Admiral Odin Posted March 1, 2003 Share Posted March 1, 2003 Did anyone notice that those rates do not take into account population size? The United States is far larger than England and those other countries as such will have more deaths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted March 1, 2003 Share Posted March 1, 2003 Originally posted by JEDI_MASTA EDIT: i just read the laughing at Jedi Masta thing you posted JM, if you would get the right info man, they dont have guns in these countries, therefore there will be less firearm crimes, but still pretty much the same murders, there will also be less robberies in the US because we have guns,l USA have the highest crime rate among all the industrilized countries, 645 persons in jail for each 100,000 inhabitans. In Norway, this number is 55 for each 100,000. They also have a very high chance of being murdered, 7.3 murders per 100,000 inhabitans, while in Norway it's 0.9 per 100,000. There you see how much the guns have done for you. Scource:http://www.ntnu.no/universitetsavisa/0500/debat01.html (though I'm pretty sure only Dagobahn and C'Jais (if he comes in) can read it) EDIT: i just read the laughing at Jedi Masta thing you posted JM, if you would get the right info man, they dont have guns in these countries, therefore there will be less firearm crimes, but still pretty much the same murders, I think I just disproved that. Did anyone notice that those rates do not take into account population size? The United States is far larger than England and those other countries as such will have more deaths. UK have 60,000,000 inhabitans. US have 270,000,000. So US have 4.5 times larger population. So if we take the number of firearm homicides in UK, 68, and multiply that with 4.5, the number will be 306. Still, US will have about 164 times more gun homicides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted March 1, 2003 Share Posted March 1, 2003 "Guns don't kill people..." they just make it soooooo much easier and quick! Were you to eliminate EVERY firearm from American soil I still don't believe you would see a signifigant change in homicide statistics over the long run. We would just find new and entertaining ways to do each other in. Drive-by blow-darting for instance. Guns are just a tool. They are not evil in themselves. Perhaps we should be examining the roots of American violence. Are Americans violent because they can get guns easily,.. or is easy access to guns a by-product of our violent national nature? Why are Americans so attached to thier weapons? Why are guns so ingrained into our culture? What causes so many people in this country to turn to violent crime, causing so many others to feel they need to arm up to protect themselves? Why is killing seen as a solution to so many conflicts? Find the answers to those questions, and you may find yourself on the path to a solution. Find permenent solutions to all those problems and you may begin to get Americans to willingly turn over thier guns. Maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted March 1, 2003 Share Posted March 1, 2003 Oh, and Masta... Lose the swastika avatar. It's in extremely bad taste, and does absolutely nothing to assuage and reassure those of us who fear that a ultra-conservative authoritarian government is a small step away from fascism. If you really want to convince us otherwise that certainly isn't the way to go about it. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbguy1211 Posted March 1, 2003 Share Posted March 1, 2003 Originally posted by edlib Oh, and Masta... Lose the swastika avatar. It's in extremely bad taste, and does absolutely nothing to assuage and reassure those of us who fear that a ultra-conservative authoritarian government is a small step away from fascism. If you really want to convince us otherwise that certainly isn't the way to go about it. Thanks. I agree... really, REALLY bad taste... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fergie Posted March 1, 2003 Share Posted March 1, 2003 Why are Americans so attached to thier weapons? Why are guns so ingrained into our culture? There were different times such as... colonial frontier (need gun) west (where the whole own a gun was put into mind mosly by movies of the walk ut into the street and draw when actually very few people were killed) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mex Posted March 1, 2003 Share Posted March 1, 2003 Guns can be used to protect. Guns can also be used to attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fergie Posted March 1, 2003 Share Posted March 1, 2003 I agree with Flanders, A gun can be a deterent A gun can kill (or shoot targets, or collect dust) In the US how many homicides are double homicides or more, In prison they don't let prisoners have guns but how many people do you think die b/c of the weapons made out of junk TRUTH... if someone wants to kill they can (ever heard of a bow) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted March 1, 2003 Share Posted March 1, 2003 It's in extremely bad taste, and does absolutely nothing to assuage and reassure those of us who fear that a ultra-conservative authoritarian government is a small step away from fascism. If you really want to convince us otherwise that certainly isn't the way to go about it I've already reported that. The swastika, along with his views on racism, makes me believe we may have a True Neo on our hands here.. Oh, and JM, if you want to discuss this, send me a PM. I'll be happy to delete it . Back on topic: I'm pretty sure guns should be banned. However, we can't do that cold turkey. We'll have to do it like we learn to swim: First, we learn the basics with the flotation devices on. Then, you swim with the devices off of you. If you try to learn how to swim by just taking the devices off and jumping in, you'll drown if it's deep enough. Similarily, if you take away guns, you'll get a high crime rate. What we need to do is to do other things to lower crime rate, then ban guns. Also, get a burglar alarm, which, no matter how bad and cheap it is, does an excellent job at preventing break-ins in the first place simply because the burglar finds some other house to rob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted March 1, 2003 Share Posted March 1, 2003 I see nothing obscene, pornographic, violent, or disturbing about a swastika. It's traditionally a good luck symbol, and was even a boy scout badge... Anyone who considers it disturbing should go find something real to complain about... And you mentioned the American flag in another post, Eagle. You Yanks don't have a clean slate either... Slavery, for one... And in WWII, they've got quite a few black marks... And the American settlers were worse to the natives than the Nazi party as a whole was to Jews. But since the history books are written by the slayers of heros... While your at it, let's ban the red star of the Soviet Union, or for that matter, the hammer and sickle. They weren't the friendliest of people during WWII... They shot Poles, put German POW's to work in conditions that killed them in a matter of months, and sent millions of boys to their death defending Stalingrad. Hell... George Dubya Bush could be a disturbing image these days. He's trying to drag the world into a war. I'm a reservist... Guess who goes over when the **** really hits the fan? His war-mongering is putting my life in danger. I'm not a Nazi, nor do I condone in any way what they did, but we have the right to free speech, and I do condone that. If I want to fly my underwear from a flagpole in my front yard, no one but God can stop me. By law, I can publically agree with Hitler's motives and say it's a damned shame he didn't win the war, and there's nothing wrong with that. If I suggested that we should all be killing jews or blacks, then I'd be outside the confines of the law, as that's spreading hate messages... But while saying, "I love Hitler!" might not make me everyone's favorite person, it's certainly not illegal. Again, I'm personally sickened by the actions of the Nazis. My grandfather fought in that war, and he told me it was the worst thing he's ever experienced in his life... I'm just making a point. And as for calling someone a nigger/wop/nip/slanteye/spic/whatever, it's no more offensive than calling that same person a bastard or worse, a mother****er... Personally I'd be far more offended at being implicated in incest than I would if someone called me a cracker/honkey/stupid white boy. The real world is out there, kiddos. Deal with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted March 1, 2003 Share Posted March 1, 2003 First of all, I'm not American. It's traditionally a good luck symbol, and was even a boy scout badge... Anyone who considers it disturbing should go find something real to complain about... To quote another guy: hey, Jedi_Masta...one thing Hitler did to the swastika, was turn it up on it's edge....the original symbol stool flat on one of its sides see THIS (link to pic with postcard) if you don't believe me....so, basically, your av is a Nazi flag/symbol and nothing else Why do you defend this guy and his ideas in the first place? I see nothing obscene, pornographic, violent, or disturbing about a swastika. I totally understand. Because Canadians aren't offended by the swastika, I've got a problem because I do. Heck, three words: Respect other cultures. Norway lost a number of soldiers that would equal 300 000 American soldiers dying. The nazis also completely destroyed several towns and some small cities and forced a dictatorship on us. And we were one of the countries in Europe that got away with the least damage. Don't tell me I have a problem for hating the swastika. Yes, it was a boy scout badge.. before WWII. Heck, telling me not to hate the Swastika because it wasn't always evil is like telling you not to hate bin laden because he wasn't always evil. "I can have a huge pic of Bin Laden over my front porch because initially, he was a nice guy and a CIA agent". How many Americans would agree with that? By law, I can publically agree with Hitler's motives and say it's a damned shame he didn't win the war, and there's nothing wrong with that. Uh, right.. It's just extremely wrong, while legal. Think anyone would not care if I called you an SOB? That's legal, too. Are you doing this just to annoy me?? And as for calling someone a nigger/wop/nip/slanteye/spic/whatever, it's no more offensive than calling that same person a bastard or worse, a mother****er... Personally I'd be far more offended at being implicated in incest than I would if someone called me a cracker/honkey/stupid white boy. Uh.. right. Except if someoene called someone on these boards an SOB or bastard, he would be punished. But the swastika and nazi symbols, even though you admit they're just as offensive, are okay. I get it. No I don't. Why isn't racism worse than other bad words to you? Because you're not a minority? Two words: 1. Respect 2. Good manners. If you don't want someone to call you an SOB, don't defend this guy who wears the swastika. Otherwise: Son of a bitch. I'm leaving 'till this quiets down. No, I'm not joking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted March 2, 2003 Share Posted March 2, 2003 As for the swastika: I find it bad taste, but it's his right to use it. Personally, if you ever ban the swastika, I'll make sure it's also considered illegal to use a cross as an avatar, as I find that symbol much more bloody. But that's what it is - a symbol. And with symbols, it's completely subjective what you project into them. As for the guns as protection: Huh?! This is the 21st century, not the 17th, dammit. Here's a scenario: I'm walking along with 1 of my friends (we both have our standard issue gun for self defense) and a thug comes up with his gun and tries to mug us. What am I to do? Threaten him, and hope that he backs off? Act it out wild west-stylee and shoot him on the street, in self defense? Either would be considered a crime in my country. What if my friend suddenly saw an oppurtunity for some easy cash, and actually drew his own gun and started to threaten the thug? Am I then to threaten my own friend with my gun? Shoot him in self defense if he shoots at the thug? I would never trust even my best, most trusted friend with a gun. I'd never, ever trust my pissed off neighbor who's mad at me for playing loud music with a gun. Never. Gun accidents are hideous, and I want nothing to do with a society that makes such accidents a daily part of life. You know what's the most common argument for not disarming nuclear weapons is? Nukes are used as self defense. That's right - if a country doesn't have nukes, it's powerless when confronted and attacked by countries who do have nukes. Here's a neat idea though - let's all disarm. Yes, we'll still be able to kill each other if we really want to with more conventional weapons, but at least we won't have tragic holocausts in civilian areas with a misplaced nuke. Why should civilians ever be allowed to have guns? Where I come from, governments and police takes care of my protection. I'd never trust myself with weapons designed for killing as a means of defending myself. I'd prefer to go with a good, old fashioned shield or kevlar vest, if that was really the case. Nothing can go awfully wrong with that, if worse comes to worse, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zygomaticus Posted March 2, 2003 Share Posted March 2, 2003 The swastika was supposed to be a religious symbol for the Buddhist and the Jains, two of the more non-violent religions...can't believe it is so defamed now...I guess not many people know that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted March 2, 2003 Share Posted March 2, 2003 Originally posted by krkode The swastika was supposed to be a religious symbol for the Buddhist and the Jains, two of the more non-violent religions...can't believe it is so defamed now...I guess not many people know that... Defamed, yes. It rightly should be. But it should not prevent him from using it as an avatar. The cross should be rightly defamed as well, seeing as so many wars are commited on petty theological basis. But I'll not prevent anyone from using it as an avatar. What do the other mods have to say about this? (hint, hint) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted March 2, 2003 Share Posted March 2, 2003 Originally posted by krkode The swastika was supposed to be a religious symbol for the Buddhist and the Jains, two of the more non-violent religions...can't believe it is so defamed now...I guess not many people know that... I know all that. But I'm really gonna go out on a limb here and take a wild guess that Masta is NOT a Buddhist. Context is everything. And in reading the posts made around the time he changed his avatar I personally have no doubts as to what context this symbol was meant to be seen. In other contexts it may never have phased me. He has every right to post the pic. And the rest of us have every right to say we find it distasteful and ask repeatedly that it be taken down. I will most likely not give any creedence to anything he says in any post he makes until he does take it down, however. Perhaps not even then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted March 2, 2003 Share Posted March 2, 2003 I know all that. But I'm really gonna go out on a limb here and take a wild guess that Masta is NOT a Buddhist. Context is everything. And in reading the posts made around the time he changed his avatar I personally have no doubts as to what context this symbol was meant to be seen. In other contexts it may never have phased me. He has every right to post the pic. And the rest of us have every right to say we find it distasteful and ask repeatedly that it be taken down. I will most likely not give any creedence to anything he says in any post he makes until he does take it down, however. Perhaps not even then.[/size] Edlib, you're great at debating. Second time you said what I tried to say, but in a much more convincing way. He has the swastika up only for one reason: Racism. Oh, and he should wear it because otherwise it offends buddhists? Well, I am a Buddhist. If I were an Indian or Chinese Buddhist, I might not have been offended by the swastika -and even used it, but nobody here are and you certainly aren't. I hereby denounce the Buddhist pro-swastika argument as invalid. And do you think there is a reason why there's a star of David as one avatar and the flag of Israel as another avater all by sudden? Viva la resistance! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted March 2, 2003 Share Posted March 2, 2003 He's got a right to have it up, and you complaining about it is pretty childish. And you called me a son of a bitch because I defended him... I in no way defended him. I defended his right to have a voice, the freedom of speech our grandfathers fought for. He doesn't have to shut up because you don't like what he's saying. If you don't like his voice, then leave. You proved that's legitimate when you said, and I quote, "I'm leaving 'till this quiets down." The Nazis didn't like the jews, so... *shocked* They tried to shut them up. You don't like him, so you... *shocked* Tried to shut him up. Maybe it's just me, but I see some resemblance between you and the group you're opposed to. You call me a son of a bitch... Well, I call you a hypocrite. And that, sir, is more of an insult than any slur could ever be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted March 2, 2003 Share Posted March 2, 2003 Calm down people. And return to the topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fergie Posted March 2, 2003 Share Posted March 2, 2003 There was a topic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted March 3, 2003 Share Posted March 3, 2003 That's what I was wondering... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treacherous Mercenary Posted March 3, 2003 Share Posted March 3, 2003 Originally posted by Nitro That's what I was wondering... Why don't we just let it die in that case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted March 3, 2003 Share Posted March 3, 2003 Well, that would require us to stop posting... It would also be a waste of thread space. Therefore, I'm hereby redefining this thread's topic to: "Official t.A.T.u. Fan Club Thread!!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JEDI_MASTA Posted March 6, 2003 Author Share Posted March 6, 2003 the fact that self defense is a crime is completely wrong, if I shoot somebody in self defense it should not be a crime, would you feel better if you got mugged by a guy with an m16 and you were unarmed. We allways let these threads die when people can't beat me in a good old fashioned debate, the swastika debate has allready been started in a different thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 Originally posted by JEDI_MASTA the fact that self defense is a crime is completely wrong, if I shoot somebody in self defense it should not be a crime, That depends on the situation. If someone's about to shoot you, then I guess it's ok, but to shoot a guy who tries to mug you is much too harsh. would you feel better if you got mugged by a guy with an m16 and you were unarmed. It's better to give him some money than to kill him and live the rest of your life as a murderer. We allways let these threads die when people can't beat me in a good old fashioned debate, Eh? Though I beated you ages ago, when I disproved all your statements about criminality being lower because of guns and the number of total murders being the same. Oh well.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JEDI_MASTA Posted March 8, 2003 Author Share Posted March 8, 2003 Originally posted by edlib Oh, and Masta... Lose the swastika avatar. It's in extremely bad taste, and does absolutely nothing to assuage and reassure those of us who fear that a ultra-conservative authoritarian government is a small step away from fascism. If you really want to convince us otherwise that certainly isn't the way to go about it. Thanks. fascism is an ultra liberal form of govenrment, much like comunism, it includes the use of big governments and taking away freedoms from the people for the "benefit" of all. could somebody please get me the homicide statistics in these countries instead of just firearm homicide, also, you must realize that there is a history of gangs and organized crime in the US, this is not as prevalent in other countries, therefor taking guns away is a far less effective way of dealing with crime in the US. Jm qui gon, I have not been beaten just so you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.