ANother post should read For those who ALWAYS blame the cops for EVERYTHING no matter what even if they were NOT THERE.
Search
Search results: 1,137 found, showing up to 50
CommieChipmunk wrote:
At least in my area... after the elections they went from 2.37 to now around 2.52... Are the prices going up in other places too? Is there a reason why? (besides the fact that the elections are over)
Yeah they're going up because the elections are over...good grief gimme a break on the conspiracy.
Regional gas prices flux with many different reasons, elections not being one of them, in my area I bought gas yesterday for $2.25. So stop trying to find reasons in dark places. (Unless of course you actually have proof).
Good day.
Thats about 344 threads overdone....yawn, want hate-mongering don't look right.CameronPoe wrote:
The thread was a joke thread I concede - a flamebaiter - I just get irked when Fancy_Pollux can't see through that.
I condemn it too, but newb has a point, you've been known to "Jump to conclusions" on your own mat.........The_Shipbuilder wrote:
Perhaps some other things could be said about this story that are more important that being on the defensive and covering your own butt?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Uh-oh. All other right-wingers must be exactly alike.
For example:
1) What a terrible bastard.
2) I condemn his actions, as should all honorable conservatives.
Ireland FTW , It is a hot button issue, a tought decisions. You can't just raise taxes, you can't just do deductions full out. I think if you do partial deductions and use waivers, completely disband the Dept. of Education (waste of money) and use that money directly for Pell grants. Problem solved.
LMFAO thats hilarious!!! I never thought about that but now it all makes sense!!!Masques wrote:
Separated at birth?
http://img480.imageshack.us/img480/1493 … hakup7.jpg
http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/7886/1 … ge1jy6.jpg
Shomer-fucking-shabbos!
I think Masques wins, he mentioned 3 out of the 4. Masques you win!!! UMm I don't have any prizes though, but congratulations?Masques wrote:
The foundation (in certain contexts can equate to "the base") and referring to a database ("the database") of former mujahideen from the Afghan-Soviet War.
Law, foundation, the base, and database. But the major one is "the base". According to Osama Bin Laden:
OBL wrote:
The name 'al Qaeda' was established a long time ago by mere chance. The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our mujahedeen against Russia's terrorism. We used to call the training camp al Qaeda [meaning "the base" in English]. And the name stayed.
"Fake cowboy" Ok your entitled to your opinion thats fine, but I tend NOT to judge ANYONE. Sorry. People can be whatever they wan Your mom probably also didn't know Harry Reid was linked to Abramoff either...hmmm.IRONCHEF wrote:
No, he's right in comparing the fake cowboy with the real one in Tester. Bush wouldn't know the first thing about roughing it, he's never earned a thing in his life, and he's got no sense of job ethic let alone what "hard work" is...Tester does. My mother in montana voted for him even though she's always voted republican, and my little 70 year old mom even knows the difference between Bush and Tester. My mom has no idea that Conrad Burns was a recipient of the illegal funds Abramhoff used to make corrupt millions, but she knows a liar when she sees one.
Good for Tester.
Thats 2 for 4.sergeriver wrote:
It was about the Right Thing or the Law or something like that. I knew it but I can't remember exactly.
Anyone know the other three accepted translations for bonus points!??
LOL, careful there, thats not exactly a prudent thing to say.Kmarion wrote:
I think it translates roughly to "we swallow".
Thats the most accepted one, yep.Masques wrote:
The base.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
Nope, I guess technically there are 4 accepted translations and I don't think this is one of them. What do you think Masques?jsnipy wrote:
the way
Nope, I guess technically there are 4 accepted translations and I don't think this is one of them. What do you think Masques?jsnipy wrote:
the way
I was just wondering how many of you guys on here actually know what their name means. Just curious. If no one knows, I'll let you know however, I'm willing to bet someone is going to Google it or wiki it. So answer honestly, without searching (I didn't) I've known this since the 90's, what does their name mean?
Its a solid pointIG-Calibre wrote:
my point exactly..ATG wrote:
Whatiya think this is?IG-Calibre wrote:
Sure they're always declaring they're winning in Iraq remember "Comical Ali"? or Baghdad bob as he was known in America - Oh Noes!! quake at the propaganda USA - ATG you really are quite entertaining, maybe you should write Propaganda too +1
What is it again, you're trying to compare damage control to the terrorists own point of view on U.S. elections.....yeah, thats a strong one there.....two completely different things man.
Yeah it depends on the region and who the prosecutor is, you're completely on the mark there. Was I the same person? Hell no. But making a mistake or being reckless that causes the DEATH of another human being is not "boys being boys" sorry. Christian ethos of forgiveness, what about the Christian ethos of wrath and vengeance lol, but no seriously These things ARE worthy of contemplation, why do you think we're discussing it right now, I'm never said it wasn't. I agree with your last statement, it isn't fair, but it also isn't fair that someone else's family lost someone. Again, case by case, depends on how old they were, etc. Believe it or not the cases you speak of are extremely rare when someone is sentenced for LIFE for a homicide intentional or not when they are a minor. They are usually released after 18 or 21/25 than probated for a long time. This is a good topic and I commend you for being extremely articulate in your arguement IG. I think the Democratic win has made you guys less nasty, its refreshing. Good day.IG-Calibre wrote:
From what I can tell it seems to be at the whim of the DA what way they are tried, and that's often a political decision according to that program. C'mon man, do you mean to tell me you're the same person you were when you were 16? even at a cellular level you are a completely different person to the one you were 7 years previous. What about the Christian ethos of Forgiveness? are all these things not worthy of contemplation? Punishing a man for his entire life for a crime commited as a child really does not sit comfortably with me.
You're right about Tester, but wrong about Bush. This article is about Tester, yet you find a way to mention Bush. So back on topic: Jon Tester does bring some much needed balance to the Dems, congratulations! Have a good day all.
Careful with that rehabilitation word IG, thats a liberal mantra. There are some that can be rehabilitated, but what kracker is saying on the whole, people have to live with their own damn decisions, whether we should try them as adults is up to a case by case review.IG-Calibre wrote:
Bit of a leap of faith saying the child is really making an adult decision - kids and teenagers do incredible stupid things all the time often with tragic consequences, however, is locking them up and throwing away the key until the day they die really the answer? what chance of redemption? what chance of rehabilitation? where is the second chance and the opportunity to repay their debt to society?kr@cker wrote:
when you make an adult decision to get drunk and kill someone with a car you get an adult sentence
LOL at Cam, the only one sensitive is you taking such a defensive position on your obviously bloviating post. Cmon Cam, I know your better than that, I know it. Are you having a bad day (not being sarcastic)? We all care about each other so its kinda weird when someone who's usually "Fair and balanced" isn't.CameronPoe wrote:
Except that you've made posts with that silly ASCII image before. It's getting to become more than just a 'head shaking' exercise now. In fact the only we see you on D&ST is to make some kind of response like this, which alludes to the fact that you are a tad 'sensitive'.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
I don't understand how that post shows that I am "sensitive". If anything, it is quite the opposite. It's more of a "shakes his head in shame at 50th topic on the same thing" kind of attitude.CameronPoe wrote:
It's amazing how sensitive Fancy_Pollux is.
Because of Democrats strong opposition to the exact same thing, in the 80's. Only reason you're seeing this is because the Dems finally figured it out in the 80's. Time to read a history book.CameronPoe wrote:
Why on earth would the Democrats not support it? What makes you bring Democrats into the topic at all????
Depends really on the case and whether or not the children were cuplpable and how heinous the crime is. Mostly I think it really depends on the crime, if its robbery, aggravated assault, etc, maybe keep em in till 18 or 21. Probabation long after. Really depends, this is a dynamic question with no set answer.
That coming from Bubbalo, means practically nothing. No offense, but your not quite the one to be direct with things either bud.lowing wrote:
No, I used it, in the sense that I don't really give a shit, and I had not planned to get into it with you tonight.Bubbalo wrote:
Sarcasm used to hide the fact that you don't have a logical comeback, dipshit!
No they wouldn't have admitted defeat and they wouldn't have said anything positive about Repubs winning. That wouldn't make any sense at all, otherwise they would've been saying that. In case you folks didn't know, this didn't just SHOW up from terrorists, they have been saying the same damn thing about Democrats for the past 2 years. A story about it popped up all over news sites around 2 years ago. I wasn't around here two years ago so I don't know if it was discussed on this forum, but probably (or was this site here 2 years ago). The thing is guys, this isn't new. The terrorists actually did want the Dems to win, theres nothing wrong with that guys, its not like we're calling you terrorists, it just makes the most sense.Turquoise wrote:
Exactly... Al Quida is the kind of group that never admits defeat. It doesn't matter how many people you've killed, extremists base their actions and message on a mindset that never compromises. By extension, they never admit weakness.apollo_fi wrote:
One could argue, though, that the Al-Qaida PR Dept. would have come up with the same exact message, had the election result been different. Or do you think they would've admitted defeat, if the repubs had won?
So, at this point, it really doesn't matter what they think or say. What matters is what we do as a nation. You can spin the midterms any way you like, but we needed new leadership, in order to progress past our current situation.
Now, Bush has to admit faults, and hopefully, he and the Democrats can learn from them.
Dems want out of Iraq, Faster we get outta there, the faster terrorists can take over. Missing anything?
Too bad its actually true, maybe you should actually read the stories straight from the terrorists sites and news outlets. You really are quite entertaining with your ignorance. Your example is extremely poor, that is a different situation involing their attempt at DAMAGE control, this is completely different. Nice try thoughIG-Calibre wrote:
Sure they're always declaring they're winning in Iraq remember "Comical Ali"? or Baghdad bob as he was known in America - Oh Noes!! quake at the propaganda USA - ATG you really are quite entertaining, maybe you should write Propaganda too +1
We aren't saying that they LOVE democrats. All we're saying is they wanted them to win so that they could take over Iraq easier. Think about it, it makes sense, but oh no you can't accept that. Get over yourself.
A little one sided aren't we Cam, I like the balance of negative and positive choices.
Just continuing the cycle of hate, good job, I commend ye.
Just continuing the cycle of hate, good job, I commend ye.
Read.G3|Genius wrote:
QFTghettoperson wrote:
Dude, might want to pop down to the local police station, and see if anyone's had anything stolen recently in the area, cause you can get yourself in trouble for possessing stolen property, even without you knowing its stolen. It could be genuine, but you'd have thought the previous owners would have come around to say hi or at least leave a name or something.
QFTMastersMom wrote:
Why would someone give away a perfectly good 50" TV for free? How about; Why would someone steal a perfectly good 50" TV and then give it away for free?
I think the second question makes less sense than the first. I mean first off, who goes through the trouble to steal something and then give it away? But second, who goes through the trouble to steal something...and makes sure to find the manual for it as well? I personally don't think there's any possibility that it's stolen.
My guess is they replaced it with something bigger and better. Congrats on being the target of their generosity.
Ohh, yeah I know, I saw someone giving away sex for free one time........it was a dude though.IG-Calibre wrote:
yeah I meant craigs list - no i'm not saying you should get rid of it, i'm saying about stuff people would give away for free!!
LOL, yeah I about shit my pants when I saw the damng thing just sitting there with all its accessories. I'm still in disbelief sitting here. craigslist? Nah I wanna keep this puppy.IG-Calibre wrote:
SCORE!!!!!! - It never use to cease amazing me the shit people would just give away in the states as long as you picked it up, gregs list FTW!!
Which has less to do with guns and more to do with our culture, a poor conclusion serg.sergeriver wrote:
Are you happy with the crime rates in US?Dec45 wrote:
So America is in anarchy?IG-Calibre wrote:
that's just anarchy
What??? You makea the no sense.Naughty_Om wrote:
Go Illinois And Fuck The Guns!
LOL, I wish.Towelly wrote:
Should of left a $30 tip, it would of been a Flat Screen.
EXACTLY what I was thinking, who the hell would do all that if they stole it. My goodness.MastersMom wrote:
Why would someone give away a perfectly good 50" TV for free? How about; Why would someone steal a perfectly good 50" TV and then give it away for free?
I think the second question makes less sense than the first. I mean first off, who goes through the trouble to steal something and then give it away? But second, who goes through the trouble to steal something...and makes sure to find the manual for it as well? I personally don't think there's any possibility that it's stolen.
My guess is they replaced it with something bigger and better. Congrats on being the target of their generosity.
Good point mate, have a good day, I'm having a good one watchin some football on a 50" w00t
I'm well aware of the law, I've taken precautions that you have mentioned and checked to see if it was stolen, reports so far show its not. Thanks for looking out for me though.ghettoperson wrote:
Dude, might want to pop down to the local police station, and see if anyone's had anything stolen recently in the area, cause you can get yourself in trouble for possessing stolen property, even without you knowing its stolen. It could be genuine, but you'd have thought the previous owners would have come around to say hi or at least leave a name or something.
I was being extremely sarcastic if you couldn't have figured that out, and if you don't agree with societies in the past getting rid of those that do harm to that society, than your missing out on history. No it doesn't follow because their not fools. I think you missed my point completely. Go back in your hole for trying to pick apart my obviously sarcastic statement.apollo_fi wrote:
You've got a major genocidal loop in your equation there, mate...AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
People make guns,
People buy guns,
Certain People with guns kill other people,
Other people need to kill the certain people killing with guns or put them in jail LONGER.
Lawful people can rejoice knowning their sport and hobby is protected.It follows that the Other People (above) become Certain People (below)Certain People with guns kill other people,
Other people need to kill the certain people killing with gunsand so on, and so on.Certain People with guns kill other people,
Other people need to kill the certain people killing with guns
The bloke who's f'ing my missus, thats a good one,
Anyways, I checked it out, theres nothing wrong with it, theres no one inside of it. Guess someone was just moving and didn't want to bother with it, probably have some nice arse plasma, etc.
Anyways, I checked it out, theres nothing wrong with it, theres no one inside of it. Guess someone was just moving and didn't want to bother with it, probably have some nice arse plasma, etc.
Ok this is not the pinnacle of serious debate but bear with me:
My girlfriend and I were having lunch yesterday at an awesome place called McCormick and Shmick's, bill came to about $32 and we left a $20 tip. It was amazing food. So anyways we drive home, and too my utter surprise before we walk in the door in the entryway to my apartment is a 50" Toshiba projection TV, with a note on it saying "Free, Works Good". It had on it a remote (with batteries!), manual, and a coaxial cable (already got one).
cool:
So i'm like YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING me. So we roll it in, hook it up, (This TV even though its not brand new is way better than anything I have). And it works!!!! Holy freakin crap
So its a Toshiba TP50H50, and I don't know whether or not it can display 720 at all even 720i but I doubt it. Whatevs, I gots me a new TV.
So the debate part: Why would someone leave a perfectly good working 50" TV outside for free!?!?
My girlfriend and I were having lunch yesterday at an awesome place called McCormick and Shmick's, bill came to about $32 and we left a $20 tip. It was amazing food. So anyways we drive home, and too my utter surprise before we walk in the door in the entryway to my apartment is a 50" Toshiba projection TV, with a note on it saying "Free, Works Good". It had on it a remote (with batteries!), manual, and a coaxial cable (already got one).
cool:
So i'm like YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING me. So we roll it in, hook it up, (This TV even though its not brand new is way better than anything I have). And it works!!!! Holy freakin crap
So its a Toshiba TP50H50, and I don't know whether or not it can display 720 at all even 720i but I doubt it. Whatevs, I gots me a new TV.
So the debate part: Why would someone leave a perfectly good working 50" TV outside for free!?!?
+1mcgid1 wrote:
Actually, with a little oil and some basic easy to do maintenance, guns can last a lot longer than you think.
+1DBBrinson1 wrote:
"Open Carry" laws FTW.
1) I could tell....GetSplit wrote:
1) I did absolutely no research on it.
I was just basing my conclusions on that little map on page 1. Why research shit for an online debate, it's the internet, it lies. But yea, detroit is a shithole, as is STL, been to both, and i hate them. Chicago > all
Why research "shit" oh you mean facts, for an online debate? Its the internet, it lies?? SO respected studies from very well grounded institutions are lies, ah I see.
The reason to actually research stuff is to make sure your sources are reliable, and than OPEN Your mind to other ideas. I have opened mine to a great deal many liberal ideas whilst browsing these forums, and frankly I don't think the issue of guns is a conservative issue, its just painted that way. If you do more research, even the smallest amount, it will add to your being able to articulate things more accurately and more intelligently. So if there internet lies I guess we have to go with the SIMPLEST explanation.
People make guns,
People buy guns,
Certain People with guns kill other people,
Other people need to kill the certain people killing with guns or put them in jail LONGER.
Lawful people can rejoice knowning their sport and hobby is protected.
End of thread.
You obviously don't know a damn thing about Detroit. (While MI outside of Detroit can carry, there are several city ordinances that have been put into effect basically outlawing carrying a firearm at all, which has incidentally increased NON-firearm homicides 16% and homicides occuring in the home by 22%. Restrictive handgun laws don't work. Look at D.C. look at Detroit, look at Chicago, that city is a prime example (other than D.C.) why restrictive gun laws do NOT work.GetSplit wrote:
look at it this way, Detroit is a shit hole ghetto with a long standing high crime rate....that state has the right to carry.
Yet St. Louis, which is also a shit hole ghetto with a long standing high crime rate was just ranked #1 for the highest crime rates, and Missouri as "Abrogated" (abolished) guns...
so it don't matter, crime pays...evil will always triumph because good is dumb
20 percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6 percent of the population - New York, Chicago, Detroit and Washington, D.C. - and each has a virtual prohibition on private handguns and the carrying of such.
Go look up some more info dude, you are a little misled.
After Evanston, Ill., a Chicago suburb of 75,000 residents, became the largest town to ban handgun ownership in September 1982, it experienced no decline in violent crime.
Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.
LOL, wonderful point, just resonates the firm fact that guns don't kill, folks, you have to understand that people kill people or themselves whether its with cars, guns, knives, cigarrettes, computer games, etc.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Stephen King should write a sequel to 'Christine.' The remnants of the demon car could be melted down and turned into triggers and safety mechanisms at a Springfield installation, and sold to people through shady gun shows. Then you really could tell the judge that the gun made you do it, or just did it by itself.
Or would it be viable? Would the parts retain the same identity, and you'd be left with a pile of guns crawling back towards each other across the American wilderness? It could be turned into a show about natural discovery.
Interesting question, completely subjective and anecdotal, I don't know what you're looking for here. I haven't visited to many bad places, but downtown Tacoma aint that great.
Cities with highest crime rate PER capita:
1. Los Angeles, CA
2. Tacoma, WA
Tacoma use to smell really bad (what used to be known around here as the Tacoma Aroma) but they got their lumber mills under control now. Have a good day IG.
Cities with highest crime rate PER capita:
1. Los Angeles, CA
2. Tacoma, WA
Tacoma use to smell really bad (what used to be known around here as the Tacoma Aroma) but they got their lumber mills under control now. Have a good day IG.
You obviously don't know much about this subject friend, you're just spewing really weak talking points. The common criminal?? Tell that to all the people that have defended themselves against GUN WIELDING criminals and knife wielding rapists. You need to do some actual research on this Spark. When you just spout your ideology you sound very unintelligent. So if someone is trying to kill me, I don't have the right to STOP THEM?Spark wrote:
As I said earlier you don't need a gun to protect yourself. The common criminal would be easily frightened by someone running at them with a baseball bat screaming. These are the criminals who pick locks, break windows etc. The uncommon criminal wouldn't even be noticed, if they're good enough to get into the house silently then they're good enough not to be heard.
Plus, ninety-nine-and-a-half times out of 100 what you thought was a burglar was just your wife going to the toilet. At least with some kind of melee weapon (or ball) it's non-lethal and you can be very sure who you're whacking.
On the 'rights' thing - yes, I'm ALLOWED to have a gun, but does that mean I HAVE to have one? I have a right to drive (well, not really. not yet, anyway) but does that mean I HAVE to drive?
Once again I note that I have not yet advocated any changes to laws. I merely state that you don't need to excercise the rights granted in those laws.
I refer you to:
There I did the research for you.NCPA wrote:
If gun control laws have any effect, it may be to increase crime. For instance:19
* New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46 percent and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.
* In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures and its murder rate, then a low 2.4 per 100,000 per year, tripled to 7.2 by 1977.
* In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134 percent while the national murder rate has dropped 2 percent.
Defenders of the Washington law say it isn't working because criminals are getting guns in Virginia, where the laws are more relaxed. But just across the Potomac River, Arlington, Va., has a murder rate less than 10 percent of that of Washington (7.0 murders versus 77.8 per 100,000 population). Can the difference be explained by the fact that Washington is a large city? Virginia's largest city, Virginia Beach, has a population of nearly 400,000, allows easy access to firearms - and has had one of the country's lowest murder rates for years (4.1 per 100,000 population in 1991).
An analysis of 19 types of gun control laws [Table I] concluded that not only do they fail to reduce rates of violence, they even fail "to reduce the use of guns or induce people to substitute other weapons in acts of violence."20 For example:21
* When Morton Grove, Ill., outlawed handgun ownership, fewer than 20 were turned in.
* After Evanston, Ill., a Chicago suburb of 75,000 residents, became the largest town to ban handgun ownership in September 1982, it experienced no decline in violent crime.
* Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.
* 20 percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6 percent of the population - New York, Chicago, Detroit and Washington, D.C. - and each has a virtual prohibition on private handguns.
* New York has one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation - and 20 percent of the armed robberies. Even more troublesome is the fact that the places where gun control laws are toughest tend to be the places where the most crime is committed with illegal weapons:22
International Evidence.
Other countries have had similar experiences. After Canada passed a gun control law in 1977, the murder rate failed to decline but armed robbery and burglary, crimes frequently deterred by gun ownership, increased.23 (Canadian homicide rates are slightly lower than those in states along the U.S. border.) Violent crime accelerated in Taiwan and Jamaica after handguns were banned.24
Why Gun Control Laws May Benefit Criminals.
An increase in violent crime that appears to follow a tightening of controls on gun ownership and use is consistent with economic reasoning. Gun control laws are most likely to be obeyed by people who are otherwise law-abiding if, indeed, they are obeyed by anybody. Thus measures that apply equally to criminals and noncriminals, if they affect behavior at all, are almost certain to reduce gun possession more among noncriminals. As the popular slogan puts it: "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
Scholarly studies have not been able to demonstrate any effect of gun control laws. But if there is an effect, it is likely to benefit criminals in two ways: fewer armed victims to worry about and fewer criminal justice resources to devote to prosecuting real criminals. If fewer potential victims have guns for defense, the balance of power tilts slightly toward criminals. The overall crime rate tends to increase, although guns may not be used in any more crimes because, on average, victim resistance is lowered.
Because more police resources are spent on gun registration, gun law enforcement and gun law convictions, fewer resources are available to deter real criminals. Arrests for weapons violations already exceed 220,000 per year,25 a nontrivial load on the criminal justice system. A Chicago judge from one of the two courtrooms exclusively dedicated to trying gun law offenses in that city testified a few years ago:26
The most striking experience I can take away from the Gun Court . . . is . . . the kinds of people that appear there as defendants. . . . This is their very first arrest of any kind. Many of them are old people, many of them are shopkeepers, persons who have been previous victims of violent crime.
Although many of these "criminals" get probation, the advocates of stricter gun laws press for mandatory sentencing. Meanwhile, punishments meted out for gun law violations not connected with real crimes tend to depress citizens' respect for law and the criminal justice system. As attorney David B. Kopel puts it, "In a world where first-time muggers often receive probation, it is morally outrageous to imprison . . . everyone who carries a firearm for self-defense."27
Completely and utterly wrong, your statement should read:Scorpion0x17 wrote:
To answer the question "Is an armed society a polite society?", well let's think about this - basically by carrying a gun you're saying "Piss me off and I'll shoot you" - doesn't sound very polite to me.
If you try to KILL me, I'll shoot you.
Know respectful gun owner is going to shoot someone just because they get pissed off. Try again scorpion.
Pierre, thank you for your well thought out response, your english is wonderful, you are the first European who I've been able to talk about decently about this topic, it is very refreshing when someone talks about this issue with intelligence and respect, so thanks!Pierre wrote:
Hi Albert, thx for your reply.
1) That's what culture is all about: many differences but also some basic 'overall same principles'
2) my wish is to ride a bike from east to west as one of my German friends has done recently, one day... Oh well, we'll see.
3) you are prepared to defend yourself coz you have to be prepared since the society is what it is. But when you have to be in that state of mind, it's seems odd to me.
4) My question is in general: I saw a US documentary the other day about the differences between Canada and the US, and the fact that in the US were more deaths caused by gunfire than in Canada while Canada has a lot of guns too (sports and hunting). So why is there the difference?
5) Western Europe has seen a steady invasion of criminal gangs from the former East European countries who come here to burglar someones homes, do car and home-jacking, theft, etc., and before you know all goods have crossed the border........
.....problem with education and jobs, and self-esteem, so the path to a criminal career for a part of them is blinking.
6) But while people here talk about it, there seems to be no basic desire to arm themselves.
I've numbered you're statements for response in the quote above so:
1) You hit the issue right on the head, the question of difference in culture is not neccessarily about guns, but about the people in that culture and what they are willing to do with guns and other tools such as knives, cars, swords, etc. There are so many people who are killed by drunk drivers and other car accidents its overwhelming in this country, and it is so easily avoidable, people need to slow down and not drink and drive.
2) That sounds like a lot of fun!! I wish I could do that do, good luck with that.
3) In a way it is odd, I'm glad you at least understand where I'm coming from here. It is not that I have a mindset that when I go out SOMETHING will happen, or even that something is PROBABLE to happen, I want to be prepared for any scenario, because there are many crimes that are prevented every year by lawful citizens carrying and using firearms against would be rapists, murderers, and robbers. Example:
From an Arizona newspaper.ArizonaRepublic wrote:
PHOENIX, ARIZONA -- A man opened fire and wounded two people before a concerned neighbor of the victims grabbed a gun and shot him, authorities said.
All three were in serious condition Friday.
The unidentified neighbor "did what he thought was right in a very deadly encounter," said Detective Tony Morales, a Phoenix police spokesman. Two of the victims, Jorge Guzman, 24, and Cardenia Guzman, 26, were reported in serious condition at Good Samaritan Medical Center.
The family relation of the Guzmans, if any, was not immediately determined.
A man suspected of shooting both of them, Martin Talavera, 26, was reported in serious condition at Maricopa Medical Center, Morales said.
Investigators believe the shooting occurred after Talavera showed up about 1:35 a.m. at a home in the 3600 block of West Latham Street, south of McDowell Road, and got into some kind of argument with the Guzmans, Morales said.
The 24-year-old neighbor, hearing the commotion, grabbed a weapon and shot Talavera, Morales said.
No charges are expected against the neighbor because police believe he acted legally by using deadly force to protect the lives of other people, Morales said.
Police withheld the neighbor's name to protect the man from possible retribution.
Reach reporter Brent Whiting at (602) 444-xxxx.
At any rate All that I stress is being prepared, being able to defend yourself should the need arise.
4) Thats an excellent question Pierre, while Canada enjoys the use of firearms, they do not have nearly the same amount of firearms nor the same amount of gang and criminal activity than we do here in the U.S. Documentary's are usually a tad one sided, especially when it comes to guns. The problem is that people look at guns and freak out because they are so deadly. But ultimately it is not the guns that are the problem, it is the person's BEHAVIOR behind a gun that is the problem. This is a SOCIAL problem, not a gun ownership one. As I said before, the difference is Canadian culture and lack of number and intensity of gangs and associated violence that there exists in major cities in the U.S.
Another contributing factor is the ignorance that many people have with firearms, most people against firearms know very little about them mechanically and legally. I study law at school so I have to know this kinda stuff I suppose. There are many other contributing factors to your question, it is a very complex one but the simple answer is culture, culture, culture. And when I say culture it has nothing to do with the stereotypical euro stance that Americans are in love with guns, etc. It has to do with social behavior, attitude, and politeness. I don't have guns because society isn't polite, I have guns because a small percentage of said society is on the fringe of mental stableness and will do anything in some cases to kill, rob, or hurt you. Its not society as a whole, its only a small percentage, so to say society isn't polite due to guns, is a gross overgeneralization.
5) So I've heard from other people, thats too bad, but I'm glad you guys have people there, or at least a smaller percentage of people that are criminals.
6) Thats too bad.
Pierre I would like to thank you once again for engaging with me a diligent conversation about this topic, if I was unclear on anything or you have any more questions feel free to ask. Thanks and have a good day.
I agree, even though I am a staunch gun owner, freedom of speech is much more important. What good is a gun if you can't talk about WHY you should have it in the first place.
Too bad theres more truth to lowing's posts than you people will give him credit for, just wait and listen and watch. John Kerry's sandals are a comin.
Wow you guys are a lot less left than I previously thought, I commend you both on your moderation and denouncing Hilary, because she is DEFINITELY the wrong direction for the country. Nothing to do with Gender BTW.....
I think you guys are going to put up Obama, because he is definitely moderate but is HIDING a lot of his values on key issues for the very reason of staying moderate.
I think you guys are going to put up Obama, because he is definitely moderate but is HIDING a lot of his values on key issues for the very reason of staying moderate.
Definitely not Hilary, the way things are going if Obama wants it, he's going to have the party behind him...teddy..jimmy wrote:
tell me, which dem has the most potential to become a good president
EXACTLY, thats why this is NOT A FEDERAL issue that Pelosi makes it out to be, Of course its going to be POPULAR with mostly everyone, but this really needs to come down to the states. I think the min wage should be increased don't get me wrong here, but once again not from the fed.kr@cker wrote:
epecially if you're going to use the cost of living/inflation argument, if varies so greatly by region it is best handle by each state, regardless, if you're going to waste money, i'd rather see the people just get help learning a skill or going to trade school
Good, you should, because you need to bring more moderation to the left, otherwise come 08, its gonna be hard times for Dems. I think you guys should really push to make this country better, BUT NOT because "Bush fuxed it up" or some bullshit. Gimme a break on that stuff. Good post dxedle.k30dxedle wrote:
Very true. Personally I'm mostly liberal and even I'm amazed at this crap.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
A lot, and know, I haven't had my tetanus booster. But seriously, cmon, you can't say that Clinton was scrutinized as much, you just can't. I'm just amazed at the AMOUNT of hatred from the left, that I have personally seen on my college campus. For instance, when talking to someone, Someone asked me if I was conservative, I said yeah, wanna talk about something, do some intelligent debate, and they roll their eyes at me and call me an idiot and a fool. Thanks, real respectful.k30dxedle wrote:
I exaggerated. Bite me.
Here's the difference, at least for me, I would NEVER call someone stupid solely based on their political affiliation.
A lot, and know, I haven't had my tetanus booster. But seriously, cmon, you can't say that Clinton was scrutinized as much, you just can't. I'm just amazed at the AMOUNT of hatred from the left, that I have personally seen on my college campus. For instance, when talking to someone, Someone asked me if I was conservative, I said yeah, wanna talk about something, do some intelligent debate, and they roll their eyes at me and call me an idiot and a fool. Thanks, real respectful.k30dxedle wrote:
I exaggerated. Bite me.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
A lot of people blaming everything on Clinton. Hardly.k30dxedle wrote:
Frankly, right now, I see a lot of people blaming everything on Clinton.
Here's the difference, at least for me, I would NEVER call someone stupid solely based on their political affiliation.