Site Search:
 
TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Piers Morgan confronts guy who wants to deport him (VIDEO)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
12ax7



Joined: 07 Nov 2009

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 6:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

visitorq wrote:
CentralCali wrote:
visitorq wrote:
There have been mass stabbings in China and Japan too. Should I go there and start preaching to people that knives should be banned?


Maybe not. Someone might shoot you with a home-made shotgun! Shocked Evidently, someone's figured a way around the gun ban.

This is exactly what would (and will) happen if guns are banned. Even if all guns were strictly banned in the US, people people (esp. criminals) would just get creative and find new ways. Prohibition doesn't work. Never has, never will.


Yeah, every time I drive to Seoul I'm worried some guy with a zip gun is going to carjack me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Blockhead confidence



Joined: 02 Apr 2008

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 6:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

visitorq wrote:
Gun-toting maniacs make up a small fraction of gun deaths. The vast majority done in circumstances in which a knife would work. Think gang warfare. No gun? Well then, I guess a knife will have to suffice. You absolutely are going to have a similar homicide level in that case.


Massacres are irrelevent? US is having an unprecedented epidemic.

Quote:
In mass shootings, guns are not even the most effective way to mass murder people. Simple arson has the potential to kill more. Or home-made explosives. But it's such a small number of gun deaths out of the total in the first place (the emotional shock of such incidents aside), that it's not very relevant in the larger equation of gun deaths.


Pure coincidence so many recent massacres were by gun, then.

Maniacs are choosing guns because they meet their needs.

Quote:
There are plenty of such poisons that are for sale. Anyway, the easy answer here is that governments should be banned from producing such poisons. Any free market firm that tries to sell it will definitely go bankrupt (unless the poison has other useful applications, like pest control). Something like nerve gas has no market value outside of the military-industrial complex. Unlike guns, which have a high market demand due to the effective and desireable self-defense utility they provide.


Is this a joke? "there wouldn't be a market for this poison, so none will get made"?

Militias and terrorists are consumers too, and whatever you say, how could you rely on this? The fact that innocents are dying seems not to move you much.

Quote:
This is just dumb. They do have massacres in other countries, as I have shown. Remember the mass shooter in Norway? Bottom line is the US is not the same as the "rest of the developed world", and frankly that's a good thing overall. The more like Europe we become, the worse our country gets.


Do they have patterns of massacres?

Also, is it just me or do Americans use the rest of the world as a comparison when it suits their arguments (knife violence in UK) but hide behind exceptionalism when it doesn't?

Quote:
You mean crime and power? You're going to remove that? Good luck with that... In the meantime, I'll keep my gun to defend myself, thank you very much.


Sophistry. Guns are made and designed to kill people (at least handguns and semis and autos are).

Quote:
We have guns to defend ourselves from criminals and tyrannical government. That's why we have them in society.


The rest of the developed world doesn't need guns to protect against criminals.

Tyrannical government? Besides Nazi Germany, do you have another example of a modern western democracy being overthrown? Most don't allow guns, after all. We non-Americans are just sitting ducks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Blockhead confidence



Joined: 02 Apr 2008

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 7:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steelrails wrote:
This isn't about consoling the dead. This is about dealing with a situation of policy.

Policy isn't about consoling the dead- That's what friends and family are for and to do personally.

Policy is looking at the effects of things and trying to foresee any unintended consequences one may bring about with a rash policy action.


See response to visitorq

Quote:
You mean the ones that have taken place for the last 4600 years of human existence until the year 1600?

Sorry your scope of human history concerning slaughter is so narrowly focused.


Modern states with funcitoning legal systems, developed economies and low levels of corruption mean nothing to you? You must be some kind of ultra-conservative (in the original sense of the term) who views all stages of civilization as comparable.

Quote:
You mean like Norway? The guy massacred a camp full of kids and the country has a strict gun laws.


Norway allows handguns and semis, though I don't think that's what that guy used.

Regardless, it was totally different to the US because it was politically motivated and not part of a cycle of mass slaughterings of innocents.

Quote:
Who says I haven't decided to load my Remington 870 shotgun with beanbag rounds?


Yeah and you can use a gun as a tent pole as well. I might buy a nuclear bomb and use it as a rolling pin.

Quote:
I agree with the first part of your statement. Saying removing guns is the simplest is just woefully ignorant and shows a lack of understanding of American society, culture, laws, and mindset.

75% of all gun deaths in America are gang-related. How do you propose to get guns out of the hands of gangs? Politely ask them to turn them over? Go into everyone's house? You do realize that in America you need probable cause and a warrant to enter someone's house, right? You can't just walk up to someone's house and demand entry to search for guns. Also, do you realize the chaos and racial storm that would break out if police started tearing through minority neighborhoods looking for guns and going into people's homes?

Sorry, It would be far easier to clamp down on the media or throw a bunch of crazy people into insane asylums (not that I endorse either one)

The problem with banning guns is that it wouldn't just mean repealing the 2nd Amendment, it would mean repealing the 4th (Illegal Search & Seizure), 5th (Due Process), and perhaps the 9th & 10th.

That would mean complete civil war and revolution.


Well as far as I know a functioning democracy has never placed such an extreme restriction on the media. It would be totally more difficult than the silence on suicide and have many unintended consequences. It probably wouldn't work, either.

Locking up potential crazies is inhumane.

Finally we can get rid of guns like 90% of the rest of the developed world.

As for the implementation, I'll worry about that once you agree guns are the problem.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 7:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Blockhead confidence wrote:
Massacres are irrelevent? US is having an unprecedented epidemic.

Massacres are a tiny drop in the bucket when you look at overall gun homicides. Obviously it's more shocking when there's a mass shooting, but they are statistically very rare (more people die from bee stings).

Quote:
Pure coincidence so many recent massacres were by gun, then.

Maniacs are choosing guns because they meet their needs.

Yeah, but that's not at all the same thing as saying maniacs require guns to do their thing.

Quote:
Is this a joke? "there wouldn't be a market for this poison, so none will get made"?

Militias and terrorists are consumers too, and whatever you say, how could you rely on this? The fact that innocents are dying seems not to move you much.

Uh huh, so you think terrorists are going to be dissuaded from making deadly poisons on their own (assuming they have money)? This is a really silly point.

Quote:
Do they have patterns of massacres?

Does the US have a "pattern" of massacres? I'd really love to see you lay that out...

Quote:
Also, is it just me or do Americans use the rest of the world as a comparison when it suits their arguments (knife violence in UK) but hide behind exceptionalism when it doesn't?

I honestly don't care about the rest of the world, but such comparisons are inevitable. Just think about Piers Morgan, the foreigner, comparing the US to Britain. It's the gun grabbers who always bring such things up.

Quote:
Quote:
You mean crime and power? You're going to remove that? Good luck with that... In the meantime, I'll keep my gun to defend myself, thank you very much.


Sophistry. Guns are made and designed to kill people (at least handguns and semis and autos are).

"Sophistry" my foot... Get real, the fact that guns can be used to kill people is simply not a valid reason to ban them. Otherwise I assume you'd be for banning police from having guns. Your lack of consistency is what makes you completely unconvincing. You think us peasants should be disarmed, but I doubt you'd consider it reasonable for the president to go around with an unarmed entourage. You are not consistent in your argument.

Quote:
Quote:
We have guns to defend ourselves from criminals and tyrannical government. That's why we have them in society.


The rest of the developed world doesn't need guns to protect against criminals.

Hogwash. The rest of the developed world doesn't have armed police and militaries?

Quote:
Tyrannical government? Besides Nazi Germany, do you have another example of a modern western democracy being overthrown? Most don't allow guns, after all. We non-Americans are just sitting ducks.

Define "overthrown". The US government has been captured by globalist corporate interests and is basically shredding the constitution. Same goes for the EU, which is run by unelected technocrats. So yeah, I guess you could call that "overthrown".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
comm



Joined: 22 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 7:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Blockhead confidence wrote:
Quote:
You mean crime and power? You're going to remove that? Good luck with that... In the meantime, I'll keep my gun to defend myself, thank you very much.


Sophistry. Guns are made and designed to kill people (at least handguns and semis and autos are).

No, guns are designed to wound and incapacitate, thereby stopping a threat and turning a soldier into a logistical hindrance for the enemy.

Blockhead confidence wrote:
Quote:
You mean like Norway? The guy massacred a camp full of kids and the country has a strict gun laws.


Norway allows handguns and semis, though I don't think that's what that guy used.

Regardless, it was totally different to the US because it was politically motivated and not part of a cycle of mass slaughterings of innocents.

Except the motivation is irrelevant when talking about legislation. The point is that these massacres will continue to happen even if you try to ban certain types of guns. Registration, clip size, etc wouldn't have stopped Sandy Hook, and you will not ban all guns in the U.S.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 8:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Blackcat, welcome to the discussion. One thing you made me realize: Piers Morgan, terrible interviewer though he may be, is respectful of the American tradition and carefully couched his suggestions to fit the realities of North American society.

Quote:
It's such an American fantasy that every individual is a hero cowboy, ready to jump into action. Police Officers have hours and hours, years, of training not just to operate firearms but to be able to use them in the situation. And the result is often like the one in NY a couple of months ago, nine shot by-standers outside the Empire State Building. And that with trained professionals.


Such an American fantasy, you say. Let me tell you something about America: much of America is sparse. You can call the cops to your home and they will take 20 minutes to get there. It isn't an American fantasy that every individual is a hero cowboy, its an American reality that every individual must, on occasion, stand on his own. European communalism is fine, but lets recognize that they are different continents with different populations. Thus, Americans must have the right to defend themselves within their home. That doesn't lead to a right to assault weaponry, but this slavish Continental instinct to ban all harmful things just doesn't serve here.


Quote:
The fact of the matter is, this line of reasoning presupposes a perfectly controlled situation where the 'victim' is ready, which is never the case in emergency situations. It also assumes that the gun just vanishes when not needed, ignoring the very real dangers mentioned above.


You're uneducated.

Debunking the Myths of the Gun Debate

Quote:
Myth No. 7: Issuing more permits for carrying concealed handguns makes society more dangerous.

There are more than 8 million concealed-carry permit holders in the U.S., and the number grows each year. These are people who are vetted by local law enforcement. They commit crime at a lower rate than the general population. And, by some estimates, they commit crime at a lower rate than police officers.


Many concealed permit carriers are well trained and have background in law enforcement or the military. If we want to decrease the likelihood of mass shootings, then concealed carry is one of number of solutions. That doesn't mean arming people who aren't already armed, and that doesn't mean requiring anyone to affirmatively arm themselves. It means drawing upon the training and resourcefulness of those prepared and so inclined to protect.

Quote:
But this is what Americans want. Entertainment. Every issue has to have two sides, and they both have equally relevant points so they can fight and yell. Global warming exists. NOPE! Debate! Evolution is a real thing. NOPE! Debate! Guns are dangerous. NOPE! Debate! The loudest person wins, which is why entertainers rule your country. You even admit it. Fred Phelps, of God hates F**s fame is an entertainer and you like it. In every other industrialized country his group would be considered crazy outsider nutjobs. In the US they're given interviews on CNN and invited to 'debates'. Everyone has an opinion, or at least if you can make what you say entertaining you don't really need an opinion. And Anne Coulter is a best selling 'author'.


Oh, good lord. Look, Piers Morgan brought him on to make him look good. Too bad Piers Morgan's smug laziness could not capture the opportunity. So, Piers Morgan is now the face of American media? The veteran of Britain's tabloid industry? Yeah, its more than America, dude.

Quote:
But I get it. Strictly Constitutional. That's why slaves should still be around, right? Hey, it was in the Constitution until those dirty liberals got their hands on it! Because every 250 year old idea is infallible.


Oh, the irony of the ill-informed. Only in 2010 was the 2nd Amendment incorporated against the states. It was the 14th Amendment that made guns a right in America as much as the 2nd Amendment. The 14th Amendment was established just after the Civil War, right after the 13th, so that individual states could not squash the civil rights of their citizens. In McDonald v. Chicago, the majority drew largely upon the needs of newly free blacks following the Civil War to have guns to defend themselves against America's first gun control group: the Ku Klux Klan.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
12ax7



Joined: 07 Nov 2009

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 8:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

comm wrote:
Blockhead confidence wrote:
Quote:
You mean crime and power? You're going to remove that? Good luck with that... In the meantime, I'll keep my gun to defend myself, thank you very much.


Sophistry. Guns are made and designed to kill people (at least handguns and semis and autos are).

No, guns are designed to wound and incapacitate, thereby stopping a threat and turning a soldier into a logistical hindrance for the enemy.

Blockhead confidence wrote:
Quote:
You mean like Norway? The guy massacred a camp full of kids and the country has a strict gun laws.


Norway allows handguns and semis, though I don't think that's what that guy used.

Regardless, it was totally different to the US because it was politically motivated and not part of a cycle of mass slaughterings of innocents.

Except the motivation is irrelevant when talking about legislation. The point is that these massacres will continue to happen even if you try to ban certain types of guns. Registration, clip size, etc wouldn't have stopped Sandy Hook, and you will not ban all guns in the U.S.


Sure, a wounded soldier creates a logistical hindrance. But, to say that guns aren't designed to kill? I wonder what hunters would say if they were told they could only hunt with rounds that cause injury to their game. Clearly, guns aren't just for wounding as you claim.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 9:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Modern states with funcitoning legal systems, developed economies and low levels of corruption mean nothing to you? You must be some kind of ultra-conservative (in the original sense of the term) who views all stages of civilization as comparable.


So then you agree that it is a functioning legal system, a developed economy, and low levels of corruption which are more likely to impact gun violence than guns themselves or bows & arrows.

Quote:
Regardless, it was totally different to the US because it was politically motivated and not part of a cycle of mass slaughterings of innocents.


So because the guy has some sort of vague ideology and not anger at society, it is somehow "not applicable"? Sorry, a nut is a nut.

Quote:
Well as far as I know a functioning democracy has never placed such an extreme restriction on the media.


Anti-communist rooting out during the Red Scare? Countries that democratically elect demagogues who then turn around and clamp down on the media?

Look, I agree with some fairly strict gun laws, but you are the same as the "complete freedom for guns" crowd only on the opposite side. You're being willfully ignorant and in denial when it comes to the dangers of taking guns away and the complacency that that would prevent crime and state violence.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
12ax7



Joined: 07 Nov 2009

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 10:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anyways, nice job on diverting the discussion away from the fact that one of the spokespersons for the anti-gun control side of the argument is either crazy or plays someone who is for a living.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jkrishnamurtidotorg



Joined: 04 Oct 2012

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 11:22 pm    Post subject: Re: A Discrepancy Reply with quote

visitorq wrote:
jkrishnamurtidotorg wrote:
Is it not laughable to anyone else that someone believes that guns, in nearly any civilian form, will somehow defend against any foreign or domestic military, when governments today pursue far more lethal weaponry and technology? It is being said that drones will soon find their way into the skies over the US (if they haven't already)(not necessarily to be assaulting or spying on all americans), and you think your community gun presence is going to make a drastic stand to any modern military?

Alex Jones references past governments in history who wanted to take away firearms from common people if they had any. The difference between these historical references and today are the grand discrepancies between how military technology has "advanced".

Seriously?

You totally miss the point. It's not a matter of defeating a modern state-run army in pitched battle on the open field (obviously civilian militias would stand no chance). It's about each home having the capacity to defend itself from an occupying force. It means when jack-boots come marching up to your home to haul you off to prison or worse, you have the means to defend yourself from them (imagine how much harder it would have been for the Nazis to round up Jews or take them from the ghettos off to gas chambers if they had had guns to defend themselves).

Ultimately it's about standing up to the government and weakening the resolve of those who are participating in the tyranny. Police are going to be much less enthusiastic about following orders if they have millions of guns pointed at them around the country. Think about how hard it is for the US to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan, then imagine how hard it would be to occupy the US, where everyone is armed and the soldiers are made up of people from the same culture. The tyranny would have a much, much slimmer chance of either succeeding or sustaining itself under such conditions. That is why any successful tyranny must first disarm the population (which has happened throughout history).


I can see that. I can recognize that 'a tyranny' would have a slimmer chance if the populace is armed, and one could potentially put up a fight. No arguments with that. In modern times though, it would certainly depend on the exact situation we are painting in reference to being effective as an armed civilian.

But "the point" wasn't missed completely.

For instance, there is research going on in the US regarding 'high-energy radio frequency weapons'. "When used against humans electromagnetic weapons can have dramatic effects, such as the intense burning sensation caused by Raytheon's Active Denial system, or more subtle effects such as the creation—at a distance—of a sense of anxiety or dread, intense drowsiness, or confusion in an individual or a group of people. Three military advantages of such weapons are:

1. That the individual or group of people would not necessarily realize that they were being targeted by such a device.

2. That microwave radiation, like some other radio frequency radiation, can easily penetrate most common building materials.

3. That with specialized antennas the radiation and its effects can be focused on either an individual or a large area such as a city or country."


I was just posing that when you've got technology like this today, among countless other examples, a few civilian armaments seem infantile. I'm not arguing 'against' having guns stored in the basement or anything of the sort.

As you mentioned, a fight could be put up. But of course, our discussion (within this issue) largely revolves around unspecified assumptions of certain situational circumstances - 'The Tyranical threat coming to invade your residential area'.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 12:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

12ax7 wrote:
Anyways, nice job on diverting the discussion away from the fact that one of the spokespersons for the anti-gun control side of the argument is either crazy or plays someone who is for a living.


Fine, let's steer the direction of the argument to nutballs who have banned guns while serving as dictator, something completely irrelevant to sensible gun control, just as Alex Jones' nuttery is completely irrelevant to whether or not people should be able to own guns.

Quote:
Sure, a wounded soldier creates a logistical hindrance. But, to say that guns aren't designed to kill?


Guns are designed to fire ammunition. Ammunition is designed to kill, wound, stun, tranquilize, disperse smoke, or serve as a visual marker (a flare gun).

Quote:
Clearly, guns aren't just for wounding as you claim


True, but they aren't designed just for killing as you claim.

Quote:
The rest of the developed world doesn't need guns to protect against criminals.


Much of the developed world's criminals lack guns and refuse to use them unless its a significant situation.

The problem is that America has stockpiles of guns and a massive market. It's a lot harder to clamp down on America's 300 million guns in an area 50 times the size of the UK and with 6 times as many people, as it is to clamp down on the UKs much smaller number of firearms, in a much smaller area, with fewer numbers of people.

With the exception of Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, much of the developed world lives in a high density area. The police are not far away. While many of those countries are dealing with recent problems of "ghettos", they have not been as sustained as America's. Up until recently, these countries were ethnically homogeneous, unlike America which has always been mixed from day 1 (Pilgrims meet Natives) and have always had those ethnic groups being deeply suspicious of one another.

And to be blunt, none of those countries are bordered by Mexico with the drugs, gangs, and weapons that would easily flow over.

Sorry, but Poland doesn't really compare.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
12ax7



Joined: 07 Nov 2009

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 1:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steelrails wrote:
12ax7 wrote:
Anyways, nice job on diverting the discussion away from the fact that one of the spokespersons for the anti-gun control side of the argument is either crazy or plays someone who is for a living.


Fine, let's steer the direction of the argument to nutballs who have banned guns while serving as dictator, something completely irrelevant to sensible gun control, just as Alex Jones' nuttery is completely irrelevant to whether or not people should be able to own guns.

Quote:
Sure, a wounded soldier creates a logistical hindrance. But, to say that guns aren't designed to kill?


Guns are designed to fire ammunition. Ammunition is designed to kill, wound, stun, tranquilize, disperse smoke, or serve as a visual marker (a flare gun).

Quote:
Clearly, guns aren't just for wounding as you claim


True, but they aren't designed just for killing as you claim.

Quote:
The rest of the developed world doesn't need guns to protect against criminals.


Much of the developed world's criminals lack guns and refuse to use them unless its a significant situation.

The problem is that America has stockpiles of guns and a massive market. It's a lot harder to clamp down on America's 300 million guns in an area 50 times the size of the UK and with 6 times as many people, as it is to clamp down on the UKs much smaller number of firearms, in a much smaller area, with fewer numbers of people.

With the exception of Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, much of the developed world lives in a high density area. The police are not far away. While many of those countries are dealing with recent problems of "ghettos", they have not been as sustained as America's. Up until recently, these countries were ethnically homogeneous, unlike America which has always been mixed from day 1 (Pilgrims meet Natives) and have always had those ethnic groups being deeply suspicious of one another.

And to be blunt, none of those countries are bordered by Mexico with the drugs, gangs, and weapons that would easily flow over.

Sorry, but Poland doesn't really compare.


Tell me where I claim that ammunition is strictly designed to kill (you forgot rubber bullets, by the way...whoops, they kill).

And lets be frank: The drugs and gangs in Mexico exist because of its close proximity the US. It's all about exporting drugs to the US.

Canada, New Zealand, and Australia ethnically homogenous until recently?

Do you have any idea how ridiculous a statement that is? For one, even the aboriginals were not ethnically homogenous.

PS. The French, by the way, arrived in Canada before the Pilgrims arrived in the US, and unlike the Pilgrims they didn't butcher the Natives, they married them. That's mainly why many French-Canadians (and therefore many real Cajuns) have a swarthy complexion.

http://www.manataka.org/page269.html

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/metis


Last edited by 12ax7 on Fri Jan 11, 2013 2:22 am; edited 4 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mr. BlackCat



Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Location: Insert witty remark HERE

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 1:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kuros wrote:
Blackcat, welcome to the discussion. One thing you made me realize: Piers Morgan, terrible interviewer though he may be, is respectful of the American tradition and carefully couched his suggestions to fit the realities of North American society.

Quote:
It's such an American fantasy that every individual is a hero cowboy, ready to jump into action. Police Officers have hours and hours, years, of training not just to operate firearms but to be able to use them in the situation. And the result is often like the one in NY a couple of months ago, nine shot by-standers outside the Empire State Building. And that with trained professionals.


Such an American fantasy, you say. Let me tell you something about America: much of America is sparse. You can call the cops to your home and they will take 20 minutes to get there. It isn't an American fantasy that every individual is a hero cowboy, its an American reality that every individual must, on occasion, stand on his own. European communalism is fine, but lets recognize that they are different continents with different populations. Thus, Americans must have the right to defend themselves within their home. That doesn't lead to a right to assault weaponry, but this slavish Continental instinct to ban all harmful things just doesn't serve here.


Quote:
The fact of the matter is, this line of reasoning presupposes a perfectly controlled situation where the 'victim' is ready, which is never the case in emergency situations. It also assumes that the gun just vanishes when not needed, ignoring the very real dangers mentioned above.


You're uneducated.

Debunking the Myths of the Gun Debate

Quote:
Myth No. 7: Issuing more permits for carrying concealed handguns makes society more dangerous.

There are more than 8 million concealed-carry permit holders in the U.S., and the number grows each year. These are people who are vetted by local law enforcement. They commit crime at a lower rate than the general population. And, by some estimates, they commit crime at a lower rate than police officers.


Many concealed permit carriers are well trained and have background in law enforcement or the military. If we want to decrease the likelihood of mass shootings, then concealed carry is one of number of solutions. That doesn't mean arming people who aren't already armed, and that doesn't mean requiring anyone to affirmatively arm themselves. It means drawing upon the training and resourcefulness of those prepared and so inclined to protect.

Quote:
But this is what Americans want. Entertainment. Every issue has to have two sides, and they both have equally relevant points so they can fight and yell. Global warming exists. NOPE! Debate! Evolution is a real thing. NOPE! Debate! Guns are dangerous. NOPE! Debate! The loudest person wins, which is why entertainers rule your country. You even admit it. Fred Phelps, of God hates F**s fame is an entertainer and you like it. In every other industrialized country his group would be considered crazy outsider nutjobs. In the US they're given interviews on CNN and invited to 'debates'. Everyone has an opinion, or at least if you can make what you say entertaining you don't really need an opinion. And Anne Coulter is a best selling 'author'.


Oh, good lord. Look, Piers Morgan brought him on to make him look good. Too bad Piers Morgan's smug laziness could not capture the opportunity. So, Piers Morgan is now the face of American media? The veteran of Britain's tabloid industry? Yeah, its more than America, dude.

Quote:
But I get it. Strictly Constitutional. That's why slaves should still be around, right? Hey, it was in the Constitution until those dirty liberals got their hands on it! Because every 250 year old idea is infallible.


Oh, the irony of the ill-informed. Only in 2010 was the 2nd Amendment incorporated against the states. It was the 14th Amendment that made guns a right in America as much as the 2nd Amendment. The 14th Amendment was established just after the Civil War, right after the 13th, so that individual states could not squash the civil rights of their citizens. In McDonald v. Chicago, the majority drew largely upon the needs of newly free blacks following the Civil War to have guns to defend themselves against America's first gun control group: the Ku Klux Klan.


Canada is even more sparsely populated and has somehow managed not to shoot up schools and shopping malls every other day. You know what else is not around in these sparsely populated areas besides police? Criminals. What's the burglary rate in Buttstuff, Idaho? It's amazing how Americans who don't have to live with other races are often the most racists, the ones who don't live with gays are the most homophobic and the ones who are no where near crime the most paranoid of it. It's almost as though if you live in the real world you have a better perception of what reality is.

In any event, no one is talking about taking away all of America's precious guns. Most people, including some senators, are talking about an assault rifle ban. The guns that have absolutely no purpose but to kill people for sport.

But you've proven my point. I listed several key FACTS about gun violence in the US and instead of addressing those, you called me uneducated by providing a link to someone else who may have their own bias in an opinion piece (though I do give you kudos for actually responding, everyone else just ignored the facts and continued with their own biased opinions). Sorry, some guy writing an article telling us most people with conceal carry permits are trained doesn't negate the fact that guns cause more accidental deaths than any other tool in the US. Because one is a fact, and one is anecdotal. Again, only one is real despite what anyone says about what they want to believe.

But, I'll reiterate: No one is talking about conceal carry here. It's about assault rifles at the moment. One thing the pro-gun side does very well is taint the debate, introduce all sorts of claims that have nothing to do with the issue at hand and come up with ridiculous false equivalencies. I really don't care that these guys/gals have loads of training, I would feel much safer if they didn't have guns at all, and the stats prove that is a valid feeling. The feeling that you are safer with a gun in your house is an invalid feeling because that weapon is much, much, much more likely to be used against yourself or a family member or even be stolen and used in another crime.

But it all doesn't matter. You'll scream 9/11 or Obama is trying to steal your Constitution or something else the internet loves to hear and you'll believe you've made a smart, concise and convincing argument. Gun nuts will never change their mind. I was pretty indifferent towards the gun debate in the US for years until more and more innocent people were being gunned down. This last one (oh wait, it wasn't the 'last' one...I mean Sandy Hook which at less than a month old isn't the latest mass shooting in the US) put me over the edge. Yet I'm told not to base my opinions on fear and emotion. Like the paranoid delusions that you're constantly under siege by a federal government and other boogie men hiding behind every corner is somehow a logical, emotionless position.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
12ax7



Joined: 07 Nov 2009

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 2:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

And I think it's important to bring attention to what Captain Corea pointed out earlier: constitutional rights are not absolute. If that were the case, you could say anything you want anytime you want and get away with it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nowhere Man



Joined: 08 Feb 2004

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 5:00 am    Post subject: ... Reply with quote

Well, the pro-gun lobby, having been given an opportunity to police itself, is sticking to business as usual.

The more interesting question is what happens when the assault weapons ban comes out this year.

What's gonna happen?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 4 of 10

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2013 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International