Political Crossfire Forums

[private_citizen]

britboy wrote: Note - we didn't ban steak knives, butter knives, any kind of 'every day use' knives (we don't live in bear country!). We banned knives that were only really any use for sticking people with or threatening to do so with..

What they make bear hunting knives? Let me clue you in on something, you had better bring a harpoon if you want to kill a bear umm kay.

as for the other knives, most stabbings are done with steak and pocket knives, just an FYI! There are no special "Stabbing knives" sections at Harrod's are there? Fool.

[private_citizen]

Boneman wrote: Britain has never had a big murder problem, even when most guns were legal are murder rates were still far lower than the US's. The murder rate after our major gun control laws were passed stayed pretty much the same as before they were passed (sometimes even increasing). Pre-Dunblane we had lower murder/rape rates than you, which were falling, but post-Dunblane (and the handgun ban) the ratio of crimes involving handguns has increased quite a lot.

The brits do not have the same murder rate, because they do not have the same inner city demographics as we do, nor do they have the same drug problems. We have more strict laws than they do governing drugs, but have worse drug problems due to the inner cities. Cops are scared, Judges are liberal, and jails are too crowded.

If you look at the top 10-murder rate cities you will see, they have one thing in common, inner city demographic. Note a fact, New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont, Utah, North Dakota, (which have very few gun restrictions) have extremely low murder rates. However, New York, California, Illinois, and DC (Which have very strict gun laws) have the highest murder rates. It is not about guns and the law; it is about drugs and the illegal ownership of ILLEGALLY imported guns. Those in favor of gun control will only control the legal guns, and that will only lead to the deaths of innocent people.

If England had the same demographic as we, they would have closer to the same murder rate, if not higher because they are so anti-gun.

[Lucky Luke]

Boneman wrote: Britain has never had a big murder problem, even when most guns were legal are murder rates were still far lower than the US's. The murder rate after our major gun control laws were passed stayed pretty much the same as before they were passed (sometimes even increasing). Pre-Dunblane we had lower murder/rape rates than you, which were falling, but post-Dunblane (and the handgun ban) the ratio of crimes involving handguns has increased quite a lot.

Has it? Show us.

:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

private_citizen wrote: Boneman wrote: Britain has never had a big murder problem, even when most guns were legal are murder rates were still far lower than the US's. The murder rate after our major gun control laws were passed stayed pretty much the same as before they were passed (sometimes even increasing). Pre-Dunblane we had lower murder/rape rates than you, which were falling, but post-Dunblane (and the handgun ban) the ratio of crimes involving handguns has increased quite a lot.

The brits do not have the same murder rate, because they do not have the same inner city demographics as we do, nor do they have the same drug problems. We have more strict laws than they do governing drugs, but have worse drug problems due to the inner cities. Cops are scared, Judges are liberal, and jails are too crowded.

If you look at the top 10-murder rate cities you will see, they have one thing in common, inner city demographic. Note a fact, New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont, Utah, North Dakota, (which have very few gun restrictions) have extremely low murder rates. However, New York, California, Illinois, and DC (Which have very strict gun laws) have the highest murder rates. It is not about guns and the law; it is about drugs and the illegal ownership of ILLEGALLY imported guns. Those in favor of gun control will only control the legal guns, and that will only lead to the deaths of innocent people.

If England had the same demographic as we, they would have closer to the same murder rate, if not higher because they are so anti-gun.

London Private_Citizen, find me a US city with a murder rate similar to London, the capital of Britain. A clue keep away from Manchester NH, London is safer than Manchester NH!

Now I suggest you remove New York from your list, you have been misinformed.

As for your "safe" states, they are empty and yet they have a similar murder rate than England and Wales, one has a higher murder rate than the capital of England! Worst it has a similar rate than the most violent western nation as per some UN poll.

I ask you Private_Citizen, what is wrong in Utah?

The truth you are choosing to ignore is that the worst western European cities for murder would be considered safe in America and the safest American cities for murder would be considered a problem in Europe.

Guess what is the murder rate for the worst city in western Europe for the last few decades and find out that it is less than half of the murder rate of Salt Lake City UT.

Do you understand how wrong you are? If you don't please check it out.

Another fact you ignored, the UK's overall population density is one of the highest in the world, the US one of the lowest.
:-D
:-D

[private_citizen]

Lucky Luke wrote: private_citizen wrote: Boneman wrote: Britain has never had a big murder problem, even when most guns were legal are murder rates were still far lower than the US's. The murder rate after our major gun control laws were passed stayed pretty much the same as before they were passed (sometimes even increasing). Pre-Dunblane we had lower murder/rape rates than you, which were falling, but post-Dunblane (and the handgun ban) the ratio of crimes involving handguns has increased quite a lot.

The brits do not have the same murder rate, because they do not have the same inner city demographics as we do, nor do they have the same drug problems. We have more strict laws than they do governing drugs, but have worse drug problems due to the inner cities. Cops are scared, Judges are liberal, and jails are too crowded.

If you look at the top 10-murder rate cities you will see, they have one thing in common, inner city demographic. Note a fact, New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont, Utah, North Dakota, (which have very few gun restrictions) have extremely low murder rates. However, New York, California, Illinois, and DC (Which have very strict gun laws) have the highest murder rates. It is not about guns and the law; it is about drugs and the illegal ownership of ILLEGALLY imported guns. Those in favor of gun control will only control the legal guns, and that will only lead to the deaths of innocent people.

If England had the same demographic as we, they would have closer to the same murder rate, if not higher because they are so anti-gun.

London Private_Citizen, find me a US city with a murder rate similar to London, the capital of Britain. A clue keep away from Manchester NH, London is safer than Manchester NH!

Now I suggest you remove New York from your list, you have been misinformed.

As for your "safe" states, they are empty and yet they have a similar murder rate than England and Wales, one has a higher murder rate than the capital of England! Worst it has a similar rate than the most violent western nation as per some UN poll.

I ask you Private_Citizen, what is wrong in Utah?

The truth you are choosing to ignore is that the worst western European cities for murder would be considered safe in America and the safest American cities for murder would be considered a problem in Europe.

Guess what is the murder rate for the worst city in western Europe for the last few decades and find out that it is less than half of the murder rate of Salt Lake City UT.

Do you understand how wrong you are? If you don't please check it out.

Another fact you ignored, the UK's overall population density is one of the highest in the world, the US one of the lowest.
:-D
:-D

LIke I said.. if you did in fact read, it is about the demographics.

look at the factors.... RACE.... DRUGS>>INCOME of the US inner cities (Including SLC Utah) and those of Hampshire or London.


what do you notice? are they equal? of course not.

[Lucky Luke]

private_citizen wrote:

LIke I said.. if you did in fact read, it is about the demographics.

look at the factors.... RACE.... DRUGS>>INCOME of the US inner cities (Including SLC Utah) and those of Hampshire or London.

what do you notice? are they equal? of course not.

What demographics are you on about Private_Citizen?

The population density is the first factor for crime then comes the wealth, let's compare similar cities in America and in Britain and we will see.

I have already showed you that the worst we have is considered okay by American standards and that the best you have would be considered a problem here.

Are you saying that America somehow has a higher population density that I don't know about or that the people there have become poorer than British people without me noticing it?

You said "If England had the same demographic as we, they would have closer to the same murder rate, if not higher because they are so anti-gun", were you wrong?
:-D
:-D

[private_citizen]

Lucky Luke wrote: private_citizen wrote:

LIke I said.. if you did in fact read, it is about the demographics.

look at the factors.... RACE.... DRUGS>>INCOME of the US inner cities (Including SLC Utah) and those of Hampshire or London.

what do you notice? are they equal? of course not.

What demographics are you on about Private_Citizen?

The population density is the first factor for crime then comes the wealth, let's compare similar cities in America and in Britain and we will see.

I have already showed you that the worst we have is considered okay by American standards and that the best you have would be considered a problem here.


Perhaps you are missing the point.

I did not say population density did I?
what did I say seperated the 2 countries?
Are you saying that America somehow has a higher population density that I don't know about or that the people there have become poorer than British people without me noticing it?

You said "If England had the same demographic as we, they would have closer to the same murder rate, if not higher because they are so anti-gun", were you wrong?
:-D
:-D


Perhaps you are missing the point.

I did not say population density did I?
what did I say seperated the 2 countries?

[Lucky Luke]

private_citizen wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: private_citizen wrote:

LIke I said.. if you did in fact read, it is about the demographics.

look at the factors.... RACE.... DRUGS>>INCOME of the US inner cities (Including SLC Utah) and those of Hampshire or London.

what do you notice? are they equal? of course not.

What demographics are you on about Private_Citizen?

The population density is the first factor for crime then comes the wealth, let's compare similar cities in America and in Britain and we will see.

I have already showed you that the worst we have is considered okay by American standards and that the best you have would be considered a problem here.


Perhaps you are missing the point.

I did not say population density did I?
what did I say seperated the 2 countries?
Are you saying that America somehow has a higher population density that I don't know about or that the people there have become poorer than British people without me noticing it?

You said "If England had the same demographic as we, they would have closer to the same murder rate, if not higher because they are so anti-gun", were you wrong?
:-D
:-D


Perhaps you are missing the point.

I did not say population density did I?
what did I say seperated the 2 countries?

What you say is not what it is Private_Citizen, the two main factors for crime is the population density with the degree of urbanisation and the wealth of a particular place whatever it is a continent, a country, a state, a city, a neighbourhood or a single family.

:-D
:-D

[Clarino]

Hank Rearden wrote: British gun control laws have done a great job of ensuring that criminals have a ready supply of defensless victims. Your ability to ignore the obvious is pretty impressive.

And if our laws were the same as yours he would have been shot instead of stabbed.

Think about it this way, if gun laws were liberalised in the UK as they are in the US then gun crime would rocket as all the criminals would immediately go out and buy guns, while the law abiding people would be reluctant to bring such dangerous items into their lives. It would only stabalise when we reache the level of crime and gun ownership that you have in the US.


Banning the carrying of knives (the knives themselves are still leagal to buy, sell and own without any license) was a mistake, but the fact is that most people never carried a knife for self defence anyway. The fact is that crime isn't that common in the UK. I can (and have) walked through the streets of London, Manchester and Sheffield at three in the morning armed with nothing more than a my keys, and felt completely safe.

Could you say the same for New York, Chicago and Los Angeles?

[britboy]

private_citizen wrote: britboy wrote: Note - we didn't ban steak knives, butter knives, any kind of 'every day use' knives (we don't live in bear country!). We banned knives that were only really any use for sticking people with or threatening to do so with..

What they make bear hunting knives? Let me clue you in on something, you had better bring a harpoon if you want to kill a bear umm kay.

as for the other knives, most stabbings are done with steak and pocket knives, just an FYI! There are no special "Stabbing knives" sections at Harrod's are there? Fool.

private citizen you are mistaken. Again. Sorry :( And also you are not Mr T, only him and gangsta rappers can use the world fool with any convction..

OK firstly let's deal with the frankly laughable bear and harpoon line .. this will take me and google about 10 seconds ..

hmm

too easy

honestly -- theres 431,000 more links. These 3 will do!

Now Harrods.

Well, funny enough Harrods pride themselves on bing able to supply anything legitimate on the market place. I think you picked the worst possible example out of the entire British marketplace. It's their 'thing'. It's their angle. They will do anything for the right price -- they pride themselves on it! Sorry .. er .. again :( ! Deary me! If you didn't laugh you'd cry!

Their 'anything is possible' campaign

See the 'gift wrapped helicopter'? You get the idea.

OK. Enough.

Citizen - you said recently you'd ignore my posts. Honestly, everyone can read the stuff you say to me -- can I just echo what you said ... I really don't think you should respond to my posts friend. Everyone is reading the exchanges! Everyone is reading what you are saying man!! You are exactly right. You should stop, and this could be the last time I reply to you, just quietly move back to the 'Lol hi folks gun are great yea yea yea bad guys suck I like big guns 11!!1!!!1!' posts! Trust me, it's best for everyone.




ps. I found your source on blades by the way

Darn right...

[Mikate8]

Clarino wrote: Hank Rearden wrote: British gun control laws have done a great job of ensuring that criminals have a ready supply of defensless victims. Your ability to ignore the obvious is pretty impressive.

And if our laws were the same as yours he would have been shot instead of stabbed.

Think about it this way, if gun laws were liberalised in the UK as they are in the US then gun crime would rocket as all the criminals would immediately go out and buy guns, while the law abiding people would be reluctant to bring such dangerous items into their lives. It would only stabalise when we reache the level of crime and gun ownership that you have in the US.


Banning the carrying of knives (the knives themselves are still leagal to buy, sell and own without any license) was a mistake, but the fact is that most people never carried a knife for self defence anyway. The fact is that crime isn't that common in the UK. I can (and have) walked through the streets of London, Manchester and Sheffield at three in the morning armed with nothing more than a my keys, and felt completely safe.

Could you say the same for New York, Chicago and Los Angeles?

The criminals would only get to buy guns legally if your parliment were just a bunch of crazy english people with silly wigs

[private_citizen]

Lucky Luke wrote:

What you say is not what it is Private_Citizen, the two main factors for crime is the population density with the degree of urbanisation and the wealth of a particular place whatever it is a continent, a country, a state, a city, a neighbourhood or a single family.

:-D
:-D

NOpe.. I said DRUGS

perhaps you suffer from dyslexia. that or selective reading

[private_citizen]

[quote="britboy"]
private citizen you are mistaken. Again. Sorry :( And also you are not Mr T, only him and gangsta rappers can use the world fool with any convction..

quote]

SO only black rappers and MR T. can call you a fool?


LOL..you watch way too much American TV.

Oh and you are a fool....

[Clarino]

Mikate8 wrote: The criminals would only get to buy guns legally if your parliment were just a bunch of crazy english people with silly wigs



Do you realise that most criminals don't get caught and convicted?


What about the criminals who have no record? How are we supposed to keep them from getting guns?


How about the fact that a person with a criminal record in the US is more likely to own a gun than someone who has a flawless record?

You don't think that it's far too easy to get a gun in the US, if you are a criminal?

[Mikate8]

Clarino wrote: Mikate8 wrote: The criminals would only get to buy guns legally if your parliment were just a bunch of crazy english people with silly wigs



Do you realise that most criminals don't get caught and convicted?


What about the criminals who have no record? How are we supposed to keep them from getting guns?


How about the fact that a person with a criminal record in the US is more likely to own a gun than someone who has a flawless record?

You don't think that it's far too easy to get a gun in the US, if you are a criminal?

Most criminals don't get caught or convicted? Is that a reason why we should all turn over our guns to the government? Lucky Luke thinks so.

So a criminal without a record? I guess the police aren't doing their job very well. I don't know how you stop a criminal without a record from legally buying a gun. But since hes a criminal hes going to get caught sometime later while committing a crime, get shot by police or by his victim who is hopefully carrying a weapon to defend themselves with.

A person with a criminal record is more likely to own a gun that someone with a flawless record? Good thing people with misdomeaners still have guns or those criminals would have more power than everyone else.

Guns can come into our country illegally by being smuggled, thats a big reason why criminals can get guns. The UK is more lucky because they are surrounded by water. Its not like someone can pile guns into a car and cross the border illegally over there. :roll:

[Lucky Luke]

private_citizen wrote: Lucky Luke wrote:

What you say is not what it is Private_Citizen, the two main factors for crime is the population density with the degree of urbanisation and the wealth of a particular place whatever it is a continent, a country, a state, a city, a neighbourhood or a single family.

:-D
:-D

NOpe.. I said DRUGS

perhaps you suffer from dyslexia. that or selective reading

Drugs are crimes Private_Citizen, telling me that crimes are a factor for crime does not make any sense, try again.

Anyway we have the same level of drug addicts than you have.

:-D
:-D

[thundertaker]

I'll take your story about a man who was stabbed to death in London, and raise you one about a woman shot dead by a mugger in a nation were guns are freely available to anyone......

http://www.1010wins.com/pages/107451.php?contentType=4&contentId=222244

It's still a bit silly though really. Citing one example of someone being stabbed in Britain doesn't change the fact that the US has a much higher murder rate.......

[Clarino]

How many schools were shot up in October 2006 in the US?

How many children died?

[ND4SPD]

Clarino wrote: How many schools were shot up in October 2006 in the US?

How many children died?

You know... someone could just as easily walk into a school with a few molotov cocktails and torch an entire room of children. That method would undoubtedly be much more effective than a spraying a bunch of lead all over. If you have some crackpot that has gone off the edge and wants to off a bunch of innocent people, guess what? They're going to find some way of accomplishing it.

[Clarino]

And yet they always use guns..........


They must be morons. :roll: