[quote]Sloth wrote:
It’s the urban gangbangers making us look bad. To hell if my rights should be stripped because of misguided policies, and the self-destructive culture festering in these communities.[/quote]
[quote]Sifu wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
But I guess you’re only really free if you have the tools at your disposal to blow someone’s head off on a whim.
That isn’t the definition of freedom I know.
However, self defense is an inseparable part of being free which does require certain means. If one has to rely on someone else for his protection he can never be free.
What you describe is mere thuggery.
Interesting post. My question for you is - where do you draw the line? I could protect myself better if I had grenades and landmines at my disposal as well. Or a tank. Or some surface to air missles. Maybe a couple of ICBMs.
In any society there’s some limit to the tools that are available for self defense. Where the limit is depends on where your right to defend yourself becomes a safety risk to the public. Some, like myself, think that handguns and assult rifles are proven risks to society as a whole if they are not regulated. To be more specific, because handguns and assault rifles are designed for the sole purpose of killing another human being, I beleive there is no merit in permitting ownership of these weapons to any person not in law enforcement.
The other argument that I’ve heard is that it makes governments accountable to the people. If you’re permitted to carry a handgun, and the government is permitted to operate fighter planes, assault helocopters, tanks and missles, what accountability is there really on the government? They still have the upper hand. Meanwhile the citizens are killing each other in record numbers.
So… where do YOU draw the line?
Reading your posts I can see that you like to spew a bunch of ignorant bullshit, while exagerating or misrepresenting facts along with a liberal use of histrinoics. It’s no wonder why you are afraid of people turning violent on you. Because your level of ignorance is astounding.
To see how your ignorant ideology works in the real world one only needs to look across the border of Texas into Mexico. Mexico is a lawless free for all with a national murder rate that is as high as Detroit.
All the fighter jets, attack helicopters, tanks and missiles in the world can’t change the basic fact of life that it still takes an infantryman with a rifle and or hand gun to go into an area and control it. If the American army couldn’t subdue and control 2 million Iraqis in Sadr city there is no way they could subdue and control 300 million Americans.
Last but certainly not least. What record numbers of killings are you referring to? It certainly can’t be the US because the murder rate here has been declining every year for the last 17 years!
Or are you referring to Toronto and their 2005 “year of the gun”? Or is it 2007 when the 2005 record was broken?
Murder rate surpasses “Year of the Gun” 2005
TORONTO â?? The stray bullet that struck and killed 15-year-old Jane Creba while she was shopping on a busy downtown street on Boxing Day 2005, left an indelible mark on the psyche of Canadaâ??s largest city.
In Toronto, 2005 is still known as The Year of The Gun.
Yet two years later, murder rates have spiked to even higher levels.
[/quote]
A quote from your source:
Kevin Stolarick, an urban theorist who has collaborated with author Richard Florida to develop a ranking system for the most innovative and successful U.S. cities, says Torontoâ??s numbers are â??phenomenally wonderfulâ?? compared to equivalent cities south of the border. The murder rate in Toronto this year will be slightly more than three per 100,000 people. Detroitâ??s murder rate in 2004 was 42, while Washingtonâ??s was 36.
You also fail to address the question I posed in that post. Where do you draw the line? What is reasonable for self defense?
Hold on.
The US has poor life expectancy figures compared to other western nations, despite spending nearly twice as much per person (on average) on health-care as the next nearest countries. Orion and others tell us that this is due, in no small part, to the higher incidence of violent deaths: and not because the healthcare system leaves poor people to die.
So which is it? Does the US have a crappy healthcare system, or does the free availability of guns lead to more (not fewer) violent deaths?
[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
It’s the urban gangbangers making us look bad. To hell if my rights should be stripped because of misguided policies, and the self-destructive culture festering in these communities.
http://www.texansforgunsafety.org/houston.htm[/quote]
I don’t understand the methodology here. The very first 2001 example is of a robber being shot…Are they using self defense situations in their numbers, too? What? Further, it almost seems like they’ve pulled blurbs, brief reports from a crime blotter, from newspapers. Blurbs that may or may not mention a gang connection, because the information wasn’t available at the time.
[quote]doc_man_101 wrote:
Hold on.
The US has poor life expectancy figures compared to other western nations, despite spending nearly twice as much per person (on average) on health-care as the next nearest countries. Orion and others tell us that this is due, in no small part, to the higher incidence of violent deaths: and not because the healthcare system leaves poor people to die.
So which is it? Does the US have a crappy healthcare system, or does the free availability of guns lead to more (not fewer) violent deaths?[/quote]
We have a violent culture. Especially in the urban combat zones. But, we don’t strip away our own rights based on the lowest common denominator. Well, ok, not all of them. I mean, otherwise, we’d have kept the alcohol prohibition.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
It’s the urban gangbangers making us look bad. To hell if my rights should be stripped because of misguided policies, and the self-destructive culture festering in these communities.
http://www.texansforgunsafety.org/houston.htm
I don’t understand the methodology here. The very first 2001 example is of a robber being shot…Are they using self defense situations in their numbers, too? What? Further, it almost seems like they’ve pulled blurbs, brief reports from a crime blotter, from newspapers. Blurbs that may or may not mention a gang connection, because the information wasn’t available at the time.[/quote]
The purpose of the post was to dispute your assertion that urban gangbangers are making you look bad. If you read many of the reports, brief though they may be, they show that many of the shooting deaths are not due to gang violence.
Yes, they included a case of a robber being shot, but if you remove that from the list of gun related deaths it doesn’t change the fact that people are being killed for a variety of reasons in a variety of situations.
[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
It’s the urban gangbangers making us look bad. To hell if my rights should be stripped because of misguided policies, and the self-destructive culture festering in these communities.
http://www.texansforgunsafety.org/houston.htm
I don’t understand the methodology here. The very first 2001 example is of a robber being shot…Are they using self defense situations in their numbers, too? What? Further, it almost seems like they’ve pulled blurbs, brief reports from a crime blotter, from newspapers. Blurbs that may or may not mention a gang connection, because the information wasn’t available at the time.
The purpose of the post was to dispute your assertion that urban gangbangers are making you look bad. If you read many of the reports, brief though they may be, they show that many of the shooting deaths are not due to gang violence.
Yes, they included a case of a robber being shot, but if you remove that from the list of gun related deaths it doesn’t change the fact that people are being killed for a variety of reasons in a variety of situations.[/quote]
Hold up now. Again, these seem like they’ve been lifted from a crime blotter. Which, again, is usually short on facts, because the facts aren’t always known at the time.
“A John Does kill a friend/classmate/whatever.” Did the friend stiff him for drug money? Was the shooter slinging drugs for a gang?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
It’s the urban gangbangers making us look bad. To hell if my rights should be stripped because of misguided policies, and the self-destructive culture festering in these communities.
http://www.texansforgunsafety.org/houston.htm
I don’t understand the methodology here. The very first 2001 example is of a robber being shot…Are they using self defense situations in their numbers, too? What? Further, it almost seems like they’ve pulled blurbs, brief reports from a crime blotter, from newspapers. Blurbs that may or may not mention a gang connection, because the information wasn’t available at the time.
The purpose of the post was to dispute your assertion that urban gangbangers are making you look bad. If you read many of the reports, brief though they may be, they show that many of the shooting deaths are not due to gang violence.
Yes, they included a case of a robber being shot, but if you remove that from the list of gun related deaths it doesn’t change the fact that people are being killed for a variety of reasons in a variety of situations.
Hold up now. Again, these seem like they’ve been lifted from a crime blotter. Which, again, is usually short on facts, because the facts aren’t always known at the time.
“A John Does kill a friend/classmate/whatever.” Did the friend stiff him for drug money? Was the shooter slinging drugs for a gang? [/quote]
It appears that you’ve already made up your mind that everything is either gang or drug related even when many of the cases cited in the above post are clearly not.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
It’s the urban gangbangers making us look bad. To hell if my rights should be stripped because of misguided policies, and the self-destructive culture festering in these communities.
http://www.texansforgunsafety.org/houston.htm
I don’t understand the methodology here. The very first 2001 example is of a robber being shot…Are they using self defense situations in their numbers, too? What? Further, it almost seems like they’ve pulled blurbs, brief reports from a crime blotter, from newspapers. Blurbs that may or may not mention a gang connection, because the information wasn’t available at the time.
The purpose of the post was to dispute your assertion that urban gangbangers are making you look bad. If you read many of the reports, brief though they may be, they show that many of the shooting deaths are not due to gang violence.
Yes, they included a case of a robber being shot, but if you remove that from the list of gun related deaths it doesn’t change the fact that people are being killed for a variety of reasons in a variety of situations.
Hold up now. Again, these seem like they’ve been lifted from a crime blotter. Which, again, is usually short on facts, because the facts aren’t always known at the time.
“A John Does kill a friend/classmate/whatever.” Did the friend stiff him for drug money? Was the shooter slinging drugs for a gang? [/quote]
Another post that disputes your gang violence assertion. I already know what you’re going to say, the Unknown category is probably gang violence - but the fact is the circumstance is unknown.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Gregus wrote:
The table has been set. The British have now been thoroughly disarmed. Panic tactics worked nicely. Fools.
Now the only people with weapons are the criminals and those in charge of the British sheep. LoL. Good for them.
Here’s a snot rocket for Britain.
Erm, did any of you actually read the post showing that the original post is BS?
I looked over the second post, it more or less much confirmed the first.
You might want to work on your reading comprehension then:
[i]The Daily Mail is, as usual, misrepresentating people. This time it has picked on the Scout Movement and is â??reportingâ??
as the fight against Britainâ??s growing blade culture intensifies, Scouts have been told not to take penknives on camping trips.
Except that itâ??s a load of rubbish. If they had actually read the section on knives, they would know that it is actually only a reminder of the laws around knife use and guidance about safety.
What the article in Scouting magazine says is that
knives of any sort should not be carried by anybody to a Scout meeting or camp, unless there is likely to be a specific need for one. [Emphasis added]
If there is a need for a penknife, such as on a backwoods camp, then obviously Scouts would be allowed to carry them. But on a normal Scout evening or an activities-based camp, penknives should be left at home because theyâ??re not needed.
[/i][/quote]
I read that. It’s a bunch of bullshit. I learned important life skills in Boy Scouts like “be prepared”, “be trustworthy”. This guidance dictate goes against being prepared. More importantly it impunes the honor and trustworthiness of the Boy Scouts.
Obviously this is going over your head but. It is an extremely sad commentary on where British society has gone in the last hundred years when today Boy Scouts are considered too untrustworthy and too unreliable to handle responsibility like their forefathers. It says that British society is not progressing it is regressing.
The new message is even if you are a Boy Scout you are not to be trusted without an authority figure to monitor you and to control you.
[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Something my mother taught me is that in polite company you don’t discuss politics or religion. The reason why is because people usually have deeply felt views about both and they may not be the same as yours. So it is a real good way to start a heated arguement. Doing it in a place where alcohol is consumed is begging for trouble. It’s no wonder why you are paranoid about someone getting a gun and shooting you.
Why should we be afraid to take on sensitive issues? Because your mommy told you it was impolite? Yes people have deeply felt views, so I challenge them to defend those views. I learn a bit, maybe they learn a bit. The problem is when people can’t leave a discussion at just a discussion - they need to resort to violence to make a point. I’m not afraid of standing up for what I believe, but I shouldn’t feel that my life is at stake if I do. And so what if alcohol is being consumed. This is the lamest shit I’ve ever heard. [/quote]
If you think you can accomplish anything useful or have intelligent meaningful conversations arguing with drunks you are an idiot. The depth of your stupidity is compounded by the fact that you want to see people rendered defenseless against violent criminals just so you can feel safe arguing with drunks in a bar. You coming across as a very selfish, ignorant asshole.
[quote]
sifu wrote:
What I meant by people like you is you sound like a person who looks for trouble or tries to instigate it. I’ve seen your type before, you’re a selfish drama queen who isn’t happy until you have drama going on and you don’t give a damn about how it affects anyone else.
You don’t know a thing about me but you’re judging me based on my opinions about gun violence and gun control. People like you are ignorant, sensitive, and irrational.
Sifu wrote:
In my experience Windsor Ontario on a Friday or Saturday night is like a giant hockey rink where you can be assaulted by absolute strangers just walking down the sidewalk. Canadians on that side of the river are nowhere as civil as they are when they are in Detroit!
I know Windsor is a rough place. Perhaps you should paint all Canadians with a broad brush based on your experience with some of the roughest thugs Canada has to offer. Actually it appears that you already have. Dick. [/quote]
My name isn’t Dick it is Richard, Richard Head.
[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Another post that disputes your gang violence assertion. I already know what you’re going to say, the Unknown category is probably gang violence - but the fact is the circumstance is unknown.[/quote]
Which one are you looking at? The bottom one (homicides INVOLVING guns) seems relevant. But, I don’t understand how it refutes what I said.
[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Unaware wrote:
Why should we be afraid to take on sensitive issues? Because your mommy told you it was impolite? Yes people have deeply felt views, so I challenge them to defend those views. I learn a bit, maybe they learn a bit. The problem is when people can’t leave a discussion at just a discussion - they need to resort to violence to make a point. I’m not afraid of standing up for what I believe, but I shouldn’t feel that my life is at stake if I do. And so what if alcohol is being consumed. This is the lamest shit I’ve ever heard.
Some how I doubt you’re going to get shot for standing up for your political view points. Most people don’t give a shit about politics. I’m gonna go ahead and guess that 99.99% of shootings have nothing to do with a political/religious/scientific debate getting out of hand.
If you go around making trouble with people, especially drunk people, then yes it will catch up to you. You might get your head blown off in Houston, but you might get stabbed in London or pummeled to death in Canada.
You’re probably right that most shootings aren’t the result of a heated discussion by a couple of educated chaps in a pub. It’s not like I’m going around making trouble with people, it’s just in some venues here I really need to hold my tongue because there IS an element in society that are armed and irrational. Not all Americans - I need to make that clear. I don’t think 99% of Americans are so hot-headed as to shoot someone over a debate. The thing that scares me is there are SOME people that are and there’s a good chance they’re armed.[/quote]
If you are worried that your mouth could get you shot here in the US don’t ever go to Britain because the British are that hot headed and you will get glassed over there.
[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sifu wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Murder rate surpasses “Year of the Gun” 2005
TORONTO �?�¢?? The stray bullet that struck and killed 15-year-old Jane Creba while she was shopping on a busy downtown street on Boxing Day 2005, left an indelible mark on the psyche of Canada�?�¢??s largest city.
In Toronto, 2005 is still known as The Year of The Gun.
Yet two years later, murder rates have spiked to even higher levels.
A quote from your source:
Kevin Stolarick, an urban theorist who has collaborated with author Richard Florida to develop a ranking system for the most innovative and successful U.S. cities, says Toronto�¢??s numbers are �¢??phenomenally wonderful�¢?? compared to equivalent cities south of the border. The murder rate in Toronto this year will be slightly more than three per 100,000 people. Detroit�¢??s murder rate in 2004 was 42, while Washington�¢??s was 36.
You also fail to address the question I posed in that post. Where do you draw the line? What is reasonable for self defense?[/quote]
Toronto’s murder rate is three times Honolulu Hawaii rate of 1 per 100,000. So there are major American cities that have lower murder rates than Toronto.
The city of Detroit has a high murder rate but once you cross into the suburbs the difference is like night and day. The city of Detroit has 900,000 people but the metropolitan area has over 4.5 million. A lot of Detroit’s suburbs are safe and the nice ones like Birmingham or Bloomfield Hills are as safe and as nice as anywhere in Toronto. Despite the fact that I have seen far more assault rifles in Birmingham that I have seen in Detroit.
Detroit’s murder rate is purely a function of it’s demographics and years of very restrictive gun control.
Edit: What is reasonable is allowing people to be able to carry. Gun control doesn’t stop criminals from using guns, but it does stop people from being able to defend themselves, which is unfair and unreasonable.
[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
As a Canadian living in Texas I totally get where you’re coming from. Personally, I feel much more free knowing that if I go to a pub back home and get into an argument with someone they probably won’t go to their car to grab their handgun out of their glovebox. But I guess you’re only really free if you have the tools at your disposal to blow someone’s head off on a whim.[/quote]
Are you white? Going to mostly white bars? If so, while I haven’t done the math, I have a feeling you’re more likely to get killed driving to and from the bar, than getting shot while at the bar. Hate to bring up the racial component, but reality is reality.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Froggie, you should’ve just taken my advice and did some reading and kept your mouth shut. Instead you let your masochistic bent get the best of you and now you’re getting flogged just like I told you you would.[/quote]
Educate me. I dare you. Who’s flogging me? A lot of insults being tossed around but no facts, statistics, or evidence to the contrary. Even if you could just point me in the direction of the thread where you argued this previously, I’d be happy to look at the evidence that was presented. I did a search and came up with stuff all over the map - not pertaining to gun control at all.
[quote]doc_man_101 wrote:
Hold on.
The US has poor life expectancy figures compared to other western nations, despite spending nearly twice as much per person (on average) on health-care as the next nearest countries. Orion and others tell us that this is due, in no small part, to the higher incidence of violent deaths: and not because the healthcare system leaves poor people to die.
So which is it? Does the US have a crappy healthcare system, or does the free availability of guns lead to more (not fewer) violent deaths?[/quote]
The simple fact of the matter is there are a handful of areas that are super generators that drive the statistics for the entire country .ie Detroit has 900,000 people, Michigan has 10 million. Ninety percent of Michigans murders happen in Detroit.
If you look at the demographics you will see the areas with the highest murder rate also have the highest percentage of African Americans whose economic status is below middle class. This is where the term black on black crime comes from. I posted the figures in another thread where we thoroughly went through these issues. If I remember correctly eighty percent of murderers and eighty percent of murder victims are African American.
If you seperate the statistics for the black ghettos from the rest of the country it is a completely different story. The vast majority of the country is more like Switzerland than Detroit. The Swiss have a lot of guns but Geneva doesn’t resemble Detroit. It is purely a societal issue that has nothing to do with firearm ownership.
[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
where do YOU draw the line?[/quote]
I think there are sages that ate better capable of answering the question than me.
My goal is usually to not offend someone in the first place to cause an escalation. I think they teach that in beginning self defense classes.