Forum menu
true or false, yes or no
Has this thread morphed into [i]Shooting Stars[/i]?
[i]OVAVO[/i]
[img] 
[/img]
coo, coo, coo...
<gestures for TJ on a wire to descend>
I didnt bring up other countries Fred.
No of course you din't; I and everyone else mustuv imagined you saying
Yeah, look at those second world nations like Switzerland, Finland and Canada?
🙄
You getting a bit senile Labby? Keep forgetting what you've posted?
we were told that private gun ownership was banned in any civilised country on the planet and the uk
That's Kimber's personal view, not a statement of fact.
one word answer please Freddie dahling.
When you've produced figures for gun related crime in the US. Which might have something to do with many US citizens feeling that banning private gun ownership might be a good idea...
Interesting that you din't mention countries such as Angola, South Africa, ****stan and Mexico. Countries where private gun ownership is permitted, and which are famed for being peaceful crime-free places...
and pointed out several examples of civilised countries where privatley held guns are not banned, this undermines his point, its what you asked me to do, thats how debate works.
And conveniently ignored those I've mentioned, I see. 😆
As well as the fact that in many of those countries which do permit private gun ownership, such ownership is strictly controlled, and as I pointed out earlier, mainly for hunting and shooting purposes.
Care to produce a list of 'civilised countries' which allow private gun ownership for the purpose of 'personal protection', like the US?
This can't be an official statement. Can it?
Care to produce a list of 'civilised countries' which allow private gun ownership for the purpose of 'personal protection', like the US?
Again - thats not the question.
The question is whether Kimbers assertion that private gun ownership is [b]banned in [u]any[/u] civilised country[/b], correct, or not?
again, one word answer please, for this retarded gun owner to understand.
Look at the uncivilised swiss people, how little they know...
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/multimedia/picture_gallery/Gun_loving_folk_.html?cid=29123560
What I don't understand, is that with your obvious love for the US system, in terms of gun ownership and health care, you aren't actually living there?
Care to provide us with info on the level of control over private gun ownership and context of use in 'civilised countries'? How many countries allow gun ownership for 'personal protection'? What are those countries?
I think if Kimbers were to claim that [i]private gun ownership for the purpose of 'personal protection' is banned in any civilised country[/i], then he may well have a good point...
I think if Kimbers were to claim that private gun ownership for the purpose of 'personal protection' is banned in any civilised country, then he may well have a good point...
But, well, erm, he didn't, did he 😉
z11
while switzerland and canada for example have gun onwership rates 10x higher than the uk they also have f[s]o[/s]irearms death 6-8x higher than the uk
there is a correlation between how many guns there are in a country and how likely you are to be killed by a gun although other factors such as whether your country is in the middle of a cartel shootout etc play a large factor, which is all pretty obvious really
sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
The "demands" are a bog standard/classic troskyite strategy......totally unattainable demands are made, and it's very important that they are [i]"unattainable",[/i] with the argument being that, unable to deliver the demands capitalism will implode, or something, which will lead to a revolutionary situation. If they thought $18/hr min wage was feasible, then they would simply demand $24/hr, and so on. If it is pointed out to them that however desirable a $18/hr might be, society simply can't pay that as a min wage, then they are more than pleased as they can counter it with "what sort of society can't pay a decent wage, time for revolution, blah, blah". I don't know who the authors are, but I am certain they are Trots. And yes, they are fully aware that their demands are unattainable.
He does raise a very valid point
I'm guessing that the incredibly wealthy will pay for it.. the supposed 1% that control 99% of the moolah.. hence perhaps the wage demands..
isn't that the entire point of the protest..!?
damned right too really FFS
ernie_lynch - MemberThe "demands" are a bog standard/classic troskyite strategy......totally unattainable demands are made,
Don't they ever get tired of the silly games? either do something credible about the situation that you don't like or shut up
the posturing of some on the left is distinctly odd IMO
Kimbers, regards your links:
i) A list of how many guns per resident is skewed, as one person may have a lot of guns...
ii) Who's bothered about how someone chooses to commit suicide? Nobody's particularly threatened or worried about suicide rates, we don't ban paracetamol, alcohol, bridges or trains because people might commit suicide with them! Sort it by Homicide rates, and you'll see that the highest homicide rate, South Africa, is only 50th on the gun rankings... Far more to do with the social conditions in the country.
Regardless, your point was that private gun ownership was [b]banned in all civilised countries[/b]! Have a look at France, Germany, Austria, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Norway - all with around 30 guns per 100 population - are you [b]really[/b] suggesting they are all uncivilised (well, maybe France!)
Don't blame America's problems on guns, they're really far more deeply seated than that.
I bet Obama would love to be able to get some of those things past the senate; gun control, social security, reduced racism, health care, pork barrel politics, the environmental stuff. All pretty worthy and only being held back by self serving right wingers/rabid fundementalists .
Its a user generated list so there is bound to be some wacky stuff in there but do they not have a right to be angry and demand change? The younger generation is the one that is going to have to pick up/is currently picking up the tab for the mistakes of their parents one.
Don't they ever get tired of the silly games?
Oh yes, and often very quickly. This is particularly true of the transient revolutionaries in the SWP. They soon leave their youthful revolutionary days behind, and the working-class who's interests they once purported to represent, as they settle down in their nice well-paid professional careers.
Some will have nothing more to do politics other perhaps voting Tory/Liberal Democrat at election time. A few might carry on as active members of New Labour, often showing an astonishing zeal to fight 'the threat from the left'.
In my personal experience the person who most epitomises this is former New Labour minister Jimmy Fitzpatrick. When I first met Jimmy Fitzpatrick he was a long haired tub-thumping ranting SWP trot, determined to lead the workers into revolution. Today he is the archetypical warmongering New Labour politician, who is determined to keep Labour as a free-market thatcherite party.
Really Ernie? I would have thought Tony Benn was a better example 😉
Pass far stricter environmental protection and animal rights laws.
Ban the private ownership of land
Regarding the first, many parts of the US have extraordinarily strict laws on land access. Anywhere designated Wilderness automatically bans even cycles from being ridden there, as they're 'mechanical devises'
Regarding the second, who's going to look after it? Who's going to cultivate it? Collectivisation has been a proven failure anywhere it's been tried. It's the 'Tragedy of the Commons', nobody's responsible for it, so nobody cares for it, so it falls into disrepair. Look at farms in Zimbabwe, for example.
Typical student union level agitprop.
Difficult to find too many arguments with some of the other 'demands', tho'
Really Ernie? I would have thought Tony Benn was a better example
That's because you're daft as a brush.
Tony Benn entered parliament very much on the right-wing of the Labour Party. It was during his parliamentary career that he gradually moved to the left, until he was firmly on the left of the party.
He explains his epiphany thus :
[i]"As a minister, I experienced the power of industrialists and bankers to get their way by use of the crudest form of economic pressure, even blackmail, against a Labour Government. Compared to this, the pressure brought to bear in industrial disputes is minuscule. This power was revealed even more clearly in 1976 when the IMF secured cuts in our public expenditure. These lessons led me to the conclusion that the UK is only superficially governed by MPs and the voters who elect them. Parliamentary democracy is, in truth, little more than a means of securing a periodical change in the management team, which is then allowed to preside over a system that remains in essence intact. If the British people were ever to ask themselves what power they truly enjoyed under our political system they would be amazed to discover how little it is, and some new Chartist agitation might be born and might quickly gather momentum."[/i]
LOLZ! Someone said a bad about Ernie's beloved Tony Benn and he trawled the interwebz to find quotes to back him up!
(Sound familiar, Ernie? You're as bad as each other, FFS!)
Didn't really want to go too far to the left though, did he Ernie?
Still got that Holland Park house, and the Estate, His son's still going to get the family title when he passes on.
This would be the Tony Benn who placed the family wealth into an offshore trust, away from pip squeaking Dennis Healey?
Oh, and I suppose his son got his job though the good old socialist meritocracy, Third generation meritocracy 😉
Hardly "trawled the interwebz" Flashheart. In case you hadn't noticed, I copied and pasted it from another current thread. On which I had already posted the quote.
Try to keep up mate.
Don't blame America's problems on guns, they're really far more deeply seated than that.
The guns don't bloody help matters though, do they?
Gun crime is a massive problem in the US. Hence it might be an idea, to ban the private ownership of firearms or at least introduce far stricter controls than already exist.
how would you address the US' myriad problems then, Labby? I notice the right whingers have bin rather quiet on actual solutions, preferring instead to bang on about gun ownership or 'who's going to pay for it' or other such nonsense...
Truth is you don't actually have any real feasible answers. So, how's about, until you do you just keep quiet?
And focus instead on just how your neo-con dream is going to save the World...
Happy to Fred - my top four solutions for the USA would be as follows
i) Create a national insurance/single payer system, health stamps - I have no problem with a national insurance system with fixed rate open market private sector delivery (you go where you want for treatment)
ii) Legalise all drugs (not just decriminalise, legalise and tax) - you've got a ridiculous situation where a huge tranche of young black men are in prison for something that does no harm and piss billions up the wall on enforcing pointless prohibition.
iii) stop bailing out banks and failing corporations and propping them up with public money - let them fail
iv) Stop using welfare to work and prison inmates to prop up private businesses, use them to replace public sector employees instead.
There you are - four easy ones, a hell of a lot more realistic than the occupy demands too. suggestions ii,iii and iv will happily pay for suggestion i) hell, the money pissed up the wall on the exiting ineffective system would pay for most of i) on its own.
I have no problem with a national insurance system
From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.
Labby endorses Socialism! You read it here first folks! 😀
You can go to bed now.