| Welcome to Coffeetalk. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| The World in Numbers; Random stats | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 29 2007, 02:41 PM (1,293 Views) | |
| Bex | Apr 28 2007, 05:36 AM Post #51 |
|
puppet dictator
|
I always find it interesting that people who claim a gun allows them to defend their home from burglars appear to be implying that their TV set is worth more to them than another human life. We do get stupid gun crimes up here too. One that was just in the courts here involved a group of youths who apparently shouted some insulting things at a young man, who was angered and decided to get back at them by firing a gun at or near them, just to frighten them, he said. A young woman was hit by the shot and died. It was a staggeringly, mind-numbingly, thunderously stupid action, not something I'd expect of any responsible gun owner, but the core of it is that a hotheaded youth got pissy and decided to teach someone a lesson on the spur of the moment. He had access to a gun and an innocent girl died for it. And he's not getting off any easier because he gets to live with that knowledge. People aren't always rational. With ready access to firearms, there is an increased risk that a person will do something irreparable, essentially on a whim. Regarding suicides, yeah, a determined individual will figure something out. I've read about such innovative methods as jumping into a volcano or feeding oneself to a lion. One interesting statistic that I read was that men are more likely to complete a suicide than women (I can't remember if women are more likely to attempt or not). Men favour guns. Women favour pills. The women are far more likely to survive and reconsider. |
|
I belong to one of those families that does not speak to or see its members as often as we should, but if someone needed anyone to fall on a sword for her, there would be a queue waiting to commit the deed. -Min Jin Lee | |
![]() |
|
| Bex | Apr 28 2007, 05:44 AM Post #52 |
|
puppet dictator
|
When I posted my initial explantion, I was only thinking about the American and Canadian citizens (for example) who travel to the Middle East to work in the oil industry. I remembered about the servants later. My in-laws lived in Kuwait for a number of years, and many Kuwaitis had an Indian driver, Filipino housemaids (though they'd be female... hmm), etc. At any rate, the population dynamics are odd in Kuwait, and the UAE would be similar, as their cultural and economic situation is also similar. |
|
I belong to one of those families that does not speak to or see its members as often as we should, but if someone needed anyone to fall on a sword for her, there would be a queue waiting to commit the deed. -Min Jin Lee | |
![]() |
|
| underdog | Apr 28 2007, 06:37 AM Post #53 |
|
Irish Breakfast
|
I heard about that case, they went from one house to another in Vermont, they kept finding people with guns, finally decided to go somewhere there weren't any guns, so they went to Dartmouth CT. I wasn't suggesting that we should bring guns back to schools like they did way back then, but more of an attempt to show that the presence of a gun doesn't mean there will be a shooting, as I keep inferring from what you are saying. No you aren't allowed to shoot any burgler that comes into your house, in MN for sure you are only allowed to use lethal force if you or somene else is threatened with great bodily harm (meaning would cause a permanant disability or disfigurement) or death, burglery does't fall into that catagory, you are allowed to use it to stop a felony if it is being commited within your home, but once again burglery isn't a felony.
I will send you back here if you didn't read it. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=55288 Everyone must own a gun here and no murders for 25 years there, pop. went up by 5times, and crime went down by about 45%. It is not axiomatic that more guns will equate to more gun crimes, NYC and DC have the toughest gun laws in the country and also the highest gun crimes, although no one can have a gun.
In order to carry one in most places here (US) you need to take a classes on using/carrying them responsibly, (except Vermont and Alaska, they have no permit required) Lara in order to get a gun in most if not all places (legally) you need to get a permit, pass a crimiinal background check, if you have a criminal bacground you lose your right or privilidge to owna gun. Bex, I bet that gun was illegal, and the guy was an idiot, and almost anyone who went through the classes to get a gun and carry it wouldn't do something like that, and you don't get those permits until your 21 so youths like that wouldn't have one legally. And referring back a few lines I bet he probably didn't learn (prior to that) the responsibility and dangers of firing a gun, you always have to know is beyond your target. Going back to God given rights 'Our Founding Fathers believed that the right to keep and bear arms was a natural right given by God and essential to the preservation of life and liberty. Alexander Hamilton acknowledged that "the Supreme Being ... invested [man] with an inviolable right to personal liberty and personal safety." ' The founding fathers believed all rights decended from God, and as such the Government did not have the power to recind something that was given from a higher authority. With the rise of secularism and/or socialism, the ultimate authority becomes the government, there is nothing higher, so the government can give or take away rights as it sees fit. The Bible didn't say you had to carry a gun, they weren't around then, but itseems to me that Jesus instructed his followers at one point to take up the sword, turn the other cheek is fine in a lot of cases, but say you were in VT when Cho started shooting, and you had a gun would you turn the other cheek? If using a gun would save your life, and maybe up to 32 others, would that be a (Biblically) justified use of a gun? I don't know, that is something that each person would probably have to decide for themselves, an Amish wouldn't defend himself, is that the right thing or the wrong thing to do? I don't know. Once again defending himself may save up to 32 others, is it better to defend yourself and save others or remain passive nonviolent and maybe allow upto 32 others to be killed? |
![]() |
|
| Krazy | Apr 28 2007, 04:06 PM Post #54 |
|
I haz powah!
|
The Founding Fathers believing bearing arms was a God given right, does not make it a God given right by any logic. |
![]() |
|
| lara | Apr 28 2007, 05:25 PM Post #55 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
I remember him saying something about beating swords into ploughshares, so maybe he wanted them to be farmers. Oh, wait, farmers need guns, so maybe that's where the guns came in. What Krazy said, too. |
![]() |
|
| Blood_Raven | Apr 28 2007, 11:05 PM Post #56 |
![]()
Come burn with me.
|
I like how Europeans come off as being morally superior by looking down on Americans and their "cowboy life style", as in keeping guns. Last time I checked European lands are drenched in blood from the 1000's of years of bloodshed, wars, inquistions, etc over there. |
|
TheFrozen North forums. Where it's at. Mood for today: Perfection | |
![]() |
|
| Eral | Apr 28 2007, 11:40 PM Post #57 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
Britain is only technically European. This isn't about bashing America: or shouldn't be. I am genuinely confused as to why a law that was needed three hundred years ago and isn't any more, because America has an army now, is used as a basis for saying people need guns, and allowing this horrible situation to occur over and over again. I find it mind-boggling that anyone can say "oh well, we just have to accept these events and bury these children and ordinary people going about their business who were killed for no reason because every American should be able to own a gun." Do the families of the people killed feel that way? Or would they rather have gun laws and their loved one alive? underdog, it's no good bringing the statistics about population and number of guns and gun crimes. I'm sorry, but I believe them to be manipulated information. I see stats all the time. All too often, they're used to present a particular viewpoint, and information is deliberately left out, which is very bad because it perverts their true purpose and makes them hated every where. NY and DC probably have high crime rates because of the poor people living there: and the reason for the gun laws? So everybody isn't killed. Why is there a view that The Government is Them? Some amorphous faceless entity that is looking to take away your rights, and which you have to circle the wagons against? Why this sense of powerlessness? We have hunters and farmers and gun nuts here. We've had 4 of these rampages in my lifetime. People don't feel they need guns to protect themselves. Support for the new gun laws was overwhelming after Port Arthur. "Never again," was the consensus. Why does the NRA keep up its merchandising program in the face of so much terror and loss? What is going on?? This is probably an unanswerable question. I am baffled by it though. |
![]() |
|
| lara | Apr 28 2007, 11:48 PM Post #58 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
Eral, not everyone in the U.S. thinks that way (I know, that's obvious, you know). But I thought this was an appropriate moment at which to spread the word of ani (difranco), an American herself: to the teeth the sun is setting on the century and we are armed to the teeth we're all working together now to make our lives mercifully brief and schoolkids keep trying to teach us what guns are all about confuse liberty with weaponry and watch your kids act it out and every year now like christmas some boy gets the milkfed suburban blues reaches for the available arsenal and saunters off to make the news and the women in the middle are learning what poor women have always known that the edge is closer than you think when the men bring the guns home look at where the profits are that's how you'll find the source of the big lie that you and i both know so well in the time it takes this cultural death wish to run it's course they're gonna make a pretty penny and then they're all going to hell he said the chickens all come home to roost yeah, malcolm forecasted this flood are we really gonna to sleep through another century while the rich profit off our blood? true, it may take some doing to see this undoing through but in my humble opinion here's what i suggest we do: open fire on hollywood open fire on MTV open fire on NBC and CBS and ABC open fire on the NRA and all the lies they told us along the way open fire on each weapons manufacturer while he's giving head to some republican senator and if i hear one more time about a fool's right to his tools of rage i'm gonna take all my friends and i'm gonna move to canada and we're gonna die of old age |
![]() |
|
| Eral | Apr 29 2007, 12:19 AM Post #59 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
I know that they don't: which makes it all the more baffling. Obviously, the Constitution is a VERY important historical and political document, and you don't want people dicking around with it. But I think that importance is being used to promote a state of affairs that undermines the whole thing, the basic reason that it's valuable. We hear all the time, representatives (except for Kucinich, it would seem, God love him) won't run on anti-gun platforms because no-one would vote for them after the gun lobby was finished trashing them. :o No-one? Where is everybody on this? Oh, and everyone would like dying of old age better in Australia.
|
![]() |
|
| lara | Apr 29 2007, 01:59 AM Post #60 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
Well, she's in Buffalo, so Canada's cheaper, closer, and she's got friends here. But yeah. I've also heard the argument that the constitutional "right to bear arms" had more to do with the right to overthrow a government - i.e., your government can't take your guns and make you submit - than anything else. And do we really want the Timothy McVeighs to have their guns? Those anti-government militias are freaky scary. |
![]() |
|
| Blood_Raven | Apr 29 2007, 02:59 AM Post #61 |
![]()
Come burn with me.
|
I would love to see the Fascist government try and tale my guns away. As usual it’s far easier to blame a tool instead and not society and parents for the people they create. Capitalistic society forces both parents to work in order to make ends meet. No proper supervision for the kids. Parents don't give a rats ass. Fine little Johnny you can have that if you just stop crying. Where are my kids at? I don't know, out playing some where. No morals taught at home. Easier to keep kids drugged up on medication for any "problems" they have. Spare the rod, spoil the child. Hell you can't physically discipline your child without the threat of "child abuse" and doing jail time. Same goes with schools. I can remember the principle could discipline you for doing something wrong. Not any more! Single parents with more than one child. Divorces and careless out of marriage pregnancies. Well Tommy don't like condoms and the pill is not always 100% accurate. Single parents can't really devote full time to raising a family when they are busy working trying to keep food on the table. And the bloody list goes on. But hey that gun is bad. Better take it away and avoid the real problem at home. |
|
TheFrozen North forums. Where it's at. Mood for today: Perfection | |
![]() |
|
| Regullus | Apr 29 2007, 03:39 AM Post #62 |
|
Reliant
|
Bex or lara - What exactly goes on in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon? I ask due to the high homicide rates. I read an Wiki article but it didn't mention the homicide rates. 9.8 per 100,000 for the Yukon and 12 per 100,000 (1998 rates) for the Northwest Territories. Some nations bloodied by massacres turn to tough gun controls, but impact on homicides mixed Edit: I wanted to add one thought I have on these type of spree killings: These killings are well planned, they are not spontaneous acts. In Cho's case, he shot two people, went and made a video manifesto, mailed it and then continued on his killing spree. This wasn't in the heat of anger or emotion, this was cold and planned. The US had a case of a 14 yr old who got angry at his teacher, a teacher he usually liked, the student walked three miles to his house, got his father's gun, walked three miles back to school and shot his teacher in the head and killed him. The teacher was 32 yrs old, he left behind a wife and newborn daughter. Now you might say if there was no guns in his house this never would've happened. Possibly or not. This kid walked for 6 miles to kill his teacher. Most of us would've calmed down, most of us never would have reached for the gun. The boy's defence was that it was a spontaneous act and he didn't realize the consequence of his actions. Probably true but why is it true? I first held a gun at the age of eight and I can still remember my reaction: It's not a toy, this is dangerous, this isn't tv, this is heavy and cold and serious and I don't want to touch this anymore. Why did I know that at eight? Brilliance? Er, probably not. Serious lectures about gun safety? No. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Bex | Apr 29 2007, 05:08 AM Post #63 |
|
puppet dictator
|
Up North? A hell of a lot of issues can be traced to substance abuse, and a struggle to balance holding on to traditional culture (as the sustainability of it slips away) and modernizing (much of which is out-of-reach). Isolated. Not a lot of diversions. Just sort of overall stressful and depressing. I understand Alaska has similar problems, though I wouldn't know about the homicides. You should look at the suicide rates. Justin grew up in Ft. McMurray (not in the Territories, or particularly cut off, but pretty far north) and I swear by the time he was 20 he knew more people who'd killed themselves than most people will ever know in a lifetime. Again, not much to do except drinking, drugs, and dwelling on how to get the hell out. |
|
I belong to one of those families that does not speak to or see its members as often as we should, but if someone needed anyone to fall on a sword for her, there would be a queue waiting to commit the deed. -Min Jin Lee | |
![]() |
|
| Regullus | Apr 29 2007, 05:36 AM Post #64 |
|
Reliant
|
I've been doing some reading on the Port Arthur shootings and I thought I'd share some of the links: Very Basic Wiki Bio Conspiracy Theories Courtesy Australia's Independent Media :rolleyes: Crime Library Version More Bryant is a Patsy Stuff The Bryant Lookalike? |
| |
![]() |
|
| Drew | Apr 29 2007, 06:31 AM Post #65 |
![]()
Apparently not Cybersquirt's favorite person
|
The frequency of violent crime in the US more or less mirrors the frequency of violent crime in the rest of the western world. The big difference is the percentage of those crimes which are fatal. Put simply, while limiting or outright banning firearms makes no difference in the frequency of violent crimes, it makes a gigantic difference in their severity. More people die from violent crime in the US because it's a lot easier to kill a dude by shooting him in the head than it is by stabbing, strangling, hitting him with a car.......hell yes, I blame the tool. |
| Poor baby. Couldn't find a fight anywhere else so you had to come here, huh. -Cyber. | |
![]() |
|
| Krazy | Apr 29 2007, 08:07 AM Post #66 |
|
I haz powah!
|
Morally Superior? Just pointing out a fallacy in the logic of an argument. And why do mention only Europe? The original Americans were Europeans (that is the ones that came over in the Mayflower etc)As for America, since you brought it up, gained independence by fighting the British, then you gained land by wiping out the indigenous population and then you decided to have an internal squabble along with all your other wars against other countries. In you short 230 year or so history, you've done pretty well drenching your own country in blood and it continues with your "God given right" to bears arms. Seems you continued a long standing tradition if you ask me. And also BR, if you are too busy earning money, raising a dysfunctional family with a failed relationship where is the need for a gun? And like Drew, yes I blame the tool. Edit: Lest I be accused of America bashing, that was never my intention. I very much like America, but this gun ownership thing has totally baffled me and always will I guess having grown up in a society where we don't routinely bear arms. |
![]() |
|
| Regullus | Apr 29 2007, 02:52 PM Post #67 |
|
Reliant
|
IRT Bex - Yeah, I have been reading the suicide rates, the main population vs. indigenous people's rate. The Northwest Territories, if a country, would have the highest income rate in the world, Luxembourg has highest at 83,000 US$ and the Northwest Territories is 93,000+. To enter the squabble as to who has a nastier history, personally, I think everybody's shit stinks but maybe I have a sensitive sense of smell. ![]() Re: UAE immigrant worker population explanation: It's probably the correct explanation. This is the only thing I've found so far re:gender gap is the migrant worker is a major factor but:
Eric Solis Third World Cities University of Southern California What happened to the girls? I think you two are essentially correct but there are other factors, the UAE's population is 75% foreign. Apparently I'm not the only one leafing through statistic books: WHAT'S CAUSING MUSLIM NATIONS TO HAVE SERIOUS GENDER-IMBALANCES IN THEIR POPULATIONS? I don't necessarily agree with the conclusions. I was at another site and there was a discussion about India's gender imbalance and the person parenthetically indicated that Hindus were primarily responsible for feticide. Here's my opinion on gun control and I think it shows the libertarian side to my personal philosophy, I am by no means a true libertarian. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible. There is no tricked up stats in that statement. I come from a state with relatively free gun laws but there are laws and licensing requirements. The local cases that involved murder or suicide would not have been prevented anywhere in the world because the guns would have been legal whether its the UK, Canada, or Australia. I cannot see removing guns from the innocent and responsible majority who use these weapons carefully and necessarily. I'm not a hunter, not interested in hunting but hunting does serve a purpose. I used to disagree with hightech (scope, repeat shot, etc.) weapons for hunting until the day a terrified and arrow wounded deer tore across a busy highway almost causing multiple and potentially fatal accidents. This animal was terrified and suffering. That said, I believe in restrictions, I consider these mass murderers to be beyond vile and their victims beyond tragic. However, Cho was preventable on many levels. If he got those weapons thru a legal loophole than the loophole should be shut down. The world opinion is true, he never should have had access to weapons and society should have prevented the access. I doubt any responsible gun owner doesn't believe in some type of gun restriction. underdog has never said the streets should be lined with guns. I'm with BR on this, there's a lot a blame to go around. In Cho's case, we have failure by individual, family, medical, college and state. |
| |
![]() |
|
| lara | Apr 29 2007, 06:10 PM Post #68 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
Reg, if you look at aboriginal Canadian populations anywhere in Canada - especially on reserves - the rate of abuse, violence, murder, suicide, unemployment, incarceration, etc. are quite shockingly higher than the overall average. We have, in short, failed miserably to allow these people a decent life. We took everything they had, including their children, culture, and way of life, and we said, "Yeah, but you can go to university for free. What's wrong?" Uh, I haven't even graduated from high school because my life's so fucked? Okay, it's way more complicated than that rant, but maybe it gives you an idea. |
![]() |
|
| Blood_Raven | Apr 29 2007, 09:59 PM Post #69 |
![]()
Come burn with me.
|
How typical. We evade the real issue as usual. Blame the tool. We wonder why the world is more fucked up compared to 100 years ago. I'm done talking. Speaking of hunting and arrows, I consider that inhumane. Ever look at the arrowheads? They're nothing more than razers that cut up the animal from the inside and makes them bleed to death. I have nothing against hunting, but I will never bow hunt. |
|
TheFrozen North forums. Where it's at. Mood for today: Perfection | |
![]() |
|
| lara | Apr 30 2007, 12:41 AM Post #70 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
I don't think it is. |
![]() |
|
| Drew | Apr 30 2007, 02:17 AM Post #71 |
![]()
Apparently not Cybersquirt's favorite person
|
Me neither. Our rate of violent crime is the same as the EU, England, Australia, etc, yet we have more than double the amount of fatalities from our violent crime. Now, the only real difference between us and them is that we have the least stringent gun control. The numbers actually indicate that the less people have guns, the less often they kill people. If, upon seeing that the rate of violent crime fatalities rises with the level of gun ownership, you are still going to argue that guns don't have anything to do with violent crime fatalities, you are either hopelessly biased, lying, or a moron.** If, on the other hand, you are trying to argue that this is just the unfortunate price we pay for the right to bear arms, then I can at least respect that point of view although I fail to see how requiring gun registration, performing background checks, banning assault weapons, and instituting a "cool-off" period before allowing a gun purchase constitutes a breach of second amendment rights. **Or some combination of the three. |
| Poor baby. Couldn't find a fight anywhere else so you had to come here, huh. -Cyber. | |
![]() |
|
| Joe | Apr 30 2007, 03:01 AM Post #72 |
|
Coffea Canephora
|
What do you mean by assault weapons? |
|
In the shadow of the light from a black sun Frigid statue standing icy blue and numb Where are the frost giants I've begged for protection? I'm freezing | |
![]() |
|
| Drew | Apr 30 2007, 03:58 AM Post #73 |
![]()
Apparently not Cybersquirt's favorite person
|
From Wikipedia:
The assault weapons ban expired during the Bush administration. I'm hoping that, with a democrat controlled legislative branch, we'll see the assault weapons ban re-enacted. |
| Poor baby. Couldn't find a fight anywhere else so you had to come here, huh. -Cyber. | |
![]() |
|
| Joe | Apr 30 2007, 04:04 AM Post #74 |
|
Coffea Canephora
|
That ban covered normal pistols? |
|
In the shadow of the light from a black sun Frigid statue standing icy blue and numb Where are the frost giants I've begged for protection? I'm freezing | |
![]() |
|
| Drew | Apr 30 2007, 04:12 AM Post #75 |
![]()
Apparently not Cybersquirt's favorite person
|
No. Only semi-automatic pistols that have at least two of the following features: * Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip * Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or silencer * Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold * Unloaded weight of 50 oz or more * A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm |
| Poor baby. Couldn't find a fight anywhere else so you had to come here, huh. -Cyber. | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Table 32 · Next Topic » |







Where is everybody on this?

Morally Superior? Just pointing out a fallacy in the logic of an argument. And why do mention only Europe? The original Americans were Europeans (that is the ones that came over in the Mayflower etc)

4:31 PM Jul 13