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
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 5:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Blackcat, this isn't about my position on gun rights. I would like to see meaningful assault weapons restrictions. Its about your ignorance and condescension. I've never screamed 9/11 or that Obama is trying to steal my Constitution. Yet see below.

Mr. BlackCat wrote:

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 AIM Address
Mr. BlackCat



Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Location: Insert witty remark HERE

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 6:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Where is my ignorance? You disagreed with my opinion which is fine, but you called me uneducated in doing so (by providing 'proof' in the form of some guy giving his opinion). You also completely ignored the facts and stats that I posted to prove many of my points. So how I am the one who is ignorant?

You got the condescension part right, though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Blockhead confidence



Joined: 02 Apr 2008

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 7:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Signing out after this one

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


Don't know where I've ever said that.

I'm pointing out that the US has a problem with massacres in public places with guns.

Quote:
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.


Very strange argument here. You're taking theory over reality. I'm not even going to start speculating on possible markets for the stuff, it's irrelevant to the point.

I recommend you read 'Candide' by Voltaire, one of the great free speech advocates and an undoubted influence on the Constitution. Essentially it warns against steadfastly holding to a theory in the face of facts.

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


Have to say, you've got me here. I took it for granted that everyone agreed that mass shootings in public places in the US is an epidemic. You've done your best in this exchange to marginalize this fact.

Quote:
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.


Wow. So your argument about knife crime going up once guns are confiscated is meaningless as the US has never had prohibition on guns, so any figures you get will require you to look outside America? Stats on country per capita murder rates, as well, which I know comes up frequently in the gun debate--all meaningless.

In any case, due to the huge influence of US culture and the mosaic of US military bases thickly spread around the world, I feel duty bound as an outsider to reiterate:

Civilians are dying in massacres in the US, and they're not in other developed countries. The key difference is access to guns.

Quote:
"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.


Principle over facts again. Other developed countries..... ah forget it.

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


Guns in US: civilians, police, military
Rest of the developed world: police, military

Who is having massacres regulary?

Quote:
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".


That's great. In the meantime, your people are being slaughtered.

One final note, thanks for not using the fact that I'm not American to ignore my opinion.

[Edited to reword overly condescending comment by me at one point]


Last edited by Blockhead confidence on Fri Jan 11, 2013 8:34 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Blockhead confidence



Joined: 02 Apr 2008

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 7:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kuros wrote:
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.


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



Joined: 02 Apr 2008

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 7:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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


This is not what everyone thinks. You'd need to provide evidence that this is what gun makers and users have in mind.

Quote:
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.


It's relevant when you have a pattern, as I belive the US does. The pattern is: crazy people getting guns and shooting up civilians in public.

Adam Gopnik in the New Yorker wrote:
Those who fight for the right of every madman and every criminal to have as many people-killing weapons as they want share moral responsibility for what happened last night—as they will when it happens again. And it will happen again.


http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/07/aurora-movie-shooting-one-more-massacre.html#ixzz2HgNWE6Vv
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Blockhead confidence



Joined: 02 Apr 2008

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 8:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steelrails wrote:
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.


Wasn't the point I was making.

You were saying we should ban arrows because historically they've been involved in massacres.

To start with, they weren't used in a pattern of manaics going into schools.

Secondly, warlords, the private armies of princes battling, and so on, all belong to the pre-modern era, and so massacres that occurred from them are irrelevant.

Quote:
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.


Well, the US has had a bunch of people shoot up public places without much resembling a motive. Not much more than revenge, if that.

Breivik (sp?) does seem to have a coherent philosophy. He was ruled sane for the trial, for instance. I think it's reasonable to argue his massacre as an isolated incident. What's happening in the US is a pattern.

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


Sorry, should have added:

"Well as far as I know a functioning democracy has never placed such an extreme restriction on the media, and it not be a disaster. "

Quote:
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.


Actually I'm not. I'm Australian and we still allow bolt-action rifles for farmers and hunters--guns not designed with wiping out scores of humans in mind. Hand guns and semi-automatics are banned.

Compared to the US out population is very small, but we did have one massacre nearly 20 years ago, we got rid of the guns, there were no more massacres, and most people seem happy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 3:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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


If ammunition is not strictly designed to kill, then guns are not strictly designed to kill. Guns are designed to fire ammunition. No ammunition makes a gun pretty useless.

Quote:
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.


Embarassed Got me there. And badly. Of course I know about aboriginals and Maoris and more. I was referring more to the constant waves of immigrants and was more focused on Western Europe, but the way I wrote that made it seem like I was talking about settled parts of the Commonwealth.
============================================
Quote:
Wasn't the point I was making.

You were saying we should ban arrows because historically they've been involved in massacres.

To start with, they weren't used in a pattern of manaics going into schools.


Just whole villages.

Quote:
Secondly, warlords, the private armies of princes battling, and so on, all belong to the pre-modern era, and so massacres that occurred from them are irrelevant.


The point is, that even those old weapons can "massacre" people and that the human penchant for killing means that people will turn to anything and are driven by violent impulses.

Our DNA from then is still the same now. We aren't some magical new species because we have democracy, rights for women, and TVs.

Quote:
Well, the US has had a bunch of people shoot up public places without much resembling a motive. Not much more than revenge, if that.

Breivik (sp?) does seem to have a coherent philosophy. He was ruled sane for the trial, for instance. I think it's reasonable to argue his massacre as an isolated incident. What's happening in the US is a pattern.


Most of the mass shooters have been ruled sane. Revenge is not an "insane" motive.

But let's say you're right. Wouldn't that suggest that mental illness is the problem? Norway has a relatively high rate of gun ownership- 31% of total population (Basically every family of four).

It seems a cultural factor is more at play, not guns. Why doesn't Switzerland have a rampant massacre problem? They have near-universal gun ownership.

I think writing off Brevik because he had a vague political philosophy and some ramblings is a weak cop-out.

Quote:
guns not designed with wiping out scores of humans in mind. Hand guns and semi-automatics are banned.


Handguns are not designed to wipe out scores of humans. They are designed to defend against 1-2 people or as a last ditch option in war.

So you support allowing the top rifle, but banning the bottom one, right?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ab_pvIBtgzE/UN3pmGo2LDI/AAAAAAAAHE4/96Lxe_t2rTo/s1600/AssaultRifle2.jpg

And this is clearly a "shoot scores of humans" weapon

http://world.guns.ru/userfiles/images/sniper/sn98/bora_jng90.jpg

And this is not.

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRZhtckaaPeONfwkoCCwk2CB05hQmYhvYlpXWvueakYfH76zrwVT6uBLhbX

Quote:
but we did have one massacre nearly 20 years ago, we got rid of the guns, there were no more massacres, and most people seem happy.


Happy enough to riot in 2011? Happy enough to rob and beat up immigrant students? Happy enough to trample people to death over 22 people chasing a ball? Rampant crime?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
12ax7



Joined: 07 Nov 2009

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 4:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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


This is not what everyone thinks. You'd need to provide evidence that this is what gun makers and users have in mind.


I think he's misconstruing the fact that the Hague Convention of 1899 banned expanding (dum-dum) bullets in war because the Germans had complained about the British .303 produced at that time. You see, the round-nosed .303 ball wavered quite a lot, and so the British developed a hollow point round with its jacket pushed back, which shifted the weight of the round rearward, improving its accuracy. However, this also allowed the round to expand and its jacket to shatter in pieces upon impact, producing large and severe wounds.

That's essentially why bullets used by the military today have a full metal jacket. The design is used because it's considered more humane. It has nothing to do with lethality. If he'd ever held a .50 slug in his hands, felt its weight, he'd understand that the notion that bullets in general aren't created to kill is ridiculous.


Last edited by 12ax7 on Fri Jan 11, 2013 5:25 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
comm



Joined: 22 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 5:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

12ax7 wrote:
That's essentially why bullets used by the military today have a full metal jacket. The design is used because it's considered more humane. It has nothing to do with lethality. If he'd ever held a .50 slug in his hands, felt its weight, he'd understand that the notion that bullets in general aren't created to kill is ridiculous.

I promise you that police don't carry guns around so they can kill people. And the vast majority of people who are shot don't die... so if guns are designed to kill, they aren't particularly consistent in doing that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
12ax7



Joined: 07 Nov 2009

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 5:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

comm wrote:
12ax7 wrote:
That's essentially why bullets used by the military today have a full metal jacket. The design is used because it's considered more humane. It has nothing to do with lethality. If he'd ever held a .50 slug in his hands, felt its weight, he'd understand that the notion that bullets in general aren't created to kill is ridiculous.

I promise you that police don't carry guns around so they can kill people. And the vast majority of people who are shot don't die... so if guns are designed to kill, they aren't particularly consistent in doing that.


Cops never kill? I'm sure that's comforting for criminals.

But, yes, cops aren't taught to use primarily lethal means (or at least not in Canada). That's one of the reasons why the RCMP's Special Emergency Response Team was replaced with the Canadian Forces' JTF-2.

As for the argument that the vast majority of people being shot don't die, you almost make it sound as if they couldn't have. So, they were either saved by competent doctors or they received superficial wounds. Doesn't diminish in any way the fact that guns are lethal weapons.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sirius black



Joined: 04 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 5:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd much prefer someone not so divisive as Sharpton to be moderating and give the topic more legitimacy but some interesting things said nonetheless

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755884/#50437872
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sirius black



Joined: 04 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 6:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think its useful to start with a few things pretty much both sides can agree on.

First, look at how criminals get guns. I posted a link about it on it in another thread. Only 13% of guns used in crime are stolen, which I thought (and would assume the majority of folks) was how criminals, gangbangers, etc., got guns. There seems to be some organized way of getting guns to criminals and it would seem easily enforced and these groups and individuals easily infilitrated. Why isn't this happening? The kids and young folks in urban areas where a good many of the daily and weekly gun violence is happening can easily get guns. We have to ask why? We also have to ask how to stop them from getting access. Those questions can be remedied. The conspiracy in me is asking why anything isn't being done about it.

Anyway, the one good thing that hopefully comes out of this is just how off kilter the NRA is. The loss or reduction of their power is a huge win. This is said by someone who once owned a gun. It was the last thing I watned to do. It was for home protection due to living close to a high crime area. I preferred getting a rottweiler or some other kind of guard dog instead but didn't have the time to take care of the animal because i traveled a lot and stayed by myself.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 7:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Blockhead confidence wrote:
Guns in US: civilians, police, military
Rest of the developed world: police, military

Who is having massacres regulary?

This is ridiculous. Here, let me rewrite it so it makes sense:

1) Guns in US: civilians, police, military
Guns in Mexico, Brazil, and Russia: police, military

Who has massively higher gun homicide rates?

or, if you prefer:

2) Guns in Switzerland: civilians, police, military
Rest of the developed world: police, military

Again, who has higher gun homicide rates on average?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
comm



Joined: 22 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 10:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

12ax7 wrote:
As for the argument that the vast majority of people being shot don't die, you almost make it sound as if they couldn't have. So, they were either saved by competent doctors or they received superficial wounds. Doesn't diminish in any way the fact that guns are lethal weapons.

"Guns are lethal weapons" sure, as are a lot of things. But Blockhead explicitly said that they are "made to kill" and that obviously doesn't hold up, neither in the intent of most users (police/military) nor in the majority of cases where guns are used. Maybe you'd like gun manufacturers to include a note that says "not for killing" with every weapon sold?

sirius black wrote:
I think its useful to start with a few things pretty much both sides can agree on.

I don't think the anti-gun posters and politicians are interested in anything of the sort. I think everyone agrees on stricter background checks, particularly at gun shows. We could require the purchase of effective gun locks with each gun, and even do background checks for high capacity magazines if that makes some people feel better. Not that any of that (nor anything proposed) would have stopped Sandy Hook.

No, sirius, these conversations tend to go more like:
Anti-gun: We should ban all guns, then there'd be no gun murders!
Pro-freedom: There are good reasons behind the Second Amendment which prevents that.
Anti-gun: Then ban rifles, they look scary!
Pro-freedom: But per capita, there are about the same number of rifle murders in the U.S. as there are overall gun murders in the UK, which itself has one of the lowest gun murder rates in the world. And many of those didn't use semi-automatic rifles anyway.
Anti-gun: You're obviously an irrational gun nut who wants children to die.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2013 12:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

comm wrote:
12ax7 wrote:
As for the argument that the vast majority of people being shot don't die, you almost make it sound as if they couldn't have. So, they were either saved by competent doctors or they received superficial wounds. Doesn't diminish in any way the fact that guns are lethal weapons.

"Guns are lethal weapons" sure, as are a lot of things. But Blockhead explicitly said that they are "made to kill" and that obviously doesn't hold up, neither in the intent of most users (police/military) nor in the majority of cases where guns are used. Maybe you'd like gun manufacturers to include a note that says "not for killing" with every weapon sold?

sirius black wrote:
I think its useful to start with a few things pretty much both sides can agree on.

I don't think the anti-gun posters and politicians are interested in anything of the sort. I think everyone agrees on stricter background checks, particularly at gun shows. We could require the purchase of effective gun locks with each gun, and even do background checks for high capacity magazines if that makes some people feel better. Not that any of that (nor anything proposed) would have stopped Sandy Hook.

No, sirius, these conversations tend to go more like:
Anti-gun: We should ban all guns, then there'd be no gun murders!
Pro-freedom: There are good reasons behind the Second Amendment which prevents that.
Anti-gun: Then ban rifles, they look scary!
Pro-freedom: But per capita, there are about the same number of rifle murders in the U.S. as there are overall gun murders in the UK, which itself has one of the lowest gun murder rates in the world. And many of those didn't use semi-automatic rifles anyway.
Anti-gun: You're obviously an irrational gun nut who wants children to die.


You're are completely kidding yourself if you think that's a standard conversation. I mean look at all the people comparing guns to home made bombs, knifes and cars, saying if you try to take my gun it'll be a civil war, talking about how they're gonna fight the government, etc. Alex Jones isn't that rare of an example. No one side is purely rational, being right or wrong aside, the gun nuts, especially the far right ones, sound much more paranoid and crazy. That being said the crazies that you meet online aren't representative of the more normal people on either side. I don't mean this in a gun control sense, but rather on a personal basis, the more I listen to people like Alex Jones the less I want people like him to have guns.
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 5 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