To your appended follow-up post (why you decided to add such into another entry, I know not), it is obvious the implication that I had referenced had been to firearms as weaponry. Anywho, no, border control issues can't be solved in the Americas -- at least, not for a very, very long extension of effort and time. Truthfully, point out for me where I have misused portions of vocabulary. Obfustication hasn't and had never (or will never) play role as an personal objective.Bubbalo wrote:
Which is a border control issue, which could be solved. Russia is big on arms making and such, yet Europe doesn't seem to have huge troubles. Maybe you should ask them for advice?
And using big words means nothing if you use them improperly and attempt to obfusticate* your opponents rather than engage in meaningful dialogue.
*See, I can use fancy words too, and properly! I choose not to, however, because there is little point.
Poll
I am _______ concealed weapons and I live...
| _for_...in the US. | 43% | 43% - 97 | ||||
| _for_...in another nation where they are allowed. | 3% | 3% - 7 | ||||
| _for_...in a nation where they are disallowed. | 10% | 10% - 23 | ||||
| _against_...in the US. | 5% | 5% - 13 | ||||
| _against_...in another nation where they are allowed. | 2% | 2% - 5 | ||||
| _against_...in a nation where they are disallowed. | 35% | 35% - 80 | ||||
| Total: 225 | ||||||
I RECKON NIGGLEMUFFIN IS XIETSU - SOMEBODY PLEASE CALL A MODERATOR!!!!NiggleMuffin wrote:
No, you have no basis that there won't be (such an inception). Is there or was there prior a heavy arms trafficking of munitions into, essentially, the whole of your country or any other European bodies? No, not even close. The hispanic states in the Southern and Central Americas are zones which must be controlled and compartmentalized into a union for action should your advice ever seek to make impacting effects. I do think it so profoundly awkward that you question the origin of my native tongue yet you hold a decent portion less of skill than I in linguistic fortitude.
(P.S. By the way, it isn't an assumption. Weaponry sees movement throughout the whole of our body so often you have no idea. Nehil speaks [somewhere among this mess of threads concerning gun control] of how he knows nobody from whom he could foster firearm procurement, and honestly, this is a matter of available resources. In his case, he hasn't the pervasive connection to the type of culture and relations that we in the United States do.)
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-09-05 04:08:32)
Isn't Cameron Poe just that little twerp in class who ought get his ass kicked every day?
Yeah, I've gotten a bit lazy on the recently.................NiggleMuffin wrote:
To your appended follow-up post (why you decided to add such into another entry, I know not),
You were talking about traffic issues, what does this have to do with anything?NiggleMuffin wrote:
it is obvious the implication that I had referenced had been to firearms as weaponry.
You say this based on? And what about the Russian example?NiggleMuffin wrote:
Anywho, no, border control issues can't be solved in the Americas -- at least, not for a very, very long extension of effort and time.
Right there. It would be "where [you] have misused vocabulary" not "portions of vocabulary".NiggleMuffin wrote:
Truthfully, point out for me where I have misused portions of vocabulary.
Then I suggest simplifying your language: you appear to confuse even yourself.NiggleMuffin wrote:
Obfustication hasn't and had never (or will never) play role as an personal objective.
My point was that if all of the armies in Europe and all of their citizens (of which ALL had the right to have weapons) couldn't stop the Nazis from invading and occupying their countries what possible hope did the German citizens have on their own even if they were armed? Did dropping hand guns onto the population result in the population overthrowing the Nazi invaders? no.Horseman 77 wrote:
WTF ?.:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:
At the time of the second world war I don't think any European country had banned their citizens from owning firearms and what happens? They all got crushed by the Germans. Arming your citizens does absolutely no good against an invading army.
not my point at all please try and address the points or leave the issue alone.
US population 300,000,000, area 9,600,000 sq.km. Popn density about 30 per per sq.kmlowing wrote:
What happened? Couldn't ya pick any smaller, or more sparsely populated countries to compare?Bubbalo wrote:
What the hell's wrong with Sweden?Darktongue wrote:
Homicide Suicide Unintentional
USA 4.08 (1999) 6.08 (1999) 0.42 (1999)
Canada 0.54 (1999) 2.65 (1997) 0.15 (1997)
Switzerland 0.50 (1999) 5.78 (1998) -
Scotland 0.12 (1999) 0.27 (1999) -
England/Wales 0.12 (1999/00) 0.22 (1999) 0.01 (1999)
Japan 0.04* (1998) 0.04 (1995) <0.01 (1997)
The people who argue that disarmament in America results in more crime need to look longer term: in the short term, people will be unprotected from armed criminals. In the long term, police can collect all the weapons and the net result is a safer country.
Japan population 130,000,000 area 380,000 sq.km popn density about 324 per sq.km.
UK population 60,000,000 area 250,000 sq.km popn density about 240 per sq.km
Switzerland population 7,500,000 area 42,000 sq.km popn density about 178 per sq. km.
So yeah, we need to find some more sparsely populated countries to compair the US to as you're population density is really really low compaired to these countries. Remember that most serious crimes occur in densely polulated urban areas.
Sweden population 9,000,000 area 450,000sq.km. population density 20 per sq.km
So in many ways Sweden is in fact the closest match to the US in terms of population density.
I'm still confused that he wrote Switzerland in bold and then said Sweden.
Shut up! I don't make mistakes! Clearly that was my subconscious trying to tell you all to stay away from Sweden!
I don't know, He has that stone cold assassin look. His heart seems in on his decisions even if I disagree with 75% of them.NiggleMuffin wrote:
Isn't Cameron Poe just that little twerp in class who ought get his ass kicked every day?
Against, and it's illegal in Iceland. Our crime rate is ridiculously low as well, if a single person dies out of non-natural causes it's going to be all over the news.
my own opinion? you should hqve 2 hoops: one to be able to get the gun, and one to be able to conceal it in public. to get the gun for sport use ( i.e. shooting targets or game animals) then you shoudl ahve to go thrpugh a course on the gun, and have to be able to show reasonbale marksmanship ( i.e. be able to hit rought 9/10 shots, given the gun is only for use away from where there soi a risk to other humans) and go through a course on gun safety AND sstte where they will be using the gun (maybe with approved ranges/ shooting parks?) AND have a clean criminal record with NO crimes involving them using ANY weapon. to be able to conceal a gun in public, then you should have to go through a thorogh course, and have to be able to A) reliably hit the intended target every shot for even the most difficult of shots ( so that only those least liely to cause collaterol damage get to do ti) and B) have a nearly completely clean criminal record, and C) go through a course on whne they can legally use guns, and alternatives to using the gun ( warning shots, just brandishing the gun, etc.) and THEN they can carry guns, but if they use it more that a reasonable amount of times per month using deadly force, they have to justify each and every time they use the gun or they lose ALL liceses and have to surrender the gun.
Providing the population with guns increases the liklihood of a would be 'law abiding citizen' committing a crime through any number of motivations including rage.
Last edited by jonsimon (2006-09-05 16:24:09)
Not one statistic or fact can back up your statement, In fact when a larger percentage of our population was armed, less crimes were committed. So infact the opposite is true.jonsimon wrote:
Providing the population with guns increases the liklihood of a would be 'law abiding citizen' into a criminal through any number of scenarios including rage.
" Rage " ? are you speaking fom experince ? lol
The Criminal is the only common denominator in every crime. Its frustrating to have to reintroduce this material this late in the game. Try and use search on this topic as its been coverd Ad nauseam.
Not one fact, eh? Cases have been reported of one driver firing upon another in the midst of road rage. This is a fact that supports my argument. Sorry, you're wrong.Horseman 77 wrote:
Not one statistic or fact can back up your statement, In fact when a larger percentage of our population was armed, less crimes were committed. So infact the opposite is true.jonsimon wrote:
Providing the population with guns increases the liklihood of a would be 'law abiding citizen' into a criminal through any number of scenarios including rage.
" Rage " ? are you speaking fom experince ? lol
The Criminal is the only common denominator in every crime. Its frustrating to have to reintroduce this material this late in the game. Try and use search on this topic as its been coverd Ad nauseam.
Every criminal is a law abiding citizen until they commit a crime. The perception of many of the 'pro-firearm' group that criminals are inherently different from anyone else is flawed.
To fire a weapon and try and harm some one over a traffic incedent take a deranged crimanal mind.jonsimon wrote:
Not one fact, eh? Cases have been reported of one driver firing upon another in the midst of road rage. This is a fact that supports my argument. Sorry, you're wrong.Horseman 77 wrote:
Not one statistic or fact can back up your statement, In fact when a larger percentage of our population was armed, less crimes were committed. So infact the opposite is true.jonsimon wrote:
Providing the population with guns increases the liklihood of a would be 'law abiding citizen' into a criminal through any number of scenarios including rage.
" Rage " ? are you speaking fom experince ? lol
The Criminal is the only common denominator in every crime. Its frustrating to have to reintroduce this material this late in the game. Try and use search on this topic as its been coverd Ad nauseam.
Every criminal is a law abiding citizen until they commit a crime. The perception of many of the 'pro-firearm' group that criminals are inherently different from anyone else is flawed.
Do you try and Ram people with your car who cut you off ? I never have and don't know anyone who has.
Do you have a drivers licences ? have you ever tried to hurt someone with your car who pissed you off?
My bet is if you are like any law abiding citizen you have not ever entertianed the thought
Try and have some sense of reality please.
Right, so the cop that fired the shot was a deranged criminal. It doesn't take a 'deranged criminal mind' to act impulsively when angered. You exaggerate complex situations into black and white scenarios.Horseman 77 wrote:
To fire a weapon and try and harm some one over a traffic incedent take a deranged crimanal mind.jonsimon wrote:
Not one fact, eh? Cases have been reported of one driver firing upon another in the midst of road rage. This is a fact that supports my argument. Sorry, you're wrong.Horseman 77 wrote:
Not one statistic or fact can back up your statement, In fact when a larger percentage of our population was armed, less crimes were committed. So infact the opposite is true.
" Rage " ? are you speaking fom experince ? lol
The Criminal is the only common denominator in every crime. Its frustrating to have to reintroduce this material this late in the game. Try and use search on this topic as its been coverd Ad nauseam.
Every criminal is a law abiding citizen until they commit a crime. The perception of many of the 'pro-firearm' group that criminals are inherently different from anyone else is flawed.
Do you try and Ram people with your car who cut you off ? I never have and don't know anyone who has.
Do you have a drivers licences ? have you ever tried to hurt someone with your car who pissed you off?
My bet is if you are like any law abiding citizen you have not ever entertianed the thought
Try and have some sense of reality please.
Some people do bump or nudge other cars impulsively, it has happened. Sure, never to me, but it has happened.
No, I have never entertained the thought, and never will, but impulsive actions are committed to without thought, that's what makes them impulsive.
Ok so they are all packed in like sardines......That explains it, no one can move so no one can commit a crime..:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:
My point was that if all of the armies in Europe and all of their citizens (of which ALL had the right to have weapons) couldn't stop the Nazis from invading and occupying their countries what possible hope did the German citizens have on their own even if they were armed? Did dropping hand guns onto the population result in the population overthrowing the Nazi invaders? no.Horseman 77 wrote:
WTF ?.:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:
At the time of the second world war I don't think any European country had banned their citizens from owning firearms and what happens? They all got crushed by the Germans. Arming your citizens does absolutely no good against an invading army.
not my point at all please try and address the points or leave the issue alone.US population 300,000,000, area 9,600,000 sq.km. Popn density about 30 per per sq.kmlowing wrote:
What happened? Couldn't ya pick any smaller, or more sparsely populated countries to compare?Bubbalo wrote:
What the hell's wrong with Sweden?
The people who argue that disarmament in America results in more crime need to look longer term: in the short term, people will be unprotected from armed criminals. In the long term, police can collect all the weapons and the net result is a safer country.
Japan population 130,000,000 area 380,000 sq.km popn density about 324 per sq.km.
UK population 60,000,000 area 250,000 sq.km popn density about 240 per sq.km
Switzerland population 7,500,000 area 42,000 sq.km popn density about 178 per sq. km.
So yeah, we need to find some more sparsely populated countries to compair the US to as you're population density is really really low compaired to these countries. Remember that most serious crimes occur in densely polulated urban areas.
Sweden population 9,000,000 area 450,000sq.km. population density 20 per sq.km
So in many ways Sweden is in fact the closest match to the US in terms of population density.
Seriously, forget density.....No matter how you slice it, it still comes up to 270,000,000 more potential criminals than the closest country on the list.
Last edited by lowing (2006-09-06 03:31:18)
So then China should have a big big problem... people should walk around with Cruz missiles on their backs.lowing wrote:
Seriously, forget density.....No matter how you slice it, it still comes up to 270,000,000 more potential criminals than the closest country on the list.
ƒ³
Erm, US population 300,000,000 Japan population 127,000,000 That would be 173,000,000 more potential criminals (a little over twice the number of potential criminals in the US) and the US has roughly 800 times as many homicides.lowing wrote:
Seriously, forget density.....No matter how you slice it, it still comes up to 270,000,000 more potential criminals than the closest country on the list.
Two and a half times the population and 200 times the homicides.
Anyway, for the hundredth time, the original numbers were PER 100,000 POPULATION!
ie. they got the number of homicides, divided it by the number of people in the country, then multiplied it by 100,000, hence THE SIZE OF THE COUNTRY HAS ALMOST NO IMPACT ON THIS STAT!
Except that the stats are per 100,000, so the number of people is irrelevant.lowing wrote:
Seriously, forget density.....No matter how you slice it, it still comes up to 270,000,000 more potential criminals than the closest country on the list.
forgive my math, and I missed the 100,000 number..:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:
Erm, US population 300,000,000 Japan population 127,000,000 That would be 173,000,000 more potential criminals (a little over twice the number of potential criminals in the US) and the US has roughly 800 times as many homicides.lowing wrote:
Seriously, forget density.....No matter how you slice it, it still comes up to 270,000,000 more potential criminals than the closest country on the list.
Two and a half times the population and 200 times the homicides.
Anyway, for the hundredth time, the original numbers were PER 100,000 POPULATION!
ie. they got the number of homicides, divided it by the number of people in the country, then multiplied it by 100,000, hence THE SIZE OF THE COUNTRY HAS ALMOST NO IMPACT ON THIS STAT!
i stand corrected.lowing wrote:
forgive my math, and I missed the 100,000 number..:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:
Erm, US population 300,000,000 Japan population 127,000,000 That would be 173,000,000 more potential criminals (a little over twice the number of potential criminals in the US) and the US has roughly 800 times as many homicides.lowing wrote:
Seriously, forget density.....No matter how you slice it, it still comes up to 270,000,000 more potential criminals than the closest country on the list.
Two and a half times the population and 200 times the homicides.
Anyway, for the hundredth time, the original numbers were PER 100,000 POPULATION!
ie. they got the number of homicides, divided it by the number of people in the country, then multiplied it by 100,000, hence THE SIZE OF THE COUNTRY HAS ALMOST NO IMPACT ON THIS STAT!
If guns were the problem murders in the Armed Forces would be out of control with all the young people carrying automatic weapons.
If they allowed extensive amounts of alcohol in the army and didn't take the time to train and brainwash everyone first, it probably would.Horseman 77 wrote:
If guns were the problem murders in the Armed Forces would be out of control with all the young people carrying automatic weapons.
People in the Armed Forces are Brain Washed ? I do believe you have tipped your hand and shown us your true colors and core values and hearin lies the real problem.jonsimon wrote:
If they allowed extensive amounts of alcohol in the army and didn't take the time to train and brainwash everyone first, it probably would.Horseman 77 wrote:
If guns were the problem murders in the Armed Forces would be out of control with all the young people carrying automatic weapons.
Who here has ever " been intentionaly nudged or nudged " an offending vehicle. Its called an accident even if you do it intentionaly and cost heavy in Fines and repairs.
As a matter of intrest, Do you Drive yet ?
Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-09-06 15:43:57)
Just out of curiosity, but can anyone actually find some statistics on the number of gun crimes carried out by a person with a CWL versus total number of gun crimes? Considering what you have to go through to get one of those licenses, and then the pistol in the US, I'm just going to venture out a guess and say that the number of crimes carried out by some one with a CWL is ridiculously low.