• 🏆 Texturing Contest #33 is OPEN! Contestants must re-texture a SD unit model found in-game (Warcraft 3 Classic), recreating the unit into a peaceful NPC version. 🔗Click here to enter!
  • It's time for the first HD Modeling Contest of 2024. Join the theme discussion for Hive's HD Modeling Contest #6! Click here to post your idea!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Level 14
Joined
Sep 27, 2009
Messages
1,547
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.

Straw man. Can't really say anything to the "government can do anything" thing, so dark and edgy. There are systems built into "the government" to prevent that from happening. Also considering bin Laden, he was not a citizen of the country that killed him, nor was he on their lands, it was an act of war, and using that as an example when talking about a peacetime society is foolish.

When talking about black and white crime rate differences, I bet you haven't even thought about racial wage gap? I would say "check your privilege" if it didn't annoy me so much.

@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?

Your notion on "education failing" seems a bit bizarre, tell me, how exactly could that happen? Can you back up your claim that countries with harsher laws have lower crime rates?

You seem to have misunderstood the principle of how an ideal justice system works; it's meant to prevent more crimes from happening (making the inmates upstanding members of the society again), not to please masses's thirst for blood and revenge.

Innocent people will get sentenced, and you can't cancel execution, but you can let them out of prison.
 
Level 22
Joined
Jul 25, 2009
Messages
3,091
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.

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



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.

I stated on my post, only 6% more Blacks come from broken homes, and the majority among all ethnicities including Hispanics came from impoverished backgrounds, except Blacks had a 300% higher homicide rate than their peers. It has nothing to do with poverty, though I don't know what it originates from. And nobody was talking about crime rate here (@Hispanics), purely homicide, in which Blacks are handily leading.

There are more impoverished Whites than there are impoverished Blacks based on population size.

Straw man. Can't really say anything to the "government can do anything" thing, so dark and edgy. There are systems built into "the government" to prevent that from happening. Also considering bin Laden, he was not a citizen of the country that killed him, nor was he on their lands, it was an act of war, and using that as an example when talking about a peacetime society is foolish.

When talking about black and white crime rate differences, I bet you haven't even thought about racial wage gap? I would say "check your privilege" if it didn't annoy me so much.

See my reply to Dracemia. Yes because if I came from an impoverished family, which I actually did, I would just shoot my fucking neighbor... Why? Because I'm poor.

There are more impoverished Whites than there are impoverished Blacks based on population size.

Also, the government has ways around these "systems." Bin Laden was in a foreign country with which we were allied, and as far as I know what we did was technically an act of war against Pakistan. Secondly, many Americans have been killed by drone strikes regardless of the outcry for fair hearings. The government in the US at least, can do whatever it wants, Barrack Obama is already rearranging the constitution.

Here's another fun fact not unrelated to the topic, the NRA was established with the sole purpose of regulating gun-possession among black people.

What a wonderful myth. It disgusts me that people can disregard the NRA as racist White people, when it was founded by patriots, to fulfill a patriotic duty to their country, idiot.

"The National Rifle Association was first chartered in the state of New York on November 17, 1871[11] by Army and Navy Journal editor William Conant Church and General George Wood Wingate. Its first president was Civil War General Ambrose Burnside, who had worked as a Rhode Island gunsmith, and Wingate was the original secretary of the organization. Church succeeded Burnside as president in the following year.
Union Army records for the Civil War indicate that its troops fired about 1,000 rifle shots for each Confederate soldier hit, causing General Burnside to lament his recruits: "Out of ten soldiers who are perfect in drill and the manual of arms, only one knows the purpose of the sights on his gun or can hit the broad side of a barn."[12] The generals attributed this to the use of volley tactics, devised for earlier, less accurate smoothbore muskets.[13][14]
Recognizing a need for better training, Wingate traveled to Europe and observed European armies' marksmanship training programs. With plans provided by Wingate, the New York Legislature funded the construction of a modern range at Creedmore, Long Island, for long-range shooting competitions. Wingate then wrote a marksmanship manual.[12]"

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.

Statistically human-beings are dumbfounded dipshits, struggling to conform to a society that they fuel with their impotence, believing whatever the established order tells them. I can make this argument against any race or religion, also did you forget to consider Spain and Portugal to be members of the crusades? And did you disregard the thousands of years of civil wars between Muslims... Or how about the honor killings in India, l2p, I have an endless list of racism perpetuated by all ethnic/religious/cultural groups, my favorite though is the Black Panthers. Hey how about the Russian invasion of Poland, Russians killing Pols sounds a lot like White-on-White to me.

Fun fact, the KKK's first slogan was "In the hood." Ironic how we find it used today.
 
Last edited:
Level 5
Joined
Jul 22, 2007
Messages
127
What a wonderful myth. It disgusts me that people can disregard the NRA as racist White people, when it was founded by patriots, to fulfill a patriotic duty to their country, idiot.

I thought you didn't care about things that our opinions doesn't effect in anyway ? Even if they really were racists, our opinions would still be irrelevant, and in all likely hood, wouldn't matter because there's nothing you can do about it either way.

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


Also, refer to this post for overall firearm homicide rate per 100,000 people and comparison between the US and the rest of the world in that regards.

You'll see that the top 3 countries with highest rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 people are

- Honduras
- Guatemala
- El Salvador

They're all in the Caribbean and next to each other, just below Mexico. I don't have to research this and can safely say that the majority of people in these countries are Hispanics.

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

Also, I think I've said somewhere in this thread before that Thomas Jefferson himself, a few years after signing the Declaration of Independence, encouraged the rearrangement of the constitution at least every 19 years.

It's in a letter he wrote to James Madison and it goes like this
Constitutions - No society can make a perpetual Constitution or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please during their usufruct. They are masters, too, of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The Constitution and laws of their predecessors extinguished them, in their natural course, with those whose will gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every Constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer it is an act of force and not of right.

from this book

The last sentence tho.

ps. what the hell is a/an usufruct ?



Point is, people change and ideals change. The current constitution the US is using was first written when female adultery is punishable by death.
 
Statistically human-beings are dumbfounded dipshits, struggling to conform to a society that they fuel with their impotence, believing whatever the established order tells them. I can make this argument against any race or religion, also did you forget to consider Spain and Portugal to be members of the crusades? And did you disregard the thousands of years of civil wars between Muslims... Or how about the honor killings in India, l2p, I have an endless list of racism perpetuated by all ethnic/religious/cultural groups, my favorite though is the Black Panthers. Hey how about the Russian invasion of Poland, Russians killing Pols sounds a lot like White-on-White to me.

You're just proving my point; your statistics mean jack shit.
Either concede that violence/intelligence is not based on race, or that whites are the worst people on earth. Hey maybe if you didn't enslave the blacks, they'd be a bit more pleasant towards you, no?

@nuclear: by that I mean should there be an uneducated, irrational, rage-filled person, harsh laws are there to deter him from stealing (assuming he has enough cognitive ability to realise doing something bad could mean a lethal injection). You seem to think justice = rehabilitation for you having slaughtered someone's family.

I feel like most of your argument's support are just your opinion or easily reversible points. For example, innocents can get punished without the death sentences too, some would even prefer a quick death to 10 undeserving years in a hostile environment.

Singapore and China are big examples of countries with harsh laws and good education. However, there are other countries like Iran that have high crime rates, but like I said before harsher laws are not the only factor that determine crime rates.
 
Level 14
Joined
Sep 27, 2009
Messages
1,547
@nuclear: by that I mean should there be an uneducated, irrational, rage-filled person, harsh laws are there to deter him from stealing (assuming he has enough cognitive ability to realise doing something bad could mean a lethal injection).

We're not talking about a single village idiot that might go on rampage, but a society as a whole. That's a pointless point.

I feel like most of your argument's support are just your opinion or easily reversible points. For example, innocents can get punished without the death sentences too, some would even prefer a quick death to 10 undeserving years in a hostile environment.

Survival instinct usually makes sure people want to go to a prison instead of dying, meanwhile, "some would even prefer a quick death to 10 undeserving years in a hostile environment." is an opinion I won't even bother to argue against.

Singapore and China are big examples of countries with harsh laws and good education. However, there are other countries like Iran that have high crime rates, but like I said before harsher laws are not the only factor that determine crime rates.

So in other words; no proof that harsh laws deter crime.
 
Level 22
Joined
Jul 25, 2009
Messages
3,091
You're just proving my point; your statistics mean jack shit.
Either concede that violence/intelligence is not based on race, or that whites are the worst people on earth. Hey maybe if you didn't enslave the blacks, they'd be a bit more pleasant towards you, no?

@nuclear: by that I mean should there be an uneducated, irrational, rage-filled person, harsh laws are there to deter him from stealing (assuming he has enough cognitive ability to realise doing something bad could mean a lethal injection). You seem to think justice = rehabilitation for you having slaughtered someone's family.

I feel like most of your argument's support are just your opinion or easily reversible points. For example, innocents can get punished without the death sentences too, some would even prefer a quick death to 10 undeserving years in a hostile environment.

Singapore and China are big examples of countries with harsh laws and good education. However, there are other countries like Iran that have high crime rates, but like I said before harsher laws are not the only factor that determine crime rates.

1. Iran has a low crime rate.
2. Racism is perpetuated by all societies, not exclusively Whites.
3. Singapore is wealthy because they are a huge exporter.
4. You just said China and Singapore are good examples of education and harsh laws deterring crime... And yet when I say, higher IQs and public executions, you get defensive, so honestly explain to me what the difference is, because at this point I have no idea what the actual fuck you're on about.

Nuclear, you're not very good at reading are you. Nobody said that, don't put words in my mouth, you continue to insult my intelligence.

So you're saying that there's a biological reason for that? Yeah, some evidence please.

Hey, I'm just regurgitating your bullshit, the idea that poverty creates crime is true yeah, but it creates more crime among Blacks than any other race, I'm not even saying I know why, just pointing out a fact.

And to Dracemia...

Nice deflection, you didn't even have the balls to include my full quote. Oh and by the way, opinions are different than facts, and I'm pretty sure you said (paraphrasing) "Fact the NRA was founded to control guns among Blacks."

Ah here it is...

Here's another fun fact not unrelated to the topic, the NRA was established with the sole purpose of regulating gun-possession among black people.
 
Level 5
Joined
Jul 22, 2007
Messages
127
And to Dracemia...

Nice deflection, you didn't even have the balls to include my full quote. Oh and by the way, opinions are different than facts, and I'm pretty sure you said (paraphrasing) "Fact the NRA was founded to control guns among Blacks."

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeah, you might have missed it but I was really bothered by this
RiotZ said:
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.

So, it wasn't even a myth. It was my own speculation (read: I made that up) to try using your own quote against you when you jump in to correct me, which you did. Now you see how saying something nonchalantly could offend people who actually care.

Also, I'm not quoting the entire thing because you just copied and pasted that whole history of the NRA from Wikipedia.

But hey! Maybe I'm stupid enough to not spend half a minute google search on wikipedia or the NRA's website and just use a "myth" in an argument that I haven't even researched into even once.

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

I think everyone knows that when laws are strict enough to be considered harsh, it won't help with the crime rate. Not by a long shot and people aren't going to be happy.

We all enjoy knowing that there're things we can do that isn't morally good but not illegal. It doesn't mean we have to go do bad things necessarily, it's just the realization that you can if you want to.

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

ps. Singapore is wealthy because it's an important port-stop. Historically speaking, it was one of the first port-town in the region. It's too small to have any amount of resource enough to make a significant export.

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

We're going seriously off-topic ...but we're in the off-topic forum, oh well.
 
Level 22
Joined
Jul 25, 2009
Messages
3,091
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeah, you might have missed it but I was really bothered by this


So, it wasn't even a myth. It was my own speculation (read: I made that up) to try using your own quote against you when you jump in to correct me, which you did. Now you see how saying something nonchalantly could offend people who actually care.

Also, I'm not quoting the entire thing because you just copied and pasted that whole history of the NRA from Wikipedia.

But hey! Maybe I'm stupid enough to not spend half a minute google search on wikipedia or the NRA's website and just use a "myth" in an argument that I haven't even researched into even once.

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

I think everyone knows that when laws are strict enough to be considered harsh, it won't help with the crime rate. Not by a long shot and people aren't going to be happy.

We all enjoy knowing that there're things we can do that isn't morally good but not illegal. It doesn't mean we have to go do bad things necessarily, it's just the realization that you can if you want to.

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

ps. Singapore is wealthy because it's an important port-stop. Historically speaking, it was one of the first port-town in the region. It's too small to have any amount of resource enough to make a significant export.

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

We're going seriously off-topic ...but we're in the off-topic forum, oh well.

Just another example of how sarcasm belittles intelligent communication.

Oh and the bulk Singapore's economy is based on exports. I recall back in History class they were (during the WW2 era) the world's largest exporter of spices as well. Wrong again I guess, oh lawdy.

"Exports, particularly in electronics and chemicals, and services including the posture that Singapore is the regional hub for wealth management [13][14][15] (and the opening of the city state's first casino in 2010 [16]) provide the main source of revenue for the economy"

Really?



What does this imply then?

Hey, I'm just regurgitating your bullshit, the idea that poverty creates crime is true yeah, but it creates more crime among Blacks than any other race, I'm not even saying I know why, just pointing out a fact.

I'm just going to keep reusing the same quote until you acknowledge that at no point did I say Blacks, or any race are biology inferior. And making it seem so is slanderous in the least.
 
Level 5
Joined
Jul 22, 2007
Messages
127
Just another example of how sarcasm belittles intelligent communication.

So, you can't admit that it ticked you off when I accused the patriotic founders of the NRA for being racists ? Now, you're just bitter because you could offend others and be "honest" with your opinions but can't take any information you deem offensive ?

Sarcasm is a literacy tool. If I'm wrong, I say that I'm wrong. Your ego and that "Why should we care" attitude is what belittles this argument.

Oh and the bulk Singapore's economy is based on exports. I recall back in History class they were (during the WW2 era) the world's largest exporter of spices as well. Wrong again I guess, oh lawdy.

"Exports, particularly in electronics and chemicals, and services including the posture that Singapore is the regional hub for wealth management [13][14][15] (and the opening of the city state's first casino in 2010 [16]) provide the main source of revenue for the economy"

When you buy stuffs from someone and sell to the others for better price, does that make you a provider ? or just merchant ?

Because that's exactly how Singapore got wealthy. India and Indonesia are world's largest Spice exporters. As in they raise the crops themselves. Singapore is also a very busy trade port/hub in the region, imagine all the fees and taxes. They had always (and still do) buy products from manufacturers in the region and sell them to passing westerners on boats.

How about the size of the country ? Singapore is a small island on the tip of the northern part of Malaysia. It's like 10 times smaller than that part alone. And Texas is 2 times the size of Malaysia, imagine that.

India on the other hand is as big as the entire ASEAN (South East Asian) which is one-third the size of the entire US and almost half the size of Europe, would you compare the sheer amount of resources available to the Indian with Singapore and still think Singapore is an exporter of anything ?
 
@nuclear: im just making a point about how you make a point: "I'd be deeply disgusted to live in a nation where murder is legal for the government" "Innocent people will get sentenced, and you can't cancel execution, but you can let them out of prison" < opinions or too situational/reversible. plus that was a response to you asking me to explain wat i meant by 'harsh crime stepping in when education fails'. the only point you have over me is that i dont have enough evidence. but then again, i feel singapore and china are huge examples. im not sure about iran, i couldnt find any statistics for its crime rate. i do noe from previous posts that the UK, australia, and possibly a bunch of european countries have higher crime rates (per entire population, not every 100000) than the US, which has death sentences in certain states.

@riotz:
1. obviously im not against this claim since it would further my argument, but plz provide statistics
2. the sky can be grey. point is why did u raise that random observation.
3. wtf im talking crime rates.
4. i believe i meant china had lower living standards, to which you abruptly pointed out this topic was about crime. i then dropped the subject, never disagreed that having death sentence in china did not lower its crime rate.

btw im against public executions, but im all for the lethal injection.
 
Level 14
Joined
Sep 27, 2009
Messages
1,547
Why you keep bringing up Singapore when it has been said several times how it's a very wealthy place, and thus it's obvious?

This is a fun thing to watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAUv2OTVm9M

I wouldn't trust a government to be able to perform legal murders, and I can't see any sufficiently proved upsides in it.

I don't think it's even debatable if public executions should be made, that would be, like 1500's? What a grotesque degradation of society would that be.
 
Level 22
Joined
Jul 25, 2009
Messages
3,091
So, you can't admit that it ticked you off when I accused the patriotic founders of the NRA for being racists ? Now, you're just bitter because you could offend others and be "honest" with your opinions but can't take any information you deem offensive ?

Sarcasm is a literacy tool. If I'm wrong, I say that I'm wrong. Your ego and that "Why should we care" attitude is what belittles this argument.



When you buy stuffs from someone and sell to the others for better price, does that make you a provider ? or just merchant ?

Because that's exactly how Singapore got wealthy. India and Indonesia are world's largest Spice exporters. As in they raise the crops themselves. Singapore is also a very busy trade port/hub in the region, imagine all the fees and taxes. They had always (and still do) buy products from manufacturers in the region and sell them to passing westerners on boats.

How about the size of the country ? Singapore is a small island on the tip of the northern part of Malaysia. It's like 10 times smaller than that part alone. And Texas is 2 times the size of Malaysia, imagine that.

India on the other hand is as big as the entire ASEAN (South East Asian) which is one-third the size of the entire US and almost half the size of Europe, would you compare the sheer amount of resources available to the Indian with Singapore and still think Singapore is an exporter of anything ?

The size of a country has nothing to do it's exports. /Saudi Arabia, Singapore is massive exporter, which you basically said yourself, so that's settled then.

And yes, I didn't realize you needed me to say so. I was very pissed off that you would try and smear a legitimate establishment as a campaign against Blacks.

@nuclear: im just making a point about how you make a point: "I'd be deeply disgusted to live in a nation where murder is legal for the government" "Innocent people will get sentenced, and you can't cancel execution, but you can let them out of prison" < opinions or too situational/reversible. plus that was a response to you asking me to explain wat i meant by 'harsh crime stepping in when education fails'. the only point you have over me is that i dont have enough evidence. but then again, i feel singapore and china are huge examples. im not sure about iran, i couldnt find any statistics for its crime rate. i do noe from previous posts that the UK, australia, and possibly a bunch of european countries have higher crime rates (per entire population, not every 100000) than the US, which has death sentences in certain states.

@riotz:
1. obviously im not against this claim since it would further my argument, but plz provide statistics
2. the sky can be grey. point is why did u raise that random observation.
3. wtf im talking crime rates.
4. i believe i meant china had lower living standards, to which you abruptly pointed out this topic was about crime. i then dropped the subject, never disagreed that having death sentence in china did not lower its crime rate.

btw im against public executions, but im all for the lethal injection.

1. Iran has no publicly posted statistics, but foreign observers...
2. Gray, I can't believe you don't know how to spell that ;). And I thought it was relevant.
3. Dracemia made the argument that Singapore had a low crime rate based on their GDP, I was just explaining why they have a high GDP.
4. Okay whatever... Also I don't wholeheartedly support public executions, I was just exaggerating, though it did work with Sadam... Not sure if that was public though.

Why you keep bringing up Singapore when it has been said several times how it's a very wealthy place, and thus it's obvious?

This is a fun thing to watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAUv2OTVm9M

I wouldn't trust a government to be able to perform legal murders, and I can't see any sufficiently proved upsides in it.

I don't think it's even debatable if public executions should be made, that would be, like 1500's? What a grotesque degradation of society would that be.

I don't wholeheartedly support public executions, I was just exaggerating, though it did work with Sadam... Not sure if that was public though.

And honestly I don't see anything wrong with the 1500s, especially as relates to crime. Game set match.
 
Last edited:
Level 5
Joined
Jul 22, 2007
Messages
127
The size of a country has nothing to do it's exports. /Saudi Arabia, Singapore is massive exporter, which you basically said yourself, so that's settled then.

Okay, it's just technical terms. I'm just saying that when they trade things they didn't make, it doesn't make that products their export goods.


And yes, I didn't realize you needed me to say so. I was very pissed off that you would try and smear a legitimate establishment as a campaign against Blacks.

Thank you for admitting that. Everyone could be offended in some way, the only kind of people who can't be offended is dead people.

3. Dracemia made the argument that Singapore had a low crime rate based on their GDP, I was just explaining why they have a high GDP.

Wait, I certainly did not! I've never talked about GDP or Singapore before that post that I said Singapore isn't technically exporting. I know that if I'm going to talk about crime in Singapore, it's going to be about their harsh laws. (which basically fined your ass so much for even the littlest thing like $50 for small littering)

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

ps. GhostThruster spelled the word "Gray" in a Europian way, which is Grey with "e".
An easy way to remember is using "a" in America and "e" in Europe.
 
Level 22
Joined
Jul 25, 2009
Messages
3,091
Okay, it's just technical terms. I'm just saying that when they trade things they didn't make, it doesn't make that products their export goods.




Thank you for admitting that. Everyone could be offended in some way, the only kind of people who can't be offended is dead people.



Wait, I certainly did not! I've never talked about GDP or Singapore before that post that I said Singapore isn't technically exporting. I know that if I'm going to talk about crime in Singapore, it's going to be about their harsh laws. (which basically fined your ass so much for even the littlest thing like $50 for small littering)

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

ps. GhostThruster spelled the word "Gray" in a Europian way, which is Grey with "e".
An easy way to remember is using "a" in America and "e" in Europe.

Maybe it was Zakkamutt lol.
 
Level 8
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
466
Nah, I stopped posting a while ago and afaik never even mentioned the sing-place. That said, I really am asking for that "sucker"; it's strange that there aren't more people using it.

I'd give you a condescending meta-comment but to be honest this shit is so far off the rails I wouldn't know where to start. That was a mild exaggeration.

Owait that was one lol :ogre_hurrhurr:
 
Level 35
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
4,552
'Fundamental human right to bear arms'

It is not fundamental, nor is it a right that we get for being a human, to bear firearms.


Just as a query of interest with regard to American patriotism and gun-toting, if America is such a great country, then why are its citizens so paranoid of their own government that they feel that bearing firearms is a fundamental necessity for the event that their government turns tyrannical? Shouldn't you feel that you don't need these weapons so much?

And what of the mass shootings? Assault Rifles are definitely not meant to be in the hands of citizens, at most they should be semi-automatic assault rifles.

It doesn't make sense. It seems that people want the right to bear arms to protect themselves against the people who have the right to bear arms, and yet when a mass shooting occurs, everyone else forgot to bring their automatic rifles to school.

Perhaps pride is the issue here, where people think that they deserve all the rights in the world at any cost.
 
Level 8
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
466
I wonder if restricting it to semiauto would help, I mean full auto is used for suppression if you want to kill people you'd probably switch to burst.. kekeke
 
Level 11
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
788
Burst is an overrated function in most guns, it doesn't make the weapon better in any way compared to full-auto mode except it makes it easier to tap fire for the shooter. Its a lot about training when it comes to managing different weapons.

Semi-auto is still very dangerous and should, in my opinion, be banned too. For shooting at distances you will use semi and not burst to kill someone. In CQB you will still be able to shoot in a good rate of fire, it all depends on your trigger finger.


Or they should just make it harder to gain a license instead, I just heard that a guy who has been sending death threats to the actress Alyson Hannigan has a gun license even though he has been in a mental institution for a while. I don't think he needs a firearm to "defend" himself, which is also a bit weird since people with a mental issue are not supposed to get a license. ;/
 
Level 22
Joined
Jul 25, 2009
Messages
3,091
Burst is, to the contrary in my opinion the deadliest fire mode, being that you can precisely place 2-3 rounds in something at a decent range, with an average aim. Semi-auto fire is just as good or better, since in real life you only need to hit someone once, and both of these firing modes entail ammo preservation, less reloading, more kills.

But this doesn't matter anyway, because only 3% of all American homicides are committed with rifles.

The root of the problem is handguns and gang violence in cities, and of course the fact that gun sellers don't do jack shit to make sure who they're selling to isn't deranged.

'Fundamental human right to bear arms'

It is not fundamental, nor is it a right that we get for being a human, to bear firearms.


Just as a query of interest with regard to American patriotism and gun-toting, if America is such a great country, then why are its citizens so paranoid of their own government that they feel that bearing firearms is a fundamental necessity for the event that their government turns tyrannical? Shouldn't you feel that you don't need these weapons so much?

And what of the mass shootings? Assault Rifles are definitely not meant to be in the hands of citizens, at most they should be semi-automatic assault rifles.

It doesn't make sense. It seems that people want the right to bear arms to protect themselves against the people who have the right to bear arms, and yet when a mass shooting occurs, everyone else forgot to bring their automatic rifles to school.

Perhaps pride is the issue here, where people think that they deserve all the rights in the world at any cost.

*Constitutionally amended right. And we don't change the constitution to our liking here, unlike other countries.
 
Level 14
Joined
Sep 27, 2009
Messages
1,547
*Constitutionally amended right. And we don't change the constitution to our liking here, unlike other countries.

Implying that constitution worshipping fundamentalism is a good thing. That's also an argumentum ad antiquitatem, appeal to tradition.

Besides, even I know that the USA constitution allows guns for "a well regulated militia", which is not random Bob or Dave from somewhere, but a regulated organization.
 
Level 22
Joined
Jul 25, 2009
Messages
3,091
Implying that constitution worshipping fundamentalism is a good thing. That's also an argumentum ad antiquitatem, appeal to tradition.

Besides, even I know that the USA constitution allows guns for "a well regulated militia", which is not random Bob or Dave from somewhere, but a regulated organization.

No... A regulated organization is susceptible to corruption. Citizens are not.

Also, it is a distinct lack of tradition that has morally bankrupted the world as a whole, so making the argument that people should be more progressive, isn't necessarily smart. Progressiveness can be a gateway to good or bad things.

I honestly feel safer from criminals with my Remington 870 Express near by... Which is why I haven't made the constitutional argument, I also wonder if the government can take away your right to defend yourself from them, what other rights can they remove without fear of revolution, i.e. China.
 
Level 5
Joined
Jul 22, 2007
Messages
127
I thought we all cleared up as to why the Constitution or any template of legal directives should be reviewed and re-evaluated every few decades.

But we could always stick to the stoning gingers and burning too-beautiful women and owning a black slave legally. (because we're all jumping the fallacies bandwagon now)

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

Besides, even I know that the USA constitution allows guns for "a well regulated militia", which is not random Bob or Dave from somewhere, but a regulated organization.

Sadly, this happened
 
Level 14
Joined
Sep 27, 2009
Messages
1,547
No... A regulated organization is susceptible to corruption. Citizens are not.

You must be joking.

Because I haven't been born in a dictatorship and land of oppression such as USA, I can't relate to the argument of government turning against its citizens, since I feel that I, and my fellow citizens are part of the government. I'm mostly worried about external threats. It'd be really interesting to see a land of 250 million people turning against itself.

What's the use of guns if your people can't even vote for their benefit?

Sadly, this happened

That's... well, at least I've learned something new today.

It's still an appeal to authority, though.
 
Level 22
Joined
Jul 25, 2009
Messages
3,091
You must be joking.

Because I haven't been born in a dictatorship and land of oppression such as USA, I can't relate to the argument of government turning against its citizens, since I feel that I, and my fellow citizens are part of the government. I'm mostly worried about external threats. It'd be really interesting to see a land of 250 million people turning against itself.

What's the use of guns if your people can't even vote for their benefit?



That's... well, at least I've learned something new today.

It's still an appeal to authority, though.

I'm not sure you understand how it works here. We have a representative government, which means we vote for people who then in turn vote for us, the only power the citizens have is the ability to vote out someone who doesn't work in the interests of their region.

Furthermore, unto your lack of understanding (No offense intended), the two-party system is designed so that if the governing party takes military control of the state, aka marshal law, there is a party still on the side of the people to insure no human rights are violated.

Going back to the old argument about drones, the government can pretty much do whatever the hell it wants as long as it's under a veil, once it becomes a matter of rights violations, or enough people are stirred over an issue, there is really no way to rid the political disease except through impeachment, which will not work if the entire system is corrupted, and the more extensive and potent solution, revolution.
 
Level 14
Joined
Sep 27, 2009
Messages
1,547
I see your points. However I still don't think that preparing for a revolution is a realistic way to solve the problem. There should be an enlightenment for the people to understand the reality and vote for the right candidates. That is, I'm afraid, just fantasy.
 
Level 11
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
788
precisely place 2-3 rounds
The accuracy for burst fire is the same as full-auto, there are some exceptions for some rifles that was specifically designed as a burst weapon (like the AN-94).

I honestly feel safer from criminals with my Remington 870 Express near by...
I would feel safer having a gun under my bed but I would be a lot more paranoid knowing that every neighbor has one too. I've read a lot about people who has been shot on sight because they were "trespassing" on someones property, the recent one was about three hispanic guys who were going to pick up a friend but the car-gps sent them to the wrong address and the owner of the house shot one of them down. I would not like to live with that fear, what if someone thinks I'm a burglar when I leave my friends house in the middle of the night?

I also wonder if the government can take away your right to defend yourself from them
I believe this law or similar ones are applied in a lot of countries today, even those that have strict gun laws or absolute gun bans. In practice it wouldn't work to remove this kind of laws since it is both publicly supported and impossible to apply in reality.

what other rights can they remove without fear of revolution, i.e. China.
They tried to remove the free internet, NRA was very quiet back then.
Honestly, the only reason why they struggle so hard to keep every civilian armed is to make profits out of it. The US government has so many weapons it would be suicide to go up against it, and even so, the army is full of people who see their position as a job and probably did not sign up to shoot civilian rebels.

And putting military power in the hands of the people is generally not a good thing to do, Schweiz is a working example and some African countries are not. It makes it easier for strong ethnic groups to take power and wipe out other groups, which is why its better that democratic governments has the military power in secular and multicultural countries.

And comparing a democracy like the US to China is a bit extreme. Even though its not a 100% democratic system it still has a lot more freedom of choice.
 
Level 35
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
4,552
Needless to say, America changes its constitution when it suits itself.

I'm not opposed to America having gun rights as they do, however, considering I have no aspirations to go to America whatsoever. If you want to feel protected from criminals, learn a martial art, stay with your friend(s), avoid secluded areas, bring pepper spray or a knife if you really feel the necessity to be armed. Guns are unnecessary, but a small handgun wouldn't hurt.

Alternatively, you could always grab a water pistol and paint it to look like a handgun. Just in case.

Another tip would be to take a fake wallet in the event you get mugged. Idea is you throw the fake wallet behind them and leg it before they realize it's empty.
 
Level 8
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
466
Mostly unrelated, but RiotZ mentioned the two-party system some time back. What do you think about the two-party system vs many-party systems? My personal thoughts are that systems that allow many parties, but restrict them so that a certain voter % is needed to get representatives into a Congress-analogue are quite good. They allow minority voices to be represented in a much better fashion, and allow support for parties that aren't middle-of-the-road.
 
Level 5
Joined
Jul 22, 2007
Messages
127
Needless to say, America changes its constitution when it suits itself.

Not only the US.

Actually, the US don't change its Constitution as often as the rest of the world. Check this out.

and most overruling directives still remain the same :D

Mostly unrelated, but RiotZ mentioned the two-party system some time back. What do you think about the two-party system vs many-party systems? My personal thoughts are that systems that allow many parties, but restrict them so that a certain voter % is needed to get representatives into a Congress-analogue are quite good. They allow minority voices to be represented in a much better fashion, and allow support for parties that aren't middle-of-the-road.


I think the concept of Many Parties system only work in theory when in reality most political issue could be boiled down into Conservative's "Human are inherently evil and should not be trusted, if the measurement for keeping them in control worked before, it'll still work in the future" and vice versa for the pro-progressive liberals.
 
Level 35
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
4,552
We weren't talking about the rest of the world, dracemia, we were talking about America. And there's a reason for that - they use the statement 'we don't change our constitution' as an excuse to ignore the responsible choice.

So basically, everything you said in response to that was a waste of time.
 
Level 22
Joined
Jul 25, 2009
Messages
3,091
The accuracy for burst fire is the same as full-auto, there are some exceptions for some rifles that was specifically designed as a burst weapon (like the AN-94).


I would feel safer having a gun under my bed but I would be a lot more paranoid knowing that every neighbor has one too. I've read a lot about people who has been shot on sight because they were "trespassing" on someones property, the recent one was about three hispanic guys who were going to pick up a friend but the car-gps sent them to the wrong address and the owner of the house shot one of them down. I would not like to live with that fear, what if someone thinks I'm a burglar when I leave my friends house in the middle of the night?


I believe this law or similar ones are applied in a lot of countries today, even those that have strict gun laws or absolute gun bans. In practice it wouldn't work to remove this kind of laws since it is both publicly supported and impossible to apply in reality.


They tried to remove the free internet, NRA was very quiet back then.
Honestly, the only reason why they struggle so hard to keep every civilian armed is to make profits out of it. The US government has so many weapons it would be suicide to go up against it, and even so, the army is full of people who see their position as a job and probably did not sign up to shoot civilian rebels.

And putting military power in the hands of the people is generally not a good thing to do, Schweiz is a working example and some African countries are not. It makes it easier for strong ethnic groups to take power and wipe out other groups, which is why its better that democratic governments has the military power in secular and multicultural countries.

And comparing a democracy like the US to China is a bit extreme. Even though its not a 100% democratic system it still has a lot more freedom of choice.

I wouldn't feel paranoid knowing my neighbors have firearms.

And no one is going to shoot someone leaving someone else's house at night, or outside of someone's house, it is only legal to defend yourself with a lethal weapon if you are in fear for your life and in your own home. I believe there are states where the law is, the event of someone being killed in self-defense is not illegal, no matter if in or outside of your home.

Last thing, I was comparing the fact that China's government has military control, so no one will ever overthrew, or hold them accountable for any crimes they commit against human rights, or rights otherwise.

Mostly unrelated, but RiotZ mentioned the two-party system some time back. What do you think about the two-party system vs many-party systems? My personal thoughts are that systems that allow many parties, but restrict them so that a certain voter % is needed to get representatives into a Congress-analogue are quite good. They allow minority voices to be represented in a much better fashion, and allow support for parties that aren't middle-of-the-road.

I would support an additional party, or a large amount of parties, I think having only 2 official parties skews the interests of people who don't like either, (like myself) and are forced to label themselves as independents, only one independent president has ever won the election.

We weren't talking about the rest of the world, dracemia, we were talking about America. And there's a reason for that - they use the statement 'we don't change our constitution' as an excuse to ignore the responsible choice.

So basically, everything you said in response to that was a waste of time.

There's a reason the constitution exists, it is there to be tweaked, and prodded, never changed, for the most part it hasn't changed. And over the last 200 years the US has evolved as the most popular country on Earth... There must be a reason for it.
 
Level 14
Joined
Sep 27, 2009
Messages
1,547
It's interesting how everyone loves and hates America at the same time. People want the fast food, beautiful nature, history and pop culture, but hate the government, the imperialism and stereotype of a stupid American person. That list only contains fraction of the items.
 
Level 14
Joined
Sep 27, 2009
Messages
1,547
Feels a lot more natural to say "an American movie" than "a movie that is from USA". So I guess the only option is to dig rivers around USA and call it America, everything below it South-America, and everything above it North-America.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top