Use this thread to be anti or pro Obama and all current affairs linked to him
Discuss all you want about it here
Just please keep the debates out of other topics its getting out of hand once the word "Obama" is mentioned.
Don't feed the karma trolls.
All I'm gonna do is plus every one up!
BOOM positive hippie powers activate!
Haha. There ya go! Right back at ya.
βπππΊππβππππ¦πππͺπ―π
That cookie looks nummy.
I was pro Obama at first, now I'm Obama neutral. Like every president, he has some good ideas and some bad ideas. He keeps a few promises and breaks the rest. The day an American citizen is truly happy with a president at the end of their term, pigs will fly. I disliked bush but I didn't make it a point to say so at every given opportunity, I get annoyed with the constant praising or dissing of current presidents. .politics. is just not my thing I guess.
βοΈ
In my opinion we will not have a good president until he walks in and simply starts firing people. Digs into levels of corruption and simply starts firing and/or trying people for treason. Until then, our president will be for the government, not the people. But this will never happen because that person will never make it to the office, there is too much political control over the outcome.
I am not allowed to voice my opinion on Mr. Obama.
I think Obama has really good intentions, but they are misconstrued or twisted by the Congress to produce horrible legislation.
Giving everyone Healthcare at an affordable rate, Good Idea---->Obamacare which is iffy legislation at its best
Make it so everyone makes a living wage, Good Idea---->Raising minimum wage puts jobs in danger
Make the world safer by banning assault rifles---->Exaggerated and isn't passed.
Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on February 06, 2014, 07:42:32 AM
I think Obama has really good intentions, but they are misconstrued or twisted by the Congress to produce horrible legislation.
Giving everyone Healthcare at an affordable rate, Good Idea---->Obamacare which is iffy legislation at its best
Make it so everyone makes a living wage, Good Idea---->Raising minimum wage puts jobs in danger
Make the world safer by banning assault rifles---->Exaggerated and isn't passed.
I actually don't disagree with this, the only problem is he is fought tooth and nail on everything unless it fits congresses agenda. Though his ideas in delivery are next to crap, I will buy that the intentions at his level are good. I just wish they gave a half a crap about what we the people want.
Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on February 06, 2014, 07:42:32 AM
Make the world safer by banning assault rifles---->Exaggerated and isn't passed.
You were doing so well π
Quote from: #noided on February 06, 2014, 10:38:31 AM
Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on February 06, 2014, 07:42:32 AM
Make the world safer by banning assault rifles---->Exaggerated and isn't passed.
You were doing so well π
In theory I think he was TRYING to make the world safer, the only problem is having ignorant rich people saying "guns are the problem", "guns kill people", blah, blah , blah I'm a dirty tramp. The problem is that the "guns are the problem" people REFUSE to acknowledge and accept that guns are inanimate objects and do not make people want to commit crime. People want to commit crime and use guns as a tool. Eliminating guns will not lower crime or even murder, the mission will be accomplished using other tools.
Quote from: ConanEdo on February 06, 2014, 02:23:17 PM
Quote from: Wingnut on February 06, 2014, 12:26:01 PM
Quote from: #noided on February 06, 2014, 10:38:31 AM
Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on February 06, 2014, 07:42:32 AM
Make the world safer by banning assault rifles---->Exaggerated and isn't passed.
You were doing so well π
In theory I think he was TRYING to make the world safer, the only problem is having ignorant rich people saying "guns are the problem", "guns kill people", blah, blah , blah I'm a dirty tramp. The problem is that the "guns are the problem" people REFUSE to acknowledge and accept that guns are inanimate objects and do not make people want to commit crime. People want to commit crime and use guns as a tool. Eliminating guns will not lower crime or even murder, the mission will be accomplished using other tools.
So, pop quiz time. How hard is it to actually kill someone. How about stabbing, surely that's effective right? Actually, no, many people have been reported living from over 20 stab wounds. Vehicular manslaughter? Unless the person is completely unaware or in some way incapacitated, they can survive. Poison? Suicide rate for poison is 1.8% success, and that's with no resistance. All this helps illustrate a point: guns are the most effective means of murder that we own. We need to stop pretending that they're just tools, and they treat them for what they are: weapons designed for murder that should be highly regulated.
But this still ignores the issue as to why the hell kill in the first place. Don't ignore the mental issues here. But yes, regulating guns is different, I do not disagree with making things tighter for criminals to get them. For example, if someone is murdered with a weapon in my name, I should also be responsible. As a gun owner I should be responsible for them and responsible for making sure they do not end up in the wrong hands.
Quote from: ConanEdo on February 06, 2014, 03:15:51 PM
Quote from: Taysby on February 06, 2014, 02:38:04 PM
Guns are just a different way to do it. If someone wants to kill someone, they will accomplish it with or without guns. people have survived several gunshots in a row. There's a police officer in my state that took a shotgun blast to the head and survived just fine. Guns aren't some crazy easy way to kill someone.
Far easier to kill more people with less skill, planning, or luck than any of the other forms of murder you have described. If you honestly can't see the difference between a man with a hammer and a man with a Beretta in terms of ability to murder on any scale and get away with it, you're mad. Put it another way: the majority of murders occur between those having personal conflict, in the heat of a moment. Unplanned, uncoordinated. What's going to be most effective, swinging a hammer at someone, swinging at them with a knife, or putting a bullet in them. Also, as one of my favorite authors put it:
"Fire and drugs kill people. I am so agreeing with that right now. But in this article by Scott L. Bach, president of guns and stuff, he puts forth an argument in favor of guns and stuff that takes it too far. It is a very common yet very broken argument, so I'll just copy/paste it for you right here:
"When an arsonist lights a match that burns a building, is the match at fault? Are match manufacturers responsible for the fire? Should laws be passed prohibiting you from having and using matches, or restricting which types you can have, and in what quantities?
"The obvious answer to these questions is no. The same match that is misused by the arsonist lights the fireplace that warms us, and the stove that feeds us. The match has no mind of its own. It is not an evil invention. Its purpose is to ignite, nothing more. If it is misused, the solution is to punish the individual wrongdoer. Everyone else should be left alone.
"The same is true of firearms."
OK. Simply put, "Nuh-uh."
A match has many uses completely unrelated to causing death. A match is not manufactured or intended for death. And the same goes for drugs (unless of course you're talking about the death of the walls confining us to our limited understanding of perception, man). In fact, the same goes for basically anything other than a firearm. Tools are misused to kill people, it's true. But tools are meant for something else entirely. Tools build and fix and aid and improve. Firearms do not. If used correctly, a firearm is meant to, in an instant, kill or destroy something. If a gun is used incorrectly, it would actually mean that something doesn't get shot.
Again, I'm not saying we should outlaw guns. But the conversation can't progress if people keep using arguments that ignore what guns actually are, and what they are used for. Likening a gun to a match or recreational drugs or an icicle or [anything else that can cause death] is an attempt to lighten the weight of a firearm's actual purpose. Guns and [anything else] are not the same."
Quote
Also, youre saying we should stop pretending their tools and treat them as tools for murder? What?
My point is that you should stop with false equivocation and trying to pretend that people are somehow just as dangerous with a rope or a hammer than a machine built specifically to fire at least half a dozen deadly projectiles with intent to kill.
I see your point and you have points that are impossible to logically argue against. I simply feel that it is still ignoring the REAL problem at hand which is the desire to murder in the first place. The government WANTS a society that needs them to survive, needs food stamps, needs section 8, NEEDS government funded cell phones. But they DO NOT want them to be armed nor intelligent. This entire thing is not to prevent murder, it is to start picking apart the constitution. #2 has to be the first to go, because with that, we can defend the rest. But this is only my opinion. Which we can all express because we still have #2, and therefore #1.
I personally believe that we should have the right to own guns, but that millitary grade weapons should be illegal to own. There should also be more stringent checks on buying a gun, and what type. Hunting is a legal use for a gun, and if done for food has no wrong attached. You also as of now can own guns for self defense. There is nothing wrong with having a small caliber pistol for either personal or home defense in unsafe areas. Having been exposed to guns when I was slightly younger to teach me about safety, I will argue the point that if used properly guns can be as safe as any other potential weapon with proper training.
Quote from: Aladormax on February 06, 2014, 03:53:10 PM
I personally believe that we should have the right to own guns, but that millitary grade weapons should be illegal to own. There should also be more stringent checks on buying a gun, and what type. Hunting is a legal use for a gun, and if done for food has no wrong attached. You also as of now can own guns for self defense. There is nothing wrong with having a small caliber pistol for either personal or home defense in unsafe areas. Having been exposed to guns when I was slightly younger to teach me about safety, I will argue the point that if used properly guns can be as safe as any other potential weapon with proper training.
Completely agreed, but want to throw out that military grade weapons although not illegal to own, are EXTREMELY expensive and EXTREMELY difficult to own. 99.9% of "assault rifles" civilians own are not military grade as they are semi auto vs burst or full auto. To purchase a full auto weapon you are looking at upwards $6k-10k to legally own between gun purchase and licensing. Sorry, to be "that guy", I just wanted to back you up a little just incase. But I completely agree though, having also been taught at a young age about gun safety.
Quote from: Aladormax on February 06, 2014, 03:53:10 PM
I personally believe that we should have the right to own guns, but that millitary grade weapons should be illegal to own. There should also be more stringent checks on buying a gun, and what type. Hunting is a legal use for a gun, and if done for food has no wrong attached. You also as of now can own guns for self defense. There is nothing wrong with having a small caliber pistol for either personal or home defense in unsafe areas. Having been exposed to guns when I was slightly younger to teach me about safety, I will argue the point that if used properly guns can be as safe as any other potential weapon with proper training.
I agree, assault weapons such as MG's and such should not be available to the public, but hunting rifles? Small arms for self defense such as pistols? These are not tools for murder, they are tools for aquiring food, sport, and self defense. Any tool can be misused, a baseball bat or a bomb or a generator and a puddle of water can be used to murder someone as well as a gun. The problem is not the tool, the problem is those who would misuse it.
I am Obama neutral.
Voted for him the first time because, at the time, I was a centrist politically. In 2012 I didn't vote for him because I am now very liberal. I voted Stein.
On the guns issue - Norway. Owning a gun there is next to impossible, unless you hunt for a living. Violent crime is next to nil. I read somewhere that something 60% of Norways's crime is petty theft, and it's usually bicycles.
Of course, they also don't have high income inequality and poverty, so not a lot of desire to commit crime.
(Note: I don't support outlawing guns. Ideally, I would, but the way out laws and society is presently, it would never work. I also own two firearms. No particular reason. I don't hunt, and my faith prohibits harming a person, even in self defence. They were my dad's, and I guess I don't want to let go of them.)
Quote from: Taysby on February 06, 2014, 02:38:04 PM
Guns are just a different way to do it. If someone wants to kill someone, they will accomplish it with or without guns. people have survived several gunshots in a row. There's a police officer in my state that took a shotgun blast to the head and survived just fine. Guns aren't some crazy easy way to kill someone.
Btw you have an about 1/10 chance of surviving a headshot directly to the head, a man a few decades ago survived 10 bullets right to the head by firing squad, and you only die by headshot (besides all that bleedin out stuff) is if it hits a more central part of your brain. If they hit another part it's not neccesarily death. The more you know
Obama to me was the good choice when I was a demo, but now that I'm a socialist I just see him as a lesser of two evils
Modify, also please people it's the affordable healthcare act NOT obamacare
I'm with Necro.
Quote from: ConanEdo on February 13, 2014, 06:16:39 PM
Quote from: Necromancerman on February 13, 2014, 02:24:15 PM
Obama to me was the good choice when I was a demo, but now that I'm a socialist I just see him as a lesser of two evils
Modify, also please people it's the affordable healthcare act NOT obamacare
^This guy knows where it's at:
http://i1214.photobucket.com/albums/cc484/Dios_Patria_Rey73/redflagbig2.gif
(http://www.anarchism.net/images/download_la_black.jpg)
Lol
All these topics turn out the exact same way.
Every one of you use the exact same arguments as you did the last time, and everyone is on or around generally the same stance as they were before.
It peeves me a little.
I will ring in on one thing though.
Murder and self defense.
Generally what everyone seems to get all mixed up and in debate over isn't general murder, but MASS murder.
And generally speaking it takes a semi/automatic rifle or handgun of sorts or other means to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time.
And banning all guns will prevent this??
What!? No... These are isolated incidents, conceived most of the time with obscene calculation.
Murder is completely separate and usually has a personal motive, and for whatever reason they do what they do, they will pick the best tool available to them at the time, be it gun, bat, knife etc.. Generally handguns. Same could be said for self defense. I carry concealed so if someone were to choose me to be a murder victim, at least I have the option of matching with equal force.
Mass murder isn't a target of personal agenda.
Mass murder is based on a psychopathic attempt to realize some sort of statement or sheer insanity. The method will be used on whatever means is most appropriate, be that bomb, gun, leading a cult to drink poison.
^but these incidents will happen no matter what you take away.
Or perhaps we should ban planes so no one can crash them into any other large buildings...
Quote from: ConanEdo on February 14, 2014, 12:38:51 PM
Quote from: IceScythe on February 13, 2014, 09:45:32 PM
Quote from: ConanEdo on February 13, 2014, 06:16:39 PM
Quote from: Necromancerman on February 13, 2014, 02:24:15 PM
Obama to me was the good choice when I was a demo, but now that I'm a socialist I just see him as a lesser of two evils
Modify, also please people it's the affordable healthcare act NOT obamacare
^This guy knows where it's at:
http://i1214.photobucket.com/albums/cc484/Dios_Patria_Rey73/redflagbig2.gif
(http://www.anarchism.net/images/download_la_black.jpg)
Rule number one of posting images: if they distort the screen, don't use them.
I'm preeeeeeeeety sure that isn't a rule....
Whoa whoa whoa buddy: let's not discuss rules in this thread about the forum.
-You can start another thread for that.
-This thread is for political jargon that clogs up other threads.
Yeah, let's keep this to political arguments that no is going to bend on and/or be open minded about gentleman. Jeesh.
Quote from: Piotr on February 14, 2014, 02:58:34 PM
Quote from: DrEggman789 on February 13, 2014, 02:03:53 PM
I am Obama neutral.
Voted for him the first time because, at the time, I was a centrist politically. In 2012 I didn't vote for him because I am now very liberal. I voted Stein.
On the guns issue - Norway. Owning a gun there is next to impossible, unless you hunt for a living. Violent crime is next to nil. I read somewhere that something 60% of Norways's crime is petty theft, and it's usually bicycles.
Of course, they also don't have high income inequality and poverty, so not a lot of desire to commit crime.
(Note: I don't support outlawing guns. Ideally, I would, but the way out laws and society is presently, it would never work. I also own two firearms. No particular reason. I don't hunt, and my faith prohibits harming a person, even in self defence. They were my dad's, and I guess I don't want to let go of them.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik
Norway what?
Haha people love to bring that up.
One event. Three years ago. You know how long it takes in the US for that many people (77) to die from firearms? Less than three days. US gun rates are 10.26 per 100,000. Norway's is 1.78 per 100,000. Don't imply they are comparable.
Quote from: DirtyMustachio on February 14, 2014, 03:33:09 PM
All these topics turn out the exact same way.
Every one of you use the exact same arguments as you did the last time, and everyone is on or around generally the same stance as they were before.
It peeves me a little.
I will ring in on one thing though.
Murder and self defense.
Generally what everyone seems to get all mixed up and in debate over isn't general murder, but MASS murder.
And generally speaking it takes a semi/automatic rifle or handgun of sorts or other means to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time.
And banning all guns will prevent this??
What!? No... These are isolated incidents, conceived most of the time with obscene calculation.
Murder is completely separate and usually has a personal motive, and for whatever reason they do what they do, they will pick the best tool available to them at the time, be it gun, bat, knife etc.. Generally handguns. Same could be said for self defense. I carry concealed so if someone were to choose me to be a murder victim, at least I have the option of matching with equal force.
Mass murder isn't a target of personal agenda.
Mass murder is based on a psychopathic attempt to realize some sort of statement or sheer insanity. The method will be used on whatever means is most appropriate, be that bomb, gun, leading a cult to drink poison.
^but these incidents will happen no matter what you take away.
Or perhaps we should ban planes so no one can crash them into any other large buildings...
Mass murder is not the major problem, although it clearly sticks out as a sign that gun violence is rampant. Single victim homicide with a gun accounts for over 60% of all homicides in the U.S. Banning guns would make it significantly harder to simply murder someone and easier to prevent.
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4863
On mass murder, buying a gun is an easy and surefire way to be able to injure and/or kill loads of people, but acquiring lethal poison or explosive materials is not. The latter are conspicuous and hard to come by.
Quote from: CbStrad on February 15, 2014, 03:16:07 PM
Quote from: abstractApathist on February 15, 2014, 12:52:10 PM
Quote from: DirtyMustachio on February 14, 2014, 03:33:09 PM
All these topics turn out the exact same way.
Every one of you use the exact same arguments as you did the last time, and everyone is on or around generally the same stance as they were before.
It peeves me a little.
I will ring in on one thing though.
Murder and self defense.
Generally what everyone seems to get all mixed up and in debate over isn't general murder, but MASS murder.
And generally speaking it takes a semi/automatic rifle or handgun of sorts or other means to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time.
And banning all guns will prevent this??
What!? No... These are isolated incidents, conceived most of the time with obscene calculation.
Murder is completely separate and usually has a personal motive, and for whatever reason they do what they do, they will pick the best tool available to them at the time, be it gun, bat, knife etc.. Generally handguns. Same could be said for self defense. I carry concealed so if someone were to choose me to be a murder victim, at least I have the option of matching with equal force.
Mass murder isn't a target of personal agenda.
Mass murder is based on a psychopathic attempt to realize some sort of statement or sheer insanity. The method will be used on whatever means is most appropriate, be that bomb, gun, leading a cult to drink poison.
^but these incidents will happen no matter what you take away.
Or perhaps we should ban planes so no one can crash them into any other large buildings...
Mass murder is not the major problem, although it clearly sticks out as a sign that gun violence is rampant. Single victim homicide with a gun accounts for over 60% of all homicides in the U.S. Banning guns would make it significantly harder to simply murder someone and easier to prevent.
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4863
On mass murder, buying a gun is an easy and surefire way to be able to injure and/or kill loads of people, but acquiring lethal poison or explosive materials is not. The latter are conspicuous and hard to come by.
Here's my thing.
Let's say guns get the ban. Sure, some will have issues getting ahold of them and give up on it. However, and here's the important bit, the criminals who want guns will not care in the least. They'll just find a black market if they're determined enough.
It's as I said, when owning guns becomes criminal, only the criminals will own guns
Worth mentioning that most illegal weapons started as legal. For example, in urban centers (NYC, Chicago) where firearms are harder to acquire, most seized weapons were purchased in other states that are much more lax on gun control (Texas and Georgia), then transported. Take away the ability to easily acquire guns anywhere in the country, and where would they get them?
Also, lots of weapons in the hands of criminals are stolen from legal (and law abiding) citizens. If those citizens don't have guns, criminals can't steal guns from them.
That phrase, "When owning guns becomes criminal, only criminals will have them" makes for great rhetoric, but doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.
Quote from: DrEggman789 on February 15, 2014, 03:50:53 PM
Quote from: CbStrad on February 15, 2014, 03:16:07 PM
Quote from: abstractApathist on February 15, 2014, 12:52:10 PM
Quote from: DirtyMustachio on February 14, 2014, 03:33:09 PM
All these topics turn out the exact same way.
Every one of you use the exact same arguments as you did the last time, and everyone is on or around generally the same stance as they were before.
It peeves me a little.
I will ring in on one thing though.
Murder and self defense.
Generally what everyone seems to get all mixed up and in debate over isn't general murder, but MASS murder.
And generally speaking it takes a semi/automatic rifle or handgun of sorts or other means to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time.
And banning all guns will prevent this??
What!? No... These are isolated incidents, conceived most of the time with obscene calculation.
Murder is completely separate and usually has a personal motive, and for whatever reason they do what they do, they will pick the best tool available to them at the time, be it gun, bat, knife etc.. Generally handguns. Same could be said for self defense. I carry concealed so if someone were to choose me to be a murder victim, at least I have the option of matching with equal force.
Mass murder isn't a target of personal agenda.
Mass murder is based on a psychopathic attempt to realize some sort of statement or sheer insanity. The method will be used on whatever means is most appropriate, be that bomb, gun, leading a cult to drink poison.
^but these incidents will happen no matter what you take away.
Or perhaps we should ban planes so no one can crash them into any other large buildings...
Mass murder is not the major problem, although it clearly sticks out as a sign that gun violence is rampant. Single victim homicide with a gun accounts for over 60% of all homicides in the U.S. Banning guns would make it significantly harder to simply murder someone and easier to prevent.
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4863
On mass murder, buying a gun is an easy and surefire way to be able to injure and/or kill loads of people, but acquiring lethal poison or explosive materials is not. The latter are conspicuous and hard to come by.
Here's my thing.
Let's say guns get the ban. Sure, some will have issues getting ahold of them and give up on it. However, and here's the important bit, the criminals who want guns will not care in the least. They'll just find a black market if they're determined enough.
It's as I said, when owning guns becomes criminal, only the criminals will own guns
Worth mentioning that most illegal weapons started as legal. For example, in urban centers (NYC, Chicago) where firearms are harder to acquire, most seized weapons were purchased in other states that are much more lax on gun control (Texas and Georgia), then transported. Take away the ability to easily acquire guns anywhere in the country, and where would they get them?
Also, lots of weapons in the hands of criminals are stolen from legal (and law abiding) citizens. If those citizens don't have guns, criminals can't steal guns from them.
That phrase, "When owning guns becomes criminal, only criminals will have them" makes for great rhetoric, but doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.
It worked for drugs.
Quote from: Wingnut on February 15, 2014, 05:41:36 PM
Quote from: DrEggman789 on February 15, 2014, 03:50:53 PM
Quote from: CbStrad on February 15, 2014, 03:16:07 PM
Quote from: abstractApathist on February 15, 2014, 12:52:10 PM
Quote from: DirtyMustachio on February 14, 2014, 03:33:09 PM
All these topics turn out the exact same way.
Every one of you use the exact same arguments as you did the last time, and everyone is on or around generally the same stance as they were before.
It peeves me a little.
I will ring in on one thing though.
Murder and self defense.
Generally what everyone seems to get all mixed up and in debate over isn't general murder, but MASS murder.
And generally speaking it takes a semi/automatic rifle or handgun of sorts or other means to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time.
And banning all guns will prevent this??
What!? No... These are isolated incidents, conceived most of the time with obscene calculation.
Murder is completely separate and usually has a personal motive, and for whatever reason they do what they do, they will pick the best tool available to them at the time, be it gun, bat, knife etc.. Generally handguns. Same could be said for self defense. I carry concealed so if someone were to choose me to be a murder victim, at least I have the option of matching with equal force.
Mass murder isn't a target of personal agenda.
Mass murder is based on a psychopathic attempt to realize some sort of statement or sheer insanity. The method will be used on whatever means is most appropriate, be that bomb, gun, leading a cult to drink poison.
^but these incidents will happen no matter what you take away.
Or perhaps we should ban planes so no one can crash them into any other large buildings...
Mass murder is not the major problem, although it clearly sticks out as a sign that gun violence is rampant. Single victim homicide with a gun accounts for over 60% of all homicides in the U.S. Banning guns would make it significantly harder to simply murder someone and easier to prevent.
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4863
On mass murder, buying a gun is an easy and surefire way to be able to injure and/or kill loads of people, but acquiring lethal poison or explosive materials is not. The latter are conspicuous and hard to come by.
Here's my thing.
Let's say guns get the ban. Sure, some will have issues getting ahold of them and give up on it. However, and here's the important bit, the criminals who want guns will not care in the least. They'll just find a black market if they're determined enough.
It's as I said, when owning guns becomes criminal, only the criminals will own guns
Worth mentioning that most illegal weapons started as legal. For example, in urban centers (NYC, Chicago) where firearms are harder to acquire, most seized weapons were purchased in other states that are much more lax on gun control (Texas and Georgia), then transported. Take away the ability to easily acquire guns anywhere in the country, and where would they get them?
Also, lots of weapons in the hands of criminals are stolen from legal (and law abiding) citizens. If those citizens don't have guns, criminals can't steal guns from them.
That phrase, "When owning guns becomes criminal, only criminals will have them" makes for great rhetoric, but doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.
It worked for drugs.
Drugs and guns are different problems. Drugs are recreational. I would guess, conservatively, that around half of drug users are (otherwise) law abiding citizens. Almost everyone in the town I live in smokes pot, from my real estate agent, to my lawyer, to my cashier at the gas station. "Normal" people want drugs for their own use. Guns are a totally different story. The only people who would try to purchase guns if they were illegal would be criminals, who, in the grand scheme of things, make up what? 1% of the population? Less? Drugs are available because large numbers of people want them. Guns would not be available, because the people that would want them account for a tiny minority.
What kind of criminal entrepreneur would sit on the corner selling 9mm's and 12gauges when he might sell one a week, and risk going to prison for 10 years? Whereas a guy selling pot sells a few ounces a day to average people for much less risk, and higher volume.
Quote from: Taysby on February 15, 2014, 10:56:22 PM
People would want them to protect their family, have fun, etc. if they were illegal, I'd try and buy one illegally.
Because this current debate isn't going anywhere, let's try to change it.
One of the reasons the founding fathers gave us the 2nd amendment was to protect us from a tyrannical government. If the government is afraid of making the public angry because of their guns, they won't take away rights, or do other bad things.
Another reason is to prevent invasions. Other countries would think twice about invading America because if they managed to get past the military, they'd still have to fight a vast majority of the population because they have weapons to defend themselves.
You would spend 10-15 thousand dollars and risk prison to shoot targets?
The government isn't afraid of private guns. The second amendment was written in a time where
A. There was no federal military
B. There was no permanent state militia
And most importantly,
C. Both the military and private citizens owned the same weapons, flint-locks.
Now, our military could destroy the entire population if necessary (not that they ever would). Private weapons don't compare. An SKS vs an M1A1 Abrams? A .357 vs an F-35? It was a noble idea for its time, but it's present day application is irrelevant. Also, remember not to put the founding fathers on too much of a pedestal. They were a group of racist, sexist, rich, white men who had a couple of good ideas.
As for the second point, I'll concede that it is a fair point. But even if every single private weapon didn't exist, who would invade the United States? We spend more on "defense" spending than the next 26 countries combined. 25 of them are our allies. China? Yeah there are a lot of them, but they're using hardware from the 70s and 80s. Not only do they not have training or hardware, but the US is so large, how would they hold off on all fronts? Plus, the second we are invaded, not only would the invader have to deal with all five branches, but all of Europe and others would be on the way in less than 48 hours. The UK, Germany, France, Canada, Mexico, Israel, Italy, Mongolia, and so on. Hell, Japan would probably throw in their police force and coast guard.
All of that is not to say that private weapons aren't a factor to consider when invading the US, but I think our military and the militaries of our allies are enough of a deterrent.
+1 for civility.
Most countries aren't our allies out of fear. Europe, for example, knows we would never invade any country there, (eastern bloc aside), Israel isn't afraid of all of the Middle East so I don't think they'd be afraid of us invading. The primary reason no one would invade is not the conflict itself, but economically. If any EU member attacked us, the EU would be forced to condemn them and assist the US in crushing them, because if they didn't back us up, they just lost the ability to export to the largest economy on earth. So that rules outany European country attacking. China, same story, we are the primary destination for their exports. Not only that, but they know that if an invasion fails (which is 99% sure to happen), we will invade them after they have exhausted their resources trying to go on the offensive, leaving their home country weakly defended. We wipe their government out unless they forgive our debt (which is not as high as people say it is, but still a hefty sum), pay us what we spent on the war, and agree to multiple new trade policies (all in our favor). I could go on, but you see that no country would invade us, with or without private guns.
Plus we have enough large bombs to destroy most of the land on earth 26 times over, I think.
Quote from: Mishra, Artificer Extraordinaire on February 16, 2014, 12:52:44 PM
Plus we have enough large bombs to destroy most of the land on earth 26 times over, I think.
We won't truly know anymore because the Atomic Energy Act allows the government to deny FoIA requests for nuclear weapons now. Last time they released numbers in 2010, experts estimated between 15-50 times, if I recall correctly.
Quote from: DrEggman789 on February 16, 2014, 01:15:33 PM
Quote from: Mishra, Artificer Extraordinaire on February 16, 2014, 12:52:44 PM
Plus we have enough large bombs to destroy most of the land on earth 26 times over, I think.
We won't truly know anymore because the Atomic Energy Act allows the government to deny FoIA requests for nuclear weapons now. Last time they released numbers in 2010, experts estimated between 15-50 times, if I recall correctly.
That's a big range
No one would invade Norway, either. Norway has the backing of the EU and NATO, not to mention us. I sincerely doubt that war will occur between two first world countries any time in the near future. The primary reasons, like i said, are not the prospect of military defeat. If that were the case, China would have invaded Japan. They can easily defeat the Japanese military (what little there is), without significant harm to the civilian population.
The reason no first world nation ever would invade another is because of the economic fall out, even in the event of an easy victory. If China or anyone else invaded Norway, for example, all EU, NATO, and in all probably, most of the UN member states would cease doing any kind of business with the aggressor. This would mean that any potential positives of the war are heavily outweighed by the negative consequences.
The same goes for if someone invaded the US. Even if there were no private weapons.
The Second Ammendment is a piece of dated legislation that has, ultimately, caused more harm than good. At least in my opinion.
[rant]
But we are free to disagree on that, and that is why the United States is where I still live. Our system is supposed to thrive on differing opinions, but recently, it has become encumbered by it. Too many conservatives screaming at gun control advocates, saying they are "un-American", and liberals screaming at War on Terror supporters, saying they are fascists. Disagreement is fine, disgust and petty name calling is not.
If only our leaders and society could discuss, as you and I have, rather than argue...
[/rant]
If you look at the state of the world right now we have several nations attempting to overthrow their current government.
Very unlikely invading the USA ala Red Dawn will happen, as many countries need to just get their own π© together. Venezuela, brazil, Syria and Egypt are just a few off the top of my head, these are the worst, we also have many countries that are now facing economic turmoil in the EU. Right now if anything it's the people vs "the system" itself
Taking away guns = unconstitutional
Honestly if you dislike civillian access to guns so much, why not move to Norway? I here they have nice schools...
Quote from: IceScythe on February 18, 2014, 12:25:57 PM
Taking away guns = unconstitutional
Honestly if you dislike civillian access to guns so much, why not move to Norway? I here they have nice schools...
The point of the constitution is that it can and does change to suit the needs of the time. Back when we were in constant danger of raids out of Canada, it made sense to have small civilian militias. Nowadays, there is no risk of invasion, so owning guns simply leads to lots of senseless civilian deaths. If everybody moved when they didn't like a policy in a country, nobody would have anywhere to live.
You don't "invade" a country with f-16's
You invade a "country" by foot and instituting your own military command forcefully.
Which is constantly berated in other countries by opposing forces by small civilian guerrilla factions.
So don't assume everything.
Like every gun owner or pro guns civilian is a redneck ready to shoot down aggressors.
No one has once proven any point to me why guns should be banned over "premeditated murder"
PREMEDITATED
priΛmedΙΛtΔt,prΔ-/
verb
past tense: premeditated; past participle: premeditated
1.
think out or plan (an action, esp. a crime) beforehand.
"premeditated murder"
Assuming guns were banned.
And a murderer is still a murderer.
Do you not think the wouldn't premeditate something else.
Quote from: DirtyMustachio on February 18, 2014, 01:55:24 PM
No one has once proven any point to me why guns should be banned over "premeditated murder"
PREMEDITATED
priΛmedΙΛtΔt,prΔ-/
verb
past tense: premeditated; past participle: premeditated
1.
think out or plan (an action, esp. a crime) beforehand.
"premeditated murder"
Assuming guns were banned.
And a murderer is still a murderer.
Do you not think the wouldn't premeditate something else.
Guns are an efficient and easy to use method of murder. Handguns can have over 30-round magazines, so you can easily injure or kill scores of people without even reloading. Unlike bombs, the only other popular method of mass murder, guns are inconspicuous and don't carry the inherently large risk that the criminal will simply blow themself up. Trying to kill someone with a gun is also significantly easier and more effective than with, say, a knife, or any other weapon of single-victim homicide.
Quote from: Taysby on February 18, 2014, 05:12:17 PM
As for lots of meaningless deaths, do I need to pull the argument of how many crimes have been prevented and lives saved due to good guys with guns? I can give you a gagillion examples if you need me to.
"Good guys with guns" tend to get shot 4.5 times more often because they're carrying a gun. Owning a gun is linked much more to homicide and suicide than self-defense.
http://www.motherjones.com/.politics./2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check
I have no real opinion to state here, but I do have this to say: Constitutional Amendments have been nullified before; the 18th Amendment (prohibition) was nullified by the 21st Amendment. This means that guns could possibly be taken away legally, but only with an Amendment to the Constitution.
That is not a logical argument for premeditated murder.
Murder intended to kill someone for personal reason or conviction.
I'm not talking about killing scores of people.
If someone were going to kill their wife and guns were banned they'd be just as easy to handle with a knife while sleeping with less noise to attract attention.
My point stands.
If it's premeditated the means is irrelevant because the ends will be fulfilled through the plan.
Quote from: Taysby on February 18, 2014, 08:41:51 PM
Maby next time you should not quote a SO obviously biased source. Having guns increases gun crime rates. Well DUH! But does it increase the crime rate in general? Your site doesn't say that. People use guns to kill themselves because it's faster than stabbing them self. They would kill the self anyways, they just choose to use a gun
And about the home safety issue with the kids. Why would it not be in a safe?! If you have a gun, it should be in a safe! It's already illegal to not have it in a safe.
That source is a piece of crap written by die hard democrats who would love to take away all your guns (due to all of the regulation)
It even admits that no one knows how many guns there are, so if you impose gun control, all that will happen is the responsible people lose their privelidge and the bad guys still have them.
I chose to use that article because every single point has multiple external sources. Maybe you should check to see if those were written by "die hard democrats" before you should assume that the site is a piece of crap.
Also, if you think currently gun laws are being enforced well enough that most people bother to do background checks or put guns in safes, then you're sorely mistaken. One reason we don't have data on how well gun banning works is that we haven't been able to properly test it.
Quote from: Taysby on February 18, 2014, 10:30:46 PM
Dc isn't proof? Detroit isn't proof?
I didn't say the site wasn't good, I was saying the article wasn't good. If you just look at it, you can see how bad it is. I was also making an assumption that they were democrats because I didn't want to do a bunch of research for a pointless argument.
How do people get out of doing background Checks where it's required? Businesses don't want to get cited. It would take a complete idiot (who I think should get their guns taken away, just FYI) to leave both guns and ammo within grasp of children.
If they want to redo background checks correctly, (currently it isn't) I'm fine with that. I don't want murderers and crazies to have guns. I'm of the opinion that you can have your toys unless you abuse them.
And what all this of providing a source, and when I use it against you, you're best argument is "hey, laws aren't enforced and check who wrote it"? You must know I'm right but not want to Admit it... ;)
Again, the article is written with links to over 40 sources, so no I'm not just saying, "Look who wrote it" as a justification as using it for a source. I agree with redoing background checks, and no, they and other parts of gun safety laws are not often followed (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113594508). The problem with idiots getting guns is you can't reliably test for idiocy
Quote from: Taysby on February 18, 2014, 10:49:53 PM
Actually, they are following the law. They don't have to do background checks at gun shows. Assuming the background check gets fixed, I'd be fine with changing it so they have to check no matter who/where the sale is happening.
And once again, you ignore the main points I had and focused on the small irrelevant things.
Thank you for having sources and being civil. +1
+1 to you as well for a well-argued case.
Quote from: Taysby on February 18, 2014, 10:50:43 PM
I know you can't test for idiocy, but it will eventually show. You can test for crazy and felonies though.
The problem is people who snap and suddenly go crazy without having anything on their record beforehand. :/
Quote from: Taysby on February 18, 2014, 10:30:46 PM
Dc isn't proof? Detroit isn't proof?
I assume this was a point I missed. The problem with using individual cities is the same one we had during prohibition: the vice bleeds in from outside sources (although prohibition was stupid).
Quote from: Taysby on February 18, 2014, 11:13:53 PM
Both of those are good points, but it isn't big enough to make a large difference. Detroit and do both are very strict on guns, yet they have extremely high crime rates. Leakage might explain some, but the rest is still a lot.
Let's not forget the father of them all Chicago
Lol
Quote from: Piotr on February 19, 2014, 05:32:05 AM
Comparing statistics of crime rate of one country to another is impossible or at best difficult, because crime is affected by plethora of different factors, not only access to guns.
It is far easier to compare crime rates of the same country or state which changed their gun ownership laws, as most of the other relevant factors remain the same. Statistics confirm that when a state such as Florida relaxes their gun control laws, crime rate goes down.
One of logical explanations of this scientifically proven real life phenomenon is that in general, guns in hands of criminals increase crime rate, guns in hands of law obeying citizens decrease crime rate, obviously. When you ban guns you only ban them for law obeying citizens, thus the ratio of legal vs. illegal guns changes, making it easier for the criminals to commit crimes.
For me, this discussion is pointless as I observe 'no victim, no crime' and 'do not punish people for crimes you are afraid they may commit'. Do not break law in prevention of lawbreaking: interfering with free trade of any tools is prohibited under iMtG Law.
The American Journal of Public Health has released a study which shows that the idea of gun ownership leading to decreased crime rates is false: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409?journalCode=ajph&
As does the KFF: http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/firearms-death-rate-per-100000/
And numerous FBI reports: http://m.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/236
I agree that this conversation isn't getting anywhere, however. As I see it, guns are weapons which make victims out of our entire society by putting is all at higher risk of dying by homicide. More often than not, the citizens who we hope will defend people from murderers don't (can you name any mass shooters stopped by an armed citizen?).
Quote from: abstractApathist on February 19, 2014, 07:41:29 AM
Quote from: Piotr on February 19, 2014, 05:32:05 AM
Comparing statistics of crime rate of one country to another is impossible or at best difficult, because crime is affected by plethora of different factors, not only access to guns.
It is far easier to compare crime rates of the same country or state which changed their gun ownership laws, as most of the other relevant factors remain the same. Statistics confirm that when a state such as Florida relaxes their gun control laws, crime rate goes down.
One of logical explanations of this scientifically proven real life phenomenon is that in general, guns in hands of criminals increase crime rate, guns in hands of law obeying citizens decrease crime rate, obviously. When you ban guns you only ban them for law obeying citizens, thus the ratio of legal vs. illegal guns changes, making it easier for the criminals to commit crimes.
For me, this discussion is pointless as I observe 'no victim, no crime' and 'do not punish people for crimes you are afraid they may commit'. Do not break law in prevention of lawbreaking: interfering with free trade of any tools is prohibited under iMtG Law.
More often than not, the citizens who we hope will defend people from murderers don't (can you name any mass shooters stopped by an armed citizen?).
No we cannot because those situations do not get publicized by the media like the mass murders do. Publicizing things like this would not help "the cause".
Lol
Lol
Lol
Quote from: Piotr on February 19, 2014, 12:27:41 PM
Gun is the best personal defence tool known to women, given no more than 2h training. True or false?
It is unknown how many rape crimes could be prevented if women were not denied this very easy to use, safe and powerful tool of self defence.
I must think of the children, I have two daughters myself and I want them to be able to defend themselves against sexual offenders.
False! While it may seem like it would help a woman defend herself, a woman is thrice as likely to be murdered by her intimate acquaintance if she owns a gun than if she doesn't. Intimate partners kill by far more women than strangers (16x more). http://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2012.pdf
Rates of forcible rape are also highest in states with the most guns and least gun control: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0308.pdf
Quote from: abstractApathist on February 19, 2014, 03:14:53 PM
Quote from: Piotr on February 19, 2014, 12:27:41 PM
Gun is the best personal defence tool known to women, given no more than 2h training. True or false?
It is unknown how many rape crimes could be prevented if women were not denied this very easy to use, safe and powerful tool of self defence.
I must think of the children, I have two daughters myself and I want them to be able to defend themselves against sexual offenders.
False! While it may seem like it would help a woman defend herself, a woman is thrice as likely to be murdered by her intimate acquaintance if she owns a gun than if she doesn't. Intimate partners kill by far more women than strangers (16x more). http://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2012.pdf
Rates of forcible rape are also highest in states with the most guns and least gun control: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0308.pdf
Great point; too bad I can't give +1's yet... Only 13 posts to go!
However, I interpret Piotr's point as women carrying a gun on them with a permit, and not letting an intimate partner use the weapon (ex: not telling the combination to the gun safe). With guns, they may feel safer regardless if they are in a violent relationship or not.
But, what do I know, I'm just a 'punk teenager' with an opinion to a complicated question with a complicated answer.
I bowed out of this cause I got a couple karma pings and barely have any to begin with, but I've been reading.
I like that everybody for the most part is civil. The iMTG community is beast.
Quote from: DrEggman789 on February 20, 2014, 01:50:32 PM
I bowed out of this cause I got a couple karma pings and barely have any to begin with, but I've been reading.
I like that everybody for the most part is civil. The iMTG community is beast.
Yeah I've been in a few of these heated discussions and I keep expecting -1's but haven't had any. It shows the maturity level of the community and it's ability to disagree but still be family.
Lol
Quote from: Piotr on February 22, 2014, 05:10:51 AM
Quote from: abstractApathist on February 19, 2014, 03:14:53 PM
Quote from: Piotr on February 19, 2014, 12:27:41 PM
Gun is the best personal defence tool known to women, given no more than 2h training. True or false?
False! While it may seem like it would help a woman defend herself, a woman is thrice as likely to be murdered by her intimate acquaintance if she owns a gun than if she doesn't. Intimate partners kill by far more women than strangers (16x more). http://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2012.pdf
Rates of forcible rape are also highest in states with the most guns and least gun control: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0308.pdf
You provide statistics claiming that gun-armed men kill women.
You provide statistics showing that in countries with high crime rates, more people arm themselves to be safe.
No .poo., Sherlock? 10 days ban, I don't have time for bozos.
Did you really bring down the ban hammer?
Lol
Quote from: Piotr on February 22, 2014, 05:30:11 AM
Quote from: Spencer Addington on February 22, 2014, 05:21:55 AM
Quote from: Piotr on February 22, 2014, 05:10:51 AM
Quote from: abstractApathist on February 19, 2014, 03:14:53 PM
Quote from: Piotr on February 19, 2014, 12:27:41 PM
Gun is the best personal defence tool known to women, given no more than 2h training. True or false?
False! While it may seem like it would help a woman defend herself, a woman is thrice as likely to be murdered by her intimate acquaintance if she owns a gun than if she doesn't. Intimate partners kill by far more women than strangers (16x more). http://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2012.pdf
Rates of forcible rape are also highest in states with the most guns and least gun control: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0308.pdf
You provide statistics claiming that gun-armed men kill women.
You provide statistics showing that in countries with high crime rates, more people arm themselves to be safe.
No .poo., Sherlock? 10 days ban, I don't have time for bozos.
Did you really bring down the ban hammer?
Yes man. He can spread his lies on some other forums in the meantime.
What lies exactly? I must have missed a lot. Misinformation is a bit different from intentionally lying.
Lol
Quote from: Piotr on February 22, 2014, 05:53:27 AM
If you lie to me, I don't care what your goal is. Goal does not justify the means, neither does good intentions.
So what were these lies?
Lol
Quote from: Piotr on February 22, 2014, 05:58:59 AM
Quote from: Spencer Addington on February 22, 2014, 05:56:59 AM
Quote from: Piotr on February 22, 2014, 05:53:27 AM
If you lie to me, I don't care what your goal is. Goal does not justify the means, neither does good intentions.
So what were these lies?
He lied that my claim is false.
I could say false. Is a knife not an above adequate defense tool that is more consistent than a firearm? Gun jams and misfires are a thing that had been know to happen on more than one occasion.
This is for arguments sake. I'm not claiming anything, so please keep that in mind.
Stop banning people for disagreeing with your personal beliefs. This is bullshit. Abstract is an incredibly helpful and generous member of this community, and you're going to throw a ban because you're the allknowing and every thought you think is the absolute?
Stop it. You're being childish and a bully. Abstract doesn't deserve it. The community doesn't deserve it. I'm really tired of you using extremist .politics. to push people around. Just stop.
Quote from: Gorzo on February 22, 2014, 06:10:01 AM
Stop banning people for disagreeing with your personal beliefs. This is bullshit. Abstract is an incredibly helpful and generous member of this community, and you're going to throw a ban because you're the allknowing and every thought you think is the absolute?
Stop it. You're being childish and a bully. Abstract doesn't deserve it. The community doesn't deserve it. I'm really tired of you using extremist .politics. to push people around. Just stop.
^^^this^^^
Lol
Lol
Quote from: Piotr on February 22, 2014, 06:31:35 AM
Quote from: Spencer Addington on February 22, 2014, 06:08:53 AM
Quote from: Piotr on February 22, 2014, 05:58:59 AM
Quote from: Spencer Addington on February 22, 2014, 05:56:59 AM
Quote from: Piotr on February 22, 2014, 05:53:27 AM
If you lie to me, I don't care what your goal is. Goal does not justify the means, neither does good intentions.
So what were these lies?
He lied that my claim is false.
I could say false. Is a knife not an above adequate defense tool that is more consistent than a firearm? Gun jams and misfires are a thing that had been know to happen on more than one occasion.
You would be wrong: knife is a tool which is not self perpetuated, it uses physical power of the wielder rather than power of chemical cartridge. According to reality, statistical man is far stronger and have much better eye-had coordination skills than statistical woman, thus woman armed with knife is still not very likely to be able to defend herself. On top of that, knife requires far more than 2h training to be used efficiently in self defense.
My thesis stands: hand gun is the best self defense tool available to women, given no more than 2h training.
Well put.
Lol
Having a logical discussion would involve him being able to respond to you. Not just bam banned. He should be warned. But again that is in logical discussions not dictatorship discussions.
I'm not sure I like that. While I think Piotr is right, I'm betting he wasn't lying, he was saying what he honestly thought. You yourself have admitted thrice (I believe) that there is a huge difference, and that's not against iMtG law. Only lying, and lying is intentionally false. So he didn't break iMtG law at all. In a way, you did* by "doing to others which you wouldn't like done to yourself".
*i use this in the loosest sense of the term.
Quote from: Piotr on February 22, 2014, 06:31:35 AM
Quote from: Spencer Addington on February 22, 2014, 06:08:53 AM
Quote from: Piotr on February 22, 2014, 05:58:59 AM
Quote from: Spencer Addington on February 22, 2014, 05:56:59 AM
Quote from: Piotr on February 22, 2014, 05:53:27 AM
If you lie to me, I don't care what your goal is. Goal does not justify the means, neither does good intentions.
So what were these lies?
He lied that my claim is false.
I could say false. Is a knife not an above adequate defense tool that is more consistent than a firearm? Gun jams and misfires are a thing that had been know to happen on more than one occasion.
You would be wrong: knife is a tool which is not self perpetuated, it uses physical power of the wielder rather than power of chemical cartridge. According to reality, statistical man is far stronger and have much better eye-had coordination skills than statistical woman, thus woman armed with knife is still not very likely to be able to defend herself. On top of that, knife requires far more than 2h training to be used efficiently in self defense.
My thesis stands: hand gun is the best self defense tool available to women, given no more than 2h training.
It takes training to successfully use a gun and have it do exactly what you want, it'll fail, and if can fun out if ammo. Knives need no training, never misfire or run out, and the strength of the weilder doesn't so much matter, because it's going to successfully hurt them. Knives are not as good as guns, but almost as good.
Quote from: Taysby on February 22, 2014, 03:05:42 PM
Quote from: Mishra, Artificer Extraordinaire on February 22, 2014, 03:02:09 PM
Quote from: Piotr on February 22, 2014, 06:31:35 AM
Quote from: Spencer Addington on February 22, 2014, 06:08:53 AM
Quote from: Piotr on February 22, 2014, 05:58:59 AM
Quote from: Spencer Addington on February 22, 2014, 05:56:59 AM
Quote from: Piotr on February 22, 2014, 05:53:27 AM
If you lie to me, I don't care what your goal is. Goal does not justify the means, neither does good intentions.
So what were these lies?
He lied that my claim is false.
I could say false. Is a knife not an above adequate defense tool that is more consistent than a firearm? Gun jams and misfires are a thing that had been know to happen on more than one occasion.
You would be wrong: knife is a tool which is not self perpetuated, it uses physical power of the wielder rather than power of chemical cartridge. According to reality, statistical man is far stronger and have much better eye-had coordination skills than statistical woman, thus woman armed with knife is still not very likely to be able to defend herself. On top of that, knife requires far more than 2h training to be used efficiently in self defense.
My thesis stands: hand gun is the best self defense tool available to women, given no more than 2h training.
It takes training to successfully use a gun and have it do exactly what you want, it'll fail, and if can fun out if ammo. Knives need no training, never misfire or run out, and the strength of the weilder doesn't so much matter, because it's going to successfully hurt them. Knives are not as good as guns, but almost as good.
It takes 5 minutes of training to be able o use a gun reasonably well. If you get into hand to hand combat, knives are VERy difficult to use, and it'll probably come down to if the assaulted can grab their arm and keep them from moving it. Strength matters. The only time it doesn't is when you have the element of surprise.
It takes 5 minutes to use it but a very long time to use it well. Knives, if you can stab randomly you can .love. them up, and it's really good hand-yo-hand. They swing, you stab a knife at their arm, boom that hurts,
Lol
Quote from: Piotr on February 22, 2014, 04:52:17 PM
Quote from: Rass on February 22, 2014, 11:09:27 AM
Having a logical discussion would involve him being able to respond to you. Not just bam banned. He should be warned. But again that is in logical discussions not dictatorship discussions.
Are you saying that he was not warned?
I do not see any warning of bans to anyone on this topic. Second I didn't see a trial against the person who was banned for ten days.
By all means this is your forum you can do what you want. Also you can say they should know better under imtg law. But when someone is trying to link topics that he believes supports his case and all you say is no without trying to post references to support your argument. This seems quite harsh.
Thanks Obama...
Well, that descended quickly after my last post.
The two links he linked to were statistics on rape victims with known assailants and locations of rape victims by state when cross referencing with gun control by leniency...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that doesn't contradict itself, or lie, being as the sources posted were the US census and the Violence Policy Center, a gun control advocacy group...
Seems like less of a "lying" ban and more of a "you disagree with me" ban.
Quote from: DrEggman789 on February 22, 2014, 11:34:04 PM
Well, that descended quickly after my last post.
The two links he linked to were statistics on rape victims with known assailants and locations of rape victims by state when cross referencing with gun control by leniency...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that doesn't contradict itself, or lie, being as the sources posted were the US census and the Violence Policy Center, a gun control advocacy group...
Seems like less of a "lying" ban and more of a "you disagree with me" ban.
He has done it before, and I expect he'll do it again...
Quote from: Taysby on February 22, 2014, 07:44:16 PM
Quote from: Piotr on February 19, 2014, 11:58:49 AM
Quote from: abstractApathist on February 19, 2014, 07:41:29 AM
Quote from: Piotr on February 19, 2014, 05:32:05 AM
Comparing statistics of crime rate of one country to another is impossible or at best difficult, because crime is affected by plethora of different factors, not only access to guns.
It is far easier to compare crime rates of the same country or state which changed their gun ownership laws, as most of the other relevant factors remain the same. Statistics confirm that when a state such as Florida relaxes their gun control laws, crime rate goes down.
One of logical explanations of this scientifically proven real life phenomenon is that in general, guns in hands of criminals increase crime rate, guns in hands of law obeying citizens decrease crime rate, obviously. When you ban guns you only ban them for law obeying citizens, thus the ratio of legal vs. illegal guns changes, making it easier for the criminals to commit crimes.
For me, this discussion is pointless as I observe 'no victim, no crime' and 'do not punish people for crimes you are afraid they may commit'. Do not break law in prevention of lawbreaking: interfering with free trade of any tools is prohibited under iMtG Law.
The American Journal of Public Health has released a study which shows that the idea of gun ownership leading to decreased crime rates is false: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409?journalCode=ajph&
You are claiming something which is not confirmed by scientific evidence nor logical causation. From your first link: "Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides" thus your claim is false. Do not lie or you will be banned.
Most people do not buy guns or any other tool without a reason, most of the time. Thus, the correlation is this: in the states where crime rate is high, more people arm themselves to be able to resist crime. Not the other way round.
He was warned.
Guess I can't read anymore. I was wrong so I will have to take that part of my argument back. I still see it to be silly to ban someone for something like this.you can steal or lie and it's like pulling teeth to get something done to them (check the trial section). But if you argue with Piotr (yes it is his forum) and he doesn't like what you say he uses his absolute power. And as I have heard before absolute power corrupts absolutely. So I guess for me spreading "lies" I should await to see what kind of punishment he deems fit for me.
Lol
No offense but Hilary clinton will destroy the american dream. By making is socialist.
Quote from: Skyshadow731 on February 23, 2014, 03:53:09 AM
No offense but Hilary clinton will destroy the american dream. By making is socialist.
Not quite...
And @Piotr was that a warning, or did you just ban him?
Quote from: Piotr on February 23, 2014, 03:23:42 AM
Quote from: Rass on February 23, 2014, 12:20:26 AM
Quote from: Taysby on February 22, 2014, 07:44:16 PM
Quote from: Piotr on February 19, 2014, 11:58:49 AM
Quote from: abstractApathist on February 19, 2014, 07:41:29 AM
Quote from: Piotr on February 19, 2014, 05:32:05 AM
Comparing statistics of crime rate of one country to another is impossible or at best difficult, because crime is affected by plethora of different factors, not only access to guns.
It is far easier to compare crime rates of the same country or state which changed their gun ownership laws, as most of the other relevant factors remain the same. Statistics confirm that when a state such as Florida relaxes their gun control laws, crime rate goes down.
One of logical explanations of this scientifically proven real life phenomenon is that in general, guns in hands of criminals increase crime rate, guns in hands of law obeying citizens decrease crime rate, obviously. When you ban guns you only ban them for law obeying citizens, thus the ratio of legal vs. illegal guns changes, making it easier for the criminals to commit crimes.
For me, this discussion is pointless as I observe 'no victim, no crime' and 'do not punish people for crimes you are afraid they may commit'. Do not break law in prevention of lawbreaking: interfering with free trade of any tools is prohibited under iMtG Law.
The American Journal of Public Health has released a study which shows that the idea of gun ownership leading to decreased crime rates is false: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409?journalCode=ajph&
You are claiming something which is not confirmed by scientific evidence nor logical causation. From your first link: "Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides" thus your claim is false. Do not lie or you will be banned.
Most people do not buy guns or any other tool without a reason, most of the time. Thus, the correlation is this: in the states where crime rate is high, more people arm themselves to be able to resist crime. Not the other way round.
He was warned.
Guess I can't read anymore. I was wrong so I will have to take that part of my argument back. I still see it to be silly to ban someone for something like this.you can steal or lie and it's like pulling teeth to get something done to them (check the trial section). But if you argue with Piotr (yes it is his forum) and he doesn't like what you say he uses his absolute power. And as I have heard before absolute power corrupts absolutely. So I guess for me spreading "lies" I should await to see what kind of punishment he deems fit for me.
If you again claim falsely that I ban people without warning, your punishment will be 7 days ban. Deal?
As for banning for silly things and not for stealing and such, it is a question of practicality. My powers are good enough to know if someone lies in my area of expertise, but knowing if they lie about sending cards is more difficult.
He isn't claiming anything falsely. He is stating his belief that you banned abstract for disagreeing with you. Whether that was the case or not, that is his belief.
Believing something is true and talking about it is different than being deceptive. I think that would apply to both Rass and abstract.
By that application of iMTG law, if someone asked a question regarding MtG rules, and I thought and said that the play in question was legal, and a DCI judge said it wasn't, that would make me a liar. Would you ban me?
I am not trying to be belligerent, I'm just requesting that abstract be given a trial before punishment, as that is promised in the law you created.
Generally speaking
If you state an opinion, say in my opinion and don't cite sources, if you insinuate something opinionated to be truth it is automatically ruled false by Piotr or really anyone.
For example I could go on every thread and cite all the sources I want. Even if they are legitimate sources, but if I claim evolution is absolute truth, it is still in debate until final proof has made it absolute.
So if you want to share your opinions without catching the banhammer, leave them at just opinions. And state facts as facts which would be prerecorded source material not polls or statistics.
Quote from: abstractApathist on February 19, 2014, 07:41:29 AM
The American Journal of Public Health has released a study which shows that the idea of gun ownership leading to decreased crime rates is false: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409?journalCode=ajph&
As does the KFF: http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/firearms-death-rate-per-100000/
And numerous FBI reports: http://m.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/236
I agree that this conversation isn't getting anywhere, however. As I see it, guns are weapons which make victims out of our entire society by putting is all at higher risk of dying by homicide. More often than not, the citizens who we hope will defend people from murderers don't (can you name any mass shooters stopped by an armed citizen?).
In this post, he stated, "The American Journal of Public Health has released a study which shows that the idea of gun ownership leading to decreased crime rates is false." This does not mean he claimed causation. The pro-gun advocates in this thread were purporting that owning a weapon can prevent someone from being a victim of crime. He refuted that claim with a study that shows states that have high gun ownership also have high crime rates. This statement is true, based on the three sources he listed. Yet, he received a warning.
Quote from: abstractApathist on February 19, 2014, 03:14:53 PM
False! While it may seem like it would help a woman defend herself, a woman is thrice as likely to be murdered by her intimate acquaintance if she owns a gun than if she doesn't. Intimate partners kill by far more women than strangers (16x more). http://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2012.pdf
Rates of forcible rape are also highest in states with the most guns and least gun control: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0308.pdf
In this post, he also stated facts, and backed them up with sources as well.
Funnily enough, the one opinion he stated in either of these posts, he prefaced with "As I see it," which designates the statement that followed was an opinion.
In both of these posts, he posted studies that show data, which he based his statements off of. This is a ban-worthy offense, apparently.
We really shouldn't be having this conversation here. We should be having it in abstract's trial. Oh wait...
Quote from: DrEggman789 on February 23, 2014, 11:03:11 PM
We really shouldn't be having this conversation here. We should be having it in abstract's trial. Oh wait...
I wasn't going to say anything on this topic because I didn't feel like it would be very helpful, but I have to say that I really agree with DrEggman here. I don't think this was fair at all.
What's with all the negative auras man? It's feeling very hostile on this thread.
I think the only way to fix it, is by holding hands and singing KumBiYah
I really didn't mean to be hostile. I was just trying to defend abstract. But I'm done. Piotr owns this and doesn't (and shouldn't) care what a newbie says.
No I think you misunderstood, I'm a lover, not a fight (well not all the time). Wasn't a comment specifically addressed at you. :)
.politics., dog.
Quote from: ConanEdo on February 24, 2014, 02:11:36 PM
Quote from: E.kann1 on February 23, 2014, 11:06:51 PM
Quote from: DrEggman789 on February 23, 2014, 11:03:11 PM
We really shouldn't be having this conversation here. We should be having it in abstract's trial. Oh wait...
I wasn't going to say anything on this topic because I didn't feel like it would be very helpful, but I have to say that I really agree with DrEggman here. I don't think this was fair at all.
Priotr doesn't do fair. He does his version of the the truth and banhammer if you have the audacity to have a differing opinion.
possibly true, but surely you gents must remember, it is his forum, and fair or not he can banhammer whoever he wants. im not saying i agree that the banning was fair, but its his house and his rules...
Quote from: IceScythe on February 24, 2014, 03:04:03 PM
Quote from: ConanEdo on February 24, 2014, 02:11:36 PM
Quote from: E.kann1 on February 23, 2014, 11:06:51 PM
Quote from: DrEggman789 on February 23, 2014, 11:03:11 PM
We really shouldn't be having this conversation here. We should be having it in abstract's trial. Oh wait...
I wasn't going to say anything on this topic because I didn't feel like it would be very helpful, but I have to say that I really agree with DrEggman here. I don't think this was fair at all.
Priotr doesn't do fair. He does his version of the the truth and banhammer if you have the audacity to have a differing opinion.
possibly true, but surely you gents must remember, it is his forum, and fair or not he can banhammer whoever he wants. im not saying i agree that the banning was fair, but its his house and his rules...
But even in your own house you have guests. You have discussions, and if things don't go in your favour it's not like you flip the table and tell them to leave. That's what four year olds do. What he did was irrational and wrong. It may be his forum, but we are not his to rule over. If he wants to ban people at least make it a good reason.
Quote from: Sparkle Ninja on February 26, 2014, 05:40:05 PM
Quote from: IceScythe on February 24, 2014, 03:04:03 PM
Quote from: ConanEdo on February 24, 2014, 02:11:36 PM
Quote from: E.kann1 on February 23, 2014, 11:06:51 PM
Quote from: DrEggman789 on February 23, 2014, 11:03:11 PM
We really shouldn't be having this conversation here. We should be having it in abstract's trial. Oh wait...
I wasn't going to say anything on this topic because I didn't feel like it would be very helpful, but I have to say that I really agree with DrEggman here. I don't think this was fair at all.
Priotr doesn't do fair. He does his version of the the truth and banhammer if you have the audacity to have a differing opinion.
possibly true, but surely you gents must remember, it is his forum, and fair or not he can banhammer whoever he wants. im not saying i agree that the banning was fair, but its his house and his rules...
But even in your own house you have guests. You have discussions, and if things don't go in your favour it's not like you flip the table and tell them to leave. That's what four year olds do. What he did was irrational and wrong. It may be his forum, but we are not his to rule over. If he wants to ban people at least make it a good reason.
all too true, im afraid. i disagree with his decision but i won't fuss about it because it would be of no use and persuade no one. ill just keep using this app because i love it and i just hope Piotr is less rash in his decisions to ban users in the future.
Did piotr really do that wow. No offense but that is like a 6 year old child. .politics. is a very touchy subject so if you get involved to blow up. And yes there are people who buy guns for no opparent reason and its not lieing if he has evidence so in my opinon and if he doesnt like it than im sorry but act your age not like a little kid. Rant done.
Trap thread is trap thread.