birdlike 0 #226 August 9, 2008 QuoteQuoteWhy are you having such a ridiculously hard time understanding these facts? http://www.scribd.com/doc/21670/Crime-Statistics-Murders because the facts are simply quite the opposite of what you think. South Africa is a poor example, it is not a first world country and fighting and killing is part of the history there. Why is South Africa a "poor example"? Because you don't want to grant that no country with a gun BAN in place should ever have a murder rate higher than a country with extremely easy access to guns, which is how gun-banners like you characterize the U.S.? I mean, please explain why the concept of banning guns becomes implausible just because you say a given country is not developed enough. They ban civilian gun ownership in South Africa. So since the country is what, bound inextricably to violence, we should not "count" them as a failure of gun control? How do we know that if we did their kind of gun ban in the U.S., it would not fail to curb murder just as it fails to curb murder in South Africa? Maybe it's not the notion of whether it's a first-world or third-world nation that governs the likelihood of a gun ban's success, hm? Besides, your link to the murder rate doesn't help -- we know nothing about who engaged in what kind of study of what statistics to arrive at that chart! For all I know, that shit could be 100% made-up! And another reason we can't rely on your numbers is that we don't know the methodology for the counting. Maybe they are relying on statistics compiled by each nation's government (which is common, because what researcher is going to keep his own statistics on the murder rates in various countries? For example, I have read that certain government statistics on murder do not count murders unless they have been solved. That would mean that if the government didn't bother to solve half the murders, their stats would be half of what they should be. Some governments count seven dead in the same incident as "one murder". So your citation of these statistics is meaningless. And you have failed to explain why it's "only fair" to leave non-first-world countries out of the critical comparison. Every time we point out that a country with a gun ban still has a ridiculously high firearm murder rate, you say, "Oh, but you can't compare the U.S. with that country!" WHY NOT? A gun ban is a gun ban is a gun ban. If it's alleged by you that when a government bans guns, it means the criminals who want them will be prevented from doing so, saving us from the risk of being murdered, why can we show you places where the gun bans don't stop the criminals?Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #227 August 9, 2008 QuoteQuoteWhy are you having such a ridiculously hard time understanding these facts? http://www.scribd.com/doc/21670/Crime-Statistics-Murders because the facts are simply quite the opposite of what you think. You left an awful lot of stuff in my post simply unanswered. We can see, every time you post, how much you ignore, and the easy conclusion is that you have nothing to say that can address our points. I asked you things like why haven't these millions of people already started having millions of explosive-temper moments and used their guns to kill? I pointed to Vermont, where no one has to have a license to carry a gun legally, and the fact that Vermont consistently ranks among the lowest crime states in the U.S. Why won't you address these issues?Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #228 August 9, 2008 QuoteQuote You have your ideas i have mine, remember you are part of the minority when it come to this subject, maybe not in your neighborhood but you are the minority. How so? Americans believe in gun rights. You're the minority, and since the 2000 loss the Democratic Party has steered clear of the subject. And even if a majority didn't, the Bill of Rights isn't subject to the mob. Excellent point, that last. And yes, if anti-gun-rights is the majority opinion, someone needs to explain why the anti-gun left politicians in the U.S. are not ramming every gun control law they can think of down our throats--which would be willing throats, because supposedly a "majority" believe in gun control, and in no alleged right to own guns. But instead, those anti-gun left politicians that we know desperately want to enact gun bans won't go near the subject, and the only reasonable explanation of it is that they fear the unpopularity they would invite come the next election if they did so.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Leapinglizardto 0 #229 August 9, 2008 There you all go AGAIN!Screwing up the entire debate...by bringing crap like FACTS&LOGIC In to the argument!You people have got a lot of nerve! It's pretty pathetic when you have to TELL people you're fucking cool Skymama «narrative»This thread will lock in 3..2.. What a load of narrow-minded Xenophobic Bullshit!-squeak Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rwieder 0 #230 August 10, 2008 Regardless of what has been written, it is your right and responseability to carry a firearm. But you are not to discharge unlessm, Your trained to make that decision. Guns don't kill people, people do. So what's the worry? This problem will never go away, guns are plentiful and easy to obtain. So to not have one, and be trained by a professionl, train to use it and get your locense id sbdurd and irresponseable. Am I My Brothers Keeper, (YES! I A Am.)-Richard- "You're Holding The Rope And I'm Taking The Fall" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #231 August 10, 2008 I am not sure I follow the gist of the preceding post.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Leapinglizardto 0 #232 August 10, 2008 Quote I am not sure I follow the gist of the preceding post. I encountered the same confusion at first. I believe its stating that not only is it our constitutional RIGHT to carry arms, but ALSO our RESPONSIBILITY to do so, in order that we work together as a nation, each law abidding citizen prepared to uphold, protect & fight for those rights for ourselves & one another.Which I really believe in myself, I just never thought of stating it in a manner that plain, simple & straight to the point! It's pretty pathetic when you have to TELL people you're fucking cool Skymama «narrative»This thread will lock in 3..2.. What a load of narrow-minded Xenophobic Bullshit!-squeak Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #233 August 10, 2008 If that's the sentiment being expressed, I agree, too. And I appreciate the sentiment; I just don't agree with you at all that it was stated clearly or coherently, that's all.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,111 #234 September 3, 2008 seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008154675_shooting03m0.html Kills 6.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #235 September 3, 2008 Yesterday, smoking cigarettes killed far more than that. I am sorry for the deaths of innocent people, but he would have done it in another manner if a gun were unavailable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,111 #236 September 3, 2008 QuoteYesterday, smoking cigarettes killed far more than that. I am sorry for the deaths of innocent people, but he would have done it in another manner if a gun were unavailable. Maybe he'd have forced them to smoke cigarettes until they died.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #237 September 3, 2008 Equally bad, if not worse. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #238 September 4, 2008 Quote Quote Yesterday, smoking cigarettes killed far more than that. I am sorry for the deaths of innocent people, but he would have done it in another manner if a gun were unavailable. Maybe he'd have forced them to smoke cigarettes until they died. Why wait so long? He could have used [/url "http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/09/world/fg-stab9"]a vehicle and a knife[/url] Let's see. 6 shot and killed. 2 wounded. 7 run down, stabbed and killed. 10 wounded. Hey, let's ban those guns! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,111 #239 September 4, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Yesterday, smoking cigarettes killed far more than that. I am sorry for the deaths of innocent people, but he would have done it in another manner if a gun were unavailable. Maybe he'd have forced them to smoke cigarettes until they died. Why wait so long? He could have used [/url "http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/09/world/fg-stab9"]a vehicle and a knife[/url] Let's see. 6 shot and killed. 2 wounded. 7 run down, stabbed and killed. 10 wounded. Hey, let's ban those guns! Did someone suggest banning guns or is this another one of your strawmen?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #240 September 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote"Their laws"? Don't you mean "Our laws"? Ever tried looking up the word "loophole"? How about the phrase "inadequate background check"? I wonder how Seung-Hui Cho managed to buy a gun legally if people with mental problems are prevented from buying guns. Go read the form, professor. Was Cho adjudicated insane? Oh, I forgot - your liberal spidey-sense lets you know EVERYONE who might snap at any time in the future, doesn't it? My bad. Oddly enough, isn't this same sort of thing exactly what you're screaming about as unconstitutional in regards to the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments, professor? Funny how those chickens come home to roost, isn't it? We're not discussing unconstitutional laws, we're discussing LOOPHOLES in laws that have already passed constitutional muster, and poor or non-existent implementation of those laws. Loopholes that you and your ilk defend diligently because closing them might involve a slight inconvenience to you.. You are discussing laws, OUR LAW. Constitutional laws apply (at least last time I checked). You never change Kallend, always changing the rules but unsubstantial subtlelties. You are implying that laws should remain intact when it fits your shoe, but change when it does not. Laws are bound to change as some new situation that is not covered is bound to happen. The impossibility to fortell the future of a human being precisely is an issue that probably will never be solved, that is unless you believe in magic, tarot, magic ball etc."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,111 #241 September 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote"Their laws"? Don't you mean "Our laws"? Ever tried looking up the word "loophole"? How about the phrase "inadequate background check"? I wonder how Seung-Hui Cho managed to buy a gun legally if people with mental problems are prevented from buying guns. Go read the form, professor. Was Cho adjudicated insane? Oh, I forgot - your liberal spidey-sense lets you know EVERYONE who might snap at any time in the future, doesn't it? My bad. Oddly enough, isn't this same sort of thing exactly what you're screaming about as unconstitutional in regards to the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments, professor? Funny how those chickens come home to roost, isn't it? We're not discussing unconstitutional laws, we're discussing LOOPHOLES in laws that have already passed constitutional muster, and poor or non-existent implementation of those laws. Loopholes that you and your ilk defend diligently because closing them might involve a slight inconvenience to you.. You are discussing laws, OUR LAW. Constitutional laws apply (at least last time I checked). You never change Kallend, always changing the rules but unsubstantial subtlelties. You are implying that laws should remain intact when it fits your shoe, but change when it does not. . I take it you only skimmed the Heller decision or read the comic book version. Try reading all of it before expounding on what has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #242 September 5, 2008 QuoteI take it you only skimmed the Heller decision or read the comic book version. Try reading all of it before expounding on what has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. I have read the opinion and understand that it left DC anti-gun laws without a legal leg to stand on). Yet, got to tell you I have no time these days, and I did not know there was a comic book issued by the SCOTUS. (would be interesting to see, although I am capable to read without the annoying drawings) Other news are hard to get the whole picture, we hardly have much access or time for internet news, the post I am is small, and everything, logistically speaking, coming in takes time, (sometimes up to 4 weeks)except what is essential for operations, don't watch or have time to watch TV (the only immediate means of up-to-datenews) and I am working on a second degree and learning in depth the local language while deployed, besides I carry guns all day, so for now I am part of the "militia", and know the second ammendment backs me, in the issue of "right to bear arms", including fully auto ones. You crack me up, all that big degree, doctoral studies, and you can't still answer a simple question. It is interesting you got nothing to say about Iraq these days. Hope your son went home safe. Later"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,111 #243 September 5, 2008 I think you need to read the "elitist" thread.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #244 September 5, 2008 Well thank you for considering me elite. Not talking to your son huh? Gee, I wonder why that is."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,111 #245 September 5, 2008 QuoteWell thank you for considering me elite. Not talking to your son huh? Gee, I wonder why that is. Only in your dreams.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #246 September 5, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Yesterday, smoking cigarettes killed far more than that. I am sorry for the deaths of innocent people, but he would have done it in another manner if a gun were unavailable. Maybe he'd have forced them to smoke cigarettes until they died. Why wait so long? He could have used [/url "http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/09/world/fg-stab9"]a vehicle and a knife[/url] Let's see. 6 shot and killed. 2 wounded. 7 run down, stabbed and killed. 10 wounded. Hey, let's ban those guns! Did someone suggest banning guns or is this another one of your strawmen? People suggest gun bans of one type or another, from total to only certain models, all the time. But it doesn't have to be about a ban, either, because even if the goal is only to keep them from a certain segment of the population, everything generally fails, from the most draconian ban to the most innocuous reporting requirement. So fine, if I say, "OK, no one suggested a ban," I still can show that even if there were just "tight controls" on who gets guns, even if those targeted people didn't get guns, they'd still do major carnage, as we saw here. It's so ironic that you (was it you?) raised the issue of the 6 killed and 2 wounded recently when the guy with "only" a knife and a truck killed 7 and wounded 10! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #247 September 5, 2008 QuoteWe're not discussing unconstitutional laws, we're discussing LOOPHOLES in laws that have already passed constitutional muster, and poor or non-existent implementation of those laws. Loopholes that you and your ilk defend diligently because closing them might involve a slight inconvenience to you.. As far as I know, Cho obtained his guns from licensed dealers, NOT from private sellers, so he did NOT "slip through a loophole," at least, not the so-called "gun show loophole." That term applies to the lack of a requirement that private sales pass a background check. Cho passed background check-adge because his mental impairments were not such that they got him put on any no-buy list. Check your facts, Prof. You're throwing terms and accusations around so fast and loose, you aren't making sure you really understand them.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,111 #248 September 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteWe're not discussing unconstitutional laws, we're discussing LOOPHOLES in laws that have already passed constitutional muster, and poor or non-existent implementation of those laws. Loopholes that you and your ilk defend diligently because closing them might involve a slight inconvenience to you.. As far as I know, Cho obtained his guns from licensed dealers, NOT from private sellers, so he did NOT "slip through a loophole," at least, not the so-called "gun show loophole." That term applies to the lack of a requirement that private sales pass a background check. Cho passed background check-adge because his mental impairments were not such that they got him put on any no-buy list. . Thank you for making my point in such a proofread way. A homicidal maniac PASSED the current background check, because it is USELESS as currently implemented. Thanks again for making the point.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #249 September 5, 2008 Future crime detection, is that so mething you are a professor of? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,111 #250 September 5, 2008 QuoteFuture crime detection, is that so mething you are a professor of? Your strawmen are too unsubtle to be useful.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
