UK:"Unhealthy Foods Should Be Taxed" article

[TylerDurden]

The naivety and shallow thinking you display in your above post is incredible. And, anyway, Liberal thinking like yours has already been criticised as displaying mental illness:-

http://www.wnd.com/2008/11/56494/

For one thing, my stance on gun-rights has been around for many years, long before I went rawpalaeo.  As regards your claim of the government not taking away our rights, that's just deliberate dishonesty on your part. For example, the US and other governments have routinely deprived us of the right to consume raw dairy. In the US, there was a desperate attempt by the State of Florida to deprive people of raw oysters and in France there was an attempt by big corporations to deprive people of the right to consume raw cheeses. Now, those last 2 only failed because people resisted the government. I don't advocate guns so far re this issue, of course, but for use against criminals, guns are a wonderful way to avoid preventing hard-earned money earned by responsible citizens being wasted on worthless criminal elements, most of whom will reoffend anyway regardless of whatever  "help" they might receive in the future.

Your claims re women and dangerous places actually make you out to be not only  wholly hostile to women's rights but thick as pigsh*t. As regards the elderly or women or whoever, it is only reasonable to accept that everyone has the right to go wherever they like, however physically weak they are, as long as they don't commit crime by breaking into other peoples' homes etc.  - to imply otherwise just means that more dangerous areas appear elsewhere because criminals feel freer to murder people etc.

Naturally, there are dangerous areas, but simply by allowing innocent people to arm themselves, those areas can be made a lot safer for the gun-owners and a lot more dangerous for the criminals. Besides, criminals find it easy to arm themselves , whereas ordinary citizens have no recourse.

I only have to look at current cases in the media. One American pointed out that criminals in Florida used to  routinely target any cars which had rental signs on them, but would generally avoid all other cars. The sole reason for this was that rented cars in the relevant areas were usually hired by tourists, and, therefore, the criminals assumed, correctly, that most of the tourists wouldn't have guns, being for so short a time in the US. However, the average American citizen was naturally assumed to be armed, because no sane American would enter those areas without being armed. Fortunately, the companies removed the rental signs, so the criminals are no longer sure  which car-owners are armed or not, so they don't dare target driving cars because they don't like being shot dead. Hmm, there is that wonderful Florida "Stand Your Ground" law, so not all Americans have lost their senses yet.

[Lynnzard]

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?

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.

Try again. I live in a house not close enough to any other houses in my area for any bullet to strike them, off of a private easement nowhere near a road. Do you drive? Because you are seriously in WAY more danger every single day on the road surrounded by people texting, talking on their cell phones, eating, drinking, and functioning on less than 3 hours of sleep. You're exposed to that every single day. I find it very strange that you claim your argument isn't emotion or fear based, and yet all you've brought up are fear arguments. What if something incredibly and highly unlikely happens while you're handling your gun and you accidentally shoot someone who just might be in the wrong place at the wrong time? That's not logic. That's cherry picking and a pretty poor attempt at it.

I wouldn't say that in almost 42 years of life, I have regularly been in any situation that required me to have a handgun. The carjacking attempts were in two separate states separated by several years, both along stretches of road with traffic and not by any stretch of the imagination considered a "bad neighborhood". The mugging/whatever else attempt was on my way to a parking lot after work. You know, that wild and crazily reckless behavior of trying to drive home after earning a living? Yeah, woo, what the hell is wrong with me? What was I thinking? How dare I be a woman walking alone?

The vicious dogs were kept by people who rented near where I live, and the harassing neighbors were also renters. Now, if you'd like to tell me where I can live that I am never, ever in any danger of having mentally unstable or idiotic people renting or buying a house somewhere within about ten miles of mine, by all means speak up. I'd love to live in that idyllic paradise.

Your point about trying to develop programs where people don't turn to criminal behavior in the first place is an attempt to set up a false dichotomy. Either/or. Except it's not an either/or scenario at all. There is nothing that says you can't have programs to try to combat poverty and the conditions that breed some of the more violent crimes AND allow handguns. I personally have done quite a bit of volunteer work throughout the years in programs to help people get a leg up, anything from tutoring kids in group homes who got kicked out by their parents for bad behavior to prison outreach, domestic violence education and awareness, and working crisis hotlines. If this issue is so close to home and dear to you, I'd like to ask what you are doing personally to cut down the need for law abiding citizens like me to protect themselves from the violent people who are currently walking among us even as we have this exchange and who will not magically change their ways the moment the government institutes the most effective, perfect social re-engineering program possible to prevent people from having to protect themselves?

Here's the thing. You already stated with quite a degree of chest pounding that no one is going to change your mind. I don't think anyone here is unclear of your position. I've also stated that you're not going to change my mind, and I've been crystal clear on my position, so why are we still even having this...it's not even a conversation or an exchange of ideas at this point. It's just different ways of stating the same thing. That's what happens when you start a conversation by saying you're not interested in hearing what anyone else has to say about it because your mind is made up.

[sabertooth]

Charlton Heston; From My Cold Dead Hands. Long Version

[cherimoya_kid]

Now see, here's the thing.  I'm OK with people having guns, even handguns, in some cases.  However, it's often the EXACT people who are the biggest gun-lovers who are crazy as heck, and really shouldn't have guns. Anybody ever heard of Eric Robert Rudolph?  He's a perfect example of the type of person I used to see at gun shows. He's crazier than most, but he fits the type perfectly, he's just a more extreme example than most.  And these are the people who are buying guns.

Geoff, you don't need handguns to resist the government.  Handguns are generally useless against cops, anyway.  They're already waiting for you to go for your gun, and are well-prepared and trained for the times when that happens. You could (from a crazy-person point of view) argue that defending your home and land in a pitched and/or ongoing battle against the government would require long guns, but you can't argue the relative usefulness of handguns, in that case. 

It's stupid to compare guns to cars.  I actually NEED a car to do things, like get to work.  I use it on a daily basis.  Who can honestly say they've used a HANDGUN on a daily basis?

I have no problems with someone taking my car.  Go ahead, I can just call the cops and my insurance company, and get another one. As for dealing with dangerous neighbors and dogs, that means it's time to call the cops, animal control, or move. 

To be honest, I doubt any of you have anywhere NEAR the training to be able to draw and accurately fire a handgun in a life-threatening situation. Given that, I'm not sure how smart it is to carry a loaded gun.  If you want to carry one UNloaded, fine, but a loaded gun is not for casual gun owners to carry around like it's a magical protective totem. It ain't.

In point of fact, a handgun is actually a liability in close-quarters combat. An experienced fighter (which many criminals ARE) will take down a casual gun owner fairly easily at close range.  I can link you to the studies, if you like.  The research has been done.

[TylerDurden]

Your choice of Eric Robert Rudolph was a particularly bad one since he was involved in lots of bombings as opposed to lots of shooting. That just illustrates the fact that even when things like bombs and guns are banned that criminals, unlike ordinary citizens, can always get hold of them, no matter what the laws forbid. Point disproven as is the absurd claim that the "typical" person who buys guns  is a terrorist-type, since plenty normal citizens buy guns.

Any type of weapon, even a pair of knuckledusters, forces the cops to go slow and get reinforcements and even legal advice at times, which makes law-enforcement officers think twice before violating peoples' rights. I can also cite the Ruby Ridge and Waco fiascos as examples, where the shoot-to-kill policies of law-enforcement ended up a disaster, PR-wise, for the government, so, these days, they can't just go in and kill everybody just for owning guns.


Pointless analogy. Using a gun does not necessarily mean firing it. Just carrying a gun means you are using it as a potential deterrent. Sure, you may only rarely have to shoot it, as the occasional display of such a weapon is usually enough to warn off attackers, but that's just an increased use of a weapon.

Re stealing cars etc.:- Dealing with neighbours in a legal way usually takes many years of disputes in court, and can lead to major financial losses due to overly expensive lawyers etc. Pointing a gun at a car-robber, thus preventing your car from being stolen, is so much more effective than waiting for the police, then having to wait for ages for the insurance company to finally and grudgingly pay you the sum, then having to waste more time to buy a new car.

With sufficient training, most people avoid accidents. The few accidents that do happen are rarer than car-accidents etc., so nothing to worry about. Heck, I go skiing and have had only one serious accident after 32 years of skiing. I still wish to carry on skiing, despite that.

Very few trained fighters are willing to take the risk of assaulting a person with a gun.There is always the chance that the gun-owner is a trained marksman. Besides, most criminals are not trained fighters.

[Lynnzard]

Now see, here's the thing.  I'm OK with people having guns, even handguns, in some cases.  However, it's often the EXACT people who are the biggest gun-lovers who are crazy as heck, and really shouldn't have guns. Anybody ever heard of Eric Robert Rudolph?  He's a perfect example of the type of person I used to see at gun shows. He's crazier than most, but he fits the type perfectly, he's just a more extreme example than most.  And these are the people who are buying guns.

That is patently untrue. Registered gun owners have far fewer murders per gun owner than the average murder rate in America overall. People who own guns legally are statistically less likely to commit crimes with them than those who obtain them illegally or those who choose other means of murder. A simple Google search will bring up all the numbers you could ever want to see regarding that particular issue.

It's stupid to compare guns to cars.  I actually NEED a car to do things, like get to work.  I use it on a daily basis.  Who can honestly say they've used a HANDGUN on a daily basis?

It's not a stupid comparison at all when your biggest complaint against guns that you have presented is that it means you have to trust someone else to be safe with them. You also have to do that in a car, and you are in far more danger statistically out on the road every single day than you could ever be from registered gun owners. No, you don't need a car. Just as you suggest further below in your post about what a gun owner ought to do not to have a handgun, you can take public transportation, buy a bus or plane ticket for longer trips, and if you don't live somewhere that has good public transport, move somewhere that does. If it's sauce for the goose, it's sauce for the gander. Either you're worried about danger to yourself from others being careless or malicious, or you aren't. If you are, then focusing on guns over cars is kind of like focusing on the jackal in the underbrush when a bull elephant is bearing down on you in full on musth.

I have no problems with someone taking my car.  Go ahead, I can just call the cops and my insurance company, and get another one. As for dealing with dangerous neighbors and dogs, that means it's time to call the cops, animal control, or move.

When the cops are incompetent or anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour away from answering a call because of being spread too thin and in a large county, that isn't a viable option. Neither is calling animal control when they are only open on weekdays from 9-4:30 and the cops refuse to answer dangerous animal calls unless someone has already been mauled. People allow dangerous animals to roam at all hours, not just the convenient hours of animal control. And no matter where you move, unless it's to an isolated tropical island with no chance of anyone living next to you or owning pets, this can be a potential issue of immediacy, not something you have the luxury to wait even 15-20 minutes for. When you DO need a gun, you need it right then. If you've never been in that situation, count yourself lucky in your ignorance of what it's like when it goes down.

To be honest, I doubt any of you have anywhere NEAR the training to be able to draw and accurately fire a handgun in a life-threatening situation. Given that, I'm not sure how smart it is to carry a loaded gun.  If you want to carry one UNloaded, fine, but a loaded gun is not for casual gun owners to carry around like it's a magical protective totem. It ain't.

In point of fact, a handgun is actually a liability in close-quarters combat. An experienced fighter (which many criminals ARE) will take down a casual gun owner fairly easily at close range.  I can link you to the studies, if you like.  The research has been done.

To be honest, you don't know enough about any of us to make such a broad sweeping judgment. Not only have I had extensive firearm training, I keep it fresh by regular use at the range. I put anywhere from 250-300 rounds through my Glock per month with both static and moving drills. I would not be stupid enough to carry any weapon that I couldn't cleanly and quickly draw and fire in full control of myself and my faculties. Carrying an unloaded gun is one of the stupidest things you can do. If you pull a firearm, you had damned well better be prepared to fire it or don't bring it to the fight. You never know what someone else might be carrying. Brandishing is an invitation to a fitting for a body bag.

Against those same combatants you mention in close quarters, I have about zero chance of escape without severe injury or death without a firearm. With my training, I up the odds considerably in my favor. To date, I've never had to test that theory, given they run when they realize they're about to be as useful at holding water as a fishing net.

[cherimoya_kid]

Cars, planes, trains, buses...they all crash.  Granted, cars are the least-safe option of that list, but they crash.

And your points about legal gun owners completely misses the whole point. Bear in mind, I'm only talking about handguns, not long guns. The handgun carriers that worry me are those who either get drunk regularly and have bad tempers and little emotional self-control, or are criminals.  Notice I said carriers, not owners.  People who possess and carry handguns illegally are by far the most dangerous group, statistically. 

And I'm telling you, a gun is a liability in close-quarters combat.  I know you've been bull-shat into believing otherwise, but it's just that, bullshit.  Would you like me to link to some studies on the issue?  There are a number of them.

For that matter, I have been attacked by a pack of wild dogs.  I survived it, too, with no injuries. How?  Decades of martial arts training, and keeping a cool head.  There's almost no way I could have pulled and used a gun successfully in that situation.  Dogs are on you almost before you know what's happening. You're better off carrying a knife or truncheon, or using your bare hands and feet, etc....there's no substitute for good fighting training in a close-quarters fight for your life.  Believe me, I've been there.

[CitrusHigh]

The fact that you think you should have a say at all in others' affairs is what is outrageous.  The only rule we should need is a sound theory of private property rights. If you infringe upon others' person or property, or act in a grossly negligent fashion leading to the same, then you will have to take responsibility for that. Beyond that, it should be up to individuals to self determine.

[TylerDurden]

CK, you lost the argument re legal gun-owners, so now you focus on illegal gun-owners. Like I said before, those who want to own a handgun illegally can do so, regardless of whether the law forbids people from owning handguns or not. It's only the ones who want to own a handgun legally who get screwed if the government bans handguns. Owning rifles is a waste of time in close-combat.

With humans, the mere display of a handgun is usually enough to get rid of criminals. Criminals are cowards, after all. They have to be cowards, as they commit crime often, so that they can't handle the prospect of one or more incidents carrying a strong risk of hospitalisation.

As regards close-quarter combat, like I said, most criminals are not martial-artists and are quite incompetent(heck, some are even druggies with poor reaction-times etc.). What is really needed, of course, is for the government to legalise the ownership of pistols which can stop a person, such as a magnum 44. A tiny pistol like a Beretta is hardly going to be enough.

[Lynnzard]

Cars, planes, trains, buses...they all crash.  Granted, cars are the least-safe option of that list, but they crash.

Er, yes, they sometimes crash. And you drive one all the time. I'm not getting your point in this at all. Are you saying that if you're behind the wheel you think that makes you magically immune to other people hitting you and killing you? Because it doesn't. You haven't addressed the point I raised with you at all. This is pure deflection.

And your points about legal gun owners completely misses the whole point. Bear in mind, I'm only talking about handguns, not long guns. The handgun carriers that worry me are those who either get drunk regularly and have bad tempers and little emotional self-control, or are criminals.  Notice I said carriers, not owners.  People who possess and carry handguns illegally are by far the most dangerous group, statistically. 

And I'm telling you, a gun is a liability in close-quarters combat.  I know you've been bull-shat into believing otherwise, but it's just that, bullshit.  Would you like me to link to some studies on the issue?  There are a number of them.

Now you're shifting the bar. You started out saying that no one should have handguns, and that all people who had handguns were dangerous and liabilities. When we start narrowing those claims down statistically and you didn't have a leg to stand on with the broad, sweeping statement, now you want to focus on illegal gun carriers.  I've got news for you. Banning handguns isn't going to do jack squat to take guns away from criminals. You're living a complete fantasy if you think it will. Look at how successful banning drugs has been to see exactly what I'm talking about.

And I'm telling you that when you have a handgun, you are less likely to BE in close quarter combat, because when they see the gun, most of those little PsOS run. I'm not speaking from "studies". I'm speaking from my own personal experience of saving my hide from violent people three times so far without ever having to get into a fight, and I'm still discounting all of my experiences in uniform just to make this a discussion more in line with what the average citizen faces versus a police officer.

It would be impossible to do a study of this. People don't report crimes that don't happen. There is no way you could possibly round up all the handgun owners and discover how many times they have narrowly avoided violent encounters by being armed. You'd have to rely on polling and anecdote. From anecdote alone, I have several gun carrying friends who have reported the same experiences I've had. I've also known several friends who have been jumped and had the crap beat out of them because they didn't have a good way to defend themselves. If they had a firearm and the training appropriate to using it, who knows how many of these attacks could have been prevented? Studies are useless for this type of information.

For that matter, I have been attacked by a pack of wild dogs.  I survived it, too, with no injuries. How?  Decades of martial arts training, and keeping a cool head.  There's almost no way I could have pulled and used a gun successfully in that situation.  Dogs are on you almost before you know what's happening. You're better off carrying a knife or truncheon, or using your bare hands and feet, etc....there's no substitute for good fighting training in a close-quarters fight for your life.  Believe me, I've been there.

I'm sure not. From everything you've said about guns, I don't think you have much experience in handling them at all, if any. I, on the other hand, and your average citizen, do not have decades of martial arts training or the upper body strength to fight off dangerous dogs. I have kept a cool head and shot dangerous dogs intent on attacking me. Yes, it happened quickly, and yes, I was still able to drop them. Different training, different techniques, same results.

[cherimoya_kid]

I'm sure not. From everything you've said about guns, I don't think you have much experience in handling them at all, if any. I, on the other hand, and your average citizen, do not have decades of martial arts training or the upper body strength to fight off dangerous dogs. I have kept a cool head and shot dangerous dogs intent on attacking me. Yes, it happened quickly, and yes, I was still able to drop them. Different training, different techniques, same results.

Unless you can predict the future, you simply cannot pull your gun from its holster, aim, and fire in the time it takes a dog who is 10 or 15 feet away and running full speed at you to hit you.  You just can't.  No human has that kind of reaction time.  Believe me, I know all about reaction time. Mine is much faster than almost any person's, and I know its limits.

Your reliance on your gun is foolish. As far as martial arts training, I couldn't care less who has it and who doesn't.  However, the difference between you and I is that I'm not going to accidentally drop my fist, and have it shoot a bullet and kill someone accidentally.  You, however, COULD drop your gun, have it fire accidentally, and kill someone.

As far as comparing drug bans to gun bans, PLEASE. Drugs are easy to produce...you can make meth and pot in your basement, and LSD just requires a good chemist.  Cocaine is harder, but a large portion of South America can grow it, and it's hard to really stop production completely.  Guns, however, have to be made in factories.  Factories take months and years to build, are easy to find, and relatively easy to shut down. 

It's not hard to get guns off the streets.  If you pay people to turn in their handguns, the really poor/desperate ones will be happy to turn them in.  The ones who have enough money to live on, and own guns legally, might not turn their guns in....but they are not, generally, the ones out killing people with their guns.

The fact that you're a cop does little to reassure me about your handgun skills.  You were probably trained by someone like that guy who shot himself in the foot, in that video I posted. ROFL

[CitrusHigh]

Lol, you're obviously not familiar with the Filipino black market gun industry. 

[cherimoya_kid]

Lol, you're obviously not familiar with the Filipino black market gun industry. 

It's a lot harder to build, run, and maintain a gun factory than grow a few cannabis plants, or make a small meth lab.  You can put a meth lab in the back of a van.

The fact is, the citizens of this country just don't want a handgun ban.  It won't happen anytime soon, because of that. 

[sabertooth]

Unless you can predict the future, you simply cannot pull your gun from its holster, aim, and fire in the time it takes a dog who is 10 or 15 feet away and running full speed at you to hit you.  You just can't.  No human has that kind of reaction time.  Believe me, I know all about reaction time. Mine is much faster than almost any person's, and I know its limits.

Your reliance on your gun is foolish. As far as martial arts training, I couldn't care less who has it and who doesn't.  However, the difference between you and I is that I'm not going to accidentally drop my fist, and have it shoot a bullet and kill someone accidentally.  You, however, COULD drop your gun, have it fire accidentally, and kill someone.

As far as comparing drug bans to gun bans, PLEASE. Drugs are easy to produce...you can make meth and pot in your basement, and LSD just requires a good chemist.  Cocaine is harder, but a large portion of South America can grow it, and it's hard to really stop production completely.  Guns, however, have to be made in factories.  Factories take months and years to build, are easy to find, and relatively easy to shut down. 

It's not hard to get guns off the streets.  If you pay people to turn in their handguns, the really poor/desperate ones will be happy to turn them in.  The ones who have enough money to live on, and own guns legally, might not turn their guns in....but they are not,

I have done real time reaction training with a martial arts group and it is virtually impossible to drawl a gun from a holster and shoot someone who charges you from less than 15 feet. Then during the struggle its very possible that the gun can be taken and turned on you. That said, its rare that people with a gun in holster showing are randomly attacked in such a fashion. In most attacks there are factors that signal signs of danger that allow one more time to react.

I would love to live in a world where no one had the power to blow someone else away with the pull of the trigger, but the genie is way out of the bottle, and if such a wide scale gun round up was conducted today then the criminal element would have a field day with a completely unarmed population.

There is just no way to conduct such a disarmament operation in America without implementing a total police state. Any serious attempt to do so may lead to revolutionary uprising similar to what had happened when the Brits tried take our guns at the battle of Lexington and Concord.

Believe it or not things are about as good as it gets in America. Enough people are armed that if anyone is crazed enough to commit acts of violence they will be hunted down like dogs and justice will be served. Yes criminals do sometimes get away, but that will occur no matter what the gun laws are.

There is much more to the disarmament issue than what would best keep people safe. The power to bare arms is so connected with the American Spirit and the ideal expression of liberty ; to take that right away from the millions of lawful gun owners could lead to further domestication and emasculation of the population. The people once completely powerless to protect themselves will be more willing to make more concessions of liberty, and then before long we will all be kissing the ass of the queen of England so she doesn't turn off our micro chip implants.

Its the millions of Americans that cling to their guns and the other provisions in the bill of right that is a bulwark against the slow encroachment of tyranny. If one has to risk being confronted with armed thugs on the street rather than live in an emasculated society of ninnys then its a trade off I am willing to make.

Others are free to disagree, but at the end of the day, guns are here to stay.

There are things that can be done(right now) to better protect the population against gun violence(without violating peoples rights.

First of all we need to put an end to such fiascos  like the fast and furious gun running scandal. Factions of our government are moving toward disarming the American citizen while at the same time our shadow government is literally giving guns to violent criminal organisations at taxpayer expense. Our government has been arming terrorist and drug lords in the banana republics for years. They are still arming {terrorist/rebels} in the {middle eastern uprisings/ new world order take overs}.

Its government guns and weapons that need to be controlled above all else. Look at what happened in Vietnam for example. The Vietnamese were a bunch of poor rice farmers who had their country divided by the the two supper powers,  then the population was armed to the teeth by the west and made to kill one another. Iran Contra is another example, and the selling of biological weapons to Iraq. Similar atrocities are still happening today, and represent a much greater risk to the safety of the world than firearms owned by law abiding citizens.



 

[cherimoya_kid]

Like I said before, if you pay people enough to turn in their handguns, then the poor ones will turn in those handguns, even criminals who possess them illegally.  Wealthier people won't, but they aren't the ones out killing people, generally.

The question is, what has more value, the lives of the thousands of people killed by handguns every year in this country, or the freedom to carry a handgun?

[TylerDurden]

CK, your claims are absurd. In the UK, there have been many attempts by the police to grant amnesties so as to allow the criminal element to hand in their guns. These amnesties never worked. I also recall a journalist mentioning how easy it was for him to buy a gun illegally. All he had to do was quietly ask around in a couple of seedy British pubs in London, and quickly set up a meeting with a criminal in one such pub to get hold of a pistol. Incidentally, you don't need a factory to make a gun - it's so much easier to buy one of those replica guns - that is, it is legal in the UK to buy a gun as long as the barrel is sealed with a bit of metal near the opening. Needless to say, all a criminal has to do is get hold of some workshop tools so he can remove that piece of metal, and he has a fully functioning gun.