quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
These people are not practicing a liberty, but living in fear.

And people who wear seat belts are living in fear of an accident?
People with a fire extenquisher live in fear of fire?
And people with locks on their doors live in fear of break-ins?

Do you see the flaw in your "logic"

I have to wear a seat belt not because the scientific evidence is overwhelming in surviving a car accident (i.e. physics), but its the law in Massachusetts. Going without a seat belt is not 'practicing liberty', as liberty depends on....get this...laws.

I have a fire extinguisher not because I'm afraid of a fire. I just don't want my favorite chair getting burned down.

People can lock doors, because they can lock doors. Your assuming it has to do with preventing break ins.

In each of the 'examples' of yours, none of them are covered in the US Constitution as 'practicing liberty'.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
These people are not practicing a liberty, but living in fear.
And people who wear seat belts are living in fear of an accident?

No, they are living in fear of being pulled over and fined for not wearing a seat belt.

I wore mine before it was required. By Joether's logic they should not wear them since they do it out of fear.

'By my logic' eh? Here is logic...If guns don't kill people, but people kill people.....why do we allow people to have guns?

While your thinking on that answer....

Nothing in the law books states one is forced to wear a seat belt. There are fines for being caught without one. People wear seat belts because its been proven that they help more likely than not in an accident. And what is an accident? An event that happens without doing something on purpose.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
When you get in an accident it is too late to fasten your seatbelt.
When a fire starts it is too late to buy a fire extinguisher.
When someone breaks into your house it is too late to lock the doors.
If you are home it is too late to buy a gun.

We can play all sorts of 'what ifs' BamaD, and you'll eventually lose the argument.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

But I wasnt talking about Cities, was I ? The conversation was about murder rates per country.

Enlightened still doesnt mean the opposite of barbaric, you know that and I know that.

A scenario, thats just what you are putting up as some sort of reply. Let me ask you this, since there are no legal guns on the streets of the UK, why are there more rapes in America. ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

Please inform us all of the difference between barbaric and unenlightened?

London is your largest city, right? What is the death rate? What would the death rate be if you all had ten to fifteen cities of that size with that death rate? Oh. . . yeah. . . population DOES make a difference.

You still claim that saving one attacker is better than women and children having protection. You really have no use for women and children do you?

It is certainly looking like child sexual exploitation is the norm. How many cases until it is not "okay" and "acceptable" and you get concerned about it?

I copy/pasted the title. I did not leave anything out. Actually, I think that the title counts as the very first part. [:)]

So. . . what have I lied about?

You lied by posting an article without reading it. And to answer your first question that makes you unenlightened BUT NOT barbaric.

I have said fuck all about saving attackers over women and children, so again you are a fucking liar, among other things.

You wish to talk about sex abuse as the norm, when it clearly isnt. You are one sick fuck of woman suggesting it is.

Death rates are compared pro rata, do you even know what this means ? Do I need to explain it to you outright, as I would with a six year old ?
They are worked out per 100,000 people in the population. ERGO, population size doesnt fucking matter, since per 100,000 means exactly that.

The national murder rate for the US is 4.7 per 100,000.

Chicago's: 18.5
Detroit: 54.6
Flint: 62
New Orleans: 53.2

So . . . yes, population density DOES matter.

I did read the article. It is in no way a lie to copy/paste the TITLE of the article. It is your own politicians (or whatever they are) that are calling it a norm. It is also your caseworkers, LEOs, and politicians who have been turning a blind eye to it.

You have said that any amount of gun control is hunkey-dory if it saves just one life. Who looses out in this scenario? The persons being attacked. Because the cannot reliably defend themselves. (Just carry a knife? Really? Did you NOT take a biology class?)


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/barbarian

quote:

1
: of or relating to a land, culture, or people alien and usually believed to be inferior to another land, culture, or people
2
: lacking refinement, learning, or artistic or literary culture

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin
and she pointed out that if your COUNTRY, had as many DENSLY POPULATED areas as the USA has the rates would probably be ALOT different

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Dont you get it, the UK already has a more densly population than the US

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin
and she pointed out that if your COUNTRY, had as many DENSLY POPULATED areas as the USA has the rates would probably be ALOT different

Dont you get it, the UK already has a more densly population than the US

quote:

regarding, barbaric vs enlightened...

are you saying savages and barbarians are ALSO enlightened?

cause we all know the average barbarian after a long day of killing raping and pillaging goes home and studies philosphy

Now you are being stupid and talking apples and oranges

quote:

sorry dude if ONE thing excludes the OTHER that makes them opposites

maybe you need to look up the definition of opposite?

here I'll do it for you!

https://dictionary.search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0LEV15qvF9U_mgA5k5XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTB0MzQwMzlsBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDUzNl8x?p=opposite&.sep=

note definition #3

being the other of two complementary or mutually exclusive things

here is another in case that link doesn't work

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/opposite

note definitions # 3 & 4

I have already said you are fucking stupid and you give me no reason to change my mind.

quote:

BY and the others dont seem to be able to find their asses with both hands, two mirrors and a flag flying from their rectums

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Dont you get it, the UK already has a more densly population than the US

I agree with your point but that's not what he said. His statement was terribly imprecise (which means he'll just play games with you forever on it) but generally I'd assume he means that if you factored out rural areas (presumably gun violence only happens in cities in the US??) and compared only on the basis of areas above some specific population density (undefined in his statement) then you brits would all be bloody murderers like we are. That is, of course, ridiculous for anyone even remotely familiar with the facts but it cannot be argued given the imprecise formulation from BitYakin.

In other words, it was a pointless and meaningless statement on his part... imprecise and unsupportable or arguable because of that.

Now you are being stupid and talking apples and oranges
I'm just intrigued at what he might mean by the word "barbarian"? Personally, I think the US is pretty barbarous by most any measure I could trot out -- both as a culture and as a government. So I'm sort of curious what awful barbarians he's referring to.

Man, I'm for unrestricted gun ownership in the US but I readily admit it's a bloody price tag paid for that. I'm not about to be an apologist. I just think the more guns in the hands of the citizens the better although the surveillance state will probably make that a meaningless bulwark anyway.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Jeff the argument stemmed from this post
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4746291
the fact that london is the same size as new york population wise and has a fraction of the murders was brushed over
The whole of the UK is the closest in size to Michigan or Wyoming or Oregon with one fifth of the population of the entire US
If you want to look at the difference between canada and the US ...we have one tenth the population in a country larger than the US, murder rates are up on the UK.
BY and the others dont seem to be able to find their asses with both hands, two mirrors and a flag flying from their rectums

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Jeff the argument stemmed from this post
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4746291
the fact that london is the same size as new york population wise and has a fraction of the murders was brushed over
The whole of the UK is the closest in size to Michigan or Wyoming or Oregon with one fifth of the population of the entire US
If you want to look at the difference between canada and the US ...we have one tenth the population in a country larger than the US, murder rates are up on the UK.
BY and the others dont seem to be able to find their asses with both hands, two mirrors and a flag flying from their rectums

again except of the detail, that I didn't participate in the argument, never said either was right or wrong...

all I did was try to clarify what she said, if that means I was taking her side some how, ohhh well

fantasy is wonderful thing, except when REALITY interferes...

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin
no sorry stupid is when you have no argument other than to call people stupid and think it means you WON

HAHAHA