double standard? (USA thread)

[vidcc]

Added to the recent thread about judicial activism and foreign "influence"

Is it a double standard to complain if a judge looks to other nations when making a "moral ruling" then wish to use foreign convictions against someone?
The Bush administration is wishing to ban gun ownership to those with convictions outside the USA and Justice Antonin Scalia who last week said that foreign courts have no place in US law is backing the idea.

My views on gun ownership is a wish for only law enforcement, military and "hunter/farmers" to have them so I support the Bush view, however I can't abide the double standard.

The Supreme court has ruled that only domestic convictions apply.... bit of a turn for both sides I feel.


so you know what I am talking about (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/26/scotus.gun.ownership/index.html)

The case in question is a bit extreme (gun smuggling) and I don't think this man should have a gun legally under any circumstance, but if right wingers are going to object to judges looking at foreign views then they have to accept that foreign convictions should not apply.

thoughts

[JPaul]

"In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said the language of the phrase "convicted in any court" had an "expansive meaning" to include foreign convictions. The majority, he said, "institutes the troubling rule that 'any' does not really mean 'any,' but may mean 'some subset of 'any," even if nothing in the context so indicates; it distorts the established canons against extraterritorality and absurdity."

Subset of any - fan tastic, yay the dissenter.

In essence your Supreme Court has decided that convictions in foreign Courts are to be ignored. Depending of the wording of the specific legislation. I suppose it would stand for any piece which relied on the phrase "convicted in any Court" and as such preclude any such convictions had they been made in a foreign Court.

Obviously they can act on your behalf as they see fit. However it is just another example of them deciding that the USA should live in isolation from the views and actions of the rest of the World. In this instance it looks like they are saying, "Yes he did a bad thing in your country, that is of no interest to us. Any conviction you made is of no consequence"

However this is more to do with the interpretation of the word "any", hence my mirth at the idea that you have a subset of it.

[vidcc]

The wording of "any" hasn't gone without attention. However we have different laws so something that is a felony in the Uk is not here.
I actually believe that any conviction in any court in any land should count, but then should someone with a conviction for "use of excessive force" in self defence...an assault charge... in the UK be banned from gun ownership in the US if his assault wouldn't get an arrest let alone conviction here?

Edit:

The people argueing the "any" are the same people that said that foreign courts are not always just and therefore can have NO BEARING on the US. examples given included courts in places like Iran, North korea and Cuba.

[JPaul]

The language in our law quoted in the dissenting opinion by Justice Thomas (joined by Kennedy and Scalia), while at first blush seeming to run counter to the spirit of my thread, in fact supports it; Thomas found that the phrase "any court" should mean precisely what it says, foreign conviction or no.

The fact that a similar domestic conviction would have certainly resulted in a finding that Mr. Small should henceforth be precluded from ownership of a firearm is irrelevant-the matter at hand concerns the strict interpretation of the language contained in the law, which, had the decision gone according to the minority contention, would have had the same result.


Indeed.

It is my understanding that, in law, words should have their normal meaning. Unless the context alters this, I believe the dissenter covered this point rather well.

[JPaul]

While it may not be apparent, I think the minority opinion indicates it shares your belief that the idea of a "subset" of the word "any" (as used) is absurd.
That is how I had read it, how can one have a subset of "any".

[Busyman]

I don't know about this "any" shit.

I think every case should be looked at individually and foreign cases would take less precedence.

For example, if I was covicted of possession of a handgun in the UK then that should not preclude me from owning one here.

If the same happened in Washington DC then I can't own a gun.

I understand the reluctance of a sort of reciprocity due to a foreign country maybe harboring an anti-Americanism.

It's enough that they are subject to their laws but should Americans in America be subject to them too? I don't think so in every case.

The main purpose is to safeguard Americans from potential criminals.
If an American massacred 13 folks on foreign soil it would be foolish to ignore him "when he comes back home". I recall a case that some fella was going to the Phillipines with just the mere intention of having sex with children and I think we actually punished him with jail time. I think there was a law on the books for that.

The matter is up to our lawmakers first and thennnnn there can be concrete application.

[GepperRankins]

j2k4 is ghye omg roflpamnts :0110101010101:

[GepperRankins]

no really you dont look fprward to iy

[vidcc]

Once again, you miss the point; the minority "argument" over the word any is that (listen closely, now) there should be NO argument over the word's meaning.

It is the majority decision which has (mis-) taken the liberties, here. What minority?

I stated that it should mean any... so how did I miss the point?I am simply pointing out that last week the same people...and read carefully because I put it in bold before..... stated without any exceptions that under no circumstances should foreign courts have any bearing on the USA. They stated that foreign courts were not "fair and democratic" as ours..... are they now saying that they are?

I remind you that I believe that judges should be able to take into account international norms when making rulings on moral or human rights issues.... I seem to recall objections to that.

[JPaul]

I don't know about this "any" shit.

Then you entirely miss the crux. Your law states "any Court", your Supreme Court argued what "any" means and has decided that it does not include foreign Courts, judges from your Supreme Court have pointed out that is ludicrous.

The laughable matter is that the Supreme Court cannot even decide what a word (which quite frankly is not open to any ambiguity) means.

[GepperRankins]

Is it a double standard to complain if a judge looks to other nations when making a "moral ruling" then wish to use foreign convictions against someone?
The Bush administration is wishing to ban gun ownership to those with convictions outside the USA and Justice Antonin Scalia who last week said that foreign courts have no place in US law is backing the idea.


if you see someone slip on a wet floor, you don't walk on the floor just because you yourself haven't yet slipped on it, you heed the warning and walk round

it's common sense. if someone shows you someone is dangerous, don't let em have a gun. it's rediculous not to work like that

[vidcc]

if you see someone slip on a wet floor, you don't walk on the floor just because you yourself haven't yet slipped on it, you heed the warning and walk round

it's common sense. if someone shows you someone is dangerous, don't let em have a gun. it's rediculous not to work like that

the thread is about double standards, not common sense.

[Mr JP Fugley]

if you see someone slip on a wet floor, you don't walk on the floor just because you yourself haven't yet slipped on it, you heed the warning and walk round

it's common sense. if someone shows you someone is dangerous, don't let em have a gun. it's rediculous not to work like that
Is that any wet floor, or a subset of wet floors.

The Supreme Court has decided that other Courts are not able to judge on whether a floor is wet or not. So they choose to let their people slip on a good American floor, rather than trust anyone else.

Madness, complete madness.

[Busyman]

Then you entirely miss the crux. Your law states "any Court", your Supreme Court argued what "any" means and has decided that it does not include foreign Courts, judges from your Supreme Court have pointed out that is ludicrous.

The laughable matter is that the Supreme Court cannot even decide what a word (which quite frankly is not open to any ambiguity) means.
Well I say fuck the "any" shit because their job is to interpret law and not make it.

From what I understand, the reason the fella was able to purchase a gun here was because there was no law stating he couldn't.

Now if our esteemed lawmakers decide to give, for instance, a gun possession in the UK more credence then so be it.

I don't see the double standard reference that vid points to because they are not apples-to-apples comparisons.

One refers to influences on judges when interpreting law and the other refers to legislative action.

This guy's case is an issue to be taken up by our legislative branch. The judicial branch made the correct decision. If they had ruled against him, it would have only gone against the constitution seeing that any other current law did not prohibit his gun ownership.

Put a reciprocity law on the books and then work from there. Otherwise, for the purposes here, he has broken no law. :dry:

[JPaul]

Well I say fuck the "any" shit because their job is to interpret law and not make it.

From what I understand, the reason the fella was able to purchase a gun here was because there was no law stating he couldn't.




That's the point, your lawmakers were not clear. Why would they be, where is their expertise in drafting legislation. Getting the most votes hardly makes one an expert in the field. They said "any Court" and someone obviously contended that this was "any Court in the USA".

The Supreme Court then had to make a judgement on what "any" actually meant, in the context of this piece of legislation. That is their job, to interpret not only the words of the lawmakers, but their intent. They agreed, on a majority, that it was "any Court in the USA". I suspect that was not the intention of your lawmakers, for the simple reason that it does not best protect your citizens, which seems to be the point

The interpretation of the law (as written) is at least as important as it's making. The making of the laws is all good and well, however it only effects real people when it is interpreted by your judges and ultimately ruled on by your Supreme Court.

[GepperRankins]

i really don't think we should be saying this "double standard" is bad.

[Busyman]

That's the point, your lawmakers were not clear. Why would they be, where is their expertise in drafting legislation. Getting the most votes hardly makes one an expert in the field. They said "any Court" and someone obviously contended that this was "any Court in the USA".

The Supreme Court then had to make a judgement on what "any" actually meant, in the context of this piece of legislation. That is their job, to interpret not only the words of the lawmakers, but their intent. They agreed, on a majority, that it was "any Court in the USA". I suspect that was not the intention of your lawmakers, for the simple reason that it does not best protect your citizens, which seems to be the point

The interpretation of the law (as written) is at least as important as it's making. The making of the laws is all good and well, however it only effects real people when it is interpreted by your judges and ultimately ruled on by your Supreme Court.
I know what the purpose of the judicial branch is.

I agree with the Supreme Court. If an American citizen was convicted of a crime in North Korea then our law would be compelled to use that against that person over here. I disagree with that.

"Any" court does not equal an international court.

[JPaul]

I agree with the Supreme Court. If an American citizen was convicted of a crime in North Korea then our law would be compelled to use that against that person over here. I disagree with that.

"Any" court does not equal an international court.
It's not about an "International Court" (if such exists), or a Court in North Korea.

It's about the fact that your lawmakers said "any Court" and your Supreme Court has now decided that "any Court" meant "any Court in the USA". Tho' the dissenters questioned the basis for this decision.

The rest of the world does not give a flying fuck that you have now decided that a conviction outside of the USA does not preclude a person from buying and carrying a firearm in your country.

It's an internal, USA matter. Should you recognise wet floors elsewhere or not. The Supreme Court has decided not to. I do not believe that was the intention of the lawmakers or that it is in the best interests of your citizens.

[vidcc]

i really don't think we should be saying this "double standard" is bad.
Their end opinion on this I agree with in that any should mean any.

But if the double standard came the other way round, these people shouting that we must count outside convictions domestically...then...the the same people show outrage over a judge looking at outside courts when making a ruling here as they did when a ruling was made that we shouldn't execute minors.These people wish to "reel in" the judges because of it.

I am for the judge looking outside our shores and I am against the ruling that outside convictions shouldn't count...... I do however see a need for each conviction to be viewed alone and not just "any" conviction because other lands don't have the same laws as we do.

[Busyman]

It's not about an "International Court" (if such exists), or a Court in North Korea.

It's about the fact that your lawmakers said "any Court" and your Supreme Court has now decided that "any Court" meant "any Court in the USA". Tho' the dissenters questioned the basis for this decision.

The rest of the world does not give a flying fuck that you have now decided that a conviction outside of the USA does not preclude a person from buying and carrying a firearm in your country.

It's an internal, USA matter. Should you recognise wet floors elsewhere or not. The Supreme Court has decided not to. I do not believe that was the intention of the lawmakers or that it is in the best interests of your citizens.
It's internal...for real? You're kidding? :blink:

We should not recognize wet floors in all cases. If the Supreme Court cock-blocked the intention of lawmakers so be it (if that's what happened). I think it was just, in this case. Now the lawmakers can tweak their wording.

[Busyman]

I do however see a need for each conviction to be viewed alone and not just "any" conviction because other lands don't have the same laws as we do.
Exactly...but what convictions?

If I had a handgun illegally in the UK should I be precluded from owning one here where it's legal? :huh:

What about assault?

I wonder does the UK do the same?

[GepperRankins]

I know what the purpose of the judicial branch is.

I agree with the Supreme Court. If an American citizen was convicted of a crime in North Korea then our law would be compelled to use that against that person over here. I disagree with that.

"Any" court does not equal an international court.
why disagree?

[GepperRankins]

I am for the judge looking outside our shores and I am against the ruling that outside convictions shouldn't count...... I do however see a need for each conviction to be viewed alone and not just "any" conviction because other lands don't have the same laws as we do.

i completely agree. i was under the impression that you were saying in america you should wipe the slate clean or import the whole criminal record.

being specific i reckon that with an unneccessery tool designed to kill, people should be presumed guilty until proven innocent

[Busyman]

why disagree?
Damn that wasn't very clear.

I agree, I disagree. :lol: :lol: :lol:

I agree with the Supreme Court and disagree with the opposite notion. SOrry. :blink:

[GepperRankins]

yeah i understood what you said, but you can't just denounce everything a country says as lies because you don't like them much.

[vidcc]

Exactly...but what convictions?

If I had a handgun illegally in the UK should I be precluded from owning one here where it's legal? :huh:

This is a tough one but I am leaning towards saying that yes a conviction in the UK should preclude ownership here for the reason that an illegally held gun in the UK would be for criminal reasons. It isn't as if one could hold an illegal gun by accident. If there was a genuine reason to hold the gun it should have been done legitimately.


What about assault?

Case by case..... as I said in the uk one can be convicted if it is decided self defence went beyond reasonable force......

[Busyman]

This is a tough one but I am leaning towards saying that yes a conviction in the UK should preclude ownership here for the reason that an illegally held gun in the UK would be for criminal reasons. It isn't as if one could hold an illegal gun by accident. If there was a genuine reason to hold the gun it should have been done legitimately.



Case by case..... as I said in the uk one can be convicted if it is decided self defence went beyond reasonable force......
This is what I have a problem with.

In the UK, I wouldn't be able to own a handgun. If owned one across the border and brought it over, that's criminal. I would not want that to preclude someone from owning one here. If that was the case then that is essentially exporting UK law here.

Even in assault, a UK court might view assault in a different way thean we do. Felony assault in the UK would preclude me from owning a handgun in the US.
I actually with a case by case basis but problem is there still needs to be concrete law.
I understand the converse as well.
I remember many Cuban refugees were actually criminals in their country turned loose on America ffs. The movie Scarface made reference to something very true.

[Busyman]

being specific i reckon that with an unneccessery tool designed to kill, people should be presumed guilty until proven innocent
I totally disagree. :dry:

[Busyman]

yeah i understood what you said, but you can't just denounce everything a country says as lies because you don't like them much.
Agreed but the reason I don't understand what hoopla is with this "any" shit is that it couldn't possibly apply to ANY COURT IN THE WORLD.

I could get convicted of a crime in a country completely hostile to America.....and then I'll be penalized by uhh America too.

This is why I thank the Supreme Court for having some "common sense".

If we are to recognize other courts when it comes to our laws they should be named specifically.

This shouldn't even have been debatable.

[GepperRankins]

I totally disagree. :dry:
are you rodding me or did you sell your common sense for some magic beans?


---------------------


with the assault thing i suppose you have a point, if we are burgled we are allowed to use reasonable force. so if an unarmed burglar breaks in and i beat him to death with a baseball bat, that would be manslaughter. whereas it seems that way of thinking is ok in america, so that charge shouldn't carried over.

with guns though i find it hard to imagine someone in britain with a gun not to be a dickhead

[GepperRankins]

Agreed but the reason I don't understand what hoopla is with this "any" shit is that it couldn't possibly apply to ANY COURT IN THE WORLD.

I could get convicted of a crime in a country completely hostile to America.....and then I'll be penalized by uhh America too.

This is why I thank the Supreme Court for having some "common sense".

If we are to recognize other courts when it comes to our laws they should be named specifically.

This shouldn't even have been debatable.
cases should be looked at without prejudice. whether you like the original country or not shouldn't effect whether they get a fair trial in the US

[Busyman]

are you rodding me or did you sell your common sense for some magic beans?


---------------------


with the assault thing i suppose you have a point, if we are burgled we are allowed to use reasonable force. so if an unarmed burglar breaks in and i beat him to death with a baseball bat, that would be manslaughter. whereas it seems that way of thinking is ok in america, so that charge shouldn't carried over.

with guns though i find it hard to imagine someone in britain with a gun not to be a dickhead
That's my point. Besides the fact that one can't own a gun there, you among your other UK mates on this board, view simply owning a gun as a bad thing. Your prejudice and law against certain things is just fine for over there.

[Busyman]

cases should be looked at without prejudice. whether you like the original country or not shouldn't effect whether they get a fair trial in the US
Cases should be looked without prejudice where?

Whatever the foreign country is, it shouldn't have much bearing on a US trial.....but in all cases shouldn't be totally ignored for all laws.
Sometimes there are extraordinary circumstances.

[GepperRankins]

That's my point. Besides the fact that one can't own a gun there, you among your other UK mates on this board, view simply owning a gun as a bad thing.
apart from target practice, which i know can be pretty fun (i used to own with my airguns) nothing good can come from it. in britain we don't even have the scare culture that make homeowners feel they need guns. so the only people who would wnat a gun here would be upto no good.

however without a conviction for threatening behaviour or using the gun, the 'up to no good' is only presumption.

[Snee]

That's my point. Besides the fact that one can't own a gun there, you among your other UK mates on this board, view simply owning a gun as a bad thing.
I guess the UK thing doesn't include me, but for what it's worth the consensus seemed to be that owning a gun in itself isn't a bad thing, it's just that most people shouldn't be allowed to own them, I (or we) have no problem with guns if they are in the hands of the right people, ie law enforcement or similar.

[GepperRankins]

Cases should be looked without prejudice where?

Whatever the foreign country is, it shouldn't have much bearing on a US trial.....but in all cases shouldn't be totally ignored for all laws.
Sometimes there are extraordinary circumstances.
in all cases previous convictions should be investigated. i suppose if a person was from zimbabwe and was set up for opposing the government or something along those lines a case can be invalid but that's why it should be investigated.

what if a man gets done for armed robbery in france then moves to america, should this previous crime be wiped from his record? tbh i don't believe it should be questioned, but that's just my oppinion

[GepperRankins]

I guess the UK thing doesn't include me, but for what it's worth the consensus seemed to be that owning a gun in itself isn't a bad thing, it's just that most people shouldn't be allowed to own them, I (or we) have no problem with guns if they are in the hands of the right people, ie law enforcement or similar.
i think the UK thing means not america but, us UKians are particularly snooty about the fact our gun laws work

[Busyman]

apart from target practice, which i know can be pretty fun (i used to own with my airguns) nothing good can come from it. in britain we don't even have the scare culture that make homeowners feel they need guns. so the only people who would wnat a gun here would be upto no good.

however without a conviction for threatening behaviour or using the gun, the 'up to no good' is only presumption.
Your paragraphs are somewhat contradictory then.

The bottom line is..you can't own a handgun there and that's fine but by making a gun possession conviction in the UK valid here then that makes you almost the same as Washington DC (where handguns are illegal).

Since the UK is not part of America and your government, views of law, and such are different, then I should not be subject to your probationary measures in America.

[GepperRankins]

Your paragraphs are somewhat contradictory then.

The bottom line is..you can't own a handgun there and that's fine but by making a gun possession conviction in the UK valid here then that makes you almost the same as Washington DC (where handguns are illegal).

Since the UK is not part of America and your government, views of law, and such are different, then I should not be subject to your probationary measures in America.
i don't see the contradiction. the only incentive to own a gun here is to commit crime, but we can only presume until someone is charged

[Busyman]

i don't see the contradiction. the only incentive to own a gun here is to commit crime, but we can only presume until someone is charged
That's how YOU view it.

If I lived there, I'd want one for protection in my home.

[Busyman]

i think the UK thing means not america but, us UKians are particularly snooty about the fact our gun laws work
They work because of the "take away" method.

Prohibit alcohol and I bet that drunk driving deaths would go down and in effect, vehicle related fatalities would go down.

In China, you used to have to prove yourself innocent. They had less crime than we did (and still do).

[GepperRankins]

That's how YOU view it.

If I lived there, I'd want one for protection in my home.
you wouldn't. thats the point.

over here we aren't scared of our own shadows, we don't feel we need guns to protect ourselves

[GepperRankins]

They work because of the "take away" method.

Prohibit alcohol and I bet that drunk driving deaths would go down and in effect, vehicle related fatalities would go down.

In China, you used to have to prove yourself innocent. They had less crime than we did (and still do).
no shit sherlock!?

[Busyman]

you wouldn't. thats the point.

over here we aren't scared of our own shadows, we don't feel we need guns to protect ourselves
That's what's weird.

I remember ziggy saying it's like a different world.

It ain't about being scared of a shadow. It's about protecting yourself from crime that we know is out there and sometimes comes to your doorstep.

If I was that scared, I'd have it on me at all times. My gun is the same as a baseball bat with more destructive power.

You could use your shit comment on anything for that matter. If someone picks up a stick because they hear people breaking in downstairs you could say "he's scared of his own shadow". :dry: Sounds rather stupid.

[Busyman]

no shit sherlock!?
Then if get rid of all knives then your crime rate may be lower. :lol: :lol:
Alright then I'm done with you. America doesn't work that way (anymore).

[GepperRankins]

That's what's weird.

I remember ziggy saying it's like a different world.

It ain't about being scared of a shadow. It's about protecting yourself from crime that we know is out there and sometimes comes to your doorstep.

If I was that scared, I'd have it on me at all times. My gun is the same as a baseball bat with more destructive power.

You could use your shit comment on anything for that matter. If someone picks up a stick because they hear people breaking in downstairs you could say "he's scared of his own shadow". :dry: Sounds rather stupid.
the mentality over here is that we don't need guns to protect ourselves.

if someone broke into my house i would be scared of my own shadow, doesn't mean i need a gun though.

btw, i said killing someone with a baseball bat is illegal



Then if get rid of all knives then your crime rate may be lower. :lol: :lol: Alright then I'm done with you.

no, get rid of all tools designed for the sole purpose of killing people :thumbsup:


edit:

America doesn't work that way (anymore).
you've got the highest homicide rate in the world. you must be so proud

[JPaul]

They work because of the "take away" method.

Yes, there is less gun crime because we have less guns.

Yes, there are less gun related deaths because we have less guns.

Yes, we like that.

It is of course your prerogative as a nation, to disregard offences which were commited in another country. However do you really think it is in the best interests of your people. In effect giving a criminal a clean slate when he moves there. I don't think so.

[Busyman]

Yes, there is less gun crime because we have less guns.

Yes, there are less gun related deaths because we have less guns.

Yes, we like that.

It is of course your prerogative as a nation, to disregard offences which were commited in another country. However do you really think it is in the best interests of your people. In effect giving a criminal a clean slate when he moves there. I don't think so.
No I don't either. However, everything doesn't match up.

You don't allow guns in UK. If I simply have a gun there that doesn't necessarily make me a danger to America. :blink:

Do you really think I want a maniac to come over here and NOT be regarded as such? Of course not. I also do not want a person's rights trampled upon due to an idiosyncrasy of a foreign country as relates to America. If they got a shit deal there it'll carryover here.

Regarding gun related deaths here, I wouldn't get rid o them all but shit, almost anyone is allowed to get one. I can buy a shotgun without a background check ffs. Your main point shouldn't be less gun related deaths but less homicides which of course you have. If your homicide rate remained the same then guns weren't the real issue.

Getting rid of guns is one extreme but unfortunately we have another which is too many allowances.

I would never propose to suddenly ban something (in most cases) when other options have not been applied.

Many could say alcohol is not necessary either and it should be banned. :dry:

[Snee]

Oddly enough, their homicide rate is lower.

Strange stuff.

[Busyman]

Oddly enough, their homicide rate is lower.

Strange stuff.
I know. Idint dat somethin'?


Your main point shouldn't be less gun related deaths but less homicides which of course you have.
:ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy:

[GepperRankins]

Many could say alcohol is not necessary either and it should be banned.

there are restrictions on alcohol but that isn't designed to kill people.


I would never propose to suddenly ban something (in most cases) when other options have not been applied.

please tell me. if guns aren't one of the things that should be banned what should?


Do you really think I want a maniac to come over here and NOT be regarded as such? Of course not. I also do not want a person's rights trampled upon due to an idiosyncrasy of a foreign country as relates to America. If they got a shit deal there it'll carryover here.

rights aren't really being trampled on. you're stopping someone having a weapon when there's a suspicion that they would use it, until you can prove they aren't going to use it for criminal activities. it's not like america has never done pre-emptive security measures that infringe on their rights before.



You don't allow guns in UK. If I simply have a gun there that doesn't necessarily make me a danger to America.

like i said, check the mentality. law abiding citizens here don't want guns. if you were to have one there would most likely be a sinister reason.


Regarding gun related deaths here, I wouldn't get rid o them all but shit, almost anyone is allowed to get one. I can buy a shotgun without a background check ffs. Your main point shouldn't less gun related deaths but less homicides which of course you have. If your homicide rate remained the same then guns weren't the real issue.

i can't decipher this to put it down :(

[Snee]

I know. Idint dat somethin'?


:ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy:
And yet you want to keep guns in your country :blink:

Nice one btw, edit-boy.

[GepperRankins]

i'm really lost. am i speaking the wrong language?

busyman seems to agree with us but typing like he isn't, is this some form of sarcasm?

[enoughfakefiles]

i'm really lost. am i speaking the wrong language?

busyman seems to agree with us but typing like he isn't, is this some form of sarcasm?

He`s proberbly pulling your leg again dave. :blink:

[GepperRankins]

He`s proberbly pulling your leg again dave. :blink:
i didn't think he was into that :naughty:

[Snee]

He should try the other one, it's got bells on.

[Busyman]

And yet you want to keep guns in your country :blink:

Nice one btw, edit-boy.
I don't understand your edit-boy :shit: remark.

Yes I do want to still be able to own a gun. I just don't want anyone to be able to get one. I would want folks to pass some sort training or something and do more fucking background checks. I thought this ground was covered before? :huh:

The selling of alcohol is partly responsible for many tragic deaths and disease all over this country yet I wouldn't get rid of that either. It can be abused as well as a gun. All freedoms come with a price.

Got a point?

edit: I just got your little :shit: remark. The "less homicide" thingie was already there.
Just read a little slower next time.

[GepperRankins]

are you stoned? i mean like really stoned

[Snee]

@busy: So guns kill people, that we can agree on.

Yet you think everyone who passes some kind of test, ie someone with no previous convictions and maybe a bit of training should be allowed to have one, but not the bad guys?

You don't reckon, just a wee bit, that maybe, just maybe the only way to really make sure the wrong people don't get it would be to make sure guns aren't available for the public? 'cos I reckon that's how it is. There's no magic method of filtering out the bad seeds in society, stricter gun control might make thing a little bit better, but it'll still be way too easy to get a gun as they can be found everywhere.


For instance, I know a house where I could score six guns, if I ever went there.


As for the rest, why don't you have a ponder about that.

EDit: You edit a million times, yet some of your stuff lately is hardly legible at times, that's the point. Leaving out two words per sentence is hardly stylish (maybe a mild exagerration, but why the mess?).

So where do the edits go?


EDitII: Actually you must have caught almost everything now, but I saw some weird stuff earlier, and the stuff GR is quoting is pretty odd, not to say ambiguous.

EDitIII: (going for broke) I'm cool with you leaving stuff out if you miss the occasional word and that, all of us do it, it's the editing in information, while missing errors that does my head in. Sorry.

[vidcc]

There IS no double standard, vid.

TO ME THERE IS

[GepperRankins]

Yet you think everyone who passes some kind of test, ie someone with no previous convictions and maybe a bit of training should be allowed to have one, but not the bad guys?

it can't be that, it's going against people's rights to not let them have until after the test

[enoughfakefiles]

Yet you think everyone who passes some kind of test, ie someone with no previous convictions and maybe a bit of training should be allowed to have one, but not the bad guys?

I don`t think this girl passed a test. :unsure:

Tell me why i don`t like mondays. (http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/mondays.asp)

[Busyman]

@busy: So guns kill people, that we can agree on.
Guns don't kill people, people (along with occasional animals) kill people, so we disagree actually.

Yet you think everyone who passes some kind of test, ie someone with no previous convictions and maybe a bit of training should be allowed to have one, but not the bad guys?
Who are the bad guys?

You don't reckon, just a wee bit, that maybe, just maybe the only way to really make sure the wrong people don't get it would be to make sure guns aren't available for the public? 'cos I reckon that's how it is. There's no magic method of filtering out the bad seeds in society, stricter gun control might make thing a little bit better, but it'll still be way too easy to get a gun as they can be found everywhere.
Many wrong people will be able to get a gun anyway. As you said, they can be found everywhere. The nation doesn't need a babysitter. There will always be homicides. That can't be changed. I reckon that we have stricter gun control first. Folks have to pass a test to drive a car ffs (but I wish those tests were more stringent too).


For instance, I know a house where I could score six guns, if I ever went there.
Oh really. Where? I thought they weren't allowed in the UK? :blink:


As for the rest, why don't you have a ponder about that.

EDit: You edit a million times, yet some of your stuff lately is hardly legible at times, that's the point. Leaving out two words per sentence is hardly stylish (maybe a mild exagerration, but why the mess?).

So where do the edits go?

EDitII: Actually you must have caught almost everything now, but I saw some weird stuff earlier, and the stuff GR is quoting is pretty odd, not to say ambiguous.

EDitIII: (going for broke) I'm cool with you leaving stuff out if you miss the occasional word and that, all of us do it, it's the editing in information, while missing errors that does my head in. Sorry.
I leave out words on occasion but the "less homicides" thing was already there. I seen people respond before i've done a proofread edit and "they get it". Like in that post I said person instead of person's, trample instead of trampled. I then edited to correct it.

[GepperRankins]

OMGWTFBBQ?


busy you would know the bad guys by previous convictions, and if you don't want to look at previous convictions you don't let anyone have them.


how many times do we have to say snny does not live in the UK?

[Busyman]

:lol:

That's just because the word "foreign" appears in both instances.

If you don't re-examine your stance relative to the facts and arrive at the proper conclusion I'm afraid I will be disappointed in you...I may even have to involve JPaul. :P
I pointed this out before yet vid still holds fast.

One looks at a moral opinion internationally. The other involves folks intenational criminal record ffs. :frusty:

I think his double standard simply involves......ANY INTERNATIONAL INFLUENCE and THE SUPREME COURT. He saw those two and said "bingo, double standard".

Vid ya gotta look at what the two individual topics are and then go from there.

[Snee]

@busy:
The same people wouldn't be a able to kill other people quite as easily, as the homicide rates show, which means that guns do in a sense lead to people dying, so in a sense they do cause deaths, and thus guns do, again in a sense, kill people.

The bad guys would be anyone you don't want to own a gun.

I mean your house, you wiz. And I still don't live in the UK.



The less homicides thing could be read in two ways depending on how you looked at it since it was a bit messy, and at any rate it could have easily been sorted with one of your edits, you do make a few, you know.

But I don't think you got the comment I made, the point of making it was that you keep arguing for keeping your guns, while you put forth arguments, at the same time, in favour of getting rid of them. It's as if you don't really read what you write.

Thus, the important part needed repeating.

You say the Uk has less homicides because they don't have guns while arguing to keep guns available to people like yourself, that's a bit strange.

A background check or a bit of training doesn't mean a thing. Almost anyone can pass that, the only way to stop people from getting hold of guns would be to make the guns very hard to get hold of. And anyone who can pass them can sell guns to the ones who can't.


Sure, some people would still have them even if you made them illegal and cut off the supplies, but there'd be a much lesser quantity out there for you to worry about.

And I don't get how you can say you would buy a gun even if you lived in the UK, where the risk of getting shot is so very small (assuming you were getting it to even out the odds or whatever), that's just weird.

[JPaul]

I seen people respond before i've done a proofread edit and "they get it". Like in that post I said person instead of person's, trample instead of trampled. I then edited to correct it.
See, you can make it intelligble if you try.

[vidcc]

I pointed this out before yet vid still holds fast.

One looks at a moral opinion internationally. The other involves folks intenational criminal record ffs. :frusty:

I think his double standard simply involves......ANY INTERNATIONAL INFLUENCE and THE SUPREME COURT. He saw those two and said "bingo, double standard".

Vid ya gotta look at what the two individual topics are and then go from there.
then let me explain it yet again :rolleyes:


The people I am talking about stated without any exception that foriegn courts have no bearing on US justice. They have no influence on US justice and they have no place in the US system. They used the arguement that non US courts have different laws and are not just and fair as US courts are and therefore under no circumstances are foreign courts relevent.

Therefore the double standard I see is that they wish to view convictions in these outside courts as relevent.

Now I am not basing this on the fact that they objected to "international opinion" I am basing it on why they said international opinion should not count.
If one says that international courts are not just then how can one argue to use convictions in those courts?

Edit: they also stated that they are different cultures so bear no relevence

[Busyman]

@busy:
The same people wouldn't be a able to kill other people quite as easily, as the homicide rates show, which means that guns do in a sense lead to people dying, so in a sense they do cause deaths, and thus guns do, again in a sense, kill people.
That would mean gunmakers are liable. They are not. If I club you in the head with a baseball bat then maybe it's the baseball bat's fault.

The bad guys would be anyone you don't want to own a gun.
Anyone can be bad guy. Someone could want to knock off their wife and shoot her yet pass a background check.....and world keeps turning.
I mean your house, you wiz. And I still don't live in the UK.
..and damn I don't live in Sweden. If you were to come to my house, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't make it past the foyer...and you may come up short by just scoring six bullets. :P

The less homicides thing could be read in two ways depending on how you looked at it since it was a bit messy, and at any rate it could have easily been sorted with one of your edits, you do make a few, you know.

When put in context, it definitely reads "the UK has less homicides" and discern the point was about "less homicides" and not just "homicides".
But I don't think you got the comment I made, the point of making it was that you keep arguing for keeping your guns, while you put forth arguments, at the same time, in favour of getting rid of them. It's as if you don't really read what you write.

Where did I say we should get rid of them? In a perfect world, of course I'd be rid of them.

Thus, the important part needed repeating.

You say the Uk has less homicides because they don't have guns while arguing to keep guns available to people like yourself, that's a bit strange.

A hypothetical.....
The UK bans alcohol. Drunk driving deaths are then a 20th of America's, domestic goes down drastically, crime goes down drastically, alcohol related illness is almost wiped out. Anything to the contrary is due to moonshining.
America still won't ban alcohol. That's a bit strange.

A background check or a bit of training doesn't mean a thing. Almost anyone can pass that, the only way to stop people from getting hold of guns would be to make the guns very hard to get hold of. And anyone who can pass them can sell guns to the ones who can't.

Almost anyone can't pass a test. Also, the implementation of stricter gun control is up for debate. Being able to walk into Kmart and come out with a shotgun is ridiculous. Go to a gun show, come out with a handgun....ridiculous. Close some of this shit up first.
I imagine if there was no test for driving a car then we'd not only have more cars on the road but also more people crashing shit up. In response to recent crashes by teenage drivers, in some places I think they have to have a learner's permit longer or the driving age has been upped.

Sure, some people would still have them even if you made them illegal and cut off the supplies, but there'd be a much lesser quantity out there for you to worry about.

There'd be much lesser quantity with better gun control too.

And I don't get how you can say you would buy a gun even if you lived in the UK, where the risk of getting shot is so very small (assuming you were getting it to even out the odds or whatever), that's just weird.

I believe that trouble can find anyone. It was far-fetched for me to believe I'd catch a stray bullet in my car while sitting at a fucking red light.
Trust me..even in America shit happens and we still can't believe it. This is because on a day-to-day basis, life is peachy. I see shit on the news but for me it's life as usual though the shit may have been somewhere that I was at a day ago.
Life..............
Shit happens. I never have to pull a gun someone here and yet move over there (UK) and have to.

It's the way the cookie crumbles.

[Busyman]

See, you can make it intelligble if you try.
I seen what I can be doin'. Thank ya. :1eye:

[Busyman]

then let me explain it yet again :rolleyes:


The people I am talking about stated without any exception that foriegn courts have no bearing on US justice. They have no influence on US justice and they have no place in the US system. They used the arguement that non US courts have different laws and are not just and fair as US courts are and therefore under no circumstances are foreign courts relevent.

Therefore the double standard I see is that they wish to view convictions in these outside courts as relevent.

Now I am not basing this on the fact that they objected to "international opinion" I am basing it on why they said international opinion should not count.
If one says that international courts are not just then how can one argue to use convictions in those courts?

Edit: they also stated that they are different cultures so bear no relevence
Thanks for clearing that up but please point out the words in bold as it relates to the judicial activism thingie. I don't remember those phrases at all.

Even in your first post you say "moral ruling" and then say "foreign convictions".
They are two different things.

I know you arre saying now that it's basically "They want to disregard the courts in every way now they regard the courts only this one thingie". IiIIIIII gotcha.

[vidcc]

Thanks for clearing that up but please point out the words in bold as it relates to the judicial activism thingie. I don't remember those phrases at all.

.

I did say it before but i didn't go into detail in the first post because in saying it was a USA thread in the title i was hoping that those that joined in would be aware of the "issue", although it is as usual open to all.
I watch programs like hardball and scarborough country (i think you get both sides if you watch those two) as well as reading both left and right wing bloggers.

[Snee]

That would mean gunmakers are liable. They are not. If I club you in the head with a baseball bat then maybe it's the baseball bat's fault.
No it isn't, it isn't about what to blame, it's about what leads to death. And guns do have a tendancy to cause death when used.

Oh yeah, and the gunmakers bloody well should be liable, seeing as they lobby for the same thing you seem so happy with, that is, to let (almost) everyone buy a gun.



Anyone can be bad guy. Someone could want to knock off their wife and shoot her yet pass a background check.....and world keeps turning.
And that's the point, if anyone can be a bad guy, then why should they get to buy guns. The world doesn't keep on turning for the ones who get killed because someone killed them, I can promise you that.


..and damn I don't live in Sweden. If you were to come to my house, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't make it past the foyer...and you may come up short by just scoring six bullets.

Sure I would, as I know better than to break into someone's home when they are home.

I did say if I ever come there, now didn't I, btw?


When put in context, it definitely reads "the UK has less homicides" and discern the point was about "less homicides" and not just "homicides".
In the context of your posts, it might well have been the point which he had, what with your tendency to sometimes leave stuff out.

Not quite sure what you are trying to say here either.


Where did I say we should get rid of them? In a perfect world, of course I'd be rid of them.
It won't be a perfect world if people like you keep insisting they should have them. It sort of opens the door to all kinds of shit.


A hypothetical.....
The UK bans alcohol. Drunk driving deaths are then a 20th of America's, domestic goes down drastically, crime goes down drastically, alcohol related illness is almost wiped out. Anything to the contrary is due to moonshining.
America still won't ban alcohol. That's a bit strange.
Can't aim a bottle of booze at anyone and kill them in a second, it takes a bit more than that, and this is one of those places where your "people kill people" argument works to a greater extent, no matter how drunk I've been, and I've been pretty drunk indeed, I've never had any illusions as to why I've done what I've done.

I reckon it was all me. And as I didn't have a magic button to press in order to cause mayhem in an instant, it was slow process, not a moments decision, like it would be if you shot someone.

But, as we are on the subject, stricter control with regards to alcohol wouldn't hurt you either.

We have that, and it appears to work.



Almost anyone can't pass a test. Also, the implementation of stricter gun control is up for debate. Being able to walk into Kmart and come out with a shotgun is ridiculous. Go to a gun show, come out with a handgun....ridiculous. Close some of this shit up first.
Sure they can, unless the test is very strict indeed, not only involving background checks with regards to prior sentences, but psychoanalysis or something.

It isn't hard to hit a static target either.

So yeah, almost anyone can pass the test you propose.

Unless of course, you want people to pay for the priviliege, that'd filter out some people, I should imagine. Though it wouldn't be very fair.


I imagine if there was no test for driving a car then we'd not only have more cars on the road but also more people crashing shit up. In response to recent crashes by teenage drivers, in some places I think they have to have a learner's permit longer or the driving age has been upped.
Strangely enough, we can't get a license until we turn eighteen, and I'll be darned if that doesn't work better too.

We can't really compare cars to guns, as one is a weapon, while the other is a tool for transport. And since society needs that today, then we do have to use them, and the tests are the best way of ensuring that people at least know a little about what they are doing before going out on the road. But when it comes to guns, society really doesn't need them, in fact, they seem to be a big problem, without any real overall gain. So there's really no point in wasting money on devising better tests when you could bypass the problem by just taking the reason for the test away.


There'd be much lesser quantity with better gun control too.
I'd wager that the quantity would be a bit lesser, but since everyone seems so fond of owning one over there, they'd just wait a bit longer for their guns, and take the tests. The guns would still be available, you haven't really removed anything.


I believe that trouble can find anyone. It was far-fetched for me to believe I'd catch a stray bullet in my car while sitting at a fucking red light.
Trust me..even in America shit happens and we still can't believe it. This is because on a day-to-day basis, life is peachy. I see shit on the news but for me it's life as usual though the shit may have been somewhere that I was at a day ago.
Life..............
Shit happens. I never have to pull a gun someone here and yet move over there (UK) and have to.
This just in case thing is mad, yes, someone might shoot you, but the odds in favour of it are microscopic, and the chances of you getting stuck in a situation where a gun is the only way out are probably a lot smaller than you dying in a traffic accident or dying from an illness, yet that is important enough to waste your money on, and if you go to the UK, to risk prison for.

Why worry about that particular thing, and not wear a helmet when driving or something, and maybe a gasmask to keep the germs out?

It's pretty silly. And not in the least logical.


With regards to the thread-topic:
If you did bring a gun to my country and shot someone, I reckon you do deserve to go to prison, 'cos you have damn well broken the law.

So I certainly reckon you should be convicted in the US too, for it, if you happened to be there before they caught you.

Laws like that, laws that don't have anything to do with religion, or any other madness, should be followed wherever you go, so I'm all in favour of globalising the reach of certain laws, no matter the originating country.

And if you were tried in one of your own courts, the efficiency of the local police wouldn't be an issue either, and thus it'd be fair by american standards. I reckon.

And this is what this thread is originally about in a way, isn't it.


You have the patriot act, and things like that, that allow the US to convict people all over the world from what I understand, and even to some extent bring them back to be convicted, so the US owes it to the world to allow other nations a certain influence in the US. It's only fair, and to argue against it, would be an indication of double standards.

At any rate the discussion shouldn't be about what nations you should recognize as having authority, but rather about which laws you should follow as certain matters are universal.

And for them to suddenly recognize convictions only when it's convenient, ie to keep the guns out of the hands of some people, while arguing about foreign laws not having influence on US courts is mad.

[JPaul]

.... laws that don't have anything to do with religion, or any other madness ....


There are those amongst us who do not consider religion to be madness. You may not agree with this, however it is a bit harsh to describe us in such a manner.

[Busyman]

No it isn't, it isn't about what to blame, it's about what leads to death. And guns do have a tendancy to cause death when used.

So do knives and baseball bats. :blink:

Oh yeah, and the gunmakers bloody well should be liable, seeing as they lobby for the same thing you seem so happy with, that is, to let (almost) everyone buy a gun.

Gun makers should not be liable. They sell a product allowable under the law...shit, allowable under the Constitution ffs. I bet you think McDonald's is liable for obesity too.

And that's the point, if anyone can be a bad guy, then why should they get to buy guns. The world doesn't keep on turning for the ones who get killed because someone killed them, I can promise you that.

Why should they get to buy knives? You can't control free-will.

Sure I would, as I know better than to break into someone's home when they are home.

I did say if I ever come there, now didn't I, btw?

...and I said if you were to come to my house. I didn't do any edit so it was there. Read.
Besides that I have an alarm and you have to find the guns.

In the context of your posts, it might well have been the point which he had, what with your tendency to sometimes leave stuff out.

Not quite sure what you are trying to say here either.

Who knows wtf you are talking about either. You made a remark about my post...on something that I already posted and never edited. Then you try to cover it by saying nice edit when called on it. People skip over shit reading sometimes man...hell I do it. The problem was you were trying to be a smart-ass about something that was in your face all along and you can't back down enough to admit (with evidence still sitting there). :dry:

It won't be a perfect world if people like you keep insisting they should have them. It sort of opens the door to all kinds of shit.

I recognize this isn't Disneyland.

Can't aim a bottle of booze at anyone and kill them in a second, it takes a bit more than that, and this is one of those places where your "people kill people" argument works to a greater extent, no matter how drunk I've been, and I've been pretty drunk indeed, I've never had any illusions as to why I've done what I've done.

I reckon it was all me. And as I didn't have a magic button to press in order to cause mayhem in an instant, it was slow process, not a moments decision, like it would be if you shot someone.

The end result is the fact that the selling and consumption of alcohol leads to many deaths and alcohol is not necessary to live. A drunk driver can kill in a second...sometimes and entire family.

But, as we are on the subject, stricter control with regards to alcohol wouldn't hurt you either.

We have that, and it appears to work.

Agreed...stricter control.

Sure they can, unless the test is very strict indeed, not only involving background checks with regards to prior sentences, but psychoanalysis or something.

It isn't hard to hit a static target either.

So yeah, almost anyone can pass the test you propose.

I'm sorry. What test did I propose?

Unless of course, you want people to pay for the priviliege, that'd filter out some people, I should imagine. Though it wouldn't be very fair.

Strangely enough, we can't get a license until we turn eighteen, and I'll be darned if that doesn't work better too.

We can't really compare cars to guns, as one is a weapon, while the other is a tool for transport. And since society needs that today, then we do have to use them, and the tests are the best way of ensuring that people at least know a little about what they are doing before going out on the road. But when it comes to guns, society really doesn't need them, in fact, they seem to be a big problem, without any real overall gain. So there's really no point in wasting money on devising better tests when you could bypass the problem by just taking the reason for the test away.

I like folks to educated if they are going to own a gun. Many folks don't keep have proper gun locks and have children in the house. They pick up a gun and can't fire it yet they own it....so when they do have to fire it, bullets go to next door neighbors house.

I feel I should be able to own a gun for an intruder.

I'd wager that the quantity would be a bit lesser, but since everyone seems so fond of owning one over there, they'd just wait a bit longer for their guns, and take the tests. The guns would still be available, you haven't really removed anything.

Wtf are you on about again? Everyone is not fond of owning a gun over here. MOST people don't.

This just in case thing is mad, yes, someone might shoot you, but the odds in favour of it are microscopic, and the chances of you getting stuck in a situation where a gun is the only way out are probably a lot smaller than you dying in a traffic accident or dying from an illness, yet that is important enough to waste your money on, and if you go to the UK, to risk prison for.

Then it sounds like the odds of me having to even pull my gun are microscopic as well. ;)

Why worry about that particular thing, and not wear a helmet when driving or something, and maybe a gasmask to keep the germs out?

It's uncomfortable and looks like shit.

It's pretty silly. And not in the least logical.

How so? My gun ownership is unobtrusive, unintrusive, and can save my life under current law.[B]

With regards to the thread-topic:
If you did bring a gun to my country and shot someone, I reckon you do deserve to go to prison, 'cos you have damn well broken the law.

[B]Of course.

So I certainly reckon you should be convicted in the US too, for it, if you happened to be there before they caught you.

Explain.

Laws like that, laws that don't have anything to do with religion, or any other madness, should be followed wherever you go, so I'm all in favour of globalising the reach of certain laws, no matter the originating country.

I disagree.

And if you were tried in one of your own courts, the efficiency of the local police wouldn't be an issue either, and thus it'd be fair by american standards. I reckon.

Explain.

And this is what this thread is originally about in a way, isn't it.

You have the patriot act, and things like that, that allow the US to convict people all over the world from what I understand, and even to some extent bring them back to be convicted, so the US owes it to the world to allow other nations a certain influence in the US. It's only fair, and to argue against it, would be an indication of double standards.

I don't think the Patriot Act works in that way. I think it fucks over American citizens and people on our soil.

At any rate the discussion shouldn't be about what nations you should recognize as having authority, but rather about which laws you should follow as certain matters are universal.

Laws are interpreted differently in different countries. Some are the same. A person in another country should be liable to that country and how that country interprets their law.

And for them to suddenly recognize convictions only when it's convenient, ie to keep the guns out of the hands of some people, while arguing about foreign laws not having influence on US courts is mad.

Well in America anything's up for debate. The Court made an interpretation of the law which I think was just. As far as arguing international opinion not having an influence, I thought one Supreme Court justice in particular was actually for the influence. :blink:

[Snee]

There are those amongst us who do not consider religion to be madness. You may not agree with this, however it is a bit harsh to describe us in such a manner.
Sorry, wasn't thinking there. I didn't mean that religion is mad, but that laws based on religion alone are, or at least can be.

I apologize, I did not mean to critizise your faith. I really didn't.

[Snee]

And busy, the makers of guns differ from mickey dee's and such in that they weapons.

If they lobby to keep their weapons in society, then they certainly should pay for that when someone dies because of what they sell.

This is nothing like blaming a company that sells food for making you fat, that's just stupid. the guns do something to you, you don't choose to get shot.


Knives and baseball bats aren't intended to be used as weapons by the manufacturer, they have their valid, peaceful uses, so that's not the same thing either.



I think I'll leave out that weirdness about edits, you said I wasn't there and I pointed out that I said that I wasn't there, and meh.

You say you want a stricter test, that means that you want a test, albeit unspecified test, I say any test is going to be inadequate and won't really work. Thus you are in favour of using a test, and I'm not.

You want people to be educated when it comes to using a gun, and I suppose that's better than them just picking them up when the trouble starts, but seeing as how people are people most will only do the training necessary to pass any test, and then forget all about it once they have the gun. It can't really help much in the long run.


And wtf are you on about, I reckon the people who own guns are fond of their guns, or at least of their right to own guns. So nothing would change. And if anyone gives the impression of everyone having guns it's you. You certainly seem to think that the possibility of you getting shot is oh so serious. If most people don't have guns I don't really see how you can need one. Microscopic odds and all that.


A helmet is uncomfortable? and looks like shit. Well, a gun is loud, oh and it's lethal.


You say you want a gun even in the UK, that's not logical, 'k? The risk is even smaller there, the gun is illegal, and you could probably have managed without it.


And with regards to the laws, I think you should be punished if you murder someone, no matter where you murder them. And if you managed to get back to the US, you shouldn't be protected from the influence of other courts because the american courts don't recognize the authority of those courts.


Part of the patriot act (at least I think it was the patriot act, I know it was US law), and other recent additions, allows for convicting people just for using american servers and similar. To some extent America gives itself jurisdiction on foreign soil when it comes to certain crimes, like terrorism, or what they think is terrorism.

And who knows what your intelligence agencies have been up to, I know they've supported all kinds of shennanigans in the past.


I think vid's comment about double standards and that was made with the ones not in favour of allowing foreign courts influence on your legal system.

[Busyman]

And busy, the makers of guns differ from mickey dee's and such in that they weapons.

Same principle. People choose to eat at McDonald's. The blame is not on McDonald's. A person kills another with a gun. The blame is on the person doing the killing. Pretty simple.

If they lobby to keep their weapons in society, then they certainly should pay for that when someone dies because of what they sell.

Gun makers don't make law. The sale of guns is law biding.

This is nothing like blaming a company that sells food for making you fat, that's just stupid. the guns do something to you, you don't choose to get shot.

Guns don't do anything to me. They just sit there until someone picks it up. :blink:

Knives and baseball bats aren't intended to be used as weapons by the manufacturer, they have their valid, peaceful uses, so that's not the same thing either.

They both can be objects used for killing. In that, they are the same. Guns require more regulation. If there was an epidemic of knifings then it would require regulation too.

I think I'll leave out that weirdness about edits, you said I wasn't there and I pointed out that I said that I wasn't there, and meh.

I bet you do now want to leave out the edit weirdness seeing that you were wrong. :huh:

You say you want a stricter test, that means that you want a test, albeit unspecified test, I say any test is going to be inadequate and won't really work. Thus you are in favour of using a test, and I'm not.

All test filter out people. There was a test for me to get inton Verizon. This test probably filtered out many people that didn't fit the company's employment criteria (or to be blunt, they were too dumb for the job). It makes one have to go through more trouble than simply putting the gun on their credit card.

You want people to be educated when it comes to using a gun, and I suppose that's better than them just picking them up when the trouble starts, but seeing as how people are people most will only do the training necessary to pass any test, and then forget all about it once they have the gun. It can't really help much in the long run.

Maybe but I remember all my driver "training"........ :blink:

And wtf are you on about, I reckon the people who own guns are fond of their guns, or at least of their right to own guns. So nothing would change. And if anyone gives the impression of everyone having guns it's you. You certainly seem to think that the possibility of you getting shot is oh so serious. If most people don't have guns I don't really see how you can need one. Microscopic odds and all that.

Hmmm but you said "everyone seems so fond of owning one over there." You had that impression of everyone having a gun from TV not me. The possiblity of anyone getting shot is serious even if statistically unlikely (sound weird huh). Most people don't have guns but it seems that there are folks still getting shot by the one's that do. Microscopic odds and all that.

A helmet is uncomfortable? and looks like shit. Well, a gun is loud, oh and it's lethal.

I don't mind loud and lethal. Loud let's my neighbor's know there's trouble. Lethal means hopefully the intruder got capped.

You say you want a gun even in the UK, that's not logical, 'k? The risk is even smaller there, the gun is illegal, and you could probably have managed without it.

Not quite. I know it's against the law there so I wouldn't have one. It's a catch-22...I want one for protection but I don't want one if it breaks the law. It's the same reason I don't ride around in my car with a loaded weapon (the latter reason), that and the fact that if someone breaks into my car, they've got my gun.


And with regards to the laws, I think you should be punished if you murder someone, no matter where you murder them. And if you managed to get back to the US, you shouldn't be protected from the influence of other courts because the american courts don't recognize the authority of those courts.

That's what extradition is for so in that, I agree.

Part of the patriot act (at least I think it was the patriot act, I know it was US law), and other recent additions, allows for convicting people just for using american servers and similar. To some extent America gives itself jurisdiction on foreign soil when it comes to certain crimes, like terrorism, or what they think is terrorism.

I can't speak tooooooo much on the Patriot Act since I don't a hell of alot about it. The jurisdiction you speak of isn't PA related. It's "pissed-off were coming to fuck you up 9-11 related". If we suspect Syria is a terrorist country and had something to with a bombing on our country, us going in there doesn't involve the PA.

And who knows what your intelligence agencies have been up to, I know they've supported all kinds of shennanigans in the past.

As all governments have.

I think vid's comment about double standards and that was made with the ones not in favour of allowing foreign courts influence on your legal system.
His double standard is too broad. One has to look at what actually is being talked about and not just put "foreign courts and influence" together.

[Snee]

Purely to set the record straight:

If I thought I was wrong, I'd admitted it, I'm not, you know, you.


As for the rest.

Guns, the other tools and the food are all different, in that guns are made to kill, while the others are made for other purposes.

If everything is used for what it's intended for, guns will still be used to kill people.
That's not exactly a side effect.

And when it comes to training, I guarantee you, you'll forget most of it if you never use what you learned, whether it's about cars or guns. The reason it would be a bigger problem when it comes to guns is that most people don't use them daily, to repel invading forces or somesuch, whereas most people do drive to work quite often.

And the double standard, as far as I can tell, lies in how the us courts only accept the decisions of other courts, if at all, to take away rights other people in the US do have, on the basis of laws they won't otherwise accept. And, as an added insult, it appears to be allowed, by US law, for certain organizations to break the laws in all kinds of ways, in foreign countries.

And no, not every country does the same kind of thing, but even if they did, that's still not a reason to do it.

As for the patriot act, I do think it regulates the usage of american servers as well. At any rate US law regulates the usage of servers on american soil in such a fashion that, say negotiating a sale of some, in the US, illegal substance in, say Amsterdam via email passing through an American server, might become a problem if the server is ever cracked open, depending on how you read the law, it certainly looked that way to me in an excerpt I came into contact with last year.