ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 19th December 2012, 01:33 PM   #321
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
 
Travis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 20,414
Originally Posted by zeggman View Post
No one needs to get a driver's license to buy a car.

And it seems foolish to assume that requiring gun owners to pass a written and practical test for a license to carry would satisfy the "ban guns" people, even if it didn't violate the Constitution.
It would satisfy this "ban gun" person.

In fact the crux of my argument has always been we have too many guns out there in general and they are in the hands of basically anyone that wants one. Just because a solution won't be perfect doesn't mean we can't try a few things to remove the clear enabler in all this: guns!

Think of it like this: back in the 1970's my town was at the mercy of an arsonist. He burnt down two churches and seven businesses over a couple of months. At no point did anyone suggest we douse every building with gasoline every night just because if he really wants to set fires he will somehow find a way.

Because that would be stupid.

Just as how gun nuts in their fervor to protect what they feel is their right to their precious pop-pop-bang toys are nuts to suggest that adding more guns to a society that clearly cannot responsibly handle what guns it already has is in anyway reasonable.

If American society makes it into the future (naturally this will only happen if we, at some point, severely restrict gun ownership) they will look back at this time and wonder: How is it that a society who had a huge problem with too many guns made proposals to add more guns to the equation? It'd be like a society awash in lung cancer giving out more free cigarettes to everyone thinking that somehow more lung cancer will stop the other lung cancer.

It. Is. Stupid.
__________________
"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com
Travis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2012, 02:17 PM   #322
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Sadly many posters in this thread care nothing for the lives of others as long as their precious gun rights are preserved, dead children are just collateral damage.
And perhaps you'll link or quote anyone making that statement........

I'm not holding my breath though.....
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2012, 02:19 PM   #323
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by zeggman View Post
If he's going to a specific school because he wants to kill those kids, and he can't get inside, his attempt to do so will identify him as "one of those". If the police can reach the scene faster than the 20 minutes it's reported to have taken in this case, there's a good chance he'll be apprehended (or choose the coward's bow) before he selects a second target.
Which is outright wrong.

But, we all know that early reports are inaccurate.
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2012, 02:21 PM   #324
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by ANTPogo View Post
That's why in order to have any kind of gun in every state in the union, you you have to take both a written and a practical test administered by the state government in order to be issued a license which then has to be renewed every few years, while no such thing is required for motor vehicles.
Which is not accurate. Most people, once issued their regular, non learners license, only have to redo their eye exam, unless ordered by the DMV or a court.

No drivers' test or practical test required. (At least not in Florida)
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2012, 02:22 PM   #325
DJW
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
A useful perspective on the idea of a "militia" resisting an oppressive government:
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/17/guns...ever_saved_us/
Certainly a perspective. I'm not sure how useful. Maybe you can go into detail unlike the author?
DJW is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2012, 02:32 PM   #326
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by ANTPogo View Post
And some of us aren't.

Where I live, it took me half an hour to buy my pistol at a sporting goods store and walk out to my car with it. If I want a concealed carry permit, I can fill out an application online and mail in $20 to the local county sheriff's office to get one, and since Alabama has reciprocity agreements with a number of other states, that permit would be just as valid in each of them.
How long ago was that? Because as far as I knew, even Alabama had a 2 day waiting period for handgun purchases...

http://www.mycal.net/Group42/weapons/laws/al.htm
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2012, 02:39 PM   #327
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Since we can get our food at the supermarket and wild beasts and marauding gangs are rather scarce here then you must agree that guns are useless, unless you have dire need of a deadly paperweight.
Target shooting is one of my hobbies, so no, I personally don't agree that guns are useless.

I also don't agree that the only place we should buy meat is from a supermarket.

So no, your entire premise is false.
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2012, 02:44 PM   #328
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
You do know that the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and indeed numerous other countries have the answers to the USA's gun culture problem, and it does not involve implementing policies on mass shooters in schools.
And again, as I and many other have pointed out more than a few times, your ideas of gun laws, violate OUR rights, as given to us way back in 1776, and is one of the major reasons our forefathers left your awful country, and started out own.

How many times does this need to be explained to you?
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2012, 02:50 PM   #329
beren
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 439
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
And again, as I and many other have pointed out more than a few times, your ideas of gun laws, violate OUR rights, as given to us way back in 1776, and is one of the major reasons our forefathers left your awful country, and started out own.

How many times does this need to be explained to you?
Evidence that the revolutionary war was prompted by disagreements over gun laws?


eta: Obviously mean in a way relevant to the current discussion of England's current gun laws.

Also interested in knowing how England could have violated our rights when they were given to us in 1776. Who gave them to us?

Last edited by beren; 19th December 2012 at 02:54 PM.
beren is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2012, 02:54 PM   #330
DJW
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
snip

How many times does this need to be explained to you?
Until argumentum ad nauseum is achieved, at which point he wins and you and I walk away in disgust.

Oh, and a lot of energy that might be used finding a workable solution is wasted on going over the same stuff which isn't working.

DJW is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2012, 02:57 PM   #331
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 33,954
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
"What does the evidence say about the theory that liberty and democracy depend on easy access to assault weapons by citizens?"

What follows is a brilliant article on how militias have done nothing to save the USA from any tyranny.

"George Washington’s army won the War of Independence with the aid of imported French weapons and supplies and money and French soldiers fighting on American soil. And his best soldiers tended to be well-trained regulars, many of them immigrant mercenaries who signed up for pay and land. The native farmers tended to drop out of the Continental Line to return to their farms."

"The state militias performed poorly in subsequent American wars, as well. In the Mexican War, undisciplined militias antagonized the Mexican population so much, by rape, plunder and murder, that General Winfield Scott sent them home."

"Neither side in the Civil War depended solely on state militias. Both the U.S. and Confederate governments resorted to a draft."

Then look at how tyrannies have actually formed and how armed citizens have never fought one off.

"Ordinary citizens armed with assault weapons or other arms useful in combat have the least chance of success in the very scenario that is invoked to justify their ownership — the remote prospect of a totalitarian tyranny in America."

"The claim that there is a link between individual ownership of assault weapons and political liberty, in the U.S. or anywhere, is not a legal claim. It is not a claim about values. It is a claim about fact. It is a political science theory. And as a political science theory it is an error — an error with fatal consequences for many American citizens who might be alive today, but for this mistaken idea."

The only way the USA can change its gun culture is to accept it is faulty and to then change it. No amount of tinkering with gun control will make any difference if the faulty culture is still intact.
Apparently gun advocates would be perfectly happy with tyranny as long as it let them keep their guns.
tsig is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2012, 03:07 PM   #332
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
 
BenBurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
Posts: 35,273
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Apparently gun advocates would be perfectly happy with tyranny as long as it let them keep their guns.
Would use them to defend it.
__________________
For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system?
BenBurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2012, 03:11 PM   #333
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 33,954
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Since we can get our food at the supermarket and wild beasts and marauding gangs are rather scarce here then you must agree that guns are useless, unless you have dire need of a deadly paperweight.
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
Target shooting is one of my hobbies, so no, I personally don't agree that guns are useless.

I also don't agree that the only place we should buy meat is from a supermarket.

So no, your entire premise is false.
You are aware that you can use something other than a gun to shoot at targets?

Why did "can buy" become "only place we should buy"?

Seems dishonest to misquote my post.

Last edited by tsig; 19th December 2012 at 03:15 PM.
tsig is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2012, 03:26 PM   #334
DJW
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
You are aware that you can use something other than a gun to shoot at targets?

Why did "can buy" become "only place we should buy"?

Seems dishonest to misquote my post.
Your claim was that guns are useless.
DJW is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2012, 03:28 PM   #335
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by beren View Post
Evidence that the revolutionary war was prompted by disagreements over gun laws?


eta: Obviously mean in a way relevant to the current discussion of England's current gun laws.

Also interested in knowing how England could have violated our rights when they were given to us in 1776. Who gave them to us?
You really need to re-read the two posts, and try again.
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2012, 03:30 PM   #336
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
You are aware that you can use something other than a gun to shoot at targets?

Why did "can buy" become "only place we should buy"?

Seems dishonest to misquote my post.
Yeah, like my compound bow. I've done that too, but I'm terrible at it.

Your quote implied that the only use for guns was to kill people, and since we can buy food at a grocery store, hunting is obsolete.

But, maybe I read too much into it, and maybe it was poorly worded.
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2012, 03:40 PM   #337
W.D.Clinger
Master Poster
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,811
Originally Posted by ANTPogo View Post
That's for the whole Metropolitan Statistical Area.

In 2010, Birmingham didn't get reported because of a missed deadline, but in 2009 our murder rate was 28.6 per 100,000 (9.3 in the MSA). In 2011, the MSA murder rate per 100,000 was the 8.9 listed above, but Birmingham's murder rate per 100,000 was 25.3.

Per the same 2011 FBI report, the Boston MSA murder rate per 100,000 was 2.8, while the murder rate per 100,000 for Boston itself was 10.14.
My mistake. I appreciate your corrections.

After parsing and sorting the data in that FBI table for 2011, my calculations show that, among US metropolitan districts and statistical areas (including Puerto Rico):
  • Mobile AL ranked 17th with 11.3 murders per 100000
  • Birmingham-Hoover AL ranked 30th with 8.9 per 100000
  • Boston-Quincy MA ranked 123rd with 4.9 per 100000
  • Boston-Cambridge-Quincy MA ranked 240th with 2.8 per 100000
As you can see from the last two, some cities get counted as part of two or more of the statistical entities in this table. Cambridge and Quincy's comparatively low murder rates brought the Boston-Quincy and Boston-Cambridge-Quincy rates down to 4.9 and 2.8, respectively. (ETA: The Boston-Quincy M.D. actually includes three entire counties, including the low-crime counties of Norfolk and Plymouth.)

By the way, Puerto Rico claims the first four spots on that list, and six of the first eight.

Among US cities:
  • Birmingham AL ranked 19th with 25.3 per 100000
  • Mobile AL ranked 86th with 11.9 per 100000
  • Boston MA ranked 104th with 10.1 per 100000
The ten US cities with the highest murder rate per 100000 for 2011 were Camden NJ (60.6), New Orleans (57.6), Flint MI (50.8), Detroit MI (48.2), Anniston AL (47.4), Gary IN (37.2), York PA (36.5), St Louis MO (35.3), Newark NJ (33.8), and Atlantic City NJ (32.8).

Last edited by W.D.Clinger; 19th December 2012 at 03:55 PM. Reason: see ETA
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2012, 03:58 PM   #338
beren
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 439
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
You really need to re-read the two posts, and try again.
I note that you dismiss my question with no attempt to either answer it or show why it is irrelevant or erroneous.

I'll take that as an admission that you cannot answer the question.
beren is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2012, 04:00 PM   #339
Quad4_72
AI-EE-YAH!
 
Quad4_72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,243
Originally Posted by Travis View Post
It would satisfy this "ban gun" person.

In fact the crux of my argument has always been we have too many guns out there in general and they are in the hands of basically anyone that wants one. Just because a solution won't be perfect doesn't mean we can't try a few things to remove the clear enabler in all this: guns!

Think of it like this: back in the 1970's my town was at the mercy of an arsonist. He burnt down two churches and seven businesses over a couple of months. At no point did anyone suggest we douse every building with gasoline every night just because if he really wants to set fires he will somehow find a way.

Because that would be stupid.
Travis, this is really, really poor material you are posting. I mean honestly, this is bottom of the barrel stuff. You truly think that arming a few teachers in a school to defend against a possible psycho is the same as dousing houses in gasoline to defend against an arsonist? You should be embarrassed and ashamed for posting such intellectually dishonest and downright stupid crap.

Quote:
Just as how gun nuts in their fervor to protect what they feel is their right to their precious pop-pop-bang toys are nuts to suggest that adding more guns to a society that clearly cannot responsibly handle what guns it already has is in anyway reasonable.

If American society makes it into the future (naturally this will only happen if we, at some point, severely restrict gun ownership) they will look back at this time and wonder: How is it that a society who had a huge problem with too many guns made proposals to add more guns to the equation? It'd be like a society awash in lung cancer giving out more free cigarettes to everyone thinking that somehow more lung cancer will stop the other lung cancer.

It. Is. Stupid.
Again, more fail packed into the rest of your post. Handing out cigarettes do stop lung cancer? You just refuse to stop with the ridiculousness. And you doubt society will "Make it" if there are guns in our culture? Your paranoia is off the charts.
__________________
Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken
Quad4_72 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2012, 04:05 PM   #340
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by beren View Post
I note that you dismiss my question with no attempt to either answer it or show why it is irrelevant or erroneous.

I'll take that as an admission that you cannot answer the question.
Because you're asking questions that are about as relevant in this discussion as stain resistant carpet.

Can you not understand my point? Please go back and read it again. Remember the quoted post.
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2012, 04:08 PM   #341
beren
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 439
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
Because you're asking questions that are about as relevant in this discussion as stain resistant carpet.

Can you not understand my point? Please go back and read it again. Remember the quoted post.
In what way have I misunderstood your point? Lets not play games here. How specifically have I misunderstood you? Don't claim I have simply because you have no answer.

Last edited by beren; 19th December 2012 at 04:09 PM.
beren is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2012, 04:16 PM   #342
DJW
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 661
Thanks for looking up the stats, W.D. Clinger. I certainly appreciate the effort, but I don't know what it tells us about the effect of strict laws on spree killings, which is what prompted this debate, or even murders overall for that matter.

The top ten with highest rates include cities with very strict gun control laws. How do they compare to Boston's? If there are dramatic differences, then we might be on to something. I'll do a little digging.
DJW is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2012, 04:45 PM   #343
W.D.Clinger
Master Poster
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,811
Originally Posted by DJW View Post
Thanks for looking up the stats, W.D. Clinger. I certainly appreciate the effort, but I don't know what it tells us about the effect of strict laws on spree killings, which is what prompted this debate, or even murders overall for that matter.
I don't know either.

The relationships between restrictive gun laws and spree killings or overall murders appear to be considerably more complex, ambiguous, and interesting than I would have believed possible before I began to look at the statistics and research studies.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2012, 04:59 PM   #344
Hercules Rockefeller
Woof!
 
Hercules Rockefeller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,051
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
*Snipped lots of good stuff*

The ten US cities with the highest murder rate per 100000 for 2011 were Camden NJ (60.6), New Orleans (57.6), Flint MI (50.8), Detroit MI (48.2), Anniston AL (47.4), Gary IN (37.2), York PA (36.5), St Louis MO (35.3), Newark NJ (33.8), and Atlantic City NJ (32.8).


That's crazy.
__________________
Quantum physics means that anything can happen at anytime and for no reason. Also, eat plenty of oatmeal, and animals never had a war! - Deepak Chopra
Hercules Rockefeller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2012, 05:06 PM   #345
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 35,911
Originally Posted by ANTPogo View Post
Meanwhile, in the real world:



In other words, it's not that simple, even if you happen to be the bystander there with a gun ready and able to confront the killer. Meli confidently claims that the gunman committed suicide after he saw Meli had drawn his own weapon, but there is absolutely zero way of knowing if the gunman even saw Meli's weapon at all, much less had that fact influence his decision to shoot himself rather than shoot at Meli or continue his spree, and Meli certainly never opened fire on the gunman to try and stop him. And note that the main reason Meli gave for not firing is the exact same reason usually given by people who think random bystanders opening fire on gunmen in a spree-killing situation is a bad idea: the risk of hitting someone else.
He did exactly what he should have within the situation - he observed around his bullet's potential path, saw a problem and made the right choice for the moment (the choice should change though if the rifle user cleared it's weapon and aimed at anyone other than itself.).
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2012, 05:14 PM   #346
DJW
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
I don't know either.

The relationships between restrictive gun laws and spree killings or overall murders appear to be considerably more complex, ambiguous, and interesting than I would have believed possible before I began to look at the statistics and research studies.
Your attitude is encouraging to me. Thank you.
DJW is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2012, 05:59 PM   #347
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11,781
Originally Posted by DJW View Post
In Boston, MA it is necessary to take a safety course and pass a written and practical exam to be considered for a license to carry.
It's a good idea, but let's be aware of something. Adam Lanza would have passed with flying colors. That sort of testing wouldn't make crazies like Lanza ineligible.

On the other hand, I do think it would work, despite that. What it would do would be to create a barrier that an anti-social person would have to take action on, and interact with people in order to proceed.

But, finally, there's the fact that Lanza would not have needed a concealed carry permit. The fear of a fine for carrying a gun without a license probably wasn't uppermost in his mind.

Summary: I do think stricter controls, in terms of licensing, testing, and registration requirements, are good ideas, but when it's all said and done, it won't stop many attacks. A few, which is a good thing, but not many.
__________________
Dave

"Mead is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -very similar to something said by Ben Franklin
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2012, 06:06 PM   #348
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11,781
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
Yeah, like my compound bow. I've done that too, but I'm terrible at it.
Pulleys are for sissies.

Same thing for carbon fiber shafts.

Real bows and arrows are made of wood.
__________________
Dave

"Mead is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -very similar to something said by Ben Franklin
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2012, 06:18 PM   #349
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
 
BenBurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
Posts: 35,273
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Pulleys are for sissies.

Same thing for carbon fiber shafts.

Real bows and arrows are made of wood.
Amen on that. Yew, preferentially.
__________________
For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system?
BenBurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2012, 06:52 PM   #350
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 35,911
Originally Posted by BenBurch View Post
Amen on that. Yew, preferentially.
I think yews are covered in wool.
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2012, 07:01 PM   #351
Monketey Ghost
Guitar Wizard
 
Monketey Ghost's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 20,971
I've been following both sides of the debate and it just doesn't make sense to me that this is a problem that needs more guns.
__________________
SSKCAS, member in long standing

"This'll teach those filthy bastards who's lovable."
Monketey Ghost is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2012, 07:04 PM   #352
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 33,977
Originally Posted by Monketey Ghost View Post
I've been following both sides of the debate and it just doesn't make sense to me that this is a problem that needs more guns.
Agreed.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2012, 07:14 PM   #353
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by beren View Post
In what way have I misunderstood your point? Lets not play games here. How specifically have I misunderstood you? Don't claim I have simply because you have no answer.

Here's the entire post.

Originally Posted by Nessie
You do know that the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and indeed numerous other countries have the answers to the USA's gun culture problem, and it does not involve implementing policies on mass shooters in schools.
Originally Posted by Triforcharity
And again, as I and many other have pointed out more than a few times, your ideas of gun laws, violate OUR rights, as given to us way back in 1776, and is one of the major reasons our forefathers left your awful country, and started out own.

How many times does this need to be explained to you?
Nessie is a vocal opponent of America's 2nd Amendment right. He has, on more than a FEW different occasions, suggested that we're wrong, and that we need to follow the UK's and other countries footsteps and get rid of damn near every weapon, put heavy restrictions on them, and things will be rainbows and butterflies.

I mentioned that one of the main reasons my forefathers LEFT that country, and started their own, is because of the government control and oppression. It may not have been specifically gun laws, but it was the government and their oppression and heavy handed regulations.

As I've said before, many of England's gun laws would be ruled unconstitutional here in the US.

And England didn't give us our rights, we fought and died for them. We earned them.

Does this help you understand what my point was, and why your post was, at minimum, irrelevant? Or do I need to explain it further?
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2012, 07:21 PM   #354
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 33,977
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
Here's the entire post.





Nessie is a vocal opponent of America's 2nd Amendment right. He has, on more than a FEW different occasions, suggested that we're wrong, and that we need to follow the UK's and other countries footsteps and get rid of damn near every weapon, put heavy restrictions on them, and things will be rainbows and butterflies.

I mentioned that one of the main reasons my forefathers LEFT that country, and started their own, is because of the government control and oppression. It may not have been specifically gun laws, but it was the government and their oppression and heavy handed regulations.

As I've said before, many of England's gun laws would be ruled unconstitutional here in the US.

And England didn't give us our rights, we fought and died for them. We earned them.

Does this help you understand what my point was, and why your post was, at minimum, irrelevant? Or do I need to explain it further?
I am still amazed about this mindset - holding grievances and justifying owning military-style guns because of something which happened well over 200 years ago. Australia was a colony 200 years ago, and convicts were treated appallingly. I doubt any Australian loses sleep over this at all.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2012, 07:38 PM   #355
DJW
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by Monketey Ghost View Post
I've been following both sides of the debate and it just doesn't make sense to me that this is a problem that needs more guns.
Fewer than one, certainly, but possibly more than one in the right hands. We really won't know unless we try. We definitely won't know if we can't even find a rational way to talk about it.
DJW is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2012, 08:01 PM   #356
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 11,634
Quote:
As I've said before, many of England's gun laws would be ruled unconstitutional here in the US.
This is because our societies differ in what they believe to be rights. Yours thinks that having guns is and public health care isn't, our's think that public health care is, and having guns isn't. Gun control in NZ, Aust, the UK, and Canada are not unconstitutional simply because as societies we believe that you don't have a right to have firearms so we can make sure that only those that Society deems acceptable, and continues to deem so, actually get to have them.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2012, 08:01 PM   #357
Monketey Ghost
Guitar Wizard
 
Monketey Ghost's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 20,971
We should consider all options, and having armed personnel at hand isn't one I'd just toss aside as "pure stupidity", but I tend to agree with those who predict that the unpredictable will occur. I'd have to say that'd end up being a more-harm-than-good solution.
__________________
SSKCAS, member in long standing

"This'll teach those filthy bastards who's lovable."
Monketey Ghost is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2012, 08:02 PM   #358
iknownothing
Graduate Poster
 
iknownothing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,265
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
You do know that the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and indeed numerous other countries have the answers to the USA's gun culture problem, and it does not involve implementing policies on mass shooters in schools.
That's great. Other countries have a policy of keeping barn doors shut. Great for them! The problem is we have many millions of horses already out of the barn, so closing the door at this point is not much of a help.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
It's a good idea, but let's be aware of something. Adam Lanza would have passed with flying colors. That sort of testing wouldn't make crazies like Lanza ineligible.

On the other hand, I do think it would work, despite that. What it would do would be to create a barrier that an anti-social person would have to take action on, and interact with people in order to proceed.

But, finally, there's the fact that Lanza would not have needed a concealed carry permit. The fear of a fine for carrying a gun without a license probably wasn't uppermost in his mind.
It's all moot anyway. All he needed was for his mom to get them for him. And the Columbine killers just needed someone to get the guns for them. It's not a big barrier, when there are lots of guns available and most people are eligible to get them.

What might help would be to put more pressure on those legitimate gun buyers to be responsible for what happens to the guns they buy.
iknownothing is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2012, 08:07 PM   #359
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 11,634
Originally Posted by DJW View Post
Fewer than one, certainly, but possibly more than one in the right hands. We really won't know unless we try. We definitely won't know if we can't even find a rational way to talk about it.
The thing is that passive security can be used just as effectively, if not more so because you don't need to put anyone in danger to use it, and you don't have to worry about the extra issues that adding more guns creates.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2012, 08:26 PM   #360
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
I am still amazed about this mindset - holding grievances and justifying owning military-style guns because of something which happened well over 200 years ago. Australia was a colony 200 years ago, and convicts were treated appallingly. I doubt any Australian loses sleep over this at all.
So, because it happened a long time ago, we should just say **** it and give up all our rights?

I hold no ill feelings to people in the UK. What I do have a problem with, is people, (Nessie for example) telling us what we should do, and basically we're stupid because we don't. That's what I have a problem with.

So, you have a problem with me owning a "military style" weapon? Is this another way of saying "assault weapon"? Seems like it.
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:47 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.