Interesting

EWQuinn

But no surprise. From the Washington Post. In the last sentence they forgot to add the adjective "illegal" to "arms dealers" I think.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/getting-a-gun-legally-in-europe-may-be-hard-but-terrorists-have-little-trouble/2015/02/19/9eb6bce2-b78b-11e4-bc30-a4e75503948a_story.html

Nino Brown

Europe has a rarity of gun violence? I would have thought more people have been killed by guns in Europe than on any other continent.

Grizzly 45

Britain is the only county able to stem the tide of illegal weapons......A
load of old BOlliX ..How come then past two expensive gun bans their gun crime rate is now 300%higher than it was before the ban.?
Another fault with this is the EU estimate 60 million illegal firearms out there.But we are really only guessing says an EU official. Same cobblers spouted by in stats her gun policy.or There might be ,possibly ,but we really don't know,but trust us anyway as we are political and agenda free organisations with your best interests at heart.

Brought to you by Bloom berg media. A anti gun billionaire with armed bodygaurds who put more cctv cameras in NYC and wants to tell you what size coke drink you can order in McDonalds.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Britain is the only county able to stem the tide of illegal weapons......A
load of old BOlliX ..How come then past two expensive gun bans their gun crime rate is now 300%higher than it was before the ban.?

Erm, it isn't:



It peaked at 200% the pre-ban level, and then started to fall off because priority was giving to funding policing efforts that went after gun crime, rather than just drafting new laws.

You see exactly the same thing in Australia with their gun ban, by the way. The rate of decline there began before the ban, was unaffected by the ban, and was caused by funded policing efforts that went after gun crime.

wants to tell you what size coke drink you can order in McDonalds.

To be honest, that one made sense. They were trying to ban things like the Double Big Gulp serving (which is 1.8 litres in a single cup) for sugar-sweetened drinks like Coke - but not sugar-free ones like Diet Coke or water. You want to try to drink two adult human stomach volumes of diet coke from one cup, they were fine with that. What they had a problem with was people knocking back half your recommended daily allowance of calories in a form that your body doesn't recognise as food (which means you're still hungry after consuming the equivalent of four slices of hot buttered toast and coffee), thus contributing to the (pardon the pun) massive obesity problem the US is coping with, as well as their type two diabetes epidemic. And they went after the companies selling those ridiculous paddling pools as normal serving sizes, not the people drinking them. (For example, you go to a shop and try to buy one of those stupidly large cups, no problems, that wasn't covered because people generally put more planning into going to the shops than they put into buying a hotdog and coke off a cart on the street - which makes sense because you just bought one of Dibbler's sausages off a cart on the street in New York, which is up there with banging your head off a brick wall in terms of its impact on your health).

Honestly, of all the things Bloomberg did, that one I kindof think was a good idea."Big enough to drown a horse in" shouldn't be a valid serving size for a drink that's basically liquid sugar and caffeine!

Grizzly 45

Well,thing is ,if you want to poision yourself with junk that is your choice and the great thing about the US is freedom to choose to do so or not,plus the fact unlike nationalised health here,you get to pay for your own stupidity in being treated for obesity or lung cancer.Well until Hillary and Obama decide national health that hasnt worked too well anywhere else in the Western world will work brilliantaly in the most top heavy money wasting beuraccy in the world.
Ultimately the point is; where does it stop having someone in power telling you "whats good for you." in your health or what kind of gun you may own?
So long as you are not a burden on your fellow mans liberty,freedom,health or most importantly wallet,you should be free to do as you please with your own body.Want to drink teo gallons of coke ,go right ahead...Want to ride your motor bike without a helmet ,go ahead,want to live off junk food because it is actually cheaper than cooking or buying normal food over there and you are on food stamps that you have traded for beer or going to the lap dancing club[Yes that has actually happened] Feel free to do so. but DONT EXPECT the rest of us to pick up the tab for looking after your comatose cadaver after you split your head open on a lamp post,or are dying from emphemisa or diabities.
Actions have consequences,and this is the problem in modern society its never anyones personal fault,but everyones elses.

Half-cocked

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Actions have consequences,and this is the problem in modern society its never anyones personal fault,but everyones elses.

How very very true.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Well,thing is ,if you want to poision yourself with junk that is your choice and the great thing about the US is freedom to choose to do so or not,plus the fact unlike nationalised health here,you get to pay for your own stupidity in being treated for obesity or lung cancer.

Wow.
Seriously?
Congratulations, you have the freedom to get lung cancer from second-hand smoke, and if you're in the US without health insurance (which half their government have gotten into a toxic fight to prevent the lowest rung in their society from getting), well, tough nuggins sweetheart.
Meanwhile, corporations have the same legal rights as people, and have enormously more resources to pour into shilling their products through fair means or foul (and hey, that's here too - we're about to get sued by Big Tobacco because of plain packaging laws).

Seriously Grizz, riddle me this; if personal choice is so utterly effective, why do plain packaging laws in tobacco sales work?

I'm not a fan of totalitarianism, but until you start requiring a cop-on test before you become an adult, legislation banning companies from going after the more vulnerable people in society is a necessity. Unless you want the country you live in to be a meat grinder, that is.

Well until Hillary and Obama decide national health that hasnt worked too well anywhere else in the Western world will work brilliantaly in the most top heavy money wasting beuraccy in the world.

Oh go jump in a river. And then enjoy the free emergency care treatment you'll get.
Programs like the NHS in the UK are the greatest social advancement in our parents lifetimes and they're perfectly well affordable until some politician tries to make his or her name claiming they're not and cutting funding in the name of this quarter's bottom line.
You'd think a firearms owner in this country would know that tune.

So long as you are not a burden on your fellow mans liberty,freedom,health or most importantly wallet,you should be free to do as you please with your own body.

And who do you think pays for the obesity and diabetes epidemics?
Everyone else does. Whether it's in paying for healthcare directly (which is money lost from the economy because of how HMO pricing works), or indirectly through nationalised healthcare (in which case all our taxes pay for it) or at a remove through the overall effects of widespread ill health (and seriously, look at how bad US health is outside of the top 1% of the population). It's enormously damaging. The whole "give me liberty from healthcare or give me death" routine isn't cutting off your nose to spite your face, it's cutting off your head to spite your little toe.

DONT EXPECT the rest of us to pick up the tab for looking after your comatose cadaver after you split your head open on a lamp post,or are dying from emphemisa or diabities.

Yeah, that's what their Emergency Rooms are for.
And those are publicly funded. Hell, even Mittens Romney referred to them as healthcare for those who couldn't afford it.
So you have an epidemic that affects the poorer people in the country whose education and healthcare is substandard so that they can't dodge the epidemic and it often costs too much for them to be able to dodge anyway, and then everyone pays for their healthcare in the end when it's most expensive and least effective anyway.

Or, you could ban companies from selling unhealthy things in an unhealthy way. Which is what they tried to do. Nobody was banning people from doing anything. They were trying to ban companies from selling something in a particular venue.

Remember Grizz, even if that soda ban had gone through, you were still totally free to drink nearly two litres of liquid sugar in one go if you really wanted to. You just had to buy it in four seperate cups if you were in McDonalds - or go to the local Walmart or 7-11 and buy it in one large cup. As despotic totalitarianism goes, that was a pretty weak measure.

Actions have consequences,and this is the problem in modern society its never anyones personal fault,but everyones elses.

Dude, you just overloaded my irony meter.

Sparks

Also, how the hell did I wind up in the politics forum?

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

Also, how the hell did I wind up in the politics forum?

By getting too wound up about an aside POV?

Sparks

Yeah, think I'm still depressed over Jon Stewart announcing his retirement

Grizzly 45

Read abit of PJ O Rourke or Hunter S Thompson.Cheer you up no end if you want political satire on the US.:D

EWQuinn

Sparks, great bar chart, that's a keeper! Ah yes, Old "16 Oz Cup", he's everybody's favorite nanny dictator-billionaire. Recently he was caught making curious statements at the elitist Aspen Institute, seemingly advocating a focused gun control program on minorities. Maybe nothing bad intended, except that he has worked very hard to keep the statements from going publc. But nobody outside of a very small following and the Propaganda Ministry Media takes him seriously.






[Sorry, but Obamacare is all about control and not care, which is where it went wrong and why it is now failing. That failure is completely NOT the fault of anyone but those that passed it. They got their way 100%. The whole bill is totally of their making, and only they have modified it through various executive orders. THEY have fumbled the ball from the first play in the game with no interference from the opposition.]