Home Forums Articles How To's FAQ Register
Go Back   Xoutpost.com > Off-topic > The Lounge
Arnott
User Name
Password
Member List Premier Membership Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Xoutpost server transfer and maintenance is occurring....
Xoutpost is currently undergoing a planned server migration.... stay tuned for new developments.... sincerely, the management


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old 01-02-2013, 02:53 AM
PersonaNonGrata's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 7,749
PersonaNonGrata is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by tynashracing View Post
Bravo! Excellent remarks...It's times like NOW that we should remain armed.

Yeah, I think some of the opportunist during Katrina may have even been the "good" guys...so I hear! Seems there are times when you might not be able to tell the good guys from the bad. Sucks.
Thank you. I think I make a lot of sense.

New Orleans was reputed to have the most corrupt police department in the country. There is plenty of video to who NOPD's "finest" helping themselves to goods and the worst was those officers who murdered civilians and tried to cover it up but they got caught and convicted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TerminatorX5 View Post
that is my point - even the best guy/good guy can turn bad... even if his intentions are good, he still can render harm, just by being incompetent in the area of law enforcement... a guy could be genius in computer programming, or can put an engine together with his eyes closed... but he is not competent in law enforcement - and the mentality, shoot first, ask questions later might work, if the results were not lethal... I would not have problems, if everyone had a non-lethal weapon... the problme with lethal weapons is that the culprit does not have a CHANCE to stand trial, as guaranteed by the same Constitution... the judgement, the trial, the verdict, the execution are all carried out at once. If s/he is incapacitated for a period of time, than there is a chance for a fair trial.


i've read a story long time ago, and will grossly paraphrase it:
say there is a woman playing with her big mastiff in a park, and the dog is really nice... it so happened that a wild tribeman is in the park, and his tribe never seen any dogs in their lives... he sees a woman being attacked by huge animal and he shoots the animal dead with a dart in an attempt to save to woman... Best intentions... good guy... armed... worst results... not to say that a cop can't be incompetent...

If the tribesman was armed with a less-than-lethal weapon, then the whole thing would have been less stressful... I am not comparing life of a dog to a life of a human - human life bears much more value...
What happened to all values that we hold dear? We are crying over spilt blood and want to spill more to prevent the bloodshed... strange logic...
I am in a job where I am sworn to uphold the law and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I mention this because I think it bears on my point of view, for better or worse. I believe in the law and uphold it. I agree that in an ideal society everyone is afforded due process and no one has lethal weapons, and everyone makes the right decisions but that is simply not reality. I think your premise is flawed in assuming that the bad guys, or culprits, care about the same things you want us to care about. Specifically, you want people acting in self defense to give the culprit the chance to stand trial and face due process of law instead of being shot and killed in the street. I have to say that is far too generous a view given that same culprit and other culprits like him don't give a rats behind about his victims, or due process. What you propose is that law abiding citizens would refrain from self-defense and instead submit themselves to the whims of criminals who have no regard for laws much less the rights of their victims. A harsh view? Yes but that is the world we live in. Every single minute of every single day, criminals take from victims in any way they can even if that means with force and violence. They enter our homes and businesses and are willing to use deadly force to get their way.

Now you might ask "what if the citizen makes a mistake". Well, that can happen and does rarely and there is recourse for that. Invalid or imperfect self-defense can result in a manslaughter conviction. On the other hand, if the citizen is not allowed any sort of self-defense the result for him could be death.

The idea of less than lethal options is a nice ideal but not realistic and subjects those who rely on them to a false sense of security. We all know how ineffective pepper spray can be and tasers are not foolproof either. I submit that a citizen who uses pepper spray unsuccessfully is at substantially greater risk of death or great bodily injury. The reality is that some situations require lethal force. If the criminal is armed, is larger or stronger than the victim, or several other factors, the only effective response is lethal force. Don't bring pepper spray to a gunfight. I truly believe an assailant is intending to cause death or great bodily harm to me or my loved ones, I will respond with lethal force, not to kill but to stop the threat. I say lethal force because the force that the assailant is to apply is also lethal.
__________________
Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links

  #72  
Old 01-02-2013, 07:24 AM
TerminatorX5's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Stafford, VA & Harrisburg, PA - USA
Posts: 5,735
TerminatorX5 is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by PersonaNonGrata View Post
Thank you. I think I make a lot of sense.

New Orleans was reputed to have the most corrupt police department in the country. There is plenty of video to who NOPD's "finest" helping themselves to goods and the worst was those officers who murdered civilians and tried to cover it up but they got caught and convicted.



I am in a job where I am sworn to uphold the law and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I mention this because I think it bears on my point of view, for better or worse. I believe in the law and uphold it. I agree that in an ideal society everyone is afforded due process and no one has lethal weapons, and everyone makes the right decisions but that is simply not reality. I think your premise is flawed in assuming that the bad guys, or culprits, care about the same things you want us to care about. Specifically, you want people acting in self defense to give the culprit the chance to stand trial and face due process of law instead of being shot and killed in the street. I have to say that is far too generous a view given that same culprit and other culprits like him don't give a rats behind about his victims, or due process. What you propose is that law abiding citizens would refrain from self-defense and instead submit themselves to the whims of criminals who have no regard for laws much less the rights of their victims. A harsh view? Yes but that is the world we live in. Every single minute of every single day, criminals take from victims in any way they can even if that means with force and violence. They enter our homes and businesses and are willing to use deadly force to get their way.

Now you might ask "what if the citizen makes a mistake". Well, that can happen and does rarely and there is recourse for that. Invalid or imperfect self-defense can result in a manslaughter conviction. On the other hand, if the citizen is not allowed any sort of self-defense the result for him could be death.

The idea of less than lethal options is a nice ideal but not realistic and subjects those who rely on them to a false sense of security. We all know how ineffective pepper spray can be and tasers are not foolproof either. I submit that a citizen who uses pepper spray unsuccessfully is at substantially greater risk of death or great bodily injury. The reality is that some situations require lethal force. If the criminal is armed, is larger or stronger than the victim, or several other factors, the only effective response is lethal force. Don't bring pepper spray to a gunfight. I truly believe an assailant is intending to cause death or great bodily harm to me or my loved ones, I will respond with lethal force, not to kill but to stop the threat. I say lethal force because the force that the assailant is to apply is also lethal.
this is the law of jungle - he, who has the bigger claw, survives... this is not the law of society... the criminal has the luxury of the first strike, the society has the luxury of the law - it is better to let go ten guilty ones, then to convict one innocent one, or whatever that saying says...

I agree with you on the personal level, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth (gee, my dentist probably be dead over and over now!!!). but I can not bring myself down to the level of an animal, that the criminal is, just to satisfy the need to lynch... I do not deny the right for the self-defense, it is one of the basic rights, but I can not become a wild animal...

It is the same, as acting like Robert Bales, and killing the afghani civilians... chances are, half of those civilians were peasants by the day and cold blood killers by the night, but we can't be the same... this is the whole idea of civilized society, that we are NOT blood thirsty mob with pitchforks and torches, that lynches the "criminals" on sight. This is the whole notion that the forefathers are trying to instill into us, that everyone deserves due process.
Again, I am a human too, and I am subject to emotions, and my first reaction is to shoot the MF on scene... But we can not teach others on how to be, if we can't behave ourselves... One of our engineers shot two intruders in his house around Thanksgiving (Minnesota homeowner shot two teenagers dead in cold blood in his basement 'because he feared they had a weapon' - NY Daily News), and i understand what he had done, those kids were NOT supposed to be in his house uninvited... but if he would have used an non-lethal force, those kids would be standing trial... Granted, the judicial system is seriously flawed, but that would a subject of a new thread. we still can not take the law into our hands - otherwise we will plunge into the dark ages...
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 01-02-2013, 11:03 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 215
tynashracing is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by PersonaNonGrata View Post
Thank you. I think I make a lot of sense.

New Orleans was reputed to have the most corrupt police department in the country. There is plenty of video to who NOPD's "finest" helping themselves to goods and the worst was those officers who murdered civilians and tried to cover it up but they got caught and convicted.



I am in a job where I am sworn to uphold the law and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I mention this because I think it bears on my point of view, for better or worse. I believe in the law and uphold it. I agree that in an ideal society everyone is afforded due process and no one has lethal weapons, and everyone makes the right decisions but that is simply not reality. I think your premise is flawed in assuming that the bad guys, or culprits, care about the same things you want us to care about. Specifically, you want people acting in self defense to give the culprit the chance to stand trial and face due process of law instead of being shot and killed in the street. I have to say that is far too generous a view given that same culprit and other culprits like him don't give a rats behind about his victims, or due process. What you propose is that law abiding citizens would refrain from self-defense and instead submit themselves to the whims of criminals who have no regard for laws much less the rights of their victims. A harsh view? Yes but that is the world we live in. Every single minute of every single day, criminals take from victims in any way they can even if that means with force and violence. They enter our homes and businesses and are willing to use deadly force to get their way.

Now you might ask "what if the citizen makes a mistake". Well, that can happen and does rarely and there is recourse for that. Invalid or imperfect self-defense can result in a manslaughter conviction. On the other hand, if the citizen is not allowed any sort of self-defense the result for him could be death.

The idea of less than lethal options is a nice ideal but not realistic and subjects those who rely on them to a false sense of security. We all know how ineffective pepper spray can be and tasers are not foolproof either. I submit that a citizen who uses pepper spray unsuccessfully is at substantially greater risk of death or great bodily injury. The reality is that some situations require lethal force. If the criminal is armed, is larger or stronger than the victim, or several other factors, the only effective response is lethal force. Don't bring pepper spray to a gunfight. I truly believe an assailant is intending to cause death or great bodily harm to me or my loved ones, I will respond with lethal force, not to kill but to stop the threat. I say lethal force because the force that the assailant is to apply is also lethal.
PersonaNonGrata,

I see you take your oath seriously . And, I bet you have a few years under your belt. You make me proud of what my country should always stand for when dealing with our liberties and Constitution.

It's awesome to see real patriotism is alive and well with those commissioned to protect my rights from foreign and domestic tyranny!
__________________
2002 4.4 Sport
134k miles and counting
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 01-02-2013, 11:41 AM
X5Sport's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Eastern flatlands of the UK.
Posts: 529
X5Sport is on a distinguished road
Arrow

As someone who is not American looking in on this awful mess, I cannot see why everyone who wants to needs a gun anyway, let alone more than one? Assault rifles/weapons are certainly well beyond the needs of the average individual. I was trained as an firearms instructor with the UK Armed Forces and I know just how dangerous these things are and what damage they can do at both short and long ranges. If I ever had even the slightest doubt about any person I was teaching to handle and shoot a weapon, they never got their hands on it...period!! All of our weapons were kept under total control, as was the ammunition.

If you want to shoot for recreational purposes then fine - but keep the weapons secured in a proper armoury at the club you shoot at unless you actually need it for hunting, or target shooting etc.

It is precisely because everyone who wants to (legally or otherwise) can have a firearm that the 'gun culture' has proliferated. It's all about escalation and meeting fire-power with more fire-power. If the 'bad guy' has a gun then I need a bigger gun type approach just causes a never ending downward spiral of action and counter-action and round and round you go.

All this 'right' to bear arms has a cost in real lives, and is a smokescreen anyway. Why does anyone really need to carry a gun...I mean really, deep down basic level thinking...why? It's not as if the US is about to be invaded by anyone in large numbers anyway....or is it? And now there are so many vested interests that the whole business is a very sad mess and the discussions are polarised and completely entrenched.

Yes the UK had a serious issue and it locked down the types of guns that can be held, how they were stored, and a proper justification being required. It's not perfect and we do get 'leakers' who still manage to create the odd incident - and I agree it is still a very small minority of US Citizens who are involved in such an atrocity. Not that there is any real comfort for the affected families in that of course. Amnesties were run and most of the weapons taken out of circulation. The penalties for carrying a weapon now range from 5 years to life imprisonment, and that includes carrying replicas (blank firing/air soft/BB/etc) too

Looking in from the outside it's very easy to make comments without understanding the whole cultural ethos around the US Constitution and how tricky it is to make changes. But I can see that unless it's a major vote winner then no one is going to 'man up' and deal with this issue. One reason is the fear of losing votes, another is loss of sponsorship in elections and then of course some idiot with a gun may take a strong dislike to the changes and shoot you!!

I don't envy anyone in the US on either side of the argument. What I do hope is that somewhere common sense will prevail and a 'sensible' compromise' can be achieved on the type and numbers of guns anyone can keep at home or on their person. Delaying the inevitable will cost lives, innocent lives.

Good luck though.....what a minefield!!
__________________
Me:
Current: 2011 E71 40D Vermilion Red/Beige Nappa


Wifey:
Current: 2012 R80 Countryman SDX Green/Cream
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 01-02-2013, 12:09 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 215
tynashracing is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by X5Sport View Post
As someone who is not American looking in on this awful mess, I cannot see why everyone who wants to needs a gun anyway, let alone more than one? Assault rifles/weapons are certainly well beyond the needs of the average individual. I was trained as an firearms instructor with the UK Armed Forces and I know just how dangerous these things are and what damage they can do at both short and long ranges. If I ever had even the slightest doubt about any person I was teaching to handle and shoot a weapon, they never got their hands on it...period!! All of our weapons were kept under total control, as was the ammunition.

If you want to shoot for recreational purposes then fine - but keep the weapons secured in a proper armoury at the club you shoot at unless you actually need it for hunting, or target shooting etc.

It is precisely because everyone who wants to (legally or otherwise) can have a firearm that the 'gun culture' has proliferated. It's all about escalation and meeting fire-power with more fire-power. If the 'bad guy' has a gun then I need a bigger gun type approach just causes a never ending downward spiral of action and counter-action and round and round you go.

All this 'right' to bear arms has a cost in real lives, and is a smokescreen anyway. Why does anyone really need to carry a gun...I mean really, deep down basic level thinking...why? It's not as if the US is about to be invaded by anyone in large numbers anyway....or is it? And now there are so many vested interests that the whole business is a very sad mess and the discussions are polarised and completely entrenched.

Yes the UK had a serious issue and it locked down the types of guns that can be held, how they were stored, and a proper justification being required. It's not perfect and we do get 'leakers' who still manage to create the odd incident - and I agree it is still a very small minority of US Citizens who are involved in such an atrocity. Not that there is any real comfort for the affected families in that of course. Amnesties were run and most of the weapons taken out of circulation. The penalties for carrying a weapon now range from 5 years to life imprisonment, and that includes carrying replicas (blank firing/air soft/BB/etc) too

Looking in from the outside it's very easy to make comments without understanding the whole cultural ethos around the US Constitution and how tricky it is to make changes. But I can see that unless it's a major vote winner then no one is going to 'man up' and deal with this issue. One reason is the fear of losing votes, another is loss of sponsorship in elections and then of course some idiot with a gun may take a strong dislike to the changes and shoot you!!

I don't envy anyone in the US on either side of the argument. What I do hope is that somewhere common sense will prevail and a 'sensible' compromise' can be achieved on the type and numbers of guns anyone can keep at home or on their person. Delaying the inevitable will cost lives, innocent lives.

Good luck though.....what a minefield!!

X5Sport,

Kind of like those of us in American that will never understand bowing to a Queen and supporting their habits. Seriously, how do you guys stomach it? I mean, no one really needs a Queen or King, right? I guess it's part of your heritage? ...Ahhh, just messing with you X5Sport

Violent crime worse in Britain than in US | Mail Online

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Mail Online

Also, in case you overlooked this one:
Activist Post: Back to the Future: What History Teaches About Gun Confiscations
__________________
2002 4.4 Sport
134k miles and counting

Last edited by tynashracing; 01-02-2013 at 12:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 01-02-2013, 12:35 PM
JCL's Avatar
JCL JCL is offline
Premier Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 11,853
JCL will become famous soon enoughJCL will become famous soon enough
tynashracing:

If you are going to quote statistics, please at least read them first. You appear to have only read the headline, which said that the UK has more violent crime, and then decided that was the whole story. But your own link contains these data points:
  • In Britain, the figures include fights between two individuals, which are termed violent crimes. The other country statistics don't include those incidents.
  • Degree of violence varies. While the UK ranks above South Africa for violent crime according to the way those statistics were compiled, South Africans suffer more than 20,000 murders each year, while Britain had 921 murders in 2007
You really need to read your own links, and use some critical thinking to connect the dots. Why not compare UK murders to the number of murders in the US? If one relied on that statistic, one could conclude that the lack of guns in the UK is a causal factor in the greatly reduced murder rate vs the US. Certainly not the only factor, but it is hard to have gun violence when there aren't guns around.

I do agree that there are crime problems in the UK. Of all the countries I have lived in, it is the only one where I experienced a home robbery. We lost a stereo, a TV, jewelry, and so on. It was all replaced and covered by insurance. And there was no threat of anyone being shot, on either side. There simply weren't any guns involved. So there is crime, yes. Perhaps it is related to income disparity, I am not sure. But I am pretty sure that the royal family didn't have any bearing on it happening or not.
__________________
2007 X3 3.0si, 6 MT, Premium, White

Retired:
2008 535i, 6 MT, M Sport, Premium, Space Grey
2003 X5 3.0 Steptronic, Premium, Titanium Silver

2002 325xi 5 MT, Steel Grey
2004 Z4 3.0 Premium, Sport, SMG, Maldives Blue
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 01-02-2013, 01:01 PM
JCL's Avatar
JCL JCL is offline
Premier Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 11,853
JCL will become famous soon enoughJCL will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by PersonaNonGrata View Post
Now you might ask "what if the citizen makes a mistake". Well, that can happen and does rarely and there is recourse for that. Invalid or imperfect self-defense can result in a manslaughter conviction. On the other hand, if the citizen is not allowed any sort of self-defense the result for him could be death.
I appreciate reading your point of view.

I think it is worth separating law enforcement gun use from private citizen gun use. Picking up on your point about the potential of a private citizen making a mistake, it seems to me that mistake could potentially be shooting in error, failing to secure the weapon from unauthorized use, failure to obtain appropriate training, and so on. Here is one view of some of the results of those failures, although the data is somewhat dated:

Quote:
Injuries and Deaths from Guns
Every time a gun injures or kills in self‐defense, one is used

11 times for a completed or attempted suicide
7 times in a criminal assault or homicide
4 times in an unintentional shooting death or injury

Source: Journal of Trauma, injury, Infection and Critical Care (1998)
So by those statistics, guns don't appear to be an efficient form of self defence on a societal basis, considering the costs to society of all those other consequences. They certainly may be efficient on an individual basis, as long as the gun owner never suffers from the consequences listed above.

Since this is a BMW board, and since one of the most popular topics to debate here is whether it is worth changing transmission fluid to extend the life of ZF and GM transmissions installed in BMW vehicles, let's do a comparison.

Let's say 25% of us decided to change our transmission fluid to extend our transmission life. And let's say we had real data that said that for every time one of us who changed their fluid avoided a transmission failure, 22 other transmissions blew up, whether they were ours or not. Wouldn't we begin to wonder whether it was a good idea to keep changing the transmission fluid, even though we each currently have a clear right to do so? And if we wanted to change the fluid, individually, would it be a good idea for those of us who did so to do so on average four times? For background, some statistics put gun ownership at 25% of US citizens, and the average US gun owner has four guns. Rough figures. Anyway, I fully accept that it is a silly analogy. Just trying to put it in perspective.
__________________
2007 X3 3.0si, 6 MT, Premium, White

Retired:
2008 535i, 6 MT, M Sport, Premium, Space Grey
2003 X5 3.0 Steptronic, Premium, Titanium Silver

2002 325xi 5 MT, Steel Grey
2004 Z4 3.0 Premium, Sport, SMG, Maldives Blue
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 01-02-2013, 01:25 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 215
tynashracing is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCL View Post
tynashracing:

If you are going to quote statistics, please at least read them first. You appear to have only read the headline, which said that the UK has more violent crime, and then decided that was the whole story. But your own link contains these data points:
  • In Britain, the figures include fights between two individuals, which are termed violent crimes. The other country statistics don't include those incidents.
  • Degree of violence varies. While the UK ranks above South Africa for violent crime according to the way those statistics were compiled, South Africans suffer more than 20,000 murders each year, while Britain had 921 murders in 2007
You really need to read your own links, and use some critical thinking to connect the dots. Why not compare UK murders to the number of murders in the US? If one relied on that statistic, one could conclude that the lack of guns in the UK is a causal factor in the greatly reduced murder rate vs the US. Certainly not the only factor, but it is hard to have gun violence when there aren't guns around.

I do agree that there are crime problems in the UK. Of all the countries I have lived in, it is the only one where I experienced a home robbery. We lost a stereo, a TV, jewelry, and so on. It was all replaced and covered by insurance. And there was no threat of anyone being shot, on either side. There simply weren't any guns involved. So there is crime, yes. Perhaps it is related to income disparity, I am not sure. But I am pretty sure that the royal family didn't have any bearing on it happening or not.

You know, we've had a pretty civil discussion concerning such an emotional issue. And, now you're resorting to personal attacks in an attempt to belittle me. My lack of "critical thinking" according to...you and "I must only read headlines". Please refrain...don't let this happen again.

I didn't define violent crime. I posted a couple of links to show all is not rosy in the UK...banned guns...and they still have serious issues with violent crime. If I was posting a story about MURDERS...then I would've. Your definition of violent may be different than mine and others.

There's this one out of India that hit this morning...

Indian Women Turn to Guns After Gang Rape Outcry Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!


Guns and proper training are an equalizer against violent predators...shouldn't everyone have the right to defend themselves?
__________________
2002 4.4 Sport
134k miles and counting
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 01-02-2013, 02:40 PM
JCL's Avatar
JCL JCL is offline
Premier Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 11,853
JCL will become famous soon enoughJCL will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by tynashracing View Post
You know, we've had a pretty civil discussion concerning such an emotional issue. And, now you're resorting to personal attacks in an attempt to belittle me. My lack of "critical thinking" according to...you and "I must only read headlines". Please refrain...don't let this happen again.

I didn't define violent crime. I posted a couple of links to show all is not rosy in the UK...banned guns...and they still have serious issues with violent crime. If I was posting a story about MURDERS...then I would've. Your definition of violent may be different than mine and others.
I am pointing out that the link you posted, which said in the title of the link that South Africa has more violence than the UK (supporting your point), says in the body of the same link that South Africa has 20,000 murders compared to 921 in the UK. Do you see the failing of your posting? You posted a headline, when the text within the link proves the opposite to the point you are trying to prove. That is the problem with junk news sites, they come up with headlines to sell their product even when those headlines are wrong. And you fell for it. Sorry if pointing that out feels like a personal attack to you.

If this isn't a lack of critical thinking, I don't know what is. Now you are saying that murders don't constitute violent crime, but bar fights do (OK, in the UK they would be called pub fights). What is the possible relevance of fights as a statistic, if those fights don't include guns, in a discussion about gun violence? I could in fact further counter your 'guns make us safer' argument by pointing out that the UK has societal issues, and violence, but not the same degree of gun violence. Suggesting that one of the differences is gun control. And the thread is about gun control.
__________________
2007 X3 3.0si, 6 MT, Premium, White

Retired:
2008 535i, 6 MT, M Sport, Premium, Space Grey
2003 X5 3.0 Steptronic, Premium, Titanium Silver

2002 325xi 5 MT, Steel Grey
2004 Z4 3.0 Premium, Sport, SMG, Maldives Blue
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 01-02-2013, 06:51 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 215
tynashracing is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCL View Post
I am pointing out that the link you posted, which said in the title of the link that South Africa has more violence than the UK (supporting your point), says in the body of the same link that South Africa has 20,000 murders compared to 921 in the UK. Do you see the failing of your posting? You posted a headline, when the text within the link proves the opposite to the point you are trying to prove. That is the problem with junk news sites, they come up with headlines to sell their product even when those headlines are wrong. And you fell for it. Sorry if pointing that out feels like a personal attack to you.

If this isn't a lack of critical thinking, I don't know what is. Now you are saying that murders don't constitute violent crime, but bar fights do (OK, in the UK they would be called pub fights). What is the possible relevance of fights as a statistic, if those fights don't include guns, in a discussion about gun violence? I could in fact further counter your 'guns make us safer' argument by pointing out that the UK has societal issues, and violence, but not the same degree of gun violence. Suggesting that one of the differences is gun control. And the thread is about gun control.
The article very clearly shows the stats for the degrees of crimes. It's not my fault that countries define violent offenses differently. Each reader can decide for themselves what to think.

I'll bet you didn't like this part of the article either: "The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609."
Wow, Canada has double the amount of violent crimes than the USA...and you think we should put our guns down? Or, are the crimes in Canada not really violent either...just the ones in the USA?

I'll bet you didn't like these either from the first article: "Shadow home secretary Ann Widdecombe said: 'It's no wonder the people of England and Wales have more chance of becoming victims of crime when there are over 2,500 fewer police, violent crime is soaring and 30,000 convicted prisoners have been let out before serving even half their sentences."

"The chances of having your car stolen are greater in England and Wales than anywhere else in the developed world, it said."

"Recent statistics show that, while overall crime in Britain is falling, violence, particularly street robbery, is rising sharply."

Doesn't exactly sound like pub fights, huh.


It seems to me that gun control advocates are under the impression that if we take guns away, there can be peace and fewer violent crimes committed against innocent civilians. It's important to remind ourselves that violent people are violent people and will use any measure necessary to exact their form of violence. It doesn't go away. The only thing that goes away with gun control...innocent civilians are now at the mercy of LE to protect them. Can LE be everywhere at once?

You know, I heard that the riots in LA had LE on their heels. It was due to the shopkeepers possessing firearms that actually helped LE take control over the situation.

My critical thinking is just fine. You have your POV and I have mine. No more insults, OK? How about you just post up your articles or facts that give a counter to mine or anyone else's...and leave the personal stuff out, fair enough?
__________________
2002 4.4 Sport
134k miles and counting

Last edited by tynashracing; 01-02-2013 at 11:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:58 PM.
vBulletin, Copyright 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0
2017 Xoutpost.com. All rights reserved. Xoutpost.com is a private enthusiast site not associated with BMW AG.
The BMW name, marks, M stripe logo, and Roundel logo as well as X3, X5 and X6 designations used in the pages of this Web Site are the property of BMW AG.
This web site is not sponsored or affiliated in any way with BMW AG or any of its subsidiaries.