UK:"Unhealthy Foods Should Be Taxed" article

[TylerDurden]

Very dangerous article suggesting that unhealthy foods should be taxed. Note how they even include butter in the list of banned foods - in other words, other foods the mainstream nutritionists view as being unhealthy, such as meats, would be taxed higher, too - even though the evidence against meats only comes from studies solely focusing on cooked meats, and grainfed supermarket meats, at that:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9212498/Unhealthy-foods-should-be-taxed.html

[CitrusHigh]

Yep, this line of thinking is totally toxic! Unhealthy according to whom? A bunch of arrogant, unthinking lab monkeys? 

But this is what your gunless nanny state will get you, same problem over here in canada and the US.

If everyone was armed freely and able to carry freely, the government wouldn't even think about this kind of bullshit, let alone all the taxes they impose.

[cherimoya_kid]

If everyone was armed freely and able to carry freely, the government wouldn't even think about this kind of bullshit, let alone all the taxes they impose.

I think they'd just get bigger guns.

I'm not against long gun ownership, but handguns are just murder weapons.  That's all they are.

[CitrusHigh]

Now you have my terrified, I'm afraid my handgun is going to kill me. Should I call the police,? Please help, I'm scared, it's under the couch, I don't even want to go in the living room!

[cherimoya_kid]

Now you have my terrified, I'm afraid my handgun is going to kill me. Should I call the police,? Please help, I'm scared, it's under the couch, I don't even want to go in the living room!

Very funny.  Have you never heard of someone accidentally shooting themselves while cleaning their gun?  I see it in the news pretty often.

[CitrusHigh]

Well I thought it was!

You're not being very realistic Cheri..

[cherimoya_kid]

Well I thought it was!

You're not being very realistic Cheri..

No, and certainly children playing with guns and accidentally shooting themselves, or each other, never happens EITHER, right?

I used to work at gun shows, and I remember hearing about 8 or 9 years ago about a guy who was showing off and doing tricks at a gun show with a loaded handgun.  He accidentally shot and killed a child, and then he died of a heart attack immediately afterward.

Sad stuff, isn't it? 

Again, I don't think long guns should be banned, but handguns have no legitimate use. 

[CitrusHigh]

Without trying to insult you, at all, you have a truly ridiculous thought process. Better ban cars too, 'cause I've heard they've killed a few people.

I hunt with handguns. They are extremely useful. As are bows, knives, long guns, sling shots, nets, spears and every other weapon/tool out there. What you don't realize is that you're making an arbitrary distinction by the length of the gun because of the way you've been influenced by how our society portrays these tools. Though you have a staggering amount of knowledge in your head Cheri, you have a very. simple. malleable. mind.

[Lynnzard]

My handgun has never killed anyone and it never will. I can't guarantee I won't kill someone with it, but if I do it's because A.) they're in my house and not supposed to be here or B.) attacking me when I'm carrying. Conscientious handling will 100% insure you will never shoot yourself while cleaning your weapon. I grew up around guns. So did all of my cousins, and I'd wager so did most of my friends and their friends. While you do hear of the occasional child shooting himself or someone else, it's rare in proportion to the number of guns in households.

I can personally say that outside of a job situation which I won't count for this, having a handgun has saved me from two carjackings, one attempted mugging/possibly something worse...the guy didn't stick around to tell me what he had in mind for me when he was running away, two vicious dog attack attempts, and one campaign of harassment by ignoramus trash neighbors who didn't realize exactly who they were trying to mess with. I could not have saved myself from any of the above except perhaps the last one with a long gun, and the police around here are less than useless. I wouldn't trust them to help me find a lost dog, much less save me from criminals.

[TylerDurden]

LCO has the right idea. Sure, there will always be a few accidents here and there, but owning guns gives more freedom to the citizens. Just look at our British impotence during those bloody London riots. Those rioters would have been stopped cold if all the shopkeepers had carried guns.  I gather that the Koreans had the sense to arm up after those LA riots, for example.

[CitrusHigh]

Wow you continue to confuse me Ty. I thought you were against citizens having guns?

[TylerDurden]

Wow you continue to confuse me Ty. I thought you were against citizens having guns?

No, in fact I have never once written a post in favour of gun-control, and have always been in favour of owning guns. Perhaps you thought I would be in favour of gun-control simply because I am English?

[CitrusHigh]

haha, while I would almost feel comfortable making that gross generalization about the british and canadians alike (and more and more, americans too sadly), I'm certain we've discussed this many months back, and it was in regards to the british riots and looting. But maybe you were asserting that the looters only shouldn't have guns, or maybe criminals in general shouldn't, but the general population should.

Not sure, but it's a breath of fresh air coming from you.

[cherimoya_kid]

No offense, but there's not a single person on this thread who I would trust with a handgun. Sorry people. My attitude toward the average citizen with a handgun is about the same as my attitude toward the average American and food. Idiots.

I'm not saying there aren't people who I would trust with a handgun. None of you are in that group.

check out this youtube video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zw-jTCNZSmY#

It's a police instructor.  He TRAINS people to USE handguns.

Here's exactly what happens..

"I'm the only one in the room professional enough to use the Glock 40."  BAM! Shoots self in foot.

ROFL

And you people think you somehow have credibility when a trainer can do this?

*facepalm*

Seriously, I want to know where any of you are coming from, that you can convince me.  I'm in my late 30s.  I've had this opinion about guns for at least 20 years. Why would I change it now? Why would any of you think you can argue me out of this?  Do you not see how I cleanly eviscerate the arguments of fools who dare challenge me on nutrition?  My thoughts on personal safety  are pretty much as set in stone and clearly thought-through.

This is not an emotion-based opinion.  Handguns are designed to be hidden. I don't want people with hidden guns near me, particularly ones who either don't have the maturity or the technical skill to safely carry a gun.   

The whole idea that handguns are there to protect you from criminals largely misses the point.  If you raise children in desperate circumstances with no options and education, then they are more likely to become dangerous adults.  Shooting the ones that DO become dangerous is like waiting until cancer cells grow into a bunch of tumors, then having it surgically cut out.  Why not eat a better diet, etc., and likely avoid the cancer in the first place?

[Lynnzard]

If you're against guns, then don't get one. It's that simple. I'm not asking you to trust me or anyone else on or off this forum. I don't trust other people's good intentions, and in my own experiences, owning a gun has prevented me from having several problems without ever causing me a single one. I don't trust most people to drive responsibly, either, but I would never suggest banning cars just because some people text and drive, eat and drive, drink and drive, etc. I'm not trying to change your mind, but be aware you're not going to change mine.

Yes, it would be just lovely to live in a world where poverty doesn't exist and people don't make bad, or stupid, or violent choices for their lives. That's not the world we live in, and until we do, I'm very happy to have my handgun.

[CitrusHigh]

Yeah Cheri, don't think anyone's trying to convince, it's just that a lot of us are in to freedom, and to treat handguns differently and make it so we're not allowed to carry them around or even own them is anti-freedom. We have an innate drive for autonomy, and you just simply can't restrict that without evoking resistance, it's a fool's errand.

And like Lynn said, you can't trust people with driving around in big hunks of metal not to be irresponsible, but you yourself probably drive a car and wouldn't take kindly to being restricted from doing so.

Handguns are not designed to be hidden, they're designed to be more portable. They can more easily be hidden however. And if you know anything about rifle's most have a range between 1 and 7 miles, meaning that by your logic, we shouldn't allow them because it puts everyone in that radius at danger in case of accidental discharge.

Guns are certainly not toys, and they should never, ever be played with flippantly, but I'd say I act less cautious in my operation of a car than I do with a gun, because there's so little room for error with them.

Of course, if you feel like I shouldn't be allowed to have a handgun, you're welcome to come and try to take it from me, and so are the police~!

[TylerDurden]

haha, while I would almost feel comfortable making that gross generalization about the british and canadians alike (and more and more, americans too sadly), I'm certain we've discussed this many months back, and it was in regards to the british riots and looting. But maybe you were asserting that the looters only shouldn't have guns, or maybe criminals in general shouldn't, but the general population should.

Not sure, but it's a breath of fresh air coming from you.

Exactly. I had stated that criminals shouldn't be allowed to have guns, but that ordinary citizens should be allowed to. After all, criminals can get guns anyway through illegal means. I don't see how that makes me pro-gun-control, though, since the main argument of gun-owners is that they need guns against criminals.

[TylerDurden]

There are plenty of people with many options and a great education who commit crimes and plenty of people with no options and no education who commit no crimes at all.  Plus, as was said above, accidents happen in any pursuit, that doesn't give the government a licence to ban everything mildly unsafe. Sadly, this health-and-safety nonsense has gone too far already - to the point where, in the UK, boys are banned from playing with conkers, teachers increasingly dare not take schoolchildren on holiday trips abroad in case one of their pupils dies in a rare accident, and so on....

Hmm, that video reminds me of a darwin awards winner who wanted to play Russian Roulette but foolishly chose to use a semi-automatic pistol.

[cherimoya_kid]

Has anybody ever heard of Cho Seung Hui, the Virginia Tech shooter?  He had a clear history of mental health problems, but he had no trouble buying a handgun at all.

Do people like Cho really need handguns?

For that matter, the man that I am named after accidentally blew off his head with a shotgun when he lost his grip on it and accidentally hit the trigger while grabbing for it.

And Lynnzard, you very much ARE asking me to trust you.  What if you drop your gun while I'm in the house next door, and you accidentally hit the trigger, and the bullet goes through the window and kills me?  Tough titty for me?

[cherimoya_kid]

And Lynn, if you're regularly around people who need to be threatened with guns to make them behave, you might want to rethink something, because THAT'S not normal.

[TylerDurden]

The easiest solution to preventing such school-massacres is to allow every teacher to carry guns. That way, far fewer people would dare to go on a shooting-spree in school/university, and any shooting-spree that did occur would be swiftly dealt with, without the need to wait for hours for a SWAT team. Sadly,  US schools appear to ban guns anywhere on the grounds, which is absurd.

As regards your comment to Lynn, I should point out that handguns are ESPECIALLY necessary for physically weaker people like women. Having a handgun allows a woman to  prevent a mugging or worse, whereas, otherwise, if she were unarmed she would have to wait for ages  for police to arrive far too late, quite aside from the chance of getting raped/murdered/beaten-up/mugged etc.. My experience is that the police don't care about "minor" crimes such as burglary or muggings, and only investigate properly once a criminal has escalated to murder etc. My own anger is with the incompetent UK police who were so keen on protecting the rioters from the vigilantes that they allowed those riots to go on for far longer than necessary. If the UK had allowed guns, we citizens  would have stopped those riots cold.

[CitrusHigh]

Cheri is 'cheri' picking. Please respond to what we've said with a vehicles analogy. Cars are useful for carrying stuff and getting from one point to another efficiently. Guns are useful for protection and hunting. Both carry some inherent risks, to the wielder and to those in the vicinity. Why not ban cars if you think you should ban handguns? And while you're at it, boats, trains, planes and horses. Also houses should be banned because in a storm, sometimes debris is taken and can hit people, or impale them, or crush them. Also bicycles, because some times people run in to joggers while they're on the paths around the lake.

Ladders are dangerous too, people some times accidentally fall off of them, or drop things from them on to other people, like hammers, saws, tools.

I'm calling for a worldwide ban on all transportation, as well as ladders. Oh fishing poles too, because sometimes people hook others or themselves while casting.

Stoves and hot frying pans, because sometimes people spill hot liquids and food on others, or kids knock them down and scald large portions of their bodies, leaving lifelong scars like what happened to my mom when she was little.

If you are against these items, meet me at the capitol in DC and we will work to have them banned. People are getting hurt every day, this CANNOT go on any longer.

[cherimoya_kid]

Fine, here's your vehicles analogy.

Cars are necessary to retrieve food, clothing, and to get to work.

Handguns are necessary for none of that.

And Geoff, if a woman is regularly alone in dangerous situations, that smacks of poor planning.

None of you have addressed my very cogent point that it's better to give people other options, so they aren't driven to criminal behavior to make a living.

It's funny how gun advocates have no long-term plan, other than "we'll just keep shooting them until they stop stealing our stuff!".

That's not a plan.  That's a recipe for a miserable, dangerous world.

[TylerDurden]

Fine, here's your vehicles analogy.

Cars are necessary to retrieve food, clothing, and to get to work.

Handguns are necessary for none of that.

Handguns are necessary to reduce the crime-rate. They also improve self-sufficiency and survival skills. For example, what if one were stranded in the middle of nowhere without GPS/mobile-phone or whatever, and had to hunt deer in order to stay alive?

And Geoff, if a woman is regularly alone in dangerous situations, that smacks of poor planning.

I just cannot believe you said that . I mean, being a Liberal is supposed to mean you are in favour of women's rights, yet it's clear that, like most Liberals, you feel that criminals' rights are so much more important- yet, you are using the exact same arguments that Islamic Fundamentalists use - the latter routinely state that a woman should not ever go outside their home  unless in the company of a man. Perhaps, just like them, you feel that women are encouraging rape unless they are wearing a burkha - in addition your idea is that forbidding women to bear guns would encourage them to try to set up a dialogue with any potential attackers in the vain hope that the attackers won't kill or rape or rob them! Simply put, women have the right to go wherever they damned well please, and alone, if they so choose. And the fact that women are physically weaker makes them especially vulnerable to the criminal element given that most criminals are male and have 2-3 times the upper-body-strength of women. I personally know of a number of female acquaintances who were deliberately targetted - it's women, and especially older women who are often targetted. I have  been mainly burgled or pickpocketted and had only one failed mugging - why, because the worthless druggie scumbag didn't want to carry on once I told him to piss off - attacking an unarmed woman is easy for a man; for a man to attack another man without a knife etc. is a great way for a criminal to end up in hospital, if he goes on mugging them too often.

None of you have addressed my very cogent point that it's better to give people other options, so they aren't driven to criminal behavior to make a living.

People are expected to maintain a certain moral standard. When they fail to maintain that standard and start threatening peoples' lives etc., then it is perfectly understandable to shoot them dead("do as you would be done by"). For one thing, handing out money/resources does not solve most problems. One only has to look at all the money that's been wasted on the 3rd world. That money has either gone into dictators' pockets or created a false culture of dependency. What is needed is for criminals themselves to change their behaviour without need of outside intervention. It's happened in the past, often enough, after all. In the meantime, victims need to defend themselves against those worthless scum - and, anyway, people don't usually turn to crime in order to avoid starving, they turn to crime because they want to become rich without doing any honest work.

[cherimoya_kid]

Dude, you sound like someone who is two steps away from being committed to a mental hospital.

You seem to have based your entire political philosophy on being afraid that the government is going to take away your right to eat unadulterated raw foods, especially animal foods.  Personally,  I doubt that's going to happen.  Most of the raw animal food I eat is seafood, and I don't see sushi restaurants going to an all-cooked menu. 

Yes, if they tried to take away my raw fish, I'd purchase guns and play shoot-the-cop, if it came to that.  I seriously doubt it WILL, though...and until it does, I'm perfectly fine with handgun bans.  Like I said, I have no problem with long guns. 

And your points about women are dumber than a country rock, as they say.  I think you know that, though.  If I were 3.5 feet tall and weighed 50 pounds, I would probably need to take the same precautions re: dangerous places, even if I were a man who was strong for his size. I'd be targeted because of my small size, just like women are targeted for being women, AND for being smaller, usually.  For that matter, elderly people should avoid dangerous places, for the same reason.

Maybe you crave the idea of living in a lawless "might makes right" world.  I don't.  I can, but I have no wish to, if it can be avoided.

It's like this...no matter how thoroughly you've think you've beaten your enemy, he always comes back, in another form, in some cases.  The best philosophy is absorbing, co-opting, and making friends with your enemy.  That applies to all types of conflicts, at every level, including crime and class warfare.