Proposed EU gun legislation

[Cumbrian 1]

After writing to my MEP regarding the proposed EU gun laws I received the following response:
"Good evening,

Thank you for taking the time to contact me concerning the proposal to strengthen the current EU Firearms Directive. The proposal was launched on November 18 and is in line with the declaration by Home Affairs Ministers on 29 August 2015, repeating the call for the revision of the Firearms Directive and for a common approach on the deactivation of firearms.

Labour MEPs have always supported tough firearms laws both at home and abroad and our support will continue as these proposals make their way through the legislative process which is hoped to be concluded swiftly.

On the 7th December the proposal was brought to the Parliament's lead committee on single market issues, the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee (IMCO). The Parliament will now start to review and amend the proposal in January 2016, as soon as the MEP who will be responsible for the report from the Parliament's side, the Rapporteur, is announced.

The key changes to the existing rules in order to improve and toughen the current EU firearms law cover eight keys areas: stricter rules on on-line sales; a ban on certain automatic weapons; the inclusion in the scope of the directive of blank firing weapons which have the potential to be transformed into a firearm; greater restrictions on the use and circulation of deactivated firearms; creation of national registers of deactivated firearms; collectors and brokers will now be brought into the scope of the directive; better traceability of firearms which means an improved marking system and an enhanced information exchange on firearms between Member States.

Under the 2008 Firearms Directive firearms are not required to be on any register once deactivated. Evidence gathered by Commission studies showed this is a serious weakness in the EU legislation in terms of security. In fact, Slovakian media reported in February that the terrorists attacking Charlie Hebdo in January bought their Kalashnikovs legally in Slovakia, where they were sold as decommissioned weapons to be used as film props, but then found an expert in Belgium who was able to reactivate them.

The new proposal will introduce stringent minimum common guidelines regarding the deactivation of firearms and will in turn render reactivation much more difficult. As a consequence, for the most dangerous firearms (category A) stricter rules have been introduced even if they are deactivated. This now means that deactivated firearms from Category A (fully automatic weapons and military weapons) will not be allowed to be owned or traded by private persons (except for museums). A new provision establishes the requirement for record keeping of deactivated firearms in national registries and any transfer (ie change of owner) of deactivated firearms will now also be registered.

For the sake of clarification, I would like to emphasise that hunters will not be affected by the proposed changes. It is true that collectors and brokers will now fall under the scope of the Directive. Collectors have been identified as a possible source of traffic of firearms by the evaluation carried out by the Commission. Therefore, in the new proposal the collectors will still have the possibility to acquire firearms but this will be subject to authorisation/declaration. Since brokers provide services similar to those of dealers, they will also be covered by this Directive.

On all of these areas of improvement Labour MEPs support reform in order to tackle criminality and terrorism across the EU more effectively. I received several e-mails stating that in any case terrorists do not acquire firearms from legal sources and the new proposal is not the right solution. However, perhaps less striking to the public eye, but not less significant not least in quantitative terms are the numbers of people in Europe killed by firearms in the context of gun-related crime or in domestic shootings. It is estimated that between 2000 and 2010, over 10,000 victims of murder or manslaughter were killed by firearms in the 28 EU Member States. Every year, over 4000 suicides by firearm are registered in the EU.

Terrorists aside these numbers are simply not acceptable and are a call for action, and we as Labour MEPs believe the Commission's proposal takes the right approach. The proposal only sets stringent minimum firearms laws for EU Member States and Member States may enforce stricter firearms laws in their home country should they choose to do so.

Kind regards,

Theresa Griffin"

The response is bizarre, she states/wants:

• restrict on line sales but there is no justification as to why
• labour MEPs have always supported unfair/tough gun laws
• wants to restrict semi/automatic weapons but doesn't state why
• rather than having an EU standard for deactivating firearms from the outset she assumes that a firearm deemed deactivated in Albania is done to the same standard as one in the UK the proposals would place extreme restrictions on UK deactivated firearms that are based upon what has happened abroad.
• randomly states that 10,000 people over 10 years out of 400 million + EU citizens, 1,000 people per year (between 2000-2010) are killed by firearms which assumes a link between legally owned firearms and criminal shootings and 400 people per year committed suicide with firearms within that period but fails to state whether those guns were legally held, in my opinion if someone is going to commit suicide they will find a way, the fact that they may have held a legally owned firearm doesn't automatically pose a risk to the public. Also her figures are an estimate but based upon what?

The sooner that we get out of the EU the better, this MEP has no grasp on reality, probably as result of the fact that she has never worked in the real world as no doubt she studied politics at Uni then went straight into politics full time.

[ds1]

The best source for info on the EU gun ban stuff is Firearms United.

 

The proposal is being re-worked by the IMCO and LIBE committees at the moment and I must say MEP Vicky Ford as Chair of the IMCO committee could have done a much worse job so far. The next big meeting is on the 15th March.

[gbal]

Cumbrian,where does the MEP mention semi auto firearms?

Various UK Governments have made all auto and all semi auto Firearms (except 22rf)illegal in UK years ago.

Online sales are not legal in UK-again UK government law

 

What is there to concern the legitimate shooter elsewhere-deactivation needs tightening up surely.

 

Nothing 'random' about the death figures-if the statistics are wrong,where is the data? (your two points though have some merit,but don't really change the case for tightening up as above.

Your assumption that the MEp has never been in the real world is an assumption-there are many differnt real worlds,and little evidence that being longer in any improves much-isn't it just a cheap shot at your MEP,and may have no validity anyhow? ( that's one of the things most good graduates learn-though of course some real worlds are economical with the truth and fair reasoning,but hardly the better for it.)

 

Can't see much as expressed by the MEP that hasn't already been done by UK government,or is not unreasonable,especially as it does not affect shooters-'real world ' shooters,I mean-who don't use blanks.

 

Whether the UK stays in ,or leaves is important,but none of these proposals bears on the decision,unless you really think on line sales or dodgy deactivation is so important that you want the UK govt to do it,as they likely will-the ideas are sensible enough.I don't of course think the proposals will solve all firearms crime,but it may help,and can be done-but it's not an in/out issue,surely?

 

Am I missing something ?

 

GB

[Dalua]

Am I missing something ?

 

GB

That possiblity always exists, I think.

 

For a start, I suspect the reference to semi-auto firearms is inferred from Ms Griffin's mention of 'a ban on certain automatic weapons': in one (or perhaps more) of the many real worlds that exist, the term 'automatic' is synonymous with 'self-loading' or 'semi-auto' - and I suspect that, because truly automatic weapons are not AFAIK in civillian hands anywhere in the EU, Ms Griffin inhabits one such world.

 

The main thing though, if the same thing that Ms Griffin has missed: that a collection of apparently-worthy thoughts (some based on unreferenced hearsay from the Slovakian press, for Heaven's sake) pandering to over-played majority concerns about crimes/deaths which most of the suggested measures are unlikely to affect at all is not an adequate basis for a government to pass more laws restricting even a minority of law-abiding citizens.

[gbal]

Thanks,Dalua-you confirm that the MEP lettter does not mention semi auto rifles.

It is possible,if we make assumtions etc,that 22rf could be included,even by default,but despire othe assumptions about the EU law making process,there isample oportunity to make this point to these "Brussels" proposal drafters,before it is voted on -by two repesentative bodies,one elected by us.

 

I take the general view that when there is seen/assumed to be public concern-terrorist use of illegal weapons on EU citizens seems understandable, politicians see it as their job to do something,and be seen to do something. NO such terrorists is the solution,but that's not going to happen anytime soon. So doing something about guns is considered. I don't know whether the Slovak Kalashnikove issue was cheched out,but if it can be done in Afganistan,I'm sure germanic engineering could do it here.So the deacts issue is sensible. The other issues seem largely administrative,and won't impinge on shooters anyhow. They are not banning,they are wanting records kept and so on.

I take the view that since something has to be seen to be done,and will be done, a check on blanks,and such like,is tolerable. It does not impinge at all on shooters. The UK was deprived of semi auto CFs without any EU involvement,so it's even less of an in/out issue.

Of course I want to see terrorism and crime tackled effectively. Deact apart,these proposals won't do much,but importantly they don't do any harm either to shooters.

IF we are to make any decisions,it seems best to have accurate information,not assumption and extrapolation , barely in touch with these real worlds.

I agree with most of your final points - guns are not responsible for suicides,and so on. When the EU is allowed to get onto terrorism and crime and the big issues,maybe progress will be faster- the EU was already at the last meetings expressing a need to resolve the very real issue of a weakened EU,if UK leaves. That scenario will do a lot more for crime and especially terrorism,and they know it.

But we need much better reasons than registering blank cartridges.

There is nothing in the MEP reply that says we can't have accurate rifles,of the restricted sort that UK law imposed on UK shooters.

Let's have accurate information too.

 

atb

GB

[Simon J]

well said Gbal

[Cumbrian 1]

Cumbrian,where does the MEP mention semi auto firearms?

 

GB

I maybe mistaken but the initial proposal did mention semi auto guns however this may have been omitted, you are correct that we have lost our auto and semi auto cf rifles as a result of home politics. However all restrictions have been a knee jerk reaction to shootings committed here in the UK, however the way I see it is that we don't now need knee jerk restrictions from abroad as well as home.

 

Do you seriously think that had the proposal been in place before the Paris shootings that they would have been avoided?

[Cumbrian 1]

In my opinion restrictions are usually the thin end of the wedge, her statistics are estimates and surely in criminal shootings the guns are acquired from non legal sources,

 

I stand by statement that most MPs/MEPs have a detachment from normal society.

[gbal]

Cumbrian,we seem to agre on the factual basis of the MEP letter. That was my point-it isn't a basis for decisions about EU.

I don't know what might have happened had thebeen similar legislation-if he Kalashnikovs were reactivated,then perhaps they would not have been-no doubt there are other sources,but it can do no harm at all to make inroads into their supply.

Put another way,what is the alternative,that can actally be achieved. And I agree that near 'knee jerk' reactions are seldom the best. Again,what should be done inspecific operationalisable terms?

My view is that almost nothing that restricts law abiding legitimate shooters is of any use in the crime/terrorist fight.But even if it did so restrict us,that does absolutely nothing in itself to reduce crime/terrorism.

Effective reduction of illegal arms would;but that is a much more difficult task-lets hope the EU (etc) are onto it-effective EU co-operation must help that. I'd have hoped 'academic' and 'real world' personnel would reinforce each other,rather than trade pejoratives,most of which are not true anyhow.

Formulating an effective law is a useful exercise for most to try-it's all too easy to end up with somehing rather unsatisfactory,let alone the notorious 'unintended consequences' of amateur attempts.

Though it is hard to produce any strong data,I'd be inclined to think a united (EU/european ) shooter organisation/lobby would be better than disparate and separate national ones,and UK governments have an apalling recent record of gun restriction with little positive to show for it. I doubt if all 28 EU members have equivalents to the UK Gun Control Network level of illogicality on this emotive issue.

 

gb

[Cumbrian 1]

?

My vie would;but that is a much more difficult task-lets hope the EU (etc) are onto it-effective EU co-operation must help that.

gb

Effective EU action! You are having a laugh! Thanks to the EU you can now drive from Eastern Europe to Spain without stopping or producing any ID, our European borders are as water tight as a colander thanks to the EU. We could also analyse why the EU has such a large migrant population which hates the countries that host them but that is another discussion.

[gbal]

Law abiding EU citizens can do that (drive there etc). ID could be introduced. It's a balance-relative freedom for the good citizen,at the risk of baddies having it easier.

Ask therefore if you are prepard for the alternative- highly restricted movement for everyone. It's the universal balance,and is nothing new. To stop all you don't want,you have to stop pretty well everything-or if clever and resourced,you can get an acceptable balance of freedoms. NO one says it is easy and without some "inconvenience".

Again,nothing per se EU about it-but if you prefer to be stopped repeatedly,try somewhere less stable!

 

The migrants come to the EU as it offers a decent chance of a decent life in return for doing a decent job and being a decent citizen. So it can't be that bad a place. There have always been migrants-there were in whole areas of London,eg. Still happens. The EU needs them,too-host countries have always accomodated immigrants,it's a mutual benefit thing-migrants want to work in available jobs.

That is not at all to say that immigration: is not on the EU agenda;the EU has free movement for EU citizens only. Again any perceived failures etc,are not exclusive to the EU; what is the short term answer to a boat load of people,including kids arriving on the beaches?-the current decisions are humanitarian .

USA immigration : " bring me your needy......"....and they came,as invited, and USA coped....

...as the Pope told Trump "Walls are not the answer".

A clear UK influence would be very helpful,in this,as in most such issues (though we didn't do too well in India/Pakistans,or Israel/Palestine).

Which reminds me,as non mixability of peoples has been assered on this thread-'not human nature' or some such tosh:

 

while it would have been silly to put the mongeese and the cobras in the same cabin,that did not make the entire Noah's Ark a misjudged project,doomed to fail.

We all benefit from the broader,more encompassing view,but it needs sensible management.

What really,is the alternative ? Well,the UK policy of improving the immigrants home land is a good long term one-remove the survival need to leave and emigrate.The EU will invest in this far more enthusiastically and effectvely with UK input,and experience. Syrians didn't emmigrate a generation ago- they liked Syria as was. It's not rocket science,really. Meanwhile,we save the kids etc......and quit NIMBY ism.

It's not in/out of EU; it's Pope or Trump. I'm not RC,but I know who I back,and he lives in Europe.

 

GB

[Dalua]

Thanks,Dalua-you confirm that the MEP lettter does not mention semi auto rifles.

Alas! Let me reiterate the point I was trying to make, which is that the MEP's letter is indeed making reference to semi-automatic weapons. This is an entirely reasonable inference, given that:

a. The EU proposals are suggesting bans on 'certain semi-automatic' weapons, and

b. It is not uncommon, particularly among those who are not altogether au fait with the terminology, to use the term automatic when semi-automatic or self-loading would be accurate.

 

This useage can be compared to the use of mongeese as the plural of mongoose. A mongoose is not a goose any more than a tailor's goose is a goose: hence we have as plurals mongooses and tailor's (or perhaps tailors') gooses.

 

In general, it seems to me that we learn from UK history that any laws further restricting firearms are bad for shooters; unless it is very clear that the laws will have specific effects in improving public safety without disproportionate effects on the freedom of lawful shooters.

 

FACE UK seems concerned with the EU proposals on these grounds;

· A possible ban on small calibre semi-automatic rifles used in British pest control (though we here should include perhaps 'little black self-loaders' use in mini-rifle practical target-shoots)

· A ban on access by under 18-year-olds to firearms which will damage training in safe and responsible use

· Changes to medical tests which could stop UK progress towards a ten-year certificate with reduced burdens for police and shooters

· Controls on blank firers which could impact on training for working gun dogs

· Changes to the rules on advertising and sales which could damage the legally controlled sale and purchase of firearms in the UK

· New rules on deactivation which could force museums to butcher world-famous collections of firearms

 

This don't look too good to me.

 

Am I missing something?

[Montey]

Interesting given that Albaina is in the EU . When a Survey of Albaina showed that a high percentage quoted Professional and self defence as the reason for gun ownership!

Is any one Seriously going too expect all those nice people are going to serender thier AKs ? No it will be one rule of EU law for us and another for the the new Baltic states. There's a reason the NRA and BASC are against this latest EU law, and yet another reason to vote OUT.

[gbal]

OK,Dalua- I can see that IF the proposed ban includes semi auto 22rf,then that does impact directly;it may well be modified.

Mongooses,definitely..... Doesn't need a Cobra special security meeting,though ... :-)

 

The others ditto- I can see that,in the expressed form,they at least inconvenience.That's why the proposals are modifiable....we shall see.....nothing anti dog training/museums-motivation is anti terrorist (I agree it's weak,on that,but that will be discussed.....a majority,not dogless or museumless-will have to be persuaded that on balance,it is worthwhile.Same system as in UK).

( I'd not weaken workers rights -minimum wage,parental paid leave,all those sort of things the EU guarantees,and UK didn't, though I am not eligible (retired,and fire only blanks these days) just for real "blank cartridges" if it gets that daft..EU helped moderator permissions,if you want a shooting balancer.... it's a very complex decision maybe. Economically,I may well be better out-who knows,but that's not the full balance sheet,by any means.You are not better off paying less taxes,in general-tax is on income,to a first approximation.....you keep 80% of the bread and butter,60% of the jam....and you get something in return...perhaps less apparent on a £3 weekly basis in the EU-who knows,longterm....but I digress...

 

Montey-there is very little chance of two sets of rules-on substantial issues. Cameron has got some concessions,because many others saw there was a case,overall-and don't want the UK out.

But Albabians won't get to keep their Kalashnikovs;( maybe they'll vote out if it's that important to them,but they too will see the wider picture,probably.

 

GB

[MJR]

Who exactly do you see taking ALL the AK's off the Albanians then?

 

You are deluded if you think they are going to give them up easily and equally deluded if you think they will actually give them all up even if the technically agree to.

[gbal]

Mike,I didn't say they would-I said that there would NOT be two sets of rules/laws.

 

How the EU /UK /any legitimate authority 'enforces' it's laws,is another matter.

 

I don't know any Albanians-it is possible some won't be keen to comply.

 

They may even say they are concerned about Albanian sovereignty.

 

Maybe you could explain all that to them?

They then might then opt for continued,if armed,economic poverty,outside the EU. It would at least be an informed choice;an amnesty and nice bolt actions might be an alternative.....but as said,all societies have laws that some 'citizens' break (thereby becoming liable to lose their full citizenship. Catching then eludes the UK government sometimes too-though not very often on Kalashnikovs.I daresay there are a some illegal weapons in parts of the UK.

 

It's not that I disagee,it's just doesn't seem an in/out issue,on a bit of reflection (if they are inclined not to hand them in for EU membership,then I doubt they will give them up witout it !) The issue is they won't be exempt from EU law if Albania joins the EU. NO member state/citizen is exempt-that's a central tenet of the EU-all in it 'equally'-though that is a 'work in progress',as it is in the UK,and has been for....how many years,would you say..?

 

 

:-)

 

gb

[MJR]

George, you're still stuck on this sovereignty idea aren't you. It's simple, really simple, go and re read BDs post in the other thread. Pause and try to digest what he's saying.

Like most academics you are searching through the minutia desperately trying to find some smallest of detail to allow justification of your belief and allow you to follow the other EU lemmings over the cliff into free fall oblivion of a declining EU. This firearms directive is just another attempt at enforcing their views and their problems on us. We as a nation are more than capable of enforcing our own firearms legislation.

Why do you think the other main EU nations, Germany and France, were so ready to negotiate with Cameron? Because quietly they know the system is in decay, unsustainable and very expensive.

But keep searching for that tiny morsel to console yourself and in the meantime fail to see the wood for the trees......

[gbal]

MIke,well maybe- of course I am inclined to think that most of the posts on here are likely looking for unsubstantiable straws- Albanian Kalashnikovs-wow,that's a big issue-and as I've argued,is about enforcement- as are any laws. I suggested one solution-p/ex for bolt actions UK imposed that on it's citizens-the pointv that is constantly brushed under the carpet. Right or wrong,the UK-notEU- government has not been friendly,or even fair,to shooters.

I note your advice re BD and sovereignty-and I recall were corrected on that issue,rightly or wrongly.

I can see that sovereignty is the one issue that isn't clear,in the several that should exercise us all (like economics- just can't see how we'd be worse off).

But what exactly is the 'sovereignty arguement'-that we know best on everything-well,try saying that about either power likely party around electon time-when we all moan/accuse the other party ofthe lkinds of mismanagement the ouys say of the EU. NO arguements,no actual examples,and definitely no balance.

"Academics' are quite good at both minutae and the bigger picture (don't give me the 'University of Life' as there is no bit of paper that says someone has passed-or as likely-failed!,and the very use of the term "university" concedes something of value.But that is not the issue- what has the EU done legislatively that is clearly anti UK,or preferably.unfairly anti UK-that our government would not have done. If we get a substantial set of such legislation,and it outweighs the good Eu stuff,then sovereignty may have a case.

Such an account sheet is conspicuous by it's absence.

As I said,whatever government into power in UK,introduces laws which around 45-48% did not vote for,and don't like. What's new- the EU can hardly cut it any finer,and are subject to the new 55% absolute veto.

So what are these imposed burdens from the EU- I can't say I've noticed them,but am aware of many improvements-not for me,especially-but workers rights,food hygiene,animal welfare,paternity/maternity alloances,.....none of which UK governments have promoted. As we all moan about (half moan one way,the other half the other way)...the EU can't be any worse,has the possibility of better.

 

I'm not hung up on sovereignty,it's just the slippery concept that is hardest to objectify. Largely illusory to me,but then parts of the UK are more used to it/lack of it-and it's minor role. I would not like Trump,Isis or the South African Bruderbund to be in power,but the EU representatives (including elected,actually more democratically than UK MPs,on a one vote/per capita basis don't worry me)...or carefully put,as I've consistently suggested/argued,that doesn't worry me any more than our domestic system does.

 

EU V Labour V Conservatives..... the EU is a more representative mix on any criterion,though of course,all are politicians-which seems to be what most 'think'. The issue reduces to risk-not hell versus heaven (in or out). The clutching at straws seems mostly on one side (Albanian Kalashnikovs) . Vague assertion (about faceless bureaucrats) are just the same as about UK civil servants (yes minister and so on)- IF there is such an issue,it's general to governments,not an EU alone issue.

If you still think that' s pedantic minutae,go with the clear nasties.I think they are called Nigel,and Donald-though as the Pope says, at least one of them should not be mistaken for a Christian name.

 

gb

[brown dog]

I'm not hung up on sovereignty,it's just the slippery concept that is hardest to objectify. Largely illusory to me,but then parts of the UK are more used to it/lack of it-and it's minor role. I would not like Trump,Isis or the South African Bruderbund to be in power,but the EU representatives (including elected,actually more democratically than UK MPs,on a one vote/per capita basis don't worry me)...or carefully put,as I've consistently suggested/argued,that doesn't worry me any more than our domestic system does.

 

 

 

 

It's really, really simple to objectify. Let's remind ourselves of the Oxford Dictionary definition and stop being silly: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/sovereignty

 

An unelected European Court sitting above our nation's democratically elected Parliament means we do not have sovereignty over our own affairs.

 

You absolutely know that. Please stop the faux naivety. Oh and..

 

Which reminds me,as non mixability of peoples has been assered on this thread-'not human nature' or some such tosh:

 

thus speaks a man who's never seen the outcome of a father attempting to scald a female child to death because his in his 'just like us' view of the world he wanted nothing but a male child. Sadly, there are many, many other even more awful real-world examples of 'cultural difference' I and many others could recount.

 

 

In the real world, we are not all the same.

 

You look for onion seller -type caricatures to define europeans in Europe, but then deny difference between cultures elsewhere. Must be lovely to have only ever dealt in theory.

[gbal]

OK, I was surprised to read in your Oxford reference 1.1 Sovereignty: "The authority of a state to govern itself,or another state";national sovereignty.

 

Seems very odd,I'd think the first eight words are what 'we' mean.

 

What happens when states unite as in USa etc;but I understand the definition you prefer,so do I. Then the issue is,what defines a 'state' and there the EUgets a bit grey-clearly some may want a United State(s) of Europe,some do not. Both views are respectable.

 

I read Cameron as saying we were released fro any 'closer union'....or had negotiated some such...I doubt that is the end of it...

 

But how,Matt ,are laws set by one kind of UK political party-with which at any time near 50% of voters have not voted for,really any different from the Court of 28,or however many representatives there are on the Euro Court-I take it the Supreme Law Authority (and not the Euro Parliament,or Council etc). And why are none of the other 27 so concerned ?

I see something of the issue,but it's thin on substance. Maybe the 27 would do better,even. I have no realfaith in a UK party aligned Supeme Court-but we don't have one,do we.

 

Standard question-just how is the Euro set up different-of course there may be a German Christian Democrat votin,but thenin Uk it will be someone with whom there is no guarantee at all that you would agree. (it's barely 50/50 in general elections.)

 

Now for your repeated mistaken pejoratives again. I have clearly said I rather favour the big 5 theory of universal personality. I have also said the caracatures can be elicited,but are without foundation in actual research. I've also said I am a liberal,if you must,therefore hold that people are essentially individuals-but all human so with sharded basics_(personality is a mix of big 5,eg) BUT that liberals believe that the inequalities of cultures-including those within a culture (race,skin colour,educational opportunity,prejudices and so on) as well as between cultures should be targeted and eliminated. Egalite,fraternity,and liberty get prestty close. WE are not all clones,but should enjoy an unfettered acces to opportunities,to develop individual potentials fairly.

Let's nail this french onionman nonsense:

The main dimensions of human personality (big 5 and any others,add in Intelligence too) are found in the people of France,though of course the amounts and distribution of them all varies betwen French people,just as height does. The same is true of British people,with the same traits (big5+ and intelligence),and the distributions are pretty much as in France. There are more vinyard owners in France,because there are more vinyards;I don't know about onions. There are some cultural differnces,as between most cultures,but they do not substantially influence the 5+ Intelligence,or much other than minor things like food,ress and the like,and even then not much.

Actually,it is simples itself-if we follow Prof Matt,then an onion seller is someone who sells onions,and that is that-no nationality. I agree that on this,at least,Prof Matt knows his onions. Moi aussi. Now can we just stop saying I believe in such stereotypes/caricatures I DO NOT.For what it's worth,that is based on much academic research actually measuring people,and my limited experience over the yers in France and Britain. Some stereotypes can be elicited from some people,but not me. It is possible that some special 'jobs' might have more of a trait represented-but that will tend to be so across cultures,if such a trait is an asset. I don't think eg that being offensive and wrong are assets for an officer,nor that he is a fascist by being in a professional army-though some have-Orwell (and me) explicitly debunks such nonsense.

 

What is 'faux' about that....unless you take a fascist view (ie 'bully' in a word) or just possibly a communist view- society matters more than individuals in it. I'll assume you read Orwell-it's just a page,and you need to salute no-one (let me be explicit again-Orwell ,and me,are arguing against easy caricatures-the army,the Pope are not fascists.Such loose labelling is a menace to all thinking people.

 

I do not think the french are onion sellers.Nor every german lack a sense of (culture bound) humour.and so on and on with false and patently absurb notions. It may be just research-but it isn't-I've been to many european countries,and the popuation seems to vary much like the UK (big 5 theory). I can't quite believe you really think having a job in a University precludes 'real world' experience;but you continually devalue it. Maybe that's been your experience. If so,consider it might be a bit limited.

 

That some humans are awful to other humans is not the issue-you may have seen a bit more at first hand,perhaps in other cultures. he specific example you feel the need to cite may well be as much sadistic,as following infanticide-I don't know,but seee later.

But it's all well enough documented,the holocaust happened,and some very unpleasnt things happened in Rotherham-not equating them-but awareness does not depend on being there. Culture does play a part-that's why 'liberals' and others-hopefull all others want to eradicate whatever in culturesallows/encouragesor just does not stand up against these abuses.

I don't know where your diametrically wrong ideas about me come from-other than some general characature,of 'liberals' and 'academics' (who vary within the 'big5' as we all do). Academic psychologists ,and those trained by them do actually help deal with abused kids. No doubt some military misconduct has happened-perhaps more under some regimes. That does not make all individuals in the army bad.Of course there is diversity of good and not so good,and evil.

 

Year ,lecture 1 "In some ways every human is unique-not least in their aggregate of individual persoaanl experience. In some ways people can form/be formed into groups-permannt or temporary- with other people,often on the basis of shared beliefs,from their culture eg Catholics,fishermen,members of parliament;and in some ways we afre all the same-the hard wiring of the human brain,and physical features,some capacities-no-one remembers everything,and no one flies unaided. It should be apparent that much of all this has some flexibility-what beliefs,what experiences for example.And it can producing extreme humans,,capable of

either the best or the worst behaviour.

 

I think that covers similarity,diversity,groups,cultures and commonalities. There is more,of course,but that's why it's a degree course.

 

I have not seen a child scalded for the reason you give-but these things are recorded-and researched,and that is available. I haven't been to Auschwitz either. I don't doubt these would be powerful experience.But not I think neccessary ones. And bloody well not a basis for derogatory ccondemnations (oops, shouldn't swear). Perhaps its what one does with that experience/knowledge that really matters,not just being witness to it. (otherwise,we won't have a holocaust when the last witness dies-what nonsense is that?)

 

OK,enough already. Maybe,Matt ,if you addressed the substantive points,we might all advance. Ad hominem comments are weak at the best of times-but when they are wrong,too,it's time to reassess .

 

Lecture 2: Intelligence can compensate for lack of education;some educations can compensate for lacks of some intelligencies.

Better by far to have both intelligence and education;having neither is not a good start in any culture.

(note-intelligencies-plural (and there are probably more than 5 kinds)

 

 

 

What I will admit,is that I don't know whether I'd have blown the father away,for ever,or give an eye for an eye,or....I think some higher "Court" really should decide....( and not a nationalistic sovereign one in this case unless it answers to the highest decencies.) The EU Court would be one such,but not the only one.

 

Maybe not simples,Matt,but it should remove unwarranted slurs-deserved ones,fair enough; maybe over 50 years,I've missed some crucial evidence,but I have been exposed to a lot of information,some first hand,but not mine,that is consistent with the above.

 

By the way,is my son British or Swiss- perhaps those who drew up the list can suggest-it's not important,the Swiss have decided. Is someone who upholds all the criteria-except the Queen not British....

what were the republicans like Oliver Cromwell? Not important-just suggests simple lists are ..well simplistic

Honest,last one-category error :If someone asked "what is the soviet military threat' back then,and was shown the rRed Square parade of hardware,they might well still wonder-of course the Threat"isn't observable in Red Square,it's what that hardware might be used for-ie it's a 'policy' and the hardwre isn't it.

YOu might like this one too,Matt-Gilbeert Ryle's original "If someone toured round the Oxford colleges,or even entered the hallowed senior common room,would they now understand what 'the university'means-no,the university isn't the stones,it 's essential features are not on display,inded can't be-"abstract ' will do.

Making these kinds of errors reduce/seduce the complex into simples,erroneous simples,but someone has to sort it out,as well as sorting out the red army hardware if deployed ,and considered a threat-more your domain.

 

 

 

g

 

ps The Night Manager just starting on BBC1 9pm.Highly recommended drama;I have not been in MI5 or 6,and if I had I would not be telling.It is well made drama,though I have not been to RADA either.

Watch and judge for yourself.Makes a change-I think-from all this.

Watch out for the scheming,duplicitous,treacherous but beautiful woman from........AAAHHH (knife in back,exit left....

[gbal]

" must be lovely to have only dealt in theory" BD

 

Just done a new test,sent tonight by a lady friend,could not resist:the abstract image test for dominant personality traits.

 

"Your answers reveal that wisdom is your most dominant personality trait.

You approach situations and challenges with a level head and use logic when making decisions.

Your many experiences in life have made you an intelligent and practical individual"

 

Hmm,so I've added a bit of practical to the Edinburgh University Logic Medal 1963.

 

Glad I didn't just say "Bo**ocks" ,Matt-as it turns out, why be pejorative when science can be used so much more accurately,informatively,and non-judgementally . :-)

 

Pint still on anytime.

 

GB

[Montey]

GBal first off my refrance to the reasons Albainas have for gun ownership is fact not a wild highpothis Second if you think all EU country's follow the law to the letter you are deluded.sorry to be so blunt but as a farmer I can assure you English lamb and English bramly apples were either burnt by French farmers in the lorrys or held on the key side to wait for the correct paper work. Don't any one tell me difrent we as a family know .

My point ? Difrent EU country's will interpret the rule or laws to suit them selfs. Agrochemicals are a point some are still used in Europe wile banned thus banned here. Ie Tracer used to control moths in cherry and many others I can list.

I sit on a comity trying to set standard in the EU its a joke! What a waste of time. The other delegates say they will flaunt what ever is agreed. Good Europeans know how too bend the rules quote un quote.

[Re-Pete]

Having read this thread with great interest, I think that basing a decision on which way to vote solely on the remote "possibility" that a 22 semi "might" become illegal, is rather missing the big picture................

 

Montey makes a good point about the various EU members "interpreting" the rules to suit themselves.

The French are very good at this, because their farmers/hauliers etc let their gov. know in no uncertain terms when they're p****d off.

 

For the record, I'm not an academic, just a retired ind. chemist................I shoot TR, and F/TR, for fun only..........

 

H/man

[OSOK]

gbal , I'm probably breaking an EU rule on human rights in saying this but think about your poor trigger finger with all this typing !

 

At best it's likely to be sore and there's a very good chance that you too maybe violating some EU law ?

 

OSOK

[MJR]

Is there a test for taking off rose coloured spectacles, smelling the coffee and seeing the wood for the trees?