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
Captain Corea



Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul

PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2013 1:14 am    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.


Really? I always thought that they were taught to shoot to kill. My cop buds back home told me they were trained to shoot "center mass" - and not to try to "wing" or wound someone.

comm wrote:


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.


I don't know... I see the conversation playing out another way more often.

A-Wow, all of these shootings, maybe we should do something about gun control?
B-Don't tread on me! I need all of my guns to protect against tyranny, and scary people, and bears!
A-Um, ok... but how about we put some type of limit on them? Maybe clip capacity or something?
B-NO WAY!!! There's no way anyone should infringe on MY RIGHTS!! Shut up! You should be kicked out of the country for even saying anything like that. You have no right!
A-Come on, can't we even have a discussion on this?
B-No, you're exactly like Castro, or Mao, or Stalin... you want to round us up and take away our rights! Look at places like Mexico and Russia! Their governments control them because they have too much gun control!!!
A-Ok, but there are also places like Canada, SK, and Japan that have gun control, and the populations there seem alright.
B-It's not the same!
A-Why not?
B-Because we can only compare to countries that PROVe my point.

A-Ah, got it. Rolling Eyes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
caniff



Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map

PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2013 1:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anybody ever get the feeling that because others have had their own governments' strip the right to bear arms from their own people in the past that they seem to take glee in the idea of Americans also being forcibly subjected to the same fate?

I'm not a gun owner (although if I planned to stay here in the US for any appreciable time I would be), but after reading endless diatribes from the media/US govt (hypocrites)/gun-grabbing "progressives" and many of foreign descent emboldened to tell Americans what to do over the last few months, I now land firmly in the camp of those who want to have the right to defend not only themselves and theirs, but also to have the right (collectively) to tell the government where to shove it.

Government is not the answer, it's personal freedom - history tells us so, and I for one sincerely doubt that somehow things are now magically different.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ghostrider



Joined: 27 Jun 2011

PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2013 2:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

caniff wrote:
Anybody ever get the feeling that because others have had their own governments' strip the right to bear arms from their own people in the past that they seem to take glee in the idea of Americans also being forcibly subjected to the same fate?

I'm not a gun owner (although if I planned to stay here in the US for any appreciable time I would be), but after reading endless diatribes from the media/US govt (hypocrites)/gun-grabbing "progressives" and many of foreign descent emboldened to tell Americans what to do over the last few months, I now land firmly in the camp of those who want to have the right to defend not only themselves and theirs, but also to have the right (collectively) to tell the government where to shove it.

Government is not the answer, it's personal freedom - history tells us so, and I for one sincerely doubt that somehow things are now magically different.

Yeah because we all know that if Fox News says that President Obama wants to confiscate all guns then it must be true. I think we've reached point where Americans are realizing the fallacy in such black and white thinking. Most people who disagree with you don't want a ban on all guns- as if that were politically realistic in the US. They're seeking some kind of middle ground. They see sensible gun legislation as part of the solution.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2013 3:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

caniff wrote:
Anybody ever get the feeling that because others have had their own governments' strip the right to bear arms from their own people in the past that they seem to take glee in the idea of Americans also being forcibly subjected to the same fate?


Not really, no. Sure, there may be some smugness, but what it generally comes down to is they have lived in societies where guns are effectively regulated, seen the benefits, and don't buy into the NRA talking points many Americans are so taken with.

caniff wrote:
Government is not the answer, it's personal freedom


You are an intelligent man, do not lower yourself to slogan hurling.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Blockhead confidence



Joined: 02 Apr 2008

PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

caniff wrote:
Government is not the answer, it's personal freedom - history tells us so, and I for one sincerely doubt that somehow things are now magically different.


Not often I get to bring out this guy:

John Stuart Mill wrote:
If poisons were never bought or used for any purpose except the commission of murder, it would be right to prohibit their manufacture and sale. They may, however, be wanted not only for innocent but for useful purposes...


The utility of gun ownership for personal protection is belied by the existence of rest of the developed world (not counting Switzerland, of course!).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2013 7:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

caniff wrote:
Anybody ever get the feeling that because others have had their own governments' strip the right to bear arms from their own people in the past that they seem to take glee in the idea of Americans also being forcibly subjected to the same fate?

Absolutely. It's the collectivist attitude. The willing slave positively hates the idea of other people being free. Their solution to everything (which they call "leveling the playing field") is to punish everyone for crimes committed by the few. They despise the fact that Americans can defend themselves with guns, while they have to depend on the police and government. It's only fair in their eyes that we too should be disarmed, dependent, and defenseless.

Quote:
I'm not a gun owner (although if I planned to stay here in the US for any appreciable time I would be), but after reading endless diatribes from the media/US govt (hypocrites)/gun-grabbing "progressives" and many of foreign descent emboldened to tell Americans what to do over the last few months, I now land firmly in the camp of those who want to have the right to defend not only themselves and theirs, but also to have the right (collectively) to tell the government where to shove it.

Yes, it is a case of "use it or lose it". We need to exercise our rights.

Quote:
Government is not the answer, it's personal freedom - history tells us so, and I for one sincerely doubt that somehow things are now magically different.

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



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2013 7:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ghostrider wrote:
caniff wrote:
Anybody ever get the feeling that because others have had their own governments' strip the right to bear arms from their own people in the past that they seem to take glee in the idea of Americans also being forcibly subjected to the same fate?

I'm not a gun owner (although if I planned to stay here in the US for any appreciable time I would be), but after reading endless diatribes from the media/US govt (hypocrites)/gun-grabbing "progressives" and many of foreign descent emboldened to tell Americans what to do over the last few months, I now land firmly in the camp of those who want to have the right to defend not only themselves and theirs, but also to have the right (collectively) to tell the government where to shove it.

Government is not the answer, it's personal freedom - history tells us so, and I for one sincerely doubt that somehow things are now magically different.

Yeah because we all know that if Fox News says that President Obama wants to confiscate all guns then it must be true. I think we've reached point where Americans are realizing the fallacy in such black and white thinking. Most people who disagree with you don't want a ban on all guns- as if that were politically realistic in the US. They're seeking some kind of middle ground. They see sensible gun legislation as part of the solution.

This is such nonsense. You think you fool people, but it's obvious you want to ban all guns. Everything you post suggests it. It's all about incrementalism: you start off with something you call "reasonable", set the precedent, and it snowballs from there. You won't stop till you've banned and taken away every single gun from regular, law abiding Americans. Stop pretending otherwise (it's an insult to peoples' intelligence).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
comm



Joined: 22 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2013 7:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Blockhead confidence wrote:
The utility of gun ownership for personal protection is belied by the existence of rest of the developed world (not counting Switzerland, of course!).

No thanks, I'd rather not have violent crime rates as high as the U.K. Though that's obviously not even an option, considering how numerous and legally entrenched guns are in the U.S.

As previously stated, rifles kill a fantastically small number of people in the U.S. We're talking "falling out of bed and breaking your neck" numbers here. Considering how valuable the freedom to own semi-automatic rifles is to many Americans (particularly in defense from tyranny), and considering the tiny number of deaths related to them, can't we agree that legislation is better focused elsewhere? Perhaps in mandating softer carpets for people to fall out of bed onto?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aq8knyus



Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2013 8:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

American violent crime stats dont include all types of violent crime whereas the the British Crime Survey does as do the Canadians.

In anycase an informed, engaged and observant populace are the only guards against tyranny. Not some nut with a rifle.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
12ax7



Joined: 07 Nov 2009

PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2013 1:19 pm    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?


Complete nonsense. As Captain Corea pointed out, cops are trained to shoot centre mass. So are soldiers (I should know, I was one).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2013 3:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

12ax7 wrote:
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?


Complete nonsense. As Captain Corea pointed out, cops are trained to shoot centre mass. So are soldiers (I should know, I was one).


Shooting at the area of the body most likely to score a hit and incapacitate the victim is quite different from shooting to kill.

Also, if one were on the "other side" as an Afghani insurgent, shooting at the center mass would be inadvisable as odds are that whatever weapon they were using would be unlikely to penetrate the body armor being worn by the soldier. In that case one would aim for the extremities, or perhaps, aim for the center mass and hope you hit an extremity.

Shooting to kill is found in the motive of the person pulling he trigger. Some people just want that other person not to kill them and would quite happily see them go down with a wound that would result in them getting captured/arrested and treated at a hospital.

And again, a gun is designed to fire ammunition, the ammunition may or may not be designed to kill. In some cases because of the ammunition it fires, a gun is certainly designed to kill.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Captain Corea



Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul

PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2013 8:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ya figure that'll be the new gun shop slogan?

"In some cases, our guns are designed to kill... but only in some occasions"

Not the catchiest bumper sticker.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2013 10:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Blockhead confidence wrote:
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.


Blockhead,

I was countering what Blackcat called "the American cowboy fantasy." I believe America could employ the Australia strategy for automatics and certain semi-automatics, and it would have some beneficial effect. Unfortunately, I would never consent to surrendering the American right to the handgun. Sorry, self-defense is a civil right.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
12ax7



Joined: 07 Nov 2009

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You mean the body armor that was designed to protect vital organs and is credited for the high rate of survival from wounds? Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Died By Bear



Joined: 13 Jul 2010
Location: On the big lake they call Gitche Gumee

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Obama's wife sleeps well knowing her children are protected by men with 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 6 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