U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 12-06-2008, 10:21 PM
 
Location: The Netherlands
8,532 posts, read 9,949,245 times
Reputation: 1525
Originally Posted by Noahma
Quote:
Again, this way of trying to deflect from the topic is going to hurt your argument, you like to use the 2 year old scenario.
LoL are you still denying the fact that the credit crisis originated in the US?

Quote:
again, a set of quotes that shows your view of our country is based on Hollywood and t.v.
I just recognise the truth in every guise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-06-2008, 10:47 PM
 
Location: vagabond
2,609 posts, read 3,222,655 times
Reputation: 1226
Quote:
all right. let's go back in time. you claimed that i was acting like a two-year old. i asked what made you think that. you now answer that it is because i am overwhelmed by my emotions?

please refer to the post (or the news article, podcast, or whatever else you need) where i was overwhelmed by my emotions. i bet you are not even going to answer this one, and even if you do, you certainly aren't going to be able to produce the exchange that you are claiming took place.

go ahead. i'll wait for you.
i should have put money down on this bet. you don't even bother to answer the challenges to the claims you are making. you accuse me of acting immature–while lying, exaggerating, pulling stories, 'facts', and 'common sense' out of your rear end. you can't back up anything you say, and you can't even answer on topic. why are you here on the great debates forum?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
BTW a great deflection of actually answering my question.
and yet, despite the fact that you ignore and deflect every question asked of you, you have the nerve to hypocritically accuse someone else of it. sounds mature to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
Originally Posted by stycotlA tool (read: a gun) is only as good as its user and the problem with guns is that every idiot can use it.
But the same idiot will be defeated by everyone who has a superior strategy (and it is not even necessary to be armed with a gun).
if a weapon is such an ineffective weapon, and anyone unarmed is just as dangerous as i am with my firearm, then what is the whole gun control debate about? according to you, you shouldn't even be arguing the issue.

Quote:
Starting wars (read: conflicts) is easy, ending them is the problem.
again, pointless (read: has nothing to do with), as it has nothing to do with whether i should have the right to defend myself or not. because some criminal's relatives might become angry that i lawfully and rightfully protected myself or my family, i should be made to suffer at the whim of the criminals? do you honestly think that an argument such as this holds any weight whatsoever?

Quote:
I guess you've never been drafted in the army like I've been?
they drafted you in holland? too bad. we all know how effective conscripted soldiers are.

nope, not drafted. voluntarily served in the marine corps, so yes, i know what i am talking about as to the motive for muscle memory training.

Quote:
LoL, next you'll be claiming that your kung fu is superior to my kung fu?
ok...

i never said anything of the sort.

you made a claim. you were proven wrong. want to take back your claim?

supposedly einstein said that the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing expecting different results. i keep wondering why i am still responding to you, when you obviously enjoy this game. you make a handful of unsubstantiated claims that have nothing to do with the cobversation, claiming that you don't need actual evidence since common sense (well, your common sense) should determine what my rights are. then i respond to *all* of your points, and you again go through the ritual of flippantly ignoring everything that i've just said, all while trying to tell me how ignorant, immature, and inexperienced i must be.

maybe we should direct our communication to any of the other gun-control advocates that think that they can actually carry out some sort of intelligent debate.

otherwise, we should probably end this charade of a 'great debate'.

aaron out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2008, 12:15 AM
 
Location: The Netherlands
8,532 posts, read 9,949,245 times
Reputation: 1525
Originally Posted by stycotl
Quote:
according to you, you shouldn't even be arguing the issue.
My point has always been that people generally are 'idiots' who act like 2-year olds, but we can't outlaw these kinda idiots (read: people) now can we?

Quote:
otherwise, we should probably end this charade of a 'great debate'.
Nobody is twisting your arm to keep continuing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2008, 04:24 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,621 posts, read 6,278,413 times
Reputation: 3617
Talking Warning: Emoticon Wars!

Originally Posted by Tricky D
Then tell me why America has so much violent crimes when American citizens already are allowed to have guns and your American government has the death penalty as the ultimate crime deterrent?

Glad you've asked a simple question, TD. Will you actually accept a simple answer,
or are you just arguing to see your own name in print?


SIMPLE POINT A:
Who has taken the time to read the link below? I've put it out there a few times and, in layman's terms, but with suitable links to the original articles, it puts to bed, permanently, without ANY FURTHER DEBATE, the idea that America has the worst and most rampant per-capita homicide rate.

It's a great and fully fact-supported finale to any lame attempts by the New Left to overwhelm the gun-control argument with lies, deflections and insults.

The Manila Times Internet Edition | OPINION > Natural response to danger (http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2008/apr/07/yehey/opinion/20080407opi2.html - broken link)

A painfully obvious observation from this article: The other countries that handily exceed our supposed blood-lust rate are all socialist or communist or tyrannical. They all utilize absolutely rigorous, strictly and painfully administered Draconian enforcement of their infringements on the basic human right to defend oneself with the most suitable tool for the situation at hand.

(PS: makes one also ponder what these countrys' other cultural and legal freedoms are like in general, such as free speech, the right to lawfully assemble, to criticize their government and its officials, and to pursue happiness, if they even know what that is... In Holland, for example, the government allows you to be legally "bonged" and "with a hooker" all the time. Nice little "tonic" for the quiet, obedient sheeple, eh? ).


But back to self-defence. A suitable weapon, BTW, Tricky, is, again, anything that saves your family from that chainsaw- or knife-wielding repeat-offending (but recently "rehab'd!") murderer who has invaded your home at 0300h.

Which segways me to....

SIMPLE POINT B:

That list of possible defensive weapons at your disposal might include (partial list only):

√ Prayer.
√ your retained hyper-ego memories of ju-jitsu from ten years ago when you were 20 lb lighter, in shape and not just awakened from a deep sleep (Tricky's choice, according to his ego-driven bloviations in the past);

√ A thoughtful nicely-paced dialog with your attacker, where you casually mention that in your country, you'll treat his aggressiveness with sincere sympathies and compassion. Convinces 'em every time!

√ a broken-off wine bottle;

√ your own running chain saw, but with a sharper blade than the one carried by the "meth-head" fresh from his humiliating "episode" with an Amsterdam dominatrix;

√ the keepsake Tutsi spear from South Afrika that your great-uncle gave you (Careful! That spear-shaft looks kinda dry and brittle!) ;

√ a cherry-wood dining room chair you've got poised over your head , or:

√ a Beretta 9mm with a full (15 round) clip of hollow-points and a laser red-dot illuminator centered, quite visibly, on the perp's chest.


Question One
for the class. Anyone? Anyone?
(Go ahead, Tricky! You're allowed to answer as well! We'd love to hear a straight answer !)

Which one would be less likely to result in injury to you?

Question Two.

Which one is most intimidating without even being used (and therefore the safest and least likely to result in injury to anyone else?).

Question Three.

Which one would be most effective if the idiot thug were so stupid to take you on?

Question Four. (Again, don't be bashful! Speak up, TD! We can't hear you!)

Which side has already won this argument?

Question Five. Which poster here can't apparently contribute any more useful dialog, but is enjoying wasting our time or is bluntly unable to concede anything, ever?

Question Six.
Would anyone else like to be able to continue this thread in a positive informing open-minded way, absent immature "baiting-and-insulting"?

QED.

Last edited by rifleman; 12-07-2008 at 04:25 AM.. Reason: typos
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2008, 05:55 AM
 
Location: The Netherlands
8,532 posts, read 9,949,245 times
Reputation: 1525
Originally Posted by rifleman
Quote:
Will you actually accept a simple answer, or are you just arguing to see your own name in print?
Tricky D ain't even my real name.
And like I've posted before I'm not a populist or a politician so I don't care about seeing my name in print.
I guess your statement says more about you ( and your ego) than about me.

Quote:
That list of possible defensive weapons at your disposal might include (partial list only):
You forgot the simple fact that if every citizen in a nation is able to live 'comfortably' without having to turn to crime ( or is able to get a mortgage or loan without unreasonable high rates), crime soon becomes unnecessary.
In this scenario only the sociopaths and the mentally unstable will commit crimes.
So whenever you combat poverty you automatically indirectly combat crime, but I guess you Americans find this strategy too 'soft' even when it has proven to work outside your capitalistic society.
Like in The Netherlands.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2008, 07:10 AM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,105 posts, read 23,014,328 times
Reputation: 4795
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
In The Netherlands only the Law enforcement (the professionals) has the monopoly to use violence (and own guns).
Of course I'm allowed to defend myself, but I will still be brought to trial for having used violence.
Especially when it was disproportionate.
And with guns this will easily be the case.
In the United States, the use of deadly force is justified when defending ones own life or the life of another. In such cases, the person will not be "brought to trial".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2008, 08:04 AM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,105 posts, read 23,014,328 times
Reputation: 4795
Interior Dept. OKs loaded weapons in national parks

WASHINGTON - Some visitors to the nation's parks and wildlife refuges will be allowed to carry loaded weapons beginning in January under a plan given final approval Friday by the Bush administration.

As expected, the Interior Department decided to scrap its longtime ban on loaded weapons


Interior Dept. OKs loaded weapons in national parks
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2008, 10:25 AM
 
Location: 80919 Rockrimmon yO!
2,738 posts, read 4,359,152 times
Reputation: 1189
Oh yeah, our new president is all pissed off about that. He's vowed to change it.

This new law only makes sense. I would never go camping here in Colorado without a firearm. There are too many dangerous predators around. I'm glad this passed.

I can't belive the audacity of this idiot:

"Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, called the decision "the Bush administration's parting gift for the gun lobby."
"We should not be making it easier for dangerous people to carry firearms in our parks," he said.

Since when have law abiding CCW holders been "dangerous people"? I'm so sure that the real dangerous people, criminals, even gave a damn about this law in the first place. By defintion, they break the law, and were probably already carrying a gun.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2008, 11:11 AM
 
Location: Earth
1,480 posts, read 2,722,584 times
Reputation: 1353
Gun laws are becoming less strict. As I said somewhere in this thread, more states are allowing concealed carry. They recently overturned a ban on carrying weapons in National Parks.

Guns will be allowed in national parks

This makes sense. Where else would you need a gun more than in the woods? And now I suppose you can take your guns on a sailboat around the tip of Florida and not have to avoid Everglades National Park.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2008, 11:29 AM
 
Location: Earth
1,480 posts, read 2,722,584 times
Reputation: 1353
I don't understand how the D.C. gun law can even be enforced. If the police show up to my house after I've called them to report the intruder I've shot, are they going to be concerned with whether or not my gun was unloaded and disassembled as the law demands when there's a dead guy laying in a pool of blood? How could they ever prove it was not? I can put a gun together pretty fast, they're quite simple.

And the "gun" ban that some gunophiles are fearing - what will it be, you can only have 10 rounds instead of 15? I carry a compact .40 cal so I can't even get 10 to fit anyway. Assault rifles can't have flash suppressors or pistol grips - really, this is a drastic infringement on our rights that the NRA cannot allow? Regardless, I think it's silly to think these "bans" makes much difference and gun owners should be willing to compromise with our fellow citizens expressing concern for public safety. No one can prove whether gun control is effective or not. For every study that says it is I can find one that says it's not, and there are myriad reasons that can attribute for the rise and decline of crime.

I don't think Obama's coming to take our guns away.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $79,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top