| BREAKING NEWS: V-TECH KILLER SENDS PACKAGE TO NBC | |
|
CuZzA - Student  |
NBC has just recieved a package from The V-Tech mass murderer (Cho Seung-Hui). The package was believed to have been sent during the 2 and a half hour time gap between the first 2 killings and the other 30+.
Click Here _______________ - Even if Carlsberg made "w*nkers", Christiano Ronaldo would still be the biggest "w*nker" in the world |
| < Recent Comments | Login and add your comment! | Previous Comments > |
| Comments |
|
Hardwired - Retired 
|
First off, I am not touching the gun issue with a ten foot pole. I have been down that road many-a-time and become none the wiser for it. I say this just to make sure there are no missunderstandings.
Let's say, for the purpose of this post, that guns and crime rates are not linked in any way. What would be (in your minds) the reason(s) for school shootings? Such as is the topic of this thread. There have been instances of it outside the US, but nowhere near the amount that has occured in the US (to my knowlege). So what is the defining factor(s) for such violence? - HW _______________ ::Nothing wrong with a little shooting.....as long as the right people get shot:: |
|
Buzz - Student 
|
Quote: Buzz can you read people's minds? Didn't think so. So how are you supposed to know who wants to kill you and when, you cant. Everybody is a potential criminal, can you not understand this logic?
Well, when they are threatening me, or breaking into my home I would say the question of their criminality is answered. So if people aren't doing that they're not criminals. Quote: If you had bothered to understand that quote it is simply stating that gun ownership rates are directly related to gun crime rates. I did not mention anything about the figures of gun crime rates in the US.
Correlation does not equal causation. Learn it. Attemtping to apply one standard to the whole of the world is also worthless Quote: You're talking about fighting fire with fire. Such an attitude can only elevate problems and in this case, an increase in the number of guns will result in an increase in the risk of gun crimes.
And learn this too. What you are saying is not correct. No matter how much you wish it to be true, the number of gun owners is increasing in the US and the crimes don't reflect your beliefs of what should be happening. Quote: This boils down to simple logic: Everybody is a potential criminal. I hope I did not come across as paranoid. Anyway, this statement I stand by and this should not reflect anything about my sense of freedom/liberty.
But it does. You believe everyone to be a potential criminal. As such you are wanting to limit the freedoms and liberties of individuals who have done nothing to justify limiting those liberties and freedoms. Quote: I should rephrase myself: Instead of I do not feel it is an inalienable right, I do not feel it should be an inalienable right.
But it is. Tough luck. Quote: I'm just stating my opinion that guns should be banned from the general public because they increase the risk of gun crimes.
No matter how much you want that to be true what is occuring in america doesn't support your belief. Quote: No the reasons are not the same, for the third time. Guns can serve a "good purpose" in society when in the hands of police, not the public.
Just because you don't want your justification to be the exact same as people use to justify other things being banned doesn't mean its not true. An 82 year old woman prevent criminals from robbing her because she had a gun. Can you honestly say that her gun didn't serve a good purpose because it wasn't in the hands of a cop? The police are not responsible for the safety of me or my family. The response time for the police means that I and any number of people could be killed before they get there. "gosh it was so good of the cops to get here in under 10 minutes. A shame everyone was killed though." Quote: Yes thats the idea, other than the police of course.
Nice of you to have such trust in your government. 32 people placed their safety in the hands of the police and because of that they are dead. Order of importance in the United States: 1) Constitution 2) Individual 3) Society When what is at the top is protected it guarrantees that what is below will be as well. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
Ventrel - Student 
|
Quote: Only if they plan to commit a crime against me. I also don't neeed to assert that it is my inalienable right, because it is.
Buzz can you read people's minds? Didn't think so. So how are you supposed to know who wants to kill you and when, you cant. Everybody is a potential criminal, can you not understand this logic? Quote: And a 14 year old study is pretty worthless, since the crime rate through the mid to late 90's began to drop.
If you had bothered to understand that quote it is simply stating that gun ownership rates are directly related to gun crime rates. I did not mention anything about the figures of gun crime rates in the US. Quote: Tell me something, if you're a criminal, and you want to commit a crime, which person would you rather commit it against? A man with a gun, a man who you really don't know has a gun or not, or a man you are 99% certain will not have a gun? Who's the easier target?
You're talking about fighting fire with fire. Such an attitude can only elevate problems and in this case, an increase in the number of guns will result in an increase in the risk of gun crimes. Quote: I don't know about you, but I'm not looking at every person walking down the street as a potential offender. Its not a falsehood. Its what his statements have revealed.
This boils down to simple logic: Everybody is a potential criminal. I hope I did not come across as paranoid. Anyway, this statement I stand by and this should not reflect anything about my sense of freedom/liberty. Quote: Well you're wrong. It is an inalienable right. What part of "shall not be infringed" is too complicated for you to understand. I don't really care about the laws of your country, because that is the law here, and that is what matters here.
I should rephrase myself: Instead of I do not feel it is an inalienable right, I do not feel it should be an inalienable right. I didn't bring the laws of my country into this issue at all. I am not asking you to care, neither am I here to pretend I know a lot about American law. I'm just stating my opinion that guns should be banned from the general public because they increase the risk of gun crimes. Quote: The reasons you use to justify your belief in outlawing guns are the reasons that are used to try to justify outlawing other items. "For the good of society." You argue that guns serve no good purpose in society. There are other items people argue serve no good purpose.
No the reasons are not the same, for the third time. Guns can serve a "good purpose" in society when in the hands of police, not the public. Quote: Banning guns also just guarrantees that the only ones who will have them are outlaws.
Yes thats the idea, other than the police of course. This comment was edited by Ventrel on Apr 28 2007 04:04pm. |
|
Buzz - Student
|
Quote: 'Your views on guns have revealed your belief in considering every citizen to be a potential criminal. '
To assert that carrying a gun is your inalienable right also implies that you need to protect youtself potentially from anyone Only if they plan to commit a crime against me. I also don't neeed to assert that it is my inalienable right, because it is. Quote: Yes, and it has been falling for a while now. What you fail to mention is that experts all over (including official sources) agree that it is the result primarily of the strong economy in the 1990s and the prevalence of tougher sentencing laws. This doesn't have anything to do with the gun debate.
Gee its almost like you're saying that the gun laws don't affect the crime rate. Quote: Correlation does not imply causation.
In other words, just because other countries with strict gun laws have lower rates of crime doesn't mean its a result of their lack of guns. Quote: What I fail to understand is what exactly is going wrong in the United States that when gun ownership declines, crime skyrockets. It's absurd. In terms of crime the US is about as advanced as your average war-torn 3rd world nation
Tell me something, if you're a criminal, and you want to commit a crime, which person would you rather commit it against? A man with a gun, a man who you really don't know has a gun or not, or a man you are 99% certain will not have a gun? Who's the easier target? Quote: There are actually plenty of very peaceful 3rd world nations.
Yeah because the people are a lot more concerned about starving to death, or else speaking out against their government might cause them to disapear, since they have no right to self defense. There's also that little blip of a factor that the less diverse a nation is the lower its crime rate seems to be. Quote: I live in in a city with a population of about 320,000. In the twenty-two years I've lived here we've had a total of sixteen murders and eight were committed by people visiting from another city. I don't know anybody who has a gun for protection (plenty for hunting that are kept locked away and unloaded). Maybe I've been spoiled, but it just doesn't makes sense to me that similar-sized US cities have far greater levels of violence.
You also live in a country with very lax drug laws. A good number of murders over here seem to have a connection with drugs. There's also that diversity factor. The crime level of inner city blacks is very high when compared to other groups within the united states. Is your number for your city's population the entire metro area or just within city limits. Because Toledo Ohio is comparable to your size and its rate is about double. I'd say its diversity of population is higher than your country, and there's the gang and drug issue. Quote: Even our large cities have small fractions of the number of murders as big US cities. The numbers for any major US city are staggeringly high comparted to any major city in my country.
Population of New York is about half of your entire nation. Its also got pretty strict gun laws. Quote: Guns aren't the cause nor the answer. I don't know what the problem is in the US, but something's clearly got to be done about it.
Which is the point. What has to be done though does not involve taking away people's guns. One thing that could probably be done is to convince the black community that you should actually report criminals to the police. http://60minutes.yahoo.com/segment/60/stop_snitching Quote: Quote:
Your views on guns have revealed your belief in considering every citizen to be a potential criminal. Though this is not directed at me, I'm sure everyone can see this is a falsehood. People who disagree with you on this issue are not immediately paranoid. Quote: Either way criminals are not born, they are made so if you're talking about safety, all people must be looked at as potential offenders.
I don't know about you, but I'm not looking at every person walking down the street as a potential offender. Its not a falsehood. Its what his statements have revealed. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
Lirael - Jedi Council 
|
'Your views on guns have revealed your belief in considering every citizen to be a potential criminal. '
To assert that carrying a gun is your inalienable right also implies that you need to protect youtself potentially from anyone _______________ I can write my name with my sparkler. My sparkler > your lightsabre |
|
Kenyon - Lord of the Dance 
|
Quote: The crime rate is falling.
Yes, and it has been falling for a while now. What you fail to mention is that experts all over (including official sources) agree that it is the result primarily of the strong economy in the 1990s and the prevalence of tougher sentencing laws. This doesn't have anything to do with the gun debate. Quote: Crime rates in the US have gone down, while rates in other western cultures are on the rise.
Correlation does not imply causation. Of course, I understand why high gun ownership can reduce crime. It makes a lot of sense. What I fail to understand is what exactly is going wrong in the United States that when gun ownership declines, crime skyrockets. It's absurd. In terms of crime the US is about as advanced as your average war-torn 3rd world nation. There are actually plenty of very peaceful 3rd world nations. I live in in a city with a population of about 320,000. In the twenty-two years I've lived here we've had a total of sixteen murders and eight were committed by people visiting from another city. I don't know anybody who has a gun for protection (plenty for hunting that are kept locked away and unloaded). Maybe I've been spoiled, but it just doesn't makes sense to me that similar-sized US cities have far greater levels of violence. Even our large cities have small fractions of the number of murders as big US cities. The numbers for any major US city are staggeringly high comparted to any major city in my country. Guns aren't the cause nor the answer. I don't know what the problem is in the US, but something's clearly got to be done about it. Quote: Your views on guns have revealed your belief in considering every citizen to be a potential criminal.
Though this is not directed at me, I'm sure everyone can see this is a falsehood. People who disagree with you on this issue are not immediately paranoid. |
|
Buzz - Student 
|
Quote: I don't understand this, do you have any evidence to back that up?
I quote: "The level of gun ownership world-wide is directly related to murder and suicide rates and specifically to the level of death by gunfire." International Correlation between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide.' Professor Martin Killias, May 1993. Also it is clear that the US has the highest rate of gun crimes for an industrialized nation. Fact is, less guns = less gun crimes. And the gun ownership is climbing. The crime rate is falling. Can you explain that? By your own reasoning it shouldn't be happening. And a 14 year old study is pretty worthless, since the crime rate through the mid to late 90's began to drop. And gun ownership went up. Crime rates in the US have gone down, while rates in other western cultures are on the rise. It may still be higher than other places but I don't think that there is another nation in the world you could properly compare to the US. Quote: Infringe on their rights to carry a firearm, yes. I don't feel that that is an inalienable right. Why do you need a gun? For personal safety, from whom? I think that the number of shots fired in self defense are outweighed by those of criminals and accidental cases.
Well you're wrong. It is an inalienable right. What part of "shall not be infringed" is too complicated for you to understand. I don't really care about the laws of your country, because that is the law here, and that is what matters here. Why I would want a gun is irrelevant as long as I'm not planning to commit a crime with it. I also don't even need to fire a shot from a gun for it to be successful in self-defense. You do realize that right? I've stated it several times here. You're also more likely to be accidentally killed by a doctor than accidentally killed by a gun in the US. Tell the 82 year old woman who succesfully defended her property from criminals and held them for police that she should no longer have that right. As for an actual number. "The NSPOF also provides the first opportunity to replicate Kleck and Gertz= (1995) widely publicized survey finding that 2.5 million adults use guns defensively each year against criminal attackers. The sequence of questions in the NSPOF is quite similar to that used by Kleck and Gertz, and when similar estimation methods are applied, suggests 1.5 million defensive gun users, and 4.7 million defensive gun uses, each year. These results are not inconsistent with the 2.5 million figure" http://www.policefoundation.org/pdf/GunsInAmerica.pdf And those are numbers coming from ant-gun criminologists. Here's some more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/03/national/main576422.shtml and just so you can see "Firearms injuries were the second leading cause of injury deaths, killing 28,663 people in 2000, the most recent year for which data was available. About 58 percent of the deaths were suicides. Gun accidents claimed about 775 lives that year. " That's a comparison of over a million usages of guns in self defense compared to not even 50,000 deaths by crime accident and suicide. What was that about which way it would be outweighed? Quote: Once again, the reasoning behind banning guns and banning alcohol are completely different in my books simply because guns are more dangerous than alcohol. The legislative system has to be more dynamic than to deal in absolutes and ban "everything that is dangerous". Guns are weapons, alcohol is not a weapon. No, my reasoning behind the two subjects should not and do not correlate.
The reasons you use to justify your belief in outlawing guns are the reasons that are used to try to justify outlawing other items. "For the good of society." You argue that guns serve no good purpose in society. There are other items people argue serve no good purpose. Banning guns also just guarrantees that the only ones who will have them are outlaws. Quote: I have only expressed my views on banning guns. I do not think that you could make a sound judgment of my understanding of liberty or freedom simply based on such views, so yes you are being prejudicial.
Your views on guns have revealed your belief in considering every citizen to be a potential criminal. You also believe in taking away a right (or even refusing to believe it is a right) from people who have done nothing to deserve the removal of that right. As such, your understanding of liberty is different than that of what someone living in the united states would be. I did not prejudge you, no matter how much you wish I had. My view of you comes after you have made your statements. I have judged you, not prejudged you. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
Ventrel - Student 
|
Quote: Yes I am. You know, since that has happened. Just because you want to believe that increasing gun ownership increases gun crime doesn't make it so.
I don't understand this, do you have any evidence to back that up? I quote: "The level of gun ownership world-wide is directly related to murder and suicide rates and specifically to the level of death by gunfire." International Correlation between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide.' Professor Martin Killias, May 1993. Also it is clear that the US has the highest rate of gun crimes for an industrialized nation. Fact is, less guns = less gun crimes. Quote: Punishing them for actions of others. You want to infringe on their inalienable rights.
Infringe on their rights to carry a firearm, yes. I don't feel that that is an inalienable right. Why do you need a gun? For personal safety, from whom? I think that the number of shots fired in self defense are outweighed by those of criminals and accidental cases. Quote: Your views on alcohol have nothing to do with this. What does though is the reasoning behind your views on banning guns and the statement I pointed out about alcohol. You believe guns are dangerous so they should be banned. Others believe that alcohol is dangerous and should be banned. Still others believe pornography is dangerous and should be banned. If we started banning everything people believed was dangerous to society you would shut down society.
Once again, the reasoning behind banning guns and banning alcohol are completely different in my books simply because guns are more dangerous than alcohol. The legislative system has to be more dynamic than to deal in absolutes and ban "everything that is dangerous". Guns are weapons, alcohol is not a weapon. No, my reasoning behind the two subjects should not and do not correlate. Quote: I'm saying that based on your statements your understanding of liberty and freedom is lacking. That is not prejudicial, because it comes after the your statements. Were I to have said that before you said anything then it would be prejudicial. But I didn't prejudge you. I simply judged you based upon your statements.
I have only expressed my views on banning guns. I do not think that you could make a sound judgment of my understanding of liberty or freedom simply based on such views, so yes you are being prejudicial. This comment was edited by Ventrel on Apr 28 2007 05:24am. |
|
Lirael - Jedi Council
|
'A link would be good. Having it come from a peer reviewed journal would be even better.'
New Scientist #2601 'Thank you for bringing up other illnesses and treatments. You do know that you are allowed to refuse treatment right?' Yes, because they are mentally stable; mentally ill people are not mentally stable. The point I was making is that treatment and punishment are two very different things which you did not seem to appreciate ‘That supervision ends once they are released from the facility.’ So they shouldn’t be released until they’ve recovered just as with any other illness. ‘Who's calling for abandoning gun laws? I'm fine with laws that require background checks to get firearms. I don't want the laws abandoned, I want the ones we have enforced.’ And if you make guns widely available, there are going to be more people requesting guns and that means there are going to be more people who can’t be bothered to go through the background checks thoroughly. ‘That power of life and death is already in my hands. I do not need a gun to have that’ This isn’t an all or nothing issue. By making guns more widely available you are increasing the potential of guns being used irresponsibly because at times, people do act irresponsibly and you are increasing the potential of the number of people that could be affected [see my statistics on my last post] – a gun can be shot from a far, a knife requires you to be in close range. 'I don't fear the government. However, I don't trust the government. And why should I? The number of people I have some say-so in electing to the federal government is 4.' You don’t trust the government and they have guns. If someone was standing in front of me now who I didn’t trust and had a gun, I would be slightly afraid. You have some say over your government, but you don’t have any say over your neighbor who might decide they want to shoot you, I don’t know, maybe because they got frustrated at loosing and argument on the internet or something. You trust your neighbour to have a gun so you can trust them to vote responsibly too. ‘You want to infringe on their inalienable rights.’ I think its an inalienable right not to get shot, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that to prevent this you also have an inalienable right to carry a gun. You have the right to defend yourself but not to be offensive…so how about an inalienable right to wear Kevlar body amour 
_______________ I can write my name with my sparkler. My sparkler > your lightsabre |
|
Buzz - Student
|
Quote: Haha are you saying that allowing guns has decreased the number of gun crimes?
Yes I am. You know, since that has happened. Just because you want to believe that increasing gun ownership increases gun crime doesn't make it so. Quote:
Quote:
You are also advocating punishing people who have done no wrong. Punishing them by not allowing them to use their guns for target practice/to collect dust in a cupboard? Punishing them for actions of others. You want to infringe on their inalienable rights. Quote: Alcohol is a completely different matter don't tie my views on this matter to a separate debate.
Your views on alcohol have nothing to do with this. What does though is the reasoning behind your views on banning guns and the statement I pointed out about alcohol. You believe guns are dangerous so they should be banned. Others believe that alcohol is dangerous and should be banned. Still others believe pornography is dangerous and should be banned. If we started banning everything people believed was dangerous to society you would shut down society. Quote:
Quote:
"I came to the conclusion, that your views were typical of what one would expect Are you saying that I do not understand liberty? I think that is being prejudicial now. I'm saying that based on your statements your understanding of liberty and freedom is lacking. That is not prejudicial, because it comes after the your statements. Were I to have said that before you said anything then it would be prejudicial. But I didn't prejudge you. I simply judged you based upon your statements. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
Buzz - Student
|
Quote: I know I'm going to get flamed for this and to let everyone know IT IS OK to flame this post -
Quote: And that's only 3 people out of 535 who are making the decisions.
How is this democracy? because I really don't understand what the point of the other 532 is . . . Congress is composed of 535 individuals. 100 in the Senate, 435 in the House of Representatives. 2 Senators from every state, and each state has a number of representatives based on their population but everystate is guarranteed at least 1 representative. Senators are elected by the people in the state they represent, so in the Senate I only get to vote on who I want in 2 of those seats, the other 98 are voted on by people of other states. In the house, representatives aren't chosen by the people of the entire state but by the people in specific districts. For Ohio, I believe there are 19 representatives, but of those 19 I only get to vote on who I want 1 to be. The other 18 in the state are voted on by their respective districts. And the same goes for the other states and their representatives. The elections are democratic, because I only get one vote for each position and so does everyone else. There isn't some individual out there who's vote for a senator counts more than mine. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
Ventrel - Student
|
Haha are you saying that allowing guns has decreased the number of gun crimes?
Quote: You are also advocating punishing people who have done no wrong. Punishing them by not allowing them to use their guns for target practice/to collect dust in a cupboard? Alcohol is a completely different matter don't tie my views on this matter to a separate debate.
Quote: "I came to the conclusion, that your views were typical of what one would expect Are you saying that I do not understand liberty? I think that is being prejudicial now. |
|
Buzz - Student
|
Quote: The fact of the matter is allowing the possession of guns can only increase risk of gun crimes and in no way will it reduce such a risk, therefore they should be banned.
The opposite has occured in the US. Explain that. You are also advocating punishing people who have done no wrong. "The fact of the matter is that allowing alcohol increases the risks drunk driving, and therefore it should be banned." That's exactly what you're advocating and that doesn't work. Also, I might feel bad about what I said about your views had I prejudged you. However you expressed your views first and I came to the conclusion, that your views were typical of what one would expect, afterwards. If I said your from singapore and don't understand liberty before you even said anything, that would be prejudice. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
Menaxia - Student 
|
I know I'm going to get flamed for this and to let everyone know IT IS OK to flame this post -
Quote: And that's only 3 people out of 535 who are making the decisions.
How is this democracy? because I really don't understand what the point of the other 532 is . . . _______________ This is not the place to look for me |
|
Kenyon - Lord of the Dance 
|
Quote: Believing that someone living in singapore would not have the same concepts or freedom and liberty as that which exist in the United States and other nations, is no more bigoted than a woman believing a man can't understand the pain of a period or childbirth.
Whereas the physical experiences of a man are limited because of biology, his opinion on matters, thankfully, has no such limitation. Of course there are countries where certain kind of opinions are more popular, but pretty much every country in the world (and certainly the countries you've listed) have a huge platform for discussion on important subjects, and there is no single dominating train of thought. If someone from such a country presents his opinion, and you remark on how you are not surprised because of his background, it suggests that his opinion is the product of his environment as opposed to intelligent research. This can be seen as a form of prejudice. |
|
Ventrel - Student
|
Quote: Not when the guns are in the hands of people who abide by the law. You apparently believe that once you give someone a gun they become a criminal and that's just not true. Of course coming from singapore, your views really aren't that surprising.
"You apparently believe that once you give someone a gun they become a criminal " Wrong. I've said no such thing and have implied no such thing. Heres the crunch, all criminals were once "law abiding citizens". The fact of the matter is allowing the possession of guns can only increase risk of gun crimes and in no way will it reduce such a risk, therefore they should be banned. Also I don't think living in Singapore has swayed my views on this issue at all, and you come across as ignorant in thinking that my country is some kind of "police state". Quote: Believing that someone living in singapore would not have the same concepts or freedom and liberty as that which exist in the United States and other nations, is no more bigoted than a woman believing a man can't understand the pain of a period or childbirth. There is no malice hatred or intolerance behind it.
It's ok I didn't take any offense from the statement. |
|
Hardwired - Retired
|
Adding to what Jaiko stated.
If you are in doubt that a statement or comment is in rule violation. You are more than welcome to e-mail me said statement and I will look at it. And as previously stated. Keep the gloves on for this debate. The thread remains alive as long as the comments remain clean. - HW _______________ ::Nothing wrong with a little shooting.....as long as the right people get shot:: |
|
Jaiko D'Kana - Student 
|
As long as you guys are happy to continue talking im obviously not going to stand in the way of debate. However, could i make a friendly request that we steer clear of personal jeers and such as it detracts from the benifits of such an opportunity to freely discuss views through character assasination rather than effective counter argument.
If you believe something is truley offensive or out of line your more than capable of seeking mysef, or more specifically the two man community liason (crime-fighting) Bat-virtue and rob-kaelis-in (sorry for the analogy chaps). Common, we're not here to fight after all....we have better things to do, right? If you feel upset by something written, take a time out before returning.... Have a great time guys lets just make sure no one gets hurt -JaikoD'Kana- p.s This post is not intended at any indvidual(s) or group(s) of people, but rather a generic message to remind members not take these debates out of context. If you feel you are being singled out at all, it is simply not my intent....so sorry  _______________ The greatest discovery of my generation is that a human being can alter his life by altering his attitudes of mind. William James (1842 - 1910) This comment was edited by Jaiko D'Kana on Apr 27 2007 12:29am. |
|
Buzz - Student
|
Believing that someone living in singapore would not have the same concepts or freedom and liberty as that which exist in the United States and other nations, is no more bigoted than a woman believing a man can't understand the pain of a period or childbirth. There is no malice hatred or intolerance behind it. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
planK - Jedi Council 
|
Quote:
Quote:
And everyone thought Adolf shot himself in 45.
Yes because believing in liberty and the rights of the individuals is obviously what Hitler believed in didn't he mike? You disgust me with your ignorance. It was more of a reference to how much of an uncultured bigot you are. 
Anyway, my 2 dollars are thrown in (because everyone else is cheap with their cents, booo!)!11 |
|
Buzz - Student
|
Quote: And everyone thought Adolf shot himself in 45.
Yes because believing in liberty and the rights of the individuals is obviously what Hitler believed in didn't he mike? You disgust me with your ignorance. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
Buzz - Student
|
Quote: your fond of your statistics, let me provide you with some more that actually contain some figures:
- Semi-automatic pistols result in 15 per cent more wounded people than those involving revolvers - In 1996, after a gunman in Tasmania killed 35 people, semi-automatic and pump –action shotguns were banned. - In the 18 years prior to 1996, there were 13 mass shootings; in the past decade, none. A link would be good. Having it come from a peer reviewed journal would be even better. You know like the one that says the gun ban has had no effect on gun crime in Australia. And that still doesn't repeat the trend. Gun ownership isn't increasing there. As others have stated their belief that more guns would cause an increase in murders and crimes. In the US we are getting more guns and that supposed increase just isn't happening. Quote: Mental illness is just as much an illness as physical illness. I think ill people should receive treatment. If that means chemotherapy then they have chemotherapy, if it means locking them up so they can be supervised to make sure theyre recieving treatment and taking their medication, then they get locked up.
Thank you for bringing up other illnesses and treatments. You do know that you are allowed to refuse treatment right? Even if they can cure you, you are not required to seek treatment. In fact if you don't want treatment and they do it anyways they're in trouble. This is the whole reason behind DNR. If a person is incapacitated in such a way that they can't make the decision then the hospital needs to seek consent from a relative. Quote: I thought the concept of treatment included that it continued until the illness was cured or the symptoms (which may or may not include massacring fellow students) are relieved.
And once the symptoms go away because of the medicine they become sane and as such are released and given their medication to take on their own. Which is where this statement comes into it: Quote: But they aren't able to go and make sure that people are taking their meds.’
The whole point of a mental section is for the nurses etc to check that medication is being properly administrated. That supervision ends once they are released from the facility. Once they are released the nurses can no longer make sure the medication is being properly adminstered. Quote: No-one is claiming that gun-restriction laws are enforced perfectly, but that doesn’t mean they should be abandoned completely. If you want to take that line – why bother try and preventing Iran enriching uranium which is probably for manufacturing nuclear weapons – they’ll just get them anyway on a black market.
Who's calling for abandoning gun laws? I'm fine with laws that require background checks to get firearms. I don't want the laws abandoned, I want the ones we have enforced. As for Iran, they are violating laws and treaties they are signatories to. They're breaking the law, they need to be stopped. Oh and staying "stop" is working so well with them, why its working about as well as asking an armed criminal to stop when you aren't armed, and unwilling to actually do something to stop them. 'Diplomacy is saying "nice doggie" until you find a rock.' Quote: When you are so concerned about rights how do you find it acceptable for you to have the ultimate power of life and death over anyone you meet? Whether you are a rational citizen who would not exercise that right until absolutely necessary is irrelevant – you still have that power to decide the fate of another citizen’s life which should be, according to you, an serious infringement of their rights.
That power of life and death is already in my hands. I do not need a gun to have that. I don't even need a tool to have that. Also I am innocent until proven guilty so you'll need to prove that I am guilty of infringing on another persons rights. And simply owning a gun doesn't do that, especially since owning a gun is a right. Quote: I feel sorry for you that you are so afraid of the government that you and you fellow law abiding citizen, (whom you asserted that you have the utmost trust for, even extending to possessing a gun and therefore having the power of life and death over you) democratically voted into power.
I don't fear the government. However, I don't trust the government. And why should I? The number of people I have some say-so in electing to the federal government is 4. Two Senators, a Representative, and the President. The number that my vote directly counts to is only 3. The number of things they say they believe in that I also may believe in is of a pretty wide range. The likelihood of them acting in a manner that is completely opposite of what they claimed to have in common with me is also pretty good. And those are the people that I vote for. And when I vote I'm not guarranteed that the person I voted for will be elected. And that's only 3 people out of 535 who are making the decisions. So exactly why should I trust the government? "Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. This comment was edited by Buzz on Apr 26 2007 11:23pm. |
|
planK - Jedi Council 
|
And everyone thought Adolf shot himself in 45. |
|
Buzz - Student
|
Quote:
Quote:
the illusion of safety was chosen above liberty
We are talking about a person who had done many things wrong and had been detained but clearly not for long enough. He stalked women took photos up their skirts and wrote literature so obscene that he was taught alone because other students feared for their safety. Are you seriously saying that detaining such a person is wrong? OMG WE'REINFRINGING HIS HUMAN RIGHT TO BE A PERV AND COMPLETE PSYCHO. Well good. I think here we have the illusion of liberty. These students had the right to study without getting shot at. You'd be more correct if any of those girls had pressed charges against him. Unfortunately they just found him annoying. Accusation can't be the foundation to dismiss someone from getting a gun. And he was obviously a disturbed individual. Problem is that the people you want deciding to lock him up because he's a danger to society decided that he wasn't a danger to society. If any of those issues you bring up had gone to court there would be justification in taking away some of his rights. Because of circumstances that didn't happen. Quote:
Quote:
You apparently believe that once you give someone a gun they become a criminal and that's just not true. Of course coming from singapore, your views really aren't that surprising.
That's a little prejudicial don't you think? Not much. I don't find your views on gun control all that surprising because you're from the UK. I don't find Xanatos's views on it surprising either because he is from Australia. Why should I find a person from singapore, which is essentially a police state, where the punishment for graffitti is a caning, would have different views on freedom and liberty than I do? He's calling everyone a potential criminal, essentially placing guilt on people who have done nothing wrong. Coming from a place like singapore, that view doesn't shock me. It may be a little bit prejudicial, but can you tell me how deciding that no one can responsibly handle a gun is less prejudicial? _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
Lirael - Jedi Council
|
‘Have you ever wondered why mass murders occur in gun-free zones?’
& ‘I believe gun ownership has increased, and the murder rate has gone down. That's not a trend that's being repeated in the rest of the world.’ Since your fond of your statistics, let me provide you with some more that actually contain some figures: - Semi-automatic pistols result in 15 per cent more wounded people than those involving revolvers - In 1996, after a gunman in Tasmania killed 35 people, semi-automatic and pump –action shotguns were banned. - In the 18 years prior to 1996, there were 13 mass shootings; in the past decade, none. ‘You are advocating locking up a person who has done nothing wrong other than be sick.’ & ‘And locking up a person guilty of no crime is not protecting society. Its an erosion of rights, and that causes society to decline.’ Mental illness is just as much an illness as physical illness. I think ill people should receive treatment. If that means chemotherapy then they have chemotherapy, if it means locking them up so they can be supervised to make sure theyre recieving treatment and taking their medication, then they get locked up. ‘You can send them to a facility for treatment, but they can't hold them there indefinitely.’ I thought the concept of treatment included that it continued until the illness was cured or the symptoms (which may or may not include massacring fellow students) are relieved. ‘But they aren't able to go and make sure that people are taking their meds.’ The whole point of a mental section is for the nurses etc to check that medication is being properly administrated. ‘Ok guns are bad they should be banned so that no one can buy them. Here's what you do. Stop all gun manufacturers. Then have China, North Korea, all Southeast asian nations disarm. Have India and Pakistan disarm. Have the African Continent Disarm. Have every muslim middle east country disarm. Get South America to disarm. Get Europe to disarm. Get Canada to disarm. Get Mexico to disarm.’ No-one is claiming that gun-restriction laws are enforced perfectly, but that doesn’t mean they should be abandoned completely. If you want to take that line – why bother try and preventing Iran enriching uranium which is probably for manufacturing nuclear weapons – they’ll just get them anyway on a black market. ‘That choice to have a gun should be mine to make, and not have someone else decide what is best for me.’ When you are so concerned about rights how do you find it acceptable for you to have the ultimate power of life and death over anyone you meet? Whether you are a rational citizen who would not exercise that right until absolutely necessary is irrelevant – you still have that power to decide the fate of another citizen’s life which should be, according to you, an serious infringement of their rights. ‘I feel safer in a society where the government isn't the only group in control of guns.’ I feel sorry for you that you are so afraid of the government that you and you fellow law abiding citizen, (whom you asserted that you have the utmost trust for, even extending to possessing a gun and therefore having the power of life and death over you) democratically voted into power. _______________ I can write my name with my sparkler. My sparkler > your lightsabre This comment was edited by Lirael on Apr 26 2007 06:41pm. |
| < Recent Comments | Login and add your comment! | Previous Comments > |