View previous topic | View next topic

Gun laws

Page 6 of 41
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 39, 40, 41  Next

Bealzybub
837944.  Thu Aug 11, 2011 12:04 pm Reply with quote

What he means is that, as an American, he would rather pay exorbitant fire protection fees on his house that, if he can't or won't pay, the firemen ignore the call and just let his house burn down.

Thats what I meant? Roflmfao................

You of course have no rational logical explanation for your assumption but I'll get you headed down the correct path.

Its statistical documented fact that here in the USA the private sector in some areas are doing exactly what the government body you are supportive of does for 1/3 the cost. Same services, 66% reduction in cost. Why shouldnt I want to pay only 13% of my income for the same services and quite likely better quality services than paying the 39% I currently pay to the government?

Your only answer of course is that those that dont/wont/cant pay will receive those services free which I pay for. = socialism.

Just to note, run for cover people, they're calling out the Boston police department to come over and quell your riot. Hows that socialism workin out for ya now, lol...........

 
Neotenic
837946.  Thu Aug 11, 2011 12:11 pm Reply with quote

I think we probably need to see the documents containing those statistics.

 
samivel
837955.  Thu Aug 11, 2011 1:08 pm Reply with quote

So long as they aren't written up in crayon.

 
CB27
837974.  Thu Aug 11, 2011 3:51 pm Reply with quote

Bealzybub, as I don't know where you got your figures from, I can't dispute them, but if it's true that a private body is providing the same service for everyone for cheaper it still doesn't take away from the fact everyone has to pay for it.

If it's cheaper for those who pay for it because the service isn't provided for those who don't then it's completely different, they're not incurring nearly as much costs.

As for
Quote:
Just to note, run for cover people, they're calling out the Boston police department to come over and quell your riot. Hows that socialism workin out for ya now, lol...........

There are so many errors in that statement.

Firstly, if you listen/read what David Cameron said, it was that he was looking at how some police forces such as Boston engaged with voluntary groups and local government to deal with gangs, it was nothing to do with using weapons of any kind.

Secondly, there was no question of calling any police force from outside England.

Thirdly, as pointed out before, gun ownership has nothing to do with socialism. The fact that in the US there is a hysteria against the idea of socialism doesn't mean that everything you're against is socialist.

 
PDR
837981.  Thu Aug 11, 2011 5:26 pm Reply with quote

Bealzybub wrote:
Its statistical documented fact that here in the USA the private sector in some areas are doing exactly what the government body you are supportive of does for 1/3 the cost. Same services, 66% reduction in cost. Why shouldnt I want to pay only 13% of my income for the same services and quite likely better quality services than paying the 39% I currently pay to the government?


I'm afraid I'd have to see the documents with the stats (including the data and the calculations) before I could even come close to accepting that. Perhaps the "some areas" refer to the hicksville dog-catching charity versus the former practice of calling out marines in helicopters, but I don;t think it counts for the big ticket items.

For example even its most evangelical supporters agree that the US healthcare system spends a minimum of 25% of turnover on administration (most independant and academic studies put this at over 30%), compared to well under 10% for the UK's NHS (again, the typical study shows this as under 5% but I'm trying not to pick the best case for the discussion), The reason is very simple - in the US system every aspirine, swab, scalpel blade etc must be documented and charged to the specific customer. It must be accountyed on a bill which is sent to an insurer, disputed, revised and finally paid. In many cases insurance companies must give permission before treatments can begin, and not only does that mean delays, it means that people must describe, debate and justify each step. These conversations cost a lot of money when in reality the people who ACTUALLY understand the factors in the decision are just the doctor and the patient - not some claims assessor who gets bonuses for refusing expenditures.

So in summary it is my feeling that you would struggle to make this case.

PDR

 
Sadurian Mike
838050.  Fri Aug 12, 2011 8:51 am Reply with quote

Hmm, the old "firearms would prevent social unrest" argument. Just as they have in the Middle East presumeably.

The problem with arming the population to prevent them from becoming a victim of crime is manyfold, some of the points have already been covered, but I would add that firearms are only "safe" when used with self-discipline, a cool head, good training, and the balls/training/cold-bloodedness to use them.

A shopkeeper with a shotgun who blasts at the figures surrounding his shop is likely to hit all those simply hanging about watching (or filming on their mobile phones). Whilst hanging about a riot scene might be considered ill-judged, it is not really a capital offence.

Conversely, one who threatens with a shotgun had better be prepared to use it or he will quickly be subjected to the understandable ire of those he threatened, quite possibly using his own gun.

Guns in civilian hands (I use the word to exclude the police) are never going to be a good thing in combination with unrest and tension.

 
Neotenic
838068.  Fri Aug 12, 2011 10:38 am Reply with quote

Quote:
Hmm, the old "firearms would prevent social unrest" argument. Just as they have in the Middle East presumeably.


I think we can add just two more words as further evidence against that particular line of argument, from a little closer to home for our American friends.

'Rodney' and 'King'.

Oh, and we can probably also chuck in a further two-word argument about the deployment of the army, or indeed any form of lethal force, to deal with angry citizenry.

'Kent' and 'State'.

 
CB27
838070.  Fri Aug 12, 2011 11:06 am Reply with quote

Neotenic wrote:
Quote:
Hmm, the old "firearms would prevent social unrest" argument. Just as they have in the Middle East presumeably.


I think we can add just two more words as further evidence against that particular line of argument, from a little closer to home for our American friends.

'Rodney' and 'King'.

This was the first image in my head:

 
Bealzybub
838178.  Fri Aug 12, 2011 11:23 pm Reply with quote

Ok all knowing responders, I have a question.

I've seen the "Kent State" thing come up numerous times here. I guess I'm just not understanding. How does a government agency killing unarmed civilians play in to the gun control issue?

Are you saying that we should disarm the government as well as the people?

If thats the case you might want to check out whats going on down on our southern border in Mexico, some 40,000 civilians killed in the last few years by the drug cartels and the violence is spilling over into the USA.

 
suze
838189.  Sat Aug 13, 2011 3:09 am Reply with quote

Bealzybub wrote:
Are you saying that we should disarm the government as well as the people?


Yes, I think that is pretty much what most people here are saying.

The British police are not routinely armed, and the British people like it that way. And if there is a protest on a British university campus, it is the police who are sent for, not a bunch of part-time soldier wannabes.

I think the list of developed nations where the police are not routinely armed is little longer than Iceland, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, and the UK - but that doesn't make this minority wrong.

 
Neotenic
838202.  Sat Aug 13, 2011 4:08 am Reply with quote

Quote:


If thats the case you might want to check out whats going on down on our southern border in Mexico, some 40,000 civilians killed in the last few years by the drug cartels and the violence is spilling over into the USA.


....and where precisely are all the guns coming from to facilitate that slaughter?

 
PDR
838207.  Sat Aug 13, 2011 4:23 am Reply with quote

You misunderstand - the guns are made by right-thinking americans to defend the free world against all those socialist drug cartels.

PDR

 
Neotenic
838252.  Sat Aug 13, 2011 8:48 am Reply with quote

Indeed.

It's almost enough to make one forget that the international drugs trade is probably the purest manifestation of the free market at work, driven purely by simple supply and demand, and entirely outside any regulatory oversight.

 
Bealzybub
838265.  Sat Aug 13, 2011 10:40 am Reply with quote

You misunderstand - the guns are made by right-thinking americans to defend the free world against all those socialist drug cartels.

Your bias makes you appear stupid. The AK47's are made by the Chinese and Russians, SKS's Cina and Russia, the MP5's by the brits, the grenade launchers by the Chinese and Russians ad infinitum.

and where precisely are all the guns coming from to facilitate that slaughter?

No one seems to be able to provide a precise number to answer that question. Aside from the 2000+ that the federal government here ordered the gun stores to sell to the cartels recently it appears that all the numbers are skewed. Those sales forced by a justice dept that now wont police itself and hold those decision makers accountable. And I'm supposed to trust people like that with my life? I'm supposed to give up my right to bear arms while there is a government in place ordering the sales of weapons to known drug cartels, criminals and gangs? How does Eric Holder ordering those gun sales keep me safe?

 
Efros
838268.  Sat Aug 13, 2011 10:46 am Reply with quote

Bealzybub wrote:
MP5's by the brits


MP5s are made under license in the UK and also in at least half a dozen other countries.

 

Page 6 of 41
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 39, 40, 41  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group