Turn on thread page Beta

3 killed in Alabama university shooting watch

    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    Are you suggesting carrying around two kilograms of steel has a narcotic effect?
    I'm suggesting bans don't work.

    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    Or, OR, more logically, the original shooter doesn't have a gun in the first place. Keep missing the point if you want, but ineffective policing is not an excuse for widespread vigilantism.
    The point I'm making is that the original shooter will have a gun! Because the only people that commit gun violence against others for no reason are deranged psychopaths or criminals - and we all know that they still get guns, legal or illegal. However legalising them means that criminals don't have an advantage over the law-abiding people.

    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    Yes. Why did those happen? Was it to do with the gun laws? No. Was it to do with the relatively ineffective policing, weak judiciary, and economic policies pushing people into violence since the 70s? Yes. And your answer is to increase the availability of what causes the violence?
    It's nothing to do with policing, judiciary or the economy. I'm trying to get the point across that if the normal citizens were armed they could have shot the gunman dead - Israel was my example. Please realise that if everyone owns a gun, criminals are less likely to go on shooting sprees as they know that they could be shot dead in minutes by anyone.

    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    I think the primary reason gun nuts are restricted to the US is because the US's pathetic education system can't teach people how to think.
    Sabertooth done fine. There's a lot of smart Americans. A lot of dumb ones too - just as in any country.

    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    :confused: I don't understand how your mind can be so warped so that you can twist reality to suit your ridiculous argument. The reason Mexico has bad gun crime is because of the US's liberal gun laws. That is the major reason. :wtf:
    Warped? Try and understand this - just as in the UK, Mexico have strict gun control laws. (You with me so far?) People still get guns. Why? Because criminal gangs will smuggle them in anyway. It's a very simple thing to understand.

    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    No. States with lower gun crime rates don't NEED stricter gun laws. Think straight, please.
    Look at the evidence Leo. States with strict gun laws have higher gun crime rates than states with liberal gun laws. It's hard to be told to "think straight" when the person telling me to do so can't get their head round simple statistics.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    That's not too many, but it's a woman so.......
    Offline

    10
    (Original post by Sabertooth)
    http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz1.htm

    Also:
    Kleck reported that in the U.S. guns are used more frequently by law-abiding citizens to deter crimes than by criminals to commit crimes. Kleck found that defensive uses of firearms by citizens total two to 2.5 million times per year and that between 25 to 75 lives are saved by a gun for every life lost to a gun. Medical costs saved by guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are 15 times greater than costs incurred by criminal uses of firearms.
    http://www.haciendapub.com/article53.html



    I didn't say that. I said there needs to be a chance that the victim is carrying a gun.
    You miss the point. If the criminal did not have the gun, or a reason to commit the crime, nobody would have to resort to vigilantism. Instead of wasting money and lives arming the population and condoning a lynchmob attitude, it is much more sensibile to improve and economic conditions so that nobody WANTS to use his gun. And if he does, he won't posess one anyway, and will have to resort to another form of weapon, like a knife. You can run away from a knife. You can't run away from a pistol.

    You can quote 'evidence' all you like. The simple fact of the matter is that Western Europe, which widely illegalizes firearm ownership, enjoys much lower rates of gun crime. And Western Europe, with equitable economic and social policies, enjoys much lower general rates of crime. And without having to give small town sherriffs the power of a fuedal lord with zero transparency.

    It does not make sense that giving everybody weapons reduces gun crime. However, i do recognize that in a system like in the US where criminals CAN acquire any weapon they like and law abiding citizens cannot, the problems are likely to be exacerbated. The country must either go one way (making sure nobody except law enforcement and armed forces can use a gun) or the other (making sure literally everybody is armed to the teeth) for either ideology to be effective, but the middle road is the worst of both worlds.
    Offline

    10
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    I'm suggesting bans don't work.
    They do. Hence why cocaine / marijuana is not widely used, even though it isn't all that harmful (compared to alcohol), and alcohol is.

    The point I'm making is that the original shooter will have a gun! Because the only people that commit gun violence against others for no reason are deranged psychopaths or criminals - and we all know that they still get guns, legal or illegal. However legalising them means that criminals don't have an advantage over the law-abiding people.
    You keep making this same point and i keep telling you you're missing the point of the argument. Whether or not the original shooter illegally posseses a firearm is irrelevant to the question of legal firearm ownership. They are separate arguments; one about the effectiveness of policing and one about gun ownership amongst the law abiding population. The two groups might interact but that doesn't change the fact that the law breaking illegal gun owners should be stopped by the police being more effective, not by everybody else being given a gun.



    It's nothing to do with policing, judiciary or the economy. I'm trying to get the point across that if the normal citizens were armed they could have shot the gunman dead - Israel was my example. Please realise that if everyone owns a gun, criminals are less likely to go on shooting sprees as they know that they could be shot dead in minutes by anyone.
    Oh ok. Here i was that all those things affected crime. My mistake?! :zomg:



    Sabertooth done fine. There's a lot of smart Americans. A lot of dumb ones too - just as in any country.
    Stop sucking balls, that too over the internet. And no, a country's education system's effectiveness is (surprise surprise) directly related to how informed and rational its population is. Hence why half of voting americans consistently vote Republican.

    Warped? Try and understand this - just as in the UK, Mexico have strict gun control laws. (You with me so far?) People still get guns. Why? Because criminal gangs will smuggle them in anyway. It's a very simple thing to understand.
    What do you not understand? Where are those guns sold? In the US. Where the states have liberal gun laws. If they didn't, those gangs wouldn't have guns to smuggle in. I find your attempt at patronizing humourously, self parodyingly ironic.

    Look at the evidence Leo. States with strict gun laws have higher gun crime rates than states with liberal gun laws. It's hard to be told to "think straight" when the person telling me to do so can't get their head round simple statistics.
    You are mistaking causality for correlation. They have weaker gun laws because they don't NEED to have stronger gun laws. If their gun crime rate spiked to politically unacceptable levels, politicians would start introducing stronger gun laws.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    You miss the point. If the criminal did not have the gun, or a reason to commit the crime, nobody would have to resort to vigilantism. Instead of wasting money and lives arming the population and condoning a lynchmob attitude, it is much more sensibile to improve and economic conditions so that not only does nobody WANT to use his gun. And if he does, he won't posess one anyway, and will have to resort to another form of weapon, like a knife. You can run away from a knife. You can't run away from a pistol.

    You can quote 'evidence' all you like. The simple fact of the matter is that Western Europe, which widely illegalizes firearm ownership, enjoys much lower rates of gun crime. And Western Europe, with equitable economic and social policies, enjoys much lower general rates of crime. And without having to give small town sherriffs the power of a fuedal lord with zero transparency.

    It does not make sense that giving everybody weapons reduces gun crime. However, i do recognize that in a system like in the US where criminals CAN acquire any weapon they like and law abiding citizens cannot, the problems are likely to be exacerbated. The country must either go one way (making sure nobody except law enforcement and armed forces can use a gun) or the other (making sure literally everybody is armed to the teeth) for either ideology to be effective, but the middle road is the worst of both worlds.
    Oh yeah, of course, it's all because their poor and oppressed. :rolleyes: Funny that so many other people in the world are also poor and oppressed yet don't feel the need to go out killing and robbing people. Typical lefty rubbish. A nice example is the subject of this thread: the poor, oppressed woman with her Harvard education, nice job etc

    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    And if he does, he won't posess one anyway
    This clearly doesn't work. In any country in the world, regardless of gun laws, if a person is persistent he can get a gun. Britain has ridiculous gun laws yet gun crime is rising (despite increasing punishments etc). What you just said makes absolutely no sense and has no basis in reality. Maybe in your socialist paradise they couldn't get a gun, but then looking at history that isn't really the case either.

    If you read my evidence, you'd see that crime in the US is decreasing, whilst crime in the UK is increasing. So your statement about much lower gun crime is fast becoming outdated. There's also what I said to that hippy,guns in America save between 25 and 75 lives a year. Guns NEVER save people in Britain they 100% do damage.

    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    It does not make sense that giving everybody weapons reduces gun crime.
    I guess my source must be mistaken then? He only gives advice to Congress and is the nation's leading expert on the links between guns, violence and gun control laws, what does he know. I bet he's just another disgusting republican who wants to give guns to 4year olds.

    There's no need to arm everyone to the teeth, it should be an individual's choice, having taken into account the evidence for and against owning a gun. Like I said to the other poster, it's up to them, criminals will be put off just by the chance and if they're not, and the victim does choose to have a gun, then at least they can defend themselves. Their choice.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    They do. Hence why cocaine / marijuana is not widely used, even though it isn't all that harmful (compared to alcohol), and alcohol is.
    I see...."Nearly 40% of teenagers in the UK said they had tried substances including cannabis and ecstasy"
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...gs-692692.html

    That clearly works well. 40% isn't "widely used"?

    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    And no, a country's education system's effectiveness is (surprise surprise) directly related to how informed and rational its population is. Hence why half of voting americans consistently vote Republican.
    Oh dear lord! A person isn't a lefty, they must be uneducated, irrational and misinformed that's the only possible reason.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    They do. Hence why cocaine / marijuana is not widely used, even though it isn't all that harmful (compared to alcohol), and alcohol is.
    And here we go. :rolleyes: If you think cocaine and marijuana are not widely used, you are living in a dream world.

    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    You keep making this same point and i keep telling you you're missing the point of the argument. Whether or not the original shooter illegally posseses a firearm is irrelevant to the question of legal firearm ownership. They are separate arguments; one about the effectiveness of policing and one about gun ownership amongst the law abiding population. The two groups might interact but that doesn't change the fact that the law breaking illegal gun owners should be stopped by the police being more effective, not by everybody else being given a gun.
    But by doing this you'll be giving the state a monopoly over arms.

    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    Oh ok. Here i was that all those things affected crime. My mistake?! :zomg:
    I was talking about these particular shooting sprees, not crime in general. "All those things" were not factors for causing people to go on these shooting sprees, nor was that what the argument is about. I was pointing out that shooting sprees are less likely to happen when the gunman knows he could be shot dead in an instant. Acknowledge that fact?

    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    Stop sucking balls, that too over the internet. And no, a country's education system's effectiveness is (surprise surprise) directly related to how informed and rational its population is.
    Then the problem is not guns, but the people who carry them.

    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    What do you not understand? Where are those guns sold? In the US. Where the states have liberal gun laws. If they didn't, those gangs wouldn't have guns to smuggle in. I find your attempt at patronizing humourously, self parodyingly ironic
    But criminal gangs still get them! How come there are many gun murders and criminal gangs who own guns in the UK? Because they are smuggled over from other countries. However in the case of the UK - these other countries have the same strict gun control laws! All bans do is push the market underground. And thanks. :rolleyes:

    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    You are mistaking causality for correlation. They have weaker gun laws because they don't NEED to have stronger gun laws. If their gun crime rate spiked to politically unacceptable levels, politicians would start introducing stronger gun laws.
    But they don't spike to politically unacceptable levels - because everyone can own a gun and they are allowed to carry them in public, meaning there is less gun crime.
    Offline

    10
    (Original post by Sabertooth)
    Oh yeah, of course, it's all because their poor and oppressed. :rolleyes: Funny that so many other people in the world are also poor and oppressed yet don't feel the need to go out killing and robbing people. Typical lefty rubbish. A nice example is the subject of this thread: the poor, oppressed woman with her Harvard education, nice job etc
    Yes. Because the poor and oppresed of most of the third world cannot afford weapons. Nor is inequality in their countries so great that they are inspired for violence, nor is the opportunity for theft off the rich widely present enough for gun crime to be widely viable.

    If you want to talk about the woman in the OP, it is a perfect example of how GUNS kill people, not people. If it wasn't for the widespread legal proliferation of firearms, those 3 people would not have died, and the woman would not have been able to kill anyone.



    This clearly doesn't work. In any country in the world, regardless of gun laws, if a person is persistent he can get a gun.
    No, no he can't. Maybe living in the most arrogant nation on earth clouds your mind to the fact that America has one of the least effective policing systems globally.

    Britain has ridiculous gun laws yet gun crime is rising (despite increasing punishments etc). What you just said makes absolutely no sense and has no basis in reality. Maybe in your socialist paradise they couldn't get a gun, but then looking at history that isn't really the case either.
    Because the policing system is not efficient. No matter the laws, if the police cannot deliver, then they're irrelevant. And no, you don't need to be in a socialist paradise to find countries where it is next to impossible to acquire a firearm. Go to Scandinavia (ironically as close to a paradise as you can get in Earth) or France or Germany or the Netherlands or Belgium.

    If you read my evidence, you'd see that crime in the US is decreasing, whilst crime in the UK is increasing. So your statement about much lower gun crime is fast becoming outdated. There's also what I said to that hippy,guns in America save between 25 and 75 lives a year. Guns NEVER save people in Britain they 100% do damage.
    I don't see any reasons why the first is happening. But it can be conclusively stated that giving the population widespread firearms can only have a negative effect, compared to banning them altogether. On the second, it's because Britain is a special example of ****. For your argument about guns saving lives, you're ignoring the point, time and again, that no lives, at all, would be lost, if neither the criminal nor the vigilante had a weapon. And it really does take an American to think this only happens in paradise.

    I guess my source must be mistaken then? He only gives advice to Congress and is the nation's leading expert on the links between guns, violence and gun control laws, what does he know. I bet he's just another disgusting republican who wants to give guns to 4year olds.
    I would go further and call him a ******* idiot.

    There's no need to arm everyone to the teeth, it should be an individual's choice, having taken into account the evidence for and against owning a gun. Like I said to the other poster, it's up to them, criminals will be put off just by the chance and if they're not, and the victim does choose to have a gun, then at least they can defend themselves. Their choice.
    That doesn't work though. Unless there's a reasonable chance that everybody has a gun, the criminal will still commit a crime. And this reasonable chance will only happen if a huge proportion of the population DOES have a gun and carries it around with them.
    Offline

    10
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    And here we go. :rolleyes: If you think cocaine and marijuana are not widely used, you are living in a dream world.
    No, you are living in a dream world. Compare it to alcohol instead of misunderstanding every point i make.



    But by doing this you'll be giving the state a monopoly over arms.
    As terrible as this would be for a feudal monarchy or absolute dictatorship, in a western democracy with widespread checks and balances (not Britain or the US, ironically) i think it's safe to assume that the state is, for the large part, not interested in repression.

    I was talking about these particular shooting sprees, not crime in general. "All those things" were not factors for causing people to go on these shooting sprees, nor was that what the argument is about. I was pointing out that shooting sprees are less likely to happen when the gunman knows he could be shot dead in an instant. Acknowledge that fact?
    In most shooting sprees the gunman has been 'clean' and mentally troubled in some way. How could you possibly twist a clear cut argument for restricting gun usage to one supporting letting more people have guns? Would it not be cheaper, in both lives and money, to stop that first person getting a gun, instead giving everybody else guns to shoot back at him?



    Then the problem is not guns, but the people who carry them.
    No. The problem is guns. Because if they weren't available, the people who carry them would not be able to kill anyone.



    But criminal gangs still get them! How come there are many gun murders and criminal gangs who own guns in the UK? Because they are smuggled over from other countries. However in the case of the UK - these other countries have the same strict gun control laws! All bans do is push the market underground. And thanks. :rolleyes:
    So stop the smuggling. Simple answer. Put more money into confiscating and destroying firearms, not into flooding the population with more.

    But they don't spike to politically unacceptable levels - because everyone can own a gun and they are allowed to carry them in public, meaning there is less gun crime.
    Look, i understand where you're coming from. But giving everybody a gun means that everybody can use lethal force. And not everybody (infact most people aren't) is a rational or selfless human being. When nobody or hardly anybody has a gun, the most they can do is use a knife or something alike. You can run away from a knife. You can fight back with a knife, on a personal level. But you can't do so to a firearm. And in the west where nobody is willing to help somebody else out (in general), i think it is neccessary that the individual is given the greatest chance to defend himself.
    Offline

    10
    (Original post by Sabertooth)
    I see...."Nearly 40% of teenagers in the UK said they had tried substances including cannabis and ecstasy"
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...gs-692692.html

    That clearly works well. 40% isn't "widely used"?



    Oh dear lord! A person isn't a lefty, they must be uneducated, irrational and misinformed that's the only possible reason.
    I think it's safe to suggest that Republican policies are, today, if not a long time ago, extremely repulsive to most thinking men and women. Also, a tidbit of info: it's estimated that roughly a third of americans are 'idiots'. Roughly a third of Americans vote Republican. Coincidence?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    Yes. Because the poor and oppresed of most of the third world cannot afford weapons. Nor is inequality in their countries so great that they are inspired for violence, nor is the opportunity for theft off the rich widely present enough for gun crime to be widely viable.

    If you want to talk about the woman in the OP, it is a perfect example of how GUNS kill people, not people. If it wasn't for the widespread legal proliferation of firearms, those 3 people would not have died, and the woman would not have been able to kill anyone.
    You don't need a gun to commit a crime. You said yourself they'd just get a knife. Weird then that there are many poor people in Britain and the majority of them do not go out stabbing people every evening. So clearly there's more to it than poverty or oppression.

    Not really, she could have got a gun even if it was illegal. We've been over this, if people want a gun they will get one. Legal status is irrelevent (or maybe she would have used a bomb like those kids in Manchester planned to). Either way she's a) not poor and oppressed like you claimed causes people to commit crimes and b) she's clearly not worried about breaking the law so whether she obtained the gun legally or illegally is a non-issue. You claiming she "would not have been able to kill anyone" is completely contradicting what you earlier claimed about knives, and again, has no basis in reality.

    There's also the fact, as I already said, if one of the people at the school had also had a gun, those three people may not have been killed. I even linked to stories where this had happened in other schools.

    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    No, no he can't. Maybe living in the most arrogant nation on earth clouds your mind to the fact that America has one of the least effective policing systems globally.
    You're telling me there are countries in the world where it is impossible to obtain a gun? You need a reality check.

    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    Because the policing system is not efficient. No matter the laws, if the police cannot deliver, then they're irrelevant. And no, you don't need to be in a socialist paradise to find countries where it is next to impossible to acquire a firearm. Go to Scandinavia (ironically as close to a paradise as you can get in Earth) or France or Germany or the Netherlands or Belgium.
    I can't believe I'm being lectured by a Brit on effective policing. A country where a guy can rack up 50 convictions, commit another crime and when the victim defends himself he goes to jail. I'm aware he was later released but it's not even a one off case. A country where 2.8% of the population has been a victim of assault, and which has some of the highest amount of violent crime in the developed world (http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/..._468x636.jpg ). A country where the conviction rate is less than 10% (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/ma...igrationpolicy ) consider that when it's between 65-80% in the States (http://nitawriter.wordpress.com/2007...rates-world/ ). Yet you claim it's the American police who are ineffective?

    Scandinavia? I could be wrong, but wasn't there a school shooting there in the last few years? And Germany for that matter as well. Just like I said, if someone if persistent they can get a gun anywhere.

    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    I don't see any reasons why the first is happening. But it can be conclusively stated that giving the population widespread firearms can only have a negative effect, compared to banning them altogether. On the second, it's because Britain is a special example of ****. For your argument about guns saving lives, you're ignoring the point, time and again, that no lives, at all, would be lost, if neither the criminal nor the vigilante had a weapon. And it really does take an American to think this only happens in paradise.

    I would go further and call him a ******* idiot.
    Yes clearly, he's the idiot.

    If you don't see reasons for it, why don't you engage in a little education and read the article I posted by him? just in case you can't find it:
    http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz1.htm

    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    That doesn't work though. Unless there's a reasonable chance that everybody has a gun, the criminal will still commit a crime. And this reasonable chance will only happen if a huge proportion of the population DOES have a gun and carries it around with them.
    Clearly it does work. See article. Not my problem if you don't see the reasons for it when there's loads of evidence if you bother to read.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    No, you are living in a dream world. Compare it to alcohol instead of misunderstanding every point i make.

    As terrible as this would be for a feudal monarchy or absolute dictatorship, in a western democracy with widespread checks and balances (not Britain or the US, ironically) i think it's safe to assume that the state is, for the large part, not interested in repression.

    In most shooting sprees the gunman has been 'clean' and mentally troubled in some way. How could you possibly twist a clear cut argument for restricting gun usage to one supporting letting more people have guns? Would it not be cheaper, in both lives and money, to stop that first person getting a gun, instead giving everybody else guns to shoot back at him?

    No. The problem is guns. Because if they weren't available, the people who carry them would not be able to kill anyone.

    So stop the smuggling. Simple answer. Put more money into confiscating and destroying firearms, not into flooding the population with more.

    Look, i understand where you're coming from. But giving everybody a gun means that everybody can use lethal force. And not everybody (infact most people aren't) is a rational or selfless human being. When nobody or hardly anybody has a gun, the most they can do is use a knife or something alike. You can run away from a knife. You can fight back with a knife, on a personal level. But you can't do so to a firearm. And in the west where nobody is willing to help somebody else out (in general), i think it is neccessary that the individual is given the greatest chance to defend himself.
    I'll answer tomorrow - I'm off out.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    I think it's safe to suggest that Republican policies are, today, if not a long time ago, extremely repulsive to most thinking men and women. Also, a tidbit of info: it's estimated that roughly a third of americans are 'idiots'. Roughly a third of Americans vote Republican. Coincidence?
    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    Hence why half of voting americans consistently vote Republican.
    Right.


    Source on that "roughly a third of americans are 'idiots'" claim. Not that I expect you to give me anything of substance given how you seem to be a pathological liar.
    Offline

    10
    (Original post by Sabertooth)
    Right.
    Please tell me you aren't picking apart such a simple distinction? The voting population is not identical to the actual population. In general, in US elections, only 2/3 of people vote. Hence, if half the voting population voted republican, a third of the overall population will vote republican.


    Source on that "roughly a third of americans are 'idiots'" claim. Not that I expect you to give me anything of substance given how you seem to be a pathological liar.
    We can conconclusively prove this. A polll came out from CNN showing that when asking Americans of Obama policies have made America less safe, 72% say they have not while 26% sides with **** Cheney’s delusions.

    This same 26-30% keeps cropping up in poll after poll, and they really believe some of the dumbest things in the world.

    * They approve of the job George W. Bush did as president
    * They support Sarah Palin, still
    * A subset of them think that Barack Obama is either a Muslim, not American, or both
    * They don’t think President Obama is doing a good job on the economy, or overall

    It’s pretty clear that this is the same 26% or thereabouts, the people who would be against President Obama and Democrats if they descended from Heaven (“Trickery!” they would howl.) 26% of this country is clearly stupid.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    Please tell me you aren't picking apart such a simple distinction? The voting population is not identical to the actual population. In general, in US elections, only 2/3 of people vote. Hence, if half the voting population voted republican, a third of the overall population will vote republican.




    We can conconclusively prove this. A polll came out from CNN showing that when asking Americans of Obama policies have made America less safe, 72% say they have not while 26% sides with **** Cheney’s delusions.

    This same 26-30% keeps cropping up in poll after poll, and they really believe some of the dumbest things in the world.

    * They approve of the job George W. Bush did as president
    * They support Sarah Palin, still
    * A subset of them think that Barack Obama is either a Muslim, not American, or both
    * They don’t think President Obama is doing a good job on the economy, or overall

    It’s pretty clear that this is the same 26% or thereabouts, the people who would be against President Obama and Democrats if they descended from Heaven (“Trickery!” they would howl.) 26% of this country is clearly stupid.
    Aha, of course. People who aren't commies or socialists simply must be retards. I guess that fits well with British attitudes, so I can't really blame you. Only in favor of free speech if it agrees with you.

    What exactly is wrong with disagreeing with Obama? In a lovely poll in Britain, 42% of voters wanted to emigrate and 64% think Britain is going in the wrong direction. I guess they're all stupid too because they don't agree with their government. Whatever happened to the Geneva convention and freedom of political opinion? Of course, how silly of me, you're a lefty, you don't believe in freedom.

    For somewhere where so many people are apparently thick, it seems strange that 27% of the population have a bachalor's degree or higher, whilst less than 20% of the UK has one. In addition nearly 30% of the UK have no qualifications, and in the US it's 15%. Oh dear.

    Btw, I don't mean to be rude, but you seem to have totally ignored my other post. You know the one where I refuted every single one of your fantasy-would arguments. I also did a quick google search to ensure my memory was indeed correct, turns out there was actually 3 school shootings in Finland, not just one, as well as at least one in a Mall, and six in Germany. Denmark and the Netherlands have also had school shootings.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1952869.stm
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7630969.stm
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7082795.stm
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1953425.stm

    Oops, what was that you were saying about people in Germany and Scandinavia not getting firearms?

    You know, when you debate you're meant to use reality to back your arguments up. You're not meant to ignore anything which breaks your little socialist theories apart. But yeah, I guess I can see where you're coming from, after all "there has never been socialism" and you don't need reality to back Marx up, you just need to repeat it over and over and over again until you can convince enough people that your doctrine isn't the most murderous the world has ever seen.


    If you're not going to debate properly, don't bother at all.
    Offline

    10
    (Original post by Sabertooth)
    You don't need a gun to commit a crime. You said yourself they'd just get a knife. Weird then that there are many poor people in Britain and the majority of them do not go out stabbing people every evening. So clearly there's more to it than poverty or oppression.
    http://www.insight-security.com/fact...rime-stats.htm

    "The new figures indicate that in the year 2007-8 there were some 277 deaths from stabbings in England & Wales alone (the highest recorded figure for 30 years). This represents an average death toll as a direct result of stabbings of over 5 for every week of the year!"

    "When it comes to reducing knife and gun crime, patently, weapons amnesties and lightweight community service sentences for those caught carrying a weapon are having little real effect on the problem. In fact there appears to be a growing anger and resentment amongst the general public at the governments continued commitment to tough words but limp action."

    Not really, she could have got a gun even if it was illegal. We've been over this, if people want a gun they will get one. Legal status is irrelevent (or maybe she would have used a bomb like those kids in Manchester planned to). Either way she's a) not poor and oppressed like you claimed causes people to commit crimes and b) she's clearly not worried about breaking the law so whether she obtained the gun legally or illegally is a non-issue. You claiming she "would not have been able to kill anyone" is completely contradicting what you earlier claimed about knives, and again, has no basis in reality.
    a) No, she wouldn't. A harvard educated woman would not in any realistic scenario have the connections to acquire an illegal and rare firearm.
    b) No, it is not. However, it doesn't matter if it's illegal if every kid and his pop already has a shotgun, as is the case in the United States of America.
    c) No, she wouldn't have been able to kill anyone with a knife. It is almost impossible for a geeky woman to go out stabbing someone with a knife and not be handled by someone else. The same is not true of guns.

    There's also the fact, as I already said, if one of the people at the school had also had a gun, those three people may not have been killed. I even linked to stories where this had happened in other schools.
    There is also the fact, as i already said, that if the woman had not had a gone, none of those people would have been killed. Do i really need to link the countless cases where people went to psychiatrists to deal with their problems instead of gun shops?

    You're telling me there are countries in the world where it is impossible to obtain a gun? You need a reality check.
    Yes. For most of the western world, it is impossible or almost impossible for the general population to acquire a firearm willy nilly as in the US.

    I can't believe I'm being lectured by a Brit on effective policing. A country where a guy can rack up 50 convictions, commit another crime and when the victim defends himself he goes to jail. I'm aware he was later released but it's not even a one off case. A country where 2.8% of the population has been a victim of assault, and which has some of the highest amount of violent crime in the developed world (http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/..._468x636.jpg ). A country where the conviction rate is less than 10% (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/ma...igrationpolicy ) consider that when it's between 65-80% in the States (http://nitawriter.wordpress.com/2007...rates-world/ ). Yet you claim it's the American police who are ineffective?
    a) I am not a Brit.
    b) I have myself criticized British policing IN THIS THREAD, if you cared to remember, but that does not suit your ridiculous argument. Also, all of what you are talking about is related to the Judiciary. Not the police. Ineffective sentencing does not mean the criminal was not caught.

    Scandinavia? I could be wrong, but wasn't there a school shooting there in the last few years? And Germany for that matter as well. Just like I said, if someone if persistent they can get a gun anywhere.
    Quoting select examples of shootings does not disprove the general trend. Let me show you.

    http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...rms-per-capita

    Gun crime rates by capita:

    # 4 Zimbabwe: 0.0491736 per 1,000 people

    # 7 Costa Rica: 0.0313745 per 1,000 people
    # 8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
    # 9 Uruguay: 0.0245902 per 1,000 people

    # 19 Switzerland: 0.00534117 per 1,000 people
    # 20 Canada: 0.00502972 per 1,000 people
    # 21 Germany: 0.00465844 per 1,000 people

    # 32 United Kingdom: 0.00102579 per 1,000 people

    Oh. What's that? The US gun crime rate half that of Zimbabwae.

    Yes clearly, he's the idiot.
    Yep. Glad you recognize.

    If you don't see reasons for it, why don't you engage in a little education and read the article I posted by him? just in case you can't find it:
    http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz1.htm



    Clearly it does work. See article. Not my problem if you don't see the reasons for it when there's loads of evidence if you bother to read.
    Right.

    (Original post by Sabertooth)
    Aha, of course. People who aren't commies or socialists simply must be retards. I guess that fits well with British attitudes, so I can't really blame you. Only in favor of free speech if it agrees with you.
    Lmaooo. Your gross misrepresentation of my ideals is amusing. I am neither a communist, nor a socialist. And no. lol. I'm kind of insulted that you think i believe in political correctness. Have you read some of what i've written on this site?

    What exactly is wrong with disagreeing with Obama?
    Nothing. There's nothing wrong with it. But considering the opposite options are mind numbingly idiotic, it does raise the question 'Have Americans regressed into chimphood?'

    In a lovely poll in Britain, 42% of voters wanted to emigrate and 64% think Britain is going in the wrong direction.
    I hate Labour just a wee bit less than i hate the Republicans.

    I guess they're all stupid too because they don't agree with their government.
    Disagreeing with the government doesn't make you stupid. Disagreeing with the only remotely intelligent government does, however.

    Whatever happened to the Geneva convention and freedom of political opinion?
    Have you lived in Britain in the past 13 years? It was there. But labour have eroded it quite considerably.

    Of course, how silly of me, you're a lefty, you don't believe in freedom.
    Delude yourself if you wish.

    For somewhere where so many people are apparently thick, it seems strange that 27% of the population have a bachalor's degree or higher,
    A much greater proportion of these vote Democrat instead of Republican.

    whilst less than 20% of the UK has one.
    Sick tunes..

    In addition nearly 30% of the UK have no qualifications, and in the US it's 15%. Oh dear.
    Does a US high school diploma count as a qualification worth for something more than banana peeling and mite eating?

    Btw, I don't mean to be rude, but you seem to have totally ignored my other post.
    I was bizzy bro.

    You know the one where I refuted every single one of your fantasy-would arguments.
    Nope.

    I also did a quick google search to ensure my memory was indeed correct, turns out there was actually 3 school shootings in Finland, not just one, as well as at least one in a Mall, and six in Germany. Denmark and the Netherlands have also had school shootings.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1952869.stm
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7630969.stm
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7082795.stm
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1953425.stm

    Oops, what was that you were saying about people in Germany and Scandinavia not getting firearms?
    You talked about Denmark as well i believe:

    # 28 Denmark: 0.00257732 per 1,000 people


    You know, when you debate you're meant to use reality to back your arguments up.
    Well, here you have it.

    You're not meant to ignore anything which breaks your little socialist theories apart.
    I love the irony of you in the same breath calling me a socialist and then denouncing me for not sticking to reality.

    But yeah, I guess I can see where you're coming from, after all "there has never been socialism" and you don't need reality to back Marx up, you just need to repeat it over and over and over again until you can convince enough people that your doctrine isn't the most murderous the world has ever seen.
    Lmaooooo!

    If you're not going to debate properly, don't bother at all.
    Right, i must apologize for not bothering to find statistics, they obviously are the god of argument.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    Because if someone in that uni had a gun they could have shot that ***** dead.
    ...after she'd already killed someone else. How effective. Not.

    I'm pretty sure you're not permitted to take firearms on to campus colleges so thats irrelevant.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Antonia87)
    ...after she'd already killed someone else. How effective. Not.
    Who's to say she wasn't going to kill everyone else in the room? Had someone shot her, that wouldn't have happened.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    * They approve of the job George W. Bush did as president
    * They support Sarah Palin, still
    * A subset of them think that Barack Obama is either a Muslim, not American, or both
    * They don’t think President Obama is doing a good job on the economy, or overall
    That's because the last one's bloody true!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    Who's to say she wasn't going to kill everyone else in the room? Had someone shot her, that wouldn't have happened.
    None of this crap would have had to happen had she not been able to legally obtain a gun. We cant have people walking around schools, colleges, offices, churches, restaurants, libraries and any other public building carrying firearms "just in case" someone gets shot. Do you not have any idea how catastrophic that would be? Worldwide, the majority of massacres have been committed using legally-held weapons. Over roughly 30,000 Americans are murdered every year as a result of legally-held weapons. There is not one positive attribute to them.
 
 
 
Poll
Is the Big Bang theory correct?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.