BuzzJack
Entertainment Discussion

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register | Help )

Latest Site News
27 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> The week in the world, because the pace of events is immense it's easy to miss stu
Track this topic - Email this topic - Print this topic - Download this topic - Subscribe to this forum
Popchartfreak
post Feb 28 2018, 09:31 PM
Post #21
BuzzJack Platinum Member
******
Group: Moderator
Posts: 14,945
Member No.: 17,376
Joined: 18-July 12
   No Gallery Pics
 


QUOTE(vidcapper @ Feb 28 2018, 03:26 PM) *
Nobody could object to *unstable* people being denied access to guns, but would you be so keen on the notion that 'no-one should be allowed to drive because drunk drivers kill hundreds of people a year'?

If you object to that analogy, then what about the law of unintended consequences? The Temperance Movements that led to Prohibition were undoubtedly sincere in their belief that banning alcohol would be a good thing, but they could not have predicted that organised crime would make the situation far worse.

IRO banning all guns, there's a very foreseeable possibility that more people will be mugged, burgled, raped or even killed if they no longer have the means to defend themselves.

In short, *all* the consequences have to be considered, not just the headline ones.


1. no there wont be bad consequences we have proof from every country in the world which has banned guns

2. but the NRA DO object to laws against nutters

3. drunk drivers dont intend to kill people. cars have a purpose that isnt to kill, guns purpose is to kill. alcohol is the problem not cars. car drivers have to be licensed and tested, gun owners dont in the usa. whats the problem with checks and limits on guns as there are with driving cars?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Suedehead2
post Feb 28 2018, 10:54 PM
Post #22
BuzzJack Legend
*******
Group: Admin.
Posts: 28,401
Member No.: 3,272
Joined: 13-April 07
   No Gallery Pics
 


QUOTE(vidcapper @ Feb 28 2018, 03:26 PM) *
Nobody could object to *unstable* people being denied access to guns, but would you be so keen on the notion that 'no-one should be allowed to drive because drunk drivers kill hundreds of people a year'?

If you object to that analogy, then what about the law of unintended consequences? The Temperance Movements that led to Prohibition were undoubtedly sincere in their belief that banning alcohol would be a good thing, but they could not have predicted that organised crime would make the situation far worse.

IRO banning all guns, there's a very foreseeable possibility that more people will be mugged, burgled, raped or even killed if they no longer have the means to defend themselves.

In short, *all* the consequences have to be considered, not just the headline ones.

That is the equivalent of the idiots who opposed the introduction of "chip and pin" because it would "only" reduce fraud by 80% (or whatever the figure was) rather than 100%.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vidcapper
post Mar 1 2018, 06:49 AM
Post #23
Paul Hyett
*******
Group: Members
Posts: 24,263
Member No.: 364
Joined: 4-April 06
   No Gallery Pics
 


QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Feb 28 2018, 09:31 PM) *
1. no there wont be bad consequences we have proof from every country in the world which has banned guns

2. but the NRA DO object to laws against nutters

3. drunk drivers dont intend to kill people. cars have a purpose that isnt to kill, guns purpose is to kill. alcohol is the problem not cars. car drivers have to be licensed and tested, gun owners dont in the usa. whats the problem with checks and limits on guns as there are with driving cars?


1. So nutters don't murder people in countries that've banned guns?

2. Have you heard of the cliche 'guns don't kill, people do'?

Seriously though, iro cars, it is people who flout the rules intended to protect drivers, who cause most problems : unlicenced, uninsured, banned ones - pretty much the same people who also ignore gun control legislation in fact...

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Popchartfreak
post Mar 1 2018, 12:59 PM
Post #24
BuzzJack Platinum Member
******
Group: Moderator
Posts: 14,945
Member No.: 17,376
Joined: 18-July 12
   No Gallery Pics
 


QUOTE(vidcapper @ Mar 1 2018, 06:49 AM) *
1. So nutters don't murder people in countries that've banned guns?

2. Have you heard of the cliche 'guns don't kill, people do'?

Seriously though, iro cars, it is people who flout the rules intended to protect drivers, who cause most problems : unlicenced, uninsured, banned ones - pretty much the same people who also ignore gun control legislation in fact...


1. The number of murders in countries with banned guns is minute compared to those that have free access to guns. This is a fact.

2. That is a lie perpetuated by the NRA. Most people murdered by guns are family and friends (so it is NO defense at all). The number of people whose lives have been saved by having a gun is very minor because you have a bullet in your head before you can react. Why do you not think mass murderers have never been stopped by the 100zillion guns owned and carried by many in the USA? facts.

3. The point with cars is - you have to prove you are sane, not blind, not subject to blackouts, recognise safety signs, know the law, apply for a licence, pass a test, and be of an age. Cars are not weapons of mass destruction. There is nothing on the constitution stating that mentally ill 17-year-olds should be able to buy and use assault rifles before they are legally even allowed to drink alcohol. The onyl reason the NRA object to ALL forms of control is they see their wealth and power being attacked and the principle of reasoned amendments frightens them to death because it might lead to more reasonable amendments.

I repeat, they want MORE people to buy guns because it makes them richer and more powerful. NOT to make people safer. All evidence conclusively proves it has the reverse effect.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vidcapper
post Mar 1 2018, 03:18 PM
Post #25
Paul Hyett
*******
Group: Members
Posts: 24,263
Member No.: 364
Joined: 4-April 06
   No Gallery Pics
 


QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Mar 1 2018, 12:59 PM) *
1. The number of murders in countries with banned guns is minute compared to those that have free access to guns. This is a fact.

2. That is a lie perpetuated by the NRA. Most people murdered by guns are family and friends (so it is NO defense at all). The number of people whose lives have been saved by having a gun is very minor because you have a bullet in your head before you can react. Why do you not think mass murderers have never been stopped by the 100zillion guns owned and carried by many in the USA? facts.

3. The point with cars is - you have to prove you are sane, not blind, not subject to blackouts, recognise safety signs, know the law, apply for a licence, pass a test, and be of an age. Cars are not weapons of mass destruction. There is nothing on the constitution stating that mentally ill 17-year-olds should be able to buy and use assault rifles before they are legally even allowed to drink alcohol. The onyl reason the NRA object to ALL forms of control is they see their wealth and power being attacked and the principle of reasoned amendments frightens them to death because it might lead to more reasonable amendments.

I repeat, they want MORE people to buy guns because it makes them richer and more powerful. NOT to make people safer. All evidence conclusively proves it has the reverse effect.


1. I decided to do a bit of Googling - make of it what you will...

https://crimeresearch.org/2014/03/comparing...ross-countries/
http://uk.businessinsider.com/switzerland-...aged-13-to-17-1
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/27/states-with...-stacks-up.html
https://www.safehome.org/resources/gun-laws-and-deaths/

2. The problem is - it is easy to document how many people have been killed, but almost impossible to tell how many people who Might have been killed, but weren't, due to defensive gun use.

3. Most states *do* have background checks before you can buy a gun - but naturally, criminals find ways to circumvent those. Unfortunately there's no reason to think they wouldn't also circumvent any new gun control laws that might be passed.

Now the usual disclaimer : I do not support the mass ownership gun culture of the US
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Popchartfreak
post Mar 1 2018, 08:45 PM
Post #26
BuzzJack Platinum Member
******
Group: Moderator
Posts: 14,945
Member No.: 17,376
Joined: 18-July 12
   No Gallery Pics
 


QUOTE(vidcapper @ Mar 1 2018, 03:18 PM) *
1. I decided to do a bit of Googling - make of it what you will...

https://crimeresearch.org/2014/03/comparing...ross-countries/
http://uk.businessinsider.com/switzerland-...aged-13-to-17-1
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/27/states-with...-stacks-up.html
https://www.safehome.org/resources/gun-laws-and-deaths/

2. The problem is - it is easy to document how many people have been killed, but almost impossible to tell how many people who Might have been killed, but weren't, due to defensive gun use.

3. Most states *do* have background checks before you can buy a gun - but naturally, criminals find ways to circumvent those. Unfortunately there's no reason to think they wouldn't also circumvent any new gun control laws that might be passed.

Now the usual disclaimer : I do not support the mass ownership gun culture of the US


1. I know the stats. You live in a country that doesnt have gun death problems thanks to legislation passed after the murder of children in a school

2. No it's easy to document. To avoid being accused of murder you have to make a case of self-defense. So it's VERY easy to record.

3. Those generally are token gestures like making a statement or waiting a day. Nothing of significance. Criminals gaining access to illegal arms is another matter entirely. That happens in this country - but it is not the huge problem it is in the USA and evryone knows if they get caught with one they going to prison....

PS deciding to avoid making something illegal on the grounds that criminals will still get access is insane logic. There would be no laws for anything using that logic. ie no point convicting anyone of murdering people because they'll just do it whether they end up in jail or they don't. NOTE: it is illegal to murder, yet 10 million people have been murdered in the USA. Therefore jail or the death penalty is not a deterrent. Therefore that means you either give up on having laws or you tackle the root cause: guns.

Not supporting mass gun ownership doesn't mean I see you arguing for controlling it in anyway, just making excuses for not controlling it. So the 2 statements don't sit comfortably together.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vidcapper
post Mar 2 2018, 06:45 AM
Post #27
Paul Hyett
*******
Group: Members
Posts: 24,263
Member No.: 364
Joined: 4-April 06
   No Gallery Pics
 


QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Mar 1 2018, 08:45 PM) *
1. I know the stats. You live in a country that doesnt have gun death problems thanks to legislation passed after the murder of children in a school

2. No it's easy to document. To avoid being accused of murder you have to make a case of self-defense. So it's VERY easy to record.

3. Those generally are token gestures like making a statement or waiting a day. Nothing of significance. Criminals gaining access to illegal arms is another matter entirely. That happens in this country - but it is not the huge problem it is in the USA and evryone knows if they get caught with one they going to prison....

PS deciding to avoid making something illegal on the grounds that criminals will still get access is insane logic. There would be no laws for anything using that logic. ie no point convicting anyone of murdering people because they'll just do it whether they end up in jail or they don't. NOTE: it is illegal to murder, yet 10 million people have been murdered in the USA. Therefore jail or the death penalty is not a deterrent. Therefore that means you either give up on having laws or you tackle the root cause: guns.

Not supporting mass gun ownership doesn't mean I see you arguing for controlling it in anyway, just making excuses for not controlling it. So the 2 statements don't sit comfortably together.


1. We didn't have *that much* of a gun problem even before Dunblane, but then we didn't have a US-style gun culture in the first place.

2. OK, but that doesn't cover every eventuality - what about the deterrent effect?

Which area is a burglar most likely to target

a) An area where the majority of homes contain a gun
b) An area where there are few or no guns

3. If you're implying that gun legislation is mere tokenism, what is the point? OTOH are you suggesting an outright ban across the whole US?

As for my disclaimer - I didn't think I had to be *that* specific, the implication that control was included in my statement should have been obvious. banghead.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vidcapper
post Mar 2 2018, 07:40 AM
Post #28
Paul Hyett
*******
Group: Members
Posts: 24,263
Member No.: 364
Joined: 4-April 06
   No Gallery Pics
 


Some good financial news...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/0...-osborne-right/

Back in black: UK in current budget surplus as IMF says Osborne was right to cut spending
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Popchartfreak
post Mar 2 2018, 10:27 AM
Post #29
BuzzJack Platinum Member
******
Group: Moderator
Posts: 14,945
Member No.: 17,376
Joined: 18-July 12
   No Gallery Pics
 


QUOTE(vidcapper @ Mar 2 2018, 06:45 AM) *
1. We didn't have *that much* of a gun problem even before Dunblane, but then we didn't have a US-style gun culture in the first place.

2. OK, but that doesn't cover every eventuality - what about the deterrent effect?

Which area is a burglar most likely to target

a) An area where the majority of homes contain a gun
b) An area where there are few or no guns

3. If you're implying that gun legislation is mere tokenism, what is the point? OTOH are you suggesting an outright ban across the whole US?

As for my disclaimer - I didn't think I had to be *that* specific, the implication that control was included in my statement should have been obvious. banghead.gif


1. Err IRA/ terrorism/gangland... you have a very poor memory of your childhood. It was never as bad as the USA but then virtually nowhere outside war zones ever has been as bad as the USA. It's only the Good Friday agreement that stopped the violence.

2. There is no deterrent effect. All statistics prove it.

3. Burglars dont know which houses have or havent guns. they wait till you are out when they strike. Not a deterrent. If they are armed too then far more likely to shoot you than vice versa unless you hear them even if you are in. fake sense of security.

4. No I'm implying that your logic taken to it's logical end means there would be no laws on anything. I thought I made that clear. An outright ban is the only solution to the problem, but any legislation is better than no legislation.

5. yet you seem to look for reasons against something you say you support instead of stressing that, yes criminals may likely still get hold of guns, but gun-control is weak and non-existent generally in the USA so anything that can be done to improve the situation is welcome. I just summed up for you what you appear to have been saying.... You're welcome.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Popchartfreak
post Mar 2 2018, 10:37 AM
Post #30
BuzzJack Platinum Member
******
Group: Moderator
Posts: 14,945
Member No.: 17,376
Joined: 18-July 12
   No Gallery Pics
 


QUOTE(vidcapper @ Mar 2 2018, 07:40 AM) *
Some good financial news...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/0...-osborne-right/

Back in black: UK in current budget surplus as IMF says Osborne was right to cut spending


good news unless you have died from austerity cuts or are struggling as a result of 10 years of wage cuts or have nowhere to live or can never afford to buy a house. Great news for rich people who dont pay taxes.

Just a reminder: This was supposed to happen years ago (it didn't). It just means we have finally stopped spending more than we earn, not that the debt has gone away. 10 years. That could easily change post-Brexit when what we earn could plummet and costs go up. If we get the Hard Brexit you want then watch this reverse quickly.

This is reality:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...account_balance

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Suedehead2
post Mar 2 2018, 10:34 PM
Post #31
BuzzJack Legend
*******
Group: Admin.
Posts: 28,401
Member No.: 3,272
Joined: 13-April 07
   No Gallery Pics
 


So, in the match to see which party has raised more than it spent, the Tories have pulled one back against Labour, Even though the Tories have had more possession (i.e. they have been in power for longer), they are still behind in the figure that matters economically.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
5 Silas Frøkner
post Mar 3 2018, 12:51 AM
Post #32
Queen of Soon
********
Group: Moderator
Posts: 66,257
Member No.: 3,474
Joined: 24-May 07
 


There’s a lot of carefully selected quotes and very little detail in that article.

To claim austerity in the UK as a success is delusional at best. The NHS is on its knees, public services are f***ed, the welfare system is literally killing people, homelessness has skyrocketed, income inequality grows daily, the emergency services are at breaking point (Manchester alone is 2,000 officers short of where it needs to be) and as a result people have bought the lies fed to them by the overly right wing media and by the coalition that immigrants were to blame for this falling standard of living and near triple dip recession instead of the ideology of the government.

No conclusion can be effectively drawn from Ireland as it’s very much like Luxembourg in that it’s a bit of a quasi tax haven home to a lot of paper companies and the very low corporation tax makes it attractive to US firms hiding global revenues. Without that, Ireland never would have survived austerity and it’s disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Southern Europe is crippled by this toxic ideology that the IMF were talking down just the other month. So honestly I really wonder if the IMF even knows what year it is, they appear to be rather incompetent
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vidcapper
post Mar 3 2018, 06:32 AM
Post #33
Paul Hyett
*******
Group: Members
Posts: 24,263
Member No.: 364
Joined: 4-April 06
   No Gallery Pics
 


QUOTE(Suedehead2 @ Mar 2 2018, 10:34 PM) *
So, in the match to see which party has raised more than it spent, the Tories have pulled one back against Labour, Even though the Tories have had more possession (i.e. they have been in power for longer), they are still behind in the figure that matters economically.


One point that has been avoided iro the time taken to balance the books, is that to have done so quicker would have meant austerity would have needed to have been even more extreme.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Popchartfreak
post Mar 3 2018, 08:06 AM
Post #34
BuzzJack Platinum Member
******
Group: Moderator
Posts: 14,945
Member No.: 17,376
Joined: 18-July 12
   No Gallery Pics
 


QUOTE(vidcapper @ Mar 3 2018, 06:32 AM) *
One point that has been avoided iro the time taken to balance the books, is that to have done so quicker would have meant austerity would have needed to have been even more extreme.



I dont agree with that scenario - taxes could have been increased, most especially those megarich firms and individuals hiding dosh in British tax havens. Americans are MUCH more clued up on chasing and imposing high jail sentences on dodgers. That would have lessened the impact on the general public and all those promises of sorting it out by 2014 (lies) might have been met. Also, just a point, rescuing bankrupt banks made a huge hit on the public pocket - wiping out the cash we get from banks. They still havent paid it back and the shares bought are worth just a fraction of the cash Gordon Brown paid. Any bank profits should go back to the UK public until it's all paid back. That would help a bit (not much, but at least morally).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vidcapper
post Mar 3 2018, 08:56 AM
Post #35
Paul Hyett
*******
Group: Members
Posts: 24,263
Member No.: 364
Joined: 4-April 06
   No Gallery Pics
 


QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Mar 3 2018, 08:06 AM) *
I dont agree with that scenario - taxes could have been increased, most especially those megarich firms and individuals hiding dosh in British tax havens.


The same ones who bankroll the party who were in charge of tax decisions, you mean? teresa.gif

QUOTE
Americans are MUCH more clued up on chasing and imposing high jail sentences on dodgers. That would have lessened the impact on the general public and all those promises of sorting it out by 2014 (lies) might have been met. Also, just a point, rescuing bankrupt banks made a huge hit on the public pocket - wiping out the cash we get from banks. They still havent paid it back and the shares bought are worth just a fraction of the cash Gordon Brown paid. Any bank profits should go back to the UK public until it's all paid back. That would help a bit (not much, but at least morally).


Interesting term you used there : 'dodgers' - are we talking avoiders (legal), or evaders (Illegal)?

As for bank bailouts - surely the situation would have been a lot worse if millions of ordinary people had lost their saving through bank collapses?

As for the moral aspect - unfortunately politicians don't have any (or if they do, they have several sets that they swap around as needed). no.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
5 Silas Frøkner
post Mar 3 2018, 10:05 AM
Post #36
Queen of Soon
********
Group: Moderator
Posts: 66,257
Member No.: 3,474
Joined: 24-May 07
 


Avoiders are not acting legally. POTAS and DOTAS legislation has pretty much ended tax 'loopholes' these schemes exploited by making it illegal to exploit the loophole and the need for promoters of avoidance schemes to declare them to HMRC including all the details of the benefits and the beneficiaries.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vidcapper
post Mar 3 2018, 10:10 AM
Post #37
Paul Hyett
*******
Group: Members
Posts: 24,263
Member No.: 364
Joined: 4-April 06
   No Gallery Pics
 


QUOTE(5 Silas Frøkner @ Mar 3 2018, 10:05 AM) *
Avoiders are not acting legally. POTAS and DOTAS legislation has pretty much ended tax 'loopholes' these schemes exploited by making it illegal to exploit the loophole and the need for promoters of avoidance schemes to declare them to HMRC including all the details of the benefits and the beneficiaries.


To save anyone else having to look then up : POTAS = Promoters Of Tax Avoidance Schemes, DOTAS = Disclosure Of Tax Avoidance Schemes

Unfortunately, no matter how many schemes you close, other ones always slip through the net. Either that, or the highest rate taxpayers just move elsewhere. sad.gif


This post has been edited by vidcapper: Mar 3 2018, 10:11 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
5 Silas Frøkner
post Mar 3 2018, 10:30 AM
Post #38
Queen of Soon
********
Group: Moderator
Posts: 66,257
Member No.: 3,474
Joined: 24-May 07
 


The whole point of P/DOTAS is that schemes can’t slip through the net because if they aren’t declared they’re illegal and the penalties are f***ing huge.

Higher rate tax payers won’t move elsewhere. This is a complete fallacy of the right wing low tax ideology. If they work in the UK they’re taxed here. Most of the high earners don’t have the job that allows them to do a Lewis Hamilton and flee to Monaco. Although he’s employed by a British firm and works here so arguably is liable for tax in this country anyway. (And I’m still waiting to see him charged with VAT fraud over that jet HMRC)

HMRC needs more staff and rules on tax residency status needs firmed up to ensure that if you want to flee abroad to avoid NI and Income Tax then you cannot be employed by a UK firm, do any work for a UK firm, hold a position on the board of a UK firm, or benefit from things such as the NHS.

Regrettably while the conservatives cling to power there will never be the type of action we need to kill off avoidance or evasion, nor make it an imprisonable offence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Popchartfreak
post Mar 3 2018, 01:29 PM
Post #39
BuzzJack Platinum Member
******
Group: Moderator
Posts: 14,945
Member No.: 17,376
Joined: 18-July 12
   No Gallery Pics
 


QUOTE(vidcapper @ Mar 3 2018, 08:56 AM) *
The same ones who bankroll the party who were in charge of tax decisions, you mean? teresa.gif
Interesting term you used there : 'dodgers' - are we talking avoiders (legal), or evaders (Illegal)?

As for bank bailouts - surely the situation would have been a lot worse if millions of ordinary people had lost their saving through bank collapses?

As for the moral aspect - unfortunately politicians don't have any (or if they do, they have several sets that they swap around as needed). no.gif


1. Yes those ones..

2. both. Morally both are wrong.

3. Yes, it would have been catastrophic had they let the bansk collapse

4. I don't disagree!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Suedehead2
post Mar 3 2018, 02:14 PM
Post #40
BuzzJack Legend
*******
Group: Admin.
Posts: 28,401
Member No.: 3,272
Joined: 13-April 07
   No Gallery Pics
 


There is no way a responsible government could let a major High Street bank collapse. Of course, the Tories will never acknowledge the fact that the bank bail-out was by far the biggest contributor to the deficit, or the role their deregulation of the banks played in the downfall of RBS and HBOS.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post


27 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:


 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th November 2019 - 06:07 AM