You guys have some very strange laws

[Haggis]

One of my raw spots is the illegality of importing haggis (with a small "h") to the States from the UK since 1971. What we can buy here isn't true haggis, but something supposedly "similar". How on earth can UK haggis be illegal here and a McDonald's be on every street corner? Something about wormy sheep lungs I suppose, but how could wormy sheep lungs be any worse than a Big Mac? We can have Spam, or hotdogs, but no haggis,,, God only knows what is in hotdogs, or Spam!

 

[santaman2000]

thats another thing i find interesting.
the range of laws between different states. as a biker i find it with helmets emmissions and such like too.
i'v always said america is too bloody big to be one country lol...its really hard to get yer head around the true scale of the place. words like big, massive, colossal, they even come close

And we're not even the biggest. Canada, China, and probably others are bigger still.

 

[santaman2000]

One of my raw spots is the illegality of importing haggis (with a small "h") to the States from the UK since 1971. What we can buy here isn't true haggis, but something supposedly "similar". How on earth can UK haggis be illegal here and a McDonald's be on every street corner? Something about wormy sheep lungs I suppose, but how could wormy sheep lungs be any worse than a Big Mac? We can have Spam, or hotdogs, but no haggis,,, God only knows what is in hotdogs, or Spam!

I'd forgotten that one. I was thinking of the raw dairy laws.

 

[sunndog]

And we're not even the biggest. Canada, China, and probably others are bigger still.

in terms of just area north america certainly isnt the biggest country in the world as you say. to me its how much is packed in there...plus you have the massive empty spaces too
add the fact that you've not really been there very long and its a mightily impressive place if you ask me

 

[British Red]

Just elaborating on why I think our gun laws make more sense.

Of course, by the same law, prohibition makes far more sense. Alcohol is involved in the majority of violence in the UK.

Why have we not yet banned it? For the sake of the poor poor children?

 

[GGTBod]

For the sake of the soon to be poor taxman if they did

 

[Toddy]

Of course, by the same law, prohibition makes far more sense. Alcohol is involved in the majority of violence in the UK.

Why have we not yet banned it? For the sake of the poor poor children?

No, it's because anybody with any access to sugar or grain (I know folks who've done it with bird food) can make booze. That one's on a hiding to nothing. USA case in point. It also has a heck of a long provenance...somewhere around 30,000 years is the suspected date we have in the UK.


Guns on t'other hand....relatively new, never universally available, not easily made from common household ingredients, etc., etc.,

M

 

[British Red]

No, it's because anybody with any access to sugar or grain (I know folks who've done it with bird food) can make booze. That one's on a hiding to nothing. USA case in point. It also has a heck of a long provenance...somewhere around 30,000 years is the suspected date we have in the UK.


Guns on t'other hand....relatively new, never universally available, not easily made from common household ingredients, etc., etc.,

M

Anyone with sugar and yeast and a cooker can make spirits. And have done for millenia. Yet its illegal for them to do so. Anyone can harvest magic mushrooms - they grow wild all over this island. Yet its illegal to do so.

We regularly legislate against things that are widely available. so that argument holds no water.

 

[Toddy]

Spirits yes, but we can brew beer, ale, wine, mead.....
The argument does hold. Alcohol does have restrictions, but it's not banned.
Come to think on it, it's the same for firearms.
Mushrooms are illegal to possess; are they illegal to consume ?

M

 

[British Red]

We can currently. But we cannot currently harvest and consume certain wild plants because we have passed laws to prevent it.

Alcohol is the the single most common factor in violent crime. We could choose to ban alcohol (as other countries have done and as we have done with the consumption of other natural products) - that is if we were serious about reducing violence. Why would we not address such a most common factor?

 

[Toddy]

Because precedence shows it won't work; indeed it becomes a major factor in crime. See prohibition in America.

M

 

[British Red]

It also shows that violent criminals will always obtain guns. It further shows that those bent on violent crime will use whatever means are available. The USA has less violent crime per capita than, for example, the UK. There is no causal link between murder rates and gun ownership.

If there is to be logic, then one must use logic universally. Banning knives since they are more used for violent crime than guns. Banning alcohol since its a more common factor than firearms ownership.

 

[santaman2000]

No, it's because anybody with any access to sugar or grain (I know folks who've done it with bird food) can make booze. That one's on a hiding to nothing. USA case in point. It also has a heck of a long provenance...somewhere around 30,000 years is the suspected date we have in the UK.


Guns on t'other hand....relatively new, never universally available, not easily made from common household ingredients, etc., etc.,

M

Anybody with a mediocre ability as a machinist and access to a very small shop (only a bit larger than a 1 car garage) can make fully automatic firearms. Designing the M16 and AK47 took genius. Building them is simplicity itself. With less than $40 worth of raw materials each.

 

[santaman2000]

It also shows that violent criminals will always obtain guns. It further shows that those bent on violent crime will use whatever means are available. The USA has less violent crime per capita than, for example, the UK......

And our violent crime rate concentrated in the areas with the strictest gun control.

The link is between violent crime and gang activity; not guns per se.

 

[Toddy]

Santaman2000, we know that, but most folks wouldn't have a clue where to start ....and I'm speaking as sister to a nine year old brother who had his workshop emptied by the police because he did make a gun

British Red, violent criminals do not 'always' obtain guns. In fact the statistics clearly demonstrate that violent criminals in the UK usually find knives......and banning them is another pain in the neck to deal with. Every household in the land has knives.
The aforementioned brother was accosted by a numpty holding screwdriver, and actually asked the twerp when he demanded, "Gi'e's y'r money!", "Whit's wrang son, diz y'r mammy no' trust ye wi' a breid knife?". Numpty's friends laughed and my brother went on his way.
So, do we ban screwdrivers too ?

Basic function counts it seems.

M


Sorry SM2K, cross posted. I hadn't considered the guns/gangs thing.

 

[mountainm]

It also shows that violent criminals will always obtain guns. It further shows that those bent on violent crime will use whatever means are available. The USA has less violent crime per capita than, for example, the UK. There is no causal link between murder rates and gun ownership.

If there is to be logic, then one must use logic universally. Banning knives since they are more used for violent crime than guns. Banning alcohol since its a more common factor than firearms ownership.

The majority of massacres aren't committed by violent criminals but by the mentally ill. Lax gun laws and poor mental health care in the US combine to create the nightmare scenario we see so often in the news headlines.

Surely any responsible gun user would prefer to see it regulated and controlled so the responsible few can enjoy there sport.

Or put it another way. If you're a good driver, do you want bad drivers on the road or would you prefer regulations designed to filter out most bad drivers?

Let's take it to the other extreme, let anyone own and use explosives, maybe a tank with live ammo, how about a nuke or two?

 

[santaman2000]

Santaman2000, we know that, but most folks wouldn't have a clue where to start ....and I'm speaking as sister to a nine year old brother who had his workshop emptied by the police because he did make a gun .....

Most people wouldn't know where to start? And yet a 9 year old did just that? Sounds contradictory.

At any case, there are certainly thousands of said mediocre machinists willing to do it for the hundreds of thousands of gang members that smell the profitability. Exactly what happened in that prohibition against alcohol in the US that you referenced. And nowhere near enough police to attempt to keep up with it should a ban come about.

 

[British Red]

British Red, violent criminals do not 'always' obtain guns. In fact the statistics clearly demonstrate that violent criminals in the UK usually find knives......and banning them is another pain in the neck to deal with. Every household in the land has knives.

Amazing then that most gun crime is carried out by those not licensed to own guns. You know what they say "when you criminalise gun ownership, only criminals own guns".

Banning knives or at least all public carrying of knives - is far more logical than banning guns - it wont save any lives, but then neither does banning guns.

 

[santaman2000]

.....Surely any responsible gun user would prefer to see it regulated and controlled so the responsible few can enjoy there sport.

Or put it another way. If you're a good driver, do you want bad drivers on the road or would you prefer regulations designed to filter out most bad drivers?

Let's take it to the other extreme, let anyone own and use explosives, maybe a tank with live ammo, how about a nuke or two?

Responsible few? Well over half of the population own guns. Sport? You seem to leave out self defense.

Regulations that filter out bad drivers? Well----the regulations eventually succeed in getting their licenses revoked; but after that theysimply continue to drive without a license. And thus without insurance.

Tanks? They are indeed legal to own (minus the classified electronics) Live ammo for them? Again, legal with the proper permits.

Nukes? Yep, that genie is out of the bag. It's no longer to sole possession of the super powers. Soon enough there will be a home made nuke going off somewhere. In the meantime the bigger threat is the "poor man's mass destruction weapon" Chemical warfare. Anybody who can make insecticide can make it cheaply and easily.

 

[British Red]

The majority of massacres aren't committed by violent criminals but by the mentally ill. Lax gun laws and poor mental health care in the US combine to create the nightmare scenario we see so often in the news headlines.

Surely any responsible gun user would prefer to see it regulated and controlled so the responsible few can enjoy there sport.

Or put it another way. If you're a good driver, do you want bad drivers on the road or would you prefer regulations designed to filter out most bad drivers?

Let's take it to the other extreme, let anyone own and use explosives, maybe a tank with live ammo, how about a nuke or two?

So by the same logic, I assume you are in favour of the regulation, licencing and control of knives? They are, after all, for more prevalent in violent crime. And also, one assumes, as a responsible citizen, in favour of an alcohol consumption licence.