I know, we watch the US news so we know what to expect.Lotta_Drool wrote:
The have to be real careful with guns in Ireland because you don't want a population of angry drunkards armed.JahManRed wrote:
" Spano was 15 at the time of the Massachusetts gun expo and was put in charge of allowing people to fire the 9 mm Micro Uzi"
Guilty. What the fuck is a 15yo doing handing out guns? A 15year old in charge of deciding who gets to fire an Uzi. Unbelievable. Both the father and the guy who set up the expo should both be charged, but im sure the father has been punished enough for his stupidity..
It shocks me that in the US it seams like a rights of passage thing that you must get a gun into your kids hand at as early an age as possible, so they can drunkenly boast to your mates about it. Their are idiots like that in Europe too. Only thing is the law is so strict on guns that this wouldn't happen. A minor in charge of any gun just wouldn't happen.
I had to handle an Air Rifle from 16-18 before my dad would let me near a proper gun. And at that it was a .22 bolt action. He has to spend 2 full days a year with the Police fire arms officer doing safety inspections etc. If the police even suspected that anyone but him, doesn't matter what age or experience as much as touched his guns they would take the licence & guns from him.
Unfortunately the rest of the word sees the news reported as "killing in the USA", not "killing in a state in the USA with different gun laws & culture"Macbeth wrote:
You know there is 50 states and each region of the U.S. have slightly(can't stress that word enough) different cultures?JahManRed wrote:
It shocks me that in the US it seams like a rights of passage thing that you must get a gun into your kids hand at as early an age as possible, so they can drunkenly boast to your mates about it.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of … s#FirearmsRates of gun ownership vary greatly by region and by state, with gun ownership tending to be most common in Alaska, the Mountain States and the South and least common in Hawaii, the island territories and the Northeast megalopolis.
I know more people who have never seen a gun up close then people who have seen one let alone shot it. I live in the northeast btw.
So you all get lumped into the same group. Reminds me of the Neil Young Song, "Alabama" where he sings about the rest of the US states dragging Alabama out of its racist dark ages. Perhaps the states with tighter gun laws need to start making noise regarding the "cowboy" states.
Right, about those "cowboy" states. Without knowing any specific numbers off the top of my head, as I recall states with the most retarded (read: more liberal, strict gun control) laws are New York, New Jersey, California, and Illinois. All mostly democratic states. States with cities featuring the highest crime. New York, Camden, LA, Chicago. I am pulling this out of my head, if anyone gives a fuck as to actually look up internet numbers and put me in my place, please do so.JahManRed wrote:
Unfortunately the rest of the word sees the news reported as "killing in the USA", not "killing in a state in the USA with different gun laws & culture"Macbeth wrote:
You know there is 50 states and each region of the U.S. have slightly(can't stress that word enough) different cultures?JahManRed wrote:
It shocks me that in the US it seams like a rights of passage thing that you must get a gun into your kids hand at as early an age as possible, so they can drunkenly boast to your mates about it.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of … s#FirearmsRates of gun ownership vary greatly by region and by state, with gun ownership tending to be most common in Alaska, the Mountain States and the South and least common in Hawaii, the island territories and the Northeast megalopolis.
I know more people who have never seen a gun up close then people who have seen one let alone shot it. I live in the northeast btw.
So you all get lumped into the same group. Reminds me of the Neil Young Song, "Alabama" where he sings about the rest of the US states dragging Alabama out of its racist dark ages. Perhaps the states with tighter gun laws need to start making noise regarding the "cowboy" states.
from what i remember you're pretty much right onmcjagdflieger wrote:
Right, about those "cowboy" states. Without knowing any specific numbers off the top of my head, as I recall states with the most retarded (read: more liberal, strict gun control) laws are New York, New Jersey, California, and Illinois. All mostly democratic states. States with cities featuring the highest crime. New York, Camden, LA, Chicago. I am pulling this out of my head, if anyone gives a fuck as to actually look up internet numbers and put me in my place, please do so.JahManRed wrote:
Unfortunately the rest of the word sees the news reported as "killing in the USA", not "killing in a state in the USA with different gun laws & culture"Macbeth wrote:
You know there is 50 states and each region of the U.S. have slightly(can't stress that word enough) different cultures?JahManRed wrote:
It shocks me that in the US it seams like a rights of passage thing that you must get a gun into your kids hand at as early an age as possible, so they can drunkenly boast to your mates about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of … s#Firearms
I know more people who have never seen a gun up close then people who have seen one let alone shot it. I live in the northeast btw.
So you all get lumped into the same group. Reminds me of the Neil Young Song, "Alabama" where he sings about the rest of the US states dragging Alabama out of its racist dark ages. Perhaps the states with tighter gun laws need to start making noise regarding the "cowboy" states.
the places with the strictest gun control have the highest crime rates
Canada?krazed wrote:
from what i remember you're pretty much right onmcjagdflieger wrote:
Right, about those "cowboy" states. Without knowing any specific numbers off the top of my head, as I recall states with the most retarded (read: more liberal, strict gun control) laws are New York, New Jersey, California, and Illinois. All mostly democratic states. States with cities featuring the highest crime. New York, Camden, LA, Chicago. I am pulling this out of my head, if anyone gives a fuck as to actually look up Internet numbers and put me in my place, please do so.JahManRed wrote:
Unfortunately the rest of the word sees the news reported as "killing in the USA", not "killing in a state in the USA with different gun laws & culture"
So you all get lumped into the same group. Reminds me of the Neil Young Song, "Alabama" where he sings about the rest of the US states dragging Alabama out of its racist dark ages. Perhaps the states with tighter gun laws need to start making noise regarding the "cowboy" states.
the places with the strictest gun control have the highest crime rates
Perhaps the gun control is a reaction to high crime rates? Maybe they should inject more guns into the high crime areas?
Id bet the areas with the highest crime rates are in areas with large poor populations with high proportion of immigrants & black people. Crime is caused by economics, drugs & money. I seriously doubt that armed citizens patrolling the streets is keeping the crime rate down. If so, that's the first I've heard of it.
I don't think gun control stops people killing people with guns. Integrating guns into everyday life and culture does, whether legal or not.
I live in Northern Ireland where this type of public killing happened 2-3 times a day in a population of less than a million and I have never felt the need to carry a gun for my protection.
But they also have the lowest rates of kids accidentally blowing their heads off IIRC.krazed wrote:
the places with the strictest gun control have the highest crime rates
The poster below will demonstrate his gayness by posting 'trololololol'
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-01-11 03:31:03)
Fuck Israel
trololololol
I suspect Irish on all sides of this story:JahManRed wrote:
I know, we watch the US news so we know what to expect.Lotta_Drool wrote:
The have to be real careful with guns in Ireland because you don't want a population of angry drunkards armed.JahManRed wrote:
" Spano was 15 at the time of the Massachusetts gun expo and was put in charge of allowing people to fire the 9 mm Micro Uzi"
Guilty. What the fuck is a 15yo doing handing out guns? A 15year old in charge of deciding who gets to fire an Uzi. Unbelievable. Both the father and the guy who set up the expo should both be charged, but im sure the father has been punished enough for his stupidity..
It shocks me that in the US it seams like a rights of passage thing that you must get a gun into your kids hand at as early an age as possible, so they can drunkenly boast to your mates about it. Their are idiots like that in Europe too. Only thing is the law is so strict on guns that this wouldn't happen. A minor in charge of any gun just wouldn't happen.
I had to handle an Air Rifle from 16-18 before my dad would let me near a proper gun. And at that it was a .22 bolt action. He has to spend 2 full days a year with the Police fire arms officer doing safety inspections etc. If the police even suspected that anyone but him, doesn't matter what age or experience as much as touched his guns they would take the licence & guns from him.
and Amish people don't die of car accidents very often if things are around, accidents will happen with them?Dilbert_X wrote:
But they also have the lowest rates of kids accidentally blowing their heads off IIRC.krazed wrote:
the places with the strictest gun control have the highest crime rates
I've always advocated that people should be required to take a safety course and be licenced to have firearms.... since we instituted both of those accidental deaths dropped hugely
NYC has one of the lowest crime rates for a major city. That place is pretty safe.krazed wrote:
from what i remember you're pretty much right onmcjagdflieger wrote:
Right, about those "cowboy" states. Without knowing any specific numbers off the top of my head, as I recall states with the most retarded (read: more liberal, strict gun control) laws are New York, New Jersey, California, and Illinois. All mostly democratic states. States with cities featuring the highest crime. New York, Camden, LA, Chicago. I am pulling this out of my head, if anyone gives a fuck as to actually look up internet numbers and put me in my place, please do so.JahManRed wrote:
Unfortunately the rest of the word sees the news reported as "killing in the USA", not "killing in a state in the USA with different gun laws & culture"
So you all get lumped into the same group. Reminds me of the Neil Young Song, "Alabama" where he sings about the rest of the US states dragging Alabama out of its racist dark ages. Perhaps the states with tighter gun laws need to start making noise regarding the "cowboy" states.
the places with the strictest gun control have the highest crime rates
But people in New York City don't die from being stomped by a horse.krazed wrote:
and Amish people don't die of car accidents very often if things are around, accidents will happen with them?Dilbert_X wrote:
But they also have the lowest rates of kids accidentally blowing their heads off IIRC.krazed wrote:
the places with the strictest gun control have the highest crime rates
I've always advocated that people should be required to take a safety course and be licenced to have firearms.... since we instituted both of those accidental deaths dropped hugely
Some people shouldn't be allowed around a toaster without first taking a course. Let's just outlaw stupid people. No highschool diploma, fuck you no driver's license. No College degree, fuck you no firearms. No nonstate/nonfederal job, fuck you no voting.
See how easy that is.
Last edited by Lotta_Drool (2011-01-11 10:44:38)
your parents would've been screwed.Lotta_Drool wrote:
Let's just outlaw stupid people.
Level 1 Toaster Operation and Safety Course..... now available at your local community college
You Protestant or Catholic while in NI?JahManRed wrote:
Perhaps the gun control is a reaction to high crime rates? Maybe they should inject more guns into the high crime areas?
Id bet the areas with the highest crime rates are in areas with large poor populations with high proportion of immigrants & black people. Crime is caused by economics, drugs & money. I seriously doubt that armed citizens patrolling the streets is keeping the crime rate down. If so, that's the first I've heard of it.
I don't think gun control stops people killing people with guns. Integrating guns into everyday life and culture does, whether legal or not.
I live in Northern Ireland where this type of public killing happened 2-3 times a day in a population of less than a million and I have never felt the need to carry a gun for my protection.
It's really easy when you think about it. If you outlaw guns only criminals will own guns. You raise the punishment for illegal guns you end up with a shot out instead of a peaceful solution. That's why the toys for guns programs where great success's because it gave the people a way to give up there firearms with out fear of repercussion.
Now in most of the other loser gun law states in the Union are mostly below the poverty line and people use there firearms to feed there families.
The high auto chases in California are due to the three strikes rule. People just don't want life in prison.
Now in most of the other loser gun law states in the Union are mostly below the poverty line and people use there firearms to feed there families.
The high auto chases in California are due to the three strikes rule. People just don't want life in prison.
In Switzerland some guy from our school with 5 others friends thought it would be a good idea to go smoke pot and drink a lot, then go to another bar and smoke pot and drink a lot the same night. On the way home (he was driving) he went over a cliff and they landed on the roof of the car. 3 people died, 2 seriously injured (one dead was his brother), he didn't have a scratch. They put him in jail and let him out waaaay early (2 years later).Turquoise wrote:
Yes, but it is a consideration. For example, cases like this one usually involve a jury claiming "time served."11 Bravo wrote:
no no. you are dodging the point.
guilt is not a punishment per our system.
I know I'd do that for this guy, because it's not like he'll ever make this mistake again.
Now he cannot live with the guilt. He said in prison he felt ok because it felt like at least he was being punished for it.
I'm just trying to say that guilt is pretty rough.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
Jury found him innocent on all charges.
Thank god for some sense in this country.Macbeth wrote:
Jury found him innocent on all charges.
Innocent implies that you have not committed any wrong-doing. "Not-guilty" means that the jury does not believe that you committed the specified crime.Macbeth wrote:
Jury found him innocent not-guilty on all charges.
Couldn't remeber the term at the time. Long day -_-Doctor Strangelove wrote:
Innocent implies that you have not committed any wrong-doing. "Not-guilty" means that the jury does not believe that you committed the specified crime.Macbeth wrote:
Jury found him innocent not-guilty on all charges.
Uhm, legally, he's been acquitted. As in, he's innocent of the charges. Unless you're trying to get philosophical about this, I'm not really sure what your nitpick is about.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
Innocent implies that you have not committed any wrong-doing. "Not-guilty" means that the jury does not believe that you committed the specified crime.Macbeth wrote:
Jury found him innocent not-guilty on all charges.
There actually is a difference. A court cannot prove someone's innocence -- it only proves that someone is not guilty of the specified crimes.SenorToenails wrote:
Uhm, legally, he's been acquitted. As in, he's innocent of the charges. Unless you're trying to get philosophical about this, I'm not really sure what your nitpick is about.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
Innocent implies that you have not committed any wrong-doing. "Not-guilty" means that the jury does not believe that you committed the specified crime.Macbeth wrote:
Jury found him innocent not-guilty on all charges.
The defendant is innocent of the charges presented, but this does not rule out future, different charges regarding the same event.
A good example is the O.J. case. He was acquitted of murder and found not guilty of the charges presented in the criminal case, but he was still sued in civil court for wrongful deaths.
Obviously the courts cannot prove a negative. If you aren't guilty of those crimes you're charged with, wouldn't you be without guilt? And that's pretty much the definition of innocent. Is there a legal distinction between the two terms? For the portion that I bolded, how is that any different from what Macbeth said? He was only tried on those charges listed...Turquoise wrote:
There actually is a difference. A court cannot prove someone's innocence -- it only proves that someone is not guilty of the specified crimes.SenorToenails wrote:
Uhm, legally, he's been acquitted. As in, he's innocent of the charges. Unless you're trying to get philosophical about this, I'm not really sure what your nitpick is about.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
Innocent implies that you have not committed any wrong-doing. "Not-guilty" means that the jury does not believe that you committed the specified crime.
The defendant is innocent of the charges presented, but this does not rule out future, different charges regarding the same event.
A good example is the O.J. case. He was acquitted of murder and found not guilty of the charges presented in the criminal case, but he was still sued in civil court for wrongful deaths.
As for OJ, his civil court stuff was all because of a lower burden of proof required to get a judgement. That's not really a declaration of innocence or guilt in any way...but how he was sued when a jury found him not guilty criminally, I don't get. But whatever.
The difference is that innocence is presumed. If someone is charged with something and the jury acquits them, they say "not guilty" partially because saying they are innocent is somewhat redundant while at the same time beyond the scope of their judgment. I guess you could say "innocent" of all charges, but they don't normally word it that way.SenorToenails wrote:
Obviously the courts cannot prove a negative. If you aren't guilty of those crimes you're charged with, wouldn't you be without guilt? And that's pretty much the definition of innocent. Is there a legal distinction between the two terms? For the portion that I bolded, how is that any different from what Macbeth said? He was only tried on those charges listed...Turquoise wrote:
There actually is a difference. A court cannot prove someone's innocence -- it only proves that someone is not guilty of the specified crimes.SenorToenails wrote:
Uhm, legally, he's been acquitted. As in, he's innocent of the charges. Unless you're trying to get philosophical about this, I'm not really sure what your nitpick is about.
The defendant is innocent of the charges presented, but this does not rule out future, different charges regarding the same event.
A good example is the O.J. case. He was acquitted of murder and found not guilty of the charges presented in the criminal case, but he was still sued in civil court for wrongful deaths.
As for OJ, his civil court stuff was all because of a lower burden of proof required to get a judgement. That's not really a declaration of innocence or guilt in any way...but how he was sued when a jury found him not guilty criminally, I don't get. But whatever.
Only because Giuliani stopped parole of violent offenders under the common sense observation that these ( 1/3 of the ) people commit most ( 99.9 % ) of the crime. Its climbing back up though because people who moved here after it became safe " don't understand why Police have to be so Hard on criminals ? " and are making the cops back off.Cybargs wrote:
NYC has one of the lowest crime rates for a major city. That place is pretty safe.krazed wrote:
from what i remember you're pretty much right onmcjagdflieger wrote:
Right, about those "cowboy" states. Without knowing any specific numbers off the top of my head, as I recall states with the most retarded (read: more liberal, strict gun control) laws are New York, New Jersey, California, and Illinois. All mostly democratic states. States with cities featuring the highest crime. New York, Camden, LA, Chicago. I am pulling this out of my head, if anyone gives a fuck as to actually look up internet numbers and put me in my place, please do so.
the places with the strictest gun control have the highest crime rates
I guess we will be seeing Billy Boggs again soon, She has been off the Ivy League lecture circuit because they...pretty much forgot about her.