Gun Rights v. Gun Control | A look at the facts.

[RiotZ]

People who commit a crime are more likely to become violent offenders than someone who has never committed a crime, wouldn't you agree?

Gateway concept.

Citizen -> Commits low level crime -> Influenced by other criminals -> More likely to return to society a more violent person

The above is a big reason Marijuana should be legal.

Now, on to RedBaron's point.

I don't think a country with one of the highest murder rates in relation to population size needs less security, that's just bollocks. If you take away the Polices' guns now, what's to say these violent criminals will put theirs down too, instead of abuse a broken system and completely shit on anyone who tries to stop them because they're the only ones with fire power. You also ignored my whole point...

I believe the crime rate is a higher percentage based on the population in the UK. And crime would be directly affected by gun control.

If Police in the UK carried handguns I believe the crime rate would be lower, while the homicide rate might escalate slightly.

And it's "Violence begets violence."

Which I believe was first said by Martin Luther King.

I happen to agree with MLK, but disagree with the white dove concept, that is, showing weakness to an adversary creates peace. In the real world weakness gets you conquered and killed.

If executions were more publicized I think the world would be a safer place.

 

[Dr Super Good]

If Police in the UK carried handguns I believe the crime rate would be lower, while the homicide rate might escalate slightly.

True, but if guns were made easy to own here in the UK the rate of gun crime would escalate to massive proportions and overall criminal death incidents would esclate.

There is a ton of knife crime here at the moment and all that would become gun crime if guns were made easy to own. Knifes are prety bad and can easilly kill people, but guns are worse and can even more easilly kill one or more people. Knives can only be used in melee range (allowing everyone a chance to defend themselves or dodge) while guns can be used from a considerable distance (giving you no chance to defend yourself and very little chance to dodge).

Guns are also very dangerous in the wrong hands, even if used with good intentions. I do not think most Police officers in the UK have any gun training, only those that work in the gun branch of police do. Yes you could always train police to use guns, but I have a feeling that time would be better spent training police about crime so they make fewer false arrests or about behaviour so they diffuse more dangerous situations without resorting to excessive violence.

 

[Zakamutt]

Well, looks like Dracemia got some pretty good sources up now, with RiotZ using emotional / "I think" arguments. Seems the overall trend in the thread has turned.

Anyway, I'd say that homicide (and thus likely the general severe injury rate ^{See my previous argument using the percentage total of severe injuries in the UK compared to # of incidents total}) is a significantly larger problem, due to the devastating effect it can have on friends and relatives. If you get mugged, you just suffer some financial losses (not sure if this is that good of a comparison, but you get the idea?). Additionally, the effect will be even worse in the US due to many people lacking health insurance and thus running up serious hospital bills when treating their injuries compared to the UK which has the good old NHS.

Additionally, you don't need to ban guns, as said previously. Strong background checks, however, seems like a good thing to me (And doesn't that seem consistent with the idea of a well regulated militia to you, if arguing constitutionality?) - you don't have to disallow guns for reasons of self defence as the UK has either to start with. With less guns sold to people in general, there will probably be less guns in circulation for criminals to steal too. I'm sure there is an established black market for guns, but black markets are riskier, can be shut down by police in general, and probably sell guns for larger sums which would deter criminals who tend to be lower-class and thus poorer.

It looks like I'm making quite a few assumptions there. Feel free to challenge them.

 

[GhostThruster]

agreed with riotz. criminals need to be deterred, but not by other potential criminals (ie. any person that is not a policeman and owns a dangerous weapon). i support the death sentence and armed police. singapore has some pretty harsh laws, but that's why its got such a low crime rate.

 

[Nuclear]

Why do you support death sentence? It's a barbaric relic and does not decrease crime.
Correlation ≠ causation, maybe Singapore's crime rate is low because it's a very wealthy place with a developed market, Singapore's GDP per capita is $61,046.

 

[RiotZ]

I support public executions, I also support as DSG put it, excessive violence, when perpetrated by Police of course.

The death sentence is the only way to keep prison population low and remove violent criminals from the world. In the future I think the death sentence will be used much less leniently, seeing how more people means life is less valuable.

At the very least, I think, if all guns are banned, Policemen should still be permitted to carry, so long as they keep the weapons at the Police armory when off-duty. Because who is going to bust into the armory with a knife. Much to Ghost's point.

And again, a final point.

Zakamutt, neither of us know what would/will happen, the only ones falling back on emotional arguments were you and Dracemia... "Oh save the little children, the NRA are monsters."
You have no moral or intellectual superiority over me, as nor do I over you, so silence your direct insults you git, and understand that it makes no difference what you or I think, or what we say, our opinions are totally irrelevant to any normal like-minded person, so please step down from your perch of moral demagoguery. Thank you.

A nice little fact for you as well, when the NRA was founded in 1872 they didn't have automatic or even semi-automatic weapons.

Revolvers and standard hunting rifles were essentially the only firearms available.

 

[Nuclear]

I support public executions, I also support as DSG put it, excessive violence, when perpetrated by Police of course.

The death sentence is the only way to keep prison population low and remove violent criminals from the world. In the future I think the death sentence will be used much less leniently, seeing how more people means life is less valuable.

What a piece of disgusting and asinine bullshit.

 

[HappyTauren]

People who rationalize murder can't really be argued with. Also, set a goal you are to achieve. If you're to rule people by fear, public executions will work... for some time, then you will go back to dark middle ages. Refer to Muslim radicalism if you're interested in how this works.

You want more peace? Then give them more peace. Want more bloodthirsty people? Show violence through every media possible, promote it by publicly executing people and you're set. If you do not realize that what you're going for actually promotes violence and murder instead of diminishing it, you cannot really be argued with, as you do not even understand the goals of your own statements, since they would turn out to be ironic at best and terrible at worst.

 

[RiotZ]

Lmao guys.

Muslim radicalism works, what an absurdly laughable argument. The people are too afraid of the government to do anything. I bet the crime rate in Iran is incomprehensibly low, I would think the same in North Korea, pretty much all totalitarian countries, even Russia.

I had a friend who was spending some time in one of these Muslim radical countries (what a disgusting description, I detest your religious discrimination), he had dropped his wallet accidentally somehow, and when he returned to find it a day later, it was still there. Any idea why you wisecracking asses? Because stealing is punishable by having your hand cut off.

That's how it has to work, or you can do it the cushy Democratic way, and everyone can do whatever the hell they want, aka the United States of America.

 

[HappyTauren]

Lmao guys.

Muslim radicalism works, what an absurdly laughable argument.The people are too afraid of the government to do anything. I bet the crime rate in Iran is incomprehensibly low, I would think the same in North Korea, pretty much all totalitarian countries, even Russia.

This is so stupid for so many reasons that I don't know where to start. It "works"? I would very much like to know what you mean by "works". We could just as well cut limbs from people and make sure they are incapable of murdering others.

I had a friend who was spending some time in one of these Muslim radical countries (what a disgusting description, I detest your religious discrimination)

Yeah, because stoning in the name of Allah is an okay thing to do, and shouldn't be criticized at all. After all, I detest any violence done 'in the name of Christianity', however, those deeds are very unChristian. I am always referring to Muslim radicalism because it's the only major religion that actually allows the most terrible kinds of violence, murder and discrimination. But let's not get there, you'd have to know what Islam is actually about to discuss this.

he had dropped his wallet accidentally somehow, and when he returned to find it a day later, it was still there. Any idea why you wisecracking asses? Because stealing is punishable by having your hand cut off.

That's a very nice example of how oppression can actually lead to something good. But you're very good at missing the large picture here. I could counter this with literally thousands of examples of terrible things done all over the world in the name of Allah and guess what, their holy books not only don't forbid discrimination of non-muslims, they encourage it. You should read Koran, Hadith, Sira and Sharia Law to really understand the (radical) Muslim mentality, then you'll realize what's wrong with it, and then you'd have to realize that their governments are based on it. It doesn't create a more peaceful society, no matter what a single experience can tell you.

Still, as an atheist, you are trying to rationalize things pretty much as for 'what works for you'. Rationalization can only get you as far as rationalizing hanging, cutting of limbs, stoning and beheading.

 

[RiotZ]

This is so stupid for so many reasons that I don't know where to start. It "works"? I would very much like to know what you mean by "works". We could just as well cut limbs from people and make sure they are incapable of murdering others.

Yes, yes you could. But that's a little bit too far, since no one will have arms to cut other people's arms off.

/facepalm

I am fully aware of the horrors of religion, this is not an argument of, is Islam good or bad, so please stay on topic. This is drawing the parallel between tough laws and low crime rates, which immediately effects the rate of homicide. If Islam pisses you off so much, then use China as an example, same idea applies to them.

I am not an Atheist. I like to think of myself as a Satanist, or Agnostic actually, because the truth is, I don't know, and neither does anyone else. Don't make assumptions about things/people you don't understand.

_______________________________________________________________
China has the highest rate of execution of any country. And my statement is asinine disgusting bullshit. Okay then. Iran is 2nd in executions.

Iran and China have some of the lowest crime rates of any countries.

That's it, there's no way for you to argue around these facts, your incoherently conveniently patched arguments are useless.
_______________________________________________________________

 

[Nuclear]

Any sources on your claim that tough laws prevent crime? Most of the wealthy and low crime rate countries don't have harsh punishments, take for example the northern Europe.

 

[HappyTauren]

Yes, yes you could. But that's a little bit too far, since no one will have arms to cut other people's arms off.

Excellent, then there'd be no crime anymore!

I am fully aware of the horrors of religion, this is not an argument of, is Islam good or bad, so please stay on topic.

Let's see, you're promoting Muslim Law, and I am saying the law is messed up. How is this not on topic? You are there to say that it trims the crime rate, I am saying that that kind of approach may do so, but is not in fact improving the society at all.

This is drawing the parallel between tough laws and low crime rates, which immediately effects the rate of homicide. If Islam pisses you off so much, then use China as an example, same idea applies to them.

You're right, but this was off the bat, China can just as well be used as an example, and the dictatorship it has is satanic in nature.

I am not an Atheist. I like to think of myself as a Satanist, or Agnostic actually, because the truth is, I don't know, and neither does anyone else. Don't make assumptions about things/people you don't understand.

I don't at all see much difference among denominations you mentioned. You don't seem to (for satanism and agnosticism), either, so why would my assumption be wrong? Obviously, you don't put an equation mark between atheism, agnosticism and satanism but I was denominated all three at some point in my life, and I can tell you - there is no difference. The satanism and agnosticism you speak of is most certainly antitheistic in nature. You're really trying to make it seem like it's a terrible thing I say lettuce is grass.

_______________________________________________________________
China has the highest rate of execution of any country. And my statement is asinine disgusting bullshit. Okay then. Iran is 2nd in executions.

Iran and China have some of the lowest crime rates of any countries.

That's it, there's no way for you to argue around these facts, your incoherently conveniently patched arguments are useless.
_______________________________________________________________

Actually, they are not. What I am asking is, in reality, is that what you really want or genuinely think is a good thing? An oppressive totalitarian system? Obviously there will be less crime, but so will there be less freedom too! Oppression can be observed as a crime in itself, how comes nobody really seems to notice this? How comes crime is something that citizens do and not something the government does? Do notice that I do not promote the faux 'western' freedom that you see in america, it mostly boils down to freedom to do stupid and disgusting things.

 

[Nuclear]

Hmm yes, China and Iran also have some less beneficial features, if you weren't aware of them. Not to even mention the widespread corruption in China.

 

[RiotZ]

Any sources on your claim that tough laws prevent crime? Most of the wealthy and low crime rate countries don't have harsh punishments, take for example the northern Europe.

Iran has no officially posted crime rates, just do some internet research.

China's crime rate... I'm sure should be easy to find.

I don't really have the time to link thirty pictures and links about I'm right and you're wrong, that's just not what I do, because I view things objectively.

I think people should do research based on their own sources, rather than subjectively allow someone else to tell them.

Anyway, I also read that private gun ownership is banned in China.

 

[Nuclear]

You go on about being objective and a pinnacle of truth, while taking totalitarian states with massive human rights problems as examples for your arguments.

 

[RiotZ]

Excellent, then there'd be no crime anymore!

Let's see, you're promoting Muslim Law, and I am saying the law is messed up. How is this not on topic? You are there to say that it trims the crime rate, I am saying that that kind of approach may do so, but is not in fact improving the society at all.

You're right, but this was off the bat, China can just as well be used as an example, and the dictatorship it has is satanic in nature.

I don't at all see much difference among denominations you mentioned. You don't seem to (for satanism and agnosticism), either, so why would my assumption be wrong? Obviously, you don't put an equation mark between atheism, agnosticism and satanism but I was denominated all three at some point in my life, and I can tell you - there is no difference. The satanism and agnosticism you speak of is most certainly antitheistic in nature. You're really trying to make it seem like it's a terrible thing I say lettuce is grass.

Actually, they are not. What I am asking is, in reality, is that what you really want or genuinely think is a good thing? An oppressive totalitarian system? Obviously there will be less crime, but so will there be less freedom too! Oppression can be observed as a crime in itself, how comes nobody really seems to notice this? How comes crime is something that citizens do and not something the government does? Do notice that I do not promote the faux 'western' freedom that you see in america, it mostly boils down to freedom to do stupid and disgusting things.

The question is not, what is better for society. The answer to that is equal or more freedom than right now.

The question is what reduces homicide rates, and as I eloquently stated in previous posts, less lenient laws do so.

Satanism is anti-theistic or self-theistic, with a set of unique morals I am naturally akin to. Agnosticism is the most intelligent stance since it disregards no possibility. Atheism is the state of not wanting to understand, and dismissing anyone who tells you otherwise. I am also a fan of Buddhism.

Nuclear, I never said you should move there, I said they have low crime rates, don't mince words.

 

[Nuclear]

You evaded my criticism. The downsides of totalitarianism outweigh the low crime rate.

 

[RiotZ]

You evaded my criticism. The downsides of totalitarianism outweigh the low crime rate.

You ignored my statement.

The question is not, what is better for society. The answer to that is equal or more freedom than right now.

The question is what reduces homicide rates, and as I eloquently stated in previous posts, less lenient laws do so.

I do not disagree with you.

 

[Zakamutt]

Looks like we have a drift in topic here. Well, that can be quite fun too...

@RiotZ, last page:

So you say that totalitarianism isn't worth it, yet you bring it up anyway. Since you support a significant increase in the number of executions, this must mean that you are arguing based on countries with radically different governments than the one you live in. It may be worth pondering that correlation does not equal causation.

I also wonder where I directly insulted you. I did not insult you, I merely pointed out that I considered your arguments to be emotional rather than logical. This is the opposite of Ad Hominem. May I hypothesize that you lumped me in with Dracemia despite us being different people?

You also called me a git, making you guilty of what you accused me of, then produce a lovely straw man of us assuming the NRA are monsters and so on. Being a member of the NRA does not make you a monster, it makes you either misguided or egoist (or hit by peer pressure or whatever) depending on your reasons for joining - that is, in my opinion which has been backed up by some facts.

You say that we can never know for certain: so this debate was all worthless? You appear to be thinking in black and white, instead of using probability. For example, if I assumed a random stranger would break into my room and rape me tonight at precisely 23:59, I would very likely be wrong. This is an extreme example, but do you see where I am heading? Probabilities are worth discussing.

I'm not sure where I'm moralizing either.

Well, I guess I will be back later with some actual arguments instead of refuting ad hominem points.

 

[Nuclear]

What statement are you talking about?
This?

I never said you should move there, I said they have low crime rates, don't mince words.

Well I never said that you said that I should move there, where did you get that from?

I'm becoming ever more uninterested in this discussion as you don't address my points, and base your arguments on a very weak basis (using totalitarian states as examples of low crime rate).

Yeah you can say that they have low crime rates, but guess what? It doesn't matter, because they suck otherwise.

I don't really have the time to link thirty pictures and links about I'm right and you're wrong, that's just not what I do, because I view things objectively.

"I'm self proclaimed objective person so I don't need sources", sorry but it doesn't work like that. I'm not even sure if you know what objective means if you use it in the context of providing citations for claims.

 

[RiotZ]

What statement are you talking about?
This?

Well I never said that you said that I should move there, where did you get that from?

I'm becoming ever more uninterested in this discussion as you don't address my points, and base your arguments on a very weak basis (using totalitarian states as examples of low crime rate).

Yeah you can say that they have low crime rates, but guess what? It doesn't matter, because they suck otherwise.



"I'm self proclaimed objective person so I don't need sources", sorry but it doesn't work like that. I'm not even sure if you know what objective means if you use it in the context of providing citations for claims.

I gather my own sources.

The first quote was a joke, I didn't say these countries were fucking pleasurable places to live, and we should all become Communists, I said they have low crime rates, and that is the extent of it.

The subject of this thread, is not what is best for the country, it is, how do we lower the homicide rate, and the answer to that is Communism, if you don't like the truth, that's just too bad.

Humans are violent in nature, and they must be dealt with in such a manner, fire with fire.

 

[Nuclear]

You should then link the sources here so we can view them too.

Well, I pretty much disagree on everything with you, so I'll just go and leave this thread.

 

[HappyTauren]

Humans are violent in nature, and they must be dealt with in such a manner, fire with fire.

We can see how well this worked out. It's also very apparent that criminals abused in jail come out as better people, right?

 

[dracemia]

A nice little fact for you as well, when the NRA was founded in 1872 they didn't have automatic or even semi-automatic weapons.

Revolvers and standard hunting rifles were essentially the only firearms available.

Ok, Whoaaaaaa.

It doesn't matter what they were founded for when right now, they're the worst kind of gun-advocate any gun-advocate could called a gun-advocate. Just like Christianity and the Westboro Baptist Church, I know it was good intention when they were found but what they're trying to accomplish is an insult to human progress as a species anyway.


Do you know what's the wrong with NRA right now ? They're supported (read: puppeteered) by a bunch of gun-manufacturer. That's not the beauty of it tho, to achieve the goal of pleasing their money-source, these corporate whores start funneling moeny into religious organisations and BAM! Jesus now support americans carrying guns. The same goes for that time Wayne LaPierre twisted the words of your very own founding father just so half of the assault weapons could break the ban.

Do you know that the NRA is responsible for the fact that the ATF (The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives - the agency responsible for enforcing your nation's gun laws) has no permanent director for 6 YEARS ? (This is a joke to the rest of the world. Not even kidding)

Oh, It's not like I start disliking the NRA because of their stance on guns. I'm pretty sure I start disliking guns when the NRA went shit (which is to say around the 80's when the Supreme Court overruled the word "regulated militia" and allow citizen to be fully legal-protected when buying firearms.)

------------------------------------------------------

I like your spirit in an argument, but actually we were talking about gun-related crime and violent in particular to prove that we need better Gun Control in the major argument against Gun Rights. (I went a little off with "Gun is a weapon and other usages of it is trivial" and somehow the crime rate in general jumped in, so we were talking on different pages for awhile.)

 

[Dr Super Good]

The subject of this thread, is not what is best for the country, it is, how do we lower the homicide rate, and the answer to that is Communism, if you don't like the truth, that's just too bad.

You could also kill all humans. By definition there cannot be any murders if there is no one to murder or act as a murderer.

Humans are violent in nature, and they must be dealt with in such a manner, fire with fire.

So why not just send those nukes flying? Bigger fire you cannot get and with a kill rate of ~100% there is no chance for any further violent crime to be commited.

The idea is to evolve humanity beyond violence, not to use violence to bring order and control as that will ultimatly end with the destruction of humanity as both sides will keep using more force until the very fabric of life itself cannot cope.

 

[Nuclear]

Humans are violent in nature, and they must be dealt with in such a manner, fire with fire.

I just couldn't stay away;

That's also an appeal to nature, which isn't considered a valid argument.

 

[GhostThruster]

im just going to say riotz you cant argue worth a damn (p*nis = cl*toris).

to the point though, i still agree. a country with legalised death sentences is a safer country. fuck human rights, they forfeited theirs when they committed murder. the only downside is innocent people can get executed. but with the current legal system, innocent people can also end up in jail for 10 years, and have their anuses raped by the sisters.

 

[retard]

\well this is modern life, as long as bullets are getting produced there will be shootings there is nothing you can do about it

 

[RED BARON]

Do you know that the NRA is responsible for the fact that the ATF (The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives - the agency responsible for enforcing your nation's gun laws) has no permanent director for 6 YEARS ? (This is a joke to the rest of the world. Not even kidding)

Oh no worries, they did even worse then that - They are also the ones who prevented them from making a database of weapons, set the time for checking on weapon dealers, removed the option for self-register of cache for dealers, removed agents rights to check in on the dealer, removed the option to trace weapons via dealer, so ATF instead has to go trough manufacturer when the police makes an inquiry into a weapon used on a crime scene and they made it so in record of weapons are to be destroyed in 24 hours.. Just perfect right?

And your right, I was laughing my head of in amazement of how badly controlled guns in USA are and how the laws for ATF was created.

 

[Nuclear]

Yeah I'm interested to hear more from GhostThruster about how a civilized society should be managed.

a country with legalised death sentences is a safer country

Incorrect.

the only downside is innocent people can get executed. but with the current legal system, innocent people can also end up in jail for 10 years

Guess which one will kill you?

fuck human rights, they forfeited theirs when they committed murder.

This is isn't how justice system works, FYI

 

[dracemia]

im just going to say riotz you cant argue worth a damn (p*nis = cl*toris).

Hey! Just because he is counter-argued and have yet to make a counter-point, doesn't mean that he isn't capable.

innocent people can also end up in jail for 10 years

Funny thing about this sentence tho, a Swedish (I think) guy was just sentenced to a 10-year prison terms because someone accused him of Lese Majeste, which is like ....wow.

rant

Really ? In a modern era ? What if he isn't a foreigner, do we take off his head ?

 

[RiotZ]

im just going to say riotz you cant argue worth a damn (p*nis = cl*toris).

to the point though, i still agree. a country with legalised death sentences is a safer country. fuck human rights, they forfeited theirs when they committed murder. the only downside is innocent people can get executed. but with the current legal system, innocent people can also end up in jail for 10 years, and have their anuses raped by the sisters.

I agree with all of the above.

But I'm going bow out of this one now, since the only person capable of having a civil conversation about this is Nuclear.

And in all honesty no one should even care about this issue, since it doesn't directly effect them, and the inevitability of the system is that it will never change. Some kids died yes, but this isn't new, /Colombine.

 

[EloTheMan]

I think dictatorships only use death sentences and public executions to show their power and sovereignty over the people. Its not civilized, especially in democratic countries.

Funny thing about this sentence tho, a Swedish (I think) guy was just sentenced to a 10-year prison terms because someone accused him of Lese Majeste, which is like ....wow.

Must have been in Denmark or Norway since they still have Lese Majeste laws (Netherlands and Spain have them too). There is not much respect for our King ("whore man for king" is common quote).

Funny thing is that murder here can give you minimum of 6 years.

Lese Majeste = 10 years
Murder in Sweden = 6 years

Cuz F*** logic

 

[RED BARON]

Well, its not Denmark - and I would be doubtful if it was even a true case as I recall nothing of the sort - And given what some people have done in connection with the royals I suspect it would be a very seldom used law.

 

[Nuclear]

Funny thing about this sentence tho, a Swedish (I think) guy was just sentenced to a 10-year prison terms because someone accused him of Lese Majeste, which is like ....wow.

Really? What did he exactly do?

More elaboration on why GhostThruster's claim on death sentence and safety is wrong;

Murder rates in US:

Stats are from FBI's "Crime in the United States" and per 100 000 citizens

 

[dracemia]

It's in Thailand, actually.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/24/w...10-year-sentence-for-insult-to-king.html?_r=0

Mr. Somyot was given an additional year for libeling a senior general.

I saw the news on this part, it's actually all very logical... and funny as fuck, in my language.

And in all honesty no one should even care about this issue, since it doesn't directly effect them, and the inevitability of the system is that it will never change. Some kids died yes, but this isn't new, /Colombine.

By your logic, I'd have to be a dog to support anti-animal cruelty campaign or a women to support feministic movement... which is a perfect comparison when female genitalia is now more regulated than guns.

 

[RED BARON]

It's in Thailand, actually.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/24/w...10-year-sentence-for-insult-to-king.html?_r=0

Go figure it wasn't a northern country Thanks for finding it to clear our names


Nice graphic Nuclear.

 

[Nuclear]

I was definitely confused when I read that it was in Sweden. I live in the neighboring country, and I could imagine that literally everyone would be on the streets throwing rocks and rioting if that happened there o_o

Thailand is sadly backwards place in this issue... When I was there on holiday, some people had texts like "Long live the king" on their cars, so it isn't like they're oppressed, it seems, but literally brainwashed to think that it's okay.

Oh and btw, in Sweden, you would get that amount of prison if you murdered someone.

 

[RiotZ]

It's in Thailand, actually.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/24/w...10-year-sentence-for-insult-to-king.html?_r=0



I saw the news on this part, it's actually all very logical... and funny as fuck, in my language.



By your logic, I'd have to be a dog to support anti-animal cruelty campaign or a women to support feministic movement... which is a perfect comparison when female genitalia is now more regulated than guns.

No, by that logic, you shouldn't care no matter who you are, because our opinions are irrelevant, and in all likely hood, wouldn't matter even if they are, because the system, is broken.

 

[GhostThruster]

/Colombine.

r-really dude? are you that bad? im not even american and i noe how to spell that.

@nuclear: you need to couple the death sentence with harsher laws, more restrictive gun control, and better education to see results. right now, america is full of idiots, racists who claim other races are the idiots (i'm looking at you riotz), and gun nuts. im not sure about nationmaster's validity (apparently in the UK there are 183,419 drug offences per 100,000 people), but singapore's got some good stats. also #1 iq.

 

[dracemia]

I was definitely confused when I read that it was in Sweden. I live in the neighboring country, and I could imagine that literally everyone would be on the streets throwing rocks and rioting if that happened there o_o

Thailand is sadly backwards place in this issue... When I was there on holiday, some people had texts like "Long live the king" on their cars, so it isn't like they're oppressed, it seems, but literally brainwashed to think that it's okay.

Oh and btw, in Sweden, you would get that amount of prison if you murdered someone.

I confused a recent news with an old one, the recent one was a thai guy. I confused it with the case of the King Never Smile's translator, who was almost sentenced to a prison term. (If I remember correctly, the guy was swedish)

And holy shit, you're a tourist and in one glance, you realize that people are literally taught (read: brainwashed) to think that way. We're supposed to be all "nobody is above the laws" and there's this goddamn lese majeste law.

-----------------------------------------------

Anyhow, to get back on topic. Here's a speculation, Thailand have a very strict gun law, whereas the majority of police and law enforcement are not provided with firearms. (which most of them buy themselves.)

The system here is even more fucked up than the US, hidden in plain sight we have rich people who exercise the phrase "Money buy everything" so often. If I wanted someone dead, I need to know the right guy, a picture of the person and around 30 - 50 US dollars. The majority of populace (as in 95 out of 100 people) don't own gun, mostly because of the lack of necessity. People who do are hardened criminals (organised criminal groups and bank robbers/ gold shop robbers.) Literally 1 out of 3 gun crimes are reported on the news.

---------------------------------------

To put things in perspective, there was some big unrest incident (a small civil war kind of thing) happened a few years ago, the result was a battalion of troops with ak-47 raining bullets on the protesters/mobs of armed-with-water-bottles civilian.... in a temple, in the middle of Midtown. It was gruesome and everyone blamed everyone else.

That did sound like something a gun nut would imagine happening in the US, Obama trying to overthrow democracy and all that.

You'd never believe how bloody Thailand's politic history was.. or is. My mum used to tell me about this General who was practically a tyrant, pretending to be a military figure and the entire thing boiled down with one of the biggest gathering of people who are mostly university students (of 18 - 27) in the country.

The guy sent in 3 freaking military helicopters and miniguns. You can read all about it here around Octerber of 1973

-----------------------

Well, you americans should be glad Obama isn't trying to take over the country. I mean how much could you do when you own a shotgun going up against a battalion of rocket-troopers.

 

[Nuclear]

And holy shit, you're a tourist and in one glance, you realize that people are literally taught (read: brainwashed) to think that way.

Yes, I obviously meant that I mastered their culture in two weeks... I of course meant that there was a strong feeling of that happening, and the news we hear from there reinforce that, wouldn't you agree? I can't see any of that happening without strong indoctrination. Or how does it happen then?

@nuclear: you need to couple the death sentence with harsher laws, more restrictive gun control, and better education to see results. right now, america is full of idiots, racists who claim other races are the idiots (i'm looking at you riotz), and gun nuts. im not sure about nationmaster's validity (apparently in the UK there are 183,419 drug offences per 100,000 people), but singapore's got some good stats. also #1 iq.

Tougher laws? Punishments have been softening since the middle ages or so, and crime rate has been decreasing, why is that? Because people have been getting wealthier and better educated, not because a totalitarian state has been slapping "X is punishable by death" stickers around. On education I agree, but that's the obvious part on decreasing crime, and a thing that every developed society strives to achieve, it doesn't strengthen your point on death sentence at all.
Death penalty also costs more than a life sentence; when someone is being killed legally, there's a lot of paperwork and trials, which isn't cheap.

I think it's wrong on every level, and I'd be deeply disgusted to live in a nation where murder is legal for the government.

 

[RiotZ]

r-really dude? are you that bad? im not even american and i noe how to spell that.

@nuclear: you need to couple the death sentence with harsher laws, more restrictive gun control, and better education to see results. right now, america is full of idiots, racists who claim other races are the idiots (i'm looking at you riotz), and gun nuts. im not sure about nationmaster's validity (apparently in the UK there are 183,419 drug offences per 100,000 people), but singapore's got some good stats. also #1 iq.

I'm sorry to ruin your wet dream about how all races are the same, and everyone is equal, but if you look at the statistics, Blacks have a much higher rate of criminal activity and a much higher unemployment rate.

Also areas where Blacks and Hispanics are prominent have the highest murder rates. Ex. Washington DC, Baltimore, Chicago... New Orleans.

I know people won't like the race issue, but it's true, it's not racist to point out facts, Black on Black violence is the biggest cause of a high murder rate. Now how many Asian-Americans are involved in criminal activity and/or homicides, I'm guessing very low.

You can blame this one the economy too, and say it disadvantages Blacks and Hispanics, but the problem is there are other races with equal levels of destitution who are much less violent, and times when the economy was in good shape, namely the Clinton and Reagan years, this whole wannabe gangster mentality was even less vilified than it is today, just makes me think of NWA and one of their more popular songs, "FUCK DA POLICE" < How nice.

Also, Nuclear, you honestly think, that if the government deems you a threat, they would hesitate to kill you because it would go against the Constitution, or some feeling of moral sensibility. I don't think so. The government is the end of the pecking order, they can do whatever they want, and nobody will hold them accountable for it. That's why the economy is in the toilet, and Osama Bin Laden is dead.


It's unfortunate that this article somehow became a political charade against Obama (Damn Republicans...), but it serves my point well so here you are...

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/america-doesnt-have-a-gun-problem-it-has-a-gang-problem/

More Blacks kill Whites, and somehow we are racist. Woooh the way the world turns. It's unfortunate that Dracemia will have to stop using the phrase "gun-nut" since the murder rate among old-bible-beating-whites is only three times lower than that among Blacks.

 

[Zakamutt]

Hey, weren't you quitting the thread?

Oh, and nice misinterpretation in your yellowtext addressing Nuclear, who was clearly mostly interested in the death penalty, not assassinations (I am sure he would be against assassinations too, but you appear to be deliberately misunderstanding).

Now addressing your link. While it lists no explicit sources and is on a clearly partisan blog, it's probably decently accurate. Of course, nothing in the article suggests that gun control as opposed to a ban would be a good idea - for one, a quick background check can prevent people with previous convictions (who are more likely to kill people, it seems) from buying any legal weapons. This won't stop illegal guns, of course; I'm not going to claim that concentrated efforts to squash gangs shouldn't be undertaken if at all possible.

I can find one potential flaw in that argument, though: almost every single state in the US, according to Dracemia's map (sourced to an FBI report) has a murder rate higher than the England and Wales murder rate of 1.4 (Dracemia's calculation, might be wrong - also, I believe Scotland has looser gun laws) - you're looking at a few states with a lower rate or the same, around 7 (I'm too awesome to count the exact number!). Do all of these states have cities that are wretched hives of scum and villainy inflating their numbers?

Tangential

It's also funny how the US, who has some pretty srs border control to Mexico, still can't stop illegal guns entering the country apparently. Maybe if you opened the border, people wouldn't have to rely on criminals to get through, and non-criminals would mix with criminals when immigrating drowning their numbers out.

I still want to know how I insulted you so much, by the way.

 

[Pharaoh_]

I'm sorry to ruin your wet dream about how all races are the same, and everyone is equal, but if you look at the statistics, Blacks have a much higher rate of criminal activity and a much higher unemployment rate.

Also areas where Blacks and Hispanics are prominent have the highest murder rates. Ex. Washington DC, Baltimore, Chicago... New Orleans.

I know people won't like the race issue, but it's true, it's not racist to point out facts, Black on Black violence is the biggest cause of a high murder rate. Now how many Asian-Americans are involved in criminal activity and/or homicides, I'm guessing very low.

You can blame this one the economy too, and say it disadvantages Blacks and Hispanics, but the problem is there are other races with equal levels of destitution who are much less violent, and times when the economy was in good shape, namely the Clinton and Reagan years, this whole wannabe gangster mentality was even less vilified than it is today, just makes me think of NWA and one of their more popular songs, "FUCK DA POLICE" < How nice.

Also, Nuclear, you honestly think, that if the government deems you a threat, they would hesitate to kill you because it would go against the Constitution, or some feeling of moral sensibility. I don't think so. The government is the end of the pecking order, they can do whatever they want, and nobody will hold them accountable for it. That's why the economy is in the toilet, and Osama Bin Laden is dead.


It's unfortunate that this article somehow became a political charade against Obama (Damn Republicans...), but it serves my point well so here you are...

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/america-doesnt-have-a-gun-problem-it-has-a-gang-problem/

More Blacks kill Whites, and somehow we are racist. Woooh the way the world turns. It's unfortunate that Dracemia will have to stop using the phrase "gun-nut" since the murder rate among old-bible-beating-whites is only three times lower than that among Blacks.

All funnily, we had a subject in Psychology that had to do with all those statistical data that you are mentioning, regarding the races. I am not going to accuse, but recycling the knowledge without critical thinking only gives the image of racism's traces.

One thing is for sure, that each person is unique, regarding its behavior either in social or criminal terms, so statistics that limit the characteristics of each person and tamper the idiosyncrasy of a unit, is a very convenient way to simplify the human being. If we just accept that this is not based on certain circumstances, we will be led to multiple questions, such as "Did all these people have the same background?", "Were all these people treated equally to the rest of the races?" and by extension the ultimate question of "Why did they eventually step in the pit of crime?". The irony here is that these questions apply to whites as well, which already flattens the differences that you are trying to denote.

It's so easy to use statistics, but it's a lot harder to ease the rage they feel (that triggered their criminal activities in the first place). What you are describing there is a mentality that stems from a whole culture, which me or you cannot understand, unless we were born again to suffer those conditions (watch the term "suffer": It looks like an affliction to yours and my eyes - it's "live" to the eyes of the insensitive). So you may want instead to take a look at what constitutes the majority and how any behavior of other races is a result of an impetus to experience equality, with the majority, in full definition.

 

[RiotZ]

All funnily, we had a subject in Psychology that had to do with all those statistical data that you are mentioning, regarding the races. I am not going to accuse, but recycling the knowledge without critical thinking only gives the image of racism's traces.

One thing is for sure, that each person is unique, regarding its behavior either in social or criminal terms, so statistics that limit the characteristics of each person and tamper the idiosyncrasy of a unit, is a very convenient way to simplify the human being. If we just accept that this is not based on certain circumstances, we will be led to multiple questions, such as "Did all these people have the same background?", "Were all these people treated equally to the rest of the races?" and by extension the ultimate question of "Why did they eventually step in the pit of crime?". The irony here is that these questions apply to whites as well, which already flattens the differences that you are trying to denote.

It's so easy to use statistics, but it's a lot harder to ease the rage they feel (that triggered their criminal activities in the first place). What you are describing there is a mentality that stems from a whole culture, which me or you cannot understand, unless we were born again to suffer those conditions (watch the term "suffer": It looks like an affliction to yours and my eyes - it's "live" to the eyes of the insensitive). So you may want instead to take a look at what constitutes the majority and how any behavior of other races is a result of an impetus to experience equality, with the majority, in full definition.

I agree with what you stated. But the premise that we cannot degrade an entire race to the act of individuals does not apply when the majority takes part in said acts. Not to say there aren't a few intelligent individuals in every generalized populous.

Now to say, they have suffered as a majority and that had led them to crime is far too general for me. Many other races including Whites had at some point in their life endured suffering and depravity but clung to crime at a much lower rate. Based on statistics I read, Blacks only lead Whites in broken homes by 6%, but lead Whites in murder rate by 300%.

There were roughly 1.2 murders a day in Chicago last year, of those 1.2, roughly 1.0 were shot by an African-American, that goes without saying the majority of the victims were also Black. To make the "a few bad apples" argument is ludicrous.

Insight :: http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~roos/Courses/grstat502/phillipssp802.pdf

And to Zakamutt, well, I couldn't let you anti-gun-societal-we-are-the-world-liberals take majority in this argument, so I'll stick around. An assassination is just an execution without a hearing, so... Your point is? Well you insulted my intelligence by making very passive-aggressive statements, the worst I intended to do was call you a git, or maybe that was Dracemia. Also, your statement that the majority of states still have high murder rates is true, but it makes no difference how you spin it, shall we look at the ethnicity of criminals in states with lower murder rates as well? I'm sure they'll bear out to show certain minorities in a negative light.

 

[Pharaoh_]

I agree with what you stated. But the premise that we cannot degrade an entire race to the act of individuals does not apply when the majority takes part in said acts. Not to say there aren't a few intelligent individuals in every generalized populous.

Now to say, they have suffered as a majority and that had led them to crime is far too general for me. Many other races including Whites had at some point in their life endured suffering and depravity but clung to crime at a much lower rate. Based on statistics I read, Blacks only lead Whites in broken homes by 6%, but lead Whites in murder rate by 300%.

There were roughly 1.2 murders a day in Chicago last year, of those 1.2, roughly 1.0 were shot by an African-American, that goes without saying the majority of the victims were also Black. To make the "a few bad apples" argument is ludicrous.

Insight :: http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~roos/Courses/grstat502/phillipssp802.pdf

And to Zakamutt, well, I couldn't let you anti-gun-societal-we-are-the-world-liberals take majority in this argument, so I'll stick around. An assassination is just an execution without a hearing, so... Your point is? Well you insulted my intelligence by making very passive-aggressive statements, the worst I intended to do was call you a git, or maybe that was Dracemia. Also, your statement that the majority of states still have high murder rates is true, but it makes no difference how you spin it, shall we look at the ethnicity of criminals in states with lower murder rates as well? I'm sure they'll bear out to show certain minorities in a negative light.

You still hue the discussion with statistics. When one lacks arguments, they instantly use maths, because they have an impact beyond any doubt. If you showed such evidence to machines, they would most likely understand your purpose, but you are dealing with humans, who are much more complex, they have emotions, defenses, motives, thoughts and many more to count.

You also need some evidence to evaluate the statistics, for example, what methods did they use, if they followed the appropriate conditions when they conducted the research, if the researchers themselves were free of prejudices and did not lead the research towards the path of evaluating their hypothesis, what crowds did they use or whether the populations are representative of criminals that are black, yet live in Germany for example. Basically, how valid and reliable they are. There are a lot more to ask, when you are encountering researches.

Anyway, my only concern at this moment is that you might sound racist and that some people might find it offensive, given that they are of the race that you describe, yet they are unfamiliar with crime activities from their environment or family.

 

[dracemia]

More Blacks kill Whites, and somehow we are racist. Woooh the way the world turns. It's unfortunate that Dracemia will have to stop using the phrase "gun-nut" since the murder rate among old-bible-beating-whites is only three times lower than that among Blacks.

Nah, I'd still use that word considering the only ethnic group taking such a hard stance against any effort of gun control is the White people. Which is to say rather contradictory, when as you've stated that white people die more by the hands of black people. I've never heard of a black person who outright support gun control, be it uneducated one or educated one.

...which prove the point I made when disputing the "People are going to get guns illegally anyway". Which I'll re-state.

Most criminals choose a gun as a weapon in crime because it was the most practical weapon accessible to them, it was the best choice. If guns are hard to access, the number guns involve in crimes will obviously drop.

------------------------

All funnily, we had a subject in Psychology that had to do with all those statistical data that you are mentioning, regarding the races. I am not going to accuse, but recycling the knowledge without critical thinking only gives the image of racism's traces.

One thing is for sure, that each person is unique, regarding its behavior either in social or criminal terms, so statistics that limit the characteristics of each person and tamper the idiosyncrasy of a unit, is a very convenient way to simplify the human being. If we just accept that this is not based on certain circumstances, we will be led to multiple questions, such as "Did all these people have the same background?", "Were all these people treated equally to the rest of the races?" and by extension the ultimate question of "Why did they eventually step in the pit of crime?". The irony here is that these questions apply to whites as well, which already flattens the differences that you are trying to denote.

It's so easy to use statistics, but it's a lot harder to ease the rage they feel (that triggered their criminal activities in the first place). What you are describing there is a mentality that stems from a whole culture, which me or you cannot understand, unless we were born again to suffer those conditions (watch the term "suffer": It looks like an affliction to yours and my eyes - it's "live" to the eyes of the insensitive). So you may want instead to take a look at what constitutes the majority and how any behavior of other races is a result of an impetus to experience equality, with the majority, in full definition.

If you're saying that environment and social factors play a part in influencing criminal activities rather than ethnicity, then I can vouch for that.

I'm living in a city with almost no-diversity in race, 95% of people here (Bangkok) are asians. Comparing to the US and Germany (from my experience), people are divided and fit into certain social roles just like how the majority of "Black people" are stereotypically lower-class, prone to violence group of people OR any other racial stereotypes you could fit them in. These roles are exactly the same as what you have in the US. The only difference is that everyone, no matter the roles, are asians.

So, RiotZ, I don't think ethnicity could be a factor in criminal behavior.

------------------------------------------------

PS. By, statistics tho, Hispanic are the most criminally violence/active. Refer to this post for numbers, but Mexico have a very high rate of gun-murder. Up to 24.4 and a lot of South America countries tie in with the number.

-----------------------------------------------

It's not like I don't know how the world works, I simply realize that by ignoring it or sugarcoating it isn't going to make the problem go away. The reason I care so much is because it's the little things I can do to help, if I can put in some new perspective into people about this issue and could one day save a live, then I will.

Just because I probably won't have kids, doesn't mean that I'm going lie to myself just so I could peacefully live in the world when it's wrong and leave it behind for the next generations. Even if this is as little as an internet argument, I'm not going to just turn the other way and "Oh, who gives a shit" because that attitude, that action cost a little piece of my humanity. Beside, the fact it could help someone in the future, I'm also doing this for myself.

So, stop pissing in my ears and tell me it's raining.

 

[GhostThruster]

I'm sorry to ruin your wet dream about how all races are the same, and everyone is equal, but if you look at the statistics, Blacks have a much higher rate of criminal activity and a much higher unemployment rate.

The Crusade. Slavery in the South. The Holocaust. Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The White Australia Policy. The Stolen Generation of Indigenous Australians. Vietnam.

Statistically, whites are the most violent, racist people in existence (sorry if anyone other than riotz takes offense to this, I'm just trying to make a point about his retard racist logic). Like Pharaoh said your stats mean jack, especially when you consider your nation's pisspoor government, education, and racism (fun fact: the kkk was established same time as the NRA). War crimes/political crimes are crimes nonetheless, so I don't care if whites don't steal or murder - oh wait they do, just that they do it in en masse, more organised, and justify it with retard excuses.

@nuclear: I didn't know that as soon as a country legalises execution it becomes North Korea. Education prevents crime, harsher laws deter crime should education fail.

I would feel disgusted living in a country where murderers can walk free after 10 years. Btw, you do know the death sentence isn't given to randomly selected people of the streets, right?