Gun-crime Christmas cards

[Tejas]

Gun crime Christmas card message to Knowsley mothers

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-12073174

Police are hoping the festive message - "Don't let guns ruin your family Christmas - make sure your son is there to enjoy it too," will encourage women to show their loved ones "tough love".

They want mothers, wives and girlfriends to hand in their relatives if they are involved with firearms.

"These women need to show them tough love to ensure they don't end up either seriously maimed or dead and need to call us in confidence with any information they may have to ensure it is not the last Christmas they spend with their loved ones."



Let us help to make sure your baby don't do nuthin.

[Cirque du So-What]

1. Outrageous!

British youth must attain the same unfettered access to handguns that American youth currently enjoy! Living & dying by the gun should be a universal right, after all.

[Callisto32]

2. Because all of us gun owners live and die by the gun, right?

It isn't like there are millions of gun owners that manage to go through life as peaceful, productive people who live out their days naturally and die old without ever having shot anyo.....wait, that is EXACTLY what happens most of the time.

Besides, we would be better off if people were more familiar with firearms. Familiarity with the gun requires training, consciousness of safety rules, discipline, and situational awareness. Seems like most of those things are lacking, these days.

I also can't help but think how funny it is that you think that living by the gun is bad, but that you want guns controlled and kept by the very group of people MOST LIKELY TO LIVE BY THE GUN, government bureaucrats.

[geckosfeet]

3. There are many people who do not need or want guns in their lives.

That is their choice and right. It is also their choice and right to advocate that way of life.

Gun rights is an important issue. But I find that often the discussion is clouded with emotional baggage, outrage and argument.

The gun, in its purest form is a discipline. Through it we learn about ourselves and our relationship to the world. And part of that world does not include guns. Simple fact. To deny it is to deny reality.

[Cirque du So-What]

5. You misinterpret me completely!

I believe guns should be readily accessible at all times. ALL TIMES, do ya hear me?!? Why should free-market principles neglect the poor gun manufacturers? As one who quotes Harry Browne (libertarian candidate for prez & frequent contributor to conservative publication World Net Daily) in you sigline, I'm sure you appreciate the importance of guaranteeing the freedom that only carrying guns can convey. MORE GUNS FOR EVERYONE!

[Callisto32]

111. You make reference to my reference to a man who wanted to REMOVE coercive force from society...

as evidence of my desire for violence?

[SteveM]

112. General anti-gun spasm No. 3. yawn

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cirque du So-What]

6. Let's turn this up a notch!

What else needs to be complained about where the bad ol' gummint is concerned? We need to get those libertarian sentiments right out in the open, right? After all, this is Libertarian Underground, right? How DARE the nanny state try to stop violence by trying to get guns off the streets anyway!

[safeinOhio]

22. +1

[jazzhound]

39. self-delete NT

[safeinOhio]

41. Here, I thought you Rand Paul Libertarians

were the screaming lunatics.
You often co-sign with the Ted Nugent, Sarah Palin NRA crowd.

[jazzhound]

42. Find me *ONE* of my posts that indicates that I am a

"Rand Paul Libertarian". Or *ONE* post where I co-sign the sentiments of Nugent, Palin, or 100% of the NRA's message.

[safeinOhio]

44. Hard to do when you just deleted

a major one.

[jazzhound]

47. Way to flaunt your lack of integrity!

I self-deleted my post because I felt it was overly argumentative and BEFORE I EVEN READ YOUR POST #41. Further, it had no RW tone whatsoever -- as many I'm sure had observed -- so your mendacity is duly noted. I guess you figure that on a day when there is relatively less attention to this board you think that you can get away with "fibbing".

Another reason I deleted my post is because I realized that I was guilty of one of your favorite (dirty) tactics ----- guilt by association.

[safeinOhio]

50. I only respond with personal attacks on those

that do so to me. I lose my empathy with those that lump me with groups that I do not support or belong to. I do worry about some people on this board that demonstrate uncalled for anger over my post. Those that promote guns should not get angry so fast as to make others fear that they would be the type to carry a dangerous weapon with anger problems. My only crime that aroused your venom was to post, +1. Hardly any thing to get your shorts in a knot about. Unlike you I have a CCW and because of that I know I must always remain cool and not unleash anger over trivial slights. Trivial slights are very common in every day life.

[jazzhound]

56. Fair enough:

My only crime that aroused your venom was to post +l.

As I've already said, this is why I deleted the post.

I lose my empathy with those that lump me with groups that I do not support or belong to.

Well now this is rich, given that one of your most conspicuous behaviors is to lump us together with Nugent, Palin, and Rand Paul Libertarians -- and suggesting that we follow in lockstep with NRA. Looks like you don't have much empathy for yourself! And that being the case, why should we have any empathy for you?

Hard to know when you just deleted a major one.

Explain to us why it should be "hard to know". If in fact I had deleted a "major" NRA lovin', Rand Paul Libertarian post a mere eight minutes before you accused me of said behavior, the DU Guns Forum should be an absolute minefield of right wing posts from jazzhound, right? So why should it be "hard" to dig one up? Further, none of your verbal calisthenics explains your willful mendacity in misrepresenting my post #39 with your post #44.

[safeinOhio]

61. Finally a response without anger. Very good.

I made my response before you deleted it. All I had said was "+1" and you came back with hateful venom against me. Your first post on the topic and all you can do is attack me personally for agreeing with a post that only pointed out a certain slant here.


"Well now this is rich, given that one of your most conspicuous behaviors is to lump us together with Nugent, Palin, and Rand Paul Libertarians -- and suggesting that we follow in lockstep with NRA. Looks like you don't have much empathy for yourself! And that being the case, why should we have any empathy for you? "

If you go back you'll see I have only done this after some one else has lumped with with some gun control group that I either have never supported or never belonged to. You have often done this. I have never accused anyone of that, that have not already lumped me with some group. So, you think I have no right to use the same tactics that are flung at me? Don't accuse me and I will never accuse you. It is really very simple. Now, you go back and show me any post where I have used this tactic in anything other than a defense against the same thing.

Well gee whiss, it sure isn't any fun being lumped with groups you don't agree with. Stop doing it yourself and it will go away. You have even accused me of not supporting any gun rights and have stated you don't believe I own guns and have a CCW. Accused me of being less than truthful and a fibber. I think you have even had post like that deleted by the mods for your personal attacks on me. If you could just lose some of that anger and just respond with out all of those personal attacks and chill a little, you might find it easier to support your views. There are some posters here that support gun rights that are able to do that without all of the emotion. Those posters make their points without scaring those that do not own guns. You make gun owners look like angry people that fly off the handle and would be a danger to others if armed. A prime example is your rant about me personally when I only posted "+1" and then, even you saw how inappropriate that was and went back and deleted it. While one can take back an angry post, one can not take back a bullet once it is fired.

[jazzhound]

107. You are 100% correct that I could take my tone down

a number of notches. I admit that I tend to lose my cool quickly at times -- but it is almost always in response to persons (such as yourself) with a history of disingenuous argument. I admire those RKBA supporters on this board with the maturity to maintain a cool disposition in the face of dishonesty. How far do we have to go to look for an example of extremely disingenuous argument from you? Not far! The untruthful manner in which you toss out the names in inapplicable fallacies in your exchange with X_Digger on this very thread and your absurd dance that followed upon being called on it are prime examples of your MO.

While it is fair to say that hot-headed comments on this board do a disservice to the cause of the RKBA, so too does untruthful argument from those who support more control. I've long felt that some who "argue" for gun "control" on this board engage in purposeful baiting in order to draw angry response from the RKBA supporters. From time to time, to my discredit, I've taken the bait.

Bottom line......as far as I'm concerned we both have some issues to work on.

(My last post on this subject.)

[RSillsbee]

59. You may not (financially )support them

but you certainly espouse their party line alomost word for word

[safeinOhio]

62. Perhaps you could

find about 3 or 4 such examples of me espousing "their" party line. Be sure to include who they are and show mine and their exact quotes. That should keep you out of trouble all day. Good luck.

[RSillsbee]

68. Do you support

Handgun registration?

Mandatory back ground checks on all private sales?

Reporting of multiple sales of Long guns (even though that information is ready recordedon the form 4473)?

[safeinOhio]

72. Do you support mandatory NICS

checks on gun sales by FFL Dealers like the NRA does?
Do you support "Shall Issue" laws, like I do?
Do you support the ban on felons and the insane owning and possession of handgun as the NRA and I do?
Do you support allowing law abiding citizens the right to purchase and carry handguns as I have always done on this forum?
Are you against registration of all long guns as I have always defended on this forum?
Have you owned firearms, hunted and target shot for 50 years like I have?
Do you have a CCW Like I do?

Asking a few select questions falls under the "Observational Selection Fallacy" of common fallacies of logic and rhetoric. Some gun rights orgs agree with me and some don't, most likely the same with you. Some anti gun rights org agree with the NRA on some issues too.

I have always supported the rights of law abiding citizens to own and carry. I have always looked for Constitutional laws that would restrict and make it more difficult for restricted individuals from purchasing and possessing fire arms, while allowing law abiding citizens those rights. These views do not put me in either category of anti or pro gun zealotry. It puts me, as polls show, with the majority view of Americans. I would guess your views would put you at the far end of the gun rights issues along with GOA, and various right wing racist militias. Now my guess is that you would not like to be put in the same category as some right wing groups that share some of your views. So, please don't spend time trying to lump me with any anti gun groups on the bases of my support a few reasonable laws that are supported by most Americans. Instead of personally attacking me, just stick to issues and not deciding how to categorize me. That seems like an impossibility for many here. You have to attack me personally and then if I retaliate with the same tactics you cry like a stuck pig. You love to dish it out, but can't take it yourselves. Just like this tread. You have jumped in just to attack me personally and make false accusations about where I stand. My guess is the only reason for such behavior is anger. If you have an anger management problem, perhaps you should think long and hard about being around firearms.

[RSillsbee]

94. What I support (nice dodge of the question BTW)

NCIS checks on gun sales by FFL Dealers like the NRA does?
Not really, but I don't see them going a way anytime soon

Do you support "Shall Issue" laws, like I do?
I prefer Constitutional Carry

Do you support the ban on felons and the insane owning and possession of handgun as the NRA and I do?
Not really , anything you can do illegally w/ a gun is , wait for it, already illegal

Do you support allowing law abiding citizens the right to purchase and carry handguns as I have always done on this forum?
Misleading question I support a citizen's right to own firearms but I do not wish to ban private sales (like you do) implement hand gun registration(like you do)or impose needles restrictions on concealed carry (like you do)

Are you against registration of all long guns as I have always defended on this forum?
Another misleading question. are you against gun registration in any form? How do you intend to enforce your ideal of NCIS checks for all private sale w/ out registration?

Have you owned firearms, hunted and target shot for 50 years like I have?
Sarah Brady owns firearms so does Bill Clinton what's your point?

Do you have a CCW Like I do?

Diane Fienstiene had a CHP, what's your point? (direct answer yes)

[safeinOhio]

100. Point is, if you want to lump with some group

make it the majority of Americans and their view on gun rights. Not the way far radical GOA types or the Brady Campaign types. You've mistakingly put me with one side. That is the point.

[RSillsbee]

101. I truly am sorry but I don't think I made a mistake NT

[safeinOhio]

103. If you feel that is the case,

I guess I can lump you with your friends here.

http://registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/web/news/cityregion/25697582-41/turnidge-joshua-bruce-police-death.csp

Kill the cops to keep your guns?

[RSillsbee]

105. Lump away

You can call the world flat all you want, it's still round.

[PavePusher]

110. Wow. Could you go any further out of your way...

to make a more vile false equivalance?

[aikoaiko]

24. Actually in every sub political forum, DUers criticize government -- where have you been?

Liberty is a vital part of liberalism.

[Cirque du So-What]

25. Where have I been? Right here!

And I'm agreeing that our government is in collusion with an international cabal determined to enslave all humanity as part of their plan to create a global plantation, and confiscation of every gun in the United States is integral to this nefarious goal - as evidenced by the dozens of times the government has knocked down our doors and taken our guns. Hasn't happened, yet, you say? Well, up here (points to temple), it's happened plenty!

[aikoaiko]

27. you master the straw man style of argumentation

No one made the claim to which you sarcastically agree.

You should be proud.

[Cirque du So-What]

31. O RLY?

You can't tell by judging from the reactions I'm getting. The goal would be to actually change minds, and as you can plainly see, everyone is sticking to their guns - metaphorically and literally. When I strip all pretense and talk freely about the futility of all attempts to restrict free commerce in firearms - all the while hoping in my heart of hearts that the little bastids annihilate one another in a hail of gunfire - you'd think I serially defecated in an uncountable number of cereal bowls this morning or something!

[X_Digger]

33. You complain when nobody responds.. then you claim victory when folks respond?

Funny, under those criteria, you can't lose.

The fact that people respond to asinine hyperbole and stuffed straw men is not an indication of the relative strength of your argument.

A yappy little dog barking his fool head off wakes everyone up the same as a big dog.

[Katya Mullethov]

40. True but a big dog can find your femoral artery

Well , they try .

[safeinOhio]

43. ergo propter hoc fallacy,

you should know better.

[X_Digger]

53. You should learn to *apply* those terms better.

Had you been able to see the now deleted post, you'd understand better.

I notice it didn't stop you from stepping in it- again- with the wrong term.

eta: and fer crissakes, at least get the term correct, if you can't get the usage- post hoc ergo propter hoc.

[safeinOhio]

54. Don't try and get away with

the ole Observational selection fallacy in trying to cover your ass.

:silly:

[X_Digger]

55. *sigh* you're regurgitating names of fallacies now, without actually knowing what they are..

Our dear interlocutor posted a quick number of responses to the OP, then complained that nobody was responding to him (see my response to post #7. While I didn't quote him, you can infer from my response.) Then in post 31, as well as some of the ones in the now deleted subthread (it had started from post 4), he claimed that he'd (paraphrasing, can't recall exactly) kicked over an ant hill.

Just because you didn't see it doesn't make it invalid for those of us who did.

Again, regurgitation of the names of fallacies doesn't actually demonstrate knowledge.

Anhydrous DiMethyl Ether Sulfate! Ha, now I'm a chemist! (At least if I use you as an example of how that 'logic' works.)

[safeinOhio]

58. There you go again.

"regurgitation of the names of fallacies doesn't actually demonstrate knowledge" is a clear case of absence of evidence is not evidence of absence or an appeal to ignorance fallacy. Nice try.

[X_Digger]

66. Then let me explain, since the point apparently went whoosh..

What facts did I elide over / pick and choose - (the observational selection fallacy)?

I pointed out, as well as can be done with deleted posts and subthreads, my position- namely that my interlocutor complained about both a lack of response, then when folks actually did respond, took said response as proof of the strength of his argument. Do you have any facts to present to dispute that?

The fact that many of his posts were deleted does not affect the validity of my comments at the time they were made.

You, not having participated in the conversation pre-deletion, are not in a position to knowledgeably comment.

Here's a good example of an observational selection fallacy:

http://www.skepticsfieldguide.net/2005/03/michael-moore-kindly-provides-example.html

Ironically, Moore tends to bash his countrymen for ignoring the rest of the world – yet here is his mocking 'role call' for the 'coalition of the willing' in the Iraqi war: Palau (little girls in grass skirts), Costa Rica (peasant pulling an ox cart), Iceland (Vikings), Romania (Dracula), Morocco (who, one report said, offered to send 2000 monkeys to blow up landmines), Netherlands (Drug addicts), and Afghanistan (Poppy growers).

Hence Observational Selection. Apparently the following countries in the 'coalition of the willing' don't rate a mention: Australia, Denmark, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Poland, Spain, Turkey and of course the United Kingdom. We actually see this inconsistency later in the film. He shows three Japanese who are kidnapped by Iraqi insurgents. He tells us how they are threatened with beheading unless Japan withdraws its troops. Oops!

Please, take an online course in logic- it's tiring watching you flail about, spewing the names of fallacies like someone suffering from Tourette's Syndrome.

[safeinOhio]

73. So, you took an online course

would that fall under Argument from "authority"?

Would this statement, " spewing the names of fallacies like someone suffering from Tourette's Syndrome." fall under ad hominem attack?


The attack on me that I responded to and was deleted was a response to my post that only said "+1", the response to that was a vile personal attack on me. Even the poster thought so and deleted it as I responded to it. Had nothing to do with the deleted sub-thread. Yes timing does confuse things.

[X_Digger]

74. Please point out where I said I had taken an online course-

Don't put words in my mouth- arguing against a statement that I haven't made; I think you know that one, bonus points if you can name it.

And then you compound your mistake by accusing me of appeal to authority / argument from authority. You've given me the perfect example of your misapplication.

What 'authority' have I claimed supports my position that you don't understand the terms you're using? I haven't invoked Rene Descartes, or other great logic philosophers. An appeal to authority is a statement like this- "Person A says B is true. Person A is an expert in his field, therefore B is true."

Thank you for an example supporting my assertion.

Would this statement, " spewing the names of fallacies like someone suffering from Tourette's Syndrome." fall under ad hominem attack?

Yes, your repeated misapplication of terms finally got to me.

Here is it without ad hominem.

You are apparently uncomprehending of the fallacies you're accusing others of using. I suggest your ignorance can be remedied.

You still haven't demonstrated what facts I elided or left out in support of your assertion of my use of 'observational selection'.

[safeinOhio]

78. Just like you have assumed that

I have not taken a course. Show any proof of your assumption. Your appeal is suggesting that I lack any authority on the subject. You can say it is so for as long as you wish, but that never makes it so. As for the validity of any use of a fallacy, all arguments require a fallacy. Opinions are just that, opinions. Your lack of consistency, that is I have never seen you argue a fallacy of logic on any pro gun rights sides, and there are some if not many, disqualifies your expertise. When you use your skills on both sides of an issue, I'll give you some credence on the subject. Selective use is a misapplication on your part, or is it just ignorance?

[X_Digger]

91. Your repeated demonstrations of incomprehension leave me no choice but to come to that conclusion..

If you have taken a course, you should ask for your money back. All I asserted is that you are not correctly identifying logical fallacies. I gave you an example of the fallacy being discussed, I'll wait for your response as to how something I said falls within the description of the identified fallacy.

Let's get to the meat, shall we?

Your lack of consistency, that is I have never seen you argue a fallacy of logic on any pro gun rights sides, and there are some if not many, disqualifies your expertise.

Here's a lesson for you, since if you did take a class, you must've nodded off during this part..

That is what's called a Tu Quoque fallacy-

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

Tu quoque, or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a kind of logical fallacy. It is a Latin term for "you, too" or "you, also". A tu quoque argument attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting his failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's viewpoint on an issue on the argument that the person is inconsistent in that very thing. It is considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the party itself, rather than its positions.

(internal footnotes removed)

You are asserting that I'm inconsistent in my application, therefore my argument should be discredited.

Whether or not I'm consistent has no bearing on whether or not those statements I call out actually are or are not logical fallacies.

Thank you, again for providing me with another opportunity to point out a logical fallacy.

As for the validity of any use of a fallacy, all arguments require a fallacy. Opinions are just that, opinions.

All arguments require a fallacy? Now I know you were asleep in class, if you indeed took one.

When you use your skills on both sides of an issue, I'll give you some credence on the subject. Selective use is a misapplication on your part, or is it just ignorance?

See Tu Quoque, above.

I neither require nor seek your acceptance of my 'credence'.

[safeinOhio]

95. Wouldn't that be some kind of

"observational selection" fallacy, counting the hits and forgetting the misses? while you might prove the hits, you only select those and miss the rest. This might make one think you use inconsistency(see inconsistency fallacy) in your application of the rules. Of course you are free to do so, just as another might be free to do so too. As Carl Sagan said "Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view".

[X_Digger]

96. If I said that only one side used logical fallacies, and then pointed (selectively) to those, yes..

However, since I haven't done that, the argument fails.

There are no 'rules' that one must give equal weight to any argument. That's how we end up with the 'debate' over global weather change, evolution, vaccines, or other pseudo-science claptrap.

eta: and fer crissakes, at least look up the fallacy you mention and make sure it's at least _tangential_ to the point you seem to be trying to make.

http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/fallacy/ic.php

[safeinOhio]

97. Yep, you have to admit the one thing

about consistency is that it is always consistent. That, you be. Wrong or right.

[spin]

49. Few people ever change their minds in the Gungeon ...

we just have fun arguing.

[safeinOhio]

51. Very true and

nothing to get angry about.

[jazzhound]

57. True, but there is a distinct difference in the integrity

with which the opposing views argue their cases.

The latest laughable/ridiculous/mendacious tactic seems to be to simply barf out the names of fallacies which don't even apply to statements made.

[safeinOhio]

79. The first time it was used against me

by the self appointed expert, it was a list of about 8 or 9 fallacies that he thought I might have used in other post. Seemed a laughable/ridiculous tactic to me at the time. Just list and not give examples or an argument for or against if they do apply. But, then that is just play. The real lack of integrity involves those that jump into an argument with personal attacks like you do. There are many here that jump to lumping anyone with a moderate view as a member of some great conspiracy to take away guns and the American way. Using personal attacks by categorizing people is a week and dishonest tactic. Why not see if you can offer comments about issues without doing so.

[jazzhound]

108. Refer to post # 107. NT

[Straw Man]

45. I am Straw Man...

...and I do not endorse this message.

[SteveM]

113. Well, you show us yours, and we'll show you ours. Okay? nt

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[X_Digger]

8. You're complaining that nobody responded to your posts..

.. within 5 minutes, on christmas eve?

Gee, ya think folks might be doing other things today?

Or were you just hoping to score points when folks were otherwise engaged?

[Cirque du So-What]

12. No, I WELCOME your input!

Let's discuss the topic at hand and how great it is to make sure the youth in the United Kingdom are enjoying unfettered access to firearms. Damned nanny state anyway!

[X_Digger]

13. 3 responses to the OP in 10 minutes?

Perhaps you could stop your knee from twitching and come up with one post that actually encompasses all your ideas..

Or you can continue to make more responses to the OP..


Who in this forum has espoused the goal of unfettered access to firearms for youth, either in the US, or the UK?

That's a straw man of your own making, it appears.

[Cirque du So-What]

15. OK, lettuce then examine the OP in greater detail...

'Let us help to make sure your baby don't do nuthin.'

What does this say to you? To me, it implies that the godawful nanny state is trying to make sure that youth in the UK are curtailed from the very red-blooded activities that constitute their god-given natural rights, and if that means they die in the streets, well, que sera, sera! Do you agree with this assessment? Thank GOD we live in these United States where the police don't give a good goddam about the gun violence that takes the lives of 75 American teenagers & young adults every day. I won't even deign to post a link to that obviously-biased study, as it's likely corrupted by governmental influence. Instead, I'll wait until a suitably bias-free study that passes muster with the NRA is posted.

[X_Digger]

17. No, I don't..

That's a play on the oft-heard refrain from criminals' family members- that he "was a good kid", "was getting his act together", "had found jezus", "didn't do nothing", "doesn't deserve this", etc.

Do you also read tea leaves, or bumps on folks' heads?

[Cirque du So-What]

18. Sometimes I hear that refrain about the 'good kid'

From the parents of truly good children who get caught in the crossfire for the crime of living in a neighborhood where guns are readily accessible by real criminals. I'm a bit unfamiliar with this 'refrain from criminals' family members' stuff. Perhaps you could point out some websites where this sort of thing is discussed in great detail. I'm sure there are others who are interested in the sort of commentary that accompanies these 'good kid' stories. If you can't/won't provide some, I'm sure I can find some on my own.

[Cirque du So-What]

23. Here's some of that 'good kid' rhetoric you mentioned

By George J.

July 9, 2010 7:03 PM | Link to this

When will it ever be a clean shoot? Will we always have to pay the family of a criminal just because their black? How many other parents of criminals or hoodlums say hmmmmmmmmm go make us some money so we can live in “deluxe apartment in the sky….moving on up”

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/cityhall/entries/2010/07/09/city_family_of_man_slain_by_of.html

I'll look a little further and see if I can get some actual quotes from actual family members, as I'm sure there's more to it than just a catchphrase uttered by racist peckerwoods.

[X_Digger]

26. Usually family members / friends..

Here's a rare one from the fellow himself:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/07/25/2009-07-25_contrary_to_what_authorities_say_missingfile_fugitive_says_hes_been_in_bronx_the.html

Accused drug thug and fugitive Henry Fiorentino says he didn't do nuthin.'

http://www.kctv5.com/news/26001703/detail.html

"Todd is being held on a $250,000 bond and he didn't do nothing wrong. He took care of his grandma appropriately."

And here's one with a bit more polish than most..

http://chicagoist.com/2010/10/12/alleged_honeybee_shooters_family_he.php

"Brian is 100 percent innocent and I feel damn sorry for those people out there who think they might be safe right now."

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2010/07/family_of_16-year-old_shooter.html

"He's a great kid. He's never been in trouble and never hurt anyone," he said.

From the comments on that story..

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2010/07/family_of_16-year-old_shooter/3625/comments-newest.html

"poor kid,, just as he was starting to turn his life around this happens. Im sure he is totally innocent...."

[spin]

36. Many of those teen agers and young adults killed by guns in the U.S. are involved ...

in turf wars between competing drug gangs.

Their loss of life is more a symptom of our failed War on Drugs rather than our firearm policies. Prohibition never works and often the results are worse than the problems prohibition was to cure.

[Euromutt]

46. It says something quite different to me

When the Merseyside Police evidently find it necessary to appeal for help to the mothers, wives and girlfriends of young men involved in criminal activity involving firearms, and "want mothers, wives and girlfriends to hand in their relatives if they are involved with firearms," that says to me that the police are admitting, in so many words, that:
a) the UK's gun control laws--particularly those banning the import and private possession of handguns--haven't made it impossible, or even particularly difficult, to acquire a handgun illegally;
b) H.M. Government's socio-economic policies have proved unable to prevent young men from wanting to acquire handguns and using them for criminal purposes; and
c) the police are unable to detect illegally possessed handguns, or prevent their misuse (despite Merseyside Police having a "Matrix Disruption Team" http://www.merseyside.police.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1505 specifically to deal with "gun crime, faction based criminality and cash-in-transit robberies").

The conclusion that this leads one to is that gun control laws only "work" when private citizens comply with them voluntarily, which is to say, they don't work at all. Now, nobody's actually suggesting that we "throw up our hands and give up entirely" on trying to reduce gun violence, but I don't think it's such an off-the-wall suggestion that it might be a more effective approach to stop focusing on the implements of violence and instead focus on addressing the reasons violence occurs in the first place.

And is it me, or is there a certain unintentional irony in using a line like "make sure your son is there to enjoy it too" when you're trying to motivate women to report their sons and significant others to the police, a move which will presumably result in those men not being "there to enjoy it too" because they'll be in a prison (or at least a police holding cell)?

[pipoman]

60. Care to supply the source of your fictitious statistic?

"gun violence that takes the lives of 75 American teenagers & young adults every day"

[Euromutt]

64. Of course not!

If CdSW supplied a reference, we'd be able to look it up for ourselves and identify any flaws in the source document.

As a matter of interest, looking at the CDC WISQARS fatal injury data, the number of 15-29 year-olds who died of GSWs in the period 2003-2007 averaged to about 28/day; 15-24 year-olds just under 19/day. That's for "all intents": homicide, deliberate self-harm, unintentional shootings, legal interventions and "undetermined."

Even during the period 1989-1993 (when U.S. homicide rates were at their highest ever recorded levels), the number of 15-29 year-olds dying of GSWs was about 40/day; 15-24 year-olds approx. 27/day. Again, for "all intents."

So CdSW's figure would appear to be a gross overstatement, and that's according to CDC data.

[X_Digger]

69. Even if we add in non-fatal..

the number of non-fatal injuries 10-19 averaged 41 per day in 2003-2007.

From 2003-2007, fatal injuries by firearm for 10-19 averaged 8 per day.

*still* 30% less than was initially claimed, even if we assume that he wasn't intentionally misrepresenting the stat.

[Cirque du So-What]

65. Nope

You can damned well find it yourself if you wanna know sofa king bad. Approximately 75 children are shot in the US. About 15 die, while the rest recover. More teenage boys die from gun-related accidents (or deliberate shootings) than from car accidents. Google it yourself...AS IF you would believe it any fucking way. I know how this forum rolls.

[Euromutt]

67. An 80% reduction in mortality within the space of a few hours!

Why, I'd say it was a miracle, were it not for the fact that you seem to making these numbers up as you go along. You could at least have the grace to acknowledge that the 75/day number was for both fatal and nonfatal GSWs, because a phrase like "takes the lives of" (as in "takes the lives of 75 American teenagers & young adults every day") is commonly understood to mean that the victims are killed.

More teenage boys die from gun-related accidents (or deliberate shootings) than from car accidents.

According to CDC WISQARS, in the period 2003-2007 (the 5 most recent years available), 16,217 males aged 15-19 died as a result of unintentional motor vehicle collisions in traffic. During the same period, 11,758 males aged 15-19 died of GSWs, from "all intents"; looking at unintentional shootings and homicides, the number was 8,277 (414 unintentional, 7,863 homicides).

The problem, I think, is that Gavin de Becker's books The Gift of Fear and Protecting the Gift (from which this page http://life.familyeducation.com/school-safety-month/violence/29712.html says it draws its data) were published in 1997 and 2000, respectively, and the data de Becker had to work with presumably dates from the early to mid-1990s. Violent crime, including homicide, have dropped precipitously since 1993, and if those numbers were at one time correct, they have not been for over a decade.

[pipoman]

77. Prepare yourself for a name calling, ass chewing

tirade...how dare you not simply take these made up facts as the ultimate truth....shame, shame on you!

[Cirque du So-What]

82. Ding ding ding!

Well, whaddya know! Someone actually had the gumption to look it up! Congratulations! Yes, I realize de Becker's data is old, but WTF happened in the interim? To what is this reduction attributable? I'd really like to know.

[pipoman]

86. Well let's see...what has happened in the last 20-30 years?

The US has gone from 3 states with legal concealed carry of handguns to 43. Gun numbers have grown every single year. Apparently what ever the cause it has not one thing to do with gun control laws, because the only new gun laws have been liberalization. It has nothing to do with more guns in public because there are millions more guns being carried by law abiding people every day. It has nothing to do with overall gun numbers, because as stated, every year there are necessarily more guns in private hands. Bottom line, it has nothing to do with guns.

[Cirque du So-What]

90. I see some attributing the decline in gun deaths

to the end of gang warfare related to the crack cocaine trade. Anything to that?

[pipoman]

92. Could be

Actually my feeling, not really backed by anything other than observation, is that gang on gang violence has remained pretty static. An increase in unprosecuted defensive shootings and publicity surrounding self defense friendly law enactment (stand your ground, castle doctrine, repeal of duty to retreat, concealed carry, etc) have lead to lower criminal on innocent victim crimes. I liken it to what happened to a friend of mine. He always left his door on his home unlocked. A neighborhood kid, 15, knew he left it unlocked. He would come home from work and find things missing or out of place. He started locking his door and suddenly this stopped. The 15yo certainly could break in but chooses not to. When some people see easy targets, they can't help themselves. When they think there is a chance for negative consequences they are less likely to risk it. Also three strikes laws have become more common as have increased sentences for aggravated crime. I don't really know what to attribute the dramatic, sustained decreases in violent crime to, I do feel quite strongly that stripping rights from law abiding citizens will not contribute to further reduction.

[spin]

98. It's just not homicides but all crime is heading down ...

and yet in the last several years gun and ammo sales have skyrocketed.

Gun Control as Economic Stimulus
By CATHERINE RAMPELL
July 16, 2010, 5:46 pm

Federal tax revenue on the sales of firearms and ammunition rose 45 percent in the last fiscal year. That is the highest annual increase on record, according to a new report from the Treasury Department’s Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau.

By comparison, the annual average increase for fiscal years 1993 to 2008 was 6 percent. Here’s a chart showing millions of dollars of firearms and ammunition excise taxes collected at the federal level over the last decade:



Firearm and ammunition tax revenues skyrocketed for a different reason: These went up because people were simply buying more guns and ammunition, apparently because they feared Barack Obama would curb their access to deadly weapons upon taking office.

“Retail sales analysis indicates that gun sales strongly correlate to changes in the political landscape in the United States,” the report says. “Specifically, gun sales rise when citizens perceive an oncoming challenge to their Second Amendment right to bear arms. The upward trend for collections reflects this phenomenon, as tax revenues have increased in relation to the recent rise in gun sales.”
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/gun-control-as-economic-stimulus/

While it is difficult to draw the conclusion that more guns = less crime it should be obvious that more guns does not = more crime.

[Katya Mullethov]

99. Millions of dollar in revenue

100 million in 100 dollar bills is one pallet


But we need to get to work and buy enough guns to make a trillion dollars in revenue


You'll feel the love then !

[Euromutt]

102. I don't think anybody really knows what caused the drop in violent crime

There are any number of factors we can point to of which it is perfectly plausible that they played a part, but how large each respective part is in the bigger picture is, I suspect, impossible to determine. Increasing police manpower probably helped, as did the adoption of more effective policing methods; the trend towards incarcerating more offenders for longer periods probably played a part, though I have serious misgivings about that approach being sustainable (unless we're prepared to imprison an ever-increasing percentage of the population).

For all I know, people reading de Becker's books and taking his lessons about predicting violent behavior to heart might have contributed to some degree. I've read both The Gift of Fear and Protecting the Gift (though I seem to have misplaced my copy of the latter), and the basic notions de Becker posits seem to make sense. But when it comes to privately owned firearms, de Becker seems to have massive cognitive bias (which is more than a little hypocritical, given that the "protectors" his private firm employs routinely carry firearms), which has negatively influenced the quality of the appendices to his books regarding firearms. As I recall, in the appendix on firearms to Protecting the Gift (as I said, I've misplaced my copy so I can't look it up right now), he rubbished Gary Kleck's findings regarding defensive gun uses (DGUs), citing two examples of responses the survey-takers got which were really crappy examples of valid DGUs (in one case, the "man of the house" heard an odd noise at a lower floor window, shouted "I've got a gun" and the noise stopped; in another, a motorist pulled up at a four-way stop said a pedestrian approached his car, whereupon the motorist produced a firearm and the pedestrian ran away). What de Becker did not mention was that these were examples that Kleck and his associates threw out as not meeting the criteria for a valid DGU (to wit: 1. the respondent had to have actually seen the assailant, which rules out the first example; 2. the respondent had to be able to articulate the specific offense the supposed assailant intended to commit, which rules out the second example; and 3. the respondent had to, at a minimum, display or make verbal reference to having a firearm on his person). As straw men go, a fairly sophisticated one, but a straw man all the same. Not to put too fine a point on it, where firearms are concerned, de Becker seems to subscribe to the notion that hoi polloi can't be trusted with firearms, only military, law enforcement and his employees. Curiously, in the hiring process for GdDB&A, holding a California (specifically California) CCW permit is a point in your favor, even though a) California doesn't issue non-resident permits and GdB&A recruits nationwide, and b) it's a public secret that the primary qualification for getting a CA CCW is how much you contributed to the sheriff's re-election campaign fund, and demonstrated competency with a firearm plays little to no part.

Be that as it may, one thing is clear: the reduction in the violent crime rate occurred even while federal, state and local laws against private possession and carrying in public were being rolled back. The empirical evidence indicates that possession of certain types of firearm (such as semi-automatic long guns with detachable magazines, referred to as "assault weapons" by some entities) or permitting the carrying of handguns in public by those members of the citizenry who could meet a fairly basic set of criteria has emphatically not resulted in an increase in violent crime, including homicide. The hypothesis that "more guns => more crime" has been thoroughly discredited.

And speaking of discredited, so are the statistics you, CdSW, cited as if they were current (you did use present tense throughout) wehn in fact they were 15-20 years old. See, you can pretend to hold some superior position, but the fact is that the statistics you've presented as if they represented the current situation have been shown (by me) to be outdated at best. So when are you going to acknowledge that most of everything you've posted in this thread was bollocks, and why should we even give you the time of day unless and until you cop to the garbage you've posted thus far?

[pipoman]

70. Holy cow

I ask a simple question and you become a name calling hot head. I guess it may be a very good thing for you to avoid guns/pointed objects, huh?

Too tough for you to simply admit you erred in your post? Am I the bad one for expecting people to accurately state statistics? Apparently I could look all week and never verify the stat you used in post #15, since it was, in fact, untrue by your own admission.

How about this stat, one which is accurate but you can look that up for yourself. I, as a gun owner, am 4 times more likely to be struck by lightning than to be involved in an accidental shooting. Or this one, a child (0-14) is nearly 10 times more likely to drown than be killed with a gun. Are you also an advocate for ending access to private swimming pools? Many of those deaths occur in private swimming pools. Should we discuss other sports? Football, basketball, baseball, hockey, la crosse?

[Cirque du So-What]

81. Can't find it?

Is there some online tutorial for Google? Remedial tippy-tapping for the terminally stubborn? Not my prob. BTW, is there a more ironic statement than calling me a 'name-calling hothead?' For the record, the post to which you're replying does not contain a single instance of name-calling. Yunno, you're getting a little vein there on your forehead...hothead...LOL!

[pipoman]

83. Never will

because it is a lie, complete fiction made up in your own brain..have you forgotten what we are talking about? Your completely false claim, to wit:

gun violence that takes the lives of 75 American teenagers & young adults every day

This is what you said. Now show some statistic from an actual government agency or college or other reputable source which collaborates this stat. I'll hold my breath. Those who say silly things like, "You can damned well find it yourself if you wanna know sofa king bad." , can never source their statement...this is a cover for falsehoods, blatant lies and wishful thinking which has no basis in reality...just as it is in this case.

[Cirque du So-What]

85. One of your fellow gunizens found it

so like I said, not my prob. Read it, analyze it, look at my reply, and answer my question about what has happened in the intervening years to lower the rate...unless that Marine Corps emblem you use for an avatar prevents means that you lack the capacity to relent - EVER. It doesn't mean you're no longer the ruffy-tuffy-wuffy that you fashion yourself to be if you take a time-out in order to set me straight. I can turn my assholery down a few notches when I really put my mind to it, so I have confidence that you can put forth a modest effort to try steering this thread back onto a meaningful track.

[pipoman]

87. Wow really?

You have sited lies and stood by them. You continue to defend your lies. It's not my job to defend your falsehoods, stats which I knew the second I read them were simply lies. You started the name calling bullshit? Why? Because of an infantile fear of inanimate objects and an inability to think rationally would be my guess. Why do you feel the need to be so angry and insulting? Is this your only way of communicating? I haven't insulted you once. This is why your side ALWAYS loses in this forum, we demand truth to win arguments, not mere vile anger.

[Cirque du So-What]

89. Well, you guessed wrong on several counts

I am practically a life-long gun owner, and although I have a healthy respect for firearms, I am not afraid of using them. I fully support the rights of law-abiding gun owners, but I probably take a tougher line toward the free availability of undocumented firearms than many of this forum's regulars. Generally, I try to avoid this forum, but the OP had some commentary that I interpreted as dismissive of the problem with youth violence in the UK, so I overreacted and copped an attitude that I found hard to drop once I was in neck-deep. I'm an asshole, but at least I recognize that fact, and I'm trying to extricate myself from the hole I've dug.

I'm abandoning this tack and I will return to the honest answer you gave to my question after I do some research.

[cleanhippie]

104. But it IS your problem. You have no credibility now, so why should anyone even respond to you?

You purposefully stated a blatant lie, refused to source it, admitted it was a lie when the truth was discovered, then argue that its not your problem?


What. The. Fuck.

[PavePusher]

75. The way it works is that if you make a claim, you are responsible for supporting and defending it.

We give full faith and credit if people discover they are wrong, admit it and fix the error. Almost all of us have done that in this forum.

If you get called to support your statements, don't have a hissy-fit. It doesn't make you look any better, especially when you are proven to be wrong.

If you don't want to engage in adult debate, you are, of course, free to keep your mouth shut, if you are able to. The choice is entirely yours.

[Cirque du So-What]

80. Your authoritarian claims as to 'how it works' have no effect

You can damned well shut your own trap whenever the mood strikes as well, although that's hardly an order from headquarters. I provided the quote, so look it up your own self. Consider it my Christmas present to the gungeon...not that anyone would DREAM of giving it the time of day anyway. It'll likely get countered with some of the NRA's statistics anyway, so why bother?

[pipoman]

88. If you ever spent any time in this forum

you would know that stats from your side of this issue always come from discredited, outdated, biased sources, ALWAYS. and sources for stats from those of us concerned with preservation of civil liberties almost always come from CDC, FBI, or reputable scholarly reports by unbiased sources..rarely, if ever, will you find stats linked to nra. Sorry to burst your uninformed preconceived notions about this forum.

[friendly_iconoclast]

93. The more emotionally oriented posters don't like statistics....

....because when you use them to make (or refute) a point, you must- if only for a moment- accept that what you believe might

not be true. You're introducing fact into faith-based argument.


It always amuses me when someone uses a term like "NRA (or 'gun***', or 'right-wing') statistics", as it is a clear sign

that the person saying it can't actually refute said statistics so they try a half-assed genetic fallacy.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cirque du So-What]

9. Oh, I'm sorry. Did I break your concentration?

Please DO continue your attempt to export our laissez faire attitude toward gun ownership to the United Kingdom & elsewhere. Sorry I pointed to the metaphorical crazy uncle who lives in the attic: the prevailing Libertarian mindset so many of you denizens of the Gungeon embrace. I thought it important to mention, however, in face of the hundreds of times the government has broken down our doors and confiscated all our firearms. Hasn't happened, you say? Well, UP HERE (pointing to temple) it's happened plenty of times!

[X_Digger]

11. Wait, wait, wait..

The UK is supposed to be the bastion of gun control, how can this be?

*gasp*

[Cirque du So-What]

14. Oh, it has fallen alright

Between 1995 and 2004/05 violent crime, as measured by the BCS1, has fallen by 43 per
cent and the composition of violent crime has changed.

http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb0206.pdf

How DARE the Brits try to infringe on the rights of people to perpetrate violence upon one another. Who the HELL do they think they are anyway? I won't rest until they have the same murder rates in every one of their major cities as we currently have in these great United States!

[X_Digger]

16. You mean the UK, violent crime capital of the EU?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

The UK had a greater number of murders in 2007 than any other EU country – 927 – and at a relative rate higher than most western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3419401.stm

Offences of violence against the person rose 17%, serious violence such as killings were up 18%, and serious wounding and sexual offences rose 8%.

..


Meanwhile, separate gun crime figures indicate a two per cent increase in firearm offences in the year to March 2003.

The figures came as the Home Office announced that offenders possessing illegal firearms would from now on receive a mandatory five-year prison sentence.

It said the gun crime figures showed "a dramatic slowdown" compared to a 34% increase the previous year.

[Cirque du So-What]

19. Good to see we're making progress!

I won't rest until the UK is on a par with the US where gun violence is concerned! Welcome to the 21st century, Limeys!

[X_Digger]

28. So tell me.. do you have an actual reasoned argument to make?

Or are you just twitching?

Apparently criminals have no problem acquiring firearms in the UK, in spite of some of, if not the toughest firearms laws in the EU. And more and more often, they're willing to use them to settle disputes or in the commission of crimes.

So what's the solution? More of the same restrictions? That seems to be rather inadequate.

Let's hear your proposal to curb violent crime in the UK.

[Cirque du So-What]

30. I advocate throwing our hands in the air & giving up entirely

Not only here, but in the UK & everywhere. Guns violence is just a fact of life, and the sooner we get used to that notion - just lay back and enjoy it - the better off we'll all be. That leaves more time to fret about Obama - personally - coming to my door in order to confiscate my weaponry.

[X_Digger]

32. You're a hay bale short of another straw man.

Our crime rate has been going down, while the UK's has been going up.

Something's going right, here, and something's going wrong, there.

Perhaps it's the revolving door nature of criminal punishment in the UK.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1128343/The-moment-81-year-old-woman-fought-robber-33-previous-convictions.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8199571/Murderer-had-previous-knife-convictions.html

Oh, and re your question below about kitchen knives..

Andrew Jackson, prosecuting, told the court that Wills had 14 convictions for 22 offences, including two for carrying "bladed articles" - large kitchen knives - in public places.

Perhaps the violence in both places is more related to the drug trade than anything else.

Perhaps it's the median age of our population creeping up (though I haven't done the research on the UK's median age to compare to..)

[Cirque du So-What]

34. Au contraire! I agree completely that stiffer sentencing is a deterrent to crimes involving firearms

...but only as long as the criminal is actually behind bars. Otherwise, not so much.

[spin]

37. The Brits have been under-recording serious violent crime ...

Violent crime statistics in disarray over counting error
January 22, 2009

Official crime statistics were this morning in disarray after it emerged that 18 of the 43 English and Welsh police forces have been under-recording serious violent crime for up to a decade.

The forces - including the Metropolitan Police, the largest in the UK - have been failing to record in the most serious category of violent crime those incidents where an offence of grievous bodily harm with intent took place but the victims were not much hurt.

The miscounting is said to be largely why serious violent crime was reported to have leapt 22 per cent in April to June 2008, the last quarter for which figures are available.

***snip***

The Home Office has today named the 18 forces involved in the counting error, which could stretch back ten years. As well as Scotland Yard, they include the Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Cleveland, Cumbria, Derbyshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Humberside, Kent, Lancashire, Norfolk, North Wales, North Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, Staffordshire, Suffolk and Thames Valley forces.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article5565425.ece

The Brits fudged the data and even so it's so bad that Great Britain is the most violent country in the EU.

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
Last updated at 12:14 AM on 3rd July 2009

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.

***snip***

The figures, compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations, also show:

* The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.
* It has a higher homicide rate than most of our western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
* The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU.
* It has the fourth highest burglary rate and the highest absolute number of burglaries in the EU, with double the number of offences than recorded in Germany and France.

But it is the naming of Britain as the most violent country in the EU that is most shocking. The analysis is based on the number of crimes per 100,000 residents.

In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

[spin]

20. In other news England is thinking of banning pointy kitchen knives ...

which the yobs use to stab each other.

Doctors' kitchen knives ban call
Doctors say knives are too pointed



A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing.

A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase - and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.

They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.

The research is published in the British Medical Journal.

The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all.

They consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4581871.stm

[Cirque du So-What]

21. Now THAT's completely uncalled for!

Why ban something so mundane as kitchen knives? Using such a weapon requires the attacker to get up-close-and-personal, so it's hardly a first choice for someone seriously seeking to do damage. The gun, on the other hand, affords the opportunity to really 'reach out and touch someone' without getting close enough to the intended victim that the weapon could feasibly be taken away and the assailant anally raped with it. For those too cowardly to wield knives, cricket bats, or pointy sticks in combat, the gun is the answer!

[X_Digger]

29. Stabbings in the UK are up..

http://2008.battlefront.co.uk/campaign/stop-gun-and-knife-crime/

The new figures indicate that in the year 2007-8 there were some 277 deaths from stabbings in England & Wales alone (the highest recorded figure for 30 years). This represents an average death toll as a direct result of stabbings of over 5 for every week of the year!

(It's a flash site, hard to get a direct URL).

[spin]

35. It seems the Brits are really good at getting "up-close-and-personal".

KNIFE REPORT A BLOW FOR PM
19th December 2010

THE Government is on a ­collision course with knife crime campaigner Brooke Kinsella over how to tackle Britain’s spiralling culture of violence.

The former EastEnders star is about to deliver a report on street violence to the Prime Minister.


But earlier this month Justice Secretary Ken Clarke said he would scrap key Tory pledges promising to jail anyone caught carrying a knife.
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/168132/Knife-report-a-blow-for-PM/

The Brits have draconian knife laws. Most of the knives that Americans carry on an everyday basis would be illegal in Great Britain.

THE LAW
YOUR KNIFE AND YOU

Despite what you may have been led to believe, our knife laws are amongst the most sensible in the modern World.

***snip***

What You Can't Have ...
The following items are banned from sale within the UK (although if you already own one you may keep it, but not use it outside of your own property) ... Switchblades, automatics or 'flick-knives', gravity knives, balisongs or 'butterfly knives', push daggers, belt buckle knives, sword canes, disguised knives, or knuckle-duster knives.

Late on in 2004, an amendment to the law was introduced which restricts the sale of any knife which is not readily detectable by the normal methods of detection, ie: either x-ray or metal detection, unless it can be proven that the knife's sole purpose is for the preparation of food. So for instance, the Cold Steel CAT Tanto or Lansky Knife are now prohibited within the UK. These knives are correctly referred to as Airport Knives, but in English law are commonly referred to as Stealth Knives.

In 2006, so-called Disguised Knives were prohibited. You may not buy any knife designed to look like something else, for instance a knife which appears to be a pen, (and it doesn't matter whether the pen works or not, it's still prohibited here).

What You Can Carry ...
The Criminal Justice Act (1988) says that you may carry a knife with a blade length of 3.0" or less so long as it is capable of folding. That means no fixed blade knives. But use your loaf - a knife has no place at a football match, in a pub, nightclub or school and becomes an offensive weapon in these circumstances in just the same way as a screwdriver, or any other innanimate tool.emphasis added

But I NEED a Bigger Knife ...
If you wish to carry a larger knife then you must have 'reasonable cause'. That means that you must be able to prove that you had a genuine reason for carrying the knife.

You may carry a larger cutting tool if it is associated with your work (for instance a chef may carry a 9.0" butchers knife roll to and from work), or if it is associated with your sport, (for instance a fisherman may carry a 6.0" fillet knife, or a hunter may carry a 4.0" fixed blade hunting knife).

Don't forget it's there though. If you stop off in Tesco's for a can of beans on your way home take the knife off of your belt and lock it in your glove box, or your local Bobby will be unimpressed at your excuses. When transporting a knife by car keep it locked away in the glove box or securely stored in the boot of the vehicle. Do not slip it into the door side-pocket, under your seat or in a centre console, this is a dangerous practice, and if stopped by the Police this gives the impression of keeping the knife close to hand.
http://www.bkcg.co.uk/guide/law.html

The knife I had in my pocket today when I went the the grocery store would be highly illegal in Great Britain. It's a fully serrated Spyderco Endura.


The Bobbies would put me in jail in Great Britain if they caught me carrying this knife in public. It has a 4" blade, it flicks open and OMG! the blade locks open making it a deadly fixed blade.


It probably is a good idea to keep firearms away from citizens in the U.K. They can't even be trusted with common pocket knives.

[friendly_iconoclast]

38. I am truly ashamed of you and X_digger. You've ruined three emotion-based arguments on Christmas Eve

You and your damned 'facts' and 'citations' and 'empirical evidence'.

I hope Santa puts coal in your stockings!

(Srsly, well done....)

[spin]

48. The sad part is that I enjoyed doing it. Santa should put coal in my stocking. (n/t)

[Katya Mullethov]

52. Will that be more than 600 dollars worth of coal ?

EIther way , you probably both should file 1099's on each other just to be safe . And then there are those carbon offset credits .

[Tejas]

71. delivers, this forum does it! LOL!

[toastbutter]

109. Well, they ARE British

So they'd put you in gaol instead :)

[Tejas]

106. anal rape with a gun? the fantasy is strong with this one.

Cirque du So-What (1000+ posts) Fri Dec-24-10 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. Now THAT's completely uncalled for!
Edited on Fri Dec-24-10 09:51 AM by Cirque du So-What
Why ban something so mundane as kitchen knives? Using such a weapon requires the attacker to get up-close-and-personal, so it's hardly a first choice for someone seriously seeking to do damage. The gun, on the other hand, affords the opportunity to really 'reach out and touch someone' without getting close enough to the intended victim that the weapon could feasibly be taken away and the assailant anally raped with it. For those too cowardly to wield knives, cricket bats, or pointy sticks in combat, the gun is the answer!
They are unanimous in their hate for me and I welcome their hatred.
Alert Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

********************************************************************


what the hell is wrong with you?

[Euromutt]

63. Well, that's hardly *news*; the BMJ editorial came out five and half years ago

H.M. Government hasn't taken any steps to ban outright long-bladed pointed kitchen knives since then.

That line about "such knives hav<ing> little practical value in the kitchen" goes a little further than the way the actual editorial (http://www.bmj.com/content/330/7502/1221.full registration required) put it:

Perhaps the pointed kitchen knife has a culinary purpose that we have failed to appreciate? We contacted 10 chefs in the UK who are well known from their media activities and chefs working in the kitchens of five leading London restaurants. Some commented that a point is useful in the fine preparation of some meat and vegetables, but that this could be done with a short pointed knife (less than 5 cm in length). None gave a reason why the long pointed knife was essential.

"Non-essential" and "of little practical value" are by no means synonymous. I rather strongly suspect that the chefs in question were asked questions along the lines of "but in principle, everything you do now with a long pointed knife, you could also do with a long rounded one and a short pointed one instead?" and the responses were along the lines of "yes, but it'd be a pain in the bollocks having to switch back and forth all the time instead of having one knife I could use for several different tasks."

I mean, what kind of a culinary ignoramus do you have to be to claim that 8-10" chef's knives have "little practical value in the kitchen"? If that were true, why does every professional cook in the world use them?!

[PavePusher]

76. They have essentially succeeded in banning useful-length pocket knives...

with important safety feature like locking blades that won't fold onto your knuckles during strenuous use, or easy-opening blades for one-handed use.

Well, at least for the non-criminals. The crims, of course, continue to da as they wish.

And the streets are sooooo much safer... sigh.

[Katya Mullethov]

84. It's the most .....wonderful time .....of the year

Oz ...Airstrip one ...yeah whatever .


////

Woman allegedly killed partner with scissors

Posted Sat Dec 25, 2010 10:47am AEDT
Police say they were called to a house in the Darwin suburb of Karama on Christmas Eve, where they found a 25-year-old man who had been stabbed in the head and neck.

They say he died at the scene.

Police say the man's 23-year-old partner in custody.

Another woman is also in custody, accused of stabbing her partner in a separate incident at Tennant Creek, injuring his lung.

Officers say the 27-year-old victim was admitted to hospital but ran away and they plan to try to find him later today.