Re: Politics. Dirty, dirty, politics.

by Rifneno Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:15 am

Fur28 wrote:
Rifneno wrote:
spotlessvoid wrote:If you're ever had someone break into your home you'd realize why you need a gun. Nothing has such a profound effect on the criminal mind as the sound of a weapon being cocked.

What about the sound of a weapon firing?
Headshot, he wont be able to think

In my example, it was obviously a warning shot since he heard it and not felt it. Garrus

by **spotlessvoid** Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:17 am

Rifneno wrote:
spotlessvoid wrote:If you're ever had someone break into your home you'd realize why you need a gun. Nothing has such a profound effect on the criminal mind as the sound of a weapon being cocked.

What about the sound of a weapon firing?

Fortunately it didn't get that far

by **spotlessvoid** Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:23 am

The only warning shot anyone is getting is their buddy flying backwards. If the sound of a high powered weapon isn't enough of a deterrence than I'm not taking chances.

by Rifneno Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:27 am

spotlessvoid wrote:The only warning shot anyone is getting is their buddy flying backwards. If the sound of a high powered weapon isn't enough of a deterrence than I'm not taking chances.

I've scared off people with a longsword before. Mostly because, thanks to incredibly unrealistic movies, they thought I could decapitate with one swing. Thanks, Hollywood!

by **Andromidius** Thu Jan 24, 2013 5:25 am

There's one problem with 'homeowners having guns' being a deterrent to criminals breaking in.

Criminals then start bringing guns into home invasions, and are already on edge and itchy on the trigger.

Its simple escalation. Firing fire with fire isn't the best idea a lot of the time, especially when you're 'on the defensive'.

by Rifneno Thu Jan 24, 2013 5:35 am

Andromidius wrote:There's one problem with 'homeowners having guns' being a deterrent to criminals breaking in.

Criminals then start bringing guns into home invasions, and are already on edge and itchy on the trigger.

Its simple escalation. Firing fire with fire isn't the best idea a lot of the time, especially when you're 'on the defensive'.

Occasionally, but not so much. Plenty of homeowners have guns, and a lot of burglars don't bring a firearm. Not just because it can get them killed, but because you do a looot more time for murder than you do for stealing some jewelry.

by **Hrothdane** Thu Jan 24, 2013 5:37 am

Unless the burglar is stupider than usual and perhaps also a junkie, they probably will try to wait until you are out of the house to burgle anyways.

by Fur28 Thu Jan 24, 2013 5:39 am

Man, i wish my mom just told me where the gun my grandpa left us was.
Not because I want to show it or because i think they´re cool, but because you never know when they will be useful.
When what you think it´s the sound of kids playing in the street turns out to be a guy killing his younger brother, that changes your perpective of weapons in general.

by **spotlessvoid** Thu Jan 24, 2013 5:43 am

Hrothdane wrote:Unless the burglar is stupider than usual and perhaps also a junkie, they probably will try to wait until you are out of the house to burgle anyways.

No offense, but that isn't how it works in Baltimore. Armed home invasions are not that uncommon, desperation is prevalent

by Rifneno Thu Jan 24, 2013 5:46 am

spotlessvoid wrote:
Hrothdane wrote:Unless the burglar is stupider than usual and perhaps also a junkie, they probably will try to wait until you are out of the house to burgle anyways.

No offense, but that isn't how it works in Baltimore. Armed home invasions are not that uncommon, desperation is prevalent

Note to self: Do not visit Baltimore.

by **spotlessvoid** Thu Jan 24, 2013 5:53 am

During Hurricane Sandy looting was a real problem. Where the hell was the government? People weren't prepared and FEMA couldn't deliver. What happens if the power grid goes down due to whatever catastrophe? Whatever happens isn't going to at my house. Putting your trust in a corrupt and inept government to protect and supply you is so stupid and naive. What if that government becomes the problem? Don't forget thousands of years of human history because modernity has buffed the thin veneer of civilization to a glossy sheen. Allowing government a monopoly on the use of force has been one of the most disastrous concepts in human history.

by Rifneno Thu Jan 24, 2013 7:43 am

"Missouri man, 93, charged with killing wife, 95"

I shouldn't laugh, but I can't help myself. This is where I lost it: "On the way to the hospital, police said Irwin stated: "Yes, I killed her then killed myself. Why am I awake?""

by invetro Thu Jan 24, 2013 9:51 am

Ah yes, "politics." In my neck of the woods we have a wannabe despot in the Scottish National Party attempting to wrestle power away from the bad bad men in Westminster. Scottish independence. If this country ever breaks away from the rest of the UK, I will consume my entire wardrobe. And it's a biggie.

We cannot afford it, the majority do not want it, and the SNP version of framing a political debate is to label every opposing view as scaremongering. Ugh, just ugh. They've been caught lying about legal advice on the issue, are in love with the EU and use blatant propoganda as if they even believe their own lies.

by BlueLogic Thu Jan 24, 2013 6:13 pm

Arian Dynas wrote:
BlueLogic wrote:
Arian Dynas wrote:Sometimes I wonder if the Republican party realizes we already fought a war over what their policies are (Small state government, which is far more what the Civil War was about than Slavery.); and they lost.

You're more right than I'd like, but in the way that our (Republican/Conservative) ideas are often maligned rather than the assertion that the matter was settled by the war. Arguments for decentralizing power (tax dollars and responsibility) away from the Federal government and back to the States often are seen as wanting to "take the country backwards". There are a lot of people who think we're racists because we suggest the Federal government was never intended to have so much power over the States and the People. (The Vice President did say Republicans would "put yall back in chains" if given the chance.) Joe is truly a national treasure.

But I digress. In short, the war was fought over state rights, that is true. However, while states rightly lost any ability to enslave or otherwise deny a person their freedom in disregard of the constitution, that hardly translates into an end to the universal argument over the continued centralization of power.

Also, I'm a Southerner. *dives into cover* :)

Hey I agree with you; the Federal government and the states need to work in harmony; the Federal government looking out for the interests of the country, the states caring for their people; I'm just sick of the fact that both sides feel the need to exaggerate everything to the nth degree, and I do personally think that the federal government should be the one to determine the rights of the people, without the reservations that some states have, and distribute and protect said rights everywhere, equally.

As for Southerner; eh. Your cooking's too fatty for me, the accents are fun, and the climate's too hot. ;)

The constant demagoguery on both sides is annoying, and it becomes a serious problem as soon as something that warrants hyperbole arises as no one knows the difference. So, yep, agreed!

Wait...our food? How dare you!! :stick:

by RavenEyry Thu Jan 24, 2013 6:18 pm

Apparently Cameron has 'pledged' to do an EU referendum. Again. Make all the pretty speeches you want, I'm not taking you seriously until some action happens.

by boeloe Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:13 pm

spotlessvoid wrote:
boeloe wrote:
Rifneno wrote:Gun control is one of the few topics I side with the republicans on. Well, aside from the batshit crazy ones that think everyone should have an arsenal capable of putting Fort Knox under siege. But the democrats' solution to the "problem" is genuinely retarded. Our governor here is trying to ban semiautomatic weapons after that last school shooting. Right, because something like that will never happen again as long as take away a basic feature from legal weapons. Stupid asshole.

You're right, he is stupid, he should ban gun ownership altogether.

I bet the police will protect you

People like you live in a fairy tale world.

Is that why homicides by guns (or homicides in general) is significantly higher in the US than in any other developed country?

For all the guns so readily available in the US is it really a safer country? The data seems to suggest the contrary.

by **spotlessvoid** Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:55 pm

Remove gang violence and that numbers drops significantly.Each Nation is different.Just ask Mexico

by **Arian Dynas** Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:17 am

invetro wrote:Ah yes, "politics." In my neck of the woods we have a wannabe despot in the Scottish National Party attempting to wrestle power away from the bad bad men in Westminster. Scottish independence. If this country ever breaks away from the rest of the UK, I will consume my entire wardrobe. And it's a biggie.

We cannot afford it, the majority do not want it, and the SNP version of framing a political debate is to label every opposing view as scaremongering. Ugh, just ugh. They've been caught lying about legal advice on the issue, are in love with the EU and use blatant propoganda as if they even believe their own lies.

According to XCOM it happens before 2015. ;)

Personally, as a 4th generation Scot; I say we rise up, as a one and shout; "We don't care anymore!" Longshanks was scum, the things they did to the country, horrific, but the fact is now, the UK has basically gone from being England to being Briton again, Welsh, Scot, English, Saxon, Anglicized, Norman, they all live in "The United Kingdom" now. We don't even call it England anymore.

by **Arian Dynas** Fri Jan 25, 2013 3:19 am

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2429#comic

by **Hrothdane** Fri Jan 25, 2013 3:35 am

Arian Dynas wrote:http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2429#comic

I prefer this version: http://dresdencodak.com/2010/06/03/dark-science-01/

by Rifneno Fri Jan 25, 2013 4:07 am

boeloe wrote:
spotlessvoid wrote:
boeloe wrote:
Rifneno wrote:Gun control is one of the few topics I side with the republicans on. Well, aside from the batshit crazy ones that think everyone should have an arsenal capable of putting Fort Knox under siege. But the democrats' solution to the "problem" is genuinely retarded. Our governor here is trying to ban semiautomatic weapons after that last school shooting. Right, because something like that will never happen again as long as take away a basic feature from legal weapons. Stupid asshole.

You're right, he is stupid, he should ban gun ownership altogether.

I bet the police will protect you

People like you live in a fairy tale world.

Is that why homicides by guns (or homicides in general) is significantly higher in the US than in any other developed country?

For all the guns so readily available in the US is it really a safer country? The data seems to suggest the contrary.

If you're an utter simpleton and think something as massive and widespread as the behavior of an entire nation can have only one cause, sure.

by **spotlessvoid** Fri Jan 25, 2013 5:47 am

For what it's worth, violent crime is down over the last decade. Most gun violence is perpetrated by gangs over the drug trade. Legal Assault weapons are tiny fraction of gun violence, and every Mass Shooting occurs in a gun free zone.

by Rifneno Fri Jan 25, 2013 5:58 am

spotlessvoid wrote: For what it's worth, violent crime is down over the last decade. Most gun violence is perpetrated by gangs over the drug trade. Legal Assault weapons are tiny fraction of gun violence, and every Mass Shooting occurs in a gun free zone.

You know what? Fuck banning guns. Let's go all the way and just make murder illegal.

by **spotlessvoid** Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:31 am

Rifneno wrote:
spotlessvoid wrote: For what it's worth, violent crime is down over the last decade. Most gun violence is perpetrated by gangs over the drug trade. Legal Assault weapons are tiny fraction of gun violence, and every Mass Shooting occurs in a gun free zone.

You know what? Fuck banning guns. Let's go all the way and just make murder illegal.

Only if it's restricted to murder by balloon

by boeloe Fri Jan 25, 2013 7:46 am

Rifneno wrote:
boeloe wrote:
Is that why homicides by guns (or homicides in general) is significantly higher in the US than in any other developed country?

For all the guns so readily available in the US is it really a safer country? The data seems to suggest the contrary.

If you're an utter simpleton and think something as massive and widespread as the behavior of an entire nation can have only one cause, sure.

Not a very strong point to make, since I've never even hinted at that. In fact I'm fairly positive that many socio-economic factors are involved such as high economic inequality, unemployment perhaps, failing law enforcement, crime rates etc. None of which are unique to the US, except your country's fascination for it's guns. You think Italy doesn't have organized crime, or the Netherlands drug trafficking, Spain high unemployment rates, the UK gang violence, etc.? Despite that, gun deaths is an order of magnitude lower in those countries compared to the US. Is it really so strange to think that a high availability of guns is major contributing factor to the high gun death rate? Be honest and don't deflect by making some stupid joke.

by Sponsored content