[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Funny, you always struck me as the sort of chap who would appreciate grammar school-style punishments. Perhaps I don't entirely follow what you mean in this case.

Funny, because you strike me as the type who can't think for himself and will let the gov't do it for him.

Lazy grammar school punishment: "Since Jermaine and Tito were bad during recess, none of you are going on the field trip. Let that be a lesson to you all." Yeah, that always works so well. But you already knew what I was talking about, right?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Show me where you get your information from.

Why aren't you the least bit concerned where WAS got his information? He's the one who lodged the complaint or is it just more believable to the xenophobe that the US would mistreat women?

While rape and sexual assault are, for a wealth of reasons very difficult to ascertain; the UN authored a study indicating the following;
Rape at the national level, number of police-recorded offenses per 100,000 population

• United Kingdom (England and Wales); 28.8
• United Kingdom (Northern Ireland); 27.7
• United States; 27.3

While that does not show "double" the rate, the British Crime Survey in 2010/2011 (England/Wales) indicates approximately 80,000 rapes per year of a population of 56 million (which for 2013 went up another 5,000) which would suggest an approximate rate of 142/100,000. In the US, the National Crime Victimization Survey indicates that approximately 188,000 rapes of total population exceeding 308 million which comes out to approximately 61/100,000.

Do you have some data to explain why folks in the UK have so much poorer an attitude toward women than in the US or why the good people of France hate women at least twice as much as they do in Germany?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Funny, because you strike me as the type who can't think for himself and will let the gov't do it for him.

I sense you have taken some offence to my assumption. I meant you struck me as something of a disciplinarian.

I can think for myself. Its because I have the capacity to think beyond myself that our opinions differ. Not everyone can think for themselves and those of us who can need to legislate for those who can't. Like the way you steer clear of drivers who are driving erratically or dangerously because you don't want them to hit your car.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Lazy grammar school punishment: "Since Jermaine and Tito were bad during recess, none of you are going on the field trip. Let that be a lesson to you all." Yeah, that always works so well. But you already knew what I was talking about, right?

Yes, I suppose that is lazy but its also effective. Often where other punishments aren't. Its also highly efficient, but sometimes there is a fine line between efficiency and laziness.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Why aren't you the least bit concerned where WAS got his information? He's the one who lodged the complaint or is it just more believable to the xenophobe that the US would mistreat women?

I wanted to know if this "double" quote was reality. Since you were the one that brought up double the number of rapes, then I wanted to know where you got your information. If WAS said the same thing, I missed it.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

While rape and sexual assault are, for a wealth of reasons very difficult to assertain; the UN authored a study indicating the following;
Rape at the national level, number of police-recorded offenses per 100,000 population

• United Kingdom (England and Wales); 28.8
• United Kingdom (Northern Ireland); 27.7
• United States; 27.3

While that does not show "double" the rate, the British Crime Survey in 2010/2011 (England/Wales) indicates approximately 80,000 rapes per year of a population of 56 million (which for 2013 went up another 5,000) which would suggest an approximate rate of 142/100,000. In the US, the National Crime Victimization Survey indicates that approximately 188,000 rapes of total population exceeding 308 million which comes out to approximately 61/100,000.

Do you have some data to explain why folks in the UK have so much poorer an attitude toward women than in the US or why the good people of France hate women at least twice as much as they do in Germany?

I don't have any data to explain "why folks in the UK have so much poorer an attitude toward women than in the US or why the good people of France hate women at least twice as much as they do in Germany". What does this have to do with gun control in the US? How does this help the 2 year old that was shot dead by a 5 year with his rifle that he got as a gift?

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Funny, because you strike me as the type who can't think for himself and will let the gov't do it for him.

Lazy grammar school punishment: "Since Jermaine and Tito were bad during recess, none of you are going on the field trip. Let that be a lesson to you all." Yeah, that always works so well. But you already knew what I was talking about, right?

Speed limits and smoking bans, but they don't apply to you.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Not everyone can think for themselves and those of us who can need to legislate for those who can't.

Jesus dude, where have we heard that before? Oh yeah, every tyranny that has ever existed.

The foundation of a strong society is that everyone does think for themselves. What you're suggesting is a highly documented and very repeatable path towards tyranny, suffering and inequality.

The 2nd amendment ensures that you will never forcefully "know better than me" and I thank our founding fathers for putting it just behind freedom of speech.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Speed limits and smoking bans, but they don't apply to you.

Correct, because I'm capable of using common sense to determine when/where they're appropriate.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

I don't have any data to explain "why folks in the UK have so much poorer an attitude toward women than in the US or why the good people of France hate women at least twice as much as they do in Germany". What does this have to do with gun control in the US? How does this help the 2 year old that was shot dead by a 5 year with his rifle that he got as a gift?

Evasion and appeal to emotion, you need to run for office.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I sense you have taken some offence to my assumption. I meant you struck me as something of a disciplinarian.

Then you were wrong. I believe in very few rules, but when one of those few are broken the punishments are dire.

I can think for myself. Its because I have the capacity to think beyond myself that our opinions differ. Not everyone can think for themselves and those of us who can need to legislate for those who can't. Like the way you steer clear of drivers who are driving erratically or dangerously because you don't want them to hit your car.

Petty laws are in place to keep the masses in an organized herd, but that breaks down when they're confined to tightly. The ensuing stampedes are a part of historical record, and usually quite spectacular.

Yes, I suppose that is lazy but its also effective. Often where other punishments aren't. Its also highly efficient, but sometimes there is a fine line between efficiency and laziness.

No, it isn't "highly effective", it's stifling of individuality and destructive to proper development.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

I don't have any data to explain "why folks in the UK have so much poorer an attitude toward women than in the US or why the good people of France hate women at least twice as much as they do in Germany". What does this have to do with gun control in the US? How does this help the 2 year old that was shot dead by a 5 year with his rifle that he got as a gift?

So... why did you ask? You must've been satisfied that I had actually underestimated the UK rape rate. Otherwise, your question to me had absolutely nothing to do with the Walton County Mom who protected herself and her twin, 9 year old daughters from an attacker inside their home using her .38.

i.e. Your attempt to moderate this thread failed.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

It seems that figures for any kind of sexual assault or rape are wildly variable and completely unreliable so on that basis, I withdraw my previous opinion that America has less respect for women than Britain does. I now suspect there is very little difference, but all of us should be utterly ashamed of the prevailing treatment of women in both our countries. And most of the rest of the world.

Interpreted as: I'm going to back slowly away from the conversation because of course by my own logic, Britain actually has a much poorer attitude toward women.

Got it.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Jesus dude, where have we heard that before? Oh yeah, every tyranny that has ever existed.

The foundation of a strong society is that everyone does think for themselves. What you're suggesting is a highly documented and very repeatable path towards tyranny, suffering and inequality.

The 2nd amendment ensures that you will never forcefully "know better than me" and I thank our founding fathers for putting it just behind freedom of speech.

That strong society would be called a utopia.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

So... why did you ask?

I asked because it wasn't a statistic that I'd ever seen before. And no, I didn't believe it.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You must've been satisfied that I had actually underestimated the UK rape rate. Otherwise, your question to me had absolutely nothing to do with the Walton County Mom who protected herself and her twin, 9 year old daughters from an attacker inside their home using her .38.

i.e. Your attempt to moderate this thread failed.

Underestimated is one word that you could use. I prefer to think that you were trying to divert the discussion towards an area that could help your case regarding gun control. Yet again, as so many that feel the same as you do, you failed.

Please don't try and start other arguments to divert us from the topic, it shows your weakness regarding the subject matter and doesn't help intelligent discussion.

Could the Walton county mom have done the same with a couple of bulldogs? More than likely.

And you fail again in assuming that I want to moderate this thread.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Evasion and appeal to emotion, you need to run for office.

Hardly evasion, this has everything to do with why I think guns need to be controlled. Obviously you feel that the price is too high. Emotion, of course. Think of this happening to your child. Why do we have drunk driving laws? Did emotion not come into it?

You are insulting the messenger, and losing the argument through personal attacks.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

I asked because it wasn't a statistic that I'd ever seen before. And no, I didn't believe it.

Exactly. Xenophobia. It was easy to accept accusations of American barbarism, but framing the UK in the same light was somehow unthinkable. Well... now you know.

Underestimated is one word that you could use. I prefer to think that you were trying to divert the discussion towards an area that could help your case regarding gun control. Yet again, as so many that feel the same as you do, you failed.

I was not the one who diverted the conversation toward "poor attitudes toward women" or make sweeping generalizations regarding a country or culture I apparently know absolutely nothing about.

Please don't try and start other arguments to divert us from the topic, it shows your weakness regarding the subject matter and doesn't help intelligent discussion.

*Hint: It won't be nearly as embarrassing for you if you'd represent those that feel the same as you, a little more effectively. Right now, the opposition looks like a bunch of helplessly naive ninnies living in gated communities who haven't a clue about guns or ever faced anything more horrific than a Poli-sci exam. I'm trying to help you, mattyb. For example, we shouldn't be talking about my weakness here until you've demonstrated an ability to reconcile your own reasoning on the matter. For every horrific gun violence emotional plea, there is a triumphant story of gun ownership. If that's all you have, that's all you'll see from me in response. I will continue to frame this issue exactly as you and others would like and it will continue to pop eggs in your face. It's frustrating I know, but it has nothing to do with my weakness for intelligent discussion as I've been called many things by many people; lacking intelligent discussion has never been one of the complaints.

Could the Walton county mom have done the same with a couple of bulldogs? More than likely.

Your answer for protecting a mother and her two children are a couple of bulldogs? Why should a family have to raise a pack of attack dogs for protection? No. I'd say in the scenario I gave you, the gun was the most effective deterrent. Maybe a sticker on the door touting proud gun ownership would help, but only so long as it's actually legal to own one. Otherwise, the gun did exactly what it was intended to do, protect its owner and family.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Then you were wrong. I believe in very few rules, but when one of those few are broken the punishments are dire.

That isn't the impression you give when talking about the things you will and won't allow your daughter to do.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

No, it isn't "highly effective", it's stifling of individuality and destructive to proper development.

I don't see how it has anything to do with individuality or development. You break a rule, you get punished. If writing lines or detention doesn't do the trick, getting you into shit with your peers might.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Interpreted as: I'm going to back slowly away from the conversation because of course by my own logic, Britain actually has a much poorer attitude toward women.

Got it.

More like 'the figures for this are completely unreliable and subject to all sorts (mis)interpretation and since I based my statement on what I previous thought was a well established and unusually high statistic, I withdraw my assertion.

I still don't think we have a poorer attitude to women than you do, but I won't say the opposite either anymore. Go ahead and berate me for admitting I was wrong though, it'll make me so much more likely to do it again in future.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Not everyone can think for themselves and those of us who can need to legislate for those who can't.

So true. That's why those of us men who understand the long-term emotional harm that abortion does to (some) women should be able to tell all women that they can't do that.

Holy cow! That pretty much sums up the mindset we're dealing with here.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Could the Walton county mom have done the same with a couple of bulldogs? More than likely.

Right. And those bulldogs (plural) could have, over the course of their lives (plural), mauled small children (plural). Which would then prompt the cry of "why" once again.

The logic of The Left continues to astound me, each and every day. Is there a whole in a mountain somewhere that spews forth these folks?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Hardly evasion, this has everything to do with why I think guns need to be controlled. Obviously you feel that the price is too high. Emotion, of course. Think of this happening to your child. Why do we have drunk driving laws? Did emotion not come into it?

You are insulting the messenger, and losing the argument through personal attacks.

You were the one asking the questions?!? Attacks?? Now you're just spinning in circles, man.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

That isn't the impression you give when talking about the things you will and won't allow your daughter to do.

Cite examples. I pointedly stated that I make recommendations, hoping they'll not make big mistakes, I do that with my nephew already. But I DO NOT EVER TELL ANYONE "you can't do that". You completely have your wires crossed there, fella.

I don't see how it has anything to do with individuality or development. You break a rule, you get punished. If writing lines or detention doesn't do the trick, getting you into shit with your peers might.

That's the main problem. If you don't see how breaking boundaries and painting outside the lines doesn't "bring about individual and social development", then we have fundamentally different views in what being human even means. Laws don't define us as a society or a species, our ability to grow and change our environment does. I have my code of conduct, which I do not break, and usually I get along just fine with everyone else. But at times I break social rules, occasionally in a spectacular fashion, because pushing the envelope is the way you grow as a person and, at times, elevate humanity as a whole.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by finboy 

So true. That's why those of us men who understand the long-term emotional harm that abortion does to (some) women should be able to tell all women that they can't do that.

That's a good point. Should we then ban abortion because a relative few number of women can't handle the emotional strain and try to kill themselves? Or, do we allow for some mishaps to occur (like a nutter getting hold of an AR-15), because as a whole, individual freedom and choice is more important?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

That's a good point. Should we then ban abortion because a relative few number of women can't handle the emotional strain and try to kill themselves? Or, do we allow for some mishaps to occur (like a nutter getting hold of an AR-15), because as a whole, individual freedom and choice is more important?

It's only more important when you choose the preferred ideology.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Cite examples. I pointedly stated that I make recommendations, hoping they'll not make big mistakes, I do that with my nephew already. But I DO NOT EVER TELL ANYONE "you can't do that". You completely have your wires crossed there, fella.

This is getting needlessly out of hand.
I just vaguely remember you saying things like "my daughter will NOT be doing such and such" and a few "shoot the boyfriend" type remarks that made me think you were going to be quite a strict parent. Therefore disciplinarian. Wasn't suggesting you'd give anyone outside your household 'orders'. Its easy to get the wrong impression about people when you only have text to go on I guess. Not that there would be anything wrong with being a strict parent.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

That's the main problem. If you don't see how breaking boundaries and painting outside the lines doesn't "bring about individual and social development", then we have fundamentally different views in what being human even means. Laws don't define us as a society or a species, our ability to grow and change our environment does. I have my code of conduct, which I do not break, and usually I get along just fine with everyone else. But at times I break social rules, occasionally in a spectacular fashion, because pushing the envelope is the way you grow as a person and, at times, elevate humanity as a whole.

I guess our experiences of these types of punishments must vary a lot. I mainly saw them used on kids for whom breaking the rules was the norm. You could argue that forcing them to toe the line from time to time was like forcing them to break their own rules. As ever the ideal falls somewhere between the extremes. Kids need some boundaries, its natural that people will have differing ideas of where those boundaries should lie.

Its good for the 'square' to blow off steam and break a rule now and then, the kid who does it day in and day out is likely to live out their life poor or in jail so actually finding a way to control them is as good for them as it is for those around them.

[subego]

You shouldn't break rules for the sake of breaking rules, but otherwise, breaking rules is the only way shit gets done™.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

This is getting needlessly out of hand.
I just vaguely remember you saying things like "my daughter will NOT be doing such and such" and a few "shoot the boyfriend" type remarks that made me think you were going to be quite a strict parent. Therefore disciplinarian. Wasn't suggesting you'd give anyone outside your household 'orders'. Its easy to get the wrong impression about people when you only have text to go on I guess. Not that there would be anything wrong with being a strict parent.

Horse****. I've expressed my views on sexuality, and even commented about wanting my daughter to have a healthy sex life, safely. With boys, girls, or both, doesn't matter. I specifically said that I don't tell people what they can or can't do, it's their life. If they want advice, I'll give it, and I'll let those I love know if I feel that something is probably a bad idea, but they must make their own choices. Otherwise, they aren't living. We only have one "Rule" in our household, and it's Golden.

I guess our experiences of these types of punishments must vary a lot. I mainly saw them used on kids for whom breaking the rules was the norm. You could argue that forcing them to toe the line from time to time was like forcing them to break their own rules. As ever the ideal falls somewhere between the extremes. Kids need some boundaries, its natural that people will have differing ideas of where those boundaries should lie.

Its good for the 'square' to blow off steam and break a rule now and then, the kid who does it day in and day out is likely to live out their life poor or in jail so actually finding a way to control them is as good for them as it is for those around them.

You're too conservative, and starting to sound like Limbaugh.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

You shouldn't break rules for the sake of breaking rules, but otherwise, breaking rules is the only way shit gets done™.

Yep. Otherwise, it's just meaningless chaos.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

You're too conservative

You're the first american to ever call me that!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

More like 'the figures for this are completely unreliable and subject to all sorts (mis)interpretation and since I based my statement on what I previous thought was a well established and unusually high statistic, I withdraw my assertion.

What on earth about rape statistics struck you as ultimately reliable to begin with? What happened here was that you were called for bs and while setting out to defend yourself found that by all available metrics on the matter, the UK has the greater problem here.

I still don't think we have a poorer attitude to women than you do, but I won't say the opposite either anymore. Go ahead and berate me for admitting I was wrong though, it'll make me so much more likely to do it again in future.

Berating you? Egadz. If you had admitted you were wrong, I'd have let up. You blame-shifted to the metric and withdrew an argument. This is just silliness. My contribution to this forum will have nothing whatsoever to do with the xenophobic bs espoused here, but I'll certainly continue to call it out when I see it. If that motivates you to post and retract more bs, so be it. That's not going to make me look stupid.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Exactly. Xenophobia. It was easy to accept accusations of American barbarism, but framing the UK in the same light was somehow unthinkable. Well... now you know.

I can only laugh. You aren't following what I'm posting. You are mixing up what is being said by different posters. try and follow.

If you would have said France or Germany instead of the UK, then I would also not believe you. If you would have said South Africa, then I would have believed you. Maybe that is xenophobic, or maybe it's just having read of how some South African politicians say you should deal with AIDS.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I was not the one who diverted the conversation toward "poor attitudes toward women" or make sweeping generalizations regarding a country or culture I apparently know absolutely nothing about.

Where did I start about a poor attitude towards women? Once again, you are mixing up who is posting. I only replied to some rape figures that you thought up.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

*Hint: It won't be nearly as embarrassing for you if you'd represent those that feel the same as you, a little more effectively. Right now, the opposition looks like a bunch of helplessly naive ninnies living in gated communities who haven't a clue about guns or ever faced anything more horrific than a Poli-sci exam. I'm trying to help you, mattyb. For example, we shouldn't be talking about my weakness here until you've demonstrated an ability to reconcile your own reasoning on the matter. For every horrific gun violence emotional plea, there is a triumphant story of gun ownership. If that's all you have, that's all you'll see from me in response. I will continue to frame this issue exactly as you and others would like and it will continue to pop eggs in your face. It's frustrating I know, but it has nothing to do with my weakness for intelligent discussion as I've been called many things by many people; lacking intelligent discussion has never been one of the complaints.

Oh dear. ebuddy, thankyou, but I don't need your help. For anything. And I represent no-one but myself. I just happen to have the same views as quite a few of your fellow citizens as well as many other people around the world. That probably doesn't matter to you but there it is. I can show you statistics from places like the UK which have banned guns and you will show me D.C. statistics that show a high murder rate. You'll probably neglect to talk about (for example) Louisiana which has a high rate yet has very lax gun laws. You'll show me stories of people defending themselves and I'll show you elementary school deaths, kids of 5 shooting their 2 year old sisters and nothing will change your mind. I find it shameful that a nation that produces so many Nobel prize winners is also suffering 30 firearm homicides per day (CDC info), but then I guess that's a price that you are willing to pay.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Your answer for protecting a mother and her two children are a couple of bulldogs? Why should a family have to raise a pack of attack dogs for protection? No. I'd say in the scenario I gave you, the gun was the most effective deterrent. Maybe a sticker on the door touting proud gun ownership would help, but only so long as it's actually legal to own one. Otherwise, the gun did exactly what it was intended to do, protect its owner and family.

Bulldog <> attack dog. Notice that I didn't say pitbull. Even a largish mongrel may have had the same outcome. Maybe a more effective deterrent would have been more police on the streets, but that's another argument.

And please take note. I've written it before but you don't seem to have taken it into account. I have a US passport. I've lived there (Florida, Oklahoma and Delaware), I've had the misfortune of having guns pointed at me (from both sides of the law), but I have also enjoyed shooting : pistols, rifles and shotguns. At one time I "drank the John Lott Kool-Aid" but his theory has not proven to be true, hence my present position.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Berating you? Egadz. If you had admitted you were wrong, I'd have let up. You blame-shifted to the metric and withdrew an argument.

How is withdrawing my argument any different to admitting I was wrong to say it in the first place? Still you continue to complain that you actually won an argument.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

How is withdrawing my argument any different to admitting I was wrong to say it in the first place? Still you continue to complain that you actually won an argument.

He seems to have difficulty following threads with lots of words.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

He seems to have difficulty following threads with lots of words.

More like having issues following your two-step.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

I can only laugh. You aren't following what I'm posting. You are mixing up what is being said by different posters. try and follow.

No, I took issue with you for addressing me on the credibility of my claims without questioning the one who was pulling them out of his ass regarding the US to begin with.

If you would have said France or Germany instead of the UK, then I would also not believe you. If you would have said South Africa, then I would have believed you. Maybe that is xenophobic, or maybe it's just having read of how some South African politicians say you should deal with AIDS.

Well... I didn't. Is this where I claim the thread is apparently too wordy for you to follow or that you're confusing me with someone else?

Where did I start about a poor attitude towards women? Once again, you are mixing up who is posting. I only replied to some rape figures that you thought up.

I didn't think them up, I recalled them from discussions with xenophobes gone by and then substantiated the claim with the requested sources.

Oh dear. ebuddy, thankyou, but I don't need your help. For anything. And I represent no-one but myself. I just happen to have the same views as quite a few of your fellow citizens as well as many other people around the world. That probably doesn't matter to you but there it is. I can show you statistics from places like the UK which have banned guns and you will show me D.C. statistics that show a high murder rate. You'll probably neglect to talk about (for example) Louisiana which has a high rate yet has very lax gun laws. You'll show me stories of people defending themselves and I'll show you elementary school deaths, kids of 5 shooting their 2 year old sisters and nothing will change your mind. I find it shameful that a nation that produces so many Nobel prize winners is also suffering 30 firearm homicides per day (CDC info), but then I guess that's a price that you are willing to pay.

I won't deny that there is a price for freedom, but I can also acknowledge there's a price for abandoning them. You will cite the cost of owning guns and I will cite the cost of not owning them. I always find it ironic whenever those who've demonstrated the least qualified to indict others of lacking intellect are the first with the indictments.

Bulldog <> attack dog. Notice that I didn't say pitbull. Even a largish mongrel may have had the same outcome. Maybe a more effective deterrent would have been more police on the streets, but that's another argument.

Maybe, but then in the scenario I presented, the gun was the effective deterrent. You can throw out maybes and what-ifs until you're blue in the face. The simple fact of the matter is that guns save lives. When you're in trouble, you call people who have them. That's how you do it. That's why they're armed. It's effective. If you're going to train a couple of dogs to be an effective deterrent against an attack, they're going to be attack dogs regardless if they're pit bulls, German Shepherds, bull dogs, or Shar Peis. It's how you socialize the animal. If you want a nice family dog that may as likely wag its tail at an attacker... well then there you have it.

And please take note. I've written it before but you don't seem to have taken it into account. I have a US passport. I've lived there (Florida, Oklahoma and Delaware), I've had the misfortune of having guns pointed at me (from both sides of the law), but I have also enjoyed shooting : pistols, rifles and shotguns. At one time I "drank the John Lott Kool-Aid" but his theory has not proven to be true, hence my present position.

You'll have to forgive me for not committing your personal profile to memory from threads I may or may not have read. I'm judging the nonsense espoused here on its face. For all I know, you've shot yourself in the foot trying to holster a gun and have decided that everyone is this moronic. Otherwise, you can spend a short amount of time anywhere and still make sweeping misjudgments about the people and culture of that region. Again, I'm judging the nonsense espoused here on its face.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

How is withdrawing my argument any different to admitting I was wrong to say it in the first place? Still you continue to complain that you actually won an argument.

I'm not here to win arguments. I'm here to expose the bullshit of those who would decry ignorance while displaying it, intolerance while employing it, and closed-mindedness while offering their own myopic world views. In essence, you all win the arguments for me.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No, I took issue with you for addressing me on the credibility of my claims without questioning the one who was pulling them out of his ass regarding the US to begin with.

Your claims were never credible.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Well... I didn't. Is this where I claim the thread is apparently too wordy for you to follow or that you're confusing me with someone else?

I'm not confusing you with someone else. I know how to read.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I didn't think them up, I recalled them from discussions with xenophobes gone by and then substantiated the claim with the requested sources.

Double the rapes per head of population in the UK as the US? You didn't even think that this information that you "recalled in discussions with xenophobes" might not be correct before posting it? And then you found that it wasn't correct and yet you still "substantiate the claim"?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I won't deny that there is a price for freedom, but I can also acknowledge there's a price for abandoning them. You will cite the cost of owning guns and I will cite the cost of not owning them. I always find it ironic whenever those who've demonstrated the least qualified to indict others of lacking intellect are the first with the indictments.

You have not cited the cost of not owning them, only a few stories of criminals being scared off. There is the drop in firearm related murders as in other countries that have banned weapons. Why can you not see this?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You'll have to forgive me for not committing your personal profile to memory from threads I may or may not have read. I'm judging the nonsense espoused here on its face. For all I know, you've shot yourself in the foot trying to holster a gun and have decided that everyone is this moronic. Otherwise, you can spend a short amount of time anywhere and still make sweeping misjudgments about the people and culture of that region. Again, I'm judging the nonsense espoused here on its face.

It was in this thread, and you're not forgiven. Even though I haven't in fact shot myself in the foot, I can clearly see that there are others who are morons. Thankfully my views are also shared with people who have lived and continue to live in the US. Some of them have posted in this thread.

You win ebuddy, I admit defeat. I cannot persuade you that there is a real gain to be had from banning firearms. Carry on.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Your claims were never credible.

I'm going to save ebuddy the trouble.

Yawn....

I'm not confusing you with someone else. I know how to read.

Yawn....

Double the rapes per head of population in the UK as the US? You didn't even think that this information that you "recalled in discussions with xenophobes" might not be correct before posting it? And then you found that it wasn't correct and yet you still "substantiate the claim"?

He cited the claim. Did you miss that or should i quote it for you?

You have not cited the cost of not owning them, only a few stories of criminals being scared off. There is the drop in firearm related murders as in other countries that have banned weapons. Why can you not see this?

The onus of changing the status is on you to show that the benefits of stripping a constitutional right from the people of this country far outweigh the detriments. So far, you haven't said much of anything beyond "because I think so."

It was in this thread, and you're not forgiven. Even though I haven't in fact shot myself in the foot, I can clearly see that there are others who are morons. Thankfully my views are also shared with people who have lived and continue to live in the US. Some of them have posted in this thread.

Yet sweeping Gun Control measures continue to be wildly unpopular among elected officials and citizens alike. I'm glad you're expressing your views but a little appalled at the manner in which you choose to do so. From my viewpoint, you're struggling to put together a cohesive argument to counter ebuddy and have turned defensive and combative as a result.

You win ebuddy, I admit defeat. I cannot persuade you that there is a real gain to be had from banning firearms. Carry on.

When presented with a well-thought and cohesive argument, take the ball and go home.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You will cite the cost of owning guns and I will cite the cost of not owning them. I always find it ironic whenever those who've demonstrated the least qualified to indict others of lacking intellect are the first with the indictments.

It's more insidious than this, folks. The "let's ban their guns" crowd are a bunch of free-riders. They are safer at night in THEIR homes because I own and train with and bear the risk of guns and I keep one in MY home.

Why are so many gun crimes committed in "gun free" zones?

I wish people could have a clearer understanding of this issue. There are costs and benefits to everything, and the first step to coming up with policy is to have a clear understanding of costs and benefits. In this case the policy was set down in the 2nd Amendment, fortunately, and interpreted by federal courts along the way, unfortunately.

[mattyb]

Snow-i, I understand, you're tired. I'll try to make it simple for you.

Do some of the figures on this page not make you think that those other developed countries might be doing something right?

[Shaddim]

Because France and the UK have gotten rid of their guns, and they're the same as the USA. Right?

Oh, hell no. You like the way things are setup for you, and that's nice, but we have no desire to be like you.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Snow-i, I understand, you're tired. I'll try to make it simple for you.

Do some of the figures on this page not make you think that those other developed countries might be doing something right?

Yes, maybe for them. But for us here in the US, who collectively own the world's most advanced economy and military, we have a society that we have a responsibility to maintain as a free people. There are those that would like to see you give up your rights for some enlightened dream that inevitably, for every society that has ever existed, has caused nothing but tyranny and suffering for 98% of the people of that country. "Because all people are inherently good!" The reality is that those who seek to consolidate power and wealth would do harm to you and I given a true opportunity. They will justify it as "for the betterment of the people" while stealing your wages to line their own pockets, all while reducing your ability to resist.

How does this protect me against those who would legally or illegally obtain a gun where (even by current law) the police have no obligation to respond? An armed populace is the only check against a consolidated government that seeks to enslave the people to meet their own ends.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Oh, hell no. You like the way things are setup for you, and that's nice, but we have no desire to be like you.

Except the part where 7 year-old kids can go to school without being shot at?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Because France and the UK have gotten rid of their guns, and they're the same as the USA. Right?

Oh, hell no. You like the way things are setup for you, and that's nice, but we have no desire to be like you.

Good point and no, they're not the same. For example;
OECD Better Life Index

• In the United States, 1.5% of people reported falling victim to assault over the previous 12 months, lower than the OECD average of 4.0%. In France, 4.9% of people reported falling victim to assault over the previous 12 months, higher than the OECD average of 4.0%.
• In the United States, 77% of people feel safe walking alone at night, higher than the OECD average of 67%. In France, 65% of people feel safe walking alone at night, slightly lower than the OECD average of 67%.

Freedom comes at a cost, but less freedoms also come at a cost and it seems to perpetuate even less freedom. There are a wealth of factors in population densities in the US and the sheer number of them as well as comparing many of the other homogeneous regions of the globe with the less homogeneous.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Except the part where 7 year-old kids can go to school without being shot at?

7 year olds can go to school without being shot at in the US. Otherwise, kids wouldn't be able to go to a camp in the Netherlands without being shot at or walk the streets of Cumbria without certain doom, hang out in Hungerford and Monkseaton, or dance in Dunblane; all major scenes of gun crime that do not dictate a norm or just cause for living in constant fear.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Except the part where 7 year-old kids can go to school without being shot at?

Crimes against seven year old kids consist primarily of being abducted - by their own family members! Next! Stop bringing up fallacious arguments; you wouldn't look so uninformed.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Good point and no, they're not the same. For example;
OECD Better Life Index

• In the United States, 1.5% of people reported falling victim to assault over the previous 12 months, lower than the OECD average of 4.0%. In France, 4.9% of people reported falling victim to assault over the previous 12 months, higher than the OECD average of 4.0%.
• In the United States, 77% of people feel safe walking alone at night, higher than the OECD average of 67%. In France, 65% of people feel safe walking alone at night, slightly lower than the OECD average of 67%.

Freedom comes at a cost, but less freedoms also come at a cost and it seems to perpetuate even less freedom. There are a wealth of factors in population densities in the US and the sheer number of them as well as comparing many of the other homogeneous regions of the globe with the less homogeneous.

And did you go through the other countries that are above the US in terms of safety, or is it only the figures from France that support your view?

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

7 year olds can go to school without being shot at in the US. Otherwise, kids wouldn't be able to go to a camp in the Netherlands without being shot at or walk the streets of Cumbria without certain doom, hang out in Hungerford and Monkseaton, or dance in Dunblane; all major scenes of gun crime that do not dictate a norm or just cause for living in constant fear.

Glad you brought these up. All of the events in the UK you mention were before firearms were severely restricted. That is less than 50 deaths in those incidents BTW. In 15 years.

Are you referring to the Norway attacks in 2011?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Except the part where 7 year-old kids can go to school without being shot at?

or stabbed, or raped, or bludgeoned to death. Stopgap measures aren't enough, we need to finally address the problem.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

or stabbed, or raped, or bludgeoned to death. Stopgap measures aren't enough, we need to finally address the problem.

Since allowing unrestricted access to firearms has not addressed any of these problems in the US, what do you propose, besides issuing everyone a firearm?

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Since allowing unrestricted access to firearms has not addressed any of these problems in the US, what do you propose, besides issuing everyone a firearm?

Why do you seam to think that guns are the cause or the solution to crime?