RedVex, I’m going to have to ask the question as I can’t quite believe you don’t know it was always impossible but here it is.
How do you propose the Americans could have wiped out ISIS in a week or two?
Printable View
RedVex, I’m going to have to ask the question as I can’t quite believe you don’t know it was always impossible but here it is.
How do you propose the Americans could have wiped out ISIS in a week or two?
Redvex, you're talking about indentured servants I hope. Many indentured servants from Europe did waive certain rights in order to earn passage to the United States. In a libertarian society, these contracts might be considered valid. There are very few civilized countries who would uphold any such contract today, even based on doctrines within contract law such as unconscionability.
African-American slaves did not waive their rights but had them taken by force from the first generation when they were taken captive. They did not own guns but they also did not have due process rights, the right to avoid cruel and unusual punishment, the right to vote, or any civil rights at all. Arguing that they should have had guns is so moot....how would they have had guns if they were taken to the United States in bondage and abused from the first instance they arrived? It's frankly the dumbest thought experiment I've ever heard of.
I also want to point out that although indentured servitude is cruel it should definitely be distinguished from the African slave trade. Indentured servitude was typically for a term of 4 to 7 years and was not intergenerational....and there are probably too many other differences to count.
When people think of slavery in the United States they are thinking about what happened to people of African descent. There are many racists of European descent in the United States who try to conflate the two in order to trivialize slavery.
I was referring to Romans who sold themselves to become slaves. Indentured servitude was a good thing as after it's expiration servants were free men and could work for themselves.
In a monarchy, there are laws and institutions to enforce them so I am not sure what you guys are talking about. There are also common basic values that are being taught to people from childhood. In democracy, those values are none-existent and there is nothing making people stick together. Current EU politics is totally anti European as dividing nations seems to be the Union's main target.
I can assure you that anyone who comes to a country where anyone can bear arms, with a gun they will think think twice before pointing their gun at any citizen of that country. The same rule applies to any citizen of that country. This will not be the case in any slave country, where slaves cannot bear arms.
Think, once, think twice -or don't think at all- then shoot. Is there something about gun crime in the USA you would like to tell us that we don't know?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
Most of it takes place where guns are not allowed. Compare for example Arizona and New York.
Arizona gun control laws are among the least-restrictive in the United States. Arizona law states that any person 21 years or older, who is not a prohibited possessor, may carry a weapon openly or concealed without the need for a license. (A concealed carry permit is required in most other states.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
http://statelaws.findlaw.com/arizona...trol-laws.html
Clearly you can’t assure anyone of that though can you as your talking utter bollox.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
If anyone on a country where the populace is heavily armed is more likely to think twice before drawing a gun then why is the gun death rate in the heavily armed US 138 times that of the rate in the barely armed U.K.?
You have reached the point where you’re jut spouting shit now.
Yeah not only does the evidence you cited contradict it but it's not even internally logical. You ever notice how a lot of these people commit suicide at the end of a rampage? Or suicide by cop? Or when they're captured brag about what they did and their fearlessness of the consequences? They would not be deterred as they're killing themselves at the end and they often accept it which is why some of them are writing crazy ass manifestos.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aticus100
Even assuming everyone had a gun, how long would it take to pull a gun if you are not expecting a shooter? Or is that going to be our new lifestyle where we expect shootings everywhere and are ready to draw in theaters, restaurants, and elementary schools? What about the crossfire in a crowded movie theater with fifty armed people trying to shoot at a gunman in the dark? What about the Las Vegas shooting where nobody knew where the gunman was? That would have been fantastic to have thousands of people shooting weapons in a confined space when the gunman was camped out in a hotel.
Years ago someone posted a link of a woman who shot her gun at the fleeing car of a shoplifter. This is where we're at with this stupidity. When the woman was brought into court, she said she'd never try to be a good samaritan again (*facepalm). I don't know how someone could logically think there would be an end to this epidemic if everyone were trained in using guns and carried at all times....what kind of lifestyle is that? Isn't that the opposite of civilization?
Texas church attack the latest US mass shooting
Associated Press The Associated Press,Associated Press 1 hour 46 minutes ago
Reactions Sign in to like Reblog on Tumblr Share Tweet Email
Law enforcement officials work the scene of a fatal shooting at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, on Sunday, Nov. 5, 2017. (Nick Wagner/Austin American-Statesman via AP)
A man opened fire on a church in South Texas on Sunday, killing several people and wounding others.
Authorities haven't released the name of the attacker or said how many people he killed in the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, but a Wilson County commissioner, Albert Gamez, told cable news outlets he was told it was more than 20 killed and more than 20 wounded, though those figures hadn't been confirmed.
The county sheriff, Joe Tackett, told the Wilson County News that the gunman had been "taken down."
Here's a look at some of the nation's deadliest mass shootings since 2012:
— Oct. 1, 2017: A gunman identified by authorities as Stephen Paddock opened fire on an outdoor music festival on the Las Vegas Strip from the 32nd floor of a hotel-casino, killing 58 people and wounding more than 500. SWAT teams with explosives then stormed his room and found he had killed himself.
— June 12, 2016: Gunman Omar Mateen opened fire at an Orlando, Florida, nightclub, killing 49 people. Mateen was later killed in a shootout with police.
— Feb. 25, 2016: Cedric Ford, 38, killed three people and wounded 14 others at a lawnmower factory where he worked in the central Kansas community of Hesston. The local police chief killed him during a shootout with 200 to 300 workers still in the building, authorities said.
— Feb. 20, 2016: Jason Dalton, 45, is accused of randomly shooting and killing six people and severely wounding two others during a series of attacks over several hours in the Kalamazoo, Michigan, area. Authorities say he paused between shootings to make money as an Uber driver. He faces murder and attempted-murder charges.
— Dec. 2, 2015: Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, and Tashfeen Malik, 27, opened fire at a social services center in San Bernardino, California, killing 14 people and wounding more than 20. They fled the scene but died hours later in a shootout with police.
— Oct. 1, 2015: A shooting at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon, left 10 people dead and seven wounded. Shooter Christopher Harper-Mercer, 26, exchanged gunfire with police, then killed himself.
— June 17, 2015: Dylann Roof, 21, shot and killed nine African-American church members during a Bible study group inside the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina. Police contend the attack was racially motivated. Roof has been sentenced to death in the shootings.
— May 23, 2014: A community college student, Elliot Rodger, 22, killed six people and wounded 13 in shooting and stabbing attacks in the area near the University of California, Santa Barbara, campus. Authorities said he apparently shot himself to death after a gun battle with deputies.
— Sept. 16, 2013: Aaron Alexis, a mentally disturbed civilian contractor, shot 12 people to death at the Washington Navy Yard before he was killed in a police shootout.
— July 26, 2013: Pedro Vargas, 42, went on a shooting rampage at his Hialeah, Florida, apartment building, gunning down six people before officers fatally shot him.
— Dec. 14, 2012: In Newtown, Connecticut, an armed 20-year-old man entered Sandy Hook Elementary School and used a semi-automatic rifle to kill 26 people, including 20 first-graders and six adult school staff members. He then killed himself.
— Sept. 27, 2012: In Minnesota's deadliest workplace rampage, Andrew Engeldinger, who had just been fired, pulled a gun and fatally shot six people, including the company's founder. He also wounded two others at Accent Signage Systems in Minneapolis before taking his own life.
— Aug. 5, 2012: In Oak Creek, Wisconsin, 40-year-old gunman Wade Michael Page killed six worshippers at a Sikh Temple before killing himself.
—July 20, 2012: James Holmes, 27, fatally shot 12 people and injured 70 in an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater. He was sentenced to life in prison without parole.
— April 2, 2012: Seven people were killed and three were wounded when a 43-year-old former student opened fire at Oikos University in Oakland, California. One Goh was charged with seven counts of murder and three counts of attempted murder, but psychiatric evaluations concluded he suffered from long-term paranoid schizophrenia and was unfit to stand trial.
Lets not forget the one that happened in Tuscon, Arizona on January 8, 2011 when Jared Lee Loughner shot and killed 6 people, wounding a total of 13 people.
Best states for gun owners according to Guns and Ammo July 21st, 2015:
Nevada- ranked #22
Oregon- ranked #28
Texas- ranked #15
South Carolina- ranked #14
Arizona- ranked #1
Florida- ranked #12
Minnesota- ranked #39
Kansas- ranked #8
Editor’s note: State-specific gun laws are a complicated, frustrating and fluid subject. We have consulted sources such as the National Rifle Association, National Shooting Sports Foundation and state and law enforcement agencies to compile these rankings. Some states are very hazy on certain statutes, so our data reflects those confusions with general statements based on our understanding of the law. All information is current as of July 2015.
Read more: http://www.gunsandammo.com/network-t...#ixzz4xbT4S200
I will only note that the church was a gun-free area. What, wait... Did the gunman not respect the law? No way...
In the US most psychos use guns which they probably got into possesion illegay anyway. In Europe they use cars or acid, or home-made bombs. Nonetheless, we also have had some shootings over here. One by Brevik was probably the most recent.
That was more than six years ago and in a different country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
Well there were shootings in France in 2015. The point is that gun control is useless
for all intents and purposes a gun ban just isn't going to happen in the usa.
what is most often asked for is stricter controls on gun sales and what types of weapons are available. however it seems that sensible restrictions (to those of us not in a gun culture) are met with cries of horror that the state is trying to restrict fundamental freedoms.
the practical necessity for an overhaul of the rules, regulations and laws just get lost in ideological and fundamentalist fear and rantings.
Again, that was in another country, but we've already been over this in another thread. We looked at gun death rates by country and then just to be thorough looked at homicide rates to make sure there weren't sufficient number of people displacing guns for other deadly instruments. Finally, when you saw the disparity you sort of abandoned the argument that guns make people safer and instead said that there should be no restriction on their ownership regardless of the effect because of their importance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
The point I have been trying to make is that mass shootings can happen anywhere. Not just in states that have stricter gun laws. The issue then becomes what can we do to stop them from happening. Considering how many have happened in the past six years, nobody seems to know the right answer to that question. Instead we just continue to do the same song and dance we do every time after one of these incidents occur:
Outrage....Outrage......Thoughts and Prayers.....Thoughts and Prayers.....Everybody to a neutral corner.....Bell rings and the fight begins for a few days.....Bell rings again....Fight ends in draw.....Until the next mass shooting....Repeat.
Think about it. This thread was started 5 years ago after Sandy Hook and guns haven't been banned. NOR SHOULD THEY BE BANNED AND I CAN'T STRESS THOSE WORDS ENOUGH. But has any progress been made in trying to find a way to make sure guns don't wind up in the hands of people with certain mental disabilities. Nope.
There's no such thing as regulation that makes sure of something. Only legislation that increases or decreases probabilities. Passing laws that make sure people with diagnosed psychoses cannot buy a gun would help. It would have to go further than only prohibiting ownership by people who have pleaded the insanity defense which is an incredibly high threshold. It can be done, but it requires the passage of laws to do it. There is a battleground over whether misdemeanor domestic violence is enough to prohibit gun ownership, but in the one circuit that okay'd such laws, they could pass such a prohibition until the supreme court adjudicates it. We could make sure that guns never get into the hands of felons with better background checks. We could ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines to reduce the carnage when someone does go on a rampage. We could make bump stocks illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackchubby38
Finally, we could take away the immunity from suit that the gun industry has that other industries do not. In fact, if you look at the way alcohol is regulated, there are laws called dramshop acts. These are actually laws that increase the liability of places that sell alcohol to those who are intoxicated. And their liability is increased beyond what it is at the common law by these statutes. On the other hand, gun manufacturers are insulated from liability by federal statute. Now some may think that strict liability for gun manufacturers is not fair, but this law means that liability at the state level cannot even develop the way it otherwise would. It is strictly a consequence of lobbying and protection against lifesaving developments in weapon safety.
Again, if you did some elementary research you would find that not only have mass killings been done by men with legally purchased weapons, in the past few months the Obama era ruling that made it harder for people with mental health problems to purchase weapons has been rescinded so that it is now easier for a nutter to buy guns. Just out of idle curiosity, do you own a gun?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
It's only a mystery to those who refuse to see the obvious. Higher rates of gun ownership are clearly associated with higher rates of gun deaths, both across countries and across US states. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...cs-maps-chartsQuote:
Originally Posted by blackchubby38
Almost anything that makes it harder to acquire guns could be expected to reduce the rate of gun deaths over time. An obvious starting point would be to stop people from acquiring arsenals of military-style weapons that allow them to quickly kill large numbers of people. The fact that you avoid this is a good indicator of how disingenuous your response was.
Even if people have less chance of getting guns then they will use machetes, knives, crossbows, hammers, axes, acid, bombs, lorries etc, etc... The last thing our civilisation needs is more bureaucracy and more people in suits and ties cringing losing their posts in their cosy offices.
If you want less crime then bring back teaching the values that used to make our civilisation great to kids at schools, cut the bureaucracy that we have all become slaves of.
I have not abandoned anything, I would still like as free a human being as possible, and I would like the same for everyone.
If you read my ad then you will see I openly state that I have a cannon which is ready to fire in your face, Stavros.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
He has used that analogy a couple of times. That was from HRH after one of the tragic UK mass shootings at Dunblane; making the point that it is mainly the perpetrator rather than the weapon.Quote:
”A gun is no more dangerous than a cricket bat in the hands of a madman.” Prince Phillip.
I was under the impression that if you want to raise your children in a 'God, family and country' environment that seems close to your version of 'civilization' then Texas is the place to go. I guess if they replaced their governor with a King and their Congress with a Court it would be heaven on earth, as long as nut-cases don't purchase guns and decide to rsolve their mental health issues by killing others. Or could it be that the shooter chose a church to be his memorial because there can be only one God, and at the time, he was God?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
You could say the same about a paper bag or a piece of string, but the number of people murdered or injured with either of those two objects is so small as to be insignificant, it is also harder to kill someone with those two objects. A gun is a weapon more powerful than a fist, a knife or a cricket bat, which is why there are restrictions on its ownership in the UK and other countries, and also why without those restrictions there are more murders per head of population in the USA.Quote:
Originally Posted by skirtrustler
It is not, as RedVex argues a matter of bureaucracy or a lack of civilized values, but a simple matter of using the law to limit the kind of people who can purchase weapons. President Obama -in the face of fierce opposition from Congress and the (Terrorist) National Rifle Association in 2016 secured an additional provision in the background checks introduced in 1998 to make it hard for people with a mental illness to purchase guns.
One of the first things Obama's successor did after taking office was to rescind that mental health provision, making it easier for people with a mental illness to purchase a gun, so it is no surprise that the same person should in the last 24 hours refer to the massacre in Texas as 'a mental health illness' simply ignoring the fact that he has been in part an architect of these killings because this is a man who never takes responsibility for his own decisions. He has refused to take responsibility for the deaths of US service personnel in the Yemen and Niger, but he has publicly insulted and abused the Gold Star families of the men killed in action, something no other President has done in living memory, if ever.
It is a case of enabling the perpetrator to kill, so the issue must refer back to the means used to prevent the perpetrator from obtaining the weapons that kill and injure more people at a faster rate than any other. Hint- don't give guns to people with mental health issue, and don't sell military grade weapons to any citizen.
Or accept that if you allow this, you are an accomplice to murder.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...mental-n727221
http://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/tru...-control-rule/
It is as I argue. And you are stupid.
Yep; Some Pro-establishment cunt from the US as already been on National TV in the UK saying it wasn't guns to blame, it was a mental health issue! I fucking give up :bangheadQuote:
Originally Posted by slave2u
Said the person who has utterly and completely lost the debate in every possible aspect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
My response wasn't meant to be disingenuous. I was merely trying to point how complicated this issue can be. I actually agree with some of the gun control measures that have been talked about. Especially the one about making sure guns don't wind up in the hands of people with certain mental illness.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
The problem is that no matter how many great ideas the gun control side has, they are nowhere near as powerful as the gun lobby is or are as vocal as their supporters. Especially when it comes to where it matters most, the voting booth. For gun owners, if its not "the issue", its one of their most important issues they take into consideration when deciding who they are going to vote for. In a nutshell, the people who oppose any type of new regulations on guns are in for the long fight.
Okay, I accept that you are trying to be genuine, but you did say "nobody seems to know the answer". There is a big difference between not knowing the answers, and knowing the answers but being unable to implement them because of political resistance.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackchubby38
Chalk that up typing a post in haste.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
Would that be values like respect for the truth? When exactly was this golden age when people were safe because of values? Murder rates across the developed world are lower than they have been for most of history when religion had a much bigger role. https://ourworldindata.org/homicides/Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
All that teaching of the ten commandments did not stop people from killing one another. And how do values explain why the murder rate in the USA is way higher than in any other developed country?
What I want to know is why did Trump blame the mass shooting on "a mental health problem"...after signing a bill earlier this year that rolled back a regulation making it harder for people with mental illnesses to buy firearms?
Was it MrFanti? He hasn't commented since it happened? :-|Quote:
Originally Posted by blackchubby38
Interesting article from The Washington Post explores some popular myths about guns and gun violence based on the recent release of the results of the most comprehensive study to date .
One finding that struck me (no pun) is that gun violence increased by 13% to 15% over 10 years in states that passed 'right to carry' laws . And in zero instances did citizens carrying guns intervene in shootings in progress. One of the arguments in passing such laws was that an armed citizenry would lead to increased public safety.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/outloo...=.81da4a17486f
I remember someone asking for the paradigm which made our civilisation the greatest.. None of us actually lived in the times, as those ended in the 16th for Poland and 17th century century for the UK, if not earlier, but some of the values that come to mind are:
- honesty
- freedom
- inequality
- family
- individuality
- respect
- (inherited) monarchy
- patriotism
- Christianity
in more less that order. I would like hear from the Americans, as they might remember more from their much shorter history and I think their countries only began falling in the 18th or even the 19th century.
Another puzzling post. When, in 17th century England did 'Civilization' come to an end? Was it 1653? Was it 1660? Was it 1668? Was it the death of William Shakespeare in 1616?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
Is there some other date you want to identify?
Which version of 'Christianity' in England are you referring to, Protestant Christianity, or the Roman Catholic version?
Someone asked someone for a paradigm and the answer was this silly list?! Why should I give someone’s report of someone’s list any credence or notice especially since the someone who just posted it has shown herself to be somewhat deficient in the first, fifth and ninth items listed?
RedVex, your last post was at 10:49am.
That’s way too early to be on the Meth.
The question I actually asked was when was the 'golden age' when people were safe because of values, as you claimed in an earlier post? It's clear from the link I already posted that the murder rate in up to the 17th century was higher it it has been since then (ie people were not safer in the era of absolute monarchy that seems to be your ideal). https://ourworldindata.org/homicides/Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
Someone had to....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeXMKygwSco
:shrug