|
I just felt that saying that the regulation would also be in place before somebody mentions a firearm dealer just not reporting stolen firearms. Ignorance as to the location of a stolen firearm doesn't strip you of any responsibility for it.
EDIT: That, and you didn't mention it. Somebody was bound to notice that flaw in the suggested system. 
|
Can we just hump each other for the rest of the thread? I'm sure that'll be just as entertaining for everybody.
Socks and holsters optional.
|
The statistics still show that your nations specific system doesn't result in low crime rates. It's not 'intellectual fraud' or whatever you want to call it, that article is a pile of shit. Statistics still show the result of your nations politics, it can't lie.
I'm just pissed that you don't think it's possible(or want to?) gradually remove guns by improving the social structure of your nation, you got a huge lower class population (from which a majority of crime stems from) and it's shown by statistics that by improving in that area you can lower crimes by alot.
And if you do that you could create more restrictions on guns without a increase in crime as a result. Which should reduce the amount of guns in circulation, and the accepted idea of casual gun ownership can gradually disapear each generation that goes by.
I just think the united states population are ignorant to what works in other nations, and refuses to believe it can work for you. I believe this is a social issue and the gun "culture" you have is only something that has made it even worse.
|
Marklar, you don't have a Ph.D. As such, if you intend to tell me that an article written by a doctor is a "pile of shit," I except you to have the courtesy to point out why.
He followed every basic rule of what you do when conducting research. Sorry bud, but you're the one that's wrong here.
|
On December 10 2007 07:15 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:
Can we just hump each other for the rest of the thread? I'm sure that'll be just as entertaining for everybody.
Socks and holsters optional. I have a cute little hat, too.
On December 10 2007 07:23 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:
So now the issue isn't gun control but politics, poverty, lack of social programs and education.
Is that what you're saying? Because we've already said that. Have we converted an anti? 
|
So now the issue isn't gun control but politics, poverty, lack of social programs and education.
Is that what you're saying? Because we've already said that.
|
No it's gun control AND politics, poverty, lack of social programs and education.
i'm just trying to argue that it's good to try to remove guns, mayson just fucking dodges this arguement every fucking time.
And i'm trying to argue that both sides are right to a degree, except that mayson is a fucking extremist piece of shit even if he has pointed out certain things that are true
|
I haven't dodged that argument once. I've been responding to it almost every single time I post.
If you create a law that bans guns, law-abiding citizens will comply. Criminals, by definition, will not.
It's not difficult to understand that a criminal, who is a person who does not comply with laws, will not follow a new law. That's what makes them a criminal in the first place.
It is not realistic to advocate non-violence in a world rampant with violence, whether said violence be committed with a gun, knife, or any object or tool not originally designed to be a weapon.
|
exactly so to remove guns you should improve the social issues first, then start to harshen gun laws gradually with time to remove them?
yes?
|
|
|
so you believe that people should have guns even if crime is very low?
|
is awesome32277 Posts
Mayson you talk about criminals like they are some kind of irrational, psychotic monsters product of some chemical leak in the suburbs which makes them go berserk.
|
On December 10 2007 08:19 MarklarMarklar wrote:
so you believe that people should have guns even if crime is very low? Why not? What's wrong with recreation?
On December 10 2007 08:23 IntoTheWow wrote:
Mayson you talk about criminals like they are some kind of irrational, psychotic monsters product of some chemical leak in the suburbs which makes them go berserk. Completely incorrect. Their patterns of behavior are often quite logical. Their patterns of behavior just act outside of, in defiance of, and in spite of applicable laws, thus defining them as "criminals."
The subject of psychosis is irrelevant.
|
On December 10 2007 07:23 Mayson wrote:
If someone comes after me with an AK47 and some grenades, then the fucker is gonna bleed.
Easy there, rpf.
|
On December 10 2007 08:30 Mayson wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2007 08:19 MarklarMarklar wrote:
so you believe that people should have guns even if crime is very low? Why not? What's wrong with recreation?
i'm pretty sure that if people have guns when there aint much crime, the chance of them doing bad is higher than doing good.. just a guess
|
On December 10 2007 07:45 MarklarMarklar wrote:
No it's gun control AND politics, poverty, lack of social programs and education.
i'm just trying to argue that it's good to try to remove guns, mayson just fucking dodges this arguement every fucking time.
And i'm trying to argue that both sides are right to a degree, except that mayson is a fucking extremist piece of shit even if he has pointed out certain things that are true
If you actually believe that gun control is on par with those issues you need a reality check.
Guns have nothing to do with it. It's the society in which they exist that is the problem.
|
On December 10 2007 08:34 MarklarMarklar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2007 08:30 Mayson wrote:On December 10 2007 08:19 MarklarMarklar wrote:
so you believe that people should have guns even if crime is very low? Why not? What's wrong with recreation? i'm pretty sure that if people have guns when there aint much crime, the chance of them doing bad is higher than doing good.. just a guess
Why? Because guns make people evil?
|
If me and you sit and have a civilized conversation sitting in 2 chairs on opposite sides of a table and that table has a gun on it, are we thus more likely to act violently towards one another? Does the mere presence of a gun rid us of our civility, morals and courtesy? Does the presence of the gun fundamentally change who we are?
Or will our present beliefs dictate the actions we take and the importance of which that gun being on the table plays? Is it not our upbringing and the world around us that melds who we are and what we do? Are we not beings of free thought? Am I somehow incapable of knowing that killing is wrong now that the gun is present?
I really don't think so. I pity anybody who does.
EDIT: And while you may argue not everybody is going to be as rational as I, that is why there would be programs and such in place. Steps taken as to weed out the irrational and irresponsible for the civilians that are able to obtain licenses in order to own and operate firearm. Nobody is saying EVERYBODY should be able to own a gun. We are saying that those who are able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are responsible human beings who understand that a gun is used for recreational use, self defense and defense of those whose lives are in danger should be allowed to have them.
|
On December 10 2007 08:33 Flaccid wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2007 07:23 Mayson wrote:
If someone comes after me with an AK47 and some grenades, then the fucker is gonna bleed. Easy there, rpf. I never said that.
|
Osaka27168 Posts
On December 10 2007 09:14 Mayson wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2007 08:33 Flaccid wrote:On December 10 2007 07:23 Mayson wrote:
If someone comes after me with an AK47 and some grenades, then the fucker is gonna bleed. Easy there, rpf. I never said that.
On March 12 2006 17:28 rpf289 wrote:
I almost got mugged one night walking to my car on campus, and well, if I'm gonna get mugged, the fucker is gonna bleed. Yeah, I have that mentality of where I refuse to go down without taking someone else down with me.
Good to have you back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
