Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
AndrewRyan
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 03:40:00 -
[61]
Yes notice how despite violent crime is higher the murder rate is lower? That illustrates my example that although crime still happens its less likely to result in the loss of life.
I would prefer being punched in the eye than shot in the heart. ========================================= A Man chooses, a slave obeys. |
nahtoh
Bull Industries United For 0rder
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 03:55:00 -
[62]
Originally by: AndrewRyan
Originally by: nahtoh Well I am also from the uk and think your type uncritcal bull**** is why its currently going down the ****ter..tell me oh numbnuts why has the uks rate of gun/knife crime stayed steady/slight increase after every sodding hand in and ban?
That's because of a general social breakdown, I wont argue that the gangs of teenage thugs make the streets dangerous in certain areas and that violent crime is constantly increasing but a knife can be obtained from anywhere and imagine how bad the gun crime would be if the thugs and criminals could just walk into a local shop and buy a gun. And not trying to sound to anti American (because I'm not I just they have stupid gun laws and attitudes to them) there are malignant influences from the US its being documented that street gangs are beginning to act like LA style gangsters right down to wearing "colours".
And I think our firearms laws are spot on, we don't have students shooting up their classmates every few months, we don't have thousands of marital quarrels ending up in somebody grabbing a gun and armed robberies where people actually get shot and killed are remarkably infrequent. These things in the US are a everyday occurrence its so common that they are blase about and no longer see the utter waste of the most precious thing we can ever possess.
The thing you are missing is we did not have these incdents before the gun laws were tightened...I guess you missed all of the utter ******** bull**** about where the ilegal guns came from and the preditctions from people that did not have their head up their arse?
That the ban would not have a impact on the lvl of crime carried out with guns? So just what have the Laws you are so proud of actually done? answer is basicly SOD ALL so why do you consider them a success? For them to do a success then they would had to have had a actual concrete mesureable out come, not a feel good unprovble warm feeling of proclaiming they have "done something to prevent something that had not been happening anyway!!!!"
The Problem in the UK and I would take a strong guess in the USA as well is complete lack of something that goes hand in hand with Rights a small thing called Responsibilities, to many fundimentally lazy people that just want the Former and not the Latter. Fuzzy bull**** thinking that just wants to blame other things for what happens with out taking a good look at what they are *not* doing.
Oh and BTW I don't think it makes much difference in the grand scheme of things if you are stabbed/beat/stomped/to death vs shot...apart from the former takes more time. When you start advising people that have lost people to any sort of violent attack "well at lest they where not shoot be happy" dead is dead.
You seem to be the very example of the second part of your sig...
========= "I am not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why can`t we just take the safety labels off everything and let the problem fix its self |
nahtoh
Bull Industries United For 0rder
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 03:56:00 -
[63]
Originally by: AndrewRyan Yes notice how despite violent crime is higher the murder rate is lower? That illustrates my example that although crime still happens its less likely to result in the loss of life.
I would prefer being punched in the eye than shot in the heart.
Logic is not your strong suit is it? ========= "I am not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why can`t we just take the safety labels off everything and let the problem fix its self |
MalVortex
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 04:01:00 -
[64]
A pistol can not endanger a modern airliner with one shot. Without great skill in aim and technical knowledge, it can't put the plane in danger with the entire clip.
Accidents happen. This is not madness, an atrocity, negligence, or any other sensationalist adjective. FFS, its not even relevant to US gun control laws, given that the lawful possession of a gun on an airplane is the Holy Grail of authorization.
Stop trolling.
|
Imperator Jora'h
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 04:04:00 -
[65]
Too many posts to start quoting without my posts being absurdly lengthy so some observations:
For those who think pilots should carry handguns:
Why? Seriously...why? As noted accidents happen even with people well trained. Just a fact of life. A handgun on a plane is a problem waiting to happen. How many (and I really mean this) people per year are ok to be lost and still say handguns are ok on planes? This is not an anti-gun rant. This is an anti-guns on planes rant. Granted so far zero people have been hurt but the question stands. How many handgun accidents aboard a plane are acceptable?
Now consider how much safer the plane is with the handgun present. First off not all pilots carry. In fact most do not (I read somewhere 5000 American pilots currently do). Explain a situation where the pilot having a handgun will improve things as opposed to them staying behind their armored door and landing the bloody plane as they should. Note that pilots with handguns would not have prevented any of 9/11. More to the point the one plane where passengers tried to take the plane back and crashed may well have ended up instead with one more plane in a building somewhere if the hijackers obtained firearms from the flight crew (which they would have).
-----
As for "accidental discharge" of a weapon most responsible posts from responsible gun owners (people who firmly believe in their right to have firearms) I have seen say that the preferred term is "negligent discharge". In their opinion "accidental" discharge of a firearm is almost unheard of. It has happened but is hugely unlikely. About as unlikely as a handgun bullet dropping a commercial jet. Can we hypothesize a way to do it? Sure. Is it remotely likely? No. While the person who shot the gun may not have meant to their doing so is very nearly always their negligence.
-----
On the topic of hunters paying for wildlife preserves that is a dubious way to "support" the notion of hunting. Paying to maintain the places you get to go kill things? You do not see the hypocrisy there? Paying to preserve things you want to kill?
Why shoot the animal? Why not take its picture? If you like shooting what is wrong with target or skeet shooting? You can hardly call hunting sporting if you kill something at 600 yards that has no clue you are there with a scoped rifle. If you want the thrill of approaching an animal to see how close you can get go ahead and use a laser range finder and a camera to show you got within 50 yards if that is your thing. If you just like the great outdoors go camping.
Killing animals for your survival is fine but I'll wager everyone here who hunts has no need to shoot a deer to eat. Additionally I have eaten hunted venison and frankly farm raised tastes better...considerably better.
Bottom line, and I have discussed this at length with avid hunters, is hunters do it because they like to kill stuff for their personal pleasure. Many think yeah...so what? Animal, who cares? In my world view causing needless pain and suffering for nothing more than personal pleasure is a perversion.
-----
Hunters being necessary to cull herds because hunters killed all their natural predators?
Man...if I have to explain the obvious flaws here there is no hope of dialog. -------------------------------------------------- "Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
|
Orakkus
m3 Corp Friend or Enemy
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 04:15:00 -
[66]
Edited by: Orakkus on 27/03/2008 04:47:33
Originally by: AndrewRyan
And I think our firearms laws are spot on, we don't have students shooting up their classmates every few months, we don't have thousands of marital quarrels ending up in somebody grabbing a gun and armed robberies where people actually get shot and killed are remarkably infrequent. These things in the US are a everyday occurrence its so common that they are blase about and no longer see the utter waste of the most precious thing we can ever possess.
Its common because: a.) The US population is 300million+ versus 60mil Population in UK. Higher population, which are mostly jammed into smaller and smaller areas which almost always lack any sort of long term plan for dealing with younger generations.
b.) The US population relies WAY too much on psychologists who are pretty much are 90% quacks. (Psychology makes a lot of money, so it has been at the forefront of finding new "diseases" to cure as well as forwarding the notion that "your kids are broke, this pill will fix them" thought process).
c.) The US has a criminal justice system that fails in every way fathomable. (In general 60 to 84% of all "rehabilitated" criminals will re-offend nation wide)
d.) The US has become a media driven society, which encourages ever outlandish behavior. (Wide spread failure of parental roles, the dramatic feminist push to minimalize the father figure, and general irresponsibility of parents has led children to be more aggressive because they don't know any other way to fit in or to be noticed).
e.) The US still has some significant responsibility issue as a whole that it needs to deal with. (The US has become a high consumption nation, and it has pushed that the children should have more and better than their parents before them. When mixed with problem "d", guns generally get involved).
f.) The actual US country is very big, meaning any federal wide stance, even some state wide stances are generally ineffectual, expensive, and inefficient. (How does this relate? An example, a federal policy to outlaw handguns or guns period while okay by white city-folk, would be terrible for black city-folk who generally cannot rely on police, and white country-folk, whose skills are not necessary in a city, use guns to help their families survive).
g.) An unrealistic viewpoint of the police. This is done by both the civilians and the police themselves. Civilians have this weird viewpoint that if a crime is happening, the police will be there to save them. The fact of the matter is, that NEVER happens, ever. All the police can do is perhaps catch the one who caused the crime, but they are unable. BY THE VERY DEFINITION of their duties AND BY THE VERY DEFINITION of the law, to prevent a crime. Quite a few police on the other hand, have a tendency to view themselves as the "THE LAW" and to be honest, it's actually quite hard to prove that a police officer broke that law, and EVEN IF THEY DID, you will likely find yourself being harrassed by those very officials. And that does not include inept officers who have no reason to be policing even a paper bag.
|
Frezik
Basically Outdated Stereo Equiptment
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 04:57:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Hunters being necessary to cull herds because hunters killed all their natural predators?
Man...if I have to explain the obvious flaws here there is no hope of dialog.
It's too late to go back now. The wolves are gone. Not only that, but there is a good reason for them to be gone. Since there are plenty of people who are willing to pay for the privilege (in the form of hunting licenses, guns, travel money, etc.) to do what the wolves are doing, this isn't really a problem.
Consider two plans:
1) Let the wolves come back. Cost of beef rises due to preying on cattle. 2) Keep the wolves at present numbers and let people hunt deer.
In one of these plans, there's a greater chance I'll be attacked by wolves while hiking. In the other, I get cheaper beef and venison. Since you may assume I'm not a vegetarian, guess which one I choose?
As for animal suffering, let's ask the deer if they prefer straight bullet to the head or being gnawed on by wolves. Nature is messy. Deal with it.
|
EvilWezal
Eye of God Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 05:20:00 -
[68]
Quote: On the topic of hunters paying for wildlife preserves that is a dubious way to "support" the notion of hunting. Paying to maintain the places you get to go kill things? You do not see the hypocrisy there? Paying to preserve things you want to kill?
The Wildlife preserves in Oklahoma are not open to hunting or hunting is done on lottery system to cull herds of deer/elk. The money raised by Hunting/Fishing totals some thing like 11 billion per year only on supplies,thats not counting the economic spidering effect on service industries. The DoW here uses that money to raise Endangerd Species and replace those lost in the wild so that we have these animals to enjoy into the future.
As if "Hunting for Fun", well of course its fun....other wise we wouldn't do it. Plus my family and many people I know enjoy wild meats/fish regulary. If the deer herds in Oklahoma are not culled every year, they would die from starvation and natural diseases which is FAR more painful then being shot. FYI, if your a fan of PETA, you seriously need to investigate what they truely are about. They are not helping animals,just pushing a political agenda.
|
|
CCP WeatherMan
C C P
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 05:21:00 -
[69]
Please refrain from dicussing politics or religion issues. Let's try to focus on cool and funny stuff around.
WeatherMan Community Representative EVE Online, CCP Games Email/Netfang
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |