Shoot a firework rocket ~ Winners!Make a forum zoo! |
| Welcome to The Round Table. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| What annoys you most?; Rant here if you need to! | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Mar 3 2013, 08:45 AM (309,594 Views) | |
| trisdino | Jul 24 2014, 08:25 AM Post #5041 |
![]() ![]()
|
'Murican logic: We are the only civilized country with tons of guns, where in several states, almost anybody can own one, and we also have THE highest rate of shootings, with most other countries having NONE. But obviously guns have nothing to do with it. Oh really? The guns, the weapons USED to commit the shootings are not to blame? Then what is, the people? Yeah, the people are the ones firing them... but if they do not bloody HAVE A GUN, they are going to have a hard time shooting one. What, are they going to commit the crime anyway, just with something else? Is that why there are almost no mass killings in all the other civilized countries, regardless of the weapon? No? So is it just because Americans are particularly violent, that sounds like something a patriot could find offensive, even if the religion graphs seem to indicate some amount of correlation in that direction. Stop it, just stop it. Everywhere else, with no exceptions, where it is worth living, guns are restricted, and in all of those countries, every single one, this violence does not happen. I do not care for your flags and wars and churches and firearms, those are all terrible, and if people acknowledge that, and try to change it, then I have no problem with it, but the moment you try to justify these things, which only result in pain and suffering, based around exploits in the law itself(the second amendment only allows restricted access to muskets in militia members, nothing else), then you have gone way to far. But please, be my guest, if people want to tear their country apart while the rest of the world watches, as long as you stop polluting and destroying everywhere else, you are free to shoot as many guns as you want. But that does not stop it from being insanity. |
![]() |
|
| Furka | Jul 24 2014, 08:30 AM Post #5042 |
![]() ![]()
|
That only sounds as an extreme prejudice, you know well that not all USA citizens are liek that. |
![]() |
|
| trisdino | Jul 24 2014, 08:38 AM Post #5043 |
![]() ![]()
|
And I never said all US citizens were. Though, if you were referring to the violence part, I was referring to the statistic that almost 50% of the countries overall population are bibel litteralists. |
![]() |
|
| Murdock129 | Jul 24 2014, 08:43 AM Post #5044 |
![]()
|
You really don't see how what you're saying could be construed as prejudiced? Really? Edited by Murdock129, Jul 24 2014, 08:43 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| stargatedalek | Jul 24 2014, 08:54 AM Post #5045 |
|
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
![]()
|
I think you are going a bit far trisdino I get most of that was meant to be humorous and not actually offensive, but I don't think you made that clear enough obviously the presence of guns is partially to blame, if they weren't there many shootings would not even happen (not referring to criminals here, referring to accidental and "special circumstance" shootings), but you can take this a step further and blame the people in government for not instilling legislature to properly limit gun ownership, so however you want to point this it will lead back to blaming a person somewhere Edited by stargatedalek, Jul 24 2014, 09:09 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jul 24 2014, 09:05 AM Post #5046 |
|
Deleted User
|
1. Because of how our country is structured, there are some issues that the Federal Government cannot trump State governments on. States in the US are, by Constitutional Law, allowed to determine some things for themselves, based on what the constituents want (i.e. Same sex marriage made legal, recreational marijuana use legal, gun ownership legal). If the Fed, under one administration, issued a weapons ban it would probably only last the term of that particular administration, and be repealed when the opposing political party eventually takes office or gains a majority in the House and/or Senate. So it's not as easy as saying "WELL SOME STATES LET YOU HAVE WHATEVER YOU WANT." No they don't. Federal Law, in this particular case, does not allow private citizens to own fully automatic weapons, at least not without getting an approved license issued by the ATF (a government entity, which isn't handing anything out willy-nilly) and after paying a substantial amount of money to do so. These licenses are generally issued to people within law enforcement, the military, and people who have the time, money, and resources to collect a very expensive item. Certain states, however, do have fairly lax laws on who can own what (outside of the special licenses noted above). Some states require gun stores to check for any involuntary psychiatric/psychological holds in a purchaser's history before allowing them to purchase a weapon, and some don't (I believe it's a whopping 3 states that don't, and there is legislation in all 3 trying to change that). Is there more that state governments and the Fed can/should do to restrict gun ownership to people obviously not qualified or mentally capable of owning a firearm responsibly? Oh, HELL yes. But people on the extreme end of this issue (pro and against) ruin the chance of coming to a sane compromise that can actually be implemented without causing an outright civilian uprising or another 3 school shootings next month. Aside from Japan, I don't know of any other country that has no shootings. Germany, Norway, England, etc., have all had shootings in the recent past. I'm not trying to be glib here, I'd honestly like to know. There are, unfortunately, mass killings in many, many countries, including those that have banned firearms. Additionally, your assertion that religious "graphs" and violence "graphs" indicate a correlation between religion and gun violence is a logical fallacy: namely, that correlation does not imply causation. Listen, no one is asking you to live in America, or to like how we do things. We're not, as a country, going to apologize for being proud of our nationality, or our flag, or our respective religions (or lack thereof). The Second Amendment might have meant a lot of things, but Amendments, and the interpretation thereof, are meant to be flexible, and to change appropriately to reflect the needs and expectations of the nation as the nation exists currently, not as it existed 200 years ago. No one is "tearing the country apart." When these events happen, they're tragic and awful and there is always a "hindsight is 20/20" moment where we all say "We could have stopped this if we'd just done 'x'." As a country, internally, we're doing fairly well (if not fine) compared to most everyone else. Somehow, despite our deluge of guns and chest-beating, obnoxious patriotism and Bible-thumping, we're managing to survive. So stop worrying. We aren't asking for your help or input on what we're doing wrong, and how we can be just like Europe, or Asia, or anywhere else. You're obviously ignorant on the actual issues that define gun control and gun violence in the United States. We have population densities and economic/social inequity that are not comparable to what you find in Europe, all of which contribute to violence, be it gun violence, violence committed with other types of weapons, etc., and can't be cured by banning a single type of weapon. But seriously, no gun owner in the United States cares a single lick about what Europeans think of our "obsession" with guns. So rant and fume all you want... If change comes, it will come because we sorted things out internally. We don't need directions or chastisements from you. |
|
|
| trisdino | Jul 24 2014, 09:12 AM Post #5047 |
![]() ![]()
|
Statistically, most modern countries have 2-0 shootings a year, with the average probably being 1, with that 1 typically being either smaller than an American one(because of the lack of weapons and better police) or larger(because an individual capable of getting their hands on weapons in a country so protective of them is often able to get a LOT of them for the same reason). And no, I am not ignorant on it, hell, I probably know more than most people in America do about it. No, I am not universally accusing all Americans of being gun wielding psychopaths, but I am, and I can back this up, saying that there is a disturbingly large percentage of people who are. I am not giving any guidance outside of "Stop it with the bloody guns, how is up to you", anything that you infer from what I said was just that. However you try to spin it, it is a country with a ton of violence, and a ton of gun violence, it is quite literally impossible for there not to be a strong correlation there. I am not trying to offend anybody, hell, if my description offends you, then it probably does not apply to you, and as such, you being offended is in and of itself a paradox, but the reality is that the right to bear arms is not only a misinterpretation, as the founding fathers would most certainly never have allowed this, but also, whatever the founding fathers themselves meant, stupid. A weapon is a weapon, and every nut on the street should not be able to make a bank account and get one. Before you jump on me for that, yes I know that only some banks in some states do that, I do not care, the US is a country, whatever inter state stuff goes on is for you to solve, I judge the country as a whole, if you want me to judge the states on an individual basis, then disband the country, otherwise, I will treat it like any other country, as a whole. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jul 24 2014, 09:16 AM Post #5048 |
|
Deleted User
|
This isn't the place for this conversation. What annoys me most? People who refuse to accept their own ignorance and bias on a particular subject, refuse to back up any of their statements with facts (and I mean actual facts, not "well I know for a fact that..." or "I read in an article once..."), and prefer to see the world how they imagine it to be and not how it actually is. The simplification of complex issues and willful ignorance of those complex issues is rather irritating too. |
|
|
| stargatedalek | Jul 24 2014, 09:16 AM Post #5049 |
|
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
![]()
|
just going to say it because I feel obligated, I think states should not be able to control peoples human rights, having their own laws is one thing, but a *certain* state in my opinion takes things to far, and borders on the sort of homophobic government policies of places like Russia just felt I needed to make my opinion clear since it came up and I hate to be that person, but with all this fuss over trisdinos "rant" I'm curious what people thought of my suggestions/comparison above his post |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jul 24 2014, 09:26 AM Post #5050 |
|
Deleted User
|
I agree with you, stargate, which is why when most states pass laws that clearly violate Federal Civil Rights laws, individuals can take a repeal petition all the way to the Supreme Court, which (almost always) strikes down the law as Un-Constitutional. States have some autonomy when it comes to deciding what happens within their borders, but they don't go unchecked, and have to abide by the over-arching laws the Fed puts in place. This has actually caused a few problems in California (in the past, before Obama was elected) where medical marijuana was legalized years ago... California law said it was fine to operate a medical dispensary and for patients with a prescription to purchase marijuana from those dispensaries, but Federal law said both were a crime. Many dispensaries were raided by the DEA... at least until the current administration came in and announced that, in this particular case, the Fed was not going to actively pursue investigations or prosecution of legally licensed dispensaries or patients with RXs. They did continue to keep tabs on what the dispensaries were actually doing (to prevent them from selling for recreational purposes, which was NOT legal in CA)... but that's a good example of the flexibility that should exist between the state governments and the Fed... there should be some common sense applied, but too often that doesn't happen. There are also some situations where the Fed doesn't have any legal authority over an issue (like what public schools teach) but can withhold Federal funding from the state in question if the Fed's guidelines are not followed. This actually backfired quite a bit with the "No Child Left Behind" policy, which focuses too much on standardized test scores and punishes schools for under-performing (or refusing to capitulate) by withholding much-needed funds that go to infrastructure, repair, hiring, extra-curriculars, etc. Don't even get me started about teaching our kids how to take tests and not how to think critically, question authority/the status quo, or find creative solutions to complex problems. In the end, the kids are the ones who suffer. |
|
|
| stargatedalek | Jul 24 2014, 09:45 AM Post #5051 |
|
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
![]()
|
in case you were curious about trisdinos claims of firearm related death rates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate keep in mind not every country on the chart has reliable data |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jul 24 2014, 09:49 AM Post #5052 |
|
Deleted User
|
Important to note: "Firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population per year." So that doesn't mean that if a country has a "1" in its respective column, it had 1 gun-related fatality ever. And the clearly stated fact that not all of the sources can be verified as reliable invalidates the entire chart. I'd suggest referencing the actual government agencies responsible for tracking these statistics within their respective nations. There's a lot of misinformation out there, on both sides of the issue, and the only way we're going to sort this mess out is by being (1) honest; and (2) reliant on measurable, verifiable facts, and not hyperbole, rhetoric, or pure misinformation and deception. |
|
|
| stargatedalek | Jul 24 2014, 10:02 AM Post #5053 |
|
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
![]()
|
and a lot of countries simply do not bother to record, do not have the resources to properly record, or even actively hide their death rates wikipedia is almost never completely accurate (about anything), but it does help give a general idea of rough figures and on that note, it annoys me when people go through wikipedia articles on prehistory and fill them full of retrosaur bull
Edited by stargatedalek, Jul 24 2014, 10:31 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| trisdino | Jul 24 2014, 11:12 AM Post #5054 |
![]() ![]()
|
You cannot say that it is not in any way accurate. Yeah, some countries have not kept count, but you can be sure the US is not among them. |
![]() |
|
| stargatedalek | Jul 24 2014, 12:00 PM Post #5055 |
|
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
![]()
|
no one said that it was 100% inaccurate, just that some of those countries figures are practically void, and many of the others are outdated and/or rough estimates wikipedia as a whole is not perfectly accurate |
![]() |
|
| 7 users reading this topic (7 Guests and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic » |

FAQ
Search
Members
Rules
Staff PM Box
Downloads
Pointies
Groups









