guns and bullets

Blockhead

dunkman wrote:

also... is it ok for Iran and North Korea to have nuclear arms? you've never answered.

SInce you keep asking this i guess i will be the one to answer. I hope you are being sarcastic when you ask this question though, as it is a very stupid question.The problem is nukes are inherently aggressive because they're impossible to use without killing innocent people. Arguably, just constructing a nuke is itself an act of aggression that no one has any "right" to do.

pandora

dunkman wrote:

so you think this guy and all the other school shootings guys and all the other mass-shooting guys would have found a way Pandora? please answer this

Oh Dunkman....
I just look dumb.....

you know the answer to your question already
and so I know why you ask it.

I will tell you this...
I am a spiritual person.
I have a strong belief in the path we walk, that we are here to learn,
that many souls choose how they will leave this world before they come here.
That we are all connected.
This has brought me peace that many still seek.

I believe that both tragedies and the good in this world bring opportunity for spiritual growth.

So when we ask ourselves what we can do to prevent this terrible tragedy
the answer is Love.
It starts with each person.
The only true way to keep people safe is to spread love.

To teach people not to judge and hate those different than themselves,
including those with different opinions from different countries.
To be respectful and uncondtional in our love.
It starts with how we treat each other, every day, every meeting, everywhere.

Trust has to be built... it is the key to understanding and mutual respect.
I don't trust you.
Your words are quick and sharp, they bite and hurt
and are unnecessary when sharing feelings and thoughts, when baring one's soul.
This is true of others here.

Granted I am a vulnerable person, and hurt easy, that might not be true of the next person.
The rolling eyes thing to me is total disrespect, and hurtful.

I think a good motto for this forum could be "think twice be nice"
we must be cautious, we hold anothers heart in our hand
and if we all want real change we will work on loving each other.

It is hard for evil to exist in the presence of love, and that, Dunkman, is our only hope....
in my opinion!

dunkman

Jason P wrote:

dunkman wrote:

HeidiJam wrote:

What is scotland's population again?

FACT!

Scotland has a population of 5.2 million. Firearms death rate per 100,000 is 0.58

District of Columbia has a pop. of 5.2 million. Firearms death rate per 100,000 is 31.2


something is clearly playing a factor in this huge statistical difference don't you agree? perhaps its that we don't have any handguns?? Perhaps its that your culture is based around the availability of guns? Whatever it is I know it's not because some people believe in the 2nd and they are forming a militia.



also... is it ok for Iran and North Korea to have nuclear arms? you've never answered.

Guns are a factor, but is Scotland a densely populated region that experiences rampant drug and gang violence?

In regards to Iran and North Korea, I don't believe they should have nuclear arms. They are not responsible.

Its more densely populated and has a worse drug problem than say Colorado...

FACT:

Scotland has a population of 5.2 million. Firearms death rate per 100,000 is 0.58

Colorado has a pop. of 5.0 million. Firearms death rate per 100,000 is 11.5


thats 20 times the death rate of an entire nation from just one state... and the weapons used was a gun... yet you and many others are arguing that the guns are not a problem... that its the person and that person would do whatever they could to kill and maim anyway?

So if that is indeed the case then why is the death rate by a gun 16 times higher in the the US than the rest of the worlds next 25 richest nations combined?

so we not have mental fuckers living here? is it more likely that we do but that A: they get better medical help and B: they don't have the know-how and/or the balls to attack people using a knife, especially when it is so ridicuously easy to get guns

ed243421

HeidiJam wrote:

dunkman wrote:

also... is it ok for Iran and North Korea to have nuclear arms? you've never answered.

SInce you keep asking this i guess i will be the one to answer. I hope you are being sarcastic when you ask this question though, as it is a very stupid question.The problem is nukes are inherently aggressive because they're impossible to use without killing innocent people. Arguably, just constructing a nuke is itself an act of aggression that no one has any "right" to do.

you gotta be fuckin kidding me

"The problem is nukes are inherently aggressive because they're impossible to use without killing innocent people."

how else do you want to use nukes?
they are designed to kill innocent people
guns are designed to kill, anything the bullet hits


"Arguably, just constructing a nuke is itself an act of aggression that no one has any "right" to do."

and if this is your argument
why do we construct guns?
for the good of man?
to eat?
c'mon man

Byrnzie

HeidiJam wrote:

dunkman wrote:

also... is it ok for Iran and North Korea to have nuclear arms? you've never answered.

SInce you keep asking this i guess i will be the one to answer. I hope you are being sarcastic when you ask this question though, as it is a very stupid question.The problem is nukes are inherently aggressive because they're impossible to use without killing innocent people. Arguably, just constructing a nuke is itself an act of aggression that no one has any "right" to do.

But as history has shown, when you put guns, or nukes, in the hands of psychopaths, then innocent people will die.
Placing nuclear weapons in the hands of a psychopath like Richard Nixon is no more, or less, irresponsible than allowing the average nutter on the street to walk into a store and buy a Glock, or 44. Magnum.

Jason P

dunkman wrote:

Jason P wrote:

Guns are a factor, but is Scotland a densely populated region that experiences rampant drug and gang violence?

In regards to Iran and North Korea, I don't believe they should have nuclear arms. They are not responsible.

Its more densely populated and has a worse drug problem than say Colorado...

FACT:

Scotland has a population of 5.2 million. Firearms death rate per 100,000 is 0.58

Colorado has a pop. of 5.0 million. Firearms death rate per 100,000 is 11.5


thats 20 times the death rate of an entire nation from just one state... and the weapons used was a gun... yet you and many others are arguing that the guns are not a problem... that its the person and that person would do whatever they could to kill and maim anyway?

So if that is indeed the case then why is the death rate by a gun 16 times higher in the the US than the rest of the worlds next 25 richest nations combined?

so we not have mental fuckers living here? is it more likely that we do but that A: they get better medical help and B: they don't have the know-how and/or the balls to attack people using a knife, especially when it is so ridicuously easy to get guns

If you had to root for the Broncos, you would probably see a spike in violence and depression as well.

OutOfBreath

HeidiJam wrote:

For those of you who care, here is some info on crimes in other countires. I love the generalizations from other non US posters who see an isolated incident and think the US is some barbaric country. Please take a look at the link below. All numbers will be per-capita (usually per 100,000), starting from this page, the drop-down will show other results:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...lts-per-capita

Assaults: US 7.6 - UK 7.6 - Aus 7.0
Burglaries: US 7.1 - UK 13.8 - Aus 21.7
Car Thefts: US 3.9 - UK 5.6 - Aus 6.9
Murder: US .043 - UK .014 - Aus .015
Rapes: US .301 - UK .142 - Aus .778
Robberies: US 1.39 - UK 1.57 - Aus 1.16
Total Crimes: US 80.1 - UK 85.6 - Aus {No data}

The illusion that crime is far more rampant in the US is just that. . . An illusion.

Relevant here is the 3 times higher murder rate. Many of the crimes would also depend alot on how stuff is registered, while a murder is a murder anywhere.

And you should frankly also factor in pr capita behind bars, where the US would knowck everyone else out of the park. Since you incarcerate anyone caught with a joint, a lot of bad eggs are behind bars. (along with a good bunch of good and half-decent eggs, mind you)

So the high murder rate, coupled with the not so much lower rates on other stuff (I think the high imprisonment rate has alot more to do with that), should make it relevant to ask why so many guns are needed, and whether they really have much of an effect.

I dont think the US is anymore "criminal" than other countries, but you sure have a lot of murders, you sure have lax gun laws, and you sure have more than your share of nuts people grabbing a gun and blowing away a two-digit number of people as a show of disgruntlement. People kill, true, but more people kill more easily if they have a gun on hand anytime they blow a fuse or get provoked in some way.

Peace
Dan

g under p

Byrnzie wrote:

pandora wrote:

He would have done this whatever the law, with or without a gun.

No he wouldn't.

Nobody except Chuck Norris would be able to kill 6 people in a busy area with a knife. And that Virginia Tech dude wouldn't have managed a head count of 36 with a knife.

Byrnzie you are right in that it takes a Professional to use a knife to kill many people in one setting.

Take a look at this seen from one of the BEST assassin movies ever
The Professional...lessons from Leon to Matilda go to the the 2:37 mark where he speaks about knives.

Peace

Blockhead

Byrnzie wrote:

HeidiJam wrote:

dunkman wrote:

also... is it ok for Iran and North Korea to have nuclear arms? you've never answered.

SInce you keep asking this i guess i will be the one to answer. I hope you are being sarcastic when you ask this question though, as it is a very stupid question.The problem is nukes are inherently aggressive because they're impossible to use without killing innocent people. Arguably, just constructing a nuke is itself an act of aggression that no one has any "right" to do.

But as history has shown, when you put guns, or nukes, in the hands of psychopaths, then innocent people will die.
Placing nuclear weapons in the hands of a psychopath like Richard Nixon is no more, or less, irresponsible than allowing the average nutter on the street to walk into a store and buy a Glock, or 44. Magnum.

Same could be said for almost any object. You can not use a Nuke without kiling innocent people, Millions of people a day use guns and other objects without killing anybody. Why is nixion a psychopath? When was this medical diagnosis?

OutOfBreath

HeidiJam wrote:

dunkman wrote:

also... is it ok for Iran and North Korea to have nuclear arms? you've never answered.

SInce you keep asking this i guess i will be the one to answer. I hope you are being sarcastic when you ask this question though, as it is a very stupid question.The problem is nukes are inherently aggressive because they're impossible to use without killing innocent people. Arguably, just constructing a nuke is itself an act of aggression that no one has any "right" to do.

Well, nukes are mostly used for "target practice" and for show. Only 2 has ever been used agressively.
So since most detonated nukes has no human casualties, why is it a problem?

The problem you run into is that most thinks that nuts people shouldn't have big and dangerous weapons. which means it must be regulated somehow to avoid that nuts people get them (while perhaps assuring that regular law-abiding folks are allowed to). This is easily transferred to the gun argument, so the question is really relevant principally. If nuclear proliferation should be avoided, why should not gun proliferation also be avoided? It's really about the same.

Peace
Dan

dunkman

HeidiJam wrote:

dunkman wrote:

also... is it ok for Iran and North Korea to have nuclear arms? you've never answered.

SInce you keep asking this i guess i will be the one to answer. I hope you are being sarcastic when you ask this question though, as it is a very stupid question.The problem is nukes are inherently aggressive because they're impossible to use without killing innocent people. Arguably, just constructing a nuke is itself an act of aggression that no one has any "right" to do.

i kept asking YOU that...

surely it's that countries 'right' to have what the fuck they want? just as it appears to be your 'right' to have a piece of equipment that has been solely designed to kill in your possession? Iran and N.Korea think they are responsible enough to have the weapons... what makes it ok for the US to interfere with another nation when it has shit on its own doorstep? They don't even interfere with a 'law-abiding citizen' getting a gun arsenal even though that 'law-abiding person' appeared to have been thrown out of a college due to his unfit mental state?

please remember that only 2 nukes have ever been used on civilians and lest i remind you it was your own nation who did this... nobody else has ever used them for their primary function... unlike guns which are used for their primary function in the US more than any other developed country in the world.

Blockhead

OutOfBreath wrote:

Well, nukes are mostly used for "target practice" and for show. Only 2 has ever been used agressively.
So since most detonated nukes has no human casualties, why is it a problem?

The problem you run into is that most thinks that nuts people shouldn't have big and dangerous weapons. which means it must be regulated somehow to avoid that nuts people get them (while perhaps assuring that regular law-abiding folks are allowed to). This is easily transferred to the gun argument, so the question is really relevant principally. If nuclear proliferation should be avoided, why should not gun proliferation also be avoided? It's really about the same.

Peace
Dan

haha gun = nukes???...The difference between guns and nukes is in kind, not degree. An atom bomb can't be used selectively, in fact it's designed that way to be as indiscriminate as possible, threaten as many people as possible with one button push, so that the whole world can be held hostage by a tiny group of people. So the question, "who should have them?" is a false question, because no one should.

Byrnzie

HeidiJam wrote:

Why is nixion a psychopath? When was this medical diagnosis?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy
'Psychopathy ( /saɪˈkɒpəθi/[1][2]) was, until 1980, the term used for a personality disorder characterized by an abnormal lack of empathy combined with strongly amoral conduct but masked by an ability to appear outwardly normal.'

Seems like he fits the description to a T. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGVfzwvtlJM

JonnyPistachio

unsung wrote:

wolfamongwolves wrote:

Hahahahaaa....

I admire your self-discipline for sticking to that self-exile.

Can't believe it was a matter of terminology rather than principle that made you snap!

There is no point arguing about something that isn't going to change. I've got better things to do. My exile was to not to participate in a pro-gun vs anti-gun discussion, of which I have not.

haha, yeah, you're right, I dont care about the terminology. I think people got the point.
But the point of this discussion is about what needs to change, and its just my opinion that if enough people ask questions and do things about these horrible trajedies, lives can be saved. and I think things WILL change. Laws will change.

For instance, clip (haha, ok 'magazine'!) limits. This is a law that was changed recently in AZ, and if changed back to how it was prior to 2004, it could save lives. its pretty simple really, at least why not make an attempt?

It scares me to hear people say that nothing is gonna change and these psychos are going to do this (ie, AZ) no matter what, so we shouldnt do anything. Love wont fix everytihg in the world. Some people will always have parent that are uncapable of that.
Like I said too, no BAN, just compromise.

Blockhead

Byrnzie wrote:

HeidiJam wrote:

Why is nixion a psychopath? When was this medical diagnosis?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy
'Psychopathy ( /saɪˈkɒpəθi/[1][2]) was, until 1980, the term used for a personality disorder characterized by an abnormal lack of empathy combined with strongly amoral conduct but masked by an ability to appear outwardly normal.'

Seems like he fits the description to a T.

Thanks for the link to his medical diagnosis, I have never seen that before. :roll:

Byrnzie

HeidiJam wrote:

Thanks for the link to his medical diagnosis, I have never seen that before. :roll:

My pleasure. Like I said, the description fits him to a T.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGVfzwvtlJM



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy
'Psychopathy ( /saɪˈkɒpəθi/[1][2]) was, until 1980, the term used for a personality disorder characterized by an abnormal lack of empathy combined with strongly amoral conduct but masked by an ability to appear outwardly normal.'

OutOfBreath

HeidiJam wrote:

haha gun = nukes???...The difference between guns and nukes is in kind, not degree. An atom bomb can't be used selectively, in fact it's designed that way to be as indiscriminate as possible, threaten as many people as possible with one button push, so that the whole world can be held hostage by a tiny group of people. So the question, "who should have them?" is a false question, because no one should.

Ever hear of tactical nukes? Fireable from artillery among other things to deliver a small nuclear charge for battlefield purposes.

The difference is only in degree. Both are weapons, made solely to kill, but both can be used for target practice or just general threatening.

The point is, you dont really have a principle argument here. You just think guns are less serious than nukes, which i would agree with on a 1 to 1 basis (a nuke is lots deadlier than a gun). But guns kill and have killed an enormously larger amount of people and are much more frequently in use. So which is really more dangerous? the big weapon that's never used, or the smaller ones that are put to effect daily?

Peace
Dan

Blockhead

OutOfBreath wrote:

Ever hear of tactical nukes? Fireable from artillery among other things to deliver a small nuclear charge for battlefield purposes.

The difference is only in degree. Both are weapons, made solely to kill, but both can be used for target practice or just general threatening.

The point is, you dont really have a principle argument here. You just think guns are less serious than nukes, which i would agree with on a 1 to 1 basis (a nuke is lots deadlier than a gun). But guns kill and have killed an enormously larger amount of people and are much more frequently in use. So which is really more dangerous? the big weapon that's never used, or the smaller ones that are put to effect daily?

Peace
Dan

Guns are not made solely to kill, some people use them to kill, other to protect themselves, others are hobbies, others to hunt.

keeponrockin

HeidiJam wrote:

OutOfBreath wrote:

Ever hear of tactical nukes? Fireable from artillery among other things to deliver a small nuclear charge for battlefield purposes.

The difference is only in degree. Both are weapons, made solely to kill, but both can be used for target practice or just general threatening.

The point is, you dont really have a principle argument here. You just think guns are less serious than nukes, which i would agree with on a 1 to 1 basis (a nuke is lots deadlier than a gun). But guns kill and have killed an enormously larger amount of people and are much more frequently in use. So which is really more dangerous? the big weapon that's never used, or the smaller ones that are put to effect daily?

Peace
Dan

Guns are not made solely to kill, some people use them to kill, other to protect themselves, others are hobbies, others to hunt.

To protect by killing no?

Blockhead

keeponrockin wrote:

HeidiJam wrote:

OutOfBreath wrote:

Ever hear of tactical nukes? Fireable from artillery among other things to deliver a small nuclear charge for battlefield purposes.

The difference is only in degree. Both are weapons, made solely to kill, but both can be used for target practice or just general threatening.

The point is, you dont really have a principle argument here. You just think guns are less serious than nukes, which i would agree with on a 1 to 1 basis (a nuke is lots deadlier than a gun). But guns kill and have killed an enormously larger amount of people and are much more frequently in use. So which is really more dangerous? the big weapon that's never used, or the smaller ones that are put to effect daily?

Peace
Dan

Guns are not made solely to kill, some people use them to kill, other to protect themselves, others are hobbies, others to hunt.

To protect by killing no?

Warning shots??? You could put blanks in the gun and fire it, to scare the person away.