File APIs for Java Developers
Manipulate DOC, XLS, PPT, PDF and many others from your application.
http://aspose.com/file-tools
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes Does the UK want a Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login


Win a copy of OCA/OCP Java SE 7 Programmer I & II Study Guide this week in the OCPJP forum!
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Bookmark "Does the UK want a "Tony Martin" law?" Watch "Does the UK want a "Tony Martin" law?" New topic
Author

Does the UK want a "Tony Martin" law?

Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 25, 2000
Posts: 7292

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Interesting article. I don't own a gun, but it looks like I have more to worry about because I'm a renter and I'm living alone. Those are both significantly more likely to get me dead than owning a gun, if I read that article correctly.

I doubt there's a causal effect to owning a gun that you're implying here. Living on the second floor will do more than owning a gun.
My complex forbids firearms on the property. I'd rather have that than some hothead trying to shoot a fleeing robber in the back and possibly nailing someone else.


Make visible what, without you, might perhaps never have been seen.
- Robert Bresson
Richard Hawkes
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 28, 2003
Posts: 1340
Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
However, if you notice the pickpocket and pull out a camera to photograph him for the police, and if the pickpocket in turn pulls a knife and demands that you give him the film -- then you may shoot him.

I suppose if he pulls out a gun instead of a knife you would give him the camera and then shoot him as he makes his getaway?
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450

Therefore, according to this study, being a renter and living alone are each more likely to get you murdered than having guns in the house.
[Map broke a long line to improve readability]
[ January 05, 2004: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
Frank Silbermann
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 06, 2002
Posts: 1387
Richard Hawkes: Interesting (pro-gun control) essay on Kellermann study of guns in the home in the US:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-kellermann.htm

Kellerman was the guy who did much of the fraudulently misleading research for the Center for Disease Control. For example, his evaluation of "keeping guns in the home" as a risk factor for being murdered did not distinguish between ordinary people keeping guns versus armed professional criminals. (Violent criminals are a small percentage of the population overall, but a large percentage of the murder victims -- which is not surprising given that they tend to associate with violent criminals.)
Kellerman is a physician, not a criminologist, who applied inappropriate statistical methods to achieve a political goal. His work has been criticized in papers published in medical, legal and criminological journals. For one example (published in a medical journal several years ago) see: Guns in the Medical Literature -- A Failure of Peer Review
HS Thomas
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 15, 2002
Posts: 3404
Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Therefore, according to this study, being a renter and living alone are each more likely to get you murdered than having guns in the house.

Don't get a gun then. That would increase the chances.
[ January 05, 2004: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]
Phil Chuang
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 15, 2003
Posts: 251


Heh, I realize this is a huge and gross generalization, but i'll take my chances with the American method every time.

Re: gun stats
What these studies posted fail to take into account is the way crimes are reported between the countries.
One report, for example, had Japan having a much lower handgun-death rate than the US -
however, for the US statistic, gun-related suicides, gun-related self-defense killings, etc, are all counted under gun-related deaths, in addition to gun-related violent killings - whereas for Japan, it was reported as just gun-related violent killings. If you compared apples to apples, you'd find that Japan has a higher rate of gun-related violent killings than the US AND a higher suicide rate.
This is just an example with no meaningful facts behind it - I left the facts behind at my home computer, which I will post once I get off work
[ January 05, 2004: Message edited by: Phil Chuang ]
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Posts: 1376

I like this Phil, except that those should be &&, not ||. Based on this code, you'll be firing until you run out of ammo...
Joe
Phil Chuang
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 15, 2003
Posts: 251
Got it.
Good ole' DeMorgan's!
Phil Chuang
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 15, 2003
Posts: 251
Originally posted by Joe Pluta:

I like this Phil, except that those should be &&, not ||. Based on this code, you'll be firing until you run out of ammo...
Joe

What's wrong with that?
Are you saying I should add a reload step in?
Frank Silbermann
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 06, 2002
Posts: 1387
Phil Chuang: If you compared apples to apples, you'd find that Japan has a higher rate of gun-related violent killings than the US AND a higher suicide rate.

I suspect you mis-heard. My impression is that there are very few gun-related killings in Japan, but their suicide rate (mostly using other means) is higher than America's overall suicide and murder rates combined.
Of course, it's often difficult to compare crime rates because of overlapping definitions. For example, when woman distraught over being abandoned by her husband kills their three children and herself, we consider it three murders and a suicide. The Japanese, in contrast, record it as a "family suicide."
The Swiss are much more likely than many other Europeans to use guns in murder or suicide, but their overall murder and suicide rates (without regard to the means) are pretty low even compared with other Europeans.
You use what you got. Hutus are much more likely than New Yorkers to kill using farm tools, but much less likely to kill by throwing someone out the window.
Trying to reduce small-scale violence by removing the means only begins to work when you reach the level of using straitjackets and padded walls.
Frank Silbermann
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 06, 2002
Posts: 1387
me: ...However, if you notice the pickpocket and pull out a camera to photograph him for the police, and if the pickpocket in turn pulls a knife and demands that you give him the film -- then you may shoot him.
Richard Hawkes: I suppose if he pulls out a gun instead of a knife you would give him the camera and then shoot him as he makes his getaway?

That's an interesting question. Until the 1970s we had the principle, inherited from English Common Law, that one could shoot to stop a fleeing felon. That's why you see in so many westerns where the townspeople shoot (mostly ineffectively) at the bankrobbers as they ride away with the loot.
But during the civil rights disturbances there were suspicions that police in some retrograde towns were assassinating unpopular arrestees (e.g. political radicals) by claiming they were "shot while trying to escape." So federal judges began to re-interpret the law to say that deadly force is only justified while the threat is present, and that one cannot shoot at fleeing felons unless they constitute a clear and present danger to the community.
That means that if an attacker drops his weapon and flees, I have to let him go (even if he still has my stuff). Theoretically, I suppose it means that if he keeps his weapon and flees, I ought to still be allowed to shoot him -- but with some judges you never know. From a legal standpoint, you're on firmer ground if you shoot him before he flees, while he's still trying to compel your behavior with the threat of violence. That's a much more dangerous time to act, of course; you need speed, deception and accuracy, and your weapon had better have some pretty effective stopping power to ensure he goes down without harming you.
That's one of the reasons, I suppose, that American cops and private citizens tend to use hollowpoint bullets and larger calibers than in years past. Thirty years ago most cops used roundnose bullets of .357 inch (9mm) diameter going about 200 meters per second. Now, most cops here use hollowpoint bullets of .40 inch (10mm) diameter going 300 meters per second. As the bullet enters and slows, its diameter increase by about 75%.
Phil Chuang
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 15, 2003
Posts: 251
Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
I suspect you mis-heard. My impression is that there are very few gun-related killings in Japan, but their suicide rate (mostly using other means) is higher than America's overall suicide and murder rates combined.

I think you're right - It's been awhile since I did my research and I don't have my notes handy. I'll post the complete, correct, analysis tonight
Phil Chuang
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 15, 2003
Posts: 251
Ok, I stole this old post of mine from a different thread on a different forum in a galaxy far, far, away - but it's still pretty valid and speaks to a lot of points on the gun control debate.
Some points of debate on gun control:

A gun kept in a home is 43 times more likely to kill someone you know then to kill a stranger in self-defense.

taken from James S. Rustad's Gun Control FAQ
Response:
"In a 1986 article in the New England Journal of Medicine, Drs.
Kellerman and Reay described the proper way to calculate how many
people are saved by guns compared to how many are hurt by guns. The
benefits should include, in the authors' own words 'cases in which
burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or
display of a firearm [and] cases in which would-be intruders may have
purposely avoided a house known to be armed...'"
"However, when Kellerman and Reay calculated their comparison, they
didn't include those cases, they only counted the times a homeowner
killed the criminal. Because well under 1% of defensive gun usage
involves the death of a criminal, Kellerman and Reay under stated the
protective benefits of firearms by a factor of at least 100! They
turned the truth on its head!"
"GUNS: Facts & Fallacies" -- "Doctors for Integrity in
Research & Public Policy",
Edgar A. Suter, MD, Chairman.
Phone # (510) 277 0333
SOURCES:
The original study was published as:
"Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home"
Arthur L. Kellermann and Donald T. Reay
The New England Journal of Medicine 314, no. 24
(June 12, 1986):1557-1560.
It was then reprinted in:
"The Gun Control Debate, You Decide"
ed. Lee Nisbet, Prometheus Books
1990, 239-244.

SUMMARY:
43:1 ratio breaks down as follows:
37 suicides
4.6 criminal homicides
1.3 accidents
Note that the definition of defensive uses includes only cases where no
charges were ever filed. If charges were filed the case was considered
to be a "criminal homicide" even if the case was dismissed or the jury
found "not guilty".
Also note that the definition of defensive use requires killing the
attacker -- apparently the researchers don't count wounding or driving
off the attacker as defensive. Less than 0.5% of successful self-defense
uses result in the death of the attacker (0.5% is based on ~400
justifiable homicides by civilians each year, FBI Uniform Crime Report,
and the National Crime Survey's 80,000 self-defense uses which is a
reasonable minimum estimate of the number of civilian-with-gun self-
defenses.)
Additionally it is useful to know that in ~85% of the cases where
someone is killed by a friend or a family member, there was a police
record of violence (criminal records, police calls over "domestic
disturbances, etc...) In other words, if you have no history of
violence, you are about five times less likely to kill a friend or
family member.

More American children die from the death of guns each year than all other natural causes combined.

According to the National Safety Council's "Accident Facts: 1997 Edition," there were 6,700 accidental deaths for children age 0 to 14. These accidental deaths break down to:
3,300 or 49.3% due to Motor-Vehicle accidents
1,000 or 14.9% due to drowning
660 or 9.9% due to fires, burns and deaths associated with fire
250 or 3.7% due to suffocation by ingested object
240 or 3.6% due to firearms
190 or 2.8% due to falls
100 or 1.5% due to poisoning by solids or liquids
60 or 0.9% due to poisoning by gases or vapor
900 or 13.4% due to all other types
6,700 or 100% due to all causes
A legal definition of children would include those up to age 18 (depending on the state). However, the statistics compiled by the National Safety Council aggregate persons into 5-year increments. As can be seen, firearms are either the *FIFTH* leading cause of death, or the *SIXTH*, if "all other types" is included as a categorical cause, excluding deaths due to perinatal conditions, congenital anomolies, and infectious disease. Regardless of its rank, it can be seen just from the data above that only 3.6% of all accidental deaths under the age of 15 are caused by firearms. That is far less than those killed in motor-vehicle accidents, drowning, or in fires.

The number of kids killed by firearms [in the US] has quadrupled in the last 10 years.

According to the NSC, from 1985 to 1995, fatal firearm accidents for all ages has decreased 15%
Since 1930, the annual number of fatal firearm accidents has been cut by half, even though the U.S. population has doubled and the number of privately owned firearms has quadrupled.


Britain has strict gun control and a low crime rate!

Comparing crime rates between America and Britain is flawed. In America, a gun crime is recorded as a gun crime. In Britain, a crime is only recorded when there is a final disposition (a conviction). All unsolved gun crimes in Britain are not reported as gun crimes, grossly undercounting the amount of gun crime there. To make matters worse, British law enforcement has been exposed for falsifying criminal reports to create falsely lower crime figures, in part to preserve tourism. (Gallant , Hills, Kopel, "Fear in Britain", Independence Institute, July 18, 2000) (Daily Telegraph, 1996)

Japan's murder rate is much lower than America's, thanks to their strict gun control laws.

Japan's murder rate averages 0.9 per 100,000, but its suicide rate is 20.3, for a combined rate of 21.1 per 100,000.
The U.S. murder rate averages 7.4 per 100,000, and the suicide rate is 12.0, for a combined total of 19.4 per 100,000.
Thus, the combined murder and suicide rates in Japan and the U.S. are nearly equal even though firearms are virtually non-existent in Japan.
(Source: National Safety Council's 1997 Accident Facts and
the United Nations Demographic Yearbook)

Other misleading statistics used by gun control advocates include statistics on lower murder rates in selected countries with strong gun control laws, as compared to murder rates in the United States. What these advocates studiously avoid mentioning are higher murder rates than ours in other countries that also have strong gun control laws (Brazil, Russia) -- or lower murder rates in some countries, such as Israel, where guns are more widely available than in the United States.
The U.S. does not have the highest rate of gun-related deaths among industrialized nations. The United Nations' Demographics Handbook, has the U.S. ranked 12th.
Hmmmmm.... makes you wonder what kind of yardstick they're measuring Japan by.... A different one!

During three years of the Korean War 33,651 Americans were killed vs. 35,957 killed in 1995 in America by Firearms.

ok.... Given your other point that there are 240 million guns, and that each death involved a different gun, that means that only 0.0149% of the guns in America were involved in firearm deaths. But let's look at deaths across the board (morbid, aren't I?)
Here are the leading causes of death in the United States in the year 1995, for all ages, according to the National Center for Health Statistics:

Wow, look at Heart Disease at 720,862... Given 200 million people in the US, that would mean that 0.36% of the hearts in the US have killed their owners! That's about a 2500% difference! We should start banning hearts right away!
Not to trivialize death in any way, but you've got to look at numbers in perspective. Also, homicide statistics do not reveal how many were justified in self-defense. So 35,957 is a pretty misleading statistic, when taken out of proper context.
Also, check out 1997:
(Source: National Safety Council's 1998 Accident Facts)
In 1997, there were 1,500 accidental deaths involving firearms in the U.S. This is a rate of 0.6 per 100,000.
Age breakdown for accidental shooting deaths in 1996:
0-4 years: 40 deaths
5-14 years: 180 deaths
15-24 years: 450 deaths
25-44 years: 450 deaths
45-64 years: 240 deaths
65-74 years: 80 deaths
75+ years: 60 deaths

In Washington DC an average of 201 more deaths occur per year due to firearms than to traffic accidents.

I know i'm violating my own rules here, and I can't find this source, but I'm gonna go ahead and say this:
In 1976, Washington D.C. enacted a ban on handguns. By 1991, their murder rate had increased by 300% while the U.S. rate rose by 12%.
New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles and Washington D.C. have the most restrictive gun laws in the U.S. These 4 cities make up 5% of the U.S. population, yet account for 13% of all murders in the country.

Countries with strict gun control have lower crime rates.

Many of the countries with the strictest gun control have the highest rates of violent crime.
Australia and England, which have virtually banned gun ownership, have the highest rates of
robbery, sexual assault, and assault with force of the top 17 industrialized countries. (Dutch Ministry of Justice, Criminal Victimization in Seventeen Industrialized Countries, 2001)

That's right! USA ranks 13th in victimization rates despite having looser gun control laws, and high and mighty England ranks 2nd despite having extremely strict gun control laws.
[ January 05, 2004: Message edited by: Phil Chuang ]
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
It's hard to understand people refusing to protect themselves. The attitude towards private ownership of guns for self-defense shown by some of our British compatriots here seems to spill over into any issue where guns are involved. It's almost like a phobia of sorts.
Check out this from the BBC, where folks are voicing their opinions about armed air marshalls on flights (you'll have to wade through some of the oh-so-typical anti-American crap of course). It would seem clear that many of the responses, some of them quite ridiculous to my way of thinking, reflect an overall aversion to firearms regardless of the situation and who has them.
[ January 06, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
Tim Baker
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 04, 2003
Posts: 541
Your anti-british bullshit Jason is far more rediculous.


Kim Jong II (North Korea's Dear Leader) said:Nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people.
Tony Collins
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 03, 2003
Posts: 435
Well I'm happy without guns and you(Jason/Joe/Frank) are happy with them. So we are all happy.
Tony
[ January 06, 2004: Message edited by: Tony Collins ]
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Tony Collins:
Well I'm happy without guns and you(Jason/Joe/Frank) are happy with them. So we are all happy.
Tony

But wasn't the issue other British citizens who were supportive of a so-called "Tony Martin" law?
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Tim Baker:
Your anti-british bullshit Jason is far more rediculous.

Show me where I've made any anti-British statements and we'll discuss it. Email or PM if you'd prefer. More to the point, I strongly advise you read our document on fallacies before hitting the "SUBMIT" button again.
Tony Collins
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 03, 2003
Posts: 435
Originally posted by Jason Menard:

But wasn't the issue other British citizens who were supportive of a so-called "Tony Martin" law?

But did you not contradict that yourself.
Maybe we should all concentrate on the weaknesses in our own societies.

Tony
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Tony Collins:
Maybe we should all concentrate on the weaknesses in our own societies.

My profuse apologies. I didn't realize Richard Hawkes intended only certain people to reply to his thread.
Steven Broadbent
Ranch Hand

Joined: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 400
If that poll result was just today programme audience then it is hardly
representative.
Anyway seems Tony is complaining of persecution now - he was stopped and breathalysed by the police it appears.
Whatever this or any other survey says us lot over here don't want to go around tooled up. Sorry, but our american mates are just going to have to 'get over themselves already' and accept that.
Mind you, I've known one or two recruiters who deserved to be on the receiving end of a little 'legitimate self defence'!


"....bigmouth strikes again, and I've got no right to take my place with the human race...."<p>SCJP 1.4
Tim Baker
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 04, 2003
Posts: 541
Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Show me where I've made any anti-British statements and we'll discuss it. Email or PM if you'd prefer. More to the point, I strongly advise you read our document on fallacies before hitting the "SUBMIT" button again.

Perhaps you would like to also.
According to you the entire UK media is run by anti-semetic terrorist sympathisers who aparently now are afraid of all guns being used in any circumstances and don't have the will to defend themselves. On that feedback BBC page you posted there is virtually no anti-americanism, unless you consider the word 'gun' to be a synonym for america, in which case I would be glad to declare that we are anti-american.
Most Citizens of our grand nation are perfectly happy with the highly trained Police Armed Response units carrying weapons, as well as obviously the Armed Forces themselves. Seeing as what occurs in america where all the Criminals and Police both feel the need to be armed as well as many Civilians, presumably to protect themselves from both the first two parties, it is no wonder that we want more control. A place where many criminals do not feel the need to carry a gun is a better place.
Bela Bardak
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 02, 2004
Posts: 179
Originally posted by Tim Baker:

According to you the entire UK media is run by anti-semetic terrorist sympathisers who aparently now are afraid of all guns being used in any circumstances and don't have the will to defend themselves. On that feedback BBC page you posted there is virtually no anti-americanism, unless you consider the word 'gun' to be a synonym for america, in which case I would be glad to declare that we are anti-american.

Well, Tim. Living in the UK I wouldn't say the "entire UK media is run by anti-semetic terrorist sympathisers". By no means. Only the Guardian, the Beeb, and about half the editorial board of the Independent qualify....
Originally posted by Tim Baker:

Most Citizens of our grand nation are perfectly happy with the highly trained Police Armed Response units carrying weapons, as well as obviously the Armed Forces themselves. Seeing as what occurs in america where all the Criminals and Police both feel the need to be armed as well as many Civilians, presumably to protect themselves from both the first two parties, it is no wonder that we want more control. A place where many criminals do not feel the need to carry a gun is a better place.

Ironies (and massive generalizations) in the fire here. Jason isn't the only chap in this discussion (flamewar?) given to massive overgeneralizing (moralizing?). Personally I find both the so-called 'British' and 'American' POV's defensible. Both have their weaknesses also.
Steven Broadbent
Ranch Hand

Joined: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 400
Dennis Thatcher said that the BBC was "run by woofters ,pinkos and trots"
or was it the guardian?
Tony Collins
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 03, 2003
Posts: 435
Originally posted by Bela Bardak:

Ironies (and massive generalizations) in the fire here. Jason isn't the only chap in this discussion (flamewar?) given to massive overgeneralizing (moralizing?). Personally I find both the so-called 'British' and 'American' POV's defensible. Both have their weaknesses also.

I agree opinions are different, which is healthy, but what I can't understand is the disgust some Americans seem to have for our gun control laws ( On this board anyway). I assume there has been some NRA/media glorification of Tony Martin in the states.
Why are they so interested, it seems the 'your with us or against us' attitude prevails.
Tony
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Tim Baker:
According to you the entire UK media is run by anti-semetic terrorist sympathisers who aparently now are afraid of all guns being used in any circumstances and don't have the will to defend themselves.

I think Bela answered this one.
On that feedback BBC page you posted there is virtually no anti-americanism, unless you consider the word 'gun' to be a synonym for america, in which case I would be glad to declare that we are anti-american.

I will agree that this particular "Talking Point" is nowhere near as bad as most others that have anything to do in any way with the US.
Most Citizens of our grand nation are perfectly happy with the highly trained Police Armed Response units carrying weapons, as well as obviously the Armed Forces themselves.

And that's what's important. Your criminals also seem quite happy with the arrangement as well, judging by the statistics that have already been posted.
Seeing as what occurs in america where all the Criminals and Police both feel the need to be armed as well as many Civilians, presumably to protect themselves from both the first two parties, it is no wonder that we want more control.

Of course we could turn around and say the same thing: "Seeing as what occurs in the UK since their firearm ban and the exploding violence, it's no wonder that we want less gun control", but such statements are simply made for the point of dodging the issues and serve little real purpose imho.
A place where many criminals do not feel the need to carry a gun is a better place.

This is the funniest thing I've read in awhile.
[ January 06, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
Bela Bardak
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 02, 2004
Posts: 179
Originally posted by Tony Collins:

I agree opinions are different, which is healthy, but what I can't understand is the disgust some Americans seem to have for our gun control laws ( On this board anyway). I assume there has been some NRA/media glorification of Tony Martin in the states.
Why are they so interested, it seems the 'your with us or against us' attitude prevails.

I think it's in reaction to the marked disdain for US gun laws and customs regularly expressed in the UK. Not only on the Beeb or in newspapers, mind you. Nailed in with an air hammer. I have been the personal recipient of this kind of attention in a pub once or twice and it isn't pleasant, fair, or balanced in any way.
So perhaps I could turn the question around and ask why Brits are 'so interested' in US customs and laws?
As for the NRA, well I wouldn't put it beyond them. But their is a viable body of logic behind much of what the NRA defends which *almost* never is expressed in the elite journals (whether in the US or in Europe). Meanwhile a lot of misleading statistics get widely trupeted.
Outright fabrication is not unknown. Three years ago the highest US award for a historical work was awarded to Michael Bellsiles, a 'scholar' who published a book 'documenting' that Colonial Americans didn't own many firearms using data which either did not exist or which he could not produce The Bancroft and Bellsiles. Some data seems to have been fabricated without a doubt, given statements fron librarians that certain records purportedly sourced from their institutions have never and could never have been stored there. Other records were apparently 'lost in a flood'. Nevertheless the book was published, used, and lionised and critics were heavily criticized as being NRA flunkies.
There is a certain unfairness to this debate in the US at least. And people have naturally become rather heated on the subject.
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Posts: 1376
I agree opinions are different, which is healthy, but what I can't understand is the disgust some Americans seem to have for our gun control laws ( On this board anyway).
Tony, the majority of the heat on this subject came in response to YOUR radically prejudiced and factually indefensible statement:
Look what guns have made American society. People afraid to walk on the streets, virtual prisoners in their cars and houses, they have totally killed community. Why would we want that in England, where you can walk on just about any street at anytime. I've lived in the worst inner city areas and I've never had problems. In England people who have guns are those that intend to use them in a premeditated fashion( and that's not for robbing houses ).

Me, I'm not disgusted with the UK's gun control laws, although I think they're a bit silly. What I am disgusted with is statements like yours that are completely unfounded and only serve to promote unfair negative stereotypes.
Joe
Phil Chuang
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 15, 2003
Posts: 251
Originally posted by Tim Baker:
Most Citizens of our grand nation are perfectly happy with the highly trained Police Armed Response units carrying weapons, as well as obviously the Armed Forces themselves. Seeing as what occurs in america where all the Criminals and Police both feel the need to be armed as well as many Civilians, presumably to protect themselves from both the first two parties, it is no wonder that we want more control. A place where many criminals do not feel the need to carry a gun is a better place

Well it's a good thing that your PAR and AF are at your beck and call and are able to protect you all the time! If only we in America had guardian angels as great as Englands! I'm rather surprised, I didn't realize that British Police were obligated, nay, responsible for your 100% personal protection.

</sarcasm>
[ January 06, 2004: Message edited by: Phil Chuang ]
Mark Fletcher
Ranch Hand

Joined: Dec 08, 2001
Posts: 897
Bela, Jason,
Thank you for informing me that the BBC is an anti-semitic, terrorist sympathising organisation. As a law abiding British Citizen and also a payer of the license fee upon which the BBC depends, I am concerned to learn that I may be directly funding a media group that exports propoganda encouraging people to rise up against us freedom loving, tolerant people.
I am shocked to learn, that having watched and listened to the BBC since I can remember, that I may have been on some level influencedby this bile. To think that such staples of my childhood, "Play School", "Gordon the Gopher", and "Noel Edmonds Multi-coloured Swap Shop" may have all along been exporting hate causes me to shudder.
Im trying to understand how this could be so. I watch the BBC every day, I listen to Radio 1. Ok I might watch Ch4 more than BBC, if for Hollyoaks, but I digress. Please could you help me open my eyes to this evil, evil conspiracy that even now corrupts my freedom loving countrymen. I am sure that you both speak from positions of authority, especially Jason (Wow! They get the BBC in the States? I hope you pay your license fee as well!!).
So lets go over todays television schedule on BBC1 and BBC2 and uncover this anti-semitism and terrorist propoganda that threatens people the world over.
Ok, well if I was a anti-semite with leanings to blowing things up with maximum body count, I guess Id try and recruit people to my cause during prime time television.
Whats on the BBC during Prime Time Television? Well Im sure Jason and Bela both know, theyve obviously seen enough of the BBC to see past its lies, but for the benefit of everyone else lets take a look:
(While Im here, the news source Im using is the Tuesday, January 6th Edition of the Daily Record. Im not sure if it too supports terrorism and racism, but I'll take that risk)
BBC 1
7.00pm Big Cat Week - The Big Cat Diary follow the progress of three families of big cat
Perhaps these cats have dynamite strapped to them?
7.30pm EastEnders - Pauls Guilt provies too much and he decides to leave the Square for a few days
Obviously hes off to a cave to plot the downfall of freedom loving people the world over? WE DEMAND TO KNOW THE TRUTH!!!
8.00pm River City - George struggles to cope after Moira's death and Hazel seems fated to remain in the cellar as Brian lies in Hospital
River City is a Scottish Soap Opera; a weapon of mass distruction if ever there was one!
8.30pm Eastenders: Alfie Moons Story - The popularity of Shane Richies character, who has won countless female viewers
Im sure hes that voice on the Bin Laden Tapes. And hes corrupting our Women!!!
I'll stop at BBC 1, what about BBC 2? Double the anti-semitism! Double the terror!!!
BBC 2
8.00pm Crafty Tricks of War
I dont need to say any more, but Terrorists are crafty, so I reckon if I wanted to be a Terrorist, this would be the program to watch!
9.00pm Career Boot Camp
Its a boot camp. They train soldiers at boot camp. These must be a anti-semitic terrorist loving bootcamp. Wheres that Cruise Missile! They must be stopped!!
Now to be honest, Bela, Jason. I dont know what planet youre on, or what crack pipe youre both smoking, but I dont see anything anti-semitic or anything thats sympathetic to Terrorists. There isnt even anything anti-American at a long shot. The populace of the United Kingdom watch this pap every night. And I dont see them turning out into the streets proclaiming "Down with Israel" or "Bin Laden is really a nice man, hes just misunderstood".
Id even go so far to ask Jason: How much of the BBC have you actually watched? Have you ever spent a long period of time in the UK? If so, were you regularly harassed by the populace? What is it youre scared of?
And Bela, someone who claims to be in the UK and therefore probably gets more exposure to the BBC than Jason, wheres your basis for these claims?
We've been through this pap in countless threads before. Heck we can even go dredge up some evidence on Google for how evil the BBC is; and you know Id be able to find rubbish on other media outlets as well. So why bother?Just let it rest for chrissakes. Let it lie.
Cheers,
Mark
[ January 06, 2004: Message edited by: Mark Fletcher ]

Mark Fletcher - http://www.markfletcher.org/blog
I had some Java certs, but they're too old now...
Tim Baker
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 04, 2003
Posts: 541
Originally posted by Phil Chuang:

Well it's a good thing that your PAR and AF are at your beck and call and are able to protect you all the time! If only we in America had guardian angels as great as Englands! I'm rather surprised, I didn't realize that British Police were obligated, nay, responsible for your 100% personal protection.

</sarcasm>
[ January 06, 2004: Message edited by: Phil Chuang ]

Did I ever imply that they were my personal bodyguards? I didn't say they were fantastic, my point is that most people in the UK trust these people with guns and are happy that they are the only people with guns.
Oh and Mark didn't you know channel 4 was an evil terrorist sympathiser too? Like that documentary about that british guy that was shot, which was obviously a load of bollocks and he wasn't really killed by an israeli sniper even though he wasn't carrying. Oh no wait after months and months of presure from british the israeli army actually carried out an investigation and arrested the man who shot him, completely changing their story.
Phil Chuang
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 15, 2003
Posts: 251
Re: Mark's post on BBC bias
Disclaimer #1: I don't watch BBC
Disclaimer #2: I am neither English nor retarded
That being said,
Besides Mark's post being off-topic, it is also (a pun!) off the mark. I doubt Bela and Jason were talking about the poor state of English entertainment television. If anything would be racist, anti-semitic, or terrorist-supporting, then I assume they would be talking about the news programs, talk shows, and the like.

I have heard of this sort of bias before, however, so it is not without merit - however, I would also like to see some evidence to back it up.
[ January 06, 2004: Message edited by: Phil Chuang ]
[ January 06, 2004: Message edited by: Phil Chuang ]
Eleison Zeitgeist
Ranch Hand

Joined: Dec 17, 2002
Posts: 115
Originally posted by Richard Hawkes:
I haven't seen any really convincing, direct correlation between gun control, gun ownership and rates of violent crime...........the "gun-death" statistics.
...
Interesting (pro-gun control) essay on Kellermann study of guns in the home in the US:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-kellermann.htm
...

I heard bad things about his research. I cann't really specify links, etc, due to the fact that I am currently lazy. However, I would recommend people do their own reasearch into his "research" ;-P
-Eleison
HS Thomas
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 15, 2002
Posts: 3404
I only catch East Enders when flicking channels but I was shocked to the core seeing some woman persuading Phil to give his handgun up.
"Either that thing goes or I do..." Phil looked suitably relieved while being relieved. Otherwise the country would have been up in arms.
Wish I had caught the earlier part.... Sorry Mark , perhaps this is an example of what they meant. BTW you forgot the "Flower Pot Men" and "TellyTubbies".
Tony Collins
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 03, 2003
Posts: 435
.....and I thought the BBC was the model for un-biased non-corporate news, admired across the world.
Tony
Mark Fletcher
Ranch Hand

Joined: Dec 08, 2001
Posts: 897
Originally posted by HS Thomas:
Wish I had caught the earlier part.... Sorry Mark , perhaps this is an example of what they meant. BTW you forgot the "Flower Pot Men" and "TellyTubbies".[/qb]

The "Flower Pot Men" was before my time and the "TellyTubbies" was way past my daytime-tv-watching-instead-of-studying student days. But surely these are the foot soldiers of anti-semite terrorists. Avoid them, lest you be consumed by their right wing zeal!
I tells ya Im sticking to Channel 5 from now on, much safer!
[ January 06, 2004: Message edited by: Mark Fletcher ]
HS Thomas
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 15, 2002
Posts: 3404
We've been through this pap in countless threads before. Heck we can even go dredge up some evidence on Google for how evil the BBC is; and you know Id be able to find rubbish on other media outlets as well.
We could try a comparison with the French media. News Item by Item. AL Jazeera on the Seine -AKA Le Monde
There's a revival of The Flower Pot Men, BTW.As with TellyTubbies the plot hits you days later. Subtle, clever pieces of work.
Mark Fletcher
Ranch Hand

Joined: Dec 08, 2001
Posts: 897
Originally posted by HS Thomas:
We could try a comparison with the French media. News Item by Item. AL Jazeera on the Seine -AKA Le Monde

Your attempt to corrupt me with this blatant piece of terrorist loving anti-semitism will not work. I cant read French you see?
Anyway, I guess I should go back on topic for the thorny issue of guns. My gut reaction is that well, I dont like guns, I dont want one in my house. Jason, Frank et al make convincing arguments on why we should have guns, at the very least a means for self defence against those who would come and take our belongings or abuse our families.
However, to be honest, I dont feel that much fear that I need to have a gun in my house in order to feel safe. As pointed out earlier in this thread, my home Scotland is a dangerous place to live. I lived in Chicago last year and enjoyed the hospitality of the people there. I felt safer walking in Chicago than I did in Edinburgh or Glasgow. But that still wouldnt prompt me to own a gun, I just dont feel that threatened.
At the end of the day, I still remember Dunblane, I still remember Columbine. In an ideal world, guns would only be used to stop those who would try to harm us or kill us. But in the real world, there is still the possibility for those to own guns and use them irresponsibly, to harm and kill innocents.
It is a feature of the United States that individuals are allowed to own and carry guns. That is their right as per their constitution, and we have to respect that.
It is a feature of the United Kingdom that most people would rather have it that guns were controlled, that they were out of the hands of the populace, so as to prevent Dunblane, or Hungerford from happening again. I would ask those who are not from the United Kingdom not to look down on us for this. It is just how we are.
Cheers,
Mark
[ January 06, 2004: Message edited by: Mark Fletcher ]
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Mark Fletcher:
Bela, Jason,
Thank you for informing me that the BBC is an anti-semitic, terrorist sympathising organisation.
...
Now to be honest, Bela, Jason. I dont know what planet youre on, or what crack pipe youre both smoking, but I dont see anything anti-semitic or anything thats sympathetic to Terrorists.

How cute. Keep in mind that this characterization originated with neither myself nor Bela, but rather offered on my behalf by Tim Baker. In any event, BBC's anti-Israeli slant in their news reporting has been well documented, and as you are apparently aware, there is much out there on the web discussing this, as well as their oft-mentioned anti-American bias in reporting the war.
Pro-terrorist? How about BBC's Tom Paulin as but one example:
If there is one thing Paulin clearly abhors about Israel, it is the Brooklyn--born Jewish settlers.
"They should be shot dead," he says forcefully. "I think they are Nazis, racists, I feel nothing but hatred for them."

Since not only the BBC was mentioned, how about the Guardian's Chris McGreal's use of quotes when using the words "terrorist" and "victims of terror"? This isn't atypical at all of journalists from these organizations, and does little to present a view as an unbiased professional. I could go on pointing this stuff out all day, but you have indicated you are not interested in these facts.
Please could you help me open my eyes to this evil, evil conspiracy that even now corrupts my freedom loving countrymen.

But I thought you said you didn't want links?
I am sure that you both speak from positions of authority, especially Jason (Wow! They get the BBC in the States? I hope you pay your license fee as well!!).

Depends on what you consider a position of authority I guess. And yes, we do get BBC in the states, in the form of a channel called BBC America.
Now to be honest, Bela, Jason. I dont know what planet youre on, or what crack pipe youre both smoking, but I dont see anything anti-semitic or anything thats sympathetic to Terrorists.

So people who have issues with the BBC's reporting (and there are quite a few people who do) must be on some other planet smoking crack? I'm sorry if picking on the BBC personally offends you, but hopefully you'll get over it. As has been mentioned, there has been ample amounts of material posted on the web that discuss these very issues. I might suggest you look for yourself on the remote chance you are interested in what might lead some to draw these conclusions.
Id even go so far to ask Jason: How much of the BBC have you actually watched?

Hours and hours and hours...
Have you ever spent a long period of time in the UK?

Yep.
If so, were you regularly harassed by the populace?

Regularly? No. A few times? Yes. I quite enjoyed my time over there and had several British friends. My experience was generally quite positive, and I hope to go back some day.
What is it youre scared of?

Carnies... Circus folk. Small hands. Smell like cabbage.
[ January 06, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
Mark Fletcher
Ranch Hand

Joined: Dec 08, 2001
Posts: 897
Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Pro-terrorist? How about BBC's Tom Paulin as but one example:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there is one thing Paulin clearly abhors about Israel, it is the Brooklyn--born Jewish settlers.
"They should be shot dead," he says forcefully. "I think they are Nazis, racists, I feel nothing but hatred for them."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since not only the BBC was mentioned, how about the Guardian's Chris McGreal's use of quotes when using the words "terrorist" and "victims of terror"? This isn't atypical at all of journalists from these organizations, and does little to present a view as an unbiased professional. I could go on pointing this stuff out all day, but you have indicated you are not interested in these facts.

Paulins link to the BBC is rather tenous. A quick search on Google reveals that Paul has been a guest of shows such as Newsnight. But I dont see anything that says "Paulins was a direct employee of the BBC". Its not as if he worked for BBC News. In fact the first link you refer us to regarding Paulins, doesnt even mention the BBC!
So ummm, whats your point caller?
As for the second link, whats it got to do with the BBC? Why drag the Guardian into this?
[ January 06, 2004: Message edited by: Mark Fletcher ]
 
permaculture playing cards
 
subject: Does the UK want a "Tony Martin" law?