LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksForgive me, what are the obvious reasons?Originally Posted by TeePee
Forgive me, what are the obvious reasons?
Are you asking me if I am, or trying to tell me what I am?
No, perhaps I'm not... but neither am I desperately in favour of either them, though.
Not sure where you're trying to go with this....
I'm probably more Liberal than you think, but also sick of being screwed over by selfish people taking advantage of liberalism, and feeling the need to punish them for seriously taking the mickey, at this point...
Remind me, which one was this?
Firstly, things still cost money.
Secondly, I understand that civil responsibility includes NOT arming nut-jobs and anyone who might abuse that liberty... which is far easier to enforce before they get guns, rather than after they've got them and shot up a bunch of kids in school.
Or, to put it another way - Go to the parents of a kid that was gunned down in one of America's numerous school shootings and, to their face, tell them that saving their child's life isn't worth the couple hundred bucks admin fee.
Not obvious to me, either.
Guns have serial numbers. Soon I expect they'll have embedded microchips and the like, as well. There must be a car registration database, so why not another for firearms?
Doesn't have to be a complicated affair - More like a credit rating system. You check the firearms licencing database for someone's registration and it either pings back a yes or a no. Doesn't say whether they're mental, a criminal, not even registered, or any other reason for the rejection, just whether or not you can sell to them.
They can then go away and sort out their own record with whichever agency runs it.
Plenty of them are, though and with tighter regulation more would go that route.
Not exactly a bad thing, IMO and you'd get quite the social side on top. Heck, I'm sure the government would find a way to raise some useful cash through such regulations, which would be even better for everyone.
Even so, you don't really *need* that many rounds, do you?
What were the excess deaths before labour took power? I ask because without context, the statement is effectively meaningless. Here's a clue; it was higher. Much higher. And as for the NHS, yes, there were failed initiatives; it is simply impossible to run an organisation of the size and complexity of the NHS without ever getting wrong, but here's the thing; virtually every key measurement standard in healthcare is independently recorded to be higher when the NHS is run by a Labour Government. And for the ill informed, it's easy to scapegoat NHS managers; I should know because I was one for the best part of 10 years. But it's no coincidence that when the Tories culled managers in the NHS, waiting times grew, cancer targets were not met, and there has been a steady decline in performance of the NHS since they came to power. It's easy to dismiss the 'bureaucracy' in society as a waste of money, but it's one of the reasons why if you go into a NHS hospital now, you'll get worse care than 7 years ago, why you ended up eating horse instead of beef in your burger and why the service from the public sector in general (that you pay for BTW) is worse than when Labour were in charge.
If you think I'm a cheerleader for New Labour, you're wrong. I could give you a list 10 times of that above of what I think they did wrong, but it would be churlish of me to imply they did no good either. I mean, I could easily point out that, for example, public debt was was disproportionally higher across Europe as a result of the 2008 crash, or that whilst only 6k council houses were built, over 300k housing association properties were built, encouraged by subsidies provided by New Labour. But what's the point? They done some good, they done some bad. My original post was in response to yours which implied Labour had a history, and ownership, of financial mismanagement whilst in Government. That narrative is false in the context of any recent UK Government.
You clearly don't understand if you are saying it 'backfired'. It could only have backfired if the aim of the sell off was to make a profit for the public purse. It wasn't.
When did I assume you were voting for the 'other' party? I only referred to the Tories because any consideration of Labours time in Government has to be looked at in the context of periods when the Conservatives were in power.
I'm not talking about the decision to sell off Royal Mail, I'm talking about the decision to set the share price low. That cost the taxpayers money, or does that not count because the Tories made that boo boo?
We can't limit rights to the rich. Poor people have the right to protect themselves too. Yes, school shootings happen, it's tragic, and I wish they could be prevented, however, more lives are saved by gun ownership. Just as Terrorism is part of life in a city, school shootings are part of living in a country with the right to protect yourself and family. School shootings are incredibly rare, and do not influence statistics. Again, more people are killed with baseball bats.
Not all guns have serial numbers. I have six or seven that don't and I have a few that I have made that I simply made up serial numbers. There's no obligation to put a number on there when making your own. he idea that the federal government can restrict something you make for your own use is fundamentally wrong.
The idea of that kind of government overreach is terrifying. Every time someone checks my credit, it damages my credit. This is why they need my authorization to do it. You want to make an App available for the public to be able to damage my 'credit' at any time? And, presumably black market actors to register hundreds of 'sales' to me, when they are really selling to felons, etc.
As for magazine restrictions, here's a perfect example:
Officer is shot but returns fire, empties his magazine but is unable to reload. Is still alive today only because the felon who shot him chose to run away from the now defenseless officer on the ground.
I admit I haven't read the thread, but surely not, it would just lead to an escalating arms race with organised crime / mafiosa / high rolling dealers etc arming themselves and their associates.
I would really like to live out my days in a gun free country, if at all possible. I'm all for more armed response units, but the regular force hold a lot of responsibility and social heft (can't think of the right word), I wouldn't want to ever see them armed in the UK. Would prefer the Army got involved in law enforcement when required.
hexus trust : n(baby):n(lover):n(sky)|>P(Name)>>nopes
Be Careful on the Internet! I ran and tackled a drive by mining attack today. It's not designed to do anything than provide fake texts (say!)
Why?
If someone makes a car and wants to drive it on the road they have to register it, get it tested to ensure compliance with mandatory standards, etc. Same for buildings, you can design the most personalised custom dwelling but you still have to get planning permission and have it signed off by Building Control to ensure compliance with safety standards - for the good of both the occupants and general public. Why should that be any different for guns?
Millennium (10-06-2017)
Driving isn't a right.
You don't need a license to exercise free speech. (Yet. Seems the Torys May try to fix that)...
So if I had the technology to build my own Terminator - for peaceful purposes only, mind, I would never build a robot expressly designed for killing other people so that i could kill other people, i'm just afraid of a home invasion here in the cotswolds - the government shouldn't have any right to stop me?
Libertarians genuinely scare me, even more than anarchists.
The bigger discussion there relates to civil rights for AI with that level of intelligence.
Authoritarians should live in fear.
It may be a bigger discussion, but it's also a different discussion. Would you care to elaborate as to what point, if one exists, a government should be able to step in for the safety of other citizens?
Government should step in when a threat to another citizen exists. When a crime is committed and someone can be arrested and charged.
that right there is why gun control is needed. the threat is there, real and proven. Too many high school shootings, etc. It is irresponsible to claim that the government should do nothing to protect its own citizens.
So the answer is never.
There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)
Posting Permissions
