P
Only if this were true, would I grant that you have a valid point.press said:I mean think about it: It's thanks to the Second Amendment that we have so much crime in this nation.
press said:I mean think about it: It's thanks to the Second Amendment that we have so much crime in this nation. Most murders involve a gun in some way, so if we remove the Second Amendment by constitutional amendment, we can dramatically reduce crime. Sure we would be preventing people from protecting themselves, but without guns in the first place, this need isn't present. Burgalaries? There are so many laws regulating when it's legal to shoot at a burgalar (they must be carrying a weapon themselves, they have to look like they can defend themselves, they must physically provoke you, etc) that owning a gun for defending your property is futile.
I was quick to send this to my Congressman, John Boozman, when he published this article today. I doubt that one email from one person is going to sway a Congressman, but it is excuses like that that keep one email from one person from being multiple emails from many people. Everyone thinks that they're "just one man who has no chance in hell of making a difference," but if everyone who thought that banned together for a common good, a lot of damage to crime can be delt. This "eye b jus' 1 m@n!" is a disgusting excuse for not going to your Congressman.
press said:I mean think about it: It's thanks to the Second Amendment that we have so much crime in this nation. Most murders involve a gun in some way, so if we remove the Second Amendment by constitutional amendment, we can dramatically reduce crime. Sure we would be preventing people from protecting themselves, but without guns in the first place, this need isn't present. Burgalaries? There are so many laws regulating when it's legal to shoot at a burgalar (they must be carrying a weapon themselves, they have to look like they can defend themselves, they must physically provoke you, etc) that owning a gun for defending your property is futile.
I was quick to send this to my Congressman, John Boozman, when he published this article today. I doubt that one email from one person is going to sway a Congressman, but it is excuses like that that keep one email from one person from being multiple emails from many people. Everyone thinks that they're "just one man who has no chance in hell of making a difference," but if everyone who thought that banned together for a common good, a lot of damage to crime can be delt. This "eye b jus' 1 m@n!" is a disgusting excuse for not going to your Congressman.
As much as this is going to shock you, it's thanks to video games like Grand Theft Auto and Manhunt that crime is decreasing. Now wait. Think about it: All these violent video games, instead of encouraging people to go out and do it in real life like stereotypists say, has actually given them an alternative adrenaline rush. Many political groups argue that point, but that's only because of stereotypists comparing them to movies, television, and music, which don't really have you doing the thing yourself; you're just watching it, so you don't get the same adrenaline rush. Playing violent video games is like soliciting a prostitute. You don't have the guts to do anything meaningful, so you go with an alternative.TurtleDude said:ours is DECREASING even with more and more legal guns being bought
press said:As much as this is going to shock you, it's thanks to video games like Grand Theft Auto and Manhunt that crime is decreasing. Now wait. Think about it: All these violent video games, instead of encouraging people to go out and do it in real life like stereotypists say, has actually given them an alternative adrenaline rush. Many political groups argue that point, but that's only because of stereotypists comparing them to movies, television, and music, which don't really have you doing the thing yourself; you're just watching it, so you don't get the same adrenaline rush. Playing violent video games is like soliciting a prostitute. You don't have the guts to do anything meaningful, so you go with an alternative.
press said:As much as this is going to shock you, it's thanks to video games like Grand Theft Auto and Manhunt that crime is decreasing. Now wait. Think about it: All these violent video games, instead of encouraging people to go out and do it in real life like stereotypists say, has actually given them an alternative adrenaline rush. Many political groups argue that point, but that's only because of stereotypists comparing them to movies, television, and music, which don't really have you doing the thing yourself; you're just watching it, so you don't get the same adrenaline rush. Playing violent video games is like soliciting a prostitute. You don't have the guts to do anything meaningful, so you go with an alternative.
great. The "what about this one guy, out of all the millions of video game players" bullshit. I'm confident that the fact that he played video games may have taught him to aim, but it played no factor in his decision to go out and kill students. He was just autistic. I know this because I have a mild form of autism myself called aspergers, and I too have thought about doing soem school shootings because I thought everybody in the school was picking on me, so I considered "showing them who's boss," and if he wasn't autistic, he was clinnically insane in some way, I can garentee you (think about it: Anybody who walks into a school in broad daylight and starts shooting people at random has got to be insane. The video games did give him an alternative adrenaline rush; he just wanted revenge on the classmates. I'm not trying to say what he did was justified. I'm just saying that the video games did not influence his state of mind, only his aiming ability.TurtleDude said:you are completely wrong. Some of the school shootings have been aided by these games. I teach people how to shoot defensively. It is hard to shoot a pistol accurately-for some people it is very hard to point a loaded weapon at another human. The military knew this and they have learned how to desensitize recruits-many of them who have never hunted or killed with a weapon (even a deer or a pigeon) to do that. Many of the violent video games are very similar. One kid in a Kentucky school IIRC shot at 8 people and got 7 solid hits . He had never shot a gun before to the best of the prosecutor's knowledge. He did play a ton of video games where a pistol simulator was used to shoot human targets.
press said:great. The "what about this one guy, out of all the millions of video game players" bullshit. I'm confident that the fact that he played video games may have taught him to aim, but it played no factor in his decision to go out and kill students. He was just autistic. I know this because I have a mild form of autism myself called aspergers, and I too have thought about doing soem school shootings because I thought everybody in the school was picking on me, so I considered "showing them who's boss," and if he wasn't autistic, he was clinnically insane in some way, I can garentee you (think about it: Anybody who walks into a school in broad daylight and starts shooting people at random has got to be insane. The video games did give him an alternative adrenaline rush; he just wanted revenge on the classmates. I'm not trying to say what he did was justified. I'm just saying that the video games did not influence his state of mind, only his aiming ability.
Of course, there is a solution to this: Make the aiming portion of the shooters as unrealistic as possible, and the youth won't learn how to aim.
Okay, so maybe I was wrong on the make-games-less-realistic part, but you haven't even tried to comment on the rest of my post, especially the meat of it, where I said that games don't influence your state of mind. Try commenting on that.galenrox said:Not to mention that in most video games aiming is already unrealistic, since you don't need to hold a frickin GUN, although some games have made it more realistic, making the site bob up and down as you breathe.
Please tell me why you think that getting rid of guns would cut down on crime.
press said:Okay, so maybe I was wrong on the make-games-less-realistic part, but you haven't even tried to comment on the rest of my post, especially the meat of it, where I said that games don't influence your state of mind. Try commenting on that.
But about your last sentence. As long as we can deal out harsh enough punishments for black marketing guns, nobody will want to take the risk. By "harsh enough," I mean something rediculous like crucifiction or getting gasoline poured on you and getting lit on fire, or getting your insides cut out and eaten while you're fully conciense.
In case you haven't noticed yet, I also believe in the abolishment of the cruel and unusual punishment clause. I believe that with harsher punishments, but without the "we'll kill whoever we so much as think did it, not taking into consideration if the real perpetrator gets away with it" attitude of China, people will be intimidated into obedience. I'm talking about getting whipped and lashed for stealing a lollipop, granted, that is, if you're judged "capable of judging your actions," which I think is a greater policy than this "juvenille vs. adult" BS because it also applies to idiots and insane persons.
press said:great. The "what about this one guy, out of all the millions of video game players" bullshit. I'm confident that the fact that he played video games may have taught him to aim, but it played no factor in his decision to go out and kill students. He was just autistic. I know this because I have a mild form of autism myself called aspergers, and I too have thought about doing soem school shootings because I thought everybody in the school was picking on me, so I considered "showing them who's boss," and if he wasn't autistic, he was clinnically insane in some way, I can garentee you (think about it: Anybody who walks into a school in broad daylight and starts shooting people at random has got to be insane. The video games did give him an alternative adrenaline rush; he just wanted revenge on the classmates. I'm not trying to say what he did was justified. I'm just saying that the video games did not influence his state of mind, only his aiming ability.
Of course, there is a solution to this: Make the aiming portion of the shooters as unrealistic as possible, and the youth won't learn how to aim.
press said:Okay, so maybe I was wrong on the make-games-less-realistic part, but you haven't even tried to comment on the rest of my post, especially the meat of it, where I said that games don't influence your state of mind. Try commenting on that.
But about your last sentence. As long as we can deal out harsh enough punishments for black marketing guns, nobody will want to take the risk. By "harsh enough," I mean something rediculous like crucifiction or getting gasoline poured on you and getting lit on fire, or getting your insides cut out and eaten while you're fully conciense.
In case you haven't noticed yet, I also believe in the abolishment of the cruel and unusual punishment clause. I believe that with harsher punishments, but without the "we'll kill whoever we so much as think did it, not taking into consideration if the real perpetrator gets away with it" attitude of China, people will be intimidated into obedience. I'm talking about getting whipped and lashed for stealing a lollipop, granted, that is, if you're judged "capable of judging your actions," which I think is a greater policy than this "juvenille vs. adult" BS because it also applies to idiots and insane persons.
That's why we should catch all of the criminals. It would be easier than you think if we just allowed more types of evidence in court. There is so much evidence that is not admissable in court that would convict them that murderers get away with it nine times out of ten.TurtleDude said:what will decrease murders more Burning alive one murderer out of ten, or making sure every single murderer gets 7 years in prison? ANSWER-the latter. People don't expect to get caught. If every murderer got caught and got a few years that would be more a deterrent than roasting one of ten .
press said:That's why we should catch all of the criminals. It would be easier than you think if we just allowed more types of evidence in court. There is so much evidence that is not admissable in court that would convict them that murderers get away with it nine times out of ten.
And no, I don't believe in abolishing proportionality. Quite the contrary: I think the punishments already intact are not proportionate enough. I think you should get handcuffed (so you can't fight back) and whipped and lashed for about two minutes for steeling a lollipop. The time you get whipped and lashed should be proportional to the value of what you are convicted of steeling. If you stole a car, then you get whipped and lashed for a straight twelve hours, and if you die from it, you deserved it you son of a bitch. Speeding deserves a fine of four thousand dollars for every mph you go over the speed limit.
You raped somebody? You get your skin shaven off with a potato peeler while you're fully conious. You killed somebody? You get gasoline poured all over you and are lit on fire. Like I said, keep proportionality, but make the punishments so harsh that no one wants to take the risk of getting caught.
press said:That's why we should catch all of the criminals. It would be easier than you think if we just allowed more types of evidence in court. There is so much evidence that is not admissable in court that would convict them that murderers get away with it nine times out of ten.
And no, I don't believe in abolishing proportionality. Quite the contrary: I think the punishments already intact are not proportionate enough. I think you should get handcuffed (so you can't fight back) and whipped and lashed for about two minutes for steeling a lollipop. The time you get whipped and lashed should be proportional to the value of what you are convicted of steeling. If you stole a car, then you get whipped and lashed for a straight twelve hours, and if you die from it, you deserved it you son of a bitch. Speeding deserves a fine of four thousand dollars for every mph you go over the speed limit.
You raped somebody? You get your skin shaven off with a potato peeler while you're fully conious. You killed somebody? You get gasoline poured all over you and are lit on fire. Like I said, keep proportionality, but make the punishments so harsh that no one wants to take the risk of getting caught.
galenrox said:man, dude, where can I get some of this **** you're smoking?
Have you ever been whipped? I mean, just a couple times, cause I have and that isn't something petty that stealing a lollypop would merit two minutes of.
I am confident that in time your lust for blood will die down, or you'll end up in a mental institution, one of the two.
What exactly do you know about pain, that you think it should be so easily given out by the state? Like, have you ever just had the crap beaten out of you? Have you ever been beaten so badly that you can't get up afterwards? It's not some petty crap that should be doled out to anyone for the slightest infraction, but then again, you're young, and so you're yet to understand empathy, so I understand.
actually, yes. By my father, numerous times. And that's why I support the abolishment of cruel and unusual punishment, because, as much as you're not going to believe this, I have never done the same wrong thing twice because of the beatings I took. Cruel and unusual punishment for every misdemeanour works. I know this because it worked on me.galenrox said:Like, have you ever just had the crap beaten out of you? Have you ever been beaten so badly that you can't get up afterwards?
press said:actually, yes. By my father, numerous times. And that's why I support the abolishment of cruel and unusual punishment, because, as much as you're not going to believe this, I have never done the same wrong thing twice because of the beatings I took. Cruel and unusual punishment for every misdemeanour works. I know this because it worked on me.
First of all, I'll be honest in admitting that I've not read the specifics of the bill. Though, I've read enough over the years about this legislation that I have a solid feel for the intent.TimmyBoy said:Speaking of the second amendment, looks like they will be signing into law that prevents gun dealers, manufacterers from being held liable for crimes committed with their weapons. They have some liability where if they knowingly sell their weapons to a felon or something like that.
Red State Sage said:First of all, I'll be honest in admitting that I've not read the specifics of the bill. Though, I've read enough over the years about this legislation that I have a solid feel for the intent.
Let me start with a simple question. Should Ford Motor Company be held liable for selling a vehicle to a chronic alcoholic, who later that day is D.U.I. and in the process wrecks and kills another driver? I think most rational people would answer no to that question. Reason being, as a free society which engages in commerce, at some point the consumer citizen has to be the one who assumes all liability for actions he takes.
The target of law suits in the gun matter would not be the local "mom-n-pop" sporting store that sells firearms. It would be the manufacturer of the weapon who is most likely located half-way across the country from where both the sale and crime took place. To hold Smith & Wesson liable for a crime in Los Angeles, when S&W is located in Massachusetts is asinine.
In the case where a manufacturer exhibits extreme negligence, then yes, they should be held to account. This is so obscure that I can't even come up with a possible example of how any major gun producer could carry out such a scheme, or what they would have to gain. The risk would be far greater than the reward for them to engage in this type of activity, especially considering how they've been put under a microscope already.
Agreed...excellent point!TurtleDude said:I actually have some experience in product liability law and TRADTIONAL PLL means if you sell someone a defective electric blanket and they burn up you are liable. If you sell medicinal oxygen that is contaminated, you are liable. If you sell a gun that explodes when used properly with proper ammo-then you are liable
the gun haters have attempted to sue gun makers into bankruptcy by suing them not because the gun failed to work safely, but becuase it worked as intended. THis bill prevents that. It prevents the city of Cincinnati, for example from suing every handgun maker for crime. it prevents some gang banger from suing beretta because another gang banger used a stolen 92 F to shoot him in the back
I've got no quarrels with holding any manufacturer or dealer liable in these cases. Not likely to see this with a reputable manufacturer / dealer.TurtleDude said:If a gun wholesaler sells to a dealer that it knows or had reason to know is selling guns illegally that wholesaler could theoretically be liable. Same with a manufacturer that sells to a rogue dealer. In reality, it would mostly be applicable to dealers-especially those without storefronts who sell at shows or flea markets and sell a gun to someone without doing the proper paperwork
Amen...I with ya brother!TurtleDude said:I also believe that when a city or a syndicate of tort lawyers go after a gun maker and the maker wins (has happened in almost every case) the plaintiffs should not only pay the legal costs of the defendant-they should pay an amount of damages equivalent to what they were seeking. its time to bankrupt these attorneys and their clients
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?