BF2S Forums Ban on samurai swords becomes law

Braddock wrote:

Using the statistics Cam quoted...

Gun homicides per 100,000:

South Africa - 125.97
USA - 7.52
Ireland - 1.33

...it would appear our weapons control measures seem to be working a bit better, ohnoes!

we could bombard you with statistics were just the opposite has happend, not to mention the ultimate in Gun Control Experiments

Nazi Germany

USSR

PRC

You be pressed to top their murder rates . . . . " ohnoes ! "

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Using the statistics Cam quoted...

Gun homicides per 100,000:

South Africa - 125.97
USA - 7.52
Ireland - 1.33

...it would appear our weapons control measures seem to be working a bit better, ohnoes!

we could bombard you with statistics were just the opposite has happend, not to mention the ultimate in Gun Control Experiments

Nazi Germany

USSR

PRC

You be pressed to top their murder rates . . . . " ohnoes ! "

Interesting choice there, During the period 1919-1928 there was a complete ban on civillian gun ownership in Germany. The Nazis failed to take power.

Between 1928 - 1938 these gun laws were relaxed and civilians were able once again to own guns, during this period the Nazis took power.

In 1938, under Nazi rule, rifles and shotguns plus ammunition ownership were completely deregualted. Hunters, Government workers and Nazi party members were exept from all gun laws. In fact, the reforms carried out by the Nazis are amongst the most pro-gun carried out (unless you were a Jew that is). They even relaxed laws on gun registration. Next year they invaded Poland.

Logically it appears from this example that the Nazi's were very much pro-civillian gun ownership. A great example of gun control experiments, the result being - don't relax gun controls.


Or, taking a leaf from the pro-gun groups, "anti-weapon legislation doesn't kill people, people kill people."

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Hmmm I can't tell cause it's different percentages.. But does that mean that gun violence is about the same per USA and Ireland?

I would say it means it's about 4 times as high in the USA actually ...

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Well you'd have to take the Homocide rate and subtract it by the gun homocide rate and you'll see who has more.. Meaning if gun homocide = the same percentage of murders for both countries the gun laws aren't making a differance.

There are three kinds of lies:  lies, damned lies, and statistics.

What you propose would be a statistic, yes, but essentially meaningless.  If used in a serious setting is as good as lying.

SenorToenails wrote:

There are three kinds of lies:  lies, damned lies, and statistics.

I really wish the search was working - I had a thread on just such a view of statistics.  Ah well ...

SenorToenails wrote:

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Well you'd have to take the Homocide rate and subtract it by the gun homocide rate and you'll see who has more.. Meaning if gun homocide = the same percentage of murders for both countries the gun laws aren't making a differance.

There are three kinds of lies:  lies, damned lies, and statistics.

What you propose would be a statistic, yes, but essentially meaningless.  If used in a serious setting is as good as lying.

Well statistics can be used to paint a picture any number of ways but hey, what are you going to do...take someone's word instead!?

B.Schuss wrote:

[...] It is the state's responsibility to draw up legaislation that protects its citizens. That's what elected representatives do. And let's be honest here, most of that legislation is being put into effect, because we know that people have a certain tendency to behave badly, and do cruel things, and therefore need to be protected from each other.

Humans simply cannot be trusted. We give in to impulses, we behave illogically, we let our emotions get the best of us. Usually, the end result is bad.  [...]

I find those two statements interesting when put in the same post. After all, governments consist of humans.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-04-14 11:23:17)

Cool good looking out..

PureFodder wrote:

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

Bdock wrote:

In 1938, under Nazi rule, rifles and shotguns plus ammunition ownership were completely deregualted. Hunters, Government workers and Nazi party members were exept from all gun laws. In fact, the reforms carried out by the Nazis are amongst the most pro-gun carried out (unless you were a Jew that is).

why were the jews excluded ?

Same reason they were excluded from everything else. Notice that the gun owning populace didn't use their guns to save the Jews.

oh I see. lol

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

why were the jews excluded ?

Same reason they were excluded from everything else. Notice that the gun owning populace didn't use their guns to save the Jews.

oh I see. lol

It's kinda like a Call of Duty 4 server that disallows last stand.

lowing wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

beerface702 wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7331099.stm


now what pro anti gun law european's? now what?!?!

Pro-anti gun law European? lol

I don't see a problem with the ban, they are weapons afterall.

So is an axe, shovel, bat, garden hoe, rope, wire, pipe etc............time to start banning based on your theory on the the matter. Geez, what if some holds another's head underwater until they drown? Banning water sure is gunna make life tough. but hey, we gotta do it, since it was used as a weapon

O damn fists are weapons so I guess the UK will fall apart.

Braddock wrote:

doug1988 wrote:

Might as well ban: bats. golf clubs. meat hatchets.knives longer than 3".hunting guns.ugly women j/k. point I'm trying to make is that anyone can kill anyone with just about anything. 

Yeah, but it makes it a bit more difficult to kill each other if you're restricted to things like cricket bats and whatnot instead of samurai swords and M16 assault rifles.

And as for lowings suggestion that we'll soon be banning scissors, bats and water?...ever heard of moderation or common sense? You always have to extrapolate things to the most ridiculous and unrealistic extremes.

I think the point is the benefits vs costs issue. I'm guessing you can't buy nerve gas, nuclear material, a large number of particular chemicals or deadly viruses in the US. It's certainly possible to own all these things and not kill anyone. What dangerous items are legal or not legal is a sliding scale not an absolute everything or nothing situation. Europe is simply slightly towards the protective side of the scale. The UK is no more likely to ban scissors as the US is to decide to allow civillians to purchase fissile material and ebola samples.

The US bans stuff and the UK bans stuff, it's just that there's some slight differences in the list of banned things. It's up to the populace as to what they want banned. If the UK populace give a shit about this law they'll vote for someone who will get rid of it. If the US populace wants to legalise crack or sarin, they'll vote for someone who'll legalise it.