oddly optomistic Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 If you're going to ban guns because they can be used to cause harm then why not ban manually operated cars? People in urban areas have no use for them. Or more appropriately why not limit cars to a safer speed? As in they are produced specifically to not be capable of travelling at a speed greater than is considered safe by the government. Yes, let's get right on this! Again you didn't answer. Also cars are a conveyance. Although they can kill it is not their purpose. Aside from which the assumption that people in urban areas don't need cars is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 If you're going to ban guns because they can be used to cause harm then why not ban manually operated cars? People in urban areas have no use for them. Or more appropriately why not limit cars to a safer speed? As in they are produced specifically to not be capable of travelling at a speed greater than is considered safe by the government. Yes, let's get right on this! Will someone please put this moron out of his misery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dufc1980 Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 What is this collection thing you recent arrivals keep going on about? Is it an American thing? By the way you may have missed this being as you only arrived today: http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/publications/IPV_Guns.pdf What is it with you solely pulling statistics for the US in response to my criticisms of our draconian gun control measures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddly optomistic Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Contextually it should have been obvious what I meant, assuming you read the previous comments. However if it wasn't, I apologize for misleading anyone with those comments. So we both are in agreement, the murder/general crime rate for the UK is higher than it's presented as, excellent. I didn't say it was higher than presented. There are some crimes which may be classified as manslaughter etc and not murder depending on what intentions etc are proved. Some crimes may be mis classified. Doesn't mean it's not recorded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dufc1980 Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Again you didn't answer. Also cars are a conveyance. Although they can kill it is not their purpose. Aside from which the assumption that people in urban areas don't need cars is ridiculous. That's not a guns purpose either, it's just used for that a lot. No it isn't, they can get up earlier and walk, or take public transport. There is absolutely no need for them to own 2 ton hunks of metal that they can use to mercilessly mow down dozens of people with. You see I am answering, you're just not seeing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddly optomistic Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Of course different forces may have differences in recording Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dufc1980 Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 I didn't say it was higher than presented. There are some crimes which may be classified as manslaughter etc and not murder depending on what intentions etc are proved. Some crimes may be mis classified. Doesn't mean it's not recorded. The figures publicly given for crime stats in the UK DO NOT include crimes which have not yet resulted in a conviction. Are you saying no crimes result in a lack of conviction, or are you saying the stats aren't higher than are given? Either way, you would be wrong, and I advise you to check the source material. Unless of course you agree they're higher than they're presented as, in which case we have no issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddly optomistic Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 That's not a guns purpose either, it's just used for that a lot. No it isn't, they can get up earlier and walk, or take public transport. There is absolutely no need for them to own 2 ton hunks of metal that they can use to mercilessly mow down dozens of people with. You see I am answering, you're just not seeing it. Shift workers don't necessarily have the luxury. Have you seen the state of public transport. Cars aren't used lots for mowing down people. That's ridiculous. There are extreme exceptions to everything. So, why not a bazooka? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dufc1980 Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Shift workers don't necessarily have the luxury. Have you seen the state of public transport. Cars aren't used lots for mowing down people. That's ridiculous. There are extreme exceptions to everything. So, why not a bazooka? Are they not? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers#Vehicular_manslaughter Guns aren't either in many countries where they're prevalent and laws are significantly more liberal than in the UK. So here we have another problem with your vilifcation of the object itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddly optomistic Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 The figures publicly given for crime stats in the UK DO NOT include crimes which have not yet resulted in a conviction. Are you saying no crimes result in a lack of conviction, or are you saying the stats aren't higher than are given? Either way, you would be wrong, and I advise you to check the source material. Unless of course you agree they're higher than they're presented as, in which case we have no issue. All I said was that the crimes are recorded. What the government presents is up to them but it doesn't mean it not recorded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dufc1980 Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 All I said was that the crimes are recorded. What the government presents is up to them but it doesn't mean it not recorded. It DOES mean the figure we're both quoting for the UK murder rate IS lower than the reality though. Yet still (despite this blatant manipulation) it's higher than Switzerland and just barely lower than the Czech Republic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddly optomistic Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Are they not? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers#Vehicular_manslaughter Guns aren't either in many countries where they're prevalent and laws are significantly more liberal than in the UK. So here we have another problem with your vilifcation of the object itself. 20 since 1964 worldwide. I wouldn't say that's lots Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dufc1980 Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 20 since 1964 worldwide. I wouldn't say that's lots I think the families of the victims might disagree with you slightly. Regardless, as I said there are many countries without mass shootings and high crime rates where guns are prevalent and gun control is far more liberal than the UK. So my point still stands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 What is it with you solely pulling statistics for the US in response to my criticisms of our draconian gun control measures? America shows us what happens when you make it easy for people to own guns that are only designed for killing people. Target guns are not designed for that. Nobody goes hunting with a handgun. I frankly don't care about collectors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dufc1980 Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 America shows us what happens when you make it easy for people to own guns that are only designed for killing people. Target guns are not designed for that. Nobody goes hunting with a handgun. I frankly don't care about collectors. But there are many countries with high rates of ownership and liberal gun control that don't have these problems. So America alone shows us nothing, welshbairn. Again, my point still stands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddly optomistic Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 I think the families of the victims might disagree with you slightly. Regardless, as I said there are many countries without mass shootings and high crime rates where guns are prevalent and gun control is far more liberal than the UK. So my point still stands. How many mass shootings since 1964 in comparison. If you think that giving everyone the chance to own a gun isn't going to lead to more deaths, you're deluded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dufc1980 Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 I frankly don't care about collectors. I frankly don't care about responsible alcohol users, so all people should be banned from consuming it due to the vast amount of crime commited while intoxicated and the people who develop an addiction to it and even die from it. Alcohol is a poision, its sole purpose is to poison the body and lower inhibition. There's no useful purpose for it, should be illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dufc1980 Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 How many mass shootings since 1964 in comparison. If you think that giving everyone the chance to own a gun isn't going to lead to more deaths, you're deluded. Once again we're putting words into my mouth as well as making absurd claims. I'm not asking people to be forced to own a gun, nor am I saying deaths certainly won't rise with more guns. Global statistics have shown that neither necessarily will occur based solely on gun control severity or gun availability.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 Once again we're putting words into my mouth as well as making absurd claims. I'm not asking people to be forced to own a gun, nor am I saying deaths certainly won't rise with more guns. Global statistics have shown that neither necessarily will occur based solely on gun control severity or gun availability.. So why have more guns when you don't know the outcome? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dufc1980 Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 So to recap:Banning guns because they can be used to cause harm remains unjustified and hypocritical.Useful non-violent purposes have been presented for guns.We're going round in circles here and I'm repeatedly being asked the same questions.So we've covered the statistical side which has not supported current draconian measures in the UK.And we've covered the ideological side which once again has not supported draconian measures in the UK.Any other sides? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.