I am doing a school project on gun control, we were partnered with another random classmate, and we both had to choose a viewpoint, I got stuck with arguing for gun control. I was wondering what your stand point was and what the reason was.
The other thing I ask is would anyone be willing to lend me their Netflix login info so that I can watch the movie "Bowling for Columbine"
Check YouTube - I bet most of, if not the entire documentary of Bowling for Columbine can be found on it.
Gun control is another hot button debate that has mounds of material on each side. You should have no problem finding points - just make sure they come from legitimate and backable sources - both sides of this debate have some total idiots spouting utter nonsense from every hole in their body on the issue.
And the key to debating: make sure everything you say passes the smell test. If something smells a little like BS, it's probably BS.
⬆ Pretty much the best advice you are going to get. If you watched the last hot button topic, then I would expect this topic could go the same way.
As a legitimate suggestion. Investigate how well gun control worked here in Australia. Sure we have less population than the US, but it's been pretty much 100% effective.
The stigma that America seems to have against gun control is that someone will come into your home and shoot you, and you can't shoot back.
In Australia the gun control removed around 90% of unregistered guns from circulation and controlled the introduction of new guns into circulation. Surely there are some good points you can find in our example.
Good luck.
Ps. I love shooting/hunting etc. but I do not understand the reason for the average suburbanite to have an assault rifle in their house.
Quote from: Wally on April 22, 2013, 06:24:59 PM
As a legitimate suggestion. Investigate how well gun control worked here in Australia.
You may also study how gun control worked not-so-well in other places such as Jamaica.
For me this is quite simple: goal does not justify the means, never. This comes as a logical conclusion to someone who obeys iMtG Law: you do not break the law in prevention of lawbreaking. The natural law of 'don't do to others what they wouldn't want to be done to them'. I don't want to be forcefully stopped from producing or purchasing or selling any tool whatsoever. Tool becomes a tool of crime not before someone points it at someone else and pulls the trigger, otherwise it is a tool of self defence, a deterrent, a wall ornament, private property, whatever.
I also do not want to be shot in the street, therefore I am happy to deferr my rights to own an assault rifle if it means that the chances I will be shot will be dramatically reduced. I see this as a logical solution. If there are less guns in circulation I have a less chance of being shot. Less = less.
Mind you. If I can justify my reasons well enough to own an assault rifle, I can still get one. (But it's almost impossible, as there is no situation where I can justify it. In this country anyways)
Wally, I agree with Piotr that sometimes gun control can work. But only in some places, communism is working for china, or is it socialism... Same difference, anyway I am happy that things worked out over there! :)
Quote from: KangaRod on April 22, 2013, 07:30:29 PM
Your rights to own a weapon are guaranteed by the 2nd amendment to the constitution of the United States.
This.
If you're gonna argue for gun control, make sure to use lots of buzzwords. Might I reccomend "Assault Weapon", "Military Style Rifle", and "Universal Background Checks". While your at it throw out lots of statements that have little factual backup and are largely based off emotions.
The issue for getting gun control passed is the 2nd amendment, which give the average American the right to defend themselves, even from their own gov't. The issue is that by not allowing assault weapons in America, the ability to defend yourself is impeded. That is not to say that an assault rifle could stop the U.S. military, but if I had to defend myself, I would much rather have an assault weapon than a pistol. Also, I am for stricter regulations to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable, but if you pass the background checks, you should be able to get a gun. In my opinion, I want to have whatever gun I want, but never have to use it.
Quote from: #noided on April 22, 2013, 07:53:59 PM
Quote from: KangaRod on April 22, 2013, 07:30:29 PM
Your rights to own a weapon are guaranteed by the 2nd amendment to the constitution of the United States.
This.
If you're gonna argue for gun control, make sure to use lots of buzzwords. Might I reccomend "Assault Weapon", "Military Style Rifle", and "Universal Background Checks". While your at it throw out lots of statements that have little factual backup and are largely based off emotions.
Plenty of factual evidence that its worked here. You can keep your trolling comments to yourself thanks. It's really not helping anyone. Especially not helping our imtg friend who is asking for assistance.
And make sure to fully understand the second admenment, it it's just enough to bare arms, but it is suppose to be only in a well regulated militia. Which brings back the question how does one regulate a militia without government intervention.
Quote from: FlickerYourOwnIdentity on April 22, 2013, 07:39:30 PM
Wally, I agree with Piotr that sometimes gun control can work. But only in some places, communism is working for china, or is it socialism... Same difference, anyway I am happy that things worked out over there! :)
if you honestly believe communism is working for china then you have some crazy notion of what works and doesn't. When the government can just force it's people to do whatever they want then you have a serious problem.
Quote from: Wally on April 22, 2013, 07:05:07 PM
I also do not want to be shot in the street, therefore I am happy to deferr my rights to own an assault rifle if it means that the chances I will be shot will be dramatically reduced. I see this as a logical solution. If there are less guns in circulation I have a less chance of being shot. Less = less.
Of course you have less chance but then what's to say you don't get shot by a pistol, a shotgun, stabbed with a knife? How do you draw the line? Someone makes a bomb? Criminals are criminals. If they didn't have assault rifles, which most criminals don't they'll find another way. Always do,
Quote from: 15bm on April 22, 2013, 08:13:21 PM
The issue for getting gun control passed is the 2nd amendment, which give the average American the right to defend themselves, even from their own gov't. The issue is that by not allowing assault weapons in America, the ability to defend yourself is impeded. That is not to say that an assault rifle could stop the U.S. military, but if I had to defend myself, I would much rather have an assault weapon than a pistol. Also, I am for stricter regulations to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable, but if you pass the background checks, you should be able to get a gun. In my opinion, I want to have whatever gun I want, but never have to use it.
I guess we (in Australia) have the advantage of being an island country, and not having the history of a civil war. These two factors allow such a greater difference in the mental thought process of "needing to defend ourselves".
Also in the case of some places in America I understand the need for defending yourself against wildlife (bears, etc)
Here in Australia we don't have anything of that size. If something is going to kill you here, you probably won't see it before it gets you. (Spiders, snakes, jellyfish, etc) a gun won't stop that, and a M4 probably less so.
Quote from: NyghtHawk on April 22, 2013, 08:31:57 PM
Quote from: Wally on April 22, 2013, 07:05:07 PM
I also do not want to be shot in the street, therefore I am happy to deferr my rights to own an assault rifle if it means that the chances I will be shot will be dramatically reduced. I see this as a logical solution. If there are less guns in circulation I have a less chance of being shot. Less = less.
Of course you have less chance but then what's to say you don't get shot by a pistol, a shotgun, stabbed with a knife? How do you draw the line? Someone makes a bomb? Criminals are criminals. If they didn't have assault rifles, which most criminals don't they'll find another way. Always do,
Always a fair point, and I guess that's where we rely on the police force and the government to regulate crime, rather than vigilante type intervention.
Quote from: Wally on April 22, 2013, 08:42:03 PM
Quote from: NyghtHawk on April 22, 2013, 08:31:57 PM
Quote from: Wally on April 22, 2013, 07:05:07 PM
I also do not want to be shot in the street, therefore I am happy to deferr my rights to own an assault rifle if it means that the chances I will be shot will be dramatically reduced. I see this as a logical solution. If there are less guns in circulation I have a less chance of being shot. Less = less.
Of course you have less chance but then what's to say you don't get shot by a pistol, a shotgun, stabbed with a knife? How do you draw the line? Someone makes a bomb? Criminals are criminals. If they didn't have assault rifles, which most criminals don't they'll find another way. Always do,
Always a fair point, and I guess that's where we rely on the police force and the government to regulate crime, rather than vigilante type intervention.
I dont think most people in America that want guns are all about vigilante type stuff. Most either want it for recreation or for defense in regards to someone breaking into their house, etc...Not Kick-Ass type stuff haha.
I believe in the second amendment as it protects our other rights. Our forefathers fought the revolution and drafted what they believed where our basic rights. With those rights come responsibility. If you are going to have a tool, then you should be able to maintain that tool and know what it is capable of.
I have several guns (some could even be referred to as assault weapons), but to me they are tools. I shoot competitions and refereed shooting competitions in the past. I see it as any other game, like golf. I can go to the range with some friends and shoot off 50 rounds or 500 rounds. I know that I am there with friends enjoying a sport that can bring people together. Go to a range, and 9 out of 10 are going to be friendly. Notated what there is that one oddball, even in golf.
I also believe that I have a right to defend myself and my family. And that should not be taken away.
And about confiscation... Is it right or a government to come in and take my property? What about the money I have in my guns? Is that going to be replaced? I don't think so. Say I have $30,000 in guns, how would that be fair to me?
To the people using the second admenment argument please refer to the whole thing. You have right to bare arms in a well regulated militia.
No do I think this needs to be looked at and reworked for today society. Yes. However since it isn't we have to follow fully, or not at all.
Do I believe that the shotguns in my house, and the pistols I inherited are excessive, no. But on the flip side why does one need multiple AR?
Just a few jumping off points for your topic
Responsible gun ownership is not a problem. With anything, it is about personal responsibility.
Quote from: KangaRod on April 22, 2013, 10:18:05 PM
It will literally take generations to fix the problem you have right now because of how entrenched the notion that owning a firearm is a god given birthright is across the population.
It's not about just owning a firearm. These rights were outlined in the Constitution for a reason, and I'll be damned if they're taken away. It's already starting with the 2nd Amendment and this last week in Boston has me convinced that people are willing to give up their 4th Amendment rights.
Hell, the 4th Amendment hardly exists anymore now that the Supreme Court has ruled on probable cause.
I own a revolver only for self-defense purposes, I keep it beside my bed and it gives me a sense of satisfaction that if someone broke into my house, I would likely be better armed than them. I honestly don't see the need for assault weapons to be owned by civilians, maybe war veterans as tokens of the past, but not civilians, but ban all guns? I don't think so. that would be taking people's self defense, hobbies, food, ect.
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
Those amendments were made while we were a rebeling nation.
Quote from: IceScythe on April 22, 2013, 11:37:33 PM
I own a revolver only for self-defense purposes, I keep it beside my bed and it gives me a sense of satisfaction that if someone broke into my house, I would likely be better armed than them. I honestly don't see the need for assault weapons to be owned by civilians, maybe war veterans as tokens of the past, but not civilians, but ban all guns? I don't think so. that would be taking people's self defense, hobbies, food, ect.
Assault weapons don't exist. It's a manufactured term for rifles that bear resemblance to military rifles, in appearance, but function no differently than a sporting rifle.
A fear of weapons is a sign of emotional and sexual immaturity. -freud
Firstly I'm not sure on the specifics of what is being called for in America, and how it relates in regards to what guns you already have. But when the gun laws here were put in place, people who had guns were able to either sell them at market cost to the government, knowing they would be destroyed, or to obtain a special permit to have it, keep it and use it.
Anyone wanting to purchase a new firearm in Australia must first obtain a firearms license (which includes police background checks and the like) and then must show (provide details) that they have sufficient secure storage for the firearm in their house/wherever. Eg. No more gun racks over the open fireplace etc.
Secure storage must include a separate lockable storage for the bolt/removable firing mechanism and the ammunition.
Surely more control is a good thing when talking about things that kill people.
I just watched "Bowling for Columbine" and I am speechless.... If you haven't seen it... Take 2 hours and watch it, I can post the link to where I found it. It brought tears to my eyes....
Quote from: Imdowd80 on April 22, 2013, 10:06:52 PM
To the people using the second admenment argument please refer to the whole thing. You have right to bare arms in a well regulated militia.
No do I think this needs to be looked at and reworked for today society. Yes. However since it isn't we have to follow fully, or not at all.
The thing people that talk about the militias always forget is that when the constitution was written the militia was anybody who was old enough to fight
Quote from: KangaRod on April 22, 2013, 07:30:29 PM
Your rights to own a weapon are guaranteed by the 2nd amendment to the constitution of the United States.
See, I thought so too, but then I read {Werebear}s flavor text and now I just don't know what to think!
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
i consider the militia part fairly important. My old Gov't teacher was all for citizens owning guns, so long as there were regulations in place. The "assault rifle" bans are considered a form of regulation, yes? Now, because the bill of rights was added to show the states that they had rights too, and in order to show that the people would be able to defend themselves against tyranny. If said tyranny comes from the government, they are fully within their rights to take up arms in AN ORGANIZED FASHION, so as not to cause even more chaos than what they are fighting against. This is an extremely outdated example, but in the first Crusade, the organized military half of the expedition to reclaim the Holy Land was more successful and were better trained, and they did not cause chaos in their wake. The disorganized, borderline hordes that followed Peter the Hermit razed the land between them and Constantinople(Their destination until they met up with the organized force), killing thousands of Jews along the way. Like i said, outdated, but it is the principle that the organized force causes more good than harm, whereas the ones left without organization and order caused more pain than the ones they were trying to fight.
Quote from: KangaRod on April 23, 2013, 03:50:06 AM
Those who would dare take up arms against those they deem tyrannical shall learn a new definition of the word tyranny.
Lets get serious. You cannot support the second amendment based on its infringement to fight tyranny any more, and if you do - do you support those that have enacted that right? (Dorner, marathon bomber, 9-11 terrorists)?
I think you have a point that it may be largely irrelevant, but I don't think the examples you provided were very good. The ammendment only gives rights to US citizens, so the 9-11 terrorists would not be protected by it. It doesn't give them any rights to do anything. Also, the marathon bombers acted against civilians, and were not an organized militia. They did not raise up arms against the government. The latter is also a bad example for the issue of gun control because it supports the people who say that gun control won't stop crime because they will just use different methods (bombs). Like I said, though, your point has validity for sure. I am just not sure if the examples fit so well.
Quote from: Wally on April 22, 2013, 07:05:07 PM
I also do not want to be shot in the street, therefore I am happy to deferr my rights to own an assault rifle if it means that the chances I will be shot will be dramatically reduced. I see this as a logical solution. If there are less guns in circulation I have a less chance of being shot. Less = less.
You want to cut off my dick to prevent me from raping you, too?
Quote from: Piotr on April 23, 2013, 04:40:05 AM
Quote from: Wally on April 22, 2013, 07:05:07 PM
I also do not want to be shot in the street, therefore I am happy to deferr my rights to own an assault rifle if it means that the chances I will be shot will be dramatically reduced. I see this as a logical solution. If there are less guns in circulation I have a less chance of being shot. Less = less.
You want to cut off my dick to prevent me from raping me, too?
Other than your logic being twisted, it would be quite effective.
Quote from: Wally on April 23, 2013, 04:42:52 AM
Quote from: Piotr on April 23, 2013, 04:40:05 AM
Quote from: Wally on April 22, 2013, 07:05:07 PM
I also do not want to be shot in the street, therefore I am happy to deferr my rights to own an assault rifle if it means that the chances I will be shot will be dramatically reduced. I see this as a logical solution. If there are less guns in circulation I have a less chance of being shot. Less = less.
You want to cut off my dick to prevent me from raping me, too?
Other than your logic being twisted, it would be quite effective.
The logic simply folows yours. Next logical step, would you like to cut my head off to prevent any potential crime I can do to you?
I don't believe it does follow my logic.
"My logic" would suggest that where everyone agreed that it would be a safer place by surrendering our rights to something would make the place safer and we all agreed, then we all would abide by said choice. (All would obviously be a sufficient majority)
My penis would not be something I would happily surrender, nor expect anyone else to surrender, so it would not apply. (Pretty sure I would have the majority of people agree with my decision and make their own in the same fashion)
Surely you can see the logic when applied:
less dangerous things = less danger?
Applying it to random things would not produce the same result.
For your second example. No, that's what jail and mental institutions are for. Less dangerous people on the street = less danger on the streets.
Quote from: Wally on April 23, 2013, 05:03:21 AM
I don't believe it does follow my logic.
"My logic" would suggest that where everyone agreed that it would be a safer place by surrendering our rights to something would make the place safer and we all agreed, then we all would abide by said choice. (All would obviously be a sufficient majority)
My penis would not be something I would happily surrender, nor expect anyone else to surrender, so it would not apply. (Pretty sure I would have the majority of people agree with my decision and make their own in the same fashion)
Surely you can see the logic when applied:
less dangerous things = less danger?
Applying it to random things would not produce the same result.
It does follow your logic. Your logic is 'less dangerous things, less danger'. Your logic is absolutely in the opposition of iMtG Law, your logic advocates unlawful prevention.
My dick is not a random thing, it's a dangerous tool used to rape other people, fact. Same for my head, it can be used to plot and execute mayhem. There's nothing in your logic which makes a difference between the three, other than your arbitrary 'guns are different because I say so'.
Furthermore, you seem to be of an opinion that it is ok to break natural laws because majority says so. This is false.
Lol it is quite easy to differentiate between all 3.
A gun was created as a killing tool. Other purposes for this tool are null. Can be exploited to kill people. Goes along with actual primary intention.
A penis was created to aid in procreation, aka life. Can be exploited against its initial creation to cause harm.
A head, was created to hold brain and help being make sensible decisions, and preferable outcomes. Can be exploited to cause harm to others, going against its initial creation.
Also, I would not go against the law of my country. Laws are put in place to protect its people. Majority of votes is how laws are passed or changed. The people we have elected in power make those decisions on our behalf, as we have elected them to make those decisions for us. Hence why voting is actually quite important.
Quote from: KangaRod on April 23, 2013, 05:32:05 AM
Except your penis and head serve other purposes.
Guns serve only one purpose. To kill.
Quite obviously a lie: guns serve to deter crime, they are tools of defence and don't need to be fired to serve their purpose. This is not the first time you are making false statements in a debate, please be careful.
For the love of all that is holy stop swinging your e-peen with the "your statement goes against mine, In my opinion your lying, careful or here comes the ban hammer!"
Quote from: Vyse on April 23, 2013, 05:40:19 AM
For the love of all that is holy stop swinging your e-peen with the "your statement goes against mine, In my opinion your lying, careful or here comes the ban hammer!"
I beg your pardon? I called a lie and provided logic why it was a lie.
Edit: furthermore, there's a good number of people disagreeing with me in threads like this one later becoming mods, and no one was ever banned for disagreeing with me. I feel mildly offended :P
That's not quite true though. Guns don't deter people for any other reason than the fact they can kill. Guns were designed and originally made to kill. On numerous occasions you've pulled out the "lying" card, and more than once ive felt (and im guessing others have too) you used it as a silencer when things aren't going your way. I understand you are the owner of the forum, but don't use the ban hammer as intimidation in arguements. (And just so we are clear, I didn't say you have banned anyone in this fashion)
Quote from: Wally on April 23, 2013, 05:33:52 AM
A gun was created as a killing tool. Other purposes for this tool are null.
Also, I would not go against the law of my country. Laws are put in place to protect its people. Majority of votes is how laws are passed or changed. The people we have elected in power make those decisions on our behalf, as we have elected them to make those decisions for us. Hence why voting is actually quite important.
You seem to be fond of majorities, why do you ignore the fact that majority of the guns are not used to kill?
Quote from: Vyse on April 23, 2013, 05:53:03 AMOn numerous occasions you've pulled out the "lying" card, and more than once ive felt (and im guessing others have too) you used it as a silencer when things aren't going your way. I understand you are the owner of the forum, but don't use the ban hammer as intimidation in arguements. (And just so we are clear, I didn't say you have banned anyone in this fashion)
My way is the law way. You lie, I call the lie. I did it on numerous occasions and not always when the lawbreaker was in disagreement with me. #noided comes to my mind.
Quote from: Vyse on April 23, 2013, 05:53:03 AM
I understand you are the owner of the forum, but don't use the ban hammer as intimidation in arguements. (And just so we are clear, I didn't say you have banned anyone in this fashion)
I have yet to see Piotr use the "ban hammer" as intimidation because people were disagreeing with him. Hell, I recall him saying he has no problem with people disagreeing with him or calling him out, provided they back up their claims. Banning someone because they have a different opinion than you would be much too vulgar display of power. It goes against iMtG Law. If I did it, I'm sure Piotr would be none too happy, and I wouldn't be happy with him if he did it.
If you're talking about how he uses iMtG Law to back up and reinforce his points, its because he follows iMtG Law in real life. It's his actual though process and moral code, not a way to abuse his power.
Also, I think we set a record for the amount of times "penis" was used in a single thread.
Quote from: Keyeto on April 23, 2013, 07:10:55 AM
Also, I think we set a record for the amount of times "penis" was used in a single thread.
Quoted for effect
Quote from: Keyeto on April 23, 2013, 07:10:55 AM
If you're talking about how he uses iMtG Law to back up and reinforce his points, its because he follows iMtG Law in real life. It's his actual though process and moral code, not a way to abuse his power.
Precisely, and thank you!
I'm against gun control because I believe that no one should do to others what they wouldn't want to be done to themselves. Your fear is not an excuse to *punish* me by forcefully taking my property, because I do you no harm by *owning* property, no matter how dangerous the property is. When I start *using* my property to *harm* you, obviously that's breaking the law. But you may not break law in prevention of lawbreaking. You may only harm (punish) other people if they have done harm to someone else. That is my sincere belief, and that is why gun control is evil in my eyes ;)
A person gets in an accident while heavily intoxicated, and the victim dies---> crime blamed on the person
Bomb the Boston marathon---> fault lies with person committing the crime
A criminal robs and stabs an innocent person--->crime blamed on the criminal
Mass shooting in columbine---> blamed on shooter
Mass shooting in new town---> blamed on guns???
We don't blame cars for dui's, bombs for falling into the wrong hands, and knives for the same reason. While I agree that both sides have some valid arguments, the fault is never within the instrument itself, but in the mind controlling it.
To me, the people who are committing the crimes in the first place obviously aren't going to be detered from breaking the law again to obtain more powerful firearms. Sure it'll be harder for them to obtain them, but that leaves us innocent law abiding citizens at a severe disadvantage, not only to the criminals but to the government as well.
It seems simply logical to me that we should be focusing more on how we can stop these actions at their source, which is why I don't beleive "controlling crime" is the only agenda Obama is trying to push right now. Hitler went about disarming citizens when he came into power, claiming that citizens didn't need such weaponry, that this caliber machinery is for the s.s. to use and protect the citizens with. Look how well that turned out ;)
And end rant lol
Quote from: KangaRod on April 23, 2013, 05:32:05 AM
Except your penis and head serve other purposes.
Guns serve only one purpose. To kill. That is what makes them fundamentally different from cars, bats knives and penises.
Where does this notion come from? My friends and I have gone shooting, and never once shot a living thing. Target shooting is a fun social gathering. I prefer archery myself, but a bow&arrow is no different from a gun when it comes to what you use it for. So should my recurve bow be banned?
I called your lie out because you stated that 'the only purpose of gun is to kill' and I believe it to be quite obvious that it is not true.
Quote from: KangaRod on April 23, 2013, 06:20:33 AM
Guns are designed to kill. Plain and simple.
The reason they intimidate or serve any other effect is because of their proficiency at killing.
They don't design a gun to intimidate people first, and kill them second. If intimidation is your only purpose, then you should be fine with all guns looking like real guns, but having the firing pin removed.
Intimidation effect 100%, but threat of killing 0%.
Would you be ok with owning a gun that was for all intents and purposes an expensive piece of plastic and could never fire a bullet, or do you admit it doesn't really serve its purpose when it can't actually back up its bark with some bite.
You may be correct they don't need to fire to serve their intended effect, but the only reason the intended effect works is because of their ability to kill.
Guns are designed to fire projectiles with relatively great speed and energy at the point the gun is aimed at. This is what they are designed for, not to kill.
What they are *used for* by their human users is another story, but there are many other ways to use a gun than to point it at another human and kill him (this allowed me to call a lie on your statement).
I find it offensive that you are suggesting that gun owners bought them to kill other people.
Vast majority of guns are *not used to kill*. They actually prevent killings, the same way nuclear weapons prevent wars, so for vast majority of guns their purpose is the opposite of what you claim.
This is a great debate guys! Thank you all, everyone is making valid points, and it's civil, this is exactly what I was hoping would happen, now I am asking, may I please use little tidbits of this in my report/debate? Please, don't let this stop you, keep "Debating"
Quote from: Missingkirby34 on April 23, 2013, 02:48:46 PM
This is a great debate guys! Thank you all, everyone is making valid points, and it's civil, this is exactly what I was hoping would happen, now I am asking, may I please use little tidbits of this in my report/debate? Please, don't let this stop you, keep "Debating"
I doubt anyone would have a problem with that, but like I said in the beginning, make sure you get trustworthy sources to back up anything you use in your official debate!
Do we get to see the report first (as in, before it gets 'published')?
But why are we going to fix something that is not broken? It is the intent of the person, not the tool that is the problem. In my country, we have the right to bear arms. I can exercise that right along with the majority of people. I can also act responsibly with them. I don't need the government or anyone else telling me what is dangerous or what I should or shouldn't do. Has out society improved because government encroaches on different facets of my life? I don't think so. The government cannot and should not tell me what I can or cannot do as long as it does not harm another person; that is when govwrnment crosses the line.
Quote from: Piotr on April 23, 2013, 03:25:06 PM
Do we get to see the report first (as in, before it gets 'published')?
Is for a class debate thing like I said, I'm sure it won't be all that amazing, but I'd be more than happy to post my side and my friends side of the debate (please note, we were assigned to be for or against our topic). I strongly believe something, not necessarily "gun control" as the way it's been proposed, but I believe in some sort of control, tighten the reigns on sellers and dealers, keep them out of sight when in stores like Walmart (along with ammo), the media really needs to change, they need to not show as much gun related deaths. And parents, friends, families, people in general need to be more educated, willing to listen, and less patriotic. Lets face it, the "glorious nation" that is America, really isn't that great. We need to ditch this "if they harm us we harm them" mentality.... Ill admit, as much hate as I am sure to get for this... If the bomber is held and not executed, I will feel bad for him, and this is because of places like Guantanamo bay. I'm also scared that because of this, we will go back to war, and many innocent people will die. America isn't even close to being the glorious nation it's made out to be, and we have the media and our government to thank for that.
Bill Mahr just had this topic on his show friday
Quote from: KangaRod on April 23, 2013, 10:04:40 PM
Because regardless of what you think, there is a problem with firearms in the United States. Saying there isn't doesn't change the facts.
http://m.motherjones.com/.politics./2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check
There most definetly is a problem with gun-control I will give you that. But history has shown that merely trying to control a group of people does not work.
Think of society as a child and the government as our parent. You need to guide the child, deter him from negative actions with negative reinforcement and enforce positive behavior with positive reinforcement.
If a man goes out and kills someone, more often than not he is sentenced to life (or multiple life sentences) in prison, where we the society pay for them to be taken care of, and to still enjoy the same humane rights that we as law abiding citizens enjoy.
Personally, I beleive that one who has committed such an atrocity, doesn't deserve humane, rightful treatment. Prison, though rehabilitational, I beleive should serve more for repentance. The criminal should suffer like his victims, and the family's and lives their acts have caused distress. Or else how can one truly learn empathy, and learn the true depth of the consequences of their actions? Perhaps we should focus more on how to eliminate the crime from society or deter it stronger, instead of trying to control the instruments with which crime is committed?
amen on that note
Quote from: KangaRod on April 23, 2013, 10:04:40 PM
Because regardless of what you think, there is a problem with firearms in the United States. Saying there isn't doesn't change the facts.
http://m.motherjones.com/.politics./2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check
"Assault weapons"
I stopped reading there.
Quote from: Mike_garzone on April 23, 2013, 10:14:39 PM
Quote from: KangaRod on April 23, 2013, 10:04:40 PM
Because regardless of what you think, there is a problem with firearms in the United States. Saying there isn't doesn't change the facts.
http://m.motherjones.com/.politics./2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check
There most definetly is a problem with gun-control I will give you that. But history has shown that merely trying to control a group of people does not work.
Think of society as a child and the government as our parent. You need to guide the child, deter him from negative actions with negative reinforcement and enforce positive behavior with positive reinforcement.
If a man goes out and kills someone, more often than not he is sentenced to life (or multiple life sentences) in prison, where we the society pay for them to be taken care of, and to still enjoy the same humane rights that we as law abiding citizens enjoy.
Personally, I beleive that one who has committed such an atrocity, doesn't deserve humane, rightful treatment. Prison, though rehabilitational, I beleive should serve more for repentance. The criminal should suffer like his victims, and the family's and lives their acts have caused distress. Or else how can one truly learn empathy, and learn the true depth of the consequences of their actions? Perhaps we should focus more on how to eliminate the crime from society or deter it stronger, instead of trying to control the instruments with which crime is committed?
It's statements like these that make me sick.... I'm not saying that murderers shouldn't be punished, but saying they don't deserve humane treatment... It's not right. I think what we need to do is the opposite, we have tried this whole using fear tactic so many times and it's gotten us no where, the government and the media are to blame, not video games, parenting, weapons or anything else, it's this idea of being free that people blow out of proportion. What is it that makes other countries so much less violent? I asked an Arabian kid at my school this question, and many others (he moved here last year) and he said that in other countries America is portrayed as being glorious and almost like heaven, and that they don't show all the bad things that happen, he moved from the Middle East and said he would much rather be in a war zone than here, because he feels like no where is safe, where as atleast in his country,school felt safe to him. Infact just today we had a lockdown drill during our lunch, the way my school was built, the main doors open right into the cafeteria, so if someone came in, they could easily take us out... So what did the school do? Put hundreds of teenagers in a small staircase, and led us to the gym, which has 3 doors to the outside in it. I felt like a sitting duck, lets face it, everyone says they are prepared, but no one truly is
Quote from: KangaRod on April 23, 2013, 10:04:40 PM
Because regardless of what you think, there is a problem with firearms in the United States. Saying there isn't doesn't change the facts.
http://m.motherjones.com/.politics./2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check
It would have been better if you used a source that was not so left wing. Their facts are a little skewed to support their beliefs.
If this is really about saving lives, then why don't we drop highway speeds to 40, outlaw cars with engines more than 100 horsepower, and increase the driving age to 25? That would save more lives than gun control.
Quote from: Dmreiss on April 23, 2013, 10:46:30 PM
Quote from: KangaRod on April 23, 2013, 10:04:40 PM
Because regardless of what you think, there is a problem with firearms in the United States. Saying there isn't doesn't change the facts.
http://m.motherjones.com/.politics./2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check
It would have been better if you used a source that was not so left wing. Their facts are a little skewed to support their beliefs.
If this is really about saving lives, then why don't we drop highway speeds to 40, outlaw cars with engines more than 100 horsepower, and increase the driving age to 25? That would save more lives than gun control.
I agree, the source is very biased. It's just a straw man argument, which does not represent both sides. It is a simple "mythbuster".
On another note, I hope they never ban powerful cars...I like driving and with accuracy and torque that no simple car can provide :)
I think taking guns from United States citizens is quite difficult. We've got guns and Jesus in our histories, it is ingrained in us. We're paranoid about the impending government take
over (which has already happened, for anyone no paying attention) and we're skeptical of everyone who isn't like us.
How many people know their neighbors? How many people just try to meet new people or just say hello? Of course we HAVE to tote guns for protection because - pardon my bluntness - what if black people break into our house? That's what we're afraid of, this statistically irrelevant phantom element.
Paranoia is a huge selling point. Turn on television - it's a commercial for ADT Home Security, or some similar company. Are termites invading your home? Call the Terminex guy. Is your kid going to be abducted on the way home? Get him a cell phone. Are you really getting enough vitamins? Take these. Sleeping enough? Eating enough? Happy enough?
They found a way to make us feel like these things are bad, and shouldn't happen to us. So we buy products and forge relationships with brands. Gun violence is paranoia. Many many people are gun owners, and gun violence happens so much less then car accidents. We kill more people with guns in other countries then die here ever. I support the rights of the people to bear arms - because I do not what the rights to my property yielded to a corrupt farse of a government. I'll give up my gun when they give up theirs, and not a moment sooner.
Quote from: Dudecore on April 23, 2013, 11:42:21 PM
- pardon my bluntness - what if black people break into our house? That's what we're afraid of, this statistically irrelevant phantom element.
Paranoia is a huge selling point. Turn on television - it's a commercial for ADT Home Security, or some similar company. Are termites invading your home? Call the Terminex guy. Is your kid going to be abducted on the way home? Get him a cell phone. Are you really getting enough vitamins? Take these. Sleeping enough? Eating enough? Happy enough?
And why is the white American afraid of different races? I have a couple theories on that... 1). The fear of being taken over, we did it to the Indians, and someone is bound to do it to us. 2). The media, in "Bowling for columbine" Michael Moore was walking down the street when he saw the cops, he asked them what was going in and of course a "black suspect" had a gun. Minutes later a news reporter was there, he came from filming an infants near drowning, and even admitted, he'd rather film about a black man with a gun than an infants death. 3). Ignorance. Oh no black people will shoot our kids in school :O ***true fact; more school shootings were carried out by white people***No matter what the case may be, every country has mixed races, and not every country has the problems we do, honestly American government plays peacekeeper and thinks we are the best country ever... We need to focus on our own damn problems
Quote from: Missingkirby34 on April 24, 2013, 12:25:45 AM
Quote from: Dudecore on April 23, 2013, 11:42:21 PM
- pardon my bluntness - what if black people break into our house? That's what we're afraid of, this statistically irrelevant phantom element.
Paranoia is a huge selling point. Turn on television - it's a commercial for ADT Home Security, or some similar company. Are termites invading your home? Call the Terminex guy. Is your kid going to be abducted on the way home? Get him a cell phone. Are you really getting enough vitamins? Take these. Sleeping enough? Eating enough? Happy enough?
And why is the white American afraid of different races? I have a couple theories on that... 1). The fear of being taken over, we did it to the Indians, and someone is bound to do it to us. 2). The media, in "Bowling for columbine" Michael Moore was walking down the street when he saw the cops, he asked them what was going in and of course a "black suspect" had a gun. Minutes later a news reporter was there, he came from filming an infants near drowning, and even admitted, he'd rather film about a black man with a gun than an infants death. 3). Ignorance. Oh no black people will shoot our kids in school :O ***true fact; more school shootings were carried out by white people***No matter what the case may be, every country has mixed races, and not every country has the problems we do, honestly American government plays peacekeeper and thinks we are the best country ever... We need to focus on our own damn problems
Obviously it is just not true that all of the crime is committed by black males between the ages 18-25. I was just pointing out the fear and paranoia caused this line of thinking. The United States has 25% of the entire worlds prison population. 90% of prisoners are black males. White males are exonerated more often or given much lighter sentencing including probation or some form of electronic monitoring.
I don't think there is any doubt that white men are irrationally afraid of black people. And it's no surprise who the police force and legal system is comprised of: white cops, judges and lawyers.
Racism is a hot button issue, and I don't know if our community (comprised of very different age groups and levels of comprehension) are prepared for it. I would just say look at the numbers. White males in the south are
more likely to be on welfare, robbing people for drugs (oxy) and breaking and entering. They're also as likely to racist and commit crimes of passion.
Quote from: Dudecore on April 24, 2013, 08:50:48 AM
Quote from: Missingkirby34 on April 24, 2013, 12:25:45 AM
Quote from: Dudecore on April 23, 2013, 11:42:21 PM
- pardon my bluntness - what if black people break into our house? That's what we're afraid of, this statistically irrelevant phantom element.
Paranoia is a huge selling point. Turn on television - it's a commercial for ADT Home Security, or some similar company. Are termites invading your home? Call the Terminex guy. Is your kid going to be abducted on the way home? Get him a cell phone. Are you really getting enough vitamins? Take these. Sleeping enough? Eating enough? Happy enough?
And why is the white American afraid of different races? I have a couple theories on that... 1). The fear of being taken over, we did it to the Indians, and someone is bound to do it to us. 2). The media, in "Bowling for columbine" Michael Moore was walking down the street when he saw the cops, he asked them what was going in and of course a "black suspect" had a gun. Minutes later a news reporter was there, he came from filming an infants near drowning, and even admitted, he'd rather film about a black man with a gun than an infants death. 3). Ignorance. Oh no black people will shoot our kids in school :O ***true fact; more school shootings were carried out by white people***No matter what the case may be, every country has mixed races, and not every country has the problems we do, honestly American government plays peacekeeper and thinks we are the best country ever... We need to focus on our own damn problems
White males in the south are more likely to be on welfare, robbing people for drugs (oxy) and breaking and entering. They're also as likely to racist and commit crimes of passion.
Eeehhh I don't know about that. Its pretty even across the board down here. At least where im at it is.
Quote from: Mikefrompluto on April 24, 2013, 09:26:16 AM
Eeehhh I don't know about that. Its pretty even across the board down here. At least where im at it is.
I believe southern states have twice the murder rate of those in the Northeast (per capita). They also have a gigantic problem of unemployment and drug dependency. Education and literacy statistics are at alarmingly low levels.
It does shock me however that our most religious parts of this country also lead the nation in most relevant crime statistics. (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/law_enforcement_courts_prisons/crimes_and_crime_rates.html)
With anything, I am not a racist myself, and my point isn't to show that "look, ALL southerns are bad." It's just that we have a problem that needs to be talked about. Everyone wants to blame blacks for crime, or Mexicans for stealing our jobs, or _____ stealing all the tax money. The southern states in this union have been devouring our welfare with entitlements for decades. For every $1 we make, .60¢ goes to keeping the south afloat. Just something to look at.
Not everyone from the south is like this. I'm
certain a great number of users are from that region. Users of this app by its very nature excludes many murderers and criminals. But if we've got a problem - someone has to talk about it.
Quote from: Dudecore on April 24, 2013, 09:40:58 AM
Quote from: Mikefrompluto on April 24, 2013, 09:26:16 AM
Eeehhh I don't know about that. Its pretty even across the board down here. At least where im at it is.
I believe southern states have twice the murder rate of those in the Northeast (per capita). They also have a gigantic problem of unemployment and drug dependency. Education and literacy statistics are at alarmingly high levels.
It does shock me however that our most religious parts of this country also lead the nation in most relevant crime statistics. (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/law_enforcement_courts_prisons/crimes_and_crime_rates.html)
With anything, I am not a racist myself, and my point isn't to show that "look, ALL southerns are bad." It's just that we have a problem that needs to be talked about. Everyone wants to blame blacks for crime, or Mexicans for stealing our jobs, or _____ stealing all the tax money. The southern states in this union have been devouring our welfare with entitlements for decades. For every $1 we make, .60¢ goes to keeping the south afloat. Just something to look at.
I know all that, and im not disputing that. My point is that it isn't a majority of white people, like you claim. Its even across all races. Shreveport, LA (the city I live in) was ranked #69 most dangerous city in the US two years ago, and it hasn't changed since then. 54% of the population is black, 40% is white, and the remainder 6% is spread across Hispanic, Asian, and Native American.
If you look at the stats, its pretty even. Of course, this just applies to my immediate surroundings. Could be like you say in every other city in the south. Im just offering the perspective of what I know to be true from firsthand experience.
Quote from: Mikefrompluto on April 24, 2013, 09:54:12 AM
If you look at the stats, its pretty even. Of course, this just applies to my immediate surroundings. Could be like you say in every other city in the south. Im just offering the perspective of what I know to be true from firsthand experience.
I was in the process of writing something similar. In New York, black males are disproportionately thrown in prison. They're stop and frisked 99% of the time for no reason, with no probable cause, in a very systematically racist process. It must be very difficult and frustrating to young men to feel hated by the system.
Area by area is different, some areas are "upper class" and attract less crime because of housing prices, tax rates and income. Crime tends to pool in certain areas that is lacking one. Economically there are 3 outcomes, and you can tell a lot about that area based on the 3 outcomes.
A) You have a job, and buy your own food.
B) You are given money (welfare) and buy your own food.
C) You steal money to get food.
Anyone who wants to get rid of one of those is a complete moron. We should always push people toward option 'A'. But we should never remove option 'B', because then those individuals would fall into option 'C'. I've been doing a lot of reading on economics and the problem of employment. It is really sad how we treat our fellow humans.
Quote from: Dudecore on April 24, 2013, 10:07:45 AM
A) You have a job, and buy your own food.
B) You are given money (welfare) and buy your own food.
C) You steal money to get food.
We should always push people toward option 'A'. But we should never remove option 'B', because then those individuals would fall into option 'C'.
Sure, just do not force anyone to pay for B, that would be prevention by use of force. The right way is to willingly give to charities.
That is certainly a possibility, an something we have to objectively strive toward. I've stated my anarchistic beliefs many times over. I don't mean anarchy as in lawlessness, I mean the willing participation of helping the human species flourish and obtain happiness. Not the coercive measures and picking winners and losers based upon the opinions of those in power.
The 3 economic outcomes are strong, and we should always move toward the outcomes described in A. People will always fall into B or C, it is part of our reality, but our goals should all be based around moving toward the "good life". I believe anyone who is not concerned with moving as many people we can toward independence is profoundly wrong about what matters. What else could matter?
I don't understand the question.
BTW, do you have charity shops like in the UK, in the US?
Quote from: Piotr on April 24, 2013, 05:07:56 PM
I don't understand the question.
BTW, do you have charity shops like in the UK, in the US?
Yes, although some people seem to use them as garbage cans
I live in CT and we have plenty of charity stores around here; goodwill, charity, etc. When I was younger I did 30 hours of community service at my local goodwill, and 70% of the shoppers there were middle class housewives. Talk about charity going to the wrong place lol
I think that part of Goodwill's profits go to charity, the charity itself is not to the people that shop there (middle class housewives who are thrifty...like my mom lol).
Quote from: Coffee Vampire on April 24, 2013, 07:08:15 PM
I think that part of Goodwill's profits go to charity, the charity itself is not to the people that shop there (middle class housewives who are thrifty...like my mom lol).
Yup, in the UK I think it is all revenue after expenses that goes to a selected charity which patrons the shop. People work there as unpaid volunteers and the goods are donated, so I see buying in the shops a form of charity too. If you were a millionaire and bought the contents of the whole shop, they would kiss you to death :D
I dont think anybody is saying NO government, but America was founded on LIMITED government. The government here was founded to serve certain purposes, but over time and especially as of late the government has been taking a bigger role in the lives of the people and it quite frankly pisses a lot of people off.
And on a side note, social services as you mentioned Kanga a re fine, but they are all too often abused here and do not serve the purpose they were designed for. When people live off of it just because they can, thats a problem we need to fix and the government has yet to. The services are meant for temporary means and transitions, not extended or permanent means.
Quote from: KangaRod on April 24, 2013, 10:26:31 PM
I always find it deeply ironic that people want to do away with government as much as possible, but cry out to the government whenever a business attains its ultimate goal of complete monopoly.
You need bureaucracy. If you cannot see that letting companies roam free will obliterate the human race I don't know what to tell you.
We need social services because people won't be provided for without them. It's simple to say just destroy it and let everyone fend for themselves, but we are humans, not animals.
If you want to behave like an animal then you must understand there is always a bigger dog.
I don't think anyone, or I'll speak for myself, described this type of arrangement. Multi-national corporations and monopolies are arranged when the government picks "winners and losers", as previously explained. The fact that corporations are not beholden to people, but instead the laws that favor them is a testament to that principle.
You cannot show me one instance of a monopoly that did not have anything to do with government favoritism. From John Rockefeller's sweetheart deal with the government for rail road exclusivity, to ridiculous weapons contracts and government payoffs to illegal seize land to develop.
Additionally, a free and informed people do not need someone extorting their money for bombs and wasteful spending. Bureaucracy usurps our freedoms as individuals to operate in a compassionate and caring way toward each other. When a corporation cannot be honest, because dishonest is the way the game is played - the play field is not level. It never will be.
I am not in favor of Ayn Rand's objectivist bullcrap. Her and her followers subscribe to an ideology of "anarchy for rich people". I am firmly opposed to that.
Quote from: Mike_garzone on April 24, 2013, 07:03:31 PM
I live in CT and we have plenty of charity stores around here; goodwill, charity, etc. When I was younger I did 30 hours of community service at my local goodwill, and 70% of the shoppers there were middle class housewives. Talk about charity going to the wrong place lol
Most of Goodwill's charity goes to job training for people that may have a hard time doing it on their own. That's why they sell stuff. To bring in money to fund that. I think its a great idea.
There's also the Salvation Army, which gives clothes, rooms, and meals to the homeless, with the main focus being veterans I believe.
There's a really awesome charity in my city called Providence House. Its for single mothers. It gives them food, school supplies, clothes, and even a place to stay until the family can get back on their feet.
Quote from: Dudecore on April 24, 2013, 10:36:17 PM
I am not in favor of Ayn Rand's objectivist bullcrap. Her and her followers subscribe to an ideology of "anarchy for rich people". I am firmly opposed to that.
I understand her ideology a bitt different. She advocates justice defined as 'give to everyone what they deserve', specifically everyone deserve fruits of their work and no one deserve fruits of other's work. She advocates anarchy for everyone but for the sake of message clarity she focuses on people who are currently morally abused: honest entrepreneurs like me for example. I'm a greedy bastard but without my greed you wouldn't have this forum to flame on and the app to check the card rulings. My greed is not hurting anyone, on the contrary - and that is objective fact. I'm trying to get rich indeed but I can only do it by making other people happy, by supplying a product they love.
There is an obvious distinction between having an Internet forum and eating food. The ultimate problem with Ayn Rand is she chooses to argue against only the most extreme form of thankless sacrifice, effectively creating a straw man. She lumps an argument against extreme collectivism and arguments against even moderate societal altruism - considers them both bad. Although we know factually that humans are social animals and kindness is in our nature.
Objectivism is just a philosophy of ultimate self-centeredness that could allows anyone to justify any action, so long as they feel it beneficial to themselves, and some such actions may be overly cruel or unnecessary. It does not claim to make the world a better place, just allows them to do whatever they'd like. I believe you're sadly mistake if you think you're going to be successful in an Objectivist state - or that you're "one of them".
Quote from: Dudecore on April 25, 2013, 10:53:43 AM
There is an obvious distinction between having an Internet forum and eating food. The ultimate problem with Ayn Rand is she chooses to argue against only the most extreme form of thankless sacrifice, effectively creating a straw man. She lumps an argument against extreme collectivism and arguments against even moderate societal altruism - considers them both bad. Although we know factually that humans are social animals and kindness is in our nature.
Objectivism is just a philosophy of ultimate self-centeredness could allow anyone to justify any action, so long as they feel it beneficial to themselves, and some such actions may be overly cruel or unnecessary. It does not claim to make the world a better place, just allows them to pilfer the earth. I believe you're sadly mistake if you think you're going to be successful in an Objectivist state - or that you're "one of them".
This is not how I see objectivism. Objectivism simply argues that you should give to everyone what they deserve, and that everyone only deserve what they created themselves, under no circumstances they deserve things which belong to other people. The base for this logic is 'goal never justifies the means' and even higher up, 'do not do to others, blah blah'. There's nothing in objectivism or in iMtG Law which prevent social altruism, I would even say that the philosophy of both is the philosophy of altruism. I would't create iMtG Law and Ayn would't write her Atlas Shrugged if we didn't give a .poo. about others ;)
We need to see the difference between extorted 'altruism' which comes at the cost of others, and altruism which is giving to the needy willingly, please.
State where the constitution would be iMtG Law is fully compatible with Ayn Rand ideals, how I understand them.
Quote from: Dudecore on April 25, 2013, 10:53:43 AMI believe you're sadly mistake if you think you're going to be successful in an Objectivist state - or that you're "one of them".
Now this is an entirely different subject and I can assure you that I'm absolutely positive that I would do much better in an Objectivist state than in social democratic UK as it is now. I would bet my arm on it ;]
Quote from: Piotr on April 25, 2013, 11:08:05 AM
This is not how I see objectivism. Objectivism simply argues that you should give to everyone what they deserve, and that everyone only deserve what they created themselves, under no circumstances they deserve things which belong to other people. The base for this logic is 'goal never justifies the means' and even higher up, 'do not do to others, blah blah'. There's nothing in objectivism or in iMtG Law which prevent social altruism, I would even say that the philosophy of both is the philosophy of altruism. I would't create iMtG Law and Ayn would't write her Atlas Shrugged if we didn't give a .poo. about others ;)
We need to see the difference between extorted 'altruism' which comes at the cost of others, and altruism which is giving to the needy willingly, please.
State where the constitution would be iMtG Law is fully compatible with Ayn Rand ideals, how I understand them.
Ayn Rand was very much anti-Marx, being a Russian herself during the Revolution. One can't help but think many of her ideas and distrust for everyone who wasn't the übermensch stems from those bad times. However she is misinformed about what is actually on the line. I don't think anyone's money should be confiscated, I believe a free and informed people are willing to donate their money and time to the greater good. This is where Ayn Rand and I differ. She infact condones and "rationalizes" imperialism, because she can rationalize anything that appears to be "for the good of capitalism". She negates the complete and utter value of "trust" in a relationship, likening it to a legal contract that must be adhered to - although no such contract need exist if you trust and appreciate others. She neglects the fact of building on the shoulders of others, and the part forced labor and slavery played in the formation of this wonderful capitalist enterprise she so readily enjoys.
I am going to respectfully bow out of this argument. The Internet sucks for typing debates and truly articulating my points.
Quote from: Dudecore on April 25, 2013, 11:50:37 AM
I am going to respectfully bow out of this argument. The Internet sucks for typing debates and truly articulating my points.
Fair enough, let me know when you are in the greater area of London so we can finish this in a pub ;)
Quote from: Dudecore on April 25, 2013, 11:50:37 AM
Ayn Rand was very much anti-Marx, being a Russian herself during the Revolution.
Now that is entirely a different subject, and I must confess that while communist's Poland in the 70's and 80's wasn't as bad as Russia after Revolution, I've seen my good share of food rationing and people being murdered by the police state. A lot of my ideas stem from that time and I feel I understand better than an average Westerner how bad and evil socialism is... anyway, I'll shut up now, thanks for the debate ;)
As a gun shot victim myself, I have strong feelings on gun control. And on guns in general. I won't go into a tirade about my feelings as a lot of arguments for and against have been made. If you would like a mature, civil conversation about firearms in America please feel free to message me.
I just can't get over your username though XD^
Quote from: IceScythe on April 25, 2013, 03:30:59 PM
I just can't get over your username though XD^
I got that nickname because I was shot. It's been something of an ongoing joke for years.
I don't know if I should feel bad now ._.
Quote from: IceScythe on April 25, 2013, 03:48:54 PM
I don't know if I should feel bad now ._.
Don't feel bad. It was a long time ago and I've learned to laugh at certain things. I've been Ghetto Pass on Xbox for years now.
lol, srry. if you wanna play "shoot" me a request @CryoFyre2557
Even though my overwhelming hesitation is to not bump this topic again.
I've still decided to share this amusing 3 part take on how Australia's gun control vs America's current situation. (from The Daily Show)
enjoy.
http://youtu.be/9pOiOhxujsE
http://youtu.be/TYbY45rHj8w
http://youtu.be/mVuspKSjfgA
Aren't guns banned in the Philippines? They sure kill a bunch of politicians...with guns.
Quote from: Wally on April 26, 2013, 08:05:03 PM
(from The Daily Show)
People actually take this guy seriously?
Quote from: #noided on April 27, 2013, 08:41:57 AM
Quote from: Wally on April 26, 2013, 08:05:03 PM
(from The Daily Show)
People actually take this guy seriously?
Better then any other news show I've ever seen.
And no. It is for the humor of political news. It is on Comedy Central after all.