Using a mobile telephone whilst driving
- Thread starter David Morton
- Start date
I agree with you David Morton but in all fairness to David Craig, he never said he was wearing sidearms in London, that is where he got his jammer! He is actually living somewhere else as you suggest he should, and it is possible that he needs that protection! From cell phone users at least!!!
Cheers
But I would like to point out if I may, that even inferring that a relatively minor social infraction, to whit: using a mobile phone in an inappropriate place and acting like a knob, might incur the ultimate sanction of being shot to death, (by husband, wife or both) risks bestowing upon the person(s) of the perpetrator(s) of such heinous "punishment", the supreme title of "Anti-Social Knob of the Year Award" winner. 
Still, as a deterrent I see that it does have some merit, even if a little extreme but surely a written warning should be given first. I mean, you can't just go around shooting people if you think they've done something wrong can you? Or maybe you can........
Something along the lines of "Warning: Using Mobile Phones in this establishment could be hazardous to your Health" or similar.
I dare say restaurant business might plummet dramatically if one answered ones Blackberry and took 4 slugs to the head before one even got to say "hi"....
Yes, most unfortunate.
Still, as a deterrent I see that it does have some merit, even if a little extreme but surely a written warning should be given first. I mean, you can't just go around shooting people if you think they've done something wrong can you? Or maybe you can........
Something along the lines of "Warning: Using Mobile Phones in this establishment could be hazardous to your Health" or similar.
I dare say restaurant business might plummet dramatically if one answered ones Blackberry and took 4 slugs to the head before one even got to say "hi"....
Yes, most unfortunate.
David Morton
Lifetime Supporter
Its the lead item on every news channel here in the UK.
This is just so awful.
James, you are correct - it's no longer approriate.
This is just so awful.
James, you are correct - it's no longer approriate.
Snap. Neither do I.
I'm sure watching the news is the root cause of most of the depression that is prevalent in society to day.
And radiation from the TV screen is what causes all the cancer!:lol: Easy cure for all of societies ill's, get rid of the TV!:dead:Cheers
Last edited:
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
A sad day indeed, maybe just maybe, if guns were banned in the U.S. this would not have happened?
Peter Delaney
GT40s Supporter
It is indeed a sad day.
Back in 1996, we had a similar lunatic take 35 lives in Port Arthur, Tasmania. This madness spurred the State & Fed governments to agree to tighten up the (already strict) gun laws & offer a buy-back scheme in an attempt to reduce the number of guns lying around. Tens of thousands of guns were handed in & melted down, but people who had a good reason for owning firearms were allowed to keep them (farmers, sport shooters, hunters, etc) - if they could prove their need, & can secure their weapons.
The net result of the existing laws, & this later strengthening, was that we we now have fewer guns "on the loose", so there will be fewer shooting fatalities resulting from the "red mist" - spur of the moment "crimes of passion".
However, we all know that none of this will deter the hardened criminal, or the psychopath, from acquiring a gun - where there is a will, there is always a way.
But, if things are left unchecked, we have the "mine is bigger than yours" syndrome :
- if the crim breaks into your house expecting you to have a baseball bat, he might bring a bigger one.
- if he has a reasonable expectation that the average householder has a handgun, he will bring an AK47 or an Uzi
- if he has a reasonable expectation that the average householder has an AK47 or an Uzi, he will bring a grenade launcher
Where does this all stop ?
In countries like the UK & Oz, where there have been quite restrictive rules in place for ages, I can see some potential success for a progressive tightening of these rules, but in the US where there has been a total "hands-off" approach, courtesy of the Constitution's "right to bear arms" clauses (not to mention the NRA), I see little hope of any real inroads being made on gun ownership (there are more guns than people in the US - so I believe).
So, we all will continue to be afflicted by the lunatics & serious crims - no argument. But reducing the guns out there in the hands of the general populace has to have a net positive effect on the overall murder rate ?
(Steps off soap-box for now) !!
Kind Regards,
Peter D.
Back in 1996, we had a similar lunatic take 35 lives in Port Arthur, Tasmania. This madness spurred the State & Fed governments to agree to tighten up the (already strict) gun laws & offer a buy-back scheme in an attempt to reduce the number of guns lying around. Tens of thousands of guns were handed in & melted down, but people who had a good reason for owning firearms were allowed to keep them (farmers, sport shooters, hunters, etc) - if they could prove their need, & can secure their weapons.
The net result of the existing laws, & this later strengthening, was that we we now have fewer guns "on the loose", so there will be fewer shooting fatalities resulting from the "red mist" - spur of the moment "crimes of passion".
However, we all know that none of this will deter the hardened criminal, or the psychopath, from acquiring a gun - where there is a will, there is always a way.
But, if things are left unchecked, we have the "mine is bigger than yours" syndrome :
- if the crim breaks into your house expecting you to have a baseball bat, he might bring a bigger one.
- if he has a reasonable expectation that the average householder has a handgun, he will bring an AK47 or an Uzi
- if he has a reasonable expectation that the average householder has an AK47 or an Uzi, he will bring a grenade launcher
Where does this all stop ?
In countries like the UK & Oz, where there have been quite restrictive rules in place for ages, I can see some potential success for a progressive tightening of these rules, but in the US where there has been a total "hands-off" approach, courtesy of the Constitution's "right to bear arms" clauses (not to mention the NRA), I see little hope of any real inroads being made on gun ownership (there are more guns than people in the US - so I believe).
So, we all will continue to be afflicted by the lunatics & serious crims - no argument. But reducing the guns out there in the hands of the general populace has to have a net positive effect on the overall murder rate ?
(Steps off soap-box for now) !!
Kind Regards,
Peter D.
David Morton
Lifetime Supporter
Didn't Clinton try to change things and fail ?
I don't imagine things will change much even now,though the news here is
commenting this is the sixteenth tragedy like this in the last ten years
just in the USA. Here in the UK we had Michael Ryan killing sixteen in Hungerford and another similar incident in Dunblane. Peter pointed out the tragedy in Tasmania - so it's not an isolated phenomena in the USA.
Is it ever going to stop? How much is triggered by media and crazy films?
The -iatrists and -ologists, (who I believe rank alongside estate agents, car salesmen, and Scaffies[Scottish for refuse disposal operatives] have had their day and really failed in so many ways, so where can 'society' go from here? Does capital punishment have a place in our lives? I think not, but I fully understand the point of view of those that think otherwise. Probably, like everyone else here , I am searching for a reason as to why this has happened again and I can't readily find an answer.
I don't imagine things will change much even now,though the news here is
commenting this is the sixteenth tragedy like this in the last ten years
just in the USA. Here in the UK we had Michael Ryan killing sixteen in Hungerford and another similar incident in Dunblane. Peter pointed out the tragedy in Tasmania - so it's not an isolated phenomena in the USA.
Is it ever going to stop? How much is triggered by media and crazy films?
The -iatrists and -ologists, (who I believe rank alongside estate agents, car salesmen, and Scaffies[Scottish for refuse disposal operatives] have had their day and really failed in so many ways, so where can 'society' go from here? Does capital punishment have a place in our lives? I think not, but I fully understand the point of view of those that think otherwise. Probably, like everyone else here , I am searching for a reason as to why this has happened again and I can't readily find an answer.
Last edited:
Peter D. you made mention of the very restrictive gun laws in the UK and Australia. My understanding in the case of Australia is that there has been no measurable benefit noted from the elimination of guns - is this correct? I believe there have been other studies in the US showing that there are lots of arguable "facts" quoted by both sides of the controversy and that elimination of hand guns is probably not the cure for the problem. If nobody owned any kind of gun Oklahoma still would have happened. As far as "hands off" in the US is concerned you are apparently not aware of the hundreds of restrictions that have been placed on gun ownership in the last few years. Rules and regulations have been in acted by local communitees, states and nationally that govern owning, shipping and selling of guns. Your right there is no easy answer. For what it is worth I might mention here that I own no firearms. I believe that we the people better start instilling a sense of moral values back in our families and give up on having the school,day care and government institutions do it for us! Now I will burn my soap box before I trip and fall!!
Last edited:
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
I agree Keith, I'm also a little confused, I have some very strong views on gun ownership and moral values in society and love a healthy debate.
But particularly given the recent tragic killings I do not wish to step on anyone's toes. Maybe a moderator could chime in and give some guide lines.
Not like you to be uncontroversial Pete!
This post is in The Paddock. The rules are, that there aint no rules!:flameon:Cheers
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Not like you to be uncontroversial Pete!
Cheers
You are right Russ, I dont mind having a dip normally, but given recent tragic events I have the proceed with caution flag flying.
A terrible tragedy, like that at Virginia Tech, won't change the fact that gun ownership in the U.S. is a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to our Constitution. That's VERY unlikely to change.
While I do agree with the Second Amendment, the necessity of having a high powered, semi-automatic rifle (AK47, AR15, etc.) for "big game hunting" or a high capacity semi-automatic pistol for "target practice" or "home defense", escapes me. Not so coincidentally, a very high percentage of gun crimes in the U.S. are committed with these very types of weapons. Targeting these types of weapons for stricter regulation, would eventually have a positive effect, but the money and politics involved, make it seem unlikely to ever happen.
Most pro-gun folks in the U.S. seem to be worried about the potential of letting ANY change in gun control laws come into effect, for fear that ALL guns will eventually be outlawed, down to Grandaddy's old shotgun. The remainder feel that if they can't have semi- autos and the like, how can they possibly defend themselves against the criminals who do. A Catch 22 in both cases.
I fall into a third, unusual category. While I do own quite a few weapons, my aim is sufficient enough, and gun caliber large enough, to take care of any problems with a single shot. ; )
Whatever changes in gun control legislation do occur, if any, crimes like those at Virginia Tech, will never end, because criminals and psychos will always be able to acquire guns illegally. Sad, but true!
Bill
While I do agree with the Second Amendment, the necessity of having a high powered, semi-automatic rifle (AK47, AR15, etc.) for "big game hunting" or a high capacity semi-automatic pistol for "target practice" or "home defense", escapes me. Not so coincidentally, a very high percentage of gun crimes in the U.S. are committed with these very types of weapons. Targeting these types of weapons for stricter regulation, would eventually have a positive effect, but the money and politics involved, make it seem unlikely to ever happen.
Most pro-gun folks in the U.S. seem to be worried about the potential of letting ANY change in gun control laws come into effect, for fear that ALL guns will eventually be outlawed, down to Grandaddy's old shotgun. The remainder feel that if they can't have semi- autos and the like, how can they possibly defend themselves against the criminals who do. A Catch 22 in both cases.
I fall into a third, unusual category. While I do own quite a few weapons, my aim is sufficient enough, and gun caliber large enough, to take care of any problems with a single shot. ; )
Whatever changes in gun control legislation do occur, if any, crimes like those at Virginia Tech, will never end, because criminals and psychos will always be able to acquire guns illegally. Sad, but true!
Bill
Peter Delaney
GT40s Supporter
Hi 40 Bud,
I guess that it is impossible to measure any effect of tightened gun laws - all you have to measure against is some historical info like "last year's murder rate per head of population". Given the absence of a true double-blind test, we'll never really know - the goal-posts change all the time !
But, my gut feel is that if there are fewer guns floating around in the hands of "normally responsible people", there will be fewer fatal crimes of passion, accidental deaths, etc. These individual fatalities generally don't make headlines like the mass killings, but they sure add up over time.
The true lunatics & hardened crims will always find firearms - nothing we can do about that. But if we raise the ante by having the general populace armed, it just ensures that the lunatics & crims will go one better - Uzi's instead of revolvers, etc, & so it escalates, etc ...
Thanks for the update regarding the tightening of gun laws in the US - something that I was unaware of (but believe that it is a "good thing", in spite of the lack of statistics, etc).
Kind Regards,
Peter D.
I guess that it is impossible to measure any effect of tightened gun laws - all you have to measure against is some historical info like "last year's murder rate per head of population". Given the absence of a true double-blind test, we'll never really know - the goal-posts change all the time !
But, my gut feel is that if there are fewer guns floating around in the hands of "normally responsible people", there will be fewer fatal crimes of passion, accidental deaths, etc. These individual fatalities generally don't make headlines like the mass killings, but they sure add up over time.
The true lunatics & hardened crims will always find firearms - nothing we can do about that. But if we raise the ante by having the general populace armed, it just ensures that the lunatics & crims will go one better - Uzi's instead of revolvers, etc, & so it escalates, etc ...
Thanks for the update regarding the tightening of gun laws in the US - something that I was unaware of (but believe that it is a "good thing", in spite of the lack of statistics, etc).
Kind Regards,
Peter D.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
I cannot help myself,:dead: guns do not pull their own triggers people pull them.
Banning guns in Australia eliminated guns from the good guys only. Not one bad guy would have handed his or her gun in. Net result the bad guys feel safer.
Martyn Bryant who killed 35 poor souls in Tasmania was a raving Psycho who should have been locked up in an asylum. But some so called learned person or persons judged he would be O.K. as long as he took his medication. They should be now in jail for criminal negligence.
It is scary to think how many Martyn Bryant's are roaming our society right now, who will be O.K. as long as they take their medication.
Another thought, if one or more of the Professor's or staff in Virginia were armed maybe the perp would have been stopped before he had a chance to kill more than one or two.
Banning guns in Australia eliminated guns from the good guys only. Not one bad guy would have handed his or her gun in. Net result the bad guys feel safer.
Martyn Bryant who killed 35 poor souls in Tasmania was a raving Psycho who should have been locked up in an asylum. But some so called learned person or persons judged he would be O.K. as long as he took his medication. They should be now in jail for criminal negligence.
It is scary to think how many Martyn Bryant's are roaming our society right now, who will be O.K. as long as they take their medication.
Another thought, if one or more of the Professor's or staff in Virginia were armed maybe the perp would have been stopped before he had a chance to kill more than one or two.
