Thread: Here we go folks

now my old muttongun -how does this effect it .If I goes to the doc to get its hood removed ,is me friendly copper gonna demand a short arm inspection. i think it may be under 762mm but due ti my fat guts cant see it to measure??

Originally Posted by kotuku

now my old muttongun -how does this effect it .If I goes to the doc to get its hood removed ,is me friendly copper gonna demand a short arm inspection. i think it may be under 762mm but due ti my fat guts cant see it to measure??

Under 762 means say hello to BUBBA

Originally Posted by Nick-D

How is it bleeding heart shit to actually propose changes that have actual evidence of reducing crime rates? Suppose I should stick to coming up with half cocked fantasy about imprisoning criminals on the moon or somthing.

I get that being mean to bad people gives you the warm fuzzies. It just doesn't work. The whole point of the justice system is to deter people from committing crime in the first place. How long one guy is in jail for said crime is irrelevant. What matters is how many people don't commit the crime for worry of the consequence.

Studies show that the most effective way to reduce this is to increase the chance of getting caught rather than the length of sentence. If you think the sentences are to weak that's fine, it's just a separate issue to preventing crime.

I'm arguing the point that, it is often said on here that harsher sentencing will reduce the occurrence of gun crime, evidence shows it isn't true. Increasing the likelihood of getting caught will. So if your true intent is to deter criminals that's where your money is best spent

From what you are saying I can hazard a guess that you have no even said so much as hello to a Crim .
t
The current system is focused on box ticking and if you parrot their drivel , you get to go past the fence to freedom . What is needed is the stick and then the carrot , if there is no punishment then their is no consequence .

Originally Posted by Tankd

From what you are saying I can hazard a guess that you have no even said so much as hello to a Crim .
t
The current system is focused on box ticking and if you parrot their drivel , you get to go past the fence to freedom . What is needed is the stick and then the carrot , if there is no punishment then their is no consequence .

What's your experience with the justice system?

Sent from my TA-1024 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by 40mm

you calling me a retard? @systolic

Folks get your popcorn ready.

I said only a retard would seriously think that making illegal the fitting a thinner recoil pad, or scraping 0.00002mm off by rubbing on concrete was the intention of this proposal.

And if that's what you seriously think, you are a retard.

Originally Posted by kotuku

now my old muttongun -how does this effect it .If I goes to the doc to get its hood removed ,is me friendly copper gonna demand a short arm inspection. i think it may be under 762mm but due ti my fat guts cant see it to measure??

Already a restricted length maybe...? Go the crusaders

Originally Posted by systolic

I said only a retard would seriously think that making illegal the fitting a thinner recoil pad, or scraping 0.00002mm off by rubbing on concrete was the intention of this proposal.

And if that's what you seriously think, you are a retard.

@systolic you clearly aren't picking up what people are putting down. I do agree with on a small point...the INTENT as you put it isn't to make every rifle with a worn muzzle, pad or otherwise illegal. The fact that they didn't specifically say it doesn't make it open for interpretation and we don't need anti gun coppers with a bad attitude using it to screw us over.
Stop calling people retards just because you don't agree with them. You are allowed an opinion as we all are. There is no need for abuse although you do seem to have a bit of a knack for it. You aren't Australian are you?

Originally Posted by Russian 22.

What's your experience with the justice system?

Sent from my TA-1024 using Tapatalk

I have to work with them on the inside and believe me they are some who just are not worth the time and energy , and the odd one who just did something stupid .

Originally Posted by Tankd

From what you are saying I can hazard a guess that you have no even said so much as hello to a Crim .
t
The current system is focused on box ticking and if you parrot their drivel , you get to go past the fence to freedom . What is needed is the stick and then the carrot , if there is no punishment then their is no consequence .

You know what they say about assumptions....

You miss the point entirely. I'm not arguing about sentencing at all. Just refuting the point that harsher sentencing will meaningfully reduce the occurrence of crime.

At no point did I say we should abolish or reduce sentences. Just that more police resource and a higher probability of getting caught is more effective at preventing crime from happening in the first place. Which is after all the best possible outcome and the entire point of the system.

Everyone can argue their emotionally based opinion till they are blue in the face, but that won't change the facts.

Originally Posted by 7mmwsm

Crims with fifty plus convictions ruin your argument.

How?

The vast majority of crime goes unpunished. That's why preventing people from committing crime in the first place is so important. Can't be a 50 times repeat offender if you don't offend in the first place

Everything I have said is backed by real evidence and studies. So unless you think you know more than the experts and have a comprehensive scientific study. Google it.

bring back public flogging. a massive deterrent to the crim and anyone watching.

Originally Posted by 7mmwsm

So harsher penalties.
Making the crim think "that hurt too much" is actually educating them.

The suggestion is to nip-it-in-the-bud at an early stage. At the moment too much of the minor stuff is ignored, barely dealt with. Increase the likelihood of them being caught and dealt with early and there is a better chance of them not making a career out of it.

Originally Posted by 7mmwsm

So harsher penalties.
Making the crim think "that hurt too much" is actually educating them.

That's what I'm saying man. It seems like common sense. But it just doesnt work that way. For whatever physiological reason increasing the size of the stick doesn't seem to deter criminals in a meanfull way. This is back by shit loads of actual data.


I'm going to bow out of this conversation now, as tbh none of us are law makers, nor criminal physcologists so are all unqualified to comment.

I do however encourage anyone who has a genuine interest in the reduction of crime and improvement of our awesome country, to spend an hour or 2 on Google and look at what some of the studies have shown. Challenge your bias, you might be surprised what you learn

Originally Posted by Nick-D

That's what I'm saying man. It seems like common sense. But it just doesnt work that way. For whatever physiological reason increasing the size of the stick doesn't seem to deter criminals in a meanfull way. This is back by shit loads of actual data.


I'm going to bow out of this conversation now, as tbh none of us are law makers, nor criminal physcologists so are all unqualified to comment.

I do however encourage anyone who has a genuine interest in the reduction of crime and improvement of our awesome country, to spend an hour or 2 on Google and look at what some of the studies have shown. Challenge your bias, you might be surprised what you learn

This is a misconstrued myth. Anyone who votes is effectively a law maker in the Westminster system. We get to vote for policies and to have our input into the laws through our elected members, or to become an elected member if we so desire and our views get backing.

Originally Posted by Nick-D

You know what they say about assumptions....

You miss the point entirely. I'm not arguing about sentencing at all. Just refuting the point that harsher sentencing will meaningfully reduce the occurrence of crime.

At no point did I say we should abolish or reduce sentences. Just that more police resource and a higher probability of getting caught is more effective at preventing crime from happening in the first place. Which is after all the best possible outcome and the entire point of the system.

Everyone can argue their emotionally based opinion till they are blue in the face, but that won't change the facts.

Curious: how has the heavy CCTV approach of the UK reduced crime? Genuine question....