molgrips – Member

Wow, a bit of a bonkers link.

It says that civilians stop lots of shootings. It neglects to highlight that civilians also start pretty much all of them.

A country that has frequent mass shootings that are required to be stopped by members of the public might need to ask itself some serious questions.

I would aggree that the fear of crime is quite possibly the problem, not the actual likelihood of being a victim.

And so the arms race continues. Parents have guns, disgruntled boys get hold of them and shoot people. Every few months somebody really goes for it and shoots multiple people in a public building.

Everybody shakes their heads and either quietly thinks that guns are not a good ideas or calls for more weapons for all.

crazy-legs – Member

It wouldn’t surprise me if gun sales increased after each of these school/college/mall shootings, although handling a handgun in an emergency situation – whipping it out quickly and accurately, then shooting the armed assailant(s) without harming bystanders is easier said than done.

Certainly was the case after the cinema shootings earlier this year. The standard argument trotted out by the pro-gun lobby is that if everyone else was armed, if there were MORE guns, then “the public” could have returned fire and taken out the assailant.

Not sure which terrifies me more, the thought of one random killer firing away in a dark, crowded cinema or the thought that everyone else in there would pull out weapons and return fire.

Some total pillock said the same about these school shootings – all teachers should be armed and trained to take out any assailants if necessary. Dear **** Christ, the stupidity to utter that kind of statement shows what the country is up against in dealing with this kind of thing.

Oh I know, let’s have a shedload MORE guns knocking around, that’ll really help.

What sort of of rational talk is that??

Dear Lord, I bet you’re also in favour of abortion and state healthcare, don’t fear God and believe in equal opportunities.

God damn communists….

lazybike – Member

Why should the majority have the right (or the need) to carry semi-auto pistols around though?

No idea…I think it’s a principal thing with them.

It’s fairly screwed-up, that’s what it is.

You or I could jump in our car and drive down to Southern Europe. At no point would we consider the need to carry fire-arms.

“Joe Middle America” considering a similar journey would probably have to consider how/where he would carry his personal side-arm and, possibly vehicle weapon, as he passed through the various states. If stopped by the law he would be careful to keep his hands in view so as not to concern the officer (with his pistol drawn).

If you or I travel to the USA and make the same journey, we would be unarmed….

How many (non-military/law) people feel that any point in their life would have been enhanced by carrying one of these concealed about their person?

or one of these in the house/car?

Junkyard

One of the teachers was desgnate as responsible for security – not really sure what this means
The school had to be designated as a gun free zone

I would say you are in deep do do if you are at this stage

When suggestions for solutions include letting god in or arming teachers then it makes me want to shake my head in disbeleief

This was a fairly rural area too.

To the outsider it seems that they are missing the point. Ramping up the firepower isn’t solving the problem.

Junkyard

Its a strange a country – they think they are the envy of the world but tbh living like that would not appeal to me in any way shape or form and it has a dark under belly to the American dream and such complete individualism.

I like the US (the parts I’ve been to), but what struck me when I first went there was the number of visibly poor people, very run-down neighbourhoods and the level of ‘scruffiness’. Outside of large cities, nobody walks anywhere either. Middle-income people had a very pleasant lifestyle though.

Despite what some people like to think, the UK has more in common with our European neighbours.

lazybike – Member

Its difficult to legislate for the insane, without trampling the rights of the sane. Makes a mockery of majority rules.

Why should the majority have the right (or the need) to carry semi-auto pistols around though?

bwaarp – Member

What really concerns me is I think that the cats out the bag in terms of guns in the USA, there are millions and millions of illegal guns in the US and loads of recorded crime using illegal weapons….those states that have concealed carry laws have lower crime rates.

Indeed. The problem is that the country has been living with the wild west/Rambo/right to bear arms fantasy nonsense for a long time.

The public are heavily armed so criminals are heavily armed.

The argument that people should be free to own weapons to protect them from the government is somewhat twisted.

So the Americans it seems have so **** their country by allowing easy access to semi automatic weapons that it’s become like nukes….ie certain countries have nukes and can’t get rid of them because international security is effectively a mexican standoff.

Yes, an “Arms Race” is the phrase used. It just escalates ad infinitum …until somebody decides to stop it.

There’s a lot of fear and paranoia about crime. I’ve heard a lot of US citizens using the terms “bad guys” and “good guys”, which suggest a somewhat quaint, over-simplified view.

It wouldn’t surprise me if gun sales increased after each of these school/college/mall shootings, although handling a handgun in an emergency situation – whipping it out quickly and accurately, then shooting the armed assailant(s) without harming bystanders is easier said than done.

If the legal guns are gotten rid of, it does seem that there will still be plenty of illegal guns and crime will actually increase.

It’s not going to be a quick or easy solution, but something needs to be done to begin changing the arguably sick culture of violence and gun use, both domestically and with regard to foreign wars.

As somebody pointed out earlier, there is a very large difference between rural folk hunting wildlife in the forest with rifles and urban dwellers carrying semi-auto pistols on their person -something which seems absolutely ludicrous to members of other supposedly orderly societies…

“Hmm, I need some milk and bread from the local shop… Where are my keys, my wallet, possibly my phone and, oh silly me, I almost forgot, my 9mm semi-automatic pistol with hollow-point rounds. I’ll not walk because my assault rifle is in the car and, you never know, I might just need it “

Having travelled about the world (USA included) without any form of firearm in my pocket or vehicle I’ve never felt that I needed one.

Hypothesis:

The USA could function perfectly well without members of the public possessing automatic weapons as a constitutional right.

willard – Member

Yes, because firearms are a more efficient means of neutralising an enemy, both at range and close in*. It is not surprising that militaries all over the world try** to use as much new technology as possible when it comes to fighting.

* Depending on how close and the type of firearm. Pistols may be better at really close rage than rifles, but a knife may still have the edge (pardon the pun) at arms length.

** Despite what people think about our army being slow to adopt new technology, in general, people do use a lot of cutting edge stuff if it means they can kill other people more effectively and with fewer of your own side getting hit.

the point well and truly missed.

🙄

davidjones15 – Member
And now they use bombs.

…but by your argument, perhaps they should still just be using sharpened flints or maybe large rocks because the weapon isn’t important?

bencooper – Member

It’s hard to know how to get there from here. I’ve got lots of family in the States – none of them own guns, but the gun culture is even ingrained for them – my aunt was astonished when she found out that we didn’t have drive-by shootings, even in the most violent city in Europe.

Some of the “Pro-Gun” people I’ve spoken to appear to have a fear of not being armed. They must be terrified when/if they travel to a foreign land.

Having personally travelled to countries in which guns are widely owned, and carried visibly in some cases, I’ve so far managed to survive without the need to carry one.

When these US college/school/mall/cinema shootings happen ….every few months or so…, it makes me pleased to have been born in Europe, where the response to such things is different.

Think about this:

The military moved away from relying so heavily on sharpened blades when firearms became more readily available.

Quite. A well regulated militia doesn’t really describe quiet, introverted, angry young lads with a collection of automatic weapons or even paranoid, red-blooded rednecks in the backwoods of Michigan (despite what they might think) who are scared of the government in 2012.

It may more accurately describe a criminal gang fighting a turf war to some extent, although the aims of such gangs are more financial than philanthropic.

There are 2 facets to this:

1 The legal, whereby learned people (with political leanings) will pore over the ambiguities of a constitutional amendment written to suit a situation very different to that of today and arguably unfit-for-purpose. The mythology that has grown up around it being a hindrance.

2 The real world, in which the generally accepted human rights and freedoms do not actually require the possession of automatic assault weapons, and every few months somebody goes mad and shoots lots of people.

The large proportion of US citizens who don’t support the “Gun lobby” should make themselves heard. The ridiculous “culture” needs to be changed and a move made toward a less heavily armed society.

The constitutional experts can then talk about it at great length for the subsequent century, whilst everybody just gets on with it.

Also worth remembering that each state in the USA has it’s own laws.
Generally, states with strict firearm laws also have higher crime and homicide rates (and vice versa). That doesn’t mean that “gun control” leads to murder and crime, but it doesn’t seem to have ever lowered rates, either!

Gun control in small pockets of the nation doesn’t cause crime or necessarily reduce it.

The weapons are in circulation, there is a ‘tradition’ of gun ownership and use and the ‘culture’ is one of individuals looking out for themselves, possibly encouraged by the supposed ‘right’ to bear arms.

The number of firearms is a symptom, not a cause. If firearms caused murder, then Switzerland, Israel and Norway would have murder rates similar to the US, and places like Ireland, Scotland, Mexico, Jamaica, Bermuda, Bahamas and Sri Lanka would have low rates.

Indeed. I was just illustrating that the US and Canada weren’t necessarily that similar in their gun ownership profiles.

Zulu-Eleven – Member

However, with respect, the nature and existence of the citizens militia was also seen, from the beginning, as a limitation on the power of government to subjugate ‘the people’ – so your argument that there is an organised, armed police and national guard is actually a justification for the right to bear arms,

It’s a circular argument, though. The people vote for their representatives and are governed by their elected representatives (albeit with flaws). At some point this needs to be accepted, rather than continuing with the somewhat ridiculous Wild West/Rambo fantasy.

“Expressions of freedom” through the medium of the possession of and the concealed carrying of assault weapons that provide the potential for the extremely efficient, mechanised murdering of school children really is an anachronistic nonsense.

Wikipedia suggests Canadian gun ownership is significantly lower than USA.

Country Guns per 100
residents (2007) Rank
(2007) Comments
United States 88.8 1
Serbia 58.2 2 [5]
Yemen 54.8 3
Switzerland 45.7 4
Cyprus 36.4 5
Saudi Arabia 35 6
Iraq 34.2 7
Finland 32 8 [6]
Uruguay 31.8 9
Sweden 31.6 10
Norway 31.3 11
France 31.2 12
Canada 30.8 13

England and Wales 6.2 88

Scotland 5.5 93

As for Aristotles’s point on the interpretation of the US Constitution, I would suggest you read the US Supreme court judgement on District of Columbia Vs Heller, that lays out in great care the intentions of those who drafted the law,

Despite this, there is no real requirement for a citizen’s militia in the USA. We are not talking about groups of peasant farmers arming themselves in case they are required to form a militia for protection from the French, the British or Native Americans, we’re talking about suburban people living in a fairly orderly society, pretending/believing that guns are an important part of their existence. In 2012, there are organised Police departments and the National Guard.

Citizens’ militia have arguably been irrelevant for the past one and a half centuries.

A lot of people like having guns. That’s all there is to it. Unfortunately, the love of guns *and the enthusiasm for using them* has had some negative results on the USA.

If all non-hunting guns were removed from the USA (“goodies” and “baddies”), the country would not collapse.

But it’s all about “FREEDOM” (….as well as having the biggest collection of guns as a sign of virility or, vaguely, in case the “bad guys” or even the goverment come around)

We folk from pinko-socialist-liberal countries with our state-provided healthcare just can’t begin to understand it.

Look on almost any US web forum and there’ll be a thread showing posters’ gun collections, some of which are very extensive, accompanied by some quite disturbing, and some extremely gung-ho, points of view.

root – Member

Thinking about an Alps trip in future after seeing some videos and the trails always look amazing….It sounds like a stupid question but surely all the trails aren’t basically up a mountain?

🙄 😆

Zulu-Eleven – Member

Indeed – if the teachers had been carrying, then they could have stopped him in his tracks!

That’s actually a relatively common (albeit wrong, in my opinion) viewpoint on US internet forums when this sort of school/college/cinema/mall shooting occurs ie. every few months.

The concept of escalation seems not to occur to some people.

Ohh, but it’s in the constitution. Well, rip up the f****** constitution, it’s ancient and out of date.

…and, as I pointed out earlier, misinterpreted by people like this:

Why a soft-roader?

It does unfortunately happen in this country, but it is thankfully very rare. Gun crime is far less of a problem.

tails – Member

Think they have some crap in the constitution thing bout right to bare(sic) arms!

It’s been interpreted that way, but was actually intended to allow for a ‘militia’ to defend the local population at time very different to now. ie. a de facto Police/National Guard raised in time of need, not for disgruntled young lads to go on the rampage at a school, cinema, shopping mall etc. if they felt the urge. The modern spin on it is based on a fallacy. The Police and National Guard are now formally organised. The general population need not concern themselves with it.

There appears to be a sort of paranoia about “bad guys with guns” (and, therefore, guns being comfort blankets for some people, whether it would help or not) and a fear of the government removing “freedoms” (at what cost?).

The only winners are the gun industry.

The ‘tradition’ of almost anybody having access to fairly serious weaponry that makes mass murder relatively easy/straight-forward for anybody who wishes to carry it out seems nonsensical to me.

The fairly similar Europeans and Australasians manage to function reasonably well without assault rifles stashed in the car/bedroom or the legally permitted concealed carrying of handguns by large numbers of people on a trip down to Sainsburys.

I’m not opposed to hunting or sport shooting, and I even took part in it when I was over there, but as far as I’m concerned, the mass possession of firearms in the USA is not a good thing.

It does unfortunately happen in this country, but it is thankfully very rare. Gun crime is far less of a problem.

tails – Member

Think they have some crap in the constitution thing bout right to bare arms!

It’s been interpreted that way, but was actually intended to allow for a ‘militia’ to defend the local population at time very different to now. ie. a de facto Police/National Guard raised in time of need, not for disgruntled young lads to go on the rampage at a school, cinema, shopping mall etc. if they felt the urge. The modern spin on it is based on a fallacy. The Police and National Guard are now formally organised. The general population need not concern themselves with it.

There appears to be a sort of paranoia about “bad guys with guns” (and, therefore, guns being comfort blankets for some people, whether it would help or not) and a fear of the government removing “freedoms” (at what cost?).

The only winners are the gun industry.

The ‘tradition’ of almost anybody having access to fairly serious weaponry that makes mass murder relatively easy/straight-forward for anybody who wishes to carry it out seems nonsensical to me.

The fairly similar Europeans and Australasians manage to function reasonably well without assault rifles stashed in the car/bedroom or the legally permitted concealed carrying of handguns by large numbers of people on a trip down to Sainsburys.

I’m not opposed to hunting or sport shooting, and I even took part in it when I was over there, but as far as I’m concerned, the mass possession of firearms in the USA is not a good thing.

Currently a Foxeye Fazer with a few handling tweaks. Not flash, but quick enough, good fun to ride, copes with most things and cheap to run.

I love riding motorbikes (chucking them about on mountain roads rather than doing warp speed down straight roads). Ideally, I’d get a KTM 950SM, but in the past year the Fazer has unfortunately had little use, other than some commuting and a trip to the IOM.

Incidentally, I also had a ride up the TT mountain on a Bonneville. It was quite good fun, although I think I’d be fettling the suspension and fitting flatter, wider bars if I owned it.

Don’t need a tool and Fox say last 10 times longer than the old DU ones…

And less concern about the long-term effects of radiation?

As above, it really is extremely easy to remove and replace fox bushings. A special tool really is not needed.

I like this bit:

Especially this bit:

And this bit:

Although I also found the back roads very entertaining too.

Repair things myself.

Melanie Philips has views that differ from mine on many issues.

Cyclists are a fairly small minority in the UK, that’s all there is to it. Other minorities also suffer at the hands of bigots and the ignorant majority, often in a more serious way.

The Daily Mail sells almost 2 million papers daily -Even though that’s not a large portion of the population, that is a lot of ignorant people filled with hate (for whatever the target is that day), fears for their health and fears for their safety from criminals after breakfast.

Only The Sun sells more.

Many, many people around the world apparently also view their “news”/royals/slightly famous people in bikinis website.

Like it or not, their output reaches a lot of people. At least it’s not the Express.

Casting an eye over the front pages of the tabloids in the newsagents does make me question the minds of the general population.

The Aldi ones are surprisingly good. This year’s were thicker than the older ones I have.

Turbo engines can give good low rpm urge. Diesel versions run out of puff quite quickly, a well mapped petrol one will have a broader ‘powerband’.

Diesel fuel consumption will generally be better.

You’ll have to work out the costs for each car and then put a price on how much you value the performance.

Personally, I don’t think 90bhp would be enough for me in a car as heavy as a Golf (-by comparison, for my preferences, a Mondeo TDCI 130/140 gives adequate real-world performance).

Kona TC – Member
Separate workshop/studio,

I thought similar. Having to don oilskins and a sou’wester every time they want to go out to or come back from the workshop would get boring.

Having a covered route from the house to the workshop is far better.

hora – Member

I disagree in the strongest terms.

Are you the type to participate in a wall of silence then when you know your jobs safe pop up and say ‘there were open rumours of abuse’ (but we didn’t say anything).

No, I enjoy the output of their website, Radio 4, 6Music, BBC2 and, occasionally, BBC1.
CBeebies (in moderation) is superior to commercial children’s TV.

This does not in any way condone the actions of a phenomenally successful, but very peculiar chap with a penchant for shell suits and cigars.

It would be a shame if witch-hunting tabloid ‘readers’/ITV gawpers were to have a negative effect on the corporation.

mt – Member

the BBC

I disagree in the strongest terms.

Holidays with the parents, navigating with a MAP, preferably on singlelane B roads in Wales or Devon. Particularly with my mum holding the map up and rotating it to match the road (or not).
“Which way?”
“Left.”
“Which left?”
“That one.”
“So right?”
“Oh. Yes.”
<turn>
“No!! THAT left!”
“You said that way, woman!”
“That way’s right!”

Ah, as a keen navigator using nature/luddite, our holidays are still like that.

There’s a certain beauty in a trans-continental drive that ends with negotiating a medieval central European city’s seemingly illogical, terribly sign-posted one way system when the roads are closed for a festival.

Well, retrospectively 😉 My wife loves it, of course.

Rigid board such as Kingspan will be a nightmare especially if the joists are irregular, even more so if there isn’t enough room to cut it whilst under the floor. It will also create a fair amount of wastage in offcuts.

Indeed. That was my thinking.

-Great in a nice cellar with plenty of headroom and perfectly aligned joists.

-Awful in an old house with a 50cm void, a dirt base and a tiny access hatch.

By way of comparison, I enjoyed “Taken” when I saw it and I thought the Bourne films were pretty good.

It’s not supposed to make you leave the cinema pondering the frailties of human existance and the futility of life. It’s a bloke in a suit shooting and shagging.

Yes, the biggest difficulties I had were that it wasn’t filmed in black and white with subtitled Serbo-Croat dialogue.

Each to their own, but I find it difficult to enjoy films that consist of little more than multiple loosely-linked, rapid ‘action’ advertising set-pieces sewn clumsily together with some scenes of ‘serious talk’, hammy acting and re-writing of characters’ history added in order to provide a vague narrative that could barely be described as a ‘plot’. I suspect that Coronation St has more depth.

Films like Skyfall are just clichéd nonsense which require the audiences to do little more than gawp at the action, advertising, CGI and pyrothechnics, suspending any sort of thinking or questioning.

The result is fast-moving, vacuous, loud, violent, cinematic wallpaper that actually manages to be quite boring in the sense that it is almost entirely mentally un-stimulating.

ps. How many people watching even considered for one moment that Bond was dead after having a brutal fight on the roof of a moving train before taking a bullet and falling a great distance into a fast moving river in the opening sequence? It hardly built much in the way of tension.

pps. Did anybody care about what happened to ‘M’?