So this is what we are expected to learn
-
@morbiuswilters said:
... SNIP ...
"Maybe I'm really like that"? I guess the Dutch are so valiant that the concept of a citizen who would stand up to an occupying force is just unthinkable. And sure I would join the Army if we were being invaded, assuming the military was still intact. If it was not, I would join up with other citizens and fight back. ... SNIP ...
In the case of being unable to join the Army: if you are fighting back without without being in the military or being in the military without marking yourself as a soldier then you are considered a "marauder" as per the Geneva Convention. Marauder can be executed on the spot (again as per the Geneva Convention). So don't expect to be treated like a POW when you are captured.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@ammoQ said:
Thanks. Most likely the difference in Google's results are because google offers me German results first.
Keep telling yourself that.
That's why I'm wearing an tin foil hat ever since the mandatory European internet connection data storage was introduced.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@ammoQ said:
So how do you recognize the psycho among all the other guys carrying weapons?
Because contrary to whatever you have been watching in movies, the cops are not trained to shoot anyone and everyone with a weapon. They are trained to shoot at someone posing an imminent threat of life against them or another person.
Also, you seem to act as if everyone in the crowd would be armed. The last statistic I have heard on CCW is that it is around 5% in the US. And of those 5% I doubt you would even see 20% of them actually carrying on a regular basis. CCW is a privilege, it is not handed out to anyone and everyone here.
I know you have some pretty crazy notions based on whatever shoot em up games or movies you are experiencing but I don't think you understand quite how off base you are here.
I am not to worried about your average psycho (although we had some of those in Germany these past years, too). I am much more worried about the ordinary guy with a lot of pent-up anger "snapping" an releasing that anger by pulling a gun and shooting everybody. The sort of guy what don't plan a massacre until the instant they start pulling the trigger. If people like that don't have a gun the instant they snap, then they can not shoot anyone with it. It is much easier to run from a person wielding a knife, an axe or a club than running from bullets. Bullets tend to do 100m waaaaaaaaaay faster than 9.72 seconds, you know. And since there are more ordinary people than psychos, I think this is where emphasis should be put. And it is: CCW privilege is hard to get in the US, generally. The flaw is that is restricted too much. For example, I think colleges should be "carrying" areas, and so religious institutions as well as civilian non-law-enforcement and non-judiciary government buildings. Schools should definitely be off-limits, though.
My opinion is that the United States has crossed a threshold where it comes to guns to the point that it is more advisable to have a gun for your average U.S. resident than otherwise. The prevalence of guns in the US dictates that, IMHO. On the other hand, having a gun for self-defense purposes is simply not required in western european countries and most central european countries. It is purely and simply not required there for a private person to have a gun for self-defense purposes. (I can hear the flames sizzling on this paragraph already).
As an aside: I believe the gun-control statutes in Germany are too restrictive when it comes to recreational shooting. They were already to restrictive before the aforementioned high-profile incidents - making them more restrictive after those incidents did not help anybody. Why ? Because they are very much based in the polictics of the day compared to a sane view of reality. And they are rigorously enforced, anyway.Compared to the amounts of weapons that went missing when the soviet troops left Eastern Germany after reunification not too many people are being sentenced or doing time for weapons violations in Germany nowadays.
-
@cklam said:
I am not to worried about your average psycho (although we had some of those in Germany these past years, too). I am much more worried about the ordinary guy with a lot of pent-up anger "snapping" an releasing that anger by pulling a gun and shooting everybody. The sort of guy what don't plan a massacre until the instant they start pulling the trigger.
Sounds exactly like scenario described in "Kalaschnikow-Karl", a song by the Autrian punk rock band Drahdiwaberl. If you understand German (especially the Viennese dialect), get it.
-
@dtech said:
Isn't this exactly what you're saying?
No, learn reading comprehension.
Two very different issues are being discussed here: Home protection and CCW.
A rifle is good for home protection and obviously is not possible for CCW.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@slyadams said:
People who pass certain exams can move into grammar schools, if they are available in their area. If you aren't so intelligent, you don't get forced into 'vocational' schools.
So what does happen to those unfortunate, retarded souls or those who do not have grammar schools available in their area? They become forum trolls?
Nope, they stay in normal high schools. The Grammar school system, of which I am a graduate, is a way of recognising that not all people learn at the same speeds. To assume that they do and have the same educational needs is somewhat communist. It is exactly the same as giving special education to people with learning difficulties, but with more intelligent people. If you are so ignornat of such things, why are you debating it? You clearly have no clue about our education system.
@morbiuswilters said:
@slyadams said:
One of the biggest problems the UK currently faces is the massive influx of people into the country, both from the EU and from immigration.
And immigration is a problem why? Ah well, just because some people would prefer a shit sandwich over a turd casserole doesn't mean England doesn't suck. Provide more evidence of England not sucking and maybe I will believe you.
Immigration can be a huge problem. Lack of jobs, strain on the social system etc. If you can't grasp the fact that NO country can just absorb huge immigration then you are a fool. The USA might be able to handle more than us, but that's because your country is larger, plain and simple.
@morbiuswilters said:
@slyadams said:
Well, seeing as you can't really quantify, or qualify really, your level of self education ("X for dummies" perhaps?), I will assume that my 1st class MEng will come out on top.
Why should I tell you my education level? You're the one losing this argument, not me. See, in the US we don't have a dick-measuring contest over who went to what school, we use our actual dicks. This leads me to...
@slyadams said:
Its hard to take someone seriously in a debate when parts of their argument centre on the size of their cock.
It's hard for me to take hilariously stupid Brits with microscopic penises seriously, but at least I'm making an effort her. Okay, I lied, I'm not really.
Idiot, simple as. Cock size in relation to gun control laws. Pathetic.
@morbiuswilters said:
@slyadams said:
However, your solution of 'a few criminal will be able to get hold of guns, therefore everyone has to have them thereby giving every other criminal an easy method of getting a weapon' seems, how shall we saw, non-future proof.
I never said everyone has to have them, I said that law-abiding citizens who meet certain criteria should be permitted to have them if they wish. Besides, it's a fundamental human right, I'm just arguing the reduction in crime angle because that's a nice benefit of it. As far as being future-proof, it's worked for us for 250 years and it scared your pansy, inbred, Anglo asses off so it must have some value.
No, you say only right and proper people should be able to have them. And yet, many people who have been considered right and proper have done some horrific things. Every human has the ability to snap, and when they do I'll hope they don't have a legally owned gun.
@morbiuswilters said:
@slyadams said:
I'll get off your internet when you get off my WWW.
Who's gonna make me? You seem to forget that your country is militarily impotent and can't even sneeze with out our permission. Besides, the WWW is useless without an Internet to run it over and it was invented at CERN, so really the Swiss own it. Since they have a higher rate of gun-ownership than the US, they probably aren't going to side with your weepy ass.
So a Brit invents something in another country and he doesn't get the credit? Good lord you are stupid.
@morbiuswilters said:
@slyadams said:
Perochial much?
Learn your own goddamn language you dumbass. And seriously, the best you have is saying that I have a narrow outlook? You're just restating what I already said: that until the rest of you pussies get off your asses and invade my country I don't have to give a shit what you whine about.
I do know my own language very well, so I assume you were flaming me over my typo. Well done! I mispelled, you win! And yes, you are parochial.
@morbiuswilters said:
@slyadams said:
Failed? How about the largest empire the world has ever seen. Is there any end to your ignorance?
Wow, you were briefly able to use your advantage of guns to oppress other people. Unless, like the Colonists, they had guns of their own in which case you turned tail and ran back to your dreary island home to brood like the lowly sacks of shit you are. Don't you get it? I'm enjoying insulting you. I already provided evidence of why I'm right pages ago. You can keep bawwing or you can try to bring a tiny flicker of knowledge to your ignorant ass by reading what I wrote. Honestly, you think I care if the rest of the world restricts gun ownership? Hell, I'm glad your governments have disarmed you all so successfully -- it will make conquering you and taking your crude oil all the easier. Promise me one thing: after your house is taken over by criminals, you've shoved your children into the path of the burlars, run to the nearest corner and your microdick is furiously spouting urine all over the place -- just before one of the robbers puts a round into your skull -- please let your last thought be "Morbius was right". Also, try to work something in there about England sucking and America kicking ass if you have time.
You have provided no evidence that you are right. In fact, I've read nothing from you other than:
"America rules", "Britain sucks", "I have a huge cock and you have a tiny one", "I'm right and everyone else is wrong, so there".
I have never been burgled, nor has anyone I know. Such crimes are very rare in ths country. So therefore I don't feel the need to arm myself to the teeth to defend myself against something that is so incredibly unlikely to happen, and in so doing, make my country a generall more unsafe place. In the same way, I won't give my child a gun because they might get done on the way to school by a paedophile. Its a massive, fear based overreaction that is driven by ignorance and stupidity.
You do me a favour. When you child gets gunned down in yet another school/college shooting, think to yourself "I'm an idiot".
You are a troll, plain and simple really and I'm done with you.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
And yet my question on what subset of guns you think should be legal remains unanswered. Again.@slyadams said:
All I have done is ask you to answer questions when you avoid them (things you have repeatedly done)
Everything you have asked has been answered pages ago. Why do you feel we are obligated to go back and argue the same thing again? Why don't you read the thread?
Oh wait, you ignore that each time, why should I bother?
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@slyadams said:
makes your country so ravaged with violent crime
And yet you have failed to provide any evidence at all for that, and morbius has provided evidence against it. England is the country with more violent crime. Just because you cannot properly interpret statistics or read this thread doesn't mean you can keep flapping your gums with no backup.
According to http://www.nationmaster.com/:
1) You are equally likely to be assualted in either country
2) More than twice as likely to be raped in the US
3) More than 26 times more likely to be murdered with a gun
4) 3 times more likely to be murdered
5) Equally likely to be robbed
In the UK you are 1.06 times more likely to be a victim of crime, however, this includes ALL crimes and I will admit we have an issue with petty crime committed by chavs and the like. However, I'll take high petty crime over the violent crime you seem to suffer from.
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@slyadams said:
Yeah, that's a long term solution.
@slyadams said:seems, how shall we saw, non-future proof
Apparently it is. Our violent crime is on it's way down, and your is on it's way up. Or did you miss that part of this thread as well?
Your graph stopped 10 years ago pal, you can't really claim that trend as fact anymore. Indeed, I'd rather have a slight upward trend from very low than a downward trend from very high. But that's just me.
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@slyadams said:
How about the largest empire the world has ever seen.
So you are proud of oppressing most of the world, and then having almost all of those places rise up, kill most of the English people there and make their own states?
Wow, I have never been immensely proud of American history, but in comparison I guess I should be.
I was merely pointing out that you called our country a pussy and a failure. I think its pretty self evident that you are wrong.
-
@ammoQ said:
Moderating a discussion where I also post is IMO bad style.
Thank you, I appreciate that you are abiding by this.
-
@slyadams said:
And yet my question on what subset of guns you think should be legal remains unanswered. Again.
I have answered it a few times now. It was a stupid question to begin with, and it still is. I have not changed my answer. I agree with what our laws currently allow.
Is this really too difficult for you?
Did you expect me to sit here and list all the different types in order for you to try and 'debate' each type? With the way you have been arguing so far (ignorantly and repetitively) do you think anyone believes you are here for a real debate or just to throw you ridiculous viewpoints on others?
Your other points have all been beaten to death like the corpse of a clydesdale. Please move on. You won't suddenly be right if you just keep repeating what failed for everyone else.
@slyadams said:
I was merely pointing out that you called our country a pussy and a failure. I think its pretty self evident that you are wrong.
Really? I think you have me confused with someone else.
I called you a retard. And I stand by that. You keep proving it with every post.
-
@slyadams said:
... The Grammar school system, of which I am a graduate, is a way of recognising that not all people learn at the same speeds. ... It is exactly the same as giving special education to people with learning difficulties, but with more intelligent people. If you are so ignornat of such things, why are you debating it? You clearly have no clue about our education system.
Your frequent typos and inability to understand basic arguments would indicate that your grammar school system is quite a bit like classes for those with learning disabilities.
@slyadams said:
Immigration can be a huge problem. Lack of jobs, strain on the social system etc. If you can't grasp the fact that NO country can just absorb huge immigration then you are a fool. The USA might be able to handle more than us, but that's because your country is larger, plain and simple.
For the most part immigration creates jobs. I'm not going to explain market economics to you, though. Quite frankly I'd be surprised if your understanding of such things extended beyond operating an ATM, and perhaps that is a tad hopeful on my part.
@slyadams said:
Idiot, simple as. Cock size in relation to gun control laws. Pathetic.
I was quite saddened to hear of the Great Humor Fire of '08 in which all Britains lost the ability to laugh and turned into unbearable twits.
@slyadams said:
Every human has the ability to snap, and when they do I'll hope they don't have a legally owned gun.
As do I. Nobody here is arguing that insane people should be armed, but you can't prevent bad things from happening. The solution is not to disarm the sane individuals. We've been through this, over and over. Stop inventing arguments that nobody is making and then "disproving" them. Logical fallacy may be well and good in Blighty (in fact, I think being able to wreck an argument is a basic requirement if citizenship) but that shit doesn't fly in the US.
@slyadams said:
So a Brit invents something in another country and he doesn't get the credit? Good lord you are stupid.
He can have all the credit he wants. It wasn't invented with British money, though, so it doesn't belong to you. The Internet was invented with my tax dollars, so it does belong to me. Learn basic property law, you twit.
@slyadams said:
I mispelled, you win!
You misspelled "misspelled". I would almost think it was in jest, but I know your sense of humor is nothing but cinders now. Therefore, you are stupid.
@slyadams said:
Such crimes are very rare in ths country.
They are more common in your country than in mine. This has been proven to you over and over again. Please try to keep up with the rest of the class or we will stick you in
retard class"grammar school".@slyadams said:
When you child gets gunned down in yet another school/college shooting, think to yourself "I'm an idiot".
Once again, I have stated this numerous times and you still seem to miss the point that guns are forbidden in schools and universities. Allowing people to conceal carry would eliminate most of the horrific school shootings. See, schools are "gun free zones" and they are like our own little slice of England, right here in the best country on Earth. Law-abiding citizens have no protection against criminals or psychopaths in schools, other than those provided by the authorities. Did you intend to prove my point or is this a clever debating tactic you learned in
retard class"grammar school"? If it is, I must salute your country's government for not only disarming you physically but intellectually as well.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@slyadams said:
And yet my question on what subset of guns you think should be legal remains unanswered. Again.
I have answered it a few times now. It was a stupid question to begin with, and it still is. I have not changed my answer. I agree with what our laws currently allow.
Is this really too difficult for you?
Did you expect me to sit here and list all the different types in order for you to try and 'debate' each type? With the way you have been arguing so far (ignorantly and repetitively) do you think anyone believes you are here for a real debate or just to throw you ridiculous viewpoints on others?
Your other points have all been beaten to death like the corpse of a clydesdale. Please move on. You won't suddenly be right if you just keep repeating what failed for everyone else.
Nothing I have said has been beaten to death you moronic child. I have quoted statistics, used your graph against you and asked numerous questions but at no point do you actually reply with anything remotely sensible or intelligent.
I was asking you what subset to bring it to your attention the fact that the law has drawn a line in the sand in its interpretation of the second ammendment. I would have gone on to ask whether you believe that citizens should be allowed to keep tanks in case the government morphed into some tyrannical big brother. However, seeing as you couldn't even answer a simple question I was unable to persue this line of questioning.
@slyadams said:
I was merely pointing out that you called our country a pussy and a failure. I think its pretty self evident that you are wrong.
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
Really? I think you have me confused with someone else.
I called you a retard. And I stand by that. You keep proving it with every post.
Sure I do. You just keep on dribbling down your stars and stripes bib.
-
@slyadams said:
Such crimes are very rare in ths country. So therefore I don't feel the need to arm myself to the teeth to defend myself against something that is so incredibly unlikely to happen
You are right. I am going home to throw my first aid kit out. After all, it is very unlikely I will cut myself in a way where I might bleed to death. I can just throw it away, and if anything happens, hey, the goverment will be there for me. I will just curl up into a ball and hope that I don't bleed to death all over the floor.
This is probably the single stupidest argument you could have ever made.
@slyadams said:
and in so doing, make my country a generall more unsafe place.
I agree. Someone dumb enough to make the argument above owning a gun would make the world a less safe place. But then, no one here has ever argued or suggested that you should get a gun. Which brings us back to the question of: What are you even arguing about?
@slyadams said:
I won't give my child a gun because they might get done on the way to school by a paedophile.
Ahh, I see you are resorting to just throwing ridiculous crap out there now. Good job on that. You have done more to discredit yourself than anyone else ever could.
@slyadams said:
Its a massive, fear based overreaction that is driven by ignorance and stupidity.
Owning a firearm is a fear based reaction? So a farmer who buys a rifle to get rid of the varmints in his crops and to protect his livestock from predators is acting based on fear, ignorance and stupidity now?
Where do you get this shit from? Have you even thought about the words you are typing?
@slyadams said:
When you child gets gunned down in yet another school/college shooting, think to yourself "I'm an idiot".
Actually, everytime I see that I know people like you are the idiots. After all, people like you are the reason there is no way for anyone in those universities/schools to defend themselves. So thanks a lot for that.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@slyadams said:
... The Grammar school system, of which I am a graduate, is a way of recognising that not all people learn at the same speeds. ... It is exactly the same as giving special education to people with learning difficulties, but with more intelligent people. If you are so ignornat of such things, why are you debating it? You clearly have no clue about our education system.
Your frequent typos and inability to understand basic arguments would indicate that your grammar school system is quite a bit like classes for those with learning disabilities.
Unlike you my friend, I actually have quite an important job and really can't be bothered to proof read or preview my posts. So I don't really care if there are typos in my posts. However, if you want to use typos to give yourself a little victory, go right ahead. Meanwhile, in the real world, everyone will continue to laugh at you.
@morbiuswilters said:
@slyadams said:
Immigration can be a huge problem. Lack of jobs, strain on the social system etc. If you can't grasp the fact that NO country can just absorb huge immigration then you are a fool. The USA might be able to handle more than us, but that's because your country is larger, plain and simple.
For the most part immigration creates jobs. I'm not going to explain market economics to you, though. Quite frankly I'd be surprised if your understanding of such things extended beyond operating an ATM, and perhaps that is a tad hopeful on my part.
What complete bollocks. You think a massive influx into a medium sized country of low skilled workers will create a massive pool of jobs? You're ignorance astounds me. If that was true then every country IN THE WORLD would pay people to move there. However, they don't. You are wong.
@morbiuswilters said:
@slyadams said:
Idiot, simple as. Cock size in relation to gun control laws. Pathetic.
I was quite saddened to hear of the Great Humor Fire of '08 in which all Britains lost the ability to laugh and turned into unbearable twits.
I'm sorry, but every post you write seems to draw attention to the size of your genetalia. If that is funny to you, then good for you. The rest of the world on the other hand grew out of such things by the age of 16 and find your humour pathetic.
@morbiuswilters said:
@slyadams said:
Every human has the ability to snap, and when they do I'll hope they don't have a legally owned gun.
As do I. Nobody here is arguing that insane people should be armed, but you can't prevent bad things from happening. The solution is not to disarm the sane individuals. We've been through this, over and over. Stop inventing arguments that nobody is making and then "disproving" them. Logical fallacy may be well and good in Blighty (in fact, I think being able to wreck an argument is a basic requirement if citizenship) but that shit doesn't fly in the US.
My argument is that there is no test that will actually tell you who will, at some point in the future, 'lose it'. There simply isn't. Many perfectly sane people are in prison for murders of passion (i.e. heat of the moment). I'm simply saying that if these people didn't have guns, their victims would likely be alive. If you can't grasp this then you are truly without hope.
@morbiuswilters said:
@slyadams said:
So a Brit invents something in another country and he doesn't get the credit? Good lord you are stupid.
He can have all the credit he wants. It wasn't invented with British money, though, so it doesn't belong to you. The Internet was invented with my tax dollars, so it does belong to me. Learn basic property law, you twit.
You fucking moron. Its not property law, its intellectual property law. Go to the army and say "my money paid for that tank there, so let me ride it. Its mine". See what they say. You truly need to grow up.
In which case, I'll have the TV back as that was invented by a Brit. As was the telephone etc etc. You seem to be taking credit for what other people do in the same way you harp on about the greatness of yourself for the actions of your countrymen who fought in the world wars and war of independance. You had NOTHING to do with that at all.
@morbiuswilters said:
@slyadams said:
I mispelled, you win!
You misspelled "misspelled". I would almost think it was in jest, but I know your sense of humor is nothing but cinders now. Therefore, you are stupid.
Once again, real job. People in the real world don't have time to spend all day posting on forums. I really shouldn't be posting this, but your ignorance and parochiality astounds and infuriates me.
@morbiuswilters said:
@slyadams said:
Such crimes are very rare in ths country.
They are more common in your country than in mine. This has been proven to you over and over again. Please try to keep up with the rest of the class or we will stick you in
retard class"grammar school".And yet, in a previous post, I provided real statistics and sources to prove you, once again, wrong. Evidence you completely ignore I notice.
@morbiuswilters said:
@slyadams said:
When you child gets gunned down in yet another school/college shooting, think to yourself "I'm an idiot".
Once again, I have stated this numerous times and you still seem to miss the point that guns are forbidden in schools and universities. Allowing people to conceal carry would eliminate most of the horrific school shootings. See, schools are "gun free zones" and they are like our own little slice of England, right here in the best country on Earth. Law-abiding citizens have no protection against criminals or psychopaths in schools, other than those provided by the authorities. Did you intend to prove my point or is this a clever debating tactic you learned in
retard class"grammar school"? If it is, I must salute your country's government for not only disarming you physically but intellectually as well.Well done on yet another inane, pointless and ignorant comment. You seem completely oblivious to the fact that, even though guns are illegal in schools, children are able to get hold of them with relative ease because of the reasonable liberal gun laws in your country. In the same way it is very much harder for a muslim kid to get alcohol than an british kid. When you see yet ANOTHER school shooting on your TV, doesn't it make you think about whether you have it right? Doesn't the fact that such events are extremely rare outside your country make you also wonder whether you have it right?
Your solution of 'arm everyone to protect' against psychopaths is utterly inane and your country is the only westernised country that holds this view. I'm sure that everyone else is wrong though, and you and your astronomical homicide and violent crime rate is correct.
And what EXACTLY makes your country the greatest in the world? I thoroughly expect some answer along the lines of 'because we are' or 'because we kick ass' or 'because we allow our citizens guns'. Which are all either inane or self supporting evidence.
-
@slyadams said:
I would have gone on to ask whether you believe that citizens should be allowed to keep tanks in case the government morphed into some tyrannical big brother.
I know you would have. I was trying to keep this kind of ridiculous, retarded statement away from this discussion, you fellow Europeans have made themselves look plenty stupid with the same kinds of arguments. I was trying to let you hold onto thatlast shred of intelligence you may have been perceived to have by some. That is lost now.
I am sorry you baiting me into using this line which you think is clever and the rest of the world thinks is retarded didn't work.
@slyadams said:
Sure I do. You just keep on dribbling down your stars and stripes bib.
Oh! How clever!
Really, we don't need to hear any more evidence of your anti-american stance. We don't care.
I have asked you repeatedly what your argument even is, knowing the truth full well: you have been here from the start to spread more anti-american FUD and propaganda.
You call morbius the troll. But you really are the only troll here.
Let it go now, you are embarrassing yourself.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
. If you are going to delete posts for being rude, offensive and off topic, why is this post still here?
Because I'm not the one who implied that not owning a gun invites someone into your house to rape you and your family. If you want a moderation hammer dropped on someone, then drop it on the person who said that first (hint: it wasn't me).
-
@MarcB said:
If you want a moderation hammer dropped on someone
Your post was completely off topic and stupid. It should have been moderated like those kind of posts in other forums have been.
-
@slyadams said:
children are able to get hold of them with relative ease because of the reasonable liberal gun laws in your country.
That is another extremely stupid statement. I hope someone is keeping count.
So now our gun laws let kids have guns?
No. The failures of parents who allow their kids to have unobstructed access to guns makes that possible. Our gun laws specifically forbid gun owners from leaving their weapons accessible to anyone, especially children.
How about learning the laws before debating against them?
@slyadams said:
When you see yet ANOTHER school shooting on your TV
They are pretty uncommon, and the ones you are probably referring to were ADULTS on COLLEGE campuses. Where ignorant people like you have disarmed the innocent people who were killed.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@slyadams said:
I would have gone on to ask whether you believe that citizens should be allowed to keep tanks in case the government morphed into some tyrannical big brother.
I know you would have. I was trying to keep this kind of ridiculous, retarded statement away from this discussion, you fellow Europeans have made themselves look plenty stupid with the same kinds of arguments. I was trying to let you hold onto thatlast shred of intelligence you may have been perceived to have by some. That is lost now.
I am sorry you baiting me into using this line which you think is clever and the rest of the world thinks is retarded didn't work.
Well avoided. The argument is not retarded, it is an example of reductio ad absurdum. Look it up. Once again you just reply with abuse and don't actually respond to any point at all.
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@slyadams said:
Sure I do. You just keep on dribbling down your stars and stripes bib.
Oh! How clever!
Really, we don't need to hear any more evidence of your anti-american stance. We don't care.
I have asked you repeatedly what your argument even is, knowing the truth full well: you have been here from the start to spread more anti-american FUD and propaganda.
You call morbius the troll. But you really are the only troll here.
Let it go now, you are embarrassing yourself.
Actually, the comic part of all this is that I actually like America, I would go so far to say that I love it there. I have a fair amount of American family, am over there at least once a year to visit. The gun laws are just something that really rattles my cage. So well done, wrong again. How many times have you visited the UK? How many times have you left the US?
See all my other posts for my arguments, its your arguments that I am struggling to extract.
1) There are no perfect assessments on whether someone could/would use their weapons to hurt people in the future
2) By legalising guns in a society you will increasing the number of guns in that society. Its doesn't take a genius to know that people who FAIL the 'appropriateness' test are more likely to be able to get a gun if there are 100m legal guns than if there are 0 guns. Its really quite simple. Like you.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@slyadams said:
children are able to get hold of them with relative ease because of the reasonable liberal gun laws in your country.
That is another extremely stupid statement. I hope someone is keeping count.
So now our gun laws let kids have guns?
No. The failures of parents who allow their kids to have unobstructed access to guns makes that possible. Our gun laws specifically forbid gun owners from leaving their weapons accessible to anyone, especially children.
How about learning the laws before debating against them?
Are you genuinely this slow or do you just babble without thinking? I never said that the laws allow children to have guns, but I'm pretty sure little Jimmy is more likely to be able to get hold of one is Daddy has a locked case full of them than if Daddy has none. That really isn't that hard to understand.
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@slyadams said:
When you see yet ANOTHER school shooting on your TV
They are pretty uncommon, and the ones you are probably referring to were ADULTS on COLLEGE campuses. Where ignorant people like you have disarmed the innocent people who were killed.
So your solution is for EVERYONE to walk around carrying in case something happens? Boy, what a joyous society that would be. Everyone carrying a gun. Every other road rage incident turning into a homicide. You're a moron.
And what difference does it make if it was an adult on a college campus. A child killing 20 people really is no different from an adult killing 20 people, apart from in your world the adult could own the guns legally.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
So now our gun laws let kids have guns?
Actually, yes, they do.
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
How about learning the laws before debating against them?
Well said. When can we expect to hear from you that you've learned them?
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
leaving their weapons accessible to anyone, especially children.
unless they have permits, apparently.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
Really, we don't need to hear any more evidence of your anti-american stance. We don't care.
And enough of 'we', I don't see anyone but morbius jumping to your defense. A weak debating tactic indeed is to imply that everyone agrees with you, even though you are the only person in the room.
-
@slyadams said:
Well avoided. The argument is not retarded, it is an example of reductio ad absurdum. Look it up.
No it isn't, it's a pathetic attempt at a slippery slope. Legalization of guns does not result in the legalization of armored weapons platforms. Anyone who would make such a leap is making a fool of themselves. MPS tried to spare you, but you refused.
-
@slyadams said:
it is an example of reductio ad absurdum
No it isn't. I will give you that it is absurd, but being that there is no correlation, it is simply stupid.
@slyadams said:
1) There are no perfect assessments on whether someone could/would use their weapons to hurt people in the future
Ok, and there are no perfect assessments as to who is qualified to drive/own a car. But you must let everyone enjoy their right until they make a mistake.
@slyadams said:
more likely to be able to get a gun if there are 100m legal guns than if there are 0 guns
How do you recommend a felon or other such person likely to commit a gun crime will get these guns? By stealing?
Ok, well tell me how you will stop people who have no driver's license from stealing a car and hurting someone then?
-
@ammoQ said:
@cklam said:
I am not to worried about your average psycho (although we had some of those in Germany these past years, too). I am much more worried about the ordinary guy with a lot of pent-up anger "snapping" an releasing that anger by pulling a gun and shooting everybody. The sort of guy what don't plan a massacre until the instant they start pulling the trigger.
Sounds exactly like scenario described in "Kalaschnikow-Karl", a song by the Autrian punk rock band Drahdiwaberl. If you understand German (especially the Viennese dialect), get it.
Thanx, I'll try but I expect little success. "BAP" lyrics were a challenge already back in the day. Ick snack op platt. The Viennese dialect may be just a little bit to much for somebody from Bremen.
I'll let you know PDQ.
Update: No luck here - either on google or mininova.
-
@slyadams said:
I'm pretty sure little Jimmy is more likely to be able to get hold of one is Daddy has a locked case full of them than if Daddy has none
So little Johnny is a safe cracker/lock pick now?
@slyadams said:
EVERYONE to walk around carrying
Nope. Again, this has been explained. Only the select few that can and want to. Just like it is now.
@slyadams said:
You're a moron.
Actually, you are the only one who is making ridiculous statements. You continue to twist arguments, add logic fallacy, and exaggerate everything to absurdity.
@slyadams said:
apart from in your world the adult could own the guns legally.
Nope, in 'my world' (America) the professors and other qualified students (of age, with permit) would be able to defend themselves. This would likely eliminate much of the school violence, since the people who commit the crimes are not looking for a fair fight.
-
@MarcB said:
Actually, yes, they do.
Oh no! He got a state ID!
Learn what you are talking about before stating it.
@MarcB said:
Well said. When can we expect to hear from you that you've learned them?
When have you found any law that I have misrepresented. Or are you just trolling again?
@MarcB said:
unless they have permits, apparently.
Yeah, good one, too bad you are wrong... again.
-
@slyadams said:
reductio ad absurdum
Sounds like a shrinking spell from Harry Potter.
@slyadams said:
And enough of 'we', I don't see anyone but morbius jumping to your defense. A weak debating tactic indeed is to imply that everyone agrees with you, even though you are the only person in the room.
I'm for CCW and all that, but I'm not going to bother jumping into this debate because others are doing well enough, and I don't feel like composing an essay for every response.
Carry on...
-
@slyadams said:
And eough of 'we', I don't see anyone but morbius jumping to your defense. A weak debating tactic indeed is to imply that everyone agrees with you, even though you are the only person in the room.
Wait, who is siding with you again?
-
-
@slyadams said:
I have never been burgled, nor has anyone I know. Such crimes are very rare in ths country.
Really?
Maybe you should consider some kind of protection:
http://www.upmystreet.com/local/police-crime/figures/l/MILTON+KEYNES.html
http://www.miltonkeynes.co.uk/news/Man-charged-with-murder.1696446.jp
http://www.miltonkeynes.co.uk/the-way-we-were/March-28th-2007.2180420.jp
http://www.miltonkeynes.co.uk/news/Rachel-Manning-murder--White.3493544.jp
Sounds to me violent crime is all around you. Perhaps you should pay more attention?
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
... SNIP ...
A rifle is good for home protection and obviously is not possible for CCW.
I am thinking about a residence in an urban/suburban setting and the intruder is already inside the residence when talking about home protection:
A rifle isn't bad for home protection, but it can be unsuitable. It may be too long to maneuver around the residence in tight corners and comig through doors/corridors. In urban settings the rounds have just too much penetration power: I mean I want to drill the intruder and maybe the one internal (brick) wall behind which he has taken cover - further penetration of the next three residences down the line is really not required. That of course disqualifies my old army favorite: A G3 with the folding stock. The (full metal jacket) round penetrates forever and a day and the recoil on full auto is such that after three rounds you way off target (especially with the stock folded). I shot the same ammo through an MG-3 (basically an M-60) - if you rock and roll a full belt unit (50 rounds) lying the prone position the recoil tended push me back between half a meter and meter. And I was 135 kg lardass back then ...
No for home protection I take an Uzi any time. It will take "hot" 9 mm in order to cope with the aforementioned brick wall and the attacker covering behind said wall. It is dead easy to handle, disassembles in a jiffy and easy to maintain in a working condition. Put in a 30 round magazine jungle rig or maybe even a drum magazine setup (I have heard rumors) and you are set.
Anything you can't handle with 60 rounds of nine mil - well, bang you're dead but at least you tried.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@slyadams said:
it is an example of reductio ad absurdum
No it isn't. I will give you that it is absurd, but being that there is no correlation, it is simply stupid.
Actually, it isn't. Part of the argument postulated in the early part of this thread was that you needed your guns in case the Government turned. However, your guns will be relatively meaningless against the goverment's air power, armoured weaponary etc. The whole 'to stop the government' is a pointless and naive argument. Although, what else should I expect from you?
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@slyadams said:
1) There are no perfect assessments on whether someone could/would use their weapons to hurt people in the future
Ok, and there are no perfect assessments as to who is qualified to drive/own a car. But you must let everyone enjoy their right until they make a mistake.
Ah, I forgot that cars are design explicitly to kill. My bad.
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@slyadams said:
more likely to be able to get a gun if there are 100m legal guns than if there are 0 guns
How do you recommend a felon or other such person likely to commit a gun crime will get these guns? By stealing?
Ok, well tell me how you will stop people who have no driver's license from stealing a car and hurting someone then?
You seem to equate gun ownership with car use, which is such a rediculous comparison as to be unworthy of much thought. By your rational everything dangerous should be legal as long as the government can come up with an assessment to judge suitability?
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@slyadams said:
And eough of 'we', I don't see anyone but morbius jumping to your defense. A weak debating tactic indeed is to imply that everyone agrees with you, even though you are the only person in the room.
Wait, who is siding with you again?
I'm not the one going around saying 'we' kiddo. Maybe you have another voice in your head?
-
@cklam said:
Spewed crap
Anyone who would use a FMJ for home or personal protection is a fucking idiot.
Please go back to giving advice on Youtube.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@MarcB said:
Actually, yes, they do.
Oh no! He got a state ID!
Learn what you are talking about before stating it.
Umm, learn to read much? Unless I misunderstood the "he applied for, and received, a gun permit for his son Bubba. Thing is Bubba is a baby.". I've come to the conclusion that you either don't read anything anyone else writes or don't understand simple English.
-
Numerous times, we have seen the argument that because criminals can commit a violent crime against you, it is best to be prepared and have some sort of weapon available (or, at least, a significant portion of the populance should). At face value, that argument seems fairly solid. However, one should note a distinction. There are crimes that are comitted where violence is merely a tool in the crime (i.e. - someone beating you to take your wallet) and then there are crimes that are comitted where violence is the goal (i.e. - rape, first-degree murder, etc.) The argument presented applies best to the second kind of crime because if a person has comitted himself to violence against you, then the only defence is to stop that person (through lethal or non-lethal means).
For the first kind of crime, however, one must consider why the criminal felt the need to use violence to accompish their goal. If the criminal knows that the person is not armed or capable of inflicting injury back, then wouldn't they not feel the need to go so far as to use violence. It has been said before that criminals would think twice about killing someone during a crime because that is a significant difference in penatly. We can take that logic a step further and say that a criminal would consider the difference of a week in jail for petty theft versus theft with a gun, couldn't we?
I am speaking entirely in hypotheticals and I am just wondering what others think about this.
-
@slyadams said:
By your rational everything dangerous should be legal as long as the government can come up with an assessment to judge suitability?
If they're accurately judging suitability, what's the problem?
-
@slyadams said:
The whole 'to stop the government' is a pointless and naive argument.
You obviously did not understand the argument then. I see you are dredging up old arguments again to prolong your failure of a debate.
I will not go back into this now.
@slyadams said:
Ah, I forgot that cars are design explicitly to kill. My bad.
That has to be the weakest argument yet.
Do you want to try again? Or just admit that you are wrong?
@slyadams said:
You seem to equate gun ownership with car use, which is such a rediculous comparison as to be unworthy of much thought
What is the difference? Both are regulated by state laws, both can kill people in the wrong hands, and both have the state/government deciding who is fit to use them.
@slyadams said:
By your rational everything dangerous should be legal
Perhaps, (I can see another absurd argument about retarded items coming here...) but by YOUR rationale everything dangerous should be outlawed. That is WAY more ridiculous.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@slyadams said:
I'm pretty sure little Jimmy is more likely to be able to get hold of one is Daddy has a locked case full of them than if Daddy has none
So little Johnny is a safe cracker/lock pick now?
I wished I lived in your perfect world where parents don't make mistakes, children don't go poking around and teenagers don't intentionally steal guns. Your myopia and naivety astound me. Everything is black and white to you isn't it? There are no shades of grey. Pathetic.
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@slyadams said:
EVERYONE to walk around carrying
Nope. Again, this has been explained. Only the select few that can and want to. Just like it is now.
As I have already said repeatedly, there is no test to determine who will and will not use a gun to hurt people in the future. Can you not understand this?!?
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@slyadams said:
You're a moron.
Actually, you are the only one who is making ridiculous statements. You continue to twist arguments, add logic fallacy, and exaggerate everything to absurdity.
Maybe I have to take argument points to the extreme (e.g. tanks) to actually get you to understand or grasp anything.
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@slyadams said:
apart from in your world the adult could own the guns legally.
Nope, in 'my world' (America) the professors and other qualified students (of age, with permit) would be able to defend themselves. This would likely eliminate much of the school violence, since the people who commit the crimes are not looking for a fair fight.
Once again, your utopian solution is to give everyone a sidearm. Well done. What about the people who don't want to have to carry a gun. People who have been shot for example and might not want to ever go near a gun? They are now living in a world where everyone has a gun but them.
-
@slyadams said:
Umm, learn to read much?
More than you apparently.
The ID card they are referring to is just that. An ID card. It has nothing to do with owning or using a weapon.
Are you done arguing a troll's ridiculous point? Can we return to your hilarious arguments of "If you don't outlaw guns then everyone should have tanks!" now?
-
@WeatherGod said:
Numerous times, we have seen the argument that because criminals can commit a violent crime against you, it is best to be prepared and have some sort of weapon available (or, at least, a significant portion of the populance should).
That is NOT the argument, and seems to be the standing issue of people like MarcB and Sly.
The argument is that everyone here should (and does in 90% of places) have the right to own a firearm should they choose to and if they are qualified and responsible law abiding members of society.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@slyadams said:
The whole 'to stop the government' is a pointless and naive argument.
You obviously did not understand the argument then. I see you are dredging up old arguments again to prolong your failure of a debate.
I will not go back into this now.
Nice response. I'll try that. Pathetic.
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@slyadams said:
Ah, I forgot that cars are design explicitly to kill. My bad.
That has to be the weakest argument yet.
Do you want to try again? Or just admit that you are wrong?
No thanks, I think I am right thank you very much.
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@slyadams said:
You seem to equate gun ownership with car use, which is such a rediculous comparison as to be unworthy of much thought
What is the difference? Both are regulated by state laws, both can kill people in the wrong hands, and both have the state/government deciding who is fit to use them.
If you can't see the reason why owning a gun and a car are different, then its not worth my time. Tanks don't kill people, tank operators do. Surely you should be allowed a tank?
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@slyadams said:
By your rational everything dangerous should be legal
Perhaps, (I can see another absurd argument about retarded items coming here...) but by YOUR rationale everything dangerous should be outlawed. That is WAY more ridiculous.
No, but things that are specifically designed to kill people I don't think have a place in a civilised society.
I am making myself a promise here, I will not post on this thread after today. Your stupidity, simple-mindedness, ignorance, naivety and parochiality are just too much for me to overcome.
-
@bstorer said:
@slyadams said:
By your rational everything dangerous should be legal as long as the government can come up with an assessment to judge suitability?
If they're accurately judging suitability, what's the problem?The problem is that there exists no such test. I have quite a few lawyer and barrister friends and they will tell you than 90% of murders are crimes of passion and that the murderer would never have been seen as dangerous until they were put in that one situation where they just snapped.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@slyadams said:
Umm, learn to read much?
More than you apparently.
The ID card they are referring to is just that. An ID card. It has nothing to do with owning or using a weapon.
Umm, so in American a 'Gun Permit' isn't a permit to own a gun?!? Please explain what a gun permit is.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@WeatherGod said:
Numerous times, we have seen the argument that because criminals can commit a violent crime against you, it is best to be prepared and have some sort of weapon available (or, at least, a significant portion of the populance should).
That is NOT the argument, and seems to be the standing issue of people like MarcB and Sly.
The argument is that everyone here should (and does in 90% of places) have the right to own a firearm should they choose to and if they are qualified and responsible law abiding members of society.
Uh, yes it is. It is called a rationale. And I never said anything about forcing people to carry guns (hence the statement "significant portion of the populance"). Significant can be as low as %20 (at least, according to Black's Law Dictionary back when I was in High School).
-
@slyadams said:
I wished I lived in your perfect world where parents don't make mistakes
A mistake? Like not locking the weapons up? It is a crime, and a horribly negligent crime. So no, no pity there.
@slyadams said:
children don't go poking around and teenagers don't intentionally steal guns.
How is either situation possible or a problem if the gun owner has been responsible and locked up the firearms in accordance to the law?
What part of this do you not understand?
@slyadams said:
As I have already said repeatedly, there is no test to determine who will and will not use a gun to hurt people in the future. Can you not understand this?!?
And again. How is this differently than the driver's license in my wallet? What is to tell the government that I am not a homicidal maniac that plans to drive my car through a bus stop full of kids? How do they know I am not a habitual drunk driver who is going to drive around smashed everynight?
You just don't know. But you don't take away freedom from responsible people for what stupid people might do.
@slyadams said:
actually get you to understand or grasp anything.
You are the only one here that has a need for understanding.
@slyadams said:
give everyone a sidearm
Nope, but you can put words in my mouth all you want. It is not helping your side of the argument at all.
-
@slyadams said:
The problem is that there exists no such test.
Not a point I'm arguing.
@slyadams said:I have quite a few lawyer and barrister friends and they will tell you than 90% of murders are crimes of passion and that the murderer would never have been seen as dangerous until they were put in that one situation where they just snapped.
Well then we ought to ban knives, and scissors, and everything else they may have at hand!
-
@slyadams said:
Tanks don't kill people, tank operators do. Surely you should be allowed a tank?
Again, strayed off into the ridiculous.
@slyadams said:specifically designed to kill people
If that is really all you think a gun is for, than I am thankful your country doesn't trust you with that freedom.
You really have a twisted view.
@slyadams said:
I am making myself a promise here, I will not post on this thread after today
I wish we could all be that lucky that you would stop polluting the forum with your retarded assertions and wild speculations.
-
@slyadams said:
The problem is that there exists no such test.
And there doesn't exist a test to make sure I am not the type to run over children in my car on weekends.
Should we ban all cars to be sure I don't?
-
@slyadams said:
Please explain what a gun permit is.
Do your own research.
It isn't a gun permit it is a federal ID.
BBC NEWS | UK | England | Beds/Bucks/Herts | Murder inquiry after man stabbed
