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
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 2:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steelrails wrote:
Quote:
You could massacre with all kinds of weapons and things, of course. But one weapon stands out head and shoulders above the rest for efficacy. For every massacre by knife you can find, I can provide twenty by gun, no doubt hugely more lethal in terms of numbers. It's a difference in kind.


As to the knives argument- If you add in arson, bombings, gassings, and other such acts, the number or horrific incidents becomes much closer.

There's a reason 9/11 wasn't 19 guys with AKs (Or the now In Vogue AR-15) but was instead planes turned into guided missiles. It's because the 19 guys with AKs might not cause as many deaths.

The reason nutjobs turn to guns instead of bombs is lack of expertise and materials. Not lack of desire. Channel that desire away from guns and towards bombs or chemicals and well...you might fund yourself wishing for the latest school shooting instead of the latest school bombing.


Columbine was supposed to be more of a bombing than a shooting. The bombs would have killed 100's of more people. The bombs didn't work, the guns did. The point being bombs and chemicals and the like are much harder to make work than guns. Remember all the attempted bombings that didn't amount to anything, such as the shoe bomber, the guy with the bomb in New York, etc. This isn't to say that bombs aren't a threat, but they are usually successful only when it's carried out by an actual organization, or someone smart/trained. I mean there is a reason that the unabomber was an Harvard Alumnus. This isn't really an argument for or against gun control, just saying that you made a false equivalence.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Blockhead confidence



Joined: 02 Apr 2008

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 3:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steelrails wrote:
As to the knives argument- If you add in arson, bombings, gassings, and other such acts, the number or horrific incidents becomes much closer.

There's a reason 9/11 wasn't 19 guys with AKs (Or the now In Vogue AR-15) but was instead planes turned into guided missiles. It's because the 19 guys with AKs might not cause as many deaths.

The reason nutjobs turn to guns instead of bombs is lack of expertise and materials. Not lack of desire. Channel that desire away from guns and towards bombs or chemicals and well...you might fund yourself wishing for the latest school shooting instead of the latest school bombing.


"Don't ban guns or else crazy people will start using worse weapons."

As has happened in other western countries.

A very strange argument with which to console the dead.


Quote:
So archery equipment should be banned as well? Spears? (used in fishing)


Ah yes, we've been discussing all of those archery massacres.


Quote:
England's monarchy has been responsible for far more death and global havoc than America's gun crime. Heck, you could take America's gun crime deaths for the country's entire existence (250 years), combine them, and that would be a slow 30 years for the British Empire from 1500-1950.


Ridiculously off topic.

Quote:
It is if in so being denied that killing tool, that they are killed by someone else who illegally acquired that killing tool or is using a different killing tool.

What odds do you think a 105 lb. woman has against a murder-rapist with a knife if she is carrying a knife or mace.

What odds do you think she has if she is carrying a gun?

Remember, one things guns do is they equalize a fight between people of vastly different physical strength.


People in other western countries apparently all face these risks and aren't bothered by them. In the mean time, there are no slaughterings at schools.

Quote:
First off, I object to your inclusion of the "no other uses besides on multiple grounds- First your argument becomes overly simplistic. Secondly, guns do have other value besides killing- Deterrence, hunting, self-defense (the object of self-defense is not to kill, it is to get someone to stop attacking you), law enforcement, government independence.

s for things which in my view fit your criteria-
Communist Governments (China, USSR). Military Dictatorships (Nazi Germany). Imperialistic Democracies (The United States, UK, France). Imperialistic Monarchies (UK, German Empire) Warlords. Juntas. Large Standing Armies. Swords. Spears. Bows. Machettes (See Rwanda). Explosives (Middle East), Toxic Chemicals (21st Century Planet Earth).


All those attributes of guns you listed exist as attributes becuase guns kill. If you take away a gun's lethality (apparently this is a word), all your other uses disappear.

Regarding my story, you were supposed to replace 'thing' not the country 'X'.

Final thought. US's gun massacres are the result of three causes: guns, crazies and the media. Crazies want to get on the media ("communicate their pain" as some put it) and can do so by killing lots of people. Removing any one of these three causes would stop the killing. Guns is the simplest and least likely to bring about a bunch of other negative consequences.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
augustine



Joined: 08 Sep 2012
Location: México

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 4:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
US's gun massacres are the result of three causes: guns, crazies and the media. Crazies want to get on the media ("communicate their pain" as some put it) and can do so by killing lots of people. Removing any one of these three causes would stop the killing. Guns is the simplest and least likely to bring about a bunch of other negative consequences.


You're trivializing the issues, boiling it down to those three factors. Guns (OK...), but "crazies"? Are there two categories of people? Crazies and non-crazies? That's you ignoring a lot of other potential factors. Prescription drugs (ie anti-depressants) are a major factor, IMO; and to what extent, I don't know, but the prescription drug racket is a serious issue. Blaming "crazies" doesn't cut it. Also, blaming media is also somewhat silly. Sure, these attention seeking psychopathic loners want to be remembered for something and the media will obviously give them that attention, but these guys usually off themselves or fight back in order to make sure they don't have to pay for what they've done. In short, it's a combination of a lot of things. Not your simple three causes, it's more complex than that.

Quote:
This isn't to say that bombs aren't a threat, but they are usually successful only when it's carried out by an actual organization, or someone smart/trained. I mean there is a reason that the unabomber was an Harvard Alumnus.


Kacynski was a mathematical genius, actually. And, I remember reading about this again recently, as well. No excuse, just saying... From wikipedia:

Quote:
He also participated in a multiple-year personality study conducted by Dr. Henry Murray, an expert on stress interviews.[12] Students in Murray's study were told they would be debating personal philosophy with a fellow student.[13] Instead they were subjected to a "purposely brutalizing psychological experiment"[13] stress test, which was an extremely stressful, personal, and prolonged psychological attack. During the test, students were taken into a room and connected to electrodes that monitored their physiological reactions, while facing bright lights and a two-way mirror. Each student had previously written an essay detailing their personal beliefs and aspirations: the essays were turned over to an anonymous attorney, who would enter the room and individually belittle each student based in part on the disclosures they had made. This was filmed, and students' expressions of impotent rage were played back to them several times later in the study. According to author Alston Chase, Kaczynski's records from that period suggest he was emotionally stable when the study began.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nautilus



Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 4:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

caniff wrote:
but Jones went overboard and I was disappointed because the "ammo" so-to-speak was readily available


The piers morgan show is hardly the epitome of reasoned and informative debate.

The man has a history in tabloids, he's a troll. Its beyond me why he is able to get interviews with top American politicians when he's basically the pom equivalent of jerry springer.

Given that, its entirely legitimate for Jones to "win" simply by shouting down and physically threatening his opponent.

Morgan is famous for insulting or provoking his guests the moment he appears to be losing the debate. He's a child.

The secret to his success is the fact that Americans are intrigued with a British perspective on their lives. But Morgan is doing more harm than good to the "special relationship".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Captain Corea



Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 4:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

12ax7 wrote:
visitorq wrote:


It actually boggles my mind that we have foreigners "calling for" any such thing... Imagine trying to emigrate to Britain as an American (working as some 5th rate TV host) and "calling for" an end to the monarchy. I doubt many people there would be impressed.


Actually, many people would agree.

...And I thought freedom of expression was protected for everyone in the US, not just citizens.


No, no... only visitorQ's rights are important. So important he thinks they should be applied all over the world. His right to own guns is an absolute! It's a Human Right!

But people's right to present a different opinion is easily dismissed. Heck, even just discussing gun rights on a message forum will have him going off about "imposing a solution on him". lol


comm wrote:

Much (most?) of the gun violence in the U.S. is between criminals, but the total intentional death rate is 3.7 per 10,000.
The fatality rate for Korean pedestrians is 4.4 per 10,000, and that's almost entirely innocents being killed.
So as a law abiding citizen, you're far, FAR more likely to be killed crossing the street in Korea than by a gun in the U.S. Where's the international outrage over that? Or is it a "we could prevent those deaths if every culture was like ours" thing when people look at the U.S.?


I'm pretty vocal on this forum about this issue as well. It's one of the things I dislike most about living in the ROK.

nautilus wrote:
caniff wrote:
but Jones went overboard and I was disappointed because the "ammo" so-to-speak was readily available


The piers morgan show is hardly the epitome of reasoned and informative debate.

The man has a history in tabloids, he's a troll. Its beyond me why he is able to get interviews with top American politicians when he's basically the pom equivalent of jerry springer.

Given that, its entirely legitimate for Jones to "win" simply by shouting down and physically threatening his opponent.

Morgan is famous for insulting or provoking his guests the moment he appears to be losing the debate. He's a child.

The secret to his success is the fact that Americans are intrigued with a British perspective on their lives. But Morgan is doing more harm than good to the "special relationship".


Yeah, I don't know much about him, but from the interviews I have seen, I question his journalistic integrity.

Is "interviewer barfing out their opinion during a question period" a new news niche?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mr. BlackCat



Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Location: Insert witty remark HERE

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 5:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm going to respond to you SR because you're one of the more reasonable people here and I see you making the unreasonable arguments that I've been hearing a lot of.


Steelrails wrote:


As to the knives argument- If you add in arson, bombings, gassings, and other such acts, the number or horrific incidents becomes much closer.



Well, yeah. If you take literally every other type of weapon used in homicides in the US the numbers almost match up, according to the FBI.

2005: Gun homicides=8487 All other weapons=8214
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/baseballbats.asp

So guns kill more people in the US than every other weapon in homicides. But we're supposed to believe that everything else is just as dangerous. Not to mention most suicides and accidental deaths are also caused by guns than any other weapon.
http://www.nami.org/Content/ContentGroups/E-News/20023/March_20022/Suicide_in_the_United____States.htm


Quote:

There's a reason 9/11 wasn't 19 guys with AKs (Or the now In Vogue AR-15) but was instead planes turned into guided missiles. It's because the 19 guys with AKs might not cause as many deaths.


You're taking one example and making it the rule. They were terrorists, their point wasn't necessarily to maximize deaths but to maximize destruction and airplay. If it was to maximize deaths the would have picked busier flights and the middle of the day instead of first thing in the morning. And again, more Americans were killed on home soil by guns than by terrorists in 2001, nevermind in the years since.

By the way, the US did react swiftly to that threat with no-fly lists, stricter security, broader in-flight rules and, well, two wars actually. But we're supposed to use this example to convince us to do nothing about a threat that kills almost 3 times as many civilians each year?

Quote:


The reason nutjobs turn to guns instead of bombs is lack of expertise and materials. Not lack of desire. Channel that desire away from guns and towards bombs or chemicals and well...you might fund yourself wishing for the latest school shooting instead of the latest school bombing.


Yeah, I keep hearing about how these guys would just find something else to carry out their massacres with. Well, then, if it's so easy to do why don't they do it? If bombs are so easy, then why aren't malls blowing up instead of being shot up? If knives inflict as much mayhem then why aren't these guys running with cleavers? And why don't we see these massacres occurring in countries that have stricter gun control laws to the degree that it happens in the US? We all know the answer but the NRA and people like you (apparently) want to distract us by shouting NINE-ELEVEN! KNIVES! OKLAHOMA! Well, sorry, the stats just don't back that up.


Quote:


England's monarchy has been responsible for far more death and global havoc than America's gun crime. Heck, you could take America's gun crime deaths for the country's entire existence (250 years), combine them, and that would be a slow 30 years for the British Empire from 1500-1950.


Funny you should say it ended in 1950. So why are you still comparing it to the gun violence in the US today? Apparently that other problem was already dealt with by your own admission. Why would it stop us from dealing with a problem we're faced with today?

Quote:

It is if in so being denied that killing tool, that they are killed by someone else who illegally acquired that killing tool or is using a different killing tool.

What odds do you think a 105 lb. woman has against a murder-rapist with a knife if she is carrying a knife or mace.

What odds do you think she has if she is carrying a gun?


That's ignoring the very real fact that guns often cause more accidental injuries and deaths than actual protection. So, yes, in the very unlikely circumstance that a woman finds herself being raped it might help if she had a gun. Or, her kid might have found it one day and shot his face off. Or she might have shot her husband one night thinking he was a thief trying to break in. Or maybe she would have panicked when someone did try to assault her and shoot without training and hit an innocent by-stander. Or it might have been stolen and used to rape another woman. Or it might have been used against her after the rapist overpowered her.

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.

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. It's like the NRA's assertion that teachers should be armed. Right, because I'm sure there are no teachers out there that might have a bad day and do something reckless, and no students who can find that gun on their own. Just for the slim chance that if their school is attacked they will actually be able to act. What if the principal at Sandy Hook had a gun in her desk? She was killed in minutes. Or should she carry it with her at all times in a school with children?


And now on to some of the 'claims' that lunatic made on the video.

"Mexico bans guns."

Nope. Article 10 of the Mexican Constitution since 1971 (translated): The inhabitants of the United Mexican States have the right keep to arms in their homes, for security and legitimate defense, with the exception of those prohibited by federal law and those reserved for the exclusive use of the Army, Navy, Air Force and National Guard. Federal law will determine the cases, conditions, requirements, and places in which the carrying of arms will be authorized to the inhabitants.


"Mexico is the most violent country" (or some such): Nope. Not sure what he meant exactly, though I can guess he was just yelling out words most of the time. In any event, they don't have near the highest crime, violent or otherwise, in the world.

Knives kill more people than guns!": Nope, as proven above.

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'.

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

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

Blockhead confidence wrote:
You could massacre with all kinds of weapons and things, of course. But one weapon stands out head and shoulders above the rest for efficacy.

For every massacre by knife you can find, I can provide twenty by gun, no doubt hugely more lethal in terms of numbers. It's a difference in kind.

That's because guns are readily available. If that weren't the case then another type of weapon (probably knives) would be the number one. There have been massacres throughout history, the vast majority of which were without guns. So basically this is a really silly point for you to latch on to.

Quote:
Beyond that? These are crucial differences.

In fact, drop all those things that make knives distinct from guns bar one: a gun's sole purpose is killing.

If there are kinds of knives only able to be used for killing too, ban them as well.

Oh please. This is totally arbitrary and nonsensical. I could say kitchen knives are only useful for killing since you can buy your meat and veggies pre-sliced at the supermarket. Therefore, let's ban kitchen knives Rolling Eyes You would (rightly) accuse me resorting to force, rather than logic, if I were a politician who passed such legislation. Same goes for banning guns. It's not up for you to decide they have a legitimate use or not.

Quote:
That's a grand way of putting it, but it still comes down to: you think telling Americans not to have guns (things with one purpose, to kill) is the same as telling Brits not to have a monarchy.

Obviously the comparison can be made, which is why I made it. With no actual rebuttal from you.

Quote:
Denying someone a tool that kills and only kills is punishment? How is this not obviously bizarre (wanted to pick much less polite word here)?

If by "bizarre" you mean completely rational... My argument is air-tight. Just because a tool is made for killing doesn't mean it's illegitimate to own it. Why aren't you calling for banning soldiers or police from having guns? Because you lack consistency in your argument, that's why...

Quote:
A story.

Country X's people have these things that can kill and have no other use besides. Country X starts having massacres in which these killing things are used. The massacres happen with terrible regularity and predictability.

What, besides guns, can you put in place of "things"?

Pretty much any weapon. Fists, for example. Your argument is totally absurd, and actually I don't even accept the premise that guns are made solely for killing. Deterrence is another use (it's not like you're forced to shoot someone in the head each time you shoot a gun). Guns can be used to keep criminals from coming at you, so you buy time before police arrive, for example. Even if it were used only for killing and nothing else, that still doesn't make it illegitimate by default as you are suggesting.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

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

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).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 11:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Blockhead confidence



Joined: 02 Apr 2008

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 12:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

visitorq wrote:
That's because guns are readily available. If that weren't the case then another type of weapon (probably knives) would be the number one. There have been massacres throughout history, the vast majority of which were without guns. So basically this is a really silly point for you to latch on to.


No the point is it is immensely more difficult for massacres to occur with knives.

You seem to have some belief that the same amount of massacres will occur if guns are taken away. This didn't happen in Australia.

But even accepting a gun-toting maniac will become a knife-weilding maniac, refer to my earlier points about knives. I have to chase someone down with a knife--it's amazing you're putting them on equal footing.

Try quantify the deadliness of a knife vs. a gun. It would have to be 1/10 or 1/20 at least. This is based on occurrences and the lethal limitations of knives.

Quote:
Oh please. This is totally arbitrary and nonsensical. I could say kitchen knives are only useful for killing since you can buy your meat and veggies pre-sliced at the supermarket. Therefore, let's ban kitchen knives Rolling Eyes You would (rightly) accuse me resorting to force, rather than logic, if I were a politician who passed such legislation. Same goes for banning guns. It's not up for you to decide they have a legitimate use or not.


Should a poison that only kills humans be avaibable for sale? And let's add in the other vital point: this poison has been used in massacres frequently over the last few years.

Quote:
Obviously the comparison can be made, which is why I made it. With no actual rebuttal from you.


If there was some way of connecting the monarchy with massacres (in the present day), I would agree with you. This is a laughable point and I'll ignore it next time.

Quote:
If by "bizarre" you mean completely rational... My argument is air-tight. Just because a tool is made for killing doesn't mean it's illegitimate to own it. Why aren't you calling for banning soldiers or police from having guns? Because you lack consistency in your argument, that's why...


Your point is that guns should be allowed for self-defence. Most of the developed world refutes this claim. And they don't have massacres.

On the other hand, show me a country without a police force or military.

Quote:
Pretty much any weapon. Fists, for example. Your argument is totally absurd, and actually I don't even accept the premise that guns are made solely for killing. Deterrence is another use (it's not like you're forced to shoot someone in the head each time you shoot a gun). Guns can be used to keep criminals from coming at you, so you buy time before police arrive, for example. Even if it were used only for killing and nothing else, that still doesn't make it illegitimate by default as you are suggesting.


Remove a gun's raison d'etre of killing and deterrence evaporates.

And what you said is right, 'pretty much any weapon'. A weapon by definition being something either to maim or kill with. Why do we have these things in society if they're being used in massacres? Should we have torture devices too?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 3:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Blockhead confidence wrote:
No the point is it is immensely more difficult for massacres to occur with knives.

You seem to have some belief that the same amount of massacres will occur if guns are taken away. This didn't happen in Australia.

But even accepting a gun-toting maniac will become a knife-weilding maniac, refer to my earlier points about knives. I have to chase someone down with a knife--it's amazing you're putting them on equal footing.

Try quantify the deadliness of a knife vs. a gun. It would have to be 1/10 or 1/20 at least. This is based on occurrences and the lethal limitations of knives.

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.

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.

Quote:
Should a poison that only kills humans be avaibable for sale? And let's add in the other vital point: this poison has been used in massacres frequently over the last few years.

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.

Quote:
If there was some way of connecting the monarchy with massacres (in the present day), I would agree with you. This is a laughable point and I'll ignore it next time.

Why limit it to the present day??? The monarchy in England is the same that banned guns in the US colonies prior to the war of independence. Monarchy is a symbol of tyranny, oppression, and disarming the peasants. I wasn't eve going there, however, since my only real point originally was that I'm not going to go preach about it on TV in London, regardless of the strong views I hold.

Quote:
Your point is that guns should be allowed for self-defence. Most of the developed world refutes this claim. And they don't have massacres.

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.

Quote:
Remove a gun's raison d'etre of killing and deterrence evaporates.

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.

Quote:
And what you said is right, 'pretty much any weapon'. A weapon by definition being something either to maim or kill with. Why do we have these things in society if they're being used in massacres? Should we have torture devices too?

We have guns to defend ourselves from criminals and tyrannical government. That's why we have them in society.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 4:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
"Don't ban guns or else crazy people will start using worse weapons."

As has happened in other western countries.

A very strange argument with which to console the dead.


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.

Quote:
Ah yes, we've been discussing all of those archery massacres.


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.

Quote:
People in other western countries apparently all face these risks and aren't bothered by them. In the mean time, there are no slaughterings at schools.


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

Quote:
All those attributes of guns you listed exist as attributes becuase guns kill


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

Quote:
Final thought. US's gun massacres are the result of three causes: guns, crazies and the media. Crazies want to get on the media ("communicate their pain" as some put it) and can do so by killing lots of people. Removing any one of these three causes would stop the killing. Guns is the simplest and least likely to bring about a bunch of other negative consequences.


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.

======================================
Quote:
Yeah, I keep hearing about how these guys would just find something else to carry out their massacres with. Well, then, if it's so easy to do why don't they do it?


Well, the psychotic, inventive human mind is something strange. Humans do seem to have an innate sense of economy- Guns are reasonably (or unreasonably in another sense of the word) easy to obtain and reasonably easy to use, and can equal a reasonably good chance at slaughter under those circumstances.

Disrupt that and then equation may favor bombs, which the material for may be reasonably easy to obtain, may be a bit unreasonably easy to use, and have a reasonably good chance at slaughter if used correctly. If guns are unreasonably difficult to obtain, and knives are unreasonably effective, the psychotic brain may choose bombs.

But yeah, odds are that we would come out "ahead" in terms of deaths if we chose to accept the risk of bombings vs. the risk of shootings.

People still get weapons and drugs into prison- shows how people bent on certain things are determined. After all, if a bunch of Afghani sheepherders, with no internet, turned jihadists can figure out how to blow up an armored humvee full of soldiers, some guy in Madison, WI can figure out how to blow up a school.

I flip-flop on guns seemingly every week. The rest of Mr. BlackCat's points and rebuttals to mine were good. I think I'm pretty notorious at carrying on an argument, if I can go "yeah, you're probably right" after one post, that shows how easily swayed I am on this issue. There have been other threads where I've leaned on the anti-gun side as visitorq can attest to. Yesterday I was leaning towards guns.

I msut remember my default position- Limit it to old bolt action rifles, Winchester repeaters, revolvers, maybe M1 Garands (basically Wild West-WWI-II era stuff). If you can't get the job done with those, whatever it may be, then you really don't need a gun. That AR-15 isn't going to really save your butt over an M1 Garand.

Piers Morgan is a pompous ignorant bombast, but Alex Jones is a fear-mongerer of a different and more dangerous sort.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
comm



Joined: 22 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 4:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steelrails wrote:
Piers Morgan is a pompous ignorant bombast, but Alex Jones is a fear-mongerer of a different and more dangerous sort.

I don't think most gun owners (though perhaps much of Jones' audience) are afraid of tyranny and the need for revolution. But I think many gun owners are aware that it will inevitably be necessary in the future.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 5:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steelrails wrote:
Quote:
"Don't ban guns or else crazy people will start using worse weapons."

As has happened in other western countries.

A very strange argument with which to console the dead.


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.

Quote:
Ah yes, we've been discussing all of those archery massacres.


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.

Quote:
People in other western countries apparently all face these risks and aren't bothered by them. In the mean time, there are no slaughterings at schools.


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

Quote:
All those attributes of guns you listed exist as attributes becuase guns kill


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

Quote:
Final thought. US's gun massacres are the result of three causes: guns, crazies and the media. Crazies want to get on the media ("communicate their pain" as some put it) and can do so by killing lots of people. Removing any one of these three causes would stop the killing. Guns is the simplest and least likely to bring about a bunch of other negative consequences.


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.

======================================
Quote:
Yeah, I keep hearing about how these guys would just find something else to carry out their massacres with. Well, then, if it's so easy to do why don't they do it?


Well, the psychotic, inventive human mind is something strange. Humans do seem to have an innate sense of economy- Guns are reasonably (or unreasonably in another sense of the word) easy to obtain and reasonably easy to use, and can equal a reasonably good chance at slaughter under those circumstances.

Disrupt that and then equation may favor bombs, which the material for may be reasonably easy to obtain, may be a bit unreasonably easy to use, and have a reasonably good chance at slaughter if used correctly. If guns are unreasonably difficult to obtain, and knives are unreasonably effective, the psychotic brain may choose bombs.

But yeah, odds are that we would come out "ahead" in terms of deaths if we chose to accept the risk of bombings vs. the risk of shootings.

People still get weapons and drugs into prison- shows how people bent on certain things are determined. After all, if a bunch of Afghani sheepherders, with no internet, turned jihadists can figure out how to blow up an armored humvee full of soldiers, some guy in Madison, WI can figure out how to blow up a school.

I flip-flop on guns seemingly every week. The rest of Mr. BlackCat's points and rebuttals to mine were good. I think I'm pretty notorious at carrying on an argument, if I can go "yeah, you're probably right" after one post, that shows how easily swayed I am on this issue. There have been other threads where I've leaned on the anti-gun side as visitorq can attest to. Yesterday I was leaning towards guns.

I msut remember my default position- Limit it to old bolt action rifles, Winchester repeaters, revolvers, maybe M1 Garands (basically Wild West-WWI-II era stuff). If you can't get the job done with those, whatever it may be, then you really don't need a gun. That AR-15 isn't going to really save your butt over an M1 Garand.

Piers Morgan is a pompous ignorant bombast, but Alex Jones is a fear-mongerer of a different and more dangerous sort.


I feel like every other word from you on this topic is a false equivalence. Those afghani shepards with no Internet also had the backing of the Pakistani ISI, the C.I.A., billionaire Saudis, and were highly trained and organized by the preeminent terrorist organization in the world. Please, if you're going to keep insisting that bombs are easy to make and use do not keep using such absurd examples.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
12ax7



Joined: 07 Nov 2009

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 6:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

visitorq wrote:
12ax7 wrote:
Piers Morgan made the most sensible point during that interview

Only to you. It's called preaching to the choir. To the rest of us Piers Morgan is smug, insufferable foreigner who is actively subverting the constitution of the country he has fled to (because apparently his beloved British Isles isn't good enough for him, so he had to come to the US to try and make us all more like the UK... i.e. the crime capital of Europe).


Sure, if you say so. Besides, what's that go to do with the fact that Ventura is not as eloquent as Morgan?

And since you want to veer off topic, how about this: Jesse Ventura presents Alex Jones as a credible authority on all things on his TV show.
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 3 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