double standard? (USA thread)

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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 :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by enoughfakefiles

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

---

i didn't think he was into that :naughty:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnnY

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.

are you stoned? i mean like really stoned

@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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

There IS no double standard, vid.

---

TO ME THERE IS