Guns,guns, and more Guns

[selectortone]

O I think they do.

But more importantly, if it worked for several cases of wine and spirits it should work for several cases of Tec-9s

I think a bit of baksheesh helps the border authorities in the Middle East look the other way when smuggling alcohol. That's been going on for a loooong time, probably since the Phoenicians. Arms shipments is a whole different ballgame.

 

[artie]

baksheesh .

Everyday's a school day.

My vocabulary is growing.

 

[selectortone]

Everyday's a school day.

My vocabulary is growing.

 

[RobinBHM]

It is not a fact that strict gun laws equals low gun crime, there is more to it…

it is a fact

strict gun laws equals low gun crime
that holds for the vast majority of countries in the world.

the connection between the 2 is well proven

only places like Mexico with drug wars are different.

Mexico has some of the most dangerous cities in the world for murder rate.

 

[bansobaby]

it is a fact

strict gun laws equals low gun crime
that holds for the vast majority of countries in the world.

You just contradicted yourself in the space of two sentences.

 

[bansobaby]

Mexico has some of the most dangerous cities in the world for murder rate

I know, I’m living there at the moment…….

 

[Fergie 307]

Perhaps if you read some of the previous posts, you may notice that exactly this point has been made……
You made a statement of fact and then went back on it claiming ‘outlier‘ status on a country with one of the highest gun murder numbers in the world.
If we went a little deeper we might just find that there are more countries with relatively strict gun laws but high gun death numbers based on the shenanigans of their neighbours.
It is not a fact that strict gun laws equals low gun crime, there is more to it…..

The problem with any law is that it is only respected by the law abiding, the criminal couldn't care less about it. I think the reason we do better here is simply because of you use a gun in the UK you have a much greater chance of being caught than in many countries, that is far more of a deterrent than it actually being against the law. The fact that our police and public generally are pretty hot on this means that it brings a lot of attention, the last thing your criminal is looking for. So the use of guns tends to be reserved for special occasions rather than routine. Mexico is a good example of a country with fairly strict gun laws but rampant gun crime, why ? Because anyone using a gun there knows there is next to no chance of being caught or prosecuted.

 

[RobinBHM]

You just contradicted yourself in the space of two sentences.

WRONG


those 2 sentences do not contradict, I suggest you read them again.

 

[Keith Cocker]

Everyday's a school day.

My vocabulary is growing.

Another one for you. “He’s got loads of Ackers” i.e money. My dad often used the term. I think it was war time RAF slang amongst those who had been in Egypt.

 

[graduate_owner]

A few thoughts on gun control for places like the US - just my opinion. They are not going to beat the gun lobby by passing draconian anti gun ownership laws. Instead it is done gradually - my idea is - First point - everyone wishing to own a gun can continue to do so (except convicted criminals etc, 5th amendment or whatever) but must go through a formal application rigmarole and register their details and the details of every gun they own, so a central computerised database can be set up. Anyone caught in posession of an unregistered gun, or a gun with serial number removed, is dealt with harshly - custodial sentence. The gun would be confiscated and destroyed.

Second point - to own a gun you need a licence which you must renew periodically, at a cost, together with certificate from your GP, at another cost (as in UK). Each gun requires a separate certificate, at a cost, with semi-automatic military hardware etc costing much much more for the licence.

Third point - licences gradually increase in cost so that it becomes financially difficult to legally hold multiple weapons, especially mass killing ones. Eventually just owning one might not be worth bothering with.

So basically you try to minimise the legally owned guns, whilst making illegally owned ones easy to identify. I don't know if it would have any effect but could be worth trying.

I emailed President Obama with these ideas - he didn't reply.

 

[artie]

A few thoughts on gun control for places like the US - just my opinion. They are not going to beat the gun lobby by passing draconian anti gun ownership laws. Instead it is done gradually - my idea is - First point - everyone wishing to own a gun can continue to do so (except convicted criminals etc, 5th amendment or whatever) but must go through a formal application rigmarole and register their details and the details of every gun they own, so a central computerised database can be set up. Anyone caught in posession of an unregistered gun, or a gun with serial number removed, is dealt with harshly - custodial sentence. The gun would be confiscated and destroyed.

Second point - to own a gun you need a licence which you must renew periodically, at a cost, together with certificate from your GP, at another cost (as in UK). Each gun requires a separate certificate, at a cost, with semi-automatic military hardware etc costing much much more for the licence.

Third point - licences gradually increase in cost so that it becomes financially difficult to legally hold multiple weapons, especially mass killing ones. Eventually just owning one might not be worth bothering with.

So basically you try to minimise the legally owned guns, whilst making illegally owned ones easy to identify. I don't know if it would have any effect but could be worth trying.

I emailed President Obama with these ideas - he didn't reply.

So how do your ideas coexist with the individuals right to keep and bear arms.

Northern Ireland had for years and still has most if not all of the stipulations you made, even going so far as each individual pistol/rifle had to be ballistically tested and records kept.
It didn't stop thousands of deaths and to my knowledge not one crime was solved because of the ballistics data base.

Gun control is a nice idea but total pie in the sky just check out how easy it is to make one, even if all the existing ones magically evaporated tomorrow.

Unfortunately less and less people know anything about guns other than what they see in movies or on the six o'clock news.

A grown man actually said to me once "I don't believe in guns"
It's been a long time and I still haven't thought of an answer yet.

 

[Droogs]

Another one for you. “He’s got loads of Ackers” i.e money. My dad often used the term. I think it was war time RAF slang amongst those who had been in Egypt.

An Aker is an Egyptian or Sudanese equivalent of a penny and came into common parlance for British empire forces slang for money in the 1800s after Britain's protectorate of Egypt began. Just as the word Fellah arabic for farmer came into common usage in english around the same time such as "he's a nice feller" same spoken work but derivative spelling in english. I always find it fascinating how much of our language is imported due to the army and navy being based around the empire, bungaloe, bandage, khaki and puttee are great examples too

 

[John Brown]

So how do your ideas coexist with the individuals right to keep and bear arms.

Northern Ireland had for years and still has most if not all of the stipulations you made, even going so far as each individual pistol/rifle had to be ballistically tested and records kept.
It didn't stop thousands of deaths and to my knowledge not one crime was solved because of the ballistics data base.

Gun control is a nice idea but total pie in the sky just check out how easy it is to make one, even if all the existing ones magically evaporated tomorrow.

Unfortunately less and less people know anything about guns other than what they see in movies or on the six o'clock news.

A grown man actually said to me once "I don't believe in guns"
It's been a long time and I still haven't thought of an answer yet.

You knew what he meant, I expect.
It's a bit like telling your granddaughter that she "can" be excused, but should have used "may". I know what she meant.
Let's not even start on the less versus fewer minefield.

 

[doctor Bob]

I'd assumed fellah or fella was just a different pronunciation of Fellow.

 

[John Brown]

I'd assumed fellah or fella was just a different pronunciation of Fellow.

Me too.

 

[Spectric]

strict gun laws equals low gun crime

I can see that from both sides, but I would say it is also the second amendment in the states, if some scumbag armed or not attempts to steal from you then you have the right to put holes in them, that must be a detterent.
So in the Uk the law can be against the property owner and they have to prove they were in danger if they assault the scumbag because the scumbag has rights, that is unfair and we should be allowed to use any force on an intruder who should not be there. Would this be different between a culture living with guns and one like the UK where access is restricted, well if I was a crook I would certainly be more hesitant if I knew the people I was looking to rob had firearms.

In the UK having a gun culture won't be good and the way to resolve crime is to get an efficient police force on the ground that are not tied to a desk or restricted by the PC brigade and then the issue goes away.

 

[Sporky McGuffin]

So in the Uk the law can be against the property owner and they have to prove they were in danger if they assault the scumbag because the scumbag has rights, that is unfair and we should be allowed to use any force on an intruder who should not be there.

The downside of that approach is that it makes getting away with murder rather simple and foolproof. Verbally invite the victim to your house, kill them, make up excuse, home free.

 

[D_W]

I emailed President Obama with these ideas - he didn't reply.

You have to send money if you want a response. A lot of it.

 

[D_W]

A grown man actually said to me once "I don't believe in guns"
It's been a long time and I still haven't thought of an answer yet.

"we believe in theories or religious hopes. You don't have to believe in guns - they exist and without a proof that our perception of reality isn't real, no belief is needed".

 

[John Brown]

The downside of that approach is that it makes getting away with murder rather simple and foolproof. Verbally invite the victim to your house, kill them, make up excuse, home free.

Also, it can lead to totally innocent people being shot, because they accidentally try to enter the wrong house.
Steal a TV, and get shot. Steal millions in a white collar crime, get off rather more lightly.
Why is one of these a "scumbag", and not the other?