re writes all his posts in latex first
about a year ago i got a uni write up back with correction from the prof and one of them was that i had used the "wrong" dash ... some people
totally o/t: school shootings wouldnt happen at all if teenagers didnt have access to guns
Any determined individual will always be able to acquire a firearm illegally. Do you suppose a homicidal/suicidal maniac is going to respect gun control laws?
Only half the population vote anyway so it's difficult to know what the American people truly prefer in a president. They'll probably vote for the one who convinces them that terr'ists have discovered a way of flying buildings into aircraft.
And you can't threaten someone with a Knife?
Erm, Harm OR Protect? It's ONLY purpose is to harm someone. If thats in the capacity of Self-Defence then so be it, but it ONLY serves to kill or injure someone.
Elections - Meh. My vote is worth the same as Greg's so whats the point in making a decision and being sucked into Politics?
I think SGT.Flippy meant that a Knife is something that most people have for other reasons, but could be used for that if it really needed to be. A Gun is bought for one reason, and it shows that the person who has it thought "i'll go and buy something that i can then use to kill and injure", for whatever reason that might be.
I am sorry, I didn't think my wording seem to imply such thing. My observation is related to what you wrote but wasn't meant as a personal consideration about you. In fact I agree with you: I only added that the amusing white nationalist support for Paul has been often inflated by some tool to obtain an unfair political advantage. I can assure you that I don't include you in those tools, your amusement speaks for yourself. I apologise for not having been clear enough.
But yet I have to admit that Ron Paul's position or ads are appealing to nationalists, so I can understand why he can have the support of white nationalists too.
This campaign is plagued by some smears that attempt to shift the focus to personal issues such as the one I mentioned, or some other one, such as the campaign by Insight magazine to uncover the link between Obama and Islam. So far this campaign has been unsuccessful.
On a more general note, I'm one of those who thought these elections could be interesting for a lot of reasons, including the reaction of the general public to the fact that the two major democratic candidates are a woman and a black man, and neither a woman nor a black man have ever been president of the USA.
For the above mentioned reason and strictly speaking from an utilitaristic point of view since I don't consider myself to be sexist or racist, Obama and Clinton aren't exactly the best candidates to win an election that will be influenced by the enormous foreign policy blunder that is Iraq, but the fact that they are there and Edwards - a white man - is trailing behind them at the moment is very interesting.
No, but (if I had a neighbour like this) I'd rather know that my not-homicidal maniac but loud, aggressive, anti-social drunk of a neighbour doesn't have a gun in his house. I'd also like to think that if the 15 year old across the road suddenly became homicidal, he doesn't already have the tool for the job.
You're right, that if someone is determined enough to kill someone then they could get a gun if they want, pretty much anywhere in the world, more easily in some places than others, I wouldn't like to meet the gun-runners in the cities of the UK. But how many shootings in America happen in that way? How many are just disputes that turn to gunfights because people have guns to hand, how many shootings are just done on a whim, in a moment of madness? How many are complete accidents that wouldn't have happened if there'd been no gun there at all?
guns are banned to the public over here and we are doing OK.
But than I suppose our population of "bad guys" and degree of trigger happy mentality is way less than in the states.
I am just thinking, we are developing all these non-lethal weapons, the point is just that insteading of killing people who might kill you, you just disarm the threat, you keep them away from hurting you while yourself doesn't become a threat.
when everyone has a gun, and thinks they are entitled to use it, small conflicts gets blown out of proportion and results could be lethal.
I knew what it was, I was just surprised to see it being used. They're like hen's teeth on the web. My first thought was that you were using MS Word for spell checking before posting, because I often see users of our CMS software pasting in garbage from MS Word and the clue is always the quotation marks and dashes.
Sorry, this was my fault for not reading your post and the linked article closely enough. I should know better than to treat a post from you so lightly, as you've consistently been one of the most well-spoken and methodical thinkers on this board.
I find it interesting especially that Obama is leading the Dems when he, IMO, has the weakest position on the Middle East situation. (He's probably my favorite candidate of a bad bunch otherwise.) But I guess the keyword this time is "change" and his position (i.e., GTFO ASAP) would be the biggest change of all.
I think Edwards would probably be the least divisive president out of the bunch (religious but not overly so, well spoken, young and attractive, smart but not too smart, rural but not too rural), but he seems like he's just too vanilla to get much traction.
Well, obviously, but there's a very strong chance that that's what we're going to get. Edwards would be the best of those.
He's the only one so far that I've seen say explicitly that belief in God shouldn't (and wouldn't) dictate policy (link). (Nevermind that he dodges the bulk of the actual question.)
While that makes him ideal, that also means he won't win. I find it kinda ironic, actually, considering official government documents state that church and state must be seperate. (Declarence of independance or the constitution? I forget. It's too early for this stuff..)
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Also, the Bill of Rights (First ten amendments) is generally considered part of the Constitution since they expressly outline natural rights which the state cannot take away. I would certainly consider the Bill of Rights a major foundational US document (more important than the actual Constitution or Declaration, IMO).
Your loud, anti-social neighbor has just as much right to defend his life as you do. There's a price to be paid for freedom, and people doing things you don't like is part of that price. Keep in mind that the 15 year old across the road may freak out and shoot you, but it's more likely that he would save your life or the life of someone you love. If you believe that most people are inherently good, then the likelihood is greater that someone will do good with their gun (or knife, club, pepper spray, etc), not evil. They would protect you from harm, rather than harm you.
Not as many as you think.
Virtually none. That is the same thing that people said before Florida enacted their Right-to-carry laws. "There streets will run with blood! People will shoot each other over parking spaces and road rage!". Didn't happen. In fact, crime and violent crime went down substantially. It's no coincidence that the places with the most gun control are the places with the highest crime rate, and that "gun free zones" are always the location of mass shootings. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1143&full=1
Again, very few. In the U.S. for 2001, there were 29,573 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,869; Homicide 11,348; Accident 802; Legal Intervention 323; Undetermined 231 (CDC, 2004). As you can see, suicide makes up the large portion of gun deaths in the US. Research has shown that when guns are unavailable suicide rates remain static but that method of death changes (jumping off a bridge or slitting wrists instead, for instance). The small number of accidental deaths are far and away offset by the large number of lives saved each year through the use of a defensive weapon. The number is also miniscule compared to other forms of death such as motor vehicle, poisoning, falls, fire, etc. http://www.anesi.com/accdeath.htm
I'd love to cite the statistics, but I'm at work and my research is at home. So, you'll either have to trust my memory or look up the data yourself. Suffice it to say that guns are used for self defense much more often than they are used in crimes. Approximately 99% of guns will never be used in a crime. Ever. Approximately 99% of defensive gun uses (which happen hundreds of thousands of times per year) do not involve firing a shot. Of the defensive gun uses that involve a shooting, in only about 1% of those cases is someone killed. Accidental shootings are touted in the news because they are sensational, but they rarely happen.
If you really examine the statistics you find that guns save more lives than they take by a significant margin. And the lives that are taken by guns are often the lives of career criminals who tried to prey upon someone who was armed and defended themselves.
If you are truly interested in this topic, I suggest checking the local library for "The Bias Against Guns" by John Lott, Jr. It's an excellent book that is fully cited with both government and independent data.
Woah, DeadWolfBones! I've been literally speechless for a few minutes. These have been busy days for me in this board, and no matter what some may think, they have been good too. Your words (and Maggot's too, of course) are very kind, I consider them almost embarassing. It should suffice to say that respect is mutual also in this case.
I don't know, I think that Clinton's position on foreign policy is even worse since it seems even more interventionist: take for instance her position on nuclear weapons in Pakistan, which personally I find ridiculous.
If the US don't want to further alienate their sympathies with allies they should recognise the times have changed, and therefore a change is needed.
I was talking about this stuff in the pub with a friend on new year's eve. He brought up the subject of Rwanda and how - after the genocide - things seem to be pretty stable now and developing quickly. He suggested that maybe leaving these regions to sort themselves out is the only real option, and that the lives lost are inevitable.
Iraq's problems were created by the west and have been perpetuated by the west, but maybe the only solution is to leave them to it - possibly with a large loss of human life being inevitable for long-term stability.
If such a policy was taken though, the foreign powers who've meddled in the past would no doubt meddle again in future when economical concerns dictate it. So perhaps it's actually inevitable that nations like Iraq will always be abused and always unstable.
How is it bullshit? It's completely true. If you want freedom of speech, that means putting up with hate spewing KKK members. If you want freedom of the press, that means putting up Fox News and their "fair and balanced" reporting. If you want freedom of religion, that means tolerating other religions, even if you disagree with their beliefs. If you want freedom to protect your life, you have to allow others to have the same right.
As long as you don't harm others or their property or defame/defraud anyone, you should be allowed to do whatever the hell you want.
"need to be banned"...how very freedom loving of you.
