a more violent place than England.

100% false. England has 3x higher violent crime rate than the US. They have 3x the population density.


THE ONLY THING THAT IS DIFFERENT, as you point out, IS THAT ENGLAND HAS < 1/3 THE HOMICIDE RATE. The difference is in the effectiveness of the tools used... guns.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Feb 19, 2013 - 10:23am PT
Is this the same England that attempted to take over America shortly after the Euro- arrivals?? Is this the same England that tried to take over Scotland, Ireland etc etc etc.?? And ALWAYS got their butts kicked??
Seems like my cousin D Boone had some piss poor dealings with them also. And he too kicked their asses.

ANd THEN wasnt it the USA who rescued them from domination TWICE?

monolith

climber
SF bay area
Feb 19, 2013 - 10:24am PT
They had quite a world wide empire, Ron. Hardly 'always' getting their butts kicked.

Seems you and Chaz should go take a junior college history class.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Feb 19, 2013 - 10:26am PT
and YET,, a "rag-tag" militia of farmers took them on. USA farmers that is.

And YET they would be talking GERMAN today if not for those same USA farmers.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Feb 19, 2013 - 10:27am PT
lolz, again, the children's story book version of both wars.

Do ya remember what the French did for our 'farmers' in our independence war?

What about what the Russians did in WW2 for our 'farmers'?
jghedge

climber
Feb 19, 2013 - 10:32am PT
"So easy you probably could have done it yourself, to check first, before posting your lunatic screed."

Except, of course, proving the part about the UK never having had gun restrictions.

About which, you're totally wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

Enjoy.

Pistols Act 1903
The Pistols Act 1903 was the first to place restrictions on the sale of firearms. Titled "An Act to regulate the sale and use of Pistols or other Firearms", it was a short Act of just nine sections, and applied solely to pistols. It defined a pistol as a firearm whose barrel did not exceed 9 in (230 mm) in length and made it illegal to sell or rent a pistol to anyone unless they could produce a current gun licence or game licence, were exempt from the Gun Licence Act, could prove that they planned to use the pistol on their own property, or had a statement signed by a police officer of Inspector's rank or above or a Justice of the Peace to the effect that they were about to go abroad for six months or more. The Act was more or less ineffective, as anyone wishing to buy a pistol commercially merely had to purchase a licence on demand over the counter from a Post Office before doing so. In addition, it did not regulate private sales of such firearms.
The legislators laid some emphasis on the dangers of pistols in the hands of children and drunkards and made specific provisions regarding sales to these two groups: persons under 18 could be fined 40 shillings if they bought, hired, or carried a pistol, while anyone who sold a pistol to such a person could be fined 5. Anyone who sold a pistol to someone who was "intoxicated or of unsound mind" was liable to a fine of 25 or 3 months' imprisonment with hard labour. However, it was not an offence under the Act to give or lend a pistol to anyone belonging to these two groups.[41]


1920 Firearms Act
The Firearms Act of 1920 was partly spurred by fears of a possible surge in crime from the large number of firearms available following World War I and in part due to fears of working class unrest in this period. "An Act to amend the law relating to firearms and other weapons and ammunition", its main stated aim was to enable the government to control the overseas arms trade and so fulfil their commitment to the 1919 Paris Arms Convention.[42] Shootings of police by militant groups in Ireland may also have been a factor as Britain and Ireland were at that time still in union with each other and the Act applied there too. It required anyone wanting to purchase or possess a firearm or ammunition to obtain a firearm certificate. The certificate, which lasted for three years, specified not only the firearm but the amount of ammunition the holder could buy or possess. Local chief constables decided who could obtain a certificate, and had the power to exclude anyone of "intemperate habits" or "unsound mind", or anyone considered "...for any reason unfitted to be trusted with firearms." Applicants for certificates also had to convince the police that they had a good reason for needing a certificate. The law did not affect smooth-bore guns, which were available for purchase without any form of paperwork. The penalty for violating the Act was a fine of up to 50 or "imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding three months", or both.

The right of individuals to bear arms had previously been, in the words of the 1689 Bill of Rights, "as allowed by law". The 1920 Act made this right conditional upon the Home Secretary and the police. A series of classified Home Office directives defined for the benefit of chief constables what constituted good reason to grant a certificate. These originally included self-defense.

As the 1920 Act did not prevent criminals from obtaining firearms illegally, in 1933 the Firearms and Imitation Firearms (Criminal Use) Bill was submitted to Parliament. It increased the punishment for the use of a gun in the commission of a crime and made it an offence punishable by up to 14 years' imprisonment for anyone to "attempt to make use" of any firearm or imitation firearm to resist arrest. Possession of a real or imitation firearm was also made an offence unless the possessor could show he had it for "a lawful object".

1937 Firearms Act
The 1937 Firearms Act incorporated various modifications to the 1920 Act based on the recommendations of a 1934 committee chaired by Sir Archibald Bodkin. The resulting legislation raised the minimum age for buying a firearm or airgun from 14 to 17, extended controls to shotguns and other smooth-bore weapons with barrels shorter than 20 in (510 mm) (later raised by the Firearms Act 1968 to 24 in (610 mm)), transferred certificates for machine guns to military oversight, regulated gun dealers, and granted chief constables the power to add conditions to individual firearms certificates.[45]

The same year, the Home Secretary ruled that self-defence was no longer a suitable reason for applying for a firearm certificate, and directed police to refuse such applications on the grounds that "firearms cannot be regarded as a suitable means of protection and may be a source of danger"


Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Feb 19, 2013 - 10:36am PT
Yeah Mono,, in typical fashion we had to teach them before they too realized we werent to be messed with. And then they came to our side. How in the hell do you think we got to be the "world power" anyhow?


HINT: it WASNT because we threw our guns down and said "we wanna be like the UK"...
jghedge

climber
Feb 19, 2013 - 10:38am PT
"And YET they would be talking GERMAN today if not for those same USA farmers."

Hahahahaha, idiot. Hitler gave up on invading England in 1940, before we officially entered the war.

Dave Kos

Social climber
Temecula
Feb 19, 2013 - 10:44am PT
lolz, again, the children's story book version of both wars.

Ron's version of the war is too simple even for children.

Here is the complete explanation of why the Allies won, summarized in one simple chart:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Feb 19, 2013 - 10:47am PT
I'm not sure what you're trying to show there, jghedge.

England, with fewer gun homicides per capita than the U.S., passes a bunch of gun laws, and then England still has fewer gun homicides than that of the U.S.

That proves something, I'm sure, but it doesn't prove anything about gun laws.


EDIT:

Given the chance to clarify, jghedge instead posts this
VVVVV
jghedge

climber
Feb 19, 2013 - 10:48am PT
Hahahaha, sorry Chaz

Learned yet not to debate liberals over facts?

Unless, of course, you actually enjoy having your face used as a floor mop.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Feb 19, 2013 - 10:52am PT
Chaz, just for illumination,, hedgeworm was complaining on another thread about NOT getting his balls groped at airports recently. NTTAWWT...However,,,...;^)
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Feb 19, 2013 - 11:04am PT
FACT: the UK has over 3x the violent crime rate
(as expected based on population density)

yet 1/3 the number of homicides

BECAUSE of the limited gun ownership in the UK
jghedge

climber
Feb 19, 2013 - 11:08am PT
"Given the chance to clarify, jghedge instead posts this"

The facts speak for themselves - as well as proving you wrong.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Feb 19, 2013 - 11:11am PT
FACT: the USA was never , will never-- be the UK..We have WAY better food.
jghedge

climber
Feb 19, 2013 - 11:13am PT
Not too much fun being had today by the gun nuts on this thread

As always, the most entertaining part of this site is watching them cite facts in support of their gibberish, when the facts prove them wrong, but they're too dumb, and in too much denial, to realize it.

Messages 3361 - 3380 of total 5785 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews