Pages: 1 … 42 43 44 45 46 … 64

Topic closed

2011-01-13 12:05:29
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6840|SE London

11 Bravo wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

lowing wrote:

We know guns are not used in self defense, you are not allowed to. but are guns used by criminals in England?
In an incredibly rare amount of cases.
i guess

"27 offences involving firearms every day in England and Wales"

april 2001-2002 per bbc
Which is down to the way gun crime in the UK is categorised. Toy guns, replicas, air rifles make up the vast majority of those - there are examples of water pistol fights being recorded as gun crime. Fewer than 3% of gun crimes in the UK resulted in injury.

For a more accurate reflection you need to look at the gun homicide rates. Which are very, very low.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2011-01-13 12:08:04)

2011-01-13 12:05:39
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6389|North Tonawanda, NY

Turquoise wrote:

EVieira wrote:

Then why can't you take a proficiency/psych test too? If you can say who can or can't be eligible for a constitutional right based on a background check, then applying a couple of tests shouldn't be a problem.
I totally agree, and honestly, I don't understand the opposition to this.
If we aren't going to be specific here, what happens when you aren't deemed proficient or 'psychologically sound' enough for any of the other amendments?  You failed the proficiency/psych test for free speech/no cruel or unusual punishment/whatever, it doesn't apply to you.

That is a very obviously dangerous road to go down.
2011-01-13 12:06:00
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7034|Moscow, Russia

Turquoise wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Here's the problem with that.  The government records crimes, not cases of self-defense.
but some cases are being registered and looked into, as parts of crime cases, right? is there statistics about that? that would probably give us a better picture, however partial, than all those "of people who took our survey, 78% said they used their gun in a life threatening situation"-crap. what else do those idiots expect all the lowings who took the bloody survey to say ffs?
I suppose it could serve fairly well for anecdotal purposes, but it's not going to hold any weight in a debate over policy.
for russian people twice and slowly, please:
you say that surveys were people voice their own opinions on how they used guns would give better picture that statistics based on registered and researched cases? help me out here.

edit: i need to start using a proofreader one of these days.

Last edited by Shahter (2011-01-13 12:07:39)

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2011-01-13 12:06:53
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6663|North Carolina

SenorToenails wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

EVieira wrote:

Then why can't you take a proficiency/psych test too? If you can say who can or can't be eligible for a constitutional right based on a background check, then applying a couple of tests shouldn't be a problem.
I totally agree, and honestly, I don't understand the opposition to this.
If we aren't going to be specific here, what happens when you aren't deemed proficient or 'psychologically sound' enough for any of the other amendments?  You failed the proficiency/psych test for free speech/no cruel or unusual punishment/whatever, it doesn't apply to you.

That is a very obviously dangerous road to go down.
Any restriction of freedom is a slippery slope, but I could make an equally valid case involving freedom of speech.

Why can't I yell fire in a theater?
2011-01-13 12:08:03
presidentsheep
Back to the Fuhrer
+208|6220|Places 'n such

Bertster7 wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:


In an incredibly rare amount of cases.
i guess

"27 offences involving firearms every day in England and Wales"

april 2001-2002 per bbc
Which is down to the way gun crime in the UK is categorised. Toy guns, replicas, air rifles make up the vast majority of those - there are examples of water pistol fights being recorded as gun crime.

For a more accurate reflection you need to look at the gun homicide rates. Which are very, very low.
That's because we're all proles who don't live in the real world. Turns out I was naive for believing that not everyone wanted to murder me so I didn't need to leave the house with several weapons each morning.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
2011-01-13 12:08:23
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5496|Cleveland, Ohio

Bertster7 wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:


In an incredibly rare amount of cases.
i guess

"27 offences involving firearms every day in England and Wales"

april 2001-2002 per bbc
Which is down to the way gun crime in the UK is categorised. Toy guns, replicas, air rifles make up the vast majority of those - there are examples of water pistol fights being recorded as gun crime. Fewer than 3% of gun crimes in the UK resulted in injury.

For a more accurate reflection you need to look at the gun homicide rates. Which are very, very low.
i dont care tbh
2011-01-13 12:08:28
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6663|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


I have minimal faith in Freud's industry ever effectively being able to stop violence such as the Loughner crime even if they had the power to screen every American citizen. Like I said previously in this thread, shrinks deserve about as much respect as drug dealers.
Tom Cruise would agree with you.

Seriously though...  what's your beef with psychology and psychiatry?  Do you have a background in it?  I'm assuming not, since you mentioned Freud.
My beef is that the primary drive of the industry is to force conformity to some 'normal'.

That and it's not real science.
Bullshit.  It is a real science.  America seriously needs better education on psychology, because I have run across far too many people with this misconception.
2011-01-13 12:09:18
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5496|Cleveland, Ohio

presidentsheep wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:


i guess

"27 offences involving firearms every day in England and Wales"

april 2001-2002 per bbc
Which is down to the way gun crime in the UK is categorised. Toy guns, replicas, air rifles make up the vast majority of those - there are examples of water pistol fights being recorded as gun crime.

For a more accurate reflection you need to look at the gun homicide rates. Which are very, very low.
That's because we're all proles who don't live in the real world. Turns out I was naive for believing that not everyone wanted to murder me so I didn't need to leave the house with several weapons each morning.
the fuck are you idiots talking about?  i was just posting a factual number since that usually helps when discussing stuff.
2011-01-13 12:09:40
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6663|North Carolina

Shahter wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Shahter wrote:


but some cases are being registered and looked into, as parts of crime cases, right? is there statistics about that? that would probably give us a better picture, however partial, than all those "of people who took our survey, 78% said they used their gun in a life threatening situation"-crap. what else do those idiots expect all the lowings who took the bloody survey to say ffs?
I suppose it could serve fairly well for anecdotal purposes, but it's not going to hold any weight in a debate over policy.
for russian people twice and slowly, please:
you say that surveys were people voice their own opinions on how they used guns would give better picture that statistics based on registered and researched cases? help me out here.

edit: i need to start using a proofreader one of these days.
No, of course not.  I didn't say that.  I'm saying that your proposal wouldn't hold any weight in this debate, and neither would that survey.
2011-01-13 12:10:22
presidentsheep
Back to the Fuhrer
+208|6220|Places 'n such
It's cool, just referencing some earlier arguments.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
2011-01-13 12:11:09
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5616|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Tom Cruise would agree with you.

Seriously though...  what's your beef with psychology and psychiatry?  Do you have a background in it?  I'm assuming not, since you mentioned Freud.
My beef is that the primary drive of the industry is to force conformity to some 'normal'.

That and it's not real science.
Bullshit.  It is a real science.  America seriously needs better education on psychology, because I have run across far too many people with this misconception.
It. Is. Not. Real. Science. Sorry Turq, it's just not. Science is concrete. Psychology is as subjective as eng lit or art appreciation.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-01-13 12:11:29
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6389|North Tonawanda, NY

Turquoise wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I totally agree, and honestly, I don't understand the opposition to this.
If we aren't going to be specific here, what happens when you aren't deemed proficient or 'psychologically sound' enough for any of the other amendments?  You failed the proficiency/psych test for free speech/no cruel or unusual punishment/whatever, it doesn't apply to you.

That is a very obviously dangerous road to go down.
Any restriction of freedom is a slippery slope, but I could make an equally valid case involving freedom of speech.

Why can't I yell fire in a theater?
You don't need to take a competency test to prove you are worthy of free speech, Turq.  And you're free to go yell that--you just need to take responsibility for it.  Much like libel and slander.  Nothing stops you...but you can be held to what your actions cause.
2011-01-13 12:11:31
Hunter/Jumper
Member
+117|6613

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

In an incredibly rare amount of cases.
So what happens, you run around stabbing each other instead?
No. As previously pointed out, national per capita knife homicide rates in the UK are lower than in the US.

Ultimately what happens is we have far fewer people killing each other. Which I think is a good thing.
I rather suspect you have other things of a much lower national per capita than the United States which contribute more than Laws, Rules and Regs. to your observations of " far fewer people killing each other " in the UK.
2011-01-13 12:12:10
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6663|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


My beef is that the primary drive of the industry is to force conformity to some 'normal'.

That and it's not real science.
Bullshit.  It is a real science.  America seriously needs better education on psychology, because I have run across far too many people with this misconception.
It. Is. Not. Real. Science. Sorry Turq, it's just not. Science is concrete. Psychology is as subjective as eng lit or art appreciation.
What about psychiatry?
2011-01-13 12:12:32
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5616|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Bullshit.  It is a real science.  America seriously needs better education on psychology, because I have run across far too many people with this misconception.
It. Is. Not. Real. Science. Sorry Turq, it's just not. Science is concrete. Psychology is as subjective as eng lit or art appreciation.
What about psychiatry?
Same boat.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-01-13 12:12:50
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6663|North Carolina

SenorToenails wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:


If we aren't going to be specific here, what happens when you aren't deemed proficient or 'psychologically sound' enough for any of the other amendments?  You failed the proficiency/psych test for free speech/no cruel or unusual punishment/whatever, it doesn't apply to you.

That is a very obviously dangerous road to go down.
Any restriction of freedom is a slippery slope, but I could make an equally valid case involving freedom of speech.

Why can't I yell fire in a theater?
You don't need to take a competency test to prove you are worthy of free speech, Turq.  And you're free to go yell that--you just need to take responsibility for it.  Much like libel and slander.  Nothing stops you...but you can be held to what your actions cause.
Then why do we prevent felons from having guns?
2011-01-13 12:13:13
presidentsheep
Back to the Fuhrer
+208|6220|Places 'n such

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:


So what happens, you run around stabbing each other instead?
No. As previously pointed out, national per capita knife homicide rates in the UK are lower than in the US.

Ultimately what happens is we have far fewer people killing each other. Which I think is a good thing.
I rather suspect you have other things of a much lower national per capita than the United States which contribute more than Laws, Rules and Regs. to your observations of " far fewer people killing each other " in the UK.
Any evidence to back that claim up?
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
2011-01-13 12:13:20
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6663|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


It. Is. Not. Real. Science. Sorry Turq, it's just not. Science is concrete. Psychology is as subjective as eng lit or art appreciation.
What about psychiatry?
Same boat.
Yeah, you clearly don't know much about that topic either.
2011-01-13 12:14:11
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6840|SE London

11 Bravo wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:


Which is down to the way gun crime in the UK is categorised. Toy guns, replicas, air rifles make up the vast majority of those - there are examples of water pistol fights being recorded as gun crime.

For a more accurate reflection you need to look at the gun homicide rates. Which are very, very low.
That's because we're all proles who don't live in the real world. Turns out I was naive for believing that not everyone wanted to murder me so I didn't need to leave the house with several weapons each morning.
the fuck are you idiots talking about?  i was just posting a factual number since that usually helps when discussing stuff.
Here's a factual number - 42 people killed with guns in the UK in 2008.

That kind of shows how unrepresentative your factual number is of the real levels of gun crime - for the reasons I've already outlined.
2011-01-13 12:14:44
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7034|Moscow, Russia

Turquoise wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I suppose it could serve fairly well for anecdotal purposes, but it's not going to hold any weight in a debate over policy.
for russian people twice and slowly, please:
you say that surveys were people voice their own opinions on how they used guns would give better picture that statistics based on registered and researched cases? help me out here.

edit: i need to start using a proofreader one of these days.
No, of course not.  I didn't say that.  I'm saying that your proposal wouldn't hold any weight in this debate
why not? that's as close as you could possibly get to real statistics, no?

and neither would that survey.
people continuosly use those kinda statistics to prove their point, and in this very thread  - that, or i'm getting something terribly wrong.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2011-01-13 12:14:52
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5616|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


What about psychiatry?
Same boat.
Yeah, you clearly don't know much about that topic either.
Ok bud. Electroshock therapy did what exactly besides fucking up a lot of peoples lives?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-01-13 12:15:28
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6840|SE London

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:


So what happens, you run around stabbing each other instead?
No. As previously pointed out, national per capita knife homicide rates in the UK are lower than in the US.

Ultimately what happens is we have far fewer people killing each other. Which I think is a good thing.
I rather suspect you have other things of a much lower national per capita than the United States which contribute more than Laws, Rules and Regs. to your observations of " far fewer people killing each other " in the UK.
Such as?
2011-01-13 12:16:45
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6663|North Carolina

Shahter wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Shahter wrote:


for russian people twice and slowly, please:
you say that surveys were people voice their own opinions on how they used guns would give better picture that statistics based on registered and researched cases? help me out here.

edit: i need to start using a proofreader one of these days.
No, of course not.  I didn't say that.  I'm saying that your proposal wouldn't hold any weight in this debate
why not? that's as close as you could possibly get to real statistics, no?

and neither would that survey.
people continuosly use those kinda statistics to prove their point, and in this very thread  - that, or i'm getting something terribly wrong.
In order to have a statistically significant argument, you can't have a large margin for error.  That is inevitably going to be the case with your proposal.

I would agree with you that people use meaningless surveys to back up their arguments.  Personally, I avoid them.  My defense of gun ownership is rooted more in practicality and somewhat in the Constitution.
2011-01-13 12:17:28
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6910|USA

Shahter wrote:

this "i need it to defend myself/family"-shit is extremely naive, imo (that's when it's not outright retarded). it takes lowing to be so sure in ones ability to pass judgement in a matter of seconds on just about anything. so, what i'd really like to see is some statistics about how the guns that are legally owned are being used. everything on guns i happen to google up comes extremely one-sided and generally biased (that's due to my horrible english no doubt). somebody cares to dig up some comparative statistics? - i you know, something like number of uses that have been confirmed and investigated (by the police or smthing) and then found justifiable against number of uses that haven't. anybody?
Not sure why you all confuse the ability and the preparedness in defending my hearth an home, with the "NEED" to gun down anyone that comes near me.

You all are trying to make your arguments for taking away our right to own a gun for self defense purposes by making us out to be paranoid, gun nuts hell bent on shooting up the city. I guess you do so because you can not accept the fact that we are normal people, not necessarily expecting to get into a gun fight but are prepared in case of a multitude of scenarios that can arise where self defense might need to be applied in our homes at night, or our cars when we are broken down in a bad part of town, or going down town to see a play, etc.

We do not want to kill anyone, we do not want any confrontations at all, and we will only draw a weapon if it is the last recourse. I was asked earlier what I would do if I found myself being confronted. My answer was try and leave the scene. Pulling my weapon only if I were cornered and felt my life was in danger. Of course after I answered the question, it was ignored by all you.

Last edited by lowing (2011-01-13 12:17:56)

2011-01-13 12:18:53
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6389|North Tonawanda, NY

Turquoise wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Any restriction of freedom is a slippery slope, but I could make an equally valid case involving freedom of speech.

Why can't I yell fire in a theater?
You don't need to take a competency test to prove you are worthy of free speech, Turq.  And you're free to go yell that--you just need to take responsibility for it.  Much like libel and slander.  Nothing stops you...but you can be held to what your actions cause.
Then why do we prevent felons from having guns?
I don't actually know what logic was used to push that through, but once you've paid your debt to society...why should your second amendment rights be denied?  It's not a popular viewpoint, but criminals are society's whipping boys when it comes to restricting freedoms and perpetually shitting on people so we can all 'feel good'.

Edit:

That said, one can make an argument that because someone broke the 'social contract' and inflicted some manner of harm on their fellow citizens, then they can have some rights abridged.  I don't agree with it, but that's the way it is (offender registries, felon disenfranchisement, etc...).  That does not constitute a test you have to take in order to actually exercise your right--it's something you have to do that would remove your right.  In one case, you are trusted by default.  In the other, you are not.  See the difference?

Last edited by SenorToenails (2011-01-13 12:23:19)

Topic closed

Pages: 1 … 42 43 44 45 46 … 64

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard