Are the USA morally superior to the UK?

Soldato
Joined
8 Jan 2010
Posts
3,379
Location
Bedford/Stavanger
If other citizens or the government don't have that fear of lethal violence, they are free to infringe on your property rights as they see fit. Criminals can break in to your house without fear of getting shot, and the government can steal your labour and property without the fear of armed insurrection.

Right, and it's because that works so well that the US has one of the lowest rates of burglary, mugging, assault, homicide, etc in the world. Oh... wait...

Lolkwerk
 
Soldato
Joined
30 Jan 2007
Posts
15,428
Location
PA, USA (Orig UK)
LoL
How are they having the wool pulled over their eyes. They aren't at all.
Yes they are "cheap" houses to construct. Final price depends on many things like locatin, size, finishing standards, mark ups etc.


Show me these massive fans used is SIPs buildings, oh wait they aren't.
And yes we have SIPs construction in uk.

Like I said. You are basically saying it's OK to accept something that isn't what you thought it was. You outright said that I shouldn't expect to get what I pay for.

Best I'll have to take my father-in-law as a liar then, given he looked round a lot of these houses when they were being built, and is friends with the people that moved into them. Once again, obviously you know better than me telling it as it is. However.. it should be noted that even within the first year, even these ultra expensive houses were starting to show rust through the finish of the exterior. This is just another example.

The houses are in an expensive area. Down the road are are the three million dollar houses. Generally speaking they have slightly more land and better road access. But I do take your point of finish, area etc.
 
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Joined
11 Mar 2004
Posts
76,634
Where did I say that? Oh wait again I didn't.
I told you to expect what you pay for. If you can't look at the plans and find out how the house is constructed, you shouldn't be in a postion to buy one.

There is no pulling the wool over anyone's eyes, there is no deception.

Funny how this thread is the top in google search for toxic fumes fans building construction.
Leather the builder was dodgy, it wasn't the wood, but some floor finishing or something else.

SIPs is used in many countries, no fans are required, end off there really isn't anything to debate on that front.
 
Wise Guy
Soldato
Joined
23 May 2009
Posts
5,748
I've never heard of "toxic fume fans". Houses are built out of pure lumber, either 2x4 or 2x6. Then they have panel sheathing, usually OSB or plywood but sometimes rigid insulating foamboard, or a combination of both (like SIPS). Then there is a goretex like weather barrier and then possibly a rainscreen and then stone/brick veneer or pure wood (like cedar) or composite wood or fiber cement cladding. All of the materials are regulated and tested by the EPA for air quality. You will get far more fumes off a new CARPET.

The "glue beams" you're talking about are engineered I-joists and are much more consistent and just as strong as solid lumber, they don't crown or warp like lumber.

They are perfectly fine buildings if built correctly.
 
Wise Guy
Soldato
Joined
23 May 2009
Posts
5,748
wood buildings are actually better than CMU/brick at withstanding earthquakes and stuff as long as the framing is tied together properly because they have a lot of give to them.


 
Associate
Joined
12 Nov 2012
Posts
1,075
Location
Gloucestershire, UK
And they kept it up long after Britain did.

indeed we are looking at 1707 for Great Britain (1830's for the empire), and about 1865 (big old war) for america.

However how can a country claim to be morally superior when they continued slavery and branded themselves land of the free, land of opportunity etc etc ...

Ok Great Britain out lawed the slave trade in 1707, then the rules extended to the empire with the exception of some territories in 1833 but by 1843 it was outlawed everywhere under the sovereignty of Great Britain, America still continued the trade for another 32 years so free ... that if you are black you get free shackles on entry.
 
Wise Guy
Soldato
Joined
23 May 2009
Posts
5,748
Right, and it's because that works so well that the US has one of the lowest rates of burglary, mugging, assault, homicide, etc in the world. Oh... wait...

Lolkwerk

If you look at where the crime actually happens it's all concentrated in big cities where they have strict gun bans like Chicago, DC and NYC. Look at the murder rate of Vermont compared to the UK. It's probably the same if not lower.
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Sep 2008
Posts
3,974
Location
By the sea, West Sussex
In 2011

Vermont had 8 murders for 627,000 population, or 1 murder for 78,375 people.
Chicago had 433 murders for 9,800,000 population, or 1 murder for 22,632 people
NYC had 490 murders for 8,240,000 population, or 1 murder for 16,816 people.
DC had 108 murders for 618,000 population, or 1 murder for 5,722 people.
Can't find the figure for the whole of the US, only that it's 4.2 murders per 100k, with with a population of 314,785,000 that makes about 13,260 murders
US as a whole had 11,493 firearm homicides.

The UK had 226 murders, of which 39 were with firearms, for 63,100,000 population, or 1 murder for 279,203 people.

You are 11x more likely to be murdered in the US than in the UK, and you are 58x more likely to be shot dead in the US than in the UK


*** Before anyone posts and tells me the figures are wrong, they were sourced from the Internet from what appear to be reliable sources.
I can not vouch for how accurate they actually are ***
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
1 Nov 2006
Posts
800
Location
Scotland
Chicago had 433 murders for 9,800,000 population, or 1 murder for 22,632 people
Chicago has strict gun control.

NYC had 490 murders for 8,240,000 population, or 1 murder for 16,816 people.
NYC has strict gun control.

DC had 108 murders for 618,000 population, or 1 murder for 5,722 people.
DC has stricter gun control than the UK!

The only jurisdiction on your list which has "lax" gun control measures (indeed, no State level firearms legislation) is Vermont; and that's the lowest homicide rate in your list!

You are 11x more likely to be murdered in the US than in the UK, and you are 58x more likely to be shot dead in the US than in the UK.
Correlation does not equal causation. Look at Venezuela and Brasil; both nations have strict gun control, yet both countries have BIG problems when it comes to homicide. Conversely, compare 3 European countries: The Netherlands, Sweden and Finland. The Netherlands has a very low rate of gun ownership, with Finland having a very high level (and Sweeden sitting right in the middle) but the homicide rate is pretty much the reverse of that!

http://www.bra.se/download/18.656e3...11_15_homicide_finland_netherlands_sweden.pdf

"There seems not to be any clear correlation between firearm
ownership (at least legal firearm ownership) prevalence and homicide
rates in Europe (Granath 2011; Kivivuori & Lehti 2010). According
to the International Crime Victim Surveys, for example, in
Finland, in spite of the high ownership prevalence and relatively
high violent crime rates, the use of guns in robberies, sexual offences,
or assault crimes is almost non-existent (van Dijk & van
Kesteren & Smit 2007, 284)"

Gun control legislation is a feel-good, vote-buying measure, at best.
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Sep 2008
Posts
3,974
Location
By the sea, West Sussex
It seems the strict gun laws = more murders!

The stats were actually for Kwerk, but yes I should have listed all crime not just the murders:

If you look at where the crime actually happens it's all concentrated in big cities where they have strict gun bans like Chicago, DC and NYC. Look at the murder rate of Vermont compared to the UK. It's probably the same if not lower.

Murder rate in Vermont is actually 3.56x higher :(
 
Permabanned
Joined
26 Jun 2010
Posts
0
Chicago has strict gun control.


NYC has strict gun control.


DC has stricter gun control than the UK!

The only jurisdiction on your list which has "lax" gun control measures (indeed, no State level firearms legislation) is Vermont; and that's the lowest homicide rate in your list!


Correlation does not equal causation. Look at Venezuela and Brasil; both nations have strict gun control, yet both countries have BIG problems when it comes to homicide. Conversely, compare 3 European countries: The Netherlands, Sweden and Finland. The Netherlands has a very low rate of gun ownership, with Finland having a very high level (and Sweeden sitting right in the middle) but the homicide rate is pretty much the reverse of that!

http://www.bra.se/download/18.656e3...11_15_homicide_finland_netherlands_sweden.pdf

"There seems not to be any clear correlation between firearm
ownership (at least legal firearm ownership) prevalence and homicide
rates in Europe (Granath 2011; Kivivuori & Lehti 2010). According
to the International Crime Victim Surveys, for example, in
Finland, in spite of the high ownership prevalence and relatively
high violent crime rates, the use of guns in robberies, sexual offences,
or assault crimes is almost non-existent (van Dijk & van
Kesteren & Smit 2007, 284)"

Gun control legislation is a feel-good, vote-buying measure, at best.

All of which ignores the problem of Firarm availability nationally, gun control only works if it is enforced nationally and is accompianied with traditional low rates of crime in general and where Guns are permitted the strict enforcement and accounting of gun ownership, there is also the issue of education, liepteracy rates, economic factors such as poverty and the obvious violent crime rates themselves and how each crime is assessed and catalogued (illegal gun ownership for example would create a higher guncrime statistic in a State with a firearms ban)...... The United States, Brazil, Venezuela and other examples all have easy access to illegal or unregistered firearms (smuggled or freely available) due partially to the gun controls being reactive rather than proactive...the illegal firearms problems predate the controls bought in to deal with them, they are not generally enforced universally and the prevalence of illegal Guns negates the effects the Gun Controls were supposed to have in the first place. You will probably find that the countries which have lower gun related crime also have far lower incidences of unregistered weapons also...unlike the US and Brazil.

Lax gun controls are no more beneficial than tighter gun controls when you look at the issue of availability of unregistered weapons and it is the nature of the gun controls and where they are targeted that makes the difference, not the existence or non existence of them.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
6 Sep 2008
Posts
3,974
Location
By the sea, West Sussex
Ah yes, the 226 is wrong, it was around 619.
However, that would need to be around 700 to meet Vermonts level.

But that is irrelevant really, as that is like me trying to compare Gravesend in Kent - total murders in the last 2 years.....1, so 0.631 per 100k in 2010 and 0 per 100k in 2011

Crime is higher per head in the US than it is in the UK.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom