kallend 1,635 #51 April 24, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>Another one who can't comprehend the issue. You're sorta proving his point there. Nope, he's already proven mine. Anyone who thinks passing laws will make criminals more likely to obey them is living on another Planet. Or in this case, another country. OK, so no laws are necessary because criminals ignore them anyway. Drunk drivers, child molesters, bank robbers, kidnappers, rapists, etc. etc. etc. will love your perfect, lawless society. How you extrapolate that from what he said is a mystery. . Easy, it's called "proof by induction". Standard mathematical method.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfzombie 3 #52 April 24, 2013 wow. this isn't math class, it's a thread on how foreigners view the us in terms of gun control, or lack thereof. at least it was on the first post. and i have figured out why there were no comments on my post a bit further up. you know, the one that everyone ignored...it was a perfectly reasonable solution to the problem about background checks for individual gun transfers and safety training of gun owners. i guess that people aren't really looking for a reasonable solution, they're just looking for a place to spout their "opinions". i do just wish that those opinions were clearly formed, with factual basis, rather than just spouting whatever misinformation and false ideals are coming from whichever political organization of their choosing. grow the hell up people.http://kitswv.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #53 April 24, 2013 Quote>Anyone who thinks passing laws will make criminals more likely to obey them is >living on another Planet. Or in this case, another country. And anyone who thinks that having a different opinion means they "can't comprehend an issue" - is, unfortunately, a typical arrogant American. If you think passing more laws that criminals will just ignore will have any effect on gun related crime,, then you clearly don't understand the issue or you have very little experience understanding how criminals think. Has nothing to do with being arrogant. Has to do with just plain being wrong or naive. Take your choice. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aphid 0 #54 April 24, 2013 Quotewow. this isn't math class, it's a thread on how foreigners view the us in terms of gun control, or lack thereof. at least it was on the first post. (snip) grow the hell up people. God love ya, lad. But sadly, thoughtful introspection seems as lacking as dispassionate discourse on this, and similar subjects. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skypuppy 1 #55 April 24, 2013 Quote>Anyone who thinks passing laws will make criminals more likely to obey them is >living on another Planet. Or in this case, another country. And anyone who thinks that having a different opinion means they "can't comprehend an issue" - is, unfortunately, a typical arrogant American. Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot...If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #56 April 24, 2013 Quote Easy, it's called "proof by induction". Standard mathematical method. You frequently stub your toes trying to use simple math to work in social science, Kallend. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #57 April 24, 2013 Quote And anyone who thinks that having a different opinion means they "can't comprehend an issue" - is, unfortunately, a typical arrogant American. no more arrogant than outsiders (I can think of a German poster in particular) presuming to know better than we do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #58 April 24, 2013 Quote Think of it this way, your girl leaves you, you get drunk on whisky then think about ending it all. If you have a solution right there it is a lot easier to take an action on one sudden low than to have to plan ahead. This may be a bogus argument but it makes some sense to me. If you wake up then next day then the thoughts may have eased if you didn't have a way to take action straight away. of course some people will still find a way but a gun sure makes it easier. Any prospective gun buyer should consider this before making their purchase. It does represent one of the more effective means to kill yourself. If you have a history of depression, or are actively taking medication to control this, maybe it's not a good idea for you. Or maybe you might consider just not having ammunition in the home. Buy it when you practice at the range, and if later you feel a need to have it ready for self defense use, then get it. OTOH, if you're buying it intentionally for purpose of suicide - say you're terminally ill, then hey, it's your right to self determination. But prepare your family ahead of time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,129 #59 April 24, 2013 QuoteQuote>Anyone who thinks passing laws will make criminals more likely to obey them is >living on another Planet. Or in this case, another country. And anyone who thinks that having a different opinion means they "can't comprehend an issue" - is, unfortunately, a typical arrogant American. If you think passing more laws that criminals will just ignore will have any effect on gun related crime,, then you clearly don't understand the issue or you have very little experience understanding how criminals think. Has nothing to do with being arrogant. Has to do with just plain being wrong or naive. Take your choice. I don't think passing more laws is going to do anything. However, I do think that the easy availability of firearms is partly to blame for gun crime and (accidental) gun deaths. Firearms have become a big part of American culture and with it firearm use has become a relatively big part of American culture. With that comes positive and negative impact. For Americans it is hard to imagine that many outside of the US think it is odd to feel a need to walk around with a firearm. For many Americans it is hard to imagine that anybody would find the above odd. The US consitution has laid the groundwork for this culture. Yes it has granted a lot of protection on intrusions on free speech, unwarrented searches etc. However, it has also created a gun culture. A culture with inherent positives and negatives. Personally I believe that Canada's version of gun laws is a better option, however have no illusion that the US will ever get to that, or that there even is interest to get to that. (Though the gun registry was a horrible idea and implementation) It is unfortunate that the subject has denigrated into something that cannot be discussed. There might very well be very successful compromises to be made, which could reduce the prevalence and severity of gun crime. However, it would need all sides to compromise, soemthing that is just very unlikely in the current politcal climate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #60 April 24, 2013 QuoteQuote Easy, it's called "proof by induction". Standard mathematical method. You frequently stub your toes trying to use simple math to work in social science, Kallend. So you can't make a logical argument that I'm wrong, then.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #61 April 24, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuote>Anyone who thinks passing laws will make criminals more likely to obey them is >living on another Planet. Or in this case, another country. And anyone who thinks that having a different opinion means they "can't comprehend an issue" - is, unfortunately, a typical arrogant American. If you think passing more laws that criminals will just ignore will have any effect on gun related crime,, then you clearly don't understand the issue or you have very little experience understanding how criminals think. Has nothing to do with being arrogant. Has to do with just plain being wrong or naive. Take your choice. I don't think passing more laws is going to do anything. We need BETTER, more effective laws, not more laws.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #62 April 24, 2013 Quote We need BETTER, more effective laws, not more laws. We need better, more effective physics, not more physics. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #63 April 24, 2013 Quote Quote We need BETTER, more effective laws, not more laws. We need better, more effective physics, not more physics. Shouldn't you declare a conflict of interest, Counselor?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #64 April 24, 2013 Quote Quote Quote We need BETTER, more effective laws, not more laws. We need better, more effective physics, not more physics. Shouldn't you declare a conflict of interest, Counselor? I'm always conflicted. But I'm always interested. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skypuppy 1 #65 April 24, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>Anyone who thinks passing laws will make criminals more likely to obey them is >living on another Planet. Or in this case, another country. And anyone who thinks that having a different opinion means they "can't comprehend an issue" - is, unfortunately, a typical arrogant American. If you think passing more laws that criminals will just ignore will have any effect on gun related crime,, then you clearly don't understand the issue or you have very little experience understanding how criminals think. Has nothing to do with being arrogant. Has to do with just plain being wrong or naive. Take your choice. I don't think passing more laws is going to do anything. We need BETTER, more effective laws, not more laws. And one just defeated in the senate was certainly not it...If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skypuppy 1 #66 April 24, 2013 QuoteQuoteStricter gun laws will not prevent the crime - the perpetrators will still only be caught after they break them, and then punishedJust as changes in liquor laws have no effect on liquor consumption. And we do prosecute kids who try to get liquor to the max -- the prisons are filled with them, aren't they? Wendy P. last time I checked, though, drinking, at any age, was not a right protected under the constitution...If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #67 April 24, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteStricter gun laws will not prevent the crime - the perpetrators will still only be caught after they break them, and then punishedJust as changes in liquor laws have no effect on liquor consumption. And we do prosecute kids who try to get liquor to the max -- the prisons are filled with them, aren't they? Wendy P. last time I checked, though, drinking, at any age, was not a right protected under the constitution... That one's in the Declaration of Independence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #68 April 24, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteStricter gun laws will not prevent the crime - the perpetrators will still only be caught after they break them, and then punishedJust as changes in liquor laws have no effect on liquor consumption. And we do prosecute kids who try to get liquor to the max -- the prisons are filled with them, aren't they? Wendy P. last time I checked, though, drinking, at any age, was not a right protected under the constitution... Amazing how many Americans seem to be under the mistaken impression that the only rights they have are the ones enumerated in the Constitution (as amended).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #69 April 24, 2013 Quote>>>>>Anyone who thinks passing laws will make criminals more likely to obey them is living on another Planet. >>>>OK, so no laws are necessary because criminals ignore them anyway. >>>>How you extrapolate that from what he said is a mystery. >>>Easy, it's called "proof by induction". Standard mathematical method. >>You frequently stub your toes trying to use simple math to work in social science, Kallend. >So you can't make a logical argument that I'm wrong, then. He said passing laws won't make criminals (people who break or have broken laws) more likely to obey them. He didn't say nothing will make people obey passed laws. So... induce yourself up something else. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #70 April 25, 2013 Quote Quote >>>>>Anyone who thinks passing laws will make criminals more likely to obey them is living on another Planet. >>>>OK, so no laws are necessary because criminals ignore them anyway. >>>>How you extrapolate that from what he said is a mystery. >>>Easy, it's called "proof by induction". Standard mathematical method. >>You frequently stub your toes trying to use simple math to work in social science, Kallend. >So you can't make a logical argument that I'm wrong, then. He said passing laws won't make criminals (people who break or have broken laws) more likely to obey them. He didn't say nothing will make people obey passed laws. So... induce yourself up something else. Just apply some recursion... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #71 April 25, 2013 Quote Amazing how many Americans seem to be under the mistaken impression that the only rights they have are the ones enumerated in the Constitution (as amended). are you sure you want to go down that road? Because you're exactly correct. As an example, gun rights were confirmed, not granted by the Bill of Rights. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #72 April 25, 2013 Quote Quote Quote >>>>>Anyone who thinks passing laws will make criminals more likely to obey them is living on another Planet. >>>>OK, so no laws are necessary because criminals ignore them anyway. >>>>How you extrapolate that from what he said is a mystery. >>>Easy, it's called "proof by induction". Standard mathematical method. >>You frequently stub your toes trying to use simple math to work in social science, Kallend. >So you can't make a logical argument that I'm wrong, then. He said passing laws won't make criminals (people who break or have broken laws) more likely to obey them. He didn't say nothing will make people obey passed laws. So... induce yourself up something else. Just apply some recursion void stupid_argument() stupid_argument(); Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #73 April 25, 2013 QuoteQuote Amazing how many Americans seem to be under the mistaken impression that the only rights they have are the ones enumerated in the Constitution (as amended). are you sure you want to go down that road? Because you're exactly correct. As an example, gun rights were confirmed, not granted by the Bill of Rights. Perfectly happy, thank you. Sure YOU want to go down it?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stumpy 256 #74 April 25, 2013 QuoteAnyone who thinks passing laws will make criminals more likely to obey them is living on another Planet. Or in this case, another country. Right about the country, wrong (yet AGAIN) about my point. This is about making it harder for those who shouldn't have guns to buy them. It doesn't affect "Law abiding" gun owners any more than buying from a store does now. At the moment, there is no real point having background checks AT ALL because those they would catch will just go private. Making it that little bit harder for those that shouldn't have guns is what more than 90% of the country understand is a good thing. Its a shame that its too difficult for the remaining <10% to understand.Never try to eat more than you can lift Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #75 April 25, 2013 QuoteAs an example, gun rights were confirmed, not granted by the Bill of Rights. Nonsense. Utter nonsense.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
