|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On August 08 2012 22:49 Denzil wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 22:45 DigiGnar wrote:On August 08 2012 22:37 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On August 08 2012 22:28 Denzil wrote:
If someone wants to invade you, they will. Don't try to credit people not wanting to invade America with civilians having guns Heh.... America couldn't even win wars in Vietnam or Afghanistan against people using guerilla warfare tactics.Long range Nuke/biological attack by Russia or China is possible (Isn't that why the Americans built the 'Star Wars' defense system , to stop such attacks?) in the future but i don't see any ground invasion happening. Because these "wars" that have not been officially declared can not be fought with our maximum capabilities. We didn't roll into Vietnam like we did Europe. Look up Geneva or however it's spelled. We have a lot of restrictions in war nowadays. So you didn't lose in Vietnam or Afghanistan is what you're saying?
This question is bait, but I'll take it. I don't know nearly enough about the Vietnam conflict to comment on it, but with regard to Afghanistan, it's far too complicated to simplify it down to: "Did you win or lose". There is not one simple goal there -- it's not as if the US aims at making Afghanistan surrender, obviously. Many different objectives exist, so it's not a black and white matter of winning or losing as exists in traditional wars between two countries. Most current objectives aren't even contained to Afghanistan -- many problems spill into other areas in the region, most notably into Pakistan.
So asking "did you win vs. Afghanistan" is just an awful question.
|
On August 08 2012 11:49 -_-Quails wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 08 2012 01:31 Portlandian wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 03:34 wherebugsgo wrote:
So to anyone who is against stricter gun control in the United States:
What explains the much higher incidence of firearm-related homicide in the United States than in other developed countries, if not the proliferation of the guns themselves? (and by much higher, it's much higher on at least one order of magnitude per capita in most cases) It's due to the racial demographics of the countries you are comparing. White Americans commit murder at a rate about the same as White Swedish, White Canadians, White French, etc. The comparably high murder rate in America is because the USA is a diverse nation with drastically different demographics than most of Europe (or Canada). ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1Ak82.png) http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm Differences in racial profiles regarding criminal acts in the US pretty much entirely due to the combination of historical damage to community structures in certain minorities, historical and current discrimination both state-sanctioned and non, income and asset disparity, socioeconomic immobility, and the differing rates of poverty and opportunity available to members of each community as a result. In the US, if you are born poor then you will probably not have the opportunity to get a degree no matter how bright you are and you may not even get the chance to finish high school. Your teachers probably won't care enough about you to even look to see if you are smart, and they won't expect anything out of you but disrespect and violence. Your parents or guardians will be too busy trying to make ends meet or cope with the way their lives have turned out to push you to succeed. You won't have any connections to get you nice cushy internships or interviews for well paid positions.Even when you get a job, you probably won't make enough to live without benefits or the use of charitable services such as food kitchens - especially if you have a family of your own - and you will probably have few opportunities for promotion. You will live in broken down housing surrounded by broken down people who have lost hope of changing their circumstances and are doing whatever they can to avoid thinking about it. If you have children of your own you will be just as unable to provide for them all you wish to as your parents were. It will be hard to cope and harder still to hope for better. At times, you will despair of the system and your life. At times you might be so angry that all you can do is fight - fight the people at the bar, hit out at your partner or even kids, fight the walls of your apartment, anything to make the tension fade. At times, the promise of immediate monetary reward might make small-time crime irresistable - what would it feel like to be able to give your little girl the pink bicycle she wants? to buy new, on-brand presents for Christmas? to be caught up on rent just once? And crime has a tendency of escalating - a mugging gone wrong is a murder. In the USA, you are much more likely to be born poor if you are born black than if you are born white. It is this disparity of poverty that creates the disparity of crime rates. + Show Spoiler +Committing criminal acts for reasons other than absolute need is wrong. It is, however, not inexplicable. On August 08 2012 16:03 Euronyme wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 08 2012 01:31 Portlandian wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 03:34 wherebugsgo wrote:
So to anyone who is against stricter gun control in the United States:
What explains the much higher incidence of firearm-related homicide in the United States than in other developed countries, if not the proliferation of the guns themselves? (and by much higher, it's much higher on at least one order of magnitude per capita in most cases) It's due to the racial demographics of the countries you are comparing. White Americans commit murder at a rate about the same as White Swedish, White Canadians, White French, etc. The comparably high murder rate in America is because the USA is a diverse nation with drastically different demographics than most of Europe (or Canada). http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm Wow... Dr. Mengele over here. Here I thought racial biology was a thing of the past. I'd wager that a lot of black people are discriminated against and often grow up in poverty. As you have to pay for you education straight up in the US instead of through taxes, a lot of people who come from a poor home never get the chance to get out of the gutter where crime is very common. That involves both white and blacks. It's just more common with black people due to segregation.
I wish it were true that all races were genetically equivalent. Unfortunately, when you examine available data there are differences in behaviour which cannot be explained by poverty or discrimination.
Call me names if you want but that will not change the reality that there do appear to be genetic differences in behaviour and abilities between groups and individuals. This is actually not surprising when you consider that evolution selects for traits which ensure survival, not arbitrary characteristics which have no effect on anything.
You need to understand that I have the same emotional attachment to egalitarianism as you do. Imagining all the racial disparities can be solved with just a bit of love, understanding, and money, is really heartwarming. But when this wishful thinking comes up against reality I sadly have to let it go. It is similar to a belief in heaven, which people cling to not due to logic but emotion. Reality is not so kind that it made us all equivalent and granted us eternal life.
I wish crime really were caused by guns or other inanimate objects. I really do. You don't have to worry about hurting the feelings of inanimate objects. Inanimate objects are a very convenient and politically correct scapegoat to point the finger at.
Poverty and CrimeMany people believe that a bad social environment is a major contributor to crime. They believe that if people of all races had the same education, income, and social status, there would be no race differences in crime rates. Academic research, however, shows that these differences persist even after controlling for social variables. In fact, the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic accounts for crime rates more than four times better than the next best measure: lack of education. Furthermore, even controlling for all three measures of social disadvantage hardly changes the correlation between racial mix and crime rates. The correlation between violent crime and the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic is 0.78 even when poverty, education, and unemployment are controlled, versus 0.81 when they are not. In layman's terms, the statistical results suggest that even if whites were just as disadvantaged as blacks and Hispanics the association between race and violent crime would still be almost as great. It may seem harsh to state it so plainly, but the single best indicator of an area's violent crime rate is its racial/ethnic mix. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Ai6CYs.png) Are Police Biased?Figure 1 compares offender information to arrest information for all the crimes included in the NCVS. For example, 55 percent of offenders in all robberies were black, 55.4 percent of robbers in robberies reported to police were black, and 54.1 percent of arrested robbers were black. For most crimes, police are arresting fewer blacks than would be expected from the percentage of criminals the victims tell us are black (rape/sexual assault is the only exception). In the most extreme case, burglary, victims tell police that 45 percent of the perpetrators were black, but only 28 percent of the people arrested for that crime were black. If all the NCVS crimes are taken together, blacks who committed crimes that were reported to the police were 26 percent less likely to be arrested than people of other races who committed the same crimes. These figures lend no support to the charge that police arrest innocent blacks, or at least pursue them with excessive zeal. In fact, they suggest the opposite, that police are more determined to arrest non-black rather than black criminals. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tA6aLs.png) DrugsNIBRS data for drug offenses are particularly interesting, since some critics of the police have argued that “racial profiling” leads primarily to biased drug arrests. NIBRS data suggest otherwise; once again, the percentage of reported drug offenders who were black is about equal to the percentage of arrested suspects who were black. There is another source of information that suggests blacks are arrested for drug crimes in proportion to their drug use and not because of police bias. Figure 3 shows Health and Human Services statistics on emergency room admissions for illegal drug use. Emergency room admissions are a reliable, independent indicator of who is using drugs; people do not end up in HHS’s statistics unless they are taking illegal drugs, and there is no reason to think drug-takers of different races are more or less likely to need emergency treatment. The graph shows that the black share of emergency room admissions for illegal drugs in 2002 was slightly higher than the black share of those arrested for drug offenses. If police were unfairly targeting blacks for drug arrests, their share of arrests would be higher than their share of drug-related trips to the emergency room. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bBUuis.png)
You can read the full PDF here: http://colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.html
Keep in mind that the same trend of Blacks committing a disproportionate amount of crime holds true in countries other than America. For example Canada and the UK. America is no anomaly. Rather it would be anomalous to find any region where White and Black crime statistics are equal.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8KXOIs.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zFV6es.png)
Ultimately whether you blame social factors or genetic factors the conclusion still remains the same: America's crime is elevated due to demographics, not firearms.
If you feel so strongly that social factors are to blame you should donate your time and money to fixing them instead of campaigning to disarm law abiding citizens.
|
On August 08 2012 20:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 16:03 Millitron wrote:
During WW2, the Polish resistance was a constant pain for the German puppet government and the Wehrmacht. After, WW2, the Polish resistance continued to be a huge problem for the Soviets all the way up until the fall of the USSR. While I agree that an armed citizen population would be useful following a successful military invasion by Nazi Germany or some kind of Red Dawn situation (WOLVERINES!!!!!!) I'm not sure that it is a sufficiently realistic threat to justify retaining the potential for citizen militias. You guys are the sole superpower and your military is sufficiently strong that it could hold its own against all of the potentially hostile powers in the world simultaneously, that means Nazi Germany probably won't be taking over anytime soon and if your Government does turn evil then you probably won't be overthrowing them with small arms anytime soon.
Well, my point about the Polish was just to show how civilians can, and have been somewhat effective against modern militaries; I know that the situations are different, but still the essentials are the same. Determined civilians fighting a guerrilla war against a more traditional military.
We do have the best military in the world currently, though I would say our rate of civilian fire-arm ownership makes it redundant. Since this is a totally separate discussion now, I'll leave it at this; if I was in complete control of the US, we'd have no military, except Navy Seals to guard our nuke silos. Our military is wholly unnecessary for the isolationist policies I'd enforce. If you want to discuss my idea more, PM me since it's not really relevant here.
I absolutely would not resort to open war against the government unless absolutely every peaceful course of action had been tried. Like the American Revolution; the founding fathers tried to settle their differences with England peacefully so many times, before finally resorting to war. Basically it'd require Sauron to be president before I would resort to violence.
This helps the resistance though. War would not break out until the tyranny was plainly obvious. This would help with recruitment, and keep morale high amongst the resistance. Sure, it'd take a long time to overthrow a tyranny in the modern world, but it's definitely doable.
Also, I love Red Dawn. Great movie.
|
On February 20 2012 03:32 StreetWise wrote:In America, the right to bear arms is a constitutional right. So to be honest in this country there really shouldn't even be a debate, even though there is. In other countries though, I think its important to remember that guns are just tools. If you completely take away guns, people will find other means of killing/hurting others. Take a prominent example that people use all the time against the right to bear arms in the US, the Columbine shooting. A decade later, the same school is in the news, but not for violence with a gun, but with a hammer... http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-02-13/Columbine-School-Attack/53084738/1
This is your example? People will still find ways of violence?
Do you think a violent person could do more damage with a gun or a hammer?
This girl injured two people with a hammer. How many died and were injured in Columbine via guns? 13 dead and 21 injured.
Hell-arious.
|
The fact that it's in the constitution is a stupid argument that people only use when they put too much faith into old scriptures or don't have any other arguments.
However, I am sort of torn in this issue. I believe everyone to have the right to own a gun as long as the police and military does since otherwise there is no way for citizens to revolt against their leaders (if these leaders go all fascist or anything else) so I believe it to be a necessary evil to preserve democracy.
But I still fucking hate guns.
|
On August 09 2012 00:57 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 22:45 DigiGnar wrote:On August 08 2012 22:37 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On August 08 2012 22:28 Denzil wrote:
If someone wants to invade you, they will. Don't try to credit people not wanting to invade America with civilians having guns Heh.... America couldn't even win wars in Vietnam or Afghanistan against people using guerilla warfare tactics.Long range Nuke/biological attack by Russia or China is possible (Isn't that why the Americans built the 'Star Wars' defense system , to stop such attacks?) in the future but i don't see any ground invasion happening. Because these "wars" that have not been officially declared can not be fought with our maximum capabilities. We didn't roll into Vietnam like we did Europe. Look up Geneva or however it's spelled. We have a lot of restrictions in war nowadays. I recommend you do the same, look for geneva conventions. And try to understand when the "restrictions" were added (protip, dec. 1978). They were not in place in the vietnam war (but they were added because of napalm and agent orange), if it would have been, america would actually pay up to today for the million (ye, one million and ~150000 children) people still suffering from the aftermath of agent orange. You lost because you could not adapt to the guerilla warfare, which was the "reason" for agent orange in the first place (read up on what it was designed for). But thats off topic i guess.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions
If I'm reading this part right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention, it says this has been around since barely after WW2. Just that part, the treaties have been around since before the 1900s. We really just couldn't fuck shit up in Vietnam, ya' know?
|
On August 09 2012 06:33 DigiGnar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 00:57 m4inbrain wrote:On August 08 2012 22:45 DigiGnar wrote:On August 08 2012 22:37 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On August 08 2012 22:28 Denzil wrote:
If someone wants to invade you, they will. Don't try to credit people not wanting to invade America with civilians having guns Heh.... America couldn't even win wars in Vietnam or Afghanistan against people using guerilla warfare tactics.Long range Nuke/biological attack by Russia or China is possible (Isn't that why the Americans built the 'Star Wars' defense system , to stop such attacks?) in the future but i don't see any ground invasion happening. Because these "wars" that have not been officially declared can not be fought with our maximum capabilities. We didn't roll into Vietnam like we did Europe. Look up Geneva or however it's spelled. We have a lot of restrictions in war nowadays. I recommend you do the same, look for geneva conventions. And try to understand when the "restrictions" were added (protip, dec. 1978). They were not in place in the vietnam war (but they were added because of napalm and agent orange), if it would have been, america would actually pay up to today for the million (ye, one million and ~150000 children) people still suffering from the aftermath of agent orange. You lost because you could not adapt to the guerilla warfare, which was the "reason" for agent orange in the first place (read up on what it was designed for). But thats off topic i guess. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_ConventionsIf I'm reading this part right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention, it says this has been around since barely after WW2. Just that part, the treaties have been around since before the 1900s. We really just couldn't fuck shit up in Vietnam, ya' know?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_I
Thats where "your shit" was banned. In 1977 (other link said 1978, so its either one). In the geneva convention beforehand was just stated that you cannot and should not attack civilians, stuff like that. With protocol I, agent orange, nukes, napalm etc got banned. Just because of vietnam, because you used crap like this. In vietnam your only "constraint" (or however its spelled) was to not deliberatly attack civilians, simplified (and even that didnt work too well, did it?).
But again, thats off topic mate - if you want to discuss that further, just pm me. I needed to "learn" the geneva convention in my time in the army, didnt you?
|
|
|
This is about the guy behind the 'publication' quoted above to 'prove' 'hispanic and black' people's tendency for violence. + Show Spoiler +The Southern Poverty Law Center describes Taylor as "a courtly presenter of ideas that most would describe as crudely white supremacist — a kind of modern-day version of the refined but racist colonialist of old."[24] A 2005 feature in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette described Taylor as "a racist in the guise of expert"[25]
Mark Potok and Heidi Beirich, writers in the Intelligence Report (a publication of the Southern Poverty Law Center), has written that "Jared Taylor is the cultivated, cosmopolitan face of white supremacy. He is the guy who is providing the intellectual heft, in effect, to modern-day Klansmen." They have also stated that "American Renaissance has become increasingly important over the years, bringing a measure of intellectualism and seriousness to the typically thug-dominated world of white supremacy".[20]
Conservative author and former National Review contributor John Derbyshire, while not condoning all of Taylor's work, has said that Taylor is a "polite and good-natured man," but that he is a "dissident" whose opinions "violate tribal taboos."[26]
I needed to "learn" the geneva convention in my time in the army, didnt you?
Now you're just being mean. :D
|
On August 09 2012 06:31 Slakter wrote:
The fact that it's in the constitution is a stupid argument that people only use when they put too much faith into old scriptures or don't have any other arguments.
However, I am sort of torn in this issue. I believe everyone to have the right to own a gun as long as the police and military does since otherwise there is no way for citizens to revolt against their leaders (if these leaders go all fascist or anything else) so I believe it to be a necessary evil to preserve democracy.
But I still fucking hate guns.
sorry but 2 handguns and an AK won't win against the police and government
|
On August 09 2012 03:43 Portlandian wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 11:49 -_-Quails wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 08 2012 01:31 Portlandian wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 03:34 wherebugsgo wrote:
So to anyone who is against stricter gun control in the United States:
What explains the much higher incidence of firearm-related homicide in the United States than in other developed countries, if not the proliferation of the guns themselves? (and by much higher, it's much higher on at least one order of magnitude per capita in most cases) It's due to the racial demographics of the countries you are comparing. White Americans commit murder at a rate about the same as White Swedish, White Canadians, White French, etc. The comparably high murder rate in America is because the USA is a diverse nation with drastically different demographics than most of Europe (or Canada). http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm Differences in racial profiles regarding criminal acts in the US pretty much entirely due to the combination of historical damage to community structures in certain minorities, historical and current discrimination both state-sanctioned and non, income and asset disparity, socioeconomic immobility, and the differing rates of poverty and opportunity available to members of each community as a result. In the US, if you are born poor then you will probably not have the opportunity to get a degree no matter how bright you are and you may not even get the chance to finish high school. Your teachers probably won't care enough about you to even look to see if you are smart, and they won't expect anything out of you but disrespect and violence. Your parents or guardians will be too busy trying to make ends meet or cope with the way their lives have turned out to push you to succeed. You won't have any connections to get you nice cushy internships or interviews for well paid positions.Even when you get a job, you probably won't make enough to live without benefits or the use of charitable services such as food kitchens - especially if you have a family of your own - and you will probably have few opportunities for promotion. You will live in broken down housing surrounded by broken down people who have lost hope of changing their circumstances and are doing whatever they can to avoid thinking about it. If you have children of your own you will be just as unable to provide for them all you wish to as your parents were. It will be hard to cope and harder still to hope for better. At times, you will despair of the system and your life. At times you might be so angry that all you can do is fight - fight the people at the bar, hit out at your partner or even kids, fight the walls of your apartment, anything to make the tension fade. At times, the promise of immediate monetary reward might make small-time crime irresistable - what would it feel like to be able to give your little girl the pink bicycle she wants? to buy new, on-brand presents for Christmas? to be caught up on rent just once? And crime has a tendency of escalating - a mugging gone wrong is a murder. In the USA, you are much more likely to be born poor if you are born black than if you are born white. It is this disparity of poverty that creates the disparity of crime rates. + Show Spoiler +Committing criminal acts for reasons other than absolute need is wrong. It is, however, not inexplicable. Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 16:03 Euronyme wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 08 2012 01:31 Portlandian wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 03:34 wherebugsgo wrote:
So to anyone who is against stricter gun control in the United States:
What explains the much higher incidence of firearm-related homicide in the United States than in other developed countries, if not the proliferation of the guns themselves? (and by much higher, it's much higher on at least one order of magnitude per capita in most cases) It's due to the racial demographics of the countries you are comparing. White Americans commit murder at a rate about the same as White Swedish, White Canadians, White French, etc. The comparably high murder rate in America is because the USA is a diverse nation with drastically different demographics than most of Europe (or Canada). http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm Wow... Dr. Mengele over here. Here I thought racial biology was a thing of the past. I'd wager that a lot of black people are discriminated against and often grow up in poverty. As you have to pay for you education straight up in the US instead of through taxes, a lot of people who come from a poor home never get the chance to get out of the gutter where crime is very common. That involves both white and blacks. It's just more common with black people due to segregation. I wish it were true that all races were genetically equivalent. Unfortunately, when you examine available data there are differences in behaviour which cannot be explained by poverty or discrimination. Call me names if you want but that will not change the reality that there do appear to be genetic differences in behaviour and abilities between groups and individuals. This is actually not surprising when you consider that evolution selects for traits which ensure survival, not arbitrary characteristics which have no effect on anything. You need to understand that I have the same emotional attachment to egalitarianism as you do. Imagining all the racial disparities can be solved with just a bit of love, understanding, and money, is really heartwarming. But when this wishful thinking comes up against reality I sadly have to let it go. It is similar to a belief in heaven, which people cling to not due to logic but emotion. Reality is not so kind that it made us all equivalent and granted us eternal life. I wish crime really were caused by guns or other inanimate objects. I really do. You don't have to worry about hurting the feelings of inanimate objects. Inanimate objects are a very convenient and politically correct scapegoat to point the finger at. Show nested quote +Poverty and CrimeMany people believe that a bad social environment is a major contributor to crime. They believe that if people of all races had the same education, income, and social status, there would be no race differences in crime rates. Academic research, however, shows that these differences persist even after controlling for social variables. In fact, the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic accounts for crime rates more than four times better than the next best measure: lack of education. Furthermore, even controlling for all three measures of social disadvantage hardly changes the correlation between racial mix and crime rates. The correlation between violent crime and the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic is 0.78 even when poverty, education, and unemployment are controlled, versus 0.81 when they are not. In layman's terms, the statistical results suggest that even if whites were just as disadvantaged as blacks and Hispanics the association between race and violent crime would still be almost as great. It may seem harsh to state it so plainly, but the single best indicator of an area's violent crime rate is its racial/ethnic mix. Show nested quote +Are Police Biased?Figure 1 compares offender information to arrest information for all the crimes included in the NCVS. For example, 55 percent of offenders in all robberies were black, 55.4 percent of robbers in robberies reported to police were black, and 54.1 percent of arrested robbers were black. For most crimes, police are arresting fewer blacks than would be expected from the percentage of criminals the victims tell us are black (rape/sexual assault is the only exception). In the most extreme case, burglary, victims tell police that 45 percent of the perpetrators were black, but only 28 percent of the people arrested for that crime were black. If all the NCVS crimes are taken together, blacks who committed crimes that were reported to the police were 26 percent less likely to be arrested than people of other races who committed the same crimes. These figures lend no support to the charge that police arrest innocent blacks, or at least pursue them with excessive zeal. In fact, they suggest the opposite, that police are more determined to arrest non-black rather than black criminals. Show nested quote +DrugsNIBRS data for drug offenses are particularly interesting, since some critics of the police have argued that “racial profiling” leads primarily to biased drug arrests. NIBRS data suggest otherwise; once again, the percentage of reported drug offenders who were black is about equal to the percentage of arrested suspects who were black. There is another source of information that suggests blacks are arrested for drug crimes in proportion to their drug use and not because of police bias. Figure 3 shows Health and Human Services statistics on emergency room admissions for illegal drug use. Emergency room admissions are a reliable, independent indicator of who is using drugs; people do not end up in HHS’s statistics unless they are taking illegal drugs, and there is no reason to think drug-takers of different races are more or less likely to need emergency treatment. The graph shows that the black share of emergency room admissions for illegal drugs in 2002 was slightly higher than the black share of those arrested for drug offenses. If police were unfairly targeting blacks for drug arrests, their share of arrests would be higher than their share of drug-related trips to the emergency room. You can read the full PDF here: http://colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.htmlKeep in mind that the same trend of Blacks committing a disproportionate amount of crime holds true in countries other than America. For example Canada and the UK. America is no anomaly. Rather it would be anomalous to find any region where White and Black crime statistics are equal. Ultimately whether you blame social factors or genetic factors the conclusion still remains the same: America's crime is elevated due to demographics, not firearms. If you feel so strongly that social factors are to blame you should donate your time and money to fixing them instead of campaigning to disarm law abiding citizens.
Nowhere in your posts, unless you have made previous posts that I have missed, did you prove that firearms do not increase crime, you only made cases for demographics increasing crime. This does not come to the conclusion you stated, you can't just tack that on to the end as though it was somehow proved in your post, because it wasn't.
Also, everyone who is making reasonable, realistic arguments is not aiming to disarm law abiding citizens, they are suggesting stronger Gun Control, meaning that a law abiding citizen should be able to get their hands on guns, though they may be more limited (which I really don't see as a problem) and it should make it harder for criminals or potentially unstable citizens to get access to weapons.
|
On August 09 2012 10:44 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 06:31 Slakter wrote:
The fact that it's in the constitution is a stupid argument that people only use when they put too much faith into old scriptures or don't have any other arguments.
However, I am sort of torn in this issue. I believe everyone to have the right to own a gun as long as the police and military does since otherwise there is no way for citizens to revolt against their leaders (if these leaders go all fascist or anything else) so I believe it to be a necessary evil to preserve democracy.
But I still fucking hate guns. sorry but 2 handguns and an AK won't win against the police and government
something is better than nothing. That is why its a consitutional right, to protect the people from the government in those extreme situations when everything goes nuts. The founding fathers always intended for the power to originate from the people, and this right is an extension of that. Live free or die trying
|
On August 09 2012 11:18 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 10:44 darthfoley wrote:On August 09 2012 06:31 Slakter wrote:
The fact that it's in the constitution is a stupid argument that people only use when they put too much faith into old scriptures or don't have any other arguments.
However, I am sort of torn in this issue. I believe everyone to have the right to own a gun as long as the police and military does since otherwise there is no way for citizens to revolt against their leaders (if these leaders go all fascist or anything else) so I believe it to be a necessary evil to preserve democracy.
But I still fucking hate guns. sorry but 2 handguns and an AK won't win against the police and government something is better than nothing. That is why its a consitutional right, to protect the people from the government in those extreme situations when everything goes nuts. The founding fathers always intended for the power to originate from the people, and this right is an extension of that. Live free or die trying
now let's get out of the drama movie and focus on real life. the constitution was written about 250 years ago, when there was much less public safety. Ironically from my understanding, many christians don't take everything the new AND old testaments say literally (i.e no eating shellfish), but are quick to pull the purist constitution bullshit
|
On August 09 2012 11:26 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 11:18 biology]major wrote:On August 09 2012 10:44 darthfoley wrote:On August 09 2012 06:31 Slakter wrote:
The fact that it's in the constitution is a stupid argument that people only use when they put too much faith into old scriptures or don't have any other arguments.
However, I am sort of torn in this issue. I believe everyone to have the right to own a gun as long as the police and military does since otherwise there is no way for citizens to revolt against their leaders (if these leaders go all fascist or anything else) so I believe it to be a necessary evil to preserve democracy.
But I still fucking hate guns. sorry but 2 handguns and an AK won't win against the police and government something is better than nothing. That is why its a consitutional right, to protect the people from the government in those extreme situations when everything goes nuts. The founding fathers always intended for the power to originate from the people, and this right is an extension of that. Live free or die trying now let's get out of the drama movie and focus on real life. the constitution was written about 250 years ago, when there was much less public safety. Ironically from my understanding, many christians don't take everything the new AND old testaments say literally (i.e no eating shellfish), but are quick to pull the purist constitution bullshit
did u really just compare the constitution to the bible ?
|
This story is hilarious. What a paranoid moron. Everyone has some drinks in them and is outgoing and friendly. Thats all it was. If this goofball would have had a gun on him, 2 young guys may not be here because of a paranoid guy with a gun. "They talked to us without being invited to talk to us"? What the hell? Do people just not talk to each other without invitation in the states? I find this so strange. Whenever we go out to any sort of bar/party here, we always talk to tons of other people, thats just how we are!
Plus, theres no more aggressive and obvious way to threaten a family than by asking them if theyve gone to the Stampede yet. Rofl. What a joke.
|
On August 09 2012 11:29 Focuspants wrote:This story is hilarious. What a paranoid moron. Everyone has some drinks in them and is outgoing and friendly. Thats all it was. If this goofball would have had a gun on him, 2 young guys may not be here because of a paranoid guy with a gun. "They talked to us without being invited to talk to us"? What the hell? Do people just not talk to each other without invitation in the states? I find this so strange. Whenever we go out to any sort of bar/party here, we always talk to tons of other people, thats just how we are! Plus, theres no more aggressive and obvious way to threaten a family than by asking them if theyve gone to the Stampede yet. Rofl. What a joke.
Yeah, I completely agree with you.
|
On August 09 2012 10:21 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 06:33 DigiGnar wrote:On August 09 2012 00:57 m4inbrain wrote:On August 08 2012 22:45 DigiGnar wrote:On August 08 2012 22:37 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On August 08 2012 22:28 Denzil wrote:
If someone wants to invade you, they will. Don't try to credit people not wanting to invade America with civilians having guns Heh.... America couldn't even win wars in Vietnam or Afghanistan against people using guerilla warfare tactics.Long range Nuke/biological attack by Russia or China is possible (Isn't that why the Americans built the 'Star Wars' defense system , to stop such attacks?) in the future but i don't see any ground invasion happening. Because these "wars" that have not been officially declared can not be fought with our maximum capabilities. We didn't roll into Vietnam like we did Europe. Look up Geneva or however it's spelled. We have a lot of restrictions in war nowadays. I recommend you do the same, look for geneva conventions. And try to understand when the "restrictions" were added (protip, dec. 1978). They were not in place in the vietnam war (but they were added because of napalm and agent orange), if it would have been, america would actually pay up to today for the million (ye, one million and ~150000 children) people still suffering from the aftermath of agent orange. You lost because you could not adapt to the guerilla warfare, which was the "reason" for agent orange in the first place (read up on what it was designed for). But thats off topic i guess. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_ConventionsIf I'm reading this part right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention, it says this has been around since barely after WW2. Just that part, the treaties have been around since before the 1900s. We really just couldn't fuck shit up in Vietnam, ya' know? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_IThats where "your shit" was banned. In 1977 (other link said 1978, so its either one). In the geneva convention beforehand was just stated that you cannot and should not attack civilians, stuff like that. With protocol I, agent orange, nukes, napalm etc got banned. Just because of vietnam, because you used crap like this. In vietnam your only "constraint" (or however its spelled) was to not deliberatly attack civilians, simplified (and even that didnt work too well, did it?). But again, thats off topic mate - if you want to discuss that further, just pm me. I needed to "learn" the geneva convention in my time in the army, didnt you?
You do realize that the VCs did use the "civilian contraint" against us? We may have made some agent orange, but that's absolutely nothing compared to an atomic bomb. We couldn't roll into NV like we did Europe. If you think we did, then you should go back and learn some history.
405,399
58,220
These are deaths of US military service member. Which one's WW2 and which one's NV? The last time we saw bloodshed like WW2 was in the Civil war. Do you really think we used our full might in NV?
|
YES people should be able to own guns... I think criminals with violence related charges should have harsh restrictions on owning guns, and some should lose their right to bear arms at all. Think about hunters in the midwest.. suddenly it is a federal law that no citizen shall own guns.. you think they are going to hand in their rifles? cwazy.
I was taught to hold and shoot guns at a very young age. There is a great responsibility when it comes to firearms.
|
On August 09 2012 11:29 Focuspants wrote:This story is hilarious. What a paranoid moron. Everyone has some drinks in them and is outgoing and friendly. Thats all it was. If this goofball would have had a gun on him, 2 young guys may not be here because of a paranoid guy with a gun. "They talked to us without being invited to talk to us"? What the hell? Do people just not talk to each other without invitation in the states? I find this so strange. Whenever we go out to any sort of bar/party here, we always talk to tons of other people, thats just how we are! Plus, theres no more aggressive and obvious way to threaten a family than by asking them if theyve gone to the Stampede yet. Rofl. What a joke.
Many times people with intentions to beat you down and rob you approach with a simple question such as this. In fact, a while back, my brother was approached immediately upon withdrawing money from an ATM in Washington D.C. My brother's attitude in confronting the guy in his case prevented him from being a victim. Same with the cop visiting Canada, especially since he's there protecting his wife, as any man would realize. Better to be abrasive and street-smart than a victim of whatever crime someone wants to commit.
|
On August 09 2012 12:11 DigiGnar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 10:21 m4inbrain wrote:On August 09 2012 06:33 DigiGnar wrote:On August 09 2012 00:57 m4inbrain wrote:On August 08 2012 22:45 DigiGnar wrote:On August 08 2012 22:37 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On August 08 2012 22:28 Denzil wrote:
If someone wants to invade you, they will. Don't try to credit people not wanting to invade America with civilians having guns Heh.... America couldn't even win wars in Vietnam or Afghanistan against people using guerilla warfare tactics.Long range Nuke/biological attack by Russia or China is possible (Isn't that why the Americans built the 'Star Wars' defense system , to stop such attacks?) in the future but i don't see any ground invasion happening. Because these "wars" that have not been officially declared can not be fought with our maximum capabilities. We didn't roll into Vietnam like we did Europe. Look up Geneva or however it's spelled. We have a lot of restrictions in war nowadays. I recommend you do the same, look for geneva conventions. And try to understand when the "restrictions" were added (protip, dec. 1978). They were not in place in the vietnam war (but they were added because of napalm and agent orange), if it would have been, america would actually pay up to today for the million (ye, one million and ~150000 children) people still suffering from the aftermath of agent orange. You lost because you could not adapt to the guerilla warfare, which was the "reason" for agent orange in the first place (read up on what it was designed for). But thats off topic i guess. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_ConventionsIf I'm reading this part right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention, it says this has been around since barely after WW2. Just that part, the treaties have been around since before the 1900s. We really just couldn't fuck shit up in Vietnam, ya' know? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_IThats where "your shit" was banned. In 1977 (other link said 1978, so its either one). In the geneva convention beforehand was just stated that you cannot and should not attack civilians, stuff like that. With protocol I, agent orange, nukes, napalm etc got banned. Just because of vietnam, because you used crap like this. In vietnam your only "constraint" (or however its spelled) was to not deliberatly attack civilians, simplified (and even that didnt work too well, did it?). But again, thats off topic mate - if you want to discuss that further, just pm me. I needed to "learn" the geneva convention in my time in the army, didnt you? You do realize that the VCs did use the "civilian contraint" against us? We may have made some agent orange, but that's absolutely nothing compared to an atomic bomb. We couldn't roll into NV like we did Europe. If you think we did, then you should go back and learn some history. 405,399 58,220 These are deaths of US military service member. Which one's WW2 and which one's NV? The last time we saw bloodshed like WW2 was in the Civil war. Do you really think we used our full might in NV?
It also had to do with area. I don't really understand why you guys are even arguing those points anyways.
We lost Vietnam because we couldn't keep public support due to it being the first "televised" war. We fucking destroyed Vietnam. Obliterated our enemy with insane efficiency. We won pretty much every battle, ever, and were at no point of ever getting within any fraction of a military defeat. We only withdrew because of politics and public disapproval. Not saying I agree with the war in the first place, but rather just countering the fact we "couldn't win."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
