Firstly, it's not MY point. I'm not pro-gun and I have no interest in making a pro-gun argument. Nor am I seeking to directly compare guns and cars. My point is simply that we sometimes accept things and policies in our society that will inevitably result in people dying. The primary purpose of that thing or policy is irrelevant. The decision-making process must go roughly like this: Q1. Does X have negative consequences (whether that's deaths or something else)? Q2. Are there benefits associated with X? Q3. Do those benefits outweigh the negative consequences? If X is "widespread use of cars" most people would answer yes to all those questions. If X is "widespread gun ownership" then the answers to questions 2 and 3 become more contentious. I imagine most British people would answer no to question 2 and almost all British people would answer no to question 3. Many Americans believe the answer to those questions is yes. I don't need to agree with them to say this is a valid opinion.
Its a bit of a bad comparison. The seatbelt and airbag are there to save the owner? the person inside the car. Your comparison would only be valid if someone was pointing the gun at themselves. Guns have several safety features to protect the user. In both cases it is the person in control of the gun / car that makes the choice to kill with it and either loads the bullet / accelerator or not. The fact there so few car events after we saw a spate of them a while ago amazes me but also is a good thing. however I would suggest there are more "accidental" deaths caused by cars including people drink driving because while that is vile they did not intend to kill when they made that disgusting decision to drive while over the limit. Most gun deaths are surely intentional! I am on the side of you guys though. It amazes me the US does not move towards gun regulation / eradication but I am not a US citizen nor resident so it is nothing to do with me. I can only make demands of my own country by way of voting! On the subject of words and "consequences of said speech" is a BS concept. That relies on an invisible line that you step over or not. It means that society self polices that line which ends up stifling free speech with that line always being drawn towards "the good guys" yet the "good guys" do not play by these rules. Those that bang on about hope not hate and all the very noble humanitarian efforts (not making fun there I do mean that) are some of the worst offenders out there for vitriol and full on hate. Is there a different "invisible" line for people that hide behind a banner that presents as a "good cause?" or do they get a free pass? Who decides where this invisible line is? Who decides where the step into the unknown that might have consequences is? All of this is not free speech at all. IT stifles speech which is why you have things like hope not hate in the first place. They want to censor of force self censoring as a means to make it appear the mass is on their side and thus push power to move towards their agendas because there is no vocal opposition! All this talk of "aware of the consequences" is just another means of control! No better than a lot of tinpot countries. Do as you're told, keep quiet or you're in trouble.
And whose imprisonment was daft, quite frankly. I’m sure Kirk would have thought some of your views pretty odious, so should you be imprisoned as well? Your logic is very odd here.
Imp I was shocked that Mandelson was brought back into the fold having been fired twice beforehand. I do not think he will be the last person brought down the Epstein scandal. I have to say I am really disappointed by Angela Raynor. She was excellent at getting under the skin of the Conservatives and whilst I agree she was a marmite person , she was someone that people like me could relate to. I am a bit gutted , to be honest. With regards to Farago, I am loving the current interest into his mortgage. I am not sure his case is that different to Angela's but he appears to be made out of Teflon. More will eventually come out in the press but they will eventually bring him down
I think the key difference between guns and cars - and bear in mind the conversation is not about terrorism but road deaths vs gun deaths - that at every point society has found ways to make driving safer, it adopts them. For example, we all need a driving licence. In the US the concept of having gun licence is enough to bring people out in hives.
The problem with guns through a British lens is two-fold. Firstly the vast majority of British people don't understand guns at all. They don't understand how they work, they don't understand the terminology, they don't understand their use. It's literally an alien object to most, other then the absolute bollocks which is presented to them in movies. Secondly most don't understand American culture, and they really don't understand American views of firearms, how important the constitution is to RW Americans, and how the two are literally linked. Telling an American that his gun is being taken from him for his safety is obviously not going to land well
Message to the Mods. Please do not suspend this thread. It is interesting to read the knowledgeable opinions in here . By and large, it is amicable and I do not think there is anything to get excited about despite some of the protestations.
Spot on. I understand the American arguments - I have cousins who live over there and they've explained the American perspective to me several times - but the idea of a gun is so alien to me I just can't really agree with them. Interestingly, I was talking to someone at work today and he told me how he went on holiday to Louisiana a few years ago and a woman in a bar told him she could never live in Britain because she wouldn't feel safe on the streets if she couldn't carry a gun.
Murder may be seen by some as a price worth paying, but I do not condone it at all. I agree with you on the points you make on coverage etc.
This. A better and more succinct version of what I was trying to say. ****ing international breaks making me write essays in this ****ing fred
I would lay money if you looked back on the historical posting of a lot of these righteous people on line saying "Kirk deserved it" their own past would feature a lot of vile posting the other way so would people say they deserved it if the boot was on the other foot? A lot of people seem to think anything goes if "you're on the right side of history" but are oblivious to how their own actions are equally bad because they are convinced they are on the side of good. If that Labour councillor had been found later or next morning or a week later with his throat slit.........would people pass it off as "you reap what you sow! or "he deserved it?" If a politician or political commentariat talked loosely about killing Tories (or throwing acid at Farage)..........if they themselves were attacked/killed in that fashion the next day/week/month would people say "they deserved it?" Of course not. these are words and vile as they may be can never be spun as setting the speaker up for violence against them. Ostracised from society? certainly, but at the end of the day there is never an excuse for murder or assault because of words!
Maybe you read after I edited the original post but I went on to include accidental deaths whether they be purely accidental or by drink driving or other substances. Cars kill a lot more people I would think (not researched it) than guns do. I mean in society not in gangland or warzones.
Talking on behalf of a close friend who is an alcoholic . He used to say if Alcohol was discovered today , it would be a controlled substance . He still says ( and I agree with him ) that there is still a stigma to being an Alcoholic . Someone with cancer gets sympathy . An alcoholic gets f all sympathy or even understanding from anyone except another Alcoholic . well apart from loved ones . My friend now realises Alcoholism IS a disease , so he honestly feels glad that people can go out and enjoy a drink or 10 . Why should they suffer because of the Alcoholics issues ? Good point Libby , thanks for mentioning it . PS , my friend also has Cirrhosis of the liver , so it really is a nasty illness .
Laces I would concur that she was a scapegoat but I wonder what your opinion would have been if protesters had acted on her post and all the inhabitants of a hostel had died in a fire ? She should have had a longer sentence which would have made an example of her. At the moment she is a martyr. If she was left to rot in prison for 10 years people would not be protesting this year and we would not have the odious example of the St George flag being weaponised.
The gun thing feels like a society in a cold war with itself to me. You want a gun because your neighbour has a gun and how are you going to protect yourself from their gun if you don't have a gun yourself? Is that the jist or is it more of a seeing yourself as a hero type thing?
Don't think there's any doubt it'd be a controlled substance if discovered today. Almost certainly class A too. I'm sorry to hear about your friend. Addiction is indeed a very horrible disease which still unfortunately carries a lot stigma. I feel very fortunate that I have no known physical ailments which have directly risen from it, though it clearly hasn't helped some things!
Absolutely, but how often are cars used every day and how often are guns? Oxygen kills all of us eventually, but we need it. On the scale of needed things, where do guns sit? Nobody can use a gun to defend against being shot with a sniper rifle. So what is the point?
