VTech
Pages
| Author | Topic: VTech |
|---|---|
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Wednesday, April 18 2007 16:54
Profile
1. The NRA argument is old and tired. 2. Don't ask someone else to monitor your consumption of media. 3. Arguing for stricter controls on one thing, and less strict controls on another is generally a double edged argument. -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7331
|
written Wednesday, April 18 2007 17:33
Profile
Homepage
quote:No kidding. I love people who do that, so I can fling their own brittle words back down their throats. -------------------- You Shall Die Laughing: http://www.worfthecat.ermarian.net/converted The Roost: www.roost01.proboards104.com. Birds of a feather flock together. Posts: 794 | Registered: Thursday, July 27 2006 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Wednesday, April 18 2007 18:51
Profile
Homepage
quote:"Gun crime is rare in Britain, and handguns are completely illegal. The ban is so strictly enforced that Britain's Olympic pistol shooting team is barred from practicing in its own country. Britain's 46 homicides involving firearms was the lowest total since the late 1980s. New York City, with 8 million people compared to 53 million in England and Wales, recorded at least 579 homicides last year." From the San Francisco Chronicle. I'm not saying you're wrong, because there are many complicating factors, here, but it's at least worthy of some thought. quote:If you take "the government or parents" and replace it with "parents," I agree with you. I think it's dangerous to try to make the government responsible for parenting our children, though. [ Wednesday, April 18, 2007 19:04: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Wednesday, April 18 2007 19:55
Profile
Homepage
There's Olympic pistol shooting? -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Wednesday, April 18 2007 20:36
Profile
Homepage
Apparently, "shooting live pigeons was an Olympic event (albeit only once, in 1900)." -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 6785
|
written Wednesday, April 18 2007 22:54
Profile
Japan has even tougher gun laws, so when A guy goes crazy he grabs a sword and starts hacking away. It's not as fast and the body count was lower, but gun control won't solve the problem. I liked an op-ed quote about predicting psycho behavior. A psychiatrist said that most people with that type of behavior (exhibited by the killers) become lawyers and politicians so he doesn't think screening would help. Posts: 4643 | Registered: Friday, February 10 2006 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Thursday, April 19 2007 00:02
Profile
Homepage
quote:You say that as if it doesn't matter to you how many people are killed. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Thursday, April 19 2007 03:51
Profile
quote:As was mentioned above, it can actually be tricky to fire a pistol accurately with just one hand. Also, I have it on the good authority of a state trooper that if a shooter is within five feet of someone, you have a better chance of taking him out physically than he has of shooting you. Self-defense courses for women frequently instruct women that it's better to wrestle with someone who's armed than allow yourself to be dragged into a car, because once you're in that car, your odds of being seen again are much, much lower than surviving a possible gun shot. Finally, probably a fraction of gunshots in circumstances where targets are moving are fatal (though this will depend on the skill of the shooter, too). You don't NEED a gun to defend yourself. The thing about countries that have strict gun control laws is that while it is still possible for criminal elements to acquire guns, the price of doing so becomes much more expensive. While organized criminal elements might therefore still have guns, people who would otherwise use a gun in a crime of passion, like the spree on Monday, or for armed robbery as a part of petty theft or mugging, would not have access. And that, I think, would be a good thing. -- It's unfortunate that the Fourteenth Amendment extends the Second Amendment to the States. Though I am extremely grateful for the Fourteenth Amendment in every other case, I think that the States should be able to regulate the sale of firearms. Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7331
|
written Thursday, April 19 2007 12:31
Profile
Homepage
quote:Great. Just great. Who let that slip, again? We're all DOOMED. -------------------- You Shall Die Laughing: http://www.worfthecat.ermarian.net/converted The Roost: www.roost01.proboards104.com. Birds of a feather flock together. Posts: 794 | Registered: Thursday, July 27 2006 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 8030
|
written Thursday, April 19 2007 14:18
Profile
Homepage
Great Britain's government is more stable than that of the U.S. Crime isn't too high there, because their government is much better at enforcing the law. Britain is well off in the fact that they're situated on an island, making it much harder to smuggle things into the country. The U.S. on the other hand, has many many internal problems, and is plagued by waves of illegal immigrants. America would have a very hard time enforcing gun laws since; 1. America has a large population compared to that of Great Britain, which obviously makes it harder to control. 2. The American government doesn't enforce it's laws very well. 3. As said previously; America has many problems scuh as its deep debt. 4. Things can be smuggled so easily into the U.S., that criminals could easily obtain guns, even if the U.S. banned handguns. 5. It would be extremely difficult to remove an ammendment from the bill of rights. 6. Many americans would refuse to give up their guns if they were banned, especially the cops. This could cause mass protest. 7. There's plenty of criminals in the U.S., about twenty percent of the worlds prison population. As said before, things are easily smuggled. 8. The NRA is probably bribing the government. :( To makes things clear, I don't support the NRA, neither does any one in my household own a gun. I simply think that stricter gun laws won't solve anything in this country. -------------------- WWJD? Posts: 1384 | Registered: Tuesday, February 6 2007 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Thursday, April 19 2007 15:25
Profile
Three cheers for propaganda!!! Long may it influence weak minds! -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 4636
|
written Thursday, April 19 2007 19:23
Profile
Quick: Let's blame *inanimate objects* and *modern media* to effectively mask the real issue: The sorry situation that society today has some shriveled lima beans between their legs in situations that can't be solved with money. This begs to bring up the point: WWGFTSD? What Would Giant Friendly Talking Spiders Do? I think Spider once said something along the lines of "sometimes you just gotta get rough with them chitrach-types, they don't listen to reason..." Spiderweb Software: Deep Moral Philosophy, Cute Babbling Arachnids ... I don't see Salmon as losing. It is, after all, a delicious fish. -------------------- "We need a small distraction. Do you happen to have an atomic bomb in your pocket?" Posts: 6 | Registered: Tuesday, June 29 2004 07:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Thursday, April 19 2007 19:47
Profile
Homepage
If I were to add Excalibur to my custom title list, his custom title would be Excalipur. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
Master
Member # 5977
|
written Saturday, April 21 2007 03:53
Profile
Homepage
I just read the thread, and something that was said, struck me as spot on. Now, I'm talking as a foreigner who doesn't know to much about Americans, American society and politics. I'm just curious what people think about it. "When a person intends to kill, and in large numbers, they will get the guns regardless." By Stareye. I agree with this a hundred per cent. I don't know what it was with that guy, what his motives were to kill, but if he found it necessary for one reason or another, he would have done so. Even if there would have been no gun, I think, he would have found a knife. So while I think that having less unnecesary guns is always good, these sort of tragedies can always occur. With or without the law. I do agree with the ones stating that chances are minimilized if one can't go out and buy a gun just like that. What Synergy and Drew said, I think, is also very true. A boy in my class asked me a couple of weeks ago, if I thought that a frog is an intelligent animal. He said the following: A huge group of frogs who all know each other, sit on a piece of land. They all face an unknown enemy, sitting perfectly still (it is unknown, so the frogs wouldn't immeditaly run away, and it's sitting still, so it won't scare the frogs). However, that unknown enemy also has food. One frog goes to the food, and while eating it, he is violently killed. This happens a few times, but eventually the frogs don't go near the food and the enemy, as they "know" what will happen. My answer was that his has nothing to do with intellect: it's instinct. I don't know if I'm right, but I thik it's a similair situation as on Vtech: we people see a gunman killing people, and that's why we don't go near him (I could have stated this, and it was stated, without this long story. Just thought it was interesting). -------------------- Play and rate my scenarios: Where the rivers meet View my upcoming scenario: The Nephil Search: Escape. Give us your drek! Posts: 3029 | Registered: Saturday, June 18 2005 07:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Saturday, April 21 2007 07:20
Profile
Homepage
Well, part of instinct is purely biological instinct just based on how we are set up, and part of it is essentially basic intellect, mostly from early childhood. People who were seriously deprived of food as toddlers tend to have instinctual reactions to food that others don't have, for example. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |