I never understand the point of these single incident posts.  Anyone?

I never understand the point of these single incident posts.

C’mon, Up4. Yes, you do. Don’t play stupid. I’m not buying it. We all know you’re smarter than that.

You understand that the entire con-control movement is built on the irrational fear generated by over-hyped isolated incidents exactly like this one,
repeated ad-nauseum to give the false appearance of some sort of epidemic.

So the point, here, by using the same method to point out the “epidemic” in nations that are celebrated for using the gun-control model that the gun control advocates here want us to adopt, we can easily show that the solution for gun violence is most certainly not their method, as it obviously isn’t working elsewhere.

Plus, there’s always the added bonus of pointing out the hypocrisy of nations who decry our “gun culture”.

There’s fodder for another reality TV show here. We should get our two-bit, gun-toting punks, and have them fight against some other country’s two-bit, gun-toting punks.

We could do it in a neutral place, so neither side had any advantage. Maybe someplace on the Asian steppes.

We could call it Gun Culture Eliminator. Tell me that show wouldn’t be a smash hit.

I realize its meant to give a false impression.  Just seems a little silly.  This is what MM does, no?

Tell me what is false about it.  That it happened?  That law abiding citizens are completely defenseless in the UK?  That fighting back can result in higher penalties for the victim of a crime than the criminal?  That there are CCTV camera virtually everywhere in the UK?  That all of this gun shit in the UK was a complete overreaction to a very small number of criminals killing a very small number of people, and everyone lost their rights in order to “prevent it from happening again?” That all of this is a result of big government, nanny-state socialist philosophy? 

Tell me exactly what is so false about the picture paited of the UK by this image.  Be careful...this week the UK papers are fucking FULL of dozens of instances of extreme violence and gun crime on the rise.

But you go ahead.

JimK
Tell me exactly what is so false about the picture paited of the UK by this image.  Be careful...this week the UK papers are fucking FULL of dozens of instances of extreme violence and gun crime on the rise.

But don’t you get it, Jim?  Up4 has declared it to be a singular incident, because the only culture of guns and crime is right here in the U.S. of A.

The UK solved that problem a long time ago by banning guns for law abiding citizens…

Tell me exactly what is so false about the picture paited of the UK by this image.

By reporting this incident, and giving it a title of Americas Gun Culture, it gives the false impression that gun crime is just as bad in the UK as it is in the USA.  I havent looked into the wave of gun crime in the last week you speak of, but I find it difficult to believe that in general, the UK has caught the US of A.

And that appears to be the purpose of these threads when they come out every 4-6 weeks or so.  Ive learned, since Ive been on this site, a great deal about reasons you like your gun laws, and Ive come to respect them.  But I would still choose not to live in such an environment.  We have different needs in life I guess you could say.  I understand the reasoning (personal freedoms etc..) for your gun laws.  I just believe when you have freedoms, they come with responsibilities.  I have the freedom to drive my car anywhere I wish.  I have the responsibility not to drive into oncoming traffic.  IMHO, the gun “freedoms” in your country demand more responsibility than enough people are willing to carry.  Im not saying most, just not enough.  The bad outweighs the good for me. My belief is, the good outweighs the bad for you.  Like I said, different needs.  Which I can respect.

But threads like this, they are equivalent to being the bully in school who is insecure, and therefore has to pick on the shortcomings of others.  How about instead of threads like this, we see more posts about how your gun laws save lives?  Wouldnt that be more constructive?

American Rifleman has a section in every issue about armed citizens saving lives. Of course, you won’t find that stuff covered nationally because it doesn’t support the idea that we poor children can’t make decisions for ourselves, and should rely on the government to make all of our choices for us.

Wouldnt that be more constructive?

Plan on taking your own advice anytime soon?

See, lately all you’ve done is poke your head in, make a backhanded insult disguised as a joke, and offered nothing in the way of discussion or debate.  You’ve reverted back to the trolling ass we first met.  So, call me - or rather, lecture me - when you’ve healed yourself, physician. 

Meanwhile, we’re using examples that exist and can be verified to demonstrate that socialism, in all it’s forms, fails humanity because of human nature.  See the highlighted part of that sentence?  That alone differentiates us from Moore.

Try another insult next time.  This one just got bitch-slapped.

For Up4Debate - Here are some stories about people using firearms to save lives:

http://www.nrapublications.org/armed%20citizen/index.asp

Up4, driving is not a right, at least in this country, it is a privilege.  Since more people are killed in this country via accidents on the road, it stands to reason that driving has more responsibilities attached to it than gun ownership does.  Driving is more deadly than gun ownership (and cars weren’t designed with the intent of killing).  It seems a bit hypocritical that you want to live where you have the right to drive but don’t want to live in a society where you have a right to own a gun-an activity that kills and maims far less people.  It’s also a bit short-sighted to want to take that right away from everyone else, too.  You really don’t want freedom. 

But isn’t that the point of this thread?  The UK has banned gun ownership and yet criminals find a way to get their hands on them and commit gangland crimes and killings--and advertise them on youtube.  Brilliant…

"I havent looked into the wave of gun crime in the last week you speak of, but I find it difficult to believe that in general, the UK has caught the US of A.”

A snap shot of crime.

Contrary to public perception, the overall level of gun crime in the UK is very low – less than 0.5% of all crime recorded by the police.
Facts & figures

In the year ending 31 March 2005 provisional figures show a:

* 16% reduction in the use of handguns
* 9% reduction in robberies involving firearms
* 6% reduction in serious injuries from firearms offences

Despite these figures, the number of overall offences involving firearms has been increasing each year since 1997/98. And crime involving imitation weapons was up 55% in 2004-05 compared to the previous year. (Source: Crime in England and Wales 2004/2005)

Also of concern is a rise in the number of young people carrying real or imitation firearms in an attempt to boost their image or from a mistaken idea about self-protection.

Seems US gangs are using Youtube as well.

According to the FBI Crime Statistics FBI Gun Crime Statistics, firearms (both handguns and long guns) were used in 9% of the 4.7 million violent crimes committed in 2005 (the latest year records are available for). Overall there were approximately 22.7 million reportable crimes committed in 2005, and given the point that display or threat of a weapon automatically characterizes the crime as violent, that would indicate that firearms are used in about 1.8% of all crimes, still a high figure, but how high? Now to put it in perspective, there are approximately 76 crimes committed per 1000 people and 16 violent crimes committed per 1000 people, of which 1.4 were committed using a firearm.

According to the UK’s own statistics there were 11.3 million crimes committed, this is from a 2006 report, but by their own statement overall crime was stable at 11.3. With a rate of 22% of all crimes being violent crimes (again taken from the report cited by dvdguy) that would make the total number of violent crimes 2.5 million, with a population of 61 million that would place the numbers at approximately 41 violent crimes per 1000 people and 1 crime per 1000 people involving a firearm.

Please note that there is only a very slight difference in the per capita rates concerning the use of a firearm in the committing of a crime but a significant difference in the overall violent crime rate.

So much for the American culture of violence, you are more likely to be assaulted in the gun-free UK than in the gun-toting US.

Number of Murders in the US (2004):  16,137

Number of Murders in the UK (The info I can Find) : 853

US Population:  302,723,875

UK Population:  60,587,000

So 5 to 1.  4,265 vs 16,137

“So much for the American culture of violence”

dvdguy, your numbers just demonstrate that Americans are much more efficient in our violent acts, though I still posit that we are less prone to it. ;-)

Leatherneck

Leatherneck ya might be less prone.... but damn you sure are effective!  :)

Stay safe.

DVDguy

The EuroLib comes to Up4s defence!!! And on Gun Control too! Just like old times......

You are just taking a single example and using it to demonstrate how the entire system is flawed. Sounds like a moore tactic to me.

Meanwhile, Moore is using examples that exist and can be verified to demonstrate that the American System of Healthcare, in all it’s forms, fails humanity because of corporate greed.

of course he’s doing that at the expense of all the other evidence.

You know who uses guns in the UK? Criminals. You know who doesn’t? Law abiding citizens. Making hand guns legal would only make it easier for criminals to get guns. Law abiding citizens would not get guns, so nothing would change, except the ease in which criminals are able to obtain firearms for their various crimes.

I will agree with you that we have lost a right (to own a firearm) but it is a right that no one needed or was too bothered about losing.

Law abiding citizens would not get guns

Prove it.

except the ease in which criminals are able to obtain firearms for their various crimes.

Why would a criminal want to legally purchase a legal firearm, that would likely wind up registered in his name, when he can either steal one, or obtain a better illegal gun on the black market?

Law abiding citizens would not get guns

Prove it.

With pleasure.

Before handguns were banned a whopping 0.1% of the population owned a handgun. This is compared to 36.5% in the USA (in 2004).

I did not have to give up a gun. neither did any of my family or friends. I do not want a gun. I do not know anyone who wants or does in fact own a gun. I have never seen a gun in someones home. I do not know where our nearest shooting range is, and very few people in this country hunt. I have never felt the need to use a gun for my protection. Given the statistic above, it can reasonably be calculated that someone who wants a gun has a 99.9% chance of wanting it for something nefarious. Trust me there are not thousands of angry citizens angry at not being allowed to privately own a firearm.

AM. I. GETTING. THROUGH. TO. YOU. YET?

You might want guns. Cool. If enough of you want them, thats fine. We don’t.

Why would a criminal want to legally purchase a legal firearm, that would likely wind up registered in his name, when he can either steal one, or obtain a better illegal gun on the black market?

Fair enough - so if law abiding citizens don’t want to buy guns legally, and criminals don’t want to buy guns legally, can you see that the only people up in arms about the United Kingdoms banning of handguns are a bunch of Americans 3000 miles away.

Sorry sources. Yes I know they’re wikipedia, but they are referenced.

source

source 2

Before handguns were banned a whopping 0.1% of the population owned a handgun.

Sounds like some law abiding citizens wanted them.

You might want guns. Cool. If enough of you want them, thats fine. We don’t.

How about you get liberal gun control nuts to stop pointing at countries like yours about how america can be, and we’ll stop using the failures of your laws in doing what they claim they do and maybe we won’t point them out.

How about you get liberal gun control nuts to stop pointing at countries like yours about how america can be, and we’ll stop using the failures of your laws in doing what they claim they do and maybe we won’t point them out.

Cool. I’ll raise it at the next meeting over cookies. Are you going to admit that the post above is a moore tactic and apologise to UP4? Seriously, how is this different than Mike interviewing one person who was refused healthcare and highlighting it in his movie as a way to demonstrate that the whole system is flawed. Moore claims that it is 100% factual, just as Jim did above - except its used to frame a preconceived argument.

seriously guys, you’re better than this!!!

Everything jimk said above is true.  But he wasn’t just talking about this one single incident.

Are you going to admit that the post above is a moore tactic

Its a moore tactic.

apologise to UP4?

No.

See if I can say take moore’s tactic, and use that to expose the lie to his view then I accomplish 2 tasks.  I demonstrate the wrongness of Moore, and also the problem in his using of this tactic to forward his ideas, since its easily turned right back around.

See if I can say take moore’s tactic, and use that to expose the lie to his view then I accomplish 2 tasks.  I demonstrate the wrongness of Moore, and also the problem in his using of this tactic to forward his ideas, since its easily turned right back around.

Sorry my mistake then. The purpose of this post was to give a false impression in order to show that using this tactic in debating issiues is weak.

I thought it was to:

demonstrate that socialism, in all it’s forms, fails humanity because of human nature.

My mistake.

It accomplishes that too.  I’m sorry that you’re just too stupid to realize you can kill two, sometimes three birds, with one stone.

Or is the story wrong and draconian gun laws have stopped criminals in the UK from getting guns, and all reports of gun deaths there are lies?

This isnt just about one incident. The post may only reference one incident but gun crime has been on the rise since the ban. And as for the low gun ownership at the time of the ban, the UK has been slowing eroding gun owner rights since the 19th century. So its no surprise that there were only about 160,000 handguns at the time of the ban.

So you used this tactic to demonstrate that gun control doesn’t work in the UK, and you also use this tactic to demonstrate how problematic the tactic is?

So you set up a premise that is easily proved false (thereby demonstrating that Moores tactics are weak), but you are also expecting accept your premise as true?

Anyway - this is getting OT - if you want to continue this Buzzion, feel free to email me at ilovecress.at.gmail.com - we can stop taking up serverspace with this tittle tattle!

Anyway back OnTopic - I agree, we’re not talking about one incident of a criminal using a gun, but we’re still talking about comparitively few. - but I do disagree that this is somehow proof that gun control is a complete failure.

So you used this tactic to demonstrate that gun control doesn’t work in the UK,

Is the article a lie?  Yes or No?  If its a lie and there is no gun violence in the UK then I guess gun control has worked.  If its not a lie and there is still gun violence in the UK then gun control doesn’t work.  Pointing out the low rate in the UK isn’t proof either since the rate was low before the gun ban.

You remember when I said this is demonstrating the wrongness of moore’s ideas?  Guess what his idea is?  See above.

If its not a lie and there is still gun violence in the UK then gun control doesn’t work.

Only if you accept the premise that gun control claims to have eliminated gun crime completely. Which is absolute bollocks and a complete strawman.

I’ll admit Buzzion, I’m confused. Which of these is true?

Cherrypicking single instances of gun use in the UK proves that gun control doesn’t work. Moores use of this tactic in Sicko to prove your healthcare system works is fair game and he’s proved it.

Cherrypicking single instances of gun use in the UK does not prove that gun control doesn’t work, and Moores use of the tactic in Sicko is a lame attempt to appeal to a liberal emotional instinct, and that it paints an unfair picture of the whole situation.

Only if you accept the premise that gun control claims to have eliminated gun crime completely.

They claim after the fact that gun control would make things safer. After any sensational incident the gun control nuts go crazy w/ how gun laws wouldve saved lives. Before 5:00pm on the day of the VaTech shooting the articles had started.

And what is the purpose of gun control laws if not to eliminate gun crimes? Cause they sure havent done that. They have increased since the 97 UK ban. So what positive to society is realized by these laws?

Moore’s cherrypicking is of the variety that cant be backed up w/ facts. A woman being ignored in a hospital room and eventually dying is an anomaly, no data shows that type of event is on the rise. UK gun crime is on the rise and is backed up by factual data. So using this article isnt cherrypicking.

"UK gun crime is on the rise and is backed up by factual data.”

Contrary to public perception, the overall level of gun crime in the UK is very low – less than 0.5% of all crime recorded by the police.

In the year ending 31 March 2005 provisional figures show a:

* 16% reduction in the use of handguns

* 9% reduction in robberies involving firearms

* 6% reduction in serious injuries from firearms offences

So it fell for a year, or even 2. However, the violent crime rate is higher than before the ban, and higher than in the US