Time for a new Political Debate

[Kraj]

I never said you can't get bad information from a US site, quite on the contrary, I personally feel there is a LOT of bad information on american sites, like CNN, ABC, CBS, DNC, Kraj's , BBCA, etc

I'm assuming you're referring to my use of snopes.com as a source. As I recall, you've never identified which article you had an issue with?

 

[jsanders]

If we are going to have a full scale debate; I choose Kraj to be on my team.

 

[Rich]

That's another way of saying "cowboy", so yes you did. Or, more accurately, I said that's what you think and you agreed.
.

Where?

That's quite true and I do know it, but that's not what I said. You quoted homicide statistics exclusively, so you're talking about criminals exclusively. If you want to talk about accidental gun deaths, that's an entirely different topic.

Does it? how many of that figure are shot and killed by law enforcement officers, members of the public using a gun to defend themselves etc.
You accuse me of ignorance yet you haven't provided evidence to disprove my argument. Tell me would the mentally ill patient who was shot and killed on a plane just recently be added to the statistics or not?

I agree, and measures are taken to prevent that from happening. Whether they are effective or not, again, is another topic. But keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is a different matter than keeping them out of the hands of responsible, law-abiding citizens. There's no good reason why we shouldn't be able to accomplish the former without the latter.

but even you agree it isn't working

Ah, I see. This had nothing to do with why the freedom to pursue happiness was listed in the Declaration of Independence, but at least I can make sense of the comment now...

yes I was curious that since you've stated on numerous posts that it's your constitution that makes you what you are why some of those rules are simply ignored when the President sees fit.

how and where a gun may be carried

didn't I read that there's controversy concerning this at the minute, and why the need for citizens to be armed with assault rifles, notwithstanding why they need to be armed at all, unless that is, the wild west culture still exists?

 

[Rich]

If we are going to have a full scale debate; I choose Kraj to be on my team.

yes, you do need all the help you can get

 

[jsanders]

yes, you do need all the help you can get

It was more like he has an articulate and reasonable mind.

And the only help I require is keeping my frustration at some people’s stubborn ignorance from killing me.

 

[Rich]

And the only help I require is keeping my frustration at some people’s stubborn ignorance from killing me.

Yes I know, now then, why don't you consider moving to a more liberal country, where freedom and justice exists for all?
Silly me, you don't want that, strange though, your president tells you you're being invaded by terrorists and spends billions on attacking a country that hasn't been anywhere near America and rides roughshod over every decent thinking man ideals on the planet and yet when someone points out that at times you need protecting from yourselves he's subjected to a torrent and virulent outpouring of scorn and ridicule.
What a peculiar lot you are , have a nice day

 

[Kraj]

Where?

My mistake, that was Colin. Sorry.

Does it? how many of that figure are shot and killed by law enforcement officers,

Zero. That's not homicide.

members of the public using a gun to defend themselves etc.

I don't know. But I'll bet in the majority of those cases the defender's life was truly threatened.

You accuse me of ignorance

Where?

yet you haven't provided evidence to disprove my argument.

Nor have you provided sufficient evidence (and I've already explained why) to prove your argument. According to one of the most basic rules of logic and debate, the burden of proof is on you.

Tell me would the mentally ill patient who was shot and killed on a plane just recently be added to the statistics or not?

No, that's not a homicide. Would you prefer he killed someone else on the plane or caused it to crash?

but even you agree it isn't working

That's true, I do. But (if I may use a plattitude) I also don't think you should throw out the baby with the bathwater. Like I said, there's no good reason why we shouldn't be able to keep guns away from criminals while letting responsible adults have them. If the current set of laws and procedures doesn't work, try something else. But to resign that the only solution to the gun problem is to completely ban their presence throughout the entire country, well that's just plain lazy.

yes I was curious that since you've stated on numerous posts that it's your constitution that makes you what you are why some of those rules are simply ignored when the President sees fit.

Because he's a hypocrite to a nauseating degree.

didn't I read that there's controversy concerning this at the minute, and why the need for citizens to be armed with assault rifles, notwithstanding why they need to be armed at all, unless that is, the wild west culture still exists?

Yes, there is always tension between those who believe there should be tighter restrictions on guns and those who believe it's their God-given right to pack a bazooka in their trunk. Unfortunately, instead of a sane and sensible debate on this topic, you have one group who wants to eradicate guns from the country and another who thinks even the slightest concession on the freedoms of gun ownership means the inevitable eradication of guns from the country.

 

[Rich]

Zero. That's not homicide.

I don't know. But I'll bet in the majority of those cases the defender's life was truly threatened.

Nor have you provided sufficient evidence (and I've already explained why) to prove your argument. According to one of the most basic rules of logic and debate, the burden of proof is on you.


That's true, I do. But (if I may use a plattitude) I also don't think you should throw out the baby with the bathwater. Like I said, there's no good reason why we shouldn't be able to keep guns away from criminals while letting responsible adults have them. If the current set of laws and procedures doesn't work, try something else. But to resign that the only solution to the gun problem is to completely ban their presence throughout the entire country, well that's just plain lazy.

Yes, there is always tension between those who believe there should be tighter restrictions on guns and those who believe it's their God-given right to pack a bazooka in their trunk. Unfortunately, instead of a sane and sensible debate on this topic, you have one group who wants to eradicate guns from the country and another who thinks even the slightest concession on the freedoms of gun ownership means the inevitable eradication of guns from the country.

The figures make even sadder reading and I have to ask why would somebody be arrested for possession of Cocaine whether they intended to use it or not?


Firearms are the second leading cause of traumatic death related to a consumer product in the United States and are the second most frequent cause of death overall for Americans ages 15 to 24. Since 1960, more than a million Americans have died in firearm suicides, homicides, and unintentional injuries. In 2001 alone, 30,242 Americans died by gunfire: 17,108 in firearm suicides, 12,129 in firearm homicides, 762 in unintentional shootings, and 243 in firearm deaths of unknown intent, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. Nearly three times that number are treated in emergency rooms each year for nonfatal firearm injuries.

Tell me, would washing machines still be legally sold if ONE million people had been killed by them even if say 100million hadn't?

No, that's not a homicide. Would you prefer he killed someone else on the plane or caused it to crash?

Why not reach for a stun gun instead, in any case I'm sure the plane was on the ground and his baggage must have been searched beforehand surely.
I also see that your authorities want to allow sharp objects to be carried on board 'cause it's costing too much to enforce security

 

[jsanders]

From Rich of Cource.

17,108 in firearm suicides,

Lucky for them they didn't mame themselves with a butter knife.

 

[jsanders]

An intresting and timely article about American inventors
http://biz.yahoo.com/usat/051206/13263022.html


And the 'flower guy Weder'


Watch out interflora!!

Peter

Actually Edison's real contribution was inventing inventing.

 

[Rich]

Actually Edison's real contribution was inventing inventing.

actually Europe invented inventing, but then it would depend on how one defines invention
Edison stole other people ideas

The first electric light was made in 1800 by Humphry Davy, an English scientist. He experimented with electricity and invented an electric battery. When he connected wires to his battery and a piece of carbon, the carbon glowed, producing light. This is called an electric arc.
Much later, in 1860, the English physicist Sir Joseph Wilson Swan (1828-1914) was determined to devise a practical, long-lasting electric light. He found that a carbon paper filament worked well, but burned up quickly. In 1878, he demonstrated his new electric lamps in Newcastle, England.

Think back. Who invented the light bulb? Thomas Edison? Right?
WRONG
In 1875, Edison purchased half of a Toronto medical electrician's patent to further his own research. That researcher was named James Woodward.
Woodward and a colleague by the name of Matthew Evans, described in the patent as a "Gentleman" but in reality a hotel keeper, filed a patent for the Woodward and Evan's Light on July 24, 1874.
Working at the Morrison's Brass Foundry on Adelaide St. West in Toronto, they built the first lamp with a shaped rod of carbon held between electrodes in an glass bulb filled with nitrogen.
Woodward and Evans were treated as cranks and subject to much public ridicule. "Who needs a glowing piece of metal!!" They attempted, with very little success, to form a company to raise money to refine and market their invention. (Where is the federal government when you really need them?)
In 1876, Woodward obtained a U.S. patent on his electric lamp and, in 1879, Edison considered it sufficiently important to completely buy out the patent from Woodward, Evans, and all their Canadian partners. Woodward sold a share of his Canadian patent to Thomas Edison in 1885.
Thus the electric light bulb became American.

 

[Rich]

From Rich of Cource.




Lucky for them they didn't mame themselves with a butter knife.

Now you're getting the point and how about if there weren't so many hand guns lying around that figure would be a great deal lower.
But then what's obvious so often here is that you don't care enough about each other as a nation to want to actually change anything in pursuit of a truly united nation.
Maybe one day you'll end up electing a leader that actually cares about all of you instead of just himself and his cronies.

 

[Rich]

Again, I find it amazing that you choose to believe Hollywood over real-life experiences.

Doesn't the arts and entertainment industry reflect a country's culture?

 

[The Stoat]

That's true, I do. But (if I may use a plattitude) I also don't think you should throw out the baby with the bathwater. Like I said, there's no good reason why we shouldn't be able to keep guns away from criminals while letting responsible adults have them. If the current set of laws and procedures doesn't work, try something else. But to resign that the only solution to the gun problem is to completely ban their presence throughout the entire country, well that's just plain lazy.

I think this is where you're missing the point. Firstly. You cannot legislate for someones future intention to use something in a criminal manner. No laws will protect you from someone who has a gun and intends to use it to kill.
Secondly. Most things in life serve a purpose. A motor vehicle may be used in a criminal manner but it also allows freedom to travel. In the form of an ambulance or a fire appliance to save lives. A gun has only 2 functions as i see it, target practice or killing. Neither of which would be a loss to a modern western society. As usual these debates take a posturing position but there is a reality that can be observed. The UK has gun crime. You can buy a shot gun if you are able to get a licence but it must be kept in a secure locked metal box unloaded with the ammunition in a seperate secure location. That is intended to reduce the chances of anyone actually using it to kill intruders or intruders using it against the occupants. And the police will turn up un-announced to check it's storage conditions. Hand guns and any sort of automatic or semi-automatic weapon are unavailable legally. Our police aren't routinely armed. We have special armed response units who are called in to deal with fire arms situations. And we have a few hundred firearms related deaths compared to the thousands in the US when normalised against every factor. The simple fact is relatively few criminals in the UK use firearms. You can -and most probably will - get 14 years in prison for even possessing one illegally. Criminals don't generally use firearms because they don't expect to meet any. The stakes appear to be raised in the US. Criminals go armed because they might need to use them. How can you remove firearms from the general public if they are used as a matter of course by criminals? And if you can rob someone's house and steal a loaded gun then that's one more gun in criminal hands. That option simple isn't available to criminals here. In order to get guns here they really need to smuggle them in and that dramatically increases the chances of being caught. You need a de-escalation policy and i can't honestly see how that is going to happen. I think you've unintentionally created a situation that has left you desensitized to the violence with no way out. We had a policewoman killed a few weeks back in an armed incident - with non-uk citizens - and the whole country was aware of it. It was headline news for nearly a week. Could you say the same for the death of a police man/woman? That's a genuine question.

TS

 

[jsanders]

Why not reach for a stun gun instead, in any case I'm sure the plane was on the ground and his baggage must have been searched beforehand surely./QUOTE]

This is why I like NPR

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5047889

 

[FoFa]

I'm assuming you're referring to my use of snopes.com as a source. As I recall, you've never identified which article you had an issue with?

Actually quite forgot about that one. You do hold a grudge (so to speak).

 

[FoFa]

and why the need for citizens to be armed with assault rifles, notwithstanding why they need to be armed at all, unless that is, the wild west culture still exists?

Actually the term "Assault Rifle" is quite misused. It was pretty much termed by the Anti-Gunners for almost any semi-automatic, military looking rifle. Today a lot of target rifles are designed on the military based rifles, and used in target compations and not designed for assaulting anything but paper targets. Same with varmit rifles, it turns out the military rifle base is great for making an acurate rifle out of, but most would not want to assault anything with them as the are not designed for that.

 

[FoFa]

We had a policewoman killed a few weeks back in an armed incident - with non-uk citizens - and the whole country was aware of it. It was headline news for nearly a week. Could you say the same for the death of a police man/woman? That's a genuine question.

Yes, locally. Do hear about a police person killed in Spain? We don't usually in other states either. Again, the apples and oranges comparison.

 

[The Stoat]

Yes, locally. Do hear about a police person killed in Spain? We don't usually in other states either. Again, the apples and oranges comparison.

If you want to think of us as a state within Europe - which is just sooo wrong - then by comparison if a police officer is killed in Florida or New York State or California would everyone in that State know about it. Would it be headlines in the newspapers for a week and on whatever passes for TV that covers the whole state for a week?

TS

 

[The Stoat]

Actually the term "Assault Rifle" is quite misused. It was pretty much termed by the Anti-Gunners for almost any semi-automatic, military looking rifle. Today a lot of target rifles are designed on the military based rifles, and used in target compations and not designed for assaulting anything but paper targets. Same with varmit rifles, it turns out the military rifle base is great for making an acurate rifle out of, but most would not want to assault anything with them as the are not designed for that.

I think he may have been refering to something like this

http://www.gunsamerica.com/fast.cgi?guncat=1105

or this

http://www.ak-47.us/