RE: Now tell me again....

RE: Now tell me again.... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

eulero83 -> RE: Now tell me again.... (9/21/2013 3:53:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 I see you reply only when you can answer "guns are not bad evil is in criminals" litany... people with guns are gun owners. I can see where you are grouping all gun owners into one category. actually I'm not, your example or mental experiment or how you want to call it was demagogic so I answered in a demagogic way for the opposite point of view, I told what I think in post #86 quoting a post of yours and asking a question to you

BamaD -> RE: Now tell me again.... (9/21/2013 4:21:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml So you can't explain how you managed to misunderstand my post? You also evidently missed the last line. Ya know.... the one where I pointed out that unless a ban could be effective it would be pointless..... But... it would be a useful starting point for a thought experiment, for those that are capable. I was preoccupied and misread it. I was putting thought into this before you were born. The more I think about it the worse a ban gets Oh bless your heart old timer, surely with your wealth of years you'd have realised that when it comes to thinking it's quality not quantity that counts, maybe it's time to let younger, more creative minds grapple with these problems? Afterall, when you have to resort to "I am older than you", well... ya know... First you imply that if I would just think about it I would see the light. Blew that out of the water so you resort to the typical condescending attitude. Younger yes, but there is nothing creative about creating more victims. Most people mature in their early 30s, some have to wait longer.

BamaD -> RE: Now tell me again.... (9/21/2013 4:24:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You are also talking bollocks about the IRA and how they become armed, doesnt World War One ring any fucking bells in that brain of yours, Great Britian was awash with guns. Many thousands of Catholics were actually fighting for the King. The IRB, forerunners to the IRA, obtained their money via donations from the US and arms then purchased from Germany. Doesn't Germany ring a bell in that fucking brain of yours, they were the enemy, and those guns were not used to fight for the king. There are so many wrong things in this post that I don't know where to start, Ireland is not part of england or great britain, and there are cultural and historical (also ethnical) differences between english people and irish people, in some time of histroy english happened to conquest ireland but this doesn't mean irish became british or that the two people mixed in any way or that ireland stopped to exist as a separate entity, like poland or hungary or sweden and so on it's probably hard to understand for you as USA in their expansion to the west americanized the whole territory in europe there was a different attitude. WWI's european armies were composed for the most by conscripts so during an assault you could decide just by wich one machine gun to be killed the one in front or the one behind you, so actually germans where not the enemy if you where irish in ireland. Than one thing is the irish repubblican army that fought to create the nation that now we call EIRE and another thing is the terroristic group that takes it's name from the former one and fights for ethnical reasons in northern ireland. You are aware are you not that at the time England ruled all of Ireland. Thus the rest of your post is irrelevant. I realize that English is not your first language but the rest of your post is gibberish. It may well be brilliant in your native language.

graceadieu -> RE: Now tell me again.... (9/21/2013 4:26:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: graceadieu quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro Guns are restricted in Chicago but not banned. Most guns are purchased legally by "Gun Guys" And yes you can purchase a gun in Chicago but most of the gun come from out of State like Virginia and Texas. http://www.suntimes.com/news/crime/14618767-418/getting-a-gun-in-chicago-quick-and-easy.html Hmm, yeah, makes sense. DC's much the same. Guns used to be illegal are still quite restricted... but there are plenty, because people buy car loads full down south where it's very easy to get them and then smuggle them into DC and sell them on the black market. No jurisdiction in the continental US can have effective gun control if it's so easy to just drive to another city or state and buy whatever you want and stick it in your trunk. So why isn't crime sky hi in places like Virginia? Because Virginia isn't 100% inner city? High density areas have higher crime rates. Especially, I'd think, high density areas with high levels of poverty, poor schools and serious gang problems like DC. Guns make it a lot easier to for crimes and fights (and depression and accidental messing around) to end in death, but they don't create poor people or gangs. If we want to look at crime rates, let's see. The states with the highest violent crime rates, according to the Census Bureau: 1) South Carolina 2) Tennassee 3) Nevada 4) Florida 5) Lousiana Now, I think that list probably has to do more with endemic poverty than with permissive gun laws. But it's pretty clear that widespread gun ownership does not prevent violent crime.

jlf1961 -> RE: Now tell me again.... (9/21/2013 4:35:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 I see you reply only when you can answer "guns are not bad evil is in criminals" litany... people with guns are gun owners. I can see where you are grouping all gun owners into one category. actually I'm not, your example or mental experiment or how you want to call it was demagogic so I answered in a demagogic way for the opposite point of view, I told what I think in post #86 quoting a post of yours and asking a question to you I was pointing out the stupidity of the statement "guns kill people," and the assumption that guns equals violence.. If you failed to see that point, then you have a more serious problem than whether or not someone can own a gun.

BamaD -> RE: Now tell me again.... (9/21/2013 4:36:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: graceadieu quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: graceadieu quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro Guns are restricted in Chicago but not banned. Most guns are purchased legally by "Gun Guys" And yes you can purchase a gun in Chicago but most of the gun come from out of State like Virginia and Texas. http://www.suntimes.com/news/crime/14618767-418/getting-a-gun-in-chicago-quick-and-easy.html Hmm, yeah, makes sense. DC's much the same. Guns used to be illegal are still quite restricted... but there are plenty, because people buy car loads full down south where it's very easy to get them and then smuggle them into DC and sell them on the black market. No jurisdiction in the continental US can have effective gun control if it's so easy to just drive to another city or state and buy whatever you want and stick it in your trunk. So why isn't crime sky hi in places like Virginia? Because Virginia isn't 100% inner city? High density areas have higher crime rates. Especially, I'd think, high density areas with high levels of poverty, poor schools and serious gang problems like DC. Guns make it a lot easier to for crimes and fights (and depression and accidental messing around) to end in death, but they don't create poor people or gangs. If we want to look at crime rates, let's see. The states with the highest violent crime rates, according to the Census Bureau: 1) South Carolina 2) Tennassee 3) Nevada 4) Florida 5) Lousiana Now, I think that list probably has to do more with endemic poverty than with permissive gun laws. But it's pretty clear that widespread gun ownership does not prevent violent crime. It is at least equally clear that it doesn't cause it. Your point about Virginias sociological makeup is where I was going to lead you if you had not figured it out. The best way to deal with crime (gun crime included) is to deal the problems of drugs gangs and poverty gun control is a bandage promoted by political hacks afraid to take on the real (and harder problems) with the bonus that gun control give them more power. Government types always like that.

eulero83 -> RE: Now tell me again.... (9/21/2013 4:51:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You are aware are you not that at the time England ruled all of Ireland. I'm aware but are you aware that when another people rules your country is something that can piss you off? Are you aware that in WWI armies where not composed by volunteers but by conscripts forced to fight or killed on the spot by their officials? Are you aware that Germany was enemy to the English but allied with the Irish that are two different people even if some Irish were drafted to fight in the British army? By your logic Polish young men should have enlist in the wermacht or the red army the day after they where conquested in WWII because Germans and Russian where the new governament.

graceadieu -> RE: Now tell me again.... (9/21/2013 4:59:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Are you trying to tell me that all the guns in criminal hands will be turned in with no problem because of the civic mindedness of the criminals? Really? Australia's buyback program was extremely effective. People will do a lot for money.

Politesub53 -> RE: Now tell me again.... (9/21/2013 5:00:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You are also talking bollocks about the IRA and how they become armed, doesnt World War One ring any fucking bells in that brain of yours, Great Britian was awash with guns. Many thousands of Catholics were actually fighting for the King. The IRB, forerunners to the IRA, obtained their money via donations from the US and arms then purchased from Germany. Doesn't Germany ring a bell in that fucking brain of yours, they were the enemy, and those guns were not used to fight for the king. You need to learn to read........ The IRB carried out the Easter rising, they got the guns from germany...... they were not the same Catholics who fought against Germany. I didnt think I needed to make that any clearer as no one would be so stupid enough to think otherwise, I should obviously have know better.

Politesub53 -> RE: Now tell me again.... (9/21/2013 5:08:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic This is the arguement of a subject, servant, or a slave. Unfortunately, it doesn't translate well to a nation of free people. Those in power can start the process to amend the Constitution of my country, but then it goes out for 2/3 of the states to ratify. Ain't gonna happen. Laughable stuff, considering we have a fully functioning democracy, much like yourselves. And if you want to insist you are a nation of free people, tell that to the Native Americans of Virginia (might be W Virginia) unable to use that term on official forms. It seems everything there is either black or white.

BamaD -> RE: Now tell me again.... (9/21/2013 5:11:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You are aware are you not that at the time England ruled all of Ireland. I'm aware but are you aware that when another people rules your country is something that can piss you off? Are you aware that in WWI armies where not composed by volunteers but by conscripts forced to fight or killed on the spot by their officials? Are you aware that Germany was enemy to the English but allied with the Irish that are two different people even if some Irish were drafted to fight in the British army? By your logic Polish young men should have enlist in the wermacht or the red army the day after they where conquested in WWII because Germans and Russian where the new governament. Duh we came into existence by running the Brits out, the rest of your post demonstrates that your didn't understand my post.

Politesub53 -> RE: Now tell me again.... (9/21/2013 5:14:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 And now we have it, the facts of anything are laughable. [8\|] No your silly presumption is laughable. And you confirmed my contention that in the minds of many foreigners only deaths in the U S and then only gun deaths are fair game. And I knew it didn't happen in Australia but I can see how you would assume that a mere colonial wouldn't know that. If you knew it didnt happen in Australia, why aim such an obnoxious post at Tweaks, if not for spite ? It certianly had nothing to do with the debate at hand ?

BamaD -> RE: Now tell me again.... (9/21/2013 5:14:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You are also talking bollocks about the IRA and how they become armed, doesnt World War One ring any fucking bells in that brain of yours, Great Britian was awash with guns. Many thousands of Catholics were actually fighting for the King. The IRB, forerunners to the IRA, obtained their money via donations from the US and arms then purchased from Germany. Doesn't Germany ring a bell in that fucking brain of yours, they were the enemy, and those guns were not used to fight for the king. You need to learn to read........ The IRB carried out the Easter rising, they got the guns from germany...... they were not the same Catholics who fought against Germany. I didnt think I needed to make that any clearer as no one would be so stupid enough to think otherwise, I should obviously have know better. And I didn't think anyone would be so stupid as to think that since I knew that some Catholics fought against the crown that meant I thought all of them did. Only someone as sophisticated as you would consider all people who have something in common are a monolithic block. Such an assumption is LAUGHABLE

eulero83 -> RE: Now tell me again.... (9/21/2013 5:16:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 I see you reply only when you can answer "guns are not bad evil is in criminals" litany... people with guns are gun owners. I can see where you are grouping all gun owners into one category. actually I'm not, your example or mental experiment or how you want to call it was demagogic so I answered in a demagogic way for the opposite point of view, I told what I think in post #86 quoting a post of yours and asking a question to you I was pointing out the stupidity of the statement "guns kill people," and the assumption that guns equals violence.. If you failed to see that point, then you have a more serious problem than whether or not someone can own a gun. Don't warry I saw your point as I already told you, but I just pointed out that criminals involved in gun crimes are part of the "gun owners" set (in the mathematical use of the word) as they actually own the gun they used. In the original post you asked why gun owners are stigmatized as a group when gun related crimes hit the news and I gave you an answer in the post #86, but actually you seem just looking to confirm your self-fulfilling prophecy that this happens because people irrationally point their finger on the tools instead that on the person using them differently from the cases when a car or an explosive vest was the tool used in the crime.

graceadieu -> RE: Now tell me again.... (9/21/2013 5:20:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Ok, you were wrong not stupid. Let me tell you how gun bans work here. D C enacted a gun ban, and don't tell me but Virginia blah blah blah, the number of crimes with guns dropped a little. Unfortunately the crime rate doubled all they accomplished was making it safe to rob, murder, and rape with a knife or because the thugs were younger and stronger. The gun bans only effect was to make life easier for the criminals, I don't care how it works where you are that is how it works here. Of course if, as the officials in D C clearly did, that preventing one gun murder is worth having a thousand people killed with knives it works. That wasn't exaggeration they insisted that the few gun crimes they stopped made it worthwhile. Please check some data, rather than repeating what you heard from someone else. When guns were banned in DC in 1975, crime rates dropped. They went back up after a few years, but remained relatively steady until the crack epidemic got really rolling in the mid-80s. Then, just like in every other city, crime rates skyrocketed. Ultimately, the crack epidemic ended, and crime dropped steadily through the 00s, and is now much lower than it was pre-ban. To give you an idea - the murder rate in DC was 38.3 per 100k in 1974 (pre-ban), dropped to 26.8 in 1976, and didn't get back up to pre-ban levels until 1988. In 1991, it peaked at 80.6. It's now at 13.9. Despite DC's restrictive gun laws.

BamaD -> RE: Now tell me again.... (9/21/2013 5:20:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 And now we have it, the facts of anything are laughable. [8\|] No your silly presumption is laughable. And you confirmed my contention that in the minds of many foreigners only deaths in the U S and then only gun deaths are fair game. And I knew it didn't happen in Australia but I can see how you would assume that a mere colonial wouldn't know that. If you knew it didnt happen in Australia, why aim such an obnoxious post at Tweaks, if not for spite ? It certianly had nothing to do with the debate at hand ? Ah but it does have to do with the subject, you see I am talking about violence while you are incapable of seeing more than one small piece of the problem. In case you didn't notice Australians were the target. I asked if they had come up with a final assessment of the harm done. The only thing "obnoxious" about it was that it wasn't about how horrible guns are and how stupid Americans are. Welcome back, your sock puppet form was getting boring.

Politesub53 -> RE: Now tell me again.... (9/21/2013 5:22:24 PM)
I guess you are pissed because I have stated the content of your posts is laughable. I do notice you havent challenged any of the facts though. You obviously didnt know who the IRB were according to your replies. you obviously didnt know how the IRB obtained their guns according to your replies You obviously didnt know UK Gun laws according to your replies. Instead of trying to use the word laughable like I do, and immitation is flattery, why not post something showing my facts are actually incorrect ?

Politesub53 -> RE: Now tell me again.... (9/21/2013 5:29:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Ah but it does have to do with the subject, you see I am talking about violence while you are incapable of seeing more than one small piece of the problem. In case you didn't notice Australians were the target. I asked if they had come up with a final assessment of the harm done. The only thing "obnoxious" about it was that it wasn't about how horrible guns are and how stupid Americans are. Welcome back, your sock puppet form was getting boring. Your post was obnoxious and aimed at Tweaks, since you thought Australians had been killed. you fucking made it, not me and not anyone else, so now you own it. Trying to link some tourists getting robbed and killed in PNG has fuck all to do with gun crime in America, not one iota. For the record I have often said guns should be allowed in the US in certain circumstances, for protection from animals and criminals. For the record If you think I ever need to be a sock puppet to throw insults your way, you are clearly mistaken. For the record, I have never said all Americans are stupid.

BamaD -> RE: Now tell me again.... (9/21/2013 5:29:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: graceadieu quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Ok, you were wrong not stupid. Let me tell you how gun bans work here. D C enacted a gun ban, and don't tell me but Virginia blah blah blah, the number of crimes with guns dropped a little. Unfortunately the crime rate doubled all they accomplished was making it safe to rob, murder, and rape with a knife or because the thugs were younger and stronger. The gun bans only effect was to make life easier for the criminals, I don't care how it works where you are that is how it works here. Of course if, as the officials in D C clearly did, that preventing one gun murder is worth having a thousand people killed with knives it works. That wasn't exaggeration they insisted that the few gun crimes they stopped made it worthwhile. Please check some data, rather than repeating what you heard from someone else. When guns were banned in DC in 1975, crime rates dropped. They went back up after a few years, but remained relatively steady until the crack epidemic got really rolling in the mid-80s. Then, just like in every other city, crime rates skyrocketed. Ultimately, the crack epidemic ended, and crime dropped steadily through the 00s, and is now much lower than it was pre-ban. To give you an idea - the murder rate in DC was 38.3 per 100k in 1974 (pre-ban), dropped to 26.8 in 1976, and didn't get back up to pre-ban levels until 1988. In 1991, it peaked at 80.6. It's now at 13.9. Despite DC's restrictive gun laws. Amazing that D C officials in the late 90s (I only heard them say it but we know what liars they are) Insisted that the increase in crime was ok because the % of crimes committed with guns had gone down. When confronted with the fact that the crime rate had doubled they did not deny it but only argued that we shouldn't pay attention to that. Quite clearly they did feel better if they were shoved out a window. The gun ban regardless of anti gunners attempts to distort the facts was a total failure. First they have a sky high rate because Virginia has looser gun laws and now you try to say they don't have all that much crime. Please stand in the corner till you pick a story you can stick with.

BamaD -> RE: Now tell me again.... (9/21/2013 5:31:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 I guess you are pissed because I have stated the content of your posts is laughable. I do notice you havent challenged any of the facts though. You obviously didnt know who the IRB were according to your replies. you obviously didnt know how the IRB obtained their guns according to your replies You obviously didnt know UK Gun laws according to your replies. Instead of trying to use the word laughable like I do, and immitation is flattery, why not post something showing my facts are actually incorrect ? Quite frankly I don't give a damn about what your gun laws are, it is none of my business Much the same as ours are none of yours.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.054688E-02