Archway sheet metal works on fire

[DaSpurs]

I think most people are just confused as to why a normal person's automatic desire wouldn't be that guns are completely illegal. Why would you want these things that are so dangerous, and make it so easy for anyone to become a killer, available for people to buy? Why would you want to live life thinking that there could even be a gun near you, used against you, or just in the possession of someone you don't trust?

I wouldn't want to live life wondering if someone around me had a gun. I wouldn't want to live in a country where guns could be legally held by untrained, unregulated civilians. It's just not something any sane society should want.

The 'protect ourselves against our government' angle always makes people outside the US do a funny squint and 'What?' response. Like this

I think this is simply due to a commonly known phenomenon of whether you grew up with/around such things or not. For instance, I think we can imagine that one group of cavemen probably saw another group of cavemen, including their children, hanging out with domesticated wolves and thought things probably along the lines of, "Why would you want these things that are so dangerous? Why would you want to live life thinking that there could even be a wolf near you?"

A gun does not make someone a killer. If a person has intent to kill, the gun is not necessarily the threshold. For instance, look at the increased percentage of crimes in the United States, in particular aggravated assault and murder (massive rise). Do you honestly believe that guns being in the hands of 50% of people over the age of 18, where most firearm-related deaths are in urban areas where ownership is only just over 20%, accounts entirely for a 400%+ difference in murder and/or a 600%+ difference in aggravated assault? No, the mere presence of the weapons cannot fully explain that IMO.

This is where my argument comes in that there are far more significant factors that come into play as to why my nation consists of far more aggressive and violent people than those in the UK. And it is for some of these same factors to why "protect ourselves from the government (that which is controlled by the upper 1%)" makes far more sense to us, while understandably causing you to , because these concepts are literally foreign to you.

 

[penfold_99]

what the feck has gun ownership got to do with a fire in warehouse next to the stadium or Is the tin hat brigade out in force?

 

[Gb160]

what the feck has gun ownership got to do with a fire in warehouse next to the stadium or Is the tin hat brigade out in force?

Oooh.....SHOTS FIRED!!!

 

[Bobbins]

I think this is simply due to a commonly known phenomenon of whether you grew up with/around such things or not. For instance, I think we can imagine that one group of cavemen probably saw another group of cavemen, including their children, hanging out with domesticated wolves and thought things probably along the lines of, "Why would you want these things that are so dangerous? Why would you want to live life thinking that there could even be a wolf near you?"

A gun does not make someone a killer. If a person has intent to kill, the gun is not necessarily the threshold. For instance, look at the increased percentage of crimes in the United States, in particular aggravated assault and murder (massive rise). Do you honestly believe that guns being in the hands of 50% of people over the age of 18, where most firearm-related deaths are in urban areas where ownership is only just over 20%, accounts entirely for a 400%+ difference in murder and/or a 600%+ difference in aggravated assault? No, the mere presence of the weapons cannot fully explain that IMO.

This is where my argument comes in that there are far more significant factors that come into play as to why my nation consists of far more aggressive and violent people than those in the UK. And it is for some of these same factors to why "protect ourselves from the government (that which is controlled by the upper 1%)" makes far more sense to us, while understandably causing you to , because these concepts are literally foreign to you.

You've mentioned the aggressive population thing a couple of times - shouldn't that mean that you're all even more in favour of not making guns available to the general, more aggressive, population?

 

[ever]

so take it theres no talk of the fire (no not firearms you nobbers)

hint hint : take your gun talk away or i will shoot you

 

[DaSpurs]

You've mentioned the aggressive population thing a couple of times - shouldn't that mean that you're all even more in favour of not making guns available to the general, more aggressive, population?

I'll respond to this and leave it at that, but this would therefore remove firearms from the hands of the vast majority of owners who have never even conceived of the idea of pointing them at another human, and removing their own defense.

Your media doesn't report the numbers of times they're used for self defense against a crime, or even merely brandished to accomplish this. For instance, landowners in the border states who brandish them against swathes of illegal Mexican immigrants stealing from their property, and might not understand other indication due to language barrier, nor be intimidated (or even turn to attack in number) with someone only brandishing a knife. But that's boring, and doesn't elicit interest like as does the illusion that the American population is just shooting each other to pieces.

Life is different here. You cannot assume all is the same, and this equally subject to your own concerns with firearms. That's why if your CCTV frequency is suspected to prevent your crime there, who am I to suggest otherwise but make a joke about a 1984 reference?

 

[walworthyid]

I'll respond to this and leave it at that, but this would therefore remove firearms from the hands of the vast majority of owners who have never even conceived of the idea of pointing them at another human, and removing their own defense.

Your media doesn't report the numbers of times they're used for self defense against a crime, or even merely brandished to accomplish this. For instance, landowners in the border states who brandish them against swathes of illegal Mexican immigrants stealing from their property, and might not understand other indication due to language barrier, nor be intimidated (or even turn to attack in number) with someone only brandishing a knife. But that's boring, and doesn't elicit interest like as does the illusion that the American population is just shooting each other to pieces.

Life is different here. You cannot assume all is the same, and this equally subject to your own concerns with firearms. That's why if your CCTV frequency is suspected to prevent your crime there, who am I to suggest otherwise but make a joke about a 1984 reference?

I've been watching this debate waiting for an opportunity to jump in.....It has arrived!
I'm going to come out early and say I am no great fan of American culture and it's influence on the rest of the world.
Your reasoning on this debate is odd. UK has very few guns, very few people get shot. The US has loads of guns and very many people get shot. You then say that banning or controlling guns would remove the ability for defense from people who have never thought of pointing a gun at somebody. How would they defend themselves with a gun that they aren't going to point at somebody?
You've also said that people need to defend themselves against the state and because the state have guns so should people. It is not legal to defend yourself with a gun against the state, so having a gun for that purpose is pointless. If you did break the law and shoot at the state or its representative they would come back with bigger guns and kill you.

Put simply, the presence of guns in America directly leads to many thousands of deaths that would otherwise not happen if those guns were removed.

It is beyond argument. The us has the highest prisoner population in the world. The most gun crime of any industrial nation. The largest percentage of gdp spent on arms of any nation. The highest number of guns of any industrial nation. The list goes on. There are regular massacres and lunatics randomly shooting innocent people yet the penny never seems to drop. The gun lobby is all powerful and their belief is that if you have more guns there would be less shootings?

All of the Americans I have ever met have been reasoned, educated and perfectly nice people, but as a nation, they have extremely warped attitudes when it comes to guns!

 

[BehindEnemyLines]

This video just about sums up how ludicrous gun control in the USA is.........and if they seriously think they're "more aggressive" than other nations then they've obviously never been in any UK town when the clubs kick out!

Oh, and definitely NOT SAFE FOR WORK as there's plenty of n0rty language!

 

[Gaz_Gammon]

I've been watching this debate waiting for an opportunity to jump in.....It has arrived!
I'm going to come out early and say I am no great fan of American culture and it's influence on the rest of the world.
Your reasoning on this debate is odd. UK has very few guns, very few people get shot. The US has loads of guns and very many people get shot. You then say that banning or controlling guns would remove the ability for defense from people who have never thought of pointing a gun at somebody. How would they defend themselves with a gun that they aren't going to point at somebody?
You've also said that people need to defend themselves against the state and because the state have guns so should people. It is not legal to defend yourself with a gun against the state, so having a gun for that purpose is pointless. If you did break the law and shoot at the state or its representative they would come back with bigger guns and kill you.

Put simply, the presence of guns in America directly leads to many thousands of deaths that would otherwise not happen if those guns were removed.

It is beyond argument. The us has the highest prisoner population in the world. The most gun crime of any industrial nation. The largest percentage of gdp spent on arms of any nation. The highest number of guns of any industrial nation. The list goes on. There are regular massacres and lunatics randomly shooting innocent people yet the penny never seems to drop. The gun lobby is all powerful and their belief is that if you have more guns there would be less shootings?

All of the Americans I have ever met have been reasoned, educated and perfectly nice people, but as a nation, they have extremely warped attitudes when it comes to guns!

I live between the two Countries and am a born and bred Brit.

The gun argument isn't as simple as comparing a non gun country (say GB) with the U.S. or any other Country for that matter. The U.S. law (2nd Amendment) is controversial in it's wording, written long before automatic weapons were invented and has been ruled by the Supreme Court to mean that every American citizen has the right to own and defend him/her self and rightful property (the right to bear arms). Unless you have lived here for any length of time it is simply impossible to use the argument that less guns equal less crime in the hope to change mindset, though the NRA in truth is all powerful and this despite being a very minority lobby given the large U.S. population. They sell their mantra on more guns being owned is a better deterrent to defend oneself against criminal activity. They argue that it's the crazy owners of guns that are at fault and not the guns themselves, yet are against any kind of background checks!

I have owned guns in both countries, a shotgun in England for sport (clays) and it took a very long time to get a licence that was controlled in the extreme where the gun had to be locked when in the house and ammunition kept in a different room and the amount of ammunition was limited (though i cannot remember the amount). Each year i would have to get a letter from my Doctor and submit it with my gun licence renewal.

In the U.S. i just took my driving licence with me to Walmart and could buy any gun, with any magazine size and any amount of ammunition. In fact i could have brought five or six, the only restriction being the amount of dollars in my pocket. It's simply the way of life in the U.S. and one that (along with health insurance) beggars belief and all sensible argument, but one way of life that despite how many Columbines occur will never, ever change. It's political dynamite, even suicide for any U.S. politician to try and run for office with their agenda being to reduce gun ownership or even to introduce tighter gun control. A baffling fact given the horrific slaughter that does take place that would not have been prevented if every man and his dog owned a firearm. All tragic but unfortunately oh so true.

 

[DaSpurs]

I've been watching this debate waiting for an opportunity to jump in.....It has arrived!
I'm going to come out early and say I am no great fan of American culture and it's influence on the rest of the world.
Your reasoning on this debate is odd. UK has very few guns, very few people get shot. The US has loads of guns and very many people get shot. You then say that banning or controlling guns would remove the ability for defense from people who have never thought of pointing a gun at somebody. How would they defend themselves with a gun that they aren't going to point at somebody?
You've also said that people need to defend themselves against the state and because the state have guns so should people. It is not legal to defend yourself with a gun against the state, so having a gun for that purpose is pointless. If you did break the law and shoot at the state or its representative they would come back with bigger guns and kill you.

Put simply, the presence of guns in America directly leads to many thousands of deaths that would otherwise not happen if those guns were removed.

It is beyond argument. The list goes on. There are regular massacres and lunatics randomly shooting innocent people yet the penny never seems to drop. The gun lobby is all powerful and their belief is that if you have more guns there would be less shootings?

All of the Americans I have ever met have been reasoned, educated and perfectly nice people, but as a nation, they have extremely warped attitudes when it comes to guns!

This is the entirety of the point though pertaining to the bold, which clearly is not being understood or I have not communicated adequately: we cannot be entirely certain of this.

"The us has the highest prisoner population in the world. The most gun crime of any industrial nation. The largest percentage of gdp spent on arms of any nation. The highest number of guns of any industrial nation."

What you are insinuating here in your point, in the quoted in particular, is that the presence of the firearms is the threshold itself - the very tipping point that leads people of this nation into the proven increased level of violence. My whole point I've been trying to communicate is that the weapons themselves are not the threshold, but rather a vehicle used by a more aggressive population. We have increased rates of crime in all categories compared to your UK, so to suggest those firearms are the only threshold is to completely ignore the rest of the facts. It is very clear that there are other factors at hand here.

You say it yourself. Shockingly high numbers in crime. Highest population per capita, and total, in the world in prisons. So why is your sole answer guns? You honestly don't believe there is a deeper, underlying cause there given that evidence?

"You then say that banning or controlling guns would remove the ability for defense from people who have never thought of pointing a gun at somebody. How would they defend themselves with a gun that they aren't going to point at somebody?"

You've interpreting this point incorrectly. The point was to imply that those people who would use the firearms for self defense would never have intended to use those weapons to harm other people other than for the purpose of self defense. There are plenty of examples of this occurring in the United States. But as I mentioned before, that's not interesting as much as the "massacres," which as I've already pointed out has in fact decreased over the last decade in every single American city except for Chicago, but of course citing that statistic is too boring for your, and our, media as well.

I've been over the point about the "guns against the government" mercilessly, and again it seems I've not adequately conveyed the point there. But again and just briefly, it is about a balance of power, something your own people inspired in us with the Magna Carta, not for the sake of actual physical use. So please, let us stop beating on that horse. If you disagree, that's fine but I think we should stop reiterating that point over and over again on the premise of what seems to be a misunderstanding between two different nations' mindsets and experiences.

 

[DaSpurs]

I live between the two Countries and am a born and bred Brit.

The gun argument isn't as simple as comparing a non gun country (say GB) with the U.S. or any other Country for that matter. The U.S. law (2nd Amendment) is controversial in it's wording, written long before automatic weapons were invented and has been ruled by the Supreme Court to mean that every American citizen has the right to own and defend him/her self and rightful property (the right to bear arms). Unless you have lived here for any length of time it is simply impossible to use the argument that less guns equal less crime in the hope to change mindset, though the NRA in truth is all powerful and this despite being a very minority lobby given the large U.S. population. They sell their mantra on more guns being owned is a better deterrent to defend oneself against criminal activity. They argue that it's the crazy owners of guns that are at fault and not the guns themselves, yet are against any kind of background checks!

I have owned guns in both countries, a shotgun in England for sport (clays) and it took a very long time to get a licence that was controlled in the extreme where the gun had to be locked when in the house and ammunition kept in a different room and the amount of ammunition was limited (though i cannot remember the amount). Each year i would have to get a letter from my Doctor and submit it with my gun licence renewal.

In the U.S. i just took my driving licence with me to Walmart and could buy any gun, with any magazine size and any amount of ammunition. In fact i could have brought five or six, the only restriction being the amount of dollars in my pocket. It's simply the way of life in the U.S. and one that (along with health insurance) beggars belief and all sensible argument, but one way of life that despite how many Columbines occur will never, ever change. It's political dynamite, even suicide for any U.S. politician to try and run for office with their agenda being to reduce gun ownership or even to introduce tighter gun control. A baffling fact given the horrific slaughter that does take place that would not have been prevented if every man and his dog owned a firearm. All tragic but unfortunately oh so true.

This I actually agree with. While I don't take issue with any man's right to safely own a firearm, I do think the ability to accrue literal arsenals beyond any personal capability is well out of line. I also think the NRA's insistence against the background check is absolutely ludicrous. The reasoning is I'm sure that the registry keeps the weapons under the eye of the government, but as we all know (including the NRA) if these people are intent and crazy enough they'll find their weapon anyway (just as the Sandy Hook, CT shooter did). So I see no sufficient countering reason not to find a perfectly agreeable, and reasonable, threshold of previous activity and mental capacity that should allow one to legally buy a weapon or not.

But again, I reiterate my point that these truly horrific slaughters are the result of a more underlying cause, not the mere presence of the guns themselves. It has never been harder to be an American youth today, and many react beyond poorly to that. But the availability of the weapons is a vehicle, not the threshold itself.

 

[Ian Kane]

I'm intrigued. Who shot Archway on fire, and what gun did the American use from his vast personal arsenal ?

 

[DaSpurs]

I'm intrigued. Who shot Archway on fire, and what gun did the American use from his vast personal arsenal ?

The connection was: Archway on fire -> obvious consideration of arson -> mention of CCTV to identify perp -> Americans squirming at invasion of privacy with frequency of camera -> Britons squirming at frequency of firearms in US

 

[moomin]

Is the tin hat brigade out in force?

see: my picture of the guy with the tin hat and a gun i posted a few pages back.

Also, i feel obligated to say, although Americans have a reputation for being gun nuts, we're not all like that. There are loads of us (myself included) that would very much so prefer to live in a society that has a more logical/reasonable attitude toward guns. Based off of DaSpurs posts, he's actually got a bit more radical view than most Americans (albeit not by much).

 

[DaSpurs]

Also, i feel obligated to say, although Americans have a reputation for being gun nuts, we're not all like that. There are loads of us (myself included) that would very much so prefer to live in a society that has a more logical/reasonable attitude toward guns.

I like to think most of us feel this way. It's nowhere close to a perfect system, and Gaz is spot on pointing out that it's far better if you disagree with the status quo to just avoid the topic of gun control altogether.

 

[Ian Kane]

The connection was: Archway on fire -> obvious consideration of arson -> mention of CCTV to identify perp -> Americans squirming at invasion of privacy with frequency of camera -> Britons squirming at frequency of firearms in US

Doesn't matter what the connection, this wasn't the thread to fill with that debate. Happens all to often that someone says something, another poster runs with it and a debate breaks out that is nothing to do with the thread topic. It means any actual information gets lost in a sea of rubbish. All it takes is someone to start something in chat/discussion and quote the first few replies and BOOM debate continues without ruining the pages of another thread.

 

[DaSpurs]

Doesn't matter what the connection, this wasn't the thread to fill with that debate. Happens all to often that someone says something, another poster runs with it and a debate breaks out that is nothing to do with the thread topic. It means any actual information gets lost in a sea of rubbish. All it takes is someone to start something in chat/discussion and quote the first few replies and BOOM debate continues without ruining the pages of another thread.

Well I'm sorry if it ruined the thread for you. I hope your Friday evening picks up.

But I agree, it's long since become repetitive by this point, simply different rhetoric used by different posters. I think it's long since deviated from my original argument anyway, so there's really no further use in it.

 

[SpurSince57]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

No announcement on any cause yet, which suggests that there's not an obvious one.

 

[walworthyid]

I live between the two Countries and am a born and bred Brit.

The gun argument isn't as simple as comparing a non gun country (say GB) with the U.S. or any other Country for that matter. The U.S. law (2nd Amendment) is controversial in it's wording, written long before automatic weapons were invented and has been ruled by the Supreme Court to mean that every American citizen has the right to own and defend him/her self and rightful property (the right to bear arms). Unless you have lived here for any length of time it is simply impossible to use the argument that less guns equal less crime in the hope to change mindset, though the NRA in truth is all powerful and this despite being a very minority lobby given the large U.S. population. They sell their mantra on more guns being owned is a better deterrent to defend oneself against criminal activity. They argue that it's the crazy owners of guns that are at fault and not the guns themselves, yet are against any kind of background checks!

I have owned guns in both countries, a shotgun in England for sport (clays) and it took a very long time to get a licence that was controlled in the extreme where the gun had to be locked when in the house and ammunition kept in a different room and the amount of ammunition was limited (though i cannot remember the amount). Each year i would have to get a letter from my Doctor and submit it with my gun licence renewal.

In the U.S. i just took my driving licence with me to Walmart and could buy any gun, with any magazine size and any amount of ammunition. In fact i could have brought five or six, the only restriction being the amount of dollars in my pocket. It's simply the way of life in the U.S. and one that (along with health insurance) beggars belief and all sensible argument, but one way of life that despite how many Columbines occur will never, ever change. It's political dynamite, even suicide for any U.S. politician to try and run for office with their agenda being to reduce gun ownership or even to introduce tighter gun control. A baffling fact given the horrific slaughter that does take place that would not have been prevented if every man and his dog owned a firearm. All tragic but unfortunately oh so true.

You've just summed up my argument perfectly! UK has few guns and few shootings, us has loads of guns and loads of shootings!
I prefer it here.

 

[walworthyid]

Doesn't matter what the connection, this wasn't the thread to fill with that debate. Happens all to often that someone says something, another poster runs with it and a debate breaks out that is nothing to do with the thread topic. It means any actual information gets lost in a sea of rubbish. All it takes is someone to start something in chat/discussion and quote the first few replies and BOOM debate continues without ruining the pages of another thread.

It's true but on the other hand this thread would have died otherwise. The debate started as the thread was on the decline. It will get bumped when they announce the cause of the fire.