Re: double standard? (USA thread)
Quote:
Originally Posted by snny
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
Re: double standard? (USA thread)
Quote:
Originally Posted by snny
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.
Re: double standard? (USA thread)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnnY
@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.
Re: double standard? (USA thread)
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?
Re: double standard? (USA thread)
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
: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.
Re: double standard? (USA thread)
@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.
Re: double standard? (USA thread)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
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.
Re: double standard? (USA thread)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
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
Re: double standard? (USA thread)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnnY
@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.
Re: double standard? (USA thread)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
See, you can make it intelligble if you try.
I seen what I can be doin'. Thank ya. :1eye:
