What is wrong with the nanny state?

[deb1]

Whatever.

Masetti said that if a CFL breaks in your home, you have to call a hazmat team and pay for it.

I provided evidence that this just isn’t true.

You come in an move the goal post from having to call a hazmat team to doing a few extra steps.

I call you on it.

You complain.

Am I missing something? I don’t think the problem is in what I said, it’s in what Masetti said and your moving the goal posts to make it seem that I’m not being truthful.

Sorry, but that’s not honest.

I think that you are reading waaa…aaay too much into what I wrote. I wasn’t complaining and I am uncertain how I am making you appear untruthful. I certainly don’t think that you were lying in your post.

Although I read what Masetti said, I was responding to your post alone, not his. We are not supposed to derail a thread on this forum but I don’t feel that I have done that.

I apologize if I somehow accidentally offended you.

 

[Catholic90]

As I am reading through this, I just remembered something that happened about a month or so ago in my very own kitchen.

I had purchased a 2 pack of fluorescent curly bulbs to replace the incandescents in my floor lamp. They come packaged in that industrial strength plastic that is impossible to open without a Bowie knife or flamethrower. As I was struggling with it, the top of both bulbs cracked.

I just realized I just threw the package away in the garbage! I never even thought of mercury at the time .

So…2 mercury filled bulbs escaped via the trash in my house sometime over the past 6-8 weeks…

Oh, well…nothing much to do about it now, I guess.

 

[cynic]

Yet when states pass “shall issue” laws, requiring permits to be issued to any citizen with a clean record who applies, murder rates and other violent crimes go down. In fact, there is a positive correlation between “gun control” and violent crime – the states and cities with the most “gun control” have the most violent crime.

Perhaps they have more violent crime anyway and the gun control was in reaction to it.

 

[vz71]

taking notes

No sense of humor allowed on CAF.

Noted and logged.

Not at all.
But if this is really an instance of “sense of humor” then you should be prepared for someone to react to it and not what you intend.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Perhaps they have more violent crime anyway and the gun control was in reaction to it.

If that is true, then gun control made the situation worse. And doing away with gun control made the situation better, now didn’t it?

 

[vern_humphrey]

It seems to me that people who want a nanny state are people who see themselves as needing nannies.

 

[Wolseley]

they can make it more difficult for guns to fall into criminals hands by limiting the ability to own and purchase them.

This is the oldest anti-gun argument in existance, and it is complete, utter balderdash.

Even if you were to restrict anyone from owning a firearm in this country, that wouldn’t stop criminals from obtaining guns. The only thing that would happen is that weapons would start flowing across our non-existant southern border in amounts greater than drugs and illegal aliens combined.

Restricting the ownership of firearms only ensures that responsible, law-abiding citizens will obey the law and not have a weapon. Criminals, on the other hand, don’t care any more about gun laws than they any other kind of law (that’s why they’re criminals, natch), and they’ll go merrily on arming themselves to the teeth, whilst the citizenry sits unarmed and completely subject to the criminal element.

How many handguns bought for self-protection get onsold, make their way into the black market.

You tell me. You’re making the statement, let’s see some corroborative proof to back it up.

 

[Al_Masetti]

This is the oldest anti-gun argument in existance, and it is complete, utter balderdash.

Even if you were to restrict anyone from owning a firearm in this country, that wouldn’t stop criminals from obtaining guns. The only thing that would happen is that weapons would start flowing across our non-existant southern border in amounts greater than drugs and illegal aliens combined.

Restricting the ownership of firearms only ensures that responsible, law-abiding citizens will obey the law and not have a weapon. Criminals, on the other hand, don’t care any more about gun laws than they any other kind of law (that’s why they’re criminals, natch), and they’ll go merrily on arming themselves to the teeth, whilst the citizenry sits unarmed and completely subject to the criminal element.

You tell me. You’re making the statement, let’s see some corroborative proof to back it up.

Me talking: there seems to be a belief that if we ban guns, then nobody will have them.

The problem is that guns are easy to smuggle AND guns are very easy to manufacture.

Making a gun is really easy … I used to live in a place where there was a cottage industry … they made guns with hand tools.

Maybe some folks who don’t have much mechanical ability can’t see how simple a device that a gun actually is.

A few pieces of steel, with some strategic holes drilled in them.

And some gun designs have very few moving parts. An AK-47 has like four parts. Very easy to make and very easy to take apart. Coarse manufacturing tolerances.

Ditto on bullets. Very simple to make.

So if a criminal wants a gun, it’s not a big deal to get one, one way or another.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

As I am reading through this, I just remembered something that happened about a month or so ago in my very own kitchen.

I had purchased a 2 pack of fluorescent curly bulbs to replace the incandescents in my floor lamp. They come packaged in that industrial strength plastic that is impossible to open without a Bowie knife or flamethrower. As I was struggling with it, the top of both bulbs cracked.

I just realized I just threw the package away in the garbage! I never even thought of mercury at the time .

So…2 mercury filled bulbs escaped via the trash in my house sometime over the past 6-8 weeks…

Oh, well…nothing much to do about it now, I guess.

I’m not one for extreme punishments, but I really think the person who invented that style of packaging needs die by slow torture.

 

[cynic]

Even if you were to restrict anyone from owning a firearm in this country, that wouldn’t stop criminals from obtaining guns. The only thing that would happen is that weapons would start flowing across our non-existant southern border in amounts greater than drugs and illegal aliens combined.

Restricting the ownership of firearms only ensures that responsible, law-abiding citizens will obey the law and not have a weapon. Criminals, on the other hand, don’t care any more about gun laws than they any other kind of law (that’s why they’re criminals, natch), and they’ll go merrily on arming themselves to the teeth, whilst the citizenry sits unarmed and completely subject to the criminal element.

.

If you reduce the number of guns in circulation (bought lawfully) you will eventually reduce the availability of guns to criminals. Simple.

 

[LRThunder]

If you reduce the number of guns in circulation (bought lawfully) you will eventually reduce the availability of guns to criminals. Simple.

Nice in theory, but that didn’t apply in Prohibition. Even though manufacturing alcohol was banned, that didn’t stop some from manufacturing it.

And it still would only deprive those who obey the law from having guns, while only making it more difficult but not impossible for criminals.

 

[Wolseley]

If you reduce the number of guns in circulation (bought lawfully) you will eventually reduce the availability of guns to criminals. Simple.

And you believe that?

Fascinating.

You haven’t provided any proof yet…but I’m sure you must have case studies readily available to show how well this interesting hypothesis has succeeded where it’s been tried.

I’ll wait while you look them up.

 

[vz71]

If you reduce the number of guns in circulation (bought lawfully) you will eventually reduce the availability of guns to criminals. Simple.

Someone somewhere will always have a gun.
And that gun will be available to the criminal element.

Eliminating all access to guns by eliminating means to legally purchase a gun is not nearly as simple as you would have us believe. The statement that it is ‘simple’ borders on outright lie.

 

[cynic]

Nice in theory, but that didn’t apply in Prohibition. Even though manufacturing alcohol was banned, that didn’t stop some from manufacturing it.

And it still would only deprive those who obey the law from having guns, while only making it more difficult but not impossible for criminals.

Alcohol is easy to produce. Making your own gun, not so easy, Despite what poster Al Massetti might think, it’s not within the abilities, time and effort required of most crims. I might be mistaken, but currently as long you have a clean record, any potential psycho can walk into a shop and buy an M16, a weapon originally developed by the military, for the military. And you don’t need a 10 day waiting period if you’re buying handgun from a gun fair.

 

[cynic]

And you believe that?

Fascinating.

You haven’t provided any proof yet…but I’m sure you must have case studies readily available to show how well this interesting hypothesis has succeeded where it’s been tried.

I’ll wait while you look them up.

Proof? it’s self-evident ; european countries have far less gun-related crime than the U.S.

 

[Wolseley]

Proof? it’s self-evident ; european countries have far less gun-related crime than the U.S.

Yeah, like Switzerland.

 

[vz71]

Proof? it’s self-evident ; european countries have far less gun-related crime than the U.S.

And they also have a smaller population.

Self-evident is not nearly such as you would have us believe.

You have yet to provide any proof to your assertions.

 

[cynic]

And they also have a smaller population.

Self-evident is not nearly such as you would have us believe.

You have yet to provide any proof to your assertions.

All it took was a quick search in wikipedia.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_crime

% Firearm homicide rate per 100,000 popv

United States: 2.97
England & Wales : .12

% homicides with firearms

United States: 39
England & Wales: 8

and more interestingly…

Overall homicide rate per 100,000 pop

United States: 7.52
England & Wales: 1.57

It’s a similiar story when comparing the U.S to other developed nations.

Of course South Africa and South American countries have by far the worst levels of gun related violence

Unless you’re going to dispute the data, the point is made. Your gun laws make you less safe in the long term.

 

[Al_Masetti]

You have to also look at the way the data are collected. What happens is that in some of these venues often crimes are not counted if it makes the police look bad.

It’s apples and oranges. The data are not directly comparable. Deliberately corrupted data.

There are articles out there describing the differences in data collection and reporting.

Just wanted to alert readers to that fact. Interested folks might want to look around; I’ll dig out and post when I can. But I’ve read them, so I know the articles are there for the finding.

[P.S. We recently found that government reported temperature data that goes into the global warming models is badly corrupted. It was only when volunteer auditors began to look at each data collection point that it was revealed that the temp data reads high 85% of the time, by anywhere from 1 degree to 5 degrees … and since AGW (anthropogenic … man-made …global warming) is only 1 degree per century, then the distorted data is extremely important. Visit www.surfacestations.org for more details.]

All it took was a quick search in wikipedia.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_crime

% Firearm homicide rate per 100,000 popv

United States: 2.97
England & Wales : .12

% homicides with firearms

United States: 39
England & Wales: 8

and more interestingly…

Overall homicide rate per 100,000 pop

United States: 7.52
England & Wales: 1.57

It’s a similiar story when comparing the U.S to other developed nations.

Of course South Africa and South American countries have by far the worst levels of gun related violence

Unless you’re going to dispute the data, the point is made. Your gun laws make you less safe in the long term.

 

[Kaninchen]

It shouldn’t be forgotten that the demand for firearms control in the UK was from the public itself - particularly after the Dunblane school massacre, when the demand was for a ban.

Different cultures.

Europeans know what to do with guns - fight wars, massacre entire populations, things like that - not play with them.