I am glad...

Florestan posted:

  This is a people problem and in general one can see that it is a certain group of people.......

 

And there it is. Inevitable.

No one argued with Cat Stevens 50 years ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cm2Q0zC2Hs

Damn. If only we were as intelligent as Floristan and understood his posts, we'd get on board with his point of view. How can we all be so stupid? Maybe, if he was a bit more patronising, we'd finally grasp his perspective on things, but, alas, we're all doomed to fail on that score.

Let's take for the sake of an argument one of the most vicious groups around the US, the Chicago gangs. What do you think would happen if somehow we managed to take their guns away and force them to settle accounts with each other using other means?

Two things. First, accidental deaths would go down by over 99% simply because drive by-stabbings or drive-by stranglings could never produce so many (if any) innocent victims as these getting hit by stray bullets caused by drive-by shootings. Second, the killings among gang members would also shrink drastically for the simple reason that most of them simply do not have the nerve to physically take someone out while looking at him in the eye.

Now, if you produced these arguments to an NRA member he is likely to say that he would be damned if he, a law abiding citizen, let a bunch of low life criminals dictate the laws of the land.

tonym posted:

Damn. If only we were as intelligent as Floristan and understood his posts, we'd get on board with his point of view. How can we all be so stupid? Maybe, if he was a bit more patronising, we'd finally grasp his perspective on things, but, alas, we're all doomed to fail on that score.

Tony, these are unnecessary insults that have nothing to do with the ongoing discussion.

Camlan posted:

I have a simple question for Florestan and the other US contributors on here and please take this as honest and not an attempt to troublemake.

In the light of recent events if a referendum was put to the US people with the question ‘Should stringent gun controls be introduced in the US’ what do you think the response would be?

NB Please don’t think that this means I think referenda are a good idea. We had one and it dropped us right in it!

A portion of my reply from page 1 or this thread:

"Just an American, Veteran, Father and Grandfather with an opinion. I completely support the rights of citizens to bear arms. I also believe there is a common sense solution, and part of the solution is banning assault rifles and large magazines. We will eventually get there........

JMHO - YMMV"

Gun control has been debated for decades in the United States and will continue for the foreseeable future. 

Haim Ronen posted:

Let's take for the sake of an argument one of the most vicious groups around the US, the Chicago gangs. What do you think would happen if somehow we managed to take their guns away and force them to settle accounts with each other using other means?

Two things. First, accidental deaths would go down by over 99% simply because drive by-stabbings or drive-by stranglings could never produce so many (if any) innocent victims as these getting hit by stray bullets caused by drive-by shootings. Second, the killings among gang members would also shrink drastically for the simple reason that most of them simply do not have the nerve to physically take someone out while looking at him in the eye.

Now, if you produced these arguments to an NRA member he is likely to say that he would be damned if he, a law abiding citizen, let a bunch of low life criminals dictate the laws of the land.

Haim

The model for this has already been played out in Northern Ireland.  Albeit guns were never legally available to the paramilitary organisations, that didn't stop armaments being shipped in from sympathisers in USA, Libya, etc.  When the Good Friday Agreement was signed, the paramilitaries declared a cease fire and agreed to put munitions beyond use.  This happened to many weapons.  But not all.  Certain proportions of the paramilitary organisations reverted to criminal gang activities and to this day they continue to apply their trade.  Nevertheless, the scale is greatly reduced.  It generally does not spill out into the general wider community.  The presence of army is virtually zero and police visibility is much more in line with mainland UK.  Things have improved beyond my imagination.

I'm not for one minute saying it is the same as or a model for the USA.  The paramilitary organisations and their change to politics was central to allowing this to happen.  However, it clearly demonstrates one element of what happens in a society when the quantity of weapons are dramatically reduced.  Pretty much aligned to your theory and already played out in NI.

Peter

Florestan posted:

Sure, "IF THE POLICE IN THE UK CATCH YOU...."

The law would presume that they want to catch the bad guys but what is the general attitude of lawmakers in the UK these days?  I would argue that the police usually know where and who are the bad characters.  So if there was a will and way they could easily round up most of the offenders off the street but the problem may be that to do this means you would have to have more judges and lawyers and build more jails.  Perhaps your country picks and chooses who to focus on and what to focus on rather than to clean up crime period.  Maybe due to resources they put most of their effort into giving speeding and parking tickets and go after those who offend visible minorities.  This seems natural for an unarmed police force to focus more on paper crimes than challenging violent criminals?

It happens where I live so I am not speaking out of line here with only conjecture.  I know someone who lives in the country who experienced an early morning break in.  The police arrived just as the offenders were driving away.  They asked why they (the police) were not going after the suspects they said it is too dangerous (a high speed chase).  Criminals know that the odds of getting caught are low for various reasons like this as well as the fact that most police forces have limited number of staff due to budget limitations.  Easier to just hand out speeding tickets under these conditions.

I am suggesting that police forces (and especially unarmed police forces) with likely pick and choose what they can actually focus on.  I say that it may be quite straightforward to round up the bad guys in society and reduce crime dramatically  by getting that worst offenders off the street.  Backlogs in courts and lack of jail space and the 'rights' of criminals is probably what limits any country to clean up on this problem?

Camlan has responded to other aspects of this post, but in respect of the highlighted one I would observe that the "too dangerous" means too dangerous to innocent civilians, not danger to the police. And I do not think there is evidence to support the suggestion that because they are not armed British police prefer to deal with "paper crime" than more serious crime, which whilst it might seem natural to you I am sure is insulting to the vast majority of British police. You may be unaware that when there is gun crime, armed police are drafted in.

However, I do believe that with more limited resources than they used to have, the police in Britain do tend to focus more on either easy to solve crimes or high profile crimes, and so a lot more crimes go unresolved than was the case some years ago, and undoubtedly it is a challenge for them to get the right balance of focus.

Haim Ronen posted:

tonym posted:

Damn. If only we were as intelligent as Floristan and understood his posts, we'd get on board with his point of view. How can we all be so stupid? Maybe, if he was a bit more patronising, we'd finally grasp his perspective on things, but, alas, we're all doomed to fail on that score.

Tony, these are unnecessary insults that have nothing to do with the ongoing discussion.

I'd agree were Florestan capable of rational debate or discussion. As he is patently incapable of either, to resort to gentle sarcasm is perfectly excusable, and at least gives some of us light relief after ploughing through the excrement of Florestan's 'arguments'.

I think he has withdrawn, having realised that other people are :-

Rational

Realistic

Reasonable

Right

 But I might be (w)rong.

Perhaps he's realised the implications of...

1  His admissions that in the US, when one person intends to kill another, a gun is frequently their weapon of choice.
2  His acceptance that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"

...which, when taken together, in essence support the OPs position!

Haim Ronen posted:

tonym posted:

Damn. If only we were as intelligent as Floristan and understood his posts, we'd get on board with his point of view. How can we all be so stupid? Maybe, if he was a bit more patronising, we'd finally grasp his perspective on things, but, alas, we're all doomed to fail on that score.

Tony, these are unnecessary insults that have nothing to do with the ongoing discussion.

...and yet you presumably think it acceptable for Florestan to roundly insult us all at every turn because we choose to disagree with his (admittedly elusive) arguments?

tonym posted:

Haim Ronen posted:

tonym posted:

Damn. If only we were as intelligent as Floristan and understood his posts, we'd get on board with his point of view. How can we all be so stupid? Maybe, if he was a bit more patronising, we'd finally grasp his perspective on things, but, alas, we're all doomed to fail on that score.

Tony, these are unnecessary insults that have nothing to do with the ongoing discussion.

...and yet you presumably think it acceptable for Florestan to roundly insult us all at every turn because we choose to disagree with his (admittedly elusive) arguments?

...and regularly accusing those who disagree with him of being anti-American.

When challenged on insults given, Florestan has been prepared to apologise, and that deserves respect.

Huge posted:

When challenged on insults given, Florestan has been prepared to apologise, and that deserves respect.

I wish I could be as magnanimous as you, Huge. Grateful for the balance you provide.

Timmo1341 posted:

Huge posted:

When challenged on insults given, Florestan has been prepared to apologise, and that deserves respect.

I wish I could be as magnanimous as you, Huge. Grateful for the balance you provide.

Well if you can't forgive, what happens, well, things just escalate and then what happens... You end up shooting someone!

Oh, you're in the UK, you probably don't have easy access to a gun!

Huge posted:

Timmo1341 posted:

Huge posted:

When challenged on insults given, Florestan has been prepared to apologise, and that deserves respect.

I wish I could be as magnanimous as you, Huge. Grateful for the balance you provide.

Well if you can't forgive, what happens, well, things just escalate and then what happens... You end up shooting someone!

Oh, you're in the UK, you probably don't have easy access to a gun!

No worries, pen is mightier etc....!

Timmo1341 posted:

Huge posted:

Timmo1341 posted:

Huge posted:

When challenged on insults given, Florestan has been prepared to apologise, and that deserves respect.

I wish I could be as magnanimous as you, Huge. Grateful for the balance you provide.

Well if you can't forgive, what happens, well, things just escalate and then what happens... You end up shooting someone!

Oh, you're in the UK, you probably don't have easy access to a gun!

No worries, pen is mightier etc....!

Mightier, and not deadly!

(Maybe gun ownership supporters think the word 'and' should be 'but'.)