Gun Violence

[Vic]

Originally posted by: AragornTK
The difference is in the use... people use drugs to feel good about themselves... I don't know anyone in their right mind who shoots a gun and feel more numb to the world... I have friends who do drugs, and they are all the biggest losers I know, it consumes their lives and they do nothing to benefit society... gun owners are usually productive members of society and the activities they participate in with their guns are usually legal... I'd rather have responsible gun owners than a society of drugees who contribute nothing

There are many productive drug users out there. Recreational drug use is no different than recreational alcohol use. Nor is that really even the point. It is not the purpose of government to enforce some type of societal measure of productivity upon its citizens.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: MadRat

Originally posted by: canadageek
y'know the constitution says "the right to bear arms" not "firearmes" or anything specific. let everybody carry Katanas and the like...at least people who take the time to learn how to use it will be able to use it wisely.
guns make killing easy, therefore, people who carry them are far more likely to kill someone.

jus' my canadian 0.02

And your Canadian .02 is worth about a penny American. Your definition is like a revision of popular culture, and doesn't do anything but justify an agenda that represses the people.

We need a new word for people that take away freedoms. Conservatives used to be protectors of the status quo - I mean the Establishment - and Liberals used to be the protectors of the Individual. The Establisment is the set of rules that govern, but it didn't necessarily mean working backwards against the Constitution. Neo-Conservative is not a very good word to describe walking against the rights of the Individual. Forum people should just refer to the anti Liberal forces as "Antiliberals" and not conservatives to be more accurate.

Our current administration is not conservative, its Antiliberal.

As we all are. Stamp them out!

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski
There's a big difference between Drug and Gun Prohibition. Drugs bring Pleasure, escape, and often Addiction to the User. Guns do not have any of those effects. Drugs are consumed and used up, Guns are not. Though people could live without either, people who have done Drugs are more likely to want them again(often due to addiction), certainly some want Guns after experiencing them, but it's an entire different motivation for them and certainly not one as compeling as the motivation for more Drugs. Some may feel safer having a gun for protection, but only the crazy ones obsess over the fact they don't have a gun.

You misunderstand. The issue has nothing to do with drugs' effects or with guns' effects, but with the (inherent lack of) effectiveness of prohibition. Outlawing guns will not make guns disappear, nor reduce crime, it will simply disarm the law-abiding. In the meantime, drugs properly used are no more harmful than guns lawfully used, which is not at all.

Gun rights are not an issue of "crazy" people. That ignores and demeans the true argument. Individuals have an inherent right to life, including the right to protect that life at need, and the right to own a gun is integral to that right. Disarming the law-abiding people is the same as removing their right to life.

I didn't say gun rights are an issue of crazy people. I said anyone who wants a gun for protection as badly as a Drug user wants drugs is crazy.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: Sabot

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Sabot
Topic Title: Gun Violence
Topic Summary: I cannot believe this - there must be a solution

I live right at Jane and Finch in Toronto, for anyone who doesn't know it is pretty much the worst part of the city. There have been constant gun problems there.

So, you may have heard that on boxing day 2 groups of teenagers all wielding pistols (a total of 15 of them) began shooting at each other in the downtown core. Not one of them hit their intended target, the only people shot are believed to be innocent by-standers, one of which was a young girl who has died.

My question is this: Is there anything that can be done to help stop this gaining gun violence?

Solution is simple, arm everyone possible and with instructions to fire back.

In no time the idiots you cite here in the article, around Toronto and the rest of Canada experiencing this problem would not only begin to aim better but they most likely would go away, for good.

To put it another way, the problem is not gun violence, the problem is that not enough citizenry is armed.

That is so absurd, more guns will not solve the problems of gun violence. The idea that you can arm every person and expect there to be any sort of decrease in the amount of gun related crimes is just ridiculous. What about the elderly being mugged who use strollers, or the kids who are 14 and younger being held at gun point?

It is not any kind of solution, it just expands the possibilities for gun violence immensly.

and so the circle debate begins

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Condor
Solve the drug problem, you solve most of the crime problems.

Smartest thing I've seen in this thread...

No, the smartest thing would be emphasizing HOW to solve the drug problem.

 

[imported_Oderus]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Oderus

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Oderus
No, I inferred that your COMMENT was racist and ignorant. I never said YOU were ignorant or racist. When you can comprehend the difference, let me know.

You also have no clue what you are talking about which confirms that not only was your statement ignorant and racist but you ARE ignorant and racist. (yes, this time I am insulting you) Read the definition of homegeneous..

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=homogenous
adj : all of the same or similar kind or nature; "a close-knit homogeneous group"

Your comment suggest that our crime is lower because we have less non-whites or that we have less ethnicities overall, which is absurd and ignorant. (I guess my comment about being ignorant and racist still holds) Thanks.

Alcohol and drugs should be legalized as we should have the freedom to choice what we like. If I drink at home I hurt no one, if I smoke a joint I'm also not hurting anyone. Guns have no purpose in life other than to cause harm. There's no magic there.

My last comment about education was a shot at you. You know nothing about Canada and you're also a racist bigot. Thank god you live in the US, please don't move here.

While you are baselessly insulting everyone, let me join in just for fun. You are a complete fool. And before you complain, let me point out that that single statement carried as much weight and validity as your lengthy post quoted here.

I'm not baselessly insulting everyone. Get your facts straight. I'm just insulting you and it's not baseless. Your a racist bigot.

Also when referring to a statement I made, don't just say, "that statement".

Hey, grammar king, I think you meant You're and not Your.

Welcome to the club, Vic.

If your only argument is a mistake in spelling then you are no longer worth debating with. I know the difference between your and you're and just because I typed it out quickly means nothing more than I was in a rush.

 

[imported_Oderus]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Oderus
Spelling mistakes or typos does not constitute a grammatical error.

A spelling mistake is a grammatical error. Not that your own posts aren't rife with many errors of their own. What is worse is that the sentence of mine that you claimed had a grammatical error was actually grammatically correct.

Goverment doesn't exist? Now your reaching. Politicians are the government, it's no fiction. Nancy Drew is fiction. You have no logic.

Your inability to understand the basic logical concept of government does not validate your argument. The people are the government. It exists exactly as I said, something we made up amongst ourselves and only exist because we all agree it does. I invite you to logically refute that statement, and not with fallacies based on your misunderstanding (as in the Nancy Drew strawman). How about this? If the people did not exist, would government exist? Answer that.

What don't you understand about my last line? The fact that I seperate everyone with common? You think that means the same thing?

And long haul truck drivers and airline pilots "live in a way different from everyone else." So what? It's not a lack of understanding here. Your arguments simply have no merit. They're fully of poor analogies and overgeneralizations.

Here's one: you appear to support drug legalization (and rightly so). Do you actually believe that gun prohibition will be any more successful than drug prohibition has been? Of course it won't. Many of the same logical reasonings that tell us that drugs should be legal also tell us that guns should be legal.

I think you are over simplifying what a government is. The goverment doesn't exist because I agree it does. It exists because people long ago decided to create a government and we've all accepted that. If I chose not agree that is exists today, would it dissapear tomorrow?

My statement of politicians living differently from the common person is valid, like it or not. They are paid a very high salary and do not need to live paycheck to paycheck like most people. That was my point. It was obviously too complex to grasp. There are even politicians that make serious errors and yet they keep their jobs, on both sides of the border. If I screw up at work, I get fired, just like anyone else. (politicians aside)

Drug prohibition doesn't work. Just like alcohol prohibition didn't work. The main difference is that if guns were outlawed (not just a law that says you can't have one but perhaps a law that says it's illegal to produce / sell them) then companies couldn't make them legally and the supply would dry out. The black market would naturally try to keep up with the demand but they would have to export guns from some other country that profits from it. This is not 100% a solution but pretty close. Japan has had little to no deaths due to handguns in and their polution is much higher than ours so I wonder why?

http://www.csgv.org/news/headlines/whar_6_15_05.cfm <- read this or at least this portion. It's disturbing to read such information about your country.

"In addition, while the U.S. is considered among the safest countries, deaths from gunshot wounds are staggeringly high. In 2000, the U.S. recorded close to 11,000 firearm homicides and more than 16,000 firearm suicides. The European Union -- an area with a population approximately 25% higher than that of the U.S. -- reported fewer than 1,300 firearm homicides for the same year. In Japan, the number was 22. [The EU figures pre-date the 10-country expansion which took place on May 1, 2004.]"

 

[imported_Oderus]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Oderus

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Oderus
No, I inferred that your COMMENT was racist and ignorant. I never said YOU were ignorant or racist. When you can comprehend the difference, let me know.

You also have no clue what you are talking about which confirms that not only was your statement ignorant and racist but you ARE ignorant and racist. (yes, this time I am insulting you) Read the definition of homegeneous..

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=homogenous
adj : all of the same or similar kind or nature; "a close-knit homogeneous group"

Your comment suggest that our crime is lower because we have less non-whites or that we have less ethnicities overall, which is absurd and ignorant. (I guess my comment about being ignorant and racist still holds) Thanks.

Alcohol and drugs should be legalized as we should have the freedom to choice what we like. If I drink at home I hurt no one, if I smoke a joint I'm also not hurting anyone. Guns have no purpose in life other than to cause harm. There's no magic there.

My last comment about education was a shot at you. You know nothing about Canada and you're also a racist bigot. Thank god you live in the US, please don't move here.

While you are baselessly insulting everyone, let me join in just for fun. You are a complete fool. And before you complain, let me point out that that single statement carried as much weight and validity as your lengthy post quoted here.

I'm not baselessly insulting everyone. Get your facts straight. I'm just insulting you and it's not baseless. Your a racist bigot.

Also when referring to a statement I made, don't just say, "that statement".

Hey, grammar king, I think you meant You're and not Your.

Welcome to the club, Vic.

HAHAHA!!!

I would love for him to point out a single statement that justifies him calling me a racist bigot. I have clearly demonstrated that gun ownership is a right of ALL the people. Clearly he has been unable to refute this argument and has simply turned to baseless personal attacks ever since. As it is, I take a lot of offense at being called a "racist bigot" out the blue, with neither cause nor reason for it, and I think a little mod clean-up and some vacation time for Oderus should be in order here if he can't play nicely.

You must either blind or just incompetent. I told you exactly what you said was racist & ignorant and why. Here it is in case you forgot.

"If you need an explanation on why I think your comment was ignorant and racist here goes. You said that Canada is far less homogenous than the US which implies 2 things, 1) you know nothing about the level of diveristy in Canada (which makes your comment ignorant) and 2) It's a racist statement to imply that due to your 'higher level of diversity' your crime is higher. That pretty much blames the non-whites in the US."

 

[imported_Oderus]

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: Oderus

Alcohol and drugs should be legalized as we should have the freedom to choice what we like. If I drink at home I hurt no one, if I smoke a joint I'm also not hurting anyone. Guns have no purpose in life other than to cause harm. There's no magic there.

I really hate this tendancy people have to say they should have the freedom to choose those things they like, while at the same time denying others the freedom to choose something different that they don't approve of.

Hypocrisy at it's finest.

Drugs don't kill other people. They kill the user if they overdose which is impossible with marijuana. Guns are DESIGNED to kill, not defend. Police in our country say that if you want a weapon for defence you should buy a shotgun because they are hard to conceal and give you a better shot at close range unlike a handgun. (I've fired both kinds and many other types) two handed weapons are easier to use and although handguns can be used 2 handed it's still not as accurate.

To boil down my philosophy, I think people should have the right to do anything they want as long as it does not negatively affect anyone else. This kills Vic's point of a bucket half-full of water and he doesn't like it. Smoking in public or near an entrance is bad for everyone, etc etc.

 

[imported_Oderus]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Oderus
Spelling mistakes or typos does not constitute a grammatical error.

A spelling mistake is a grammatical error. Not that your own posts aren't rife with many errors of their own. What is worse is that the sentence of mine that you claimed had a grammatical error was actually grammatically correct.

Goverment doesn't exist? Now your reaching. Politicians are the government, it's no fiction. Nancy Drew is fiction. You have no logic.

Your inability to understand the basic logical concept of government does not validate your argument. The people are the government. It exists exactly as I said, something we made up amongst ourselves and only exist because we all agree it does. I invite you to logically refute that statement, and not with fallacies based on your misunderstanding (as in the Nancy Drew strawman). How about this? If the people did not exist, would government exist? Answer that.

What don't you understand about my last line? The fact that I seperate everyone with common? You think that means the same thing?

And long haul truck drivers and airline pilots "live in a way different from everyone else." So what? It's not a lack of understanding here. Your arguments simply have no merit. They're fully of poor analogies and overgeneralizations.

Here's one: you appear to support drug legalization (and rightly so). Do you actually believe that gun prohibition will be any more successful than drug prohibition has been? Of course it won't. Many of the same logical reasonings that tell us that drugs should be legal also tell us that guns should be legal.

There's a big difference between Drug and Gun Prohibition. Drugs bring Pleasure, escape, and often Addiction to the User. Guns do not have any of those effects. Drugs are consumed and used up, Guns are not. Though people could live without either, people who have done Drugs are more likely to want them again(often due to addiction), certainly some want Guns after experiencing them, but it's an entire different motivation for them and certainly not one as compeling as the motivation for more Drugs. Some may feel safer having a gun for protection, but only the crazy ones obsess over the fact they don't have a gun.

Another voice of reason. How excellent.

 

[imported_Oderus]

Originally posted by: AragornTK
The difference is in the use... people use drugs to feel good about themselves... I don't know anyone in their right mind who shoots a gun and feel more numb to the world... I have friends who do drugs, and they are all the biggest losers I know, it consumes their lives and they do nothing to benefit society... gun owners are usually productive members of society and the activities they participate in with their guns are usually legal... I'd rather have responsible gun owners than a society of drugees who contribute nothing

You're assuming that all people that do drugs do not contribute to society. How so?

I do drugs yet I pay my taxes, I go to work, I volunteer, I purchase goods and services from my fellow Canadians, I contribute to society.

How does owning a gun guarantee that you contribute to society?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Oderus

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Oderus

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Oderus
No, I inferred that your COMMENT was racist and ignorant. I never said YOU were ignorant or racist. When you can comprehend the difference, let me know.

You also have no clue what you are talking about which confirms that not only was your statement ignorant and racist but you ARE ignorant and racist. (yes, this time I am insulting you) Read the definition of homegeneous..

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=homogenous
adj : all of the same or similar kind or nature; "a close-knit homogeneous group"

Your comment suggest that our crime is lower because we have less non-whites or that we have less ethnicities overall, which is absurd and ignorant. (I guess my comment about being ignorant and racist still holds) Thanks.

Alcohol and drugs should be legalized as we should have the freedom to choice what we like. If I drink at home I hurt no one, if I smoke a joint I'm also not hurting anyone. Guns have no purpose in life other than to cause harm. There's no magic there.

My last comment about education was a shot at you. You know nothing about Canada and you're also a racist bigot. Thank god you live in the US, please don't move here.

While you are baselessly insulting everyone, let me join in just for fun. You are a complete fool. And before you complain, let me point out that that single statement carried as much weight and validity as your lengthy post quoted here.

I'm not baselessly insulting everyone. Get your facts straight. I'm just insulting you and it's not baseless. Your a racist bigot.

Also when referring to a statement I made, don't just say, "that statement".

Hey, grammar king, I think you meant You're and not Your.

Welcome to the club, Vic.

If your only argument is a mistake in spelling then you are no longer worth debating with. I know the difference between your and you're and just because I typed it out quickly means nothing more than I was in a rush.

Attacking Vic for no reason was out of line.

I have made valid arguments, but you have elected to ignore, misconstrue, or twist all of them and be a @ss in the process.

It hasn't been much of a debate at all since you seemingly can?t or won't understand almost anything I said.

 

[Hecubus2000]

I have a solution. How about punishing criminals right the first time they participate in criminal activities rather than just letting them back out onto the streets. Here is another idea, how about if current fire arm laws are taken seriously and enforced rather than wasting taxpayer money and creating new knee jerk laws that only punish lawful citizens. Aww, never mind that's not difficult enough and it makes sense. It will never happen

 

[imported_Oderus]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Oderus

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Oderus

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Oderus
No, I inferred that your COMMENT was racist and ignorant. I never said YOU were ignorant or racist. When you can comprehend the difference, let me know.

You also have no clue what you are talking about which confirms that not only was your statement ignorant and racist but you ARE ignorant and racist. (yes, this time I am insulting you) Read the definition of homegeneous..

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=homogenous
adj : all of the same or similar kind or nature; "a close-knit homogeneous group"

Your comment suggest that our crime is lower because we have less non-whites or that we have less ethnicities overall, which is absurd and ignorant. (I guess my comment about being ignorant and racist still holds) Thanks.

Alcohol and drugs should be legalized as we should have the freedom to choice what we like. If I drink at home I hurt no one, if I smoke a joint I'm also not hurting anyone. Guns have no purpose in life other than to cause harm. There's no magic there.

My last comment about education was a shot at you. You know nothing about Canada and you're also a racist bigot. Thank god you live in the US, please don't move here.

While you are baselessly insulting everyone, let me join in just for fun. You are a complete fool. And before you complain, let me point out that that single statement carried as much weight and validity as your lengthy post quoted here.

I'm not baselessly insulting everyone. Get your facts straight. I'm just insulting you and it's not baseless. Your a racist bigot.

Also when referring to a statement I made, don't just say, "that statement".

Hey, grammar king, I think you meant You're and not Your.

Welcome to the club, Vic.

If your only argument is a mistake in spelling then you are no longer worth debating with. I know the difference between your and you're and just because I typed it out quickly means nothing more than I was in a rush.

Attacking Vic for no reason was out of line.

I have made valid arguments, but you have elected to ignore, misconstrue, or twist all of them and be a @ss in the process.

It hasn't been much of a debate at all since you seemingly can?t or won't understand almost anything I said.

I have not attacked Vic. I said his comment was racist and ignorant. You seem convinced that I attacked him, show me where. Your points are not always valid and I chose to debate the ones that I don't agree with. Those points that I chose to ignore as you put it, I either cannot be bothered to respond or I've agreed.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Oderus

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Oderus

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Oderus

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Oderus
No, I inferred that your COMMENT was racist and ignorant. I never said YOU were ignorant or racist. When you can comprehend the difference, let me know.

You also have no clue what you are talking about which confirms that not only was your statement ignorant and racist but you ARE ignorant and racist. (yes, this time I am insulting you) Read the definition of homegeneous..

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=homogenous
adj : all of the same or similar kind or nature; "a close-knit homogeneous group"

Your comment suggest that our crime is lower because we have less non-whites or that we have less ethnicities overall, which is absurd and ignorant. (I guess my comment about being ignorant and racist still holds) Thanks.

Alcohol and drugs should be legalized as we should have the freedom to choice what we like. If I drink at home I hurt no one, if I smoke a joint I'm also not hurting anyone. Guns have no purpose in life other than to cause harm. There's no magic there.

My last comment about education was a shot at you. You know nothing about Canada and you're also a racist bigot. Thank god you live in the US, please don't move here.

While you are baselessly insulting everyone, let me join in just for fun. You are a complete fool. And before you complain, let me point out that that single statement carried as much weight and validity as your lengthy post quoted here.

I'm not baselessly insulting everyone. Get your facts straight. I'm just insulting you and it's not baseless. Your a racist bigot.

Also when referring to a statement I made, don't just say, "that statement".

Hey, grammar king, I think you meant You're and not Your.

Welcome to the club, Vic.

If your only argument is a mistake in spelling then you are no longer worth debating with. I know the difference between your and you're and just because I typed it out quickly means nothing more than I was in a rush.

Attacking Vic for no reason was out of line.

I have made valid arguments, but you have elected to ignore, misconstrue, or twist all of them and be a @ss in the process.

It hasn't been much of a debate at all since you seemingly can?t or won't understand almost anything I said.

I have not attacked Vic. I said his comment was racist and ignorant. You seem convinced that I attacked him, show me where. Your points are not always valid and I chose to debate the ones that I don't agree with. Those points that I chose to ignore as you put it, I either cannot be bothered to respond or I've agreed.

Please read what is quoted above. You clearly said "Your(sic) a racist bigot".

So, you admit to ignoring vaild arguments that challenge your position? Easier to evade than defend I guess.

 

[imported_Oderus]

Originally posted by: Hecubus2000
I have a solution. How about punishing criminals right the first time they participate in criminal activities rather than just letting them back out onto the streets. Here is another idea, how about if current fire arm laws are taken seriously and enforced rather than wasting taxpayer money and creating new knee jerk laws that only punish lawful citizens. Aww, never mind that's not difficult enough and it makes sense. It will never happen

I think that's how our systems currently work. They jail everyone for whatever constitutes a criminal offence and once their time runs out, they are free to do it again. I love how passionate some people get when they hear about someone being released from prision after killing their wife / sister / mother whatever. They always want more justice than what was already given out.

I believe in making prisions tougher. Instead of watching TV, surfing the net, working out, socializing with other inmates they should be put to very hard labour. This will deter anyone from going to jail as they know they have to work to get out. You could also add time based on attitude, not reduce time based on attitude so only those that fight the system will have time added and those that keep their head down and work hard get to go on time. This is no perfect solution but I think it's worth it.

Of course there's always George Carlin's method which you just gotta love for it's simplicity.

 

[imported_Oderus]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Oderus

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Oderus

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Oderus

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Oderus
No, I inferred that your COMMENT was racist and ignorant. I never said YOU were ignorant or racist. When you can comprehend the difference, let me know.

You also have no clue what you are talking about which confirms that not only was your statement ignorant and racist but you ARE ignorant and racist. (yes, this time I am insulting you) Read the definition of homegeneous..

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=homogenous
adj : all of the same or similar kind or nature; "a close-knit homogeneous group"

Your comment suggest that our crime is lower because we have less non-whites or that we have less ethnicities overall, which is absurd and ignorant. (I guess my comment about being ignorant and racist still holds) Thanks.

Alcohol and drugs should be legalized as we should have the freedom to choice what we like. If I drink at home I hurt no one, if I smoke a joint I'm also not hurting anyone. Guns have no purpose in life other than to cause harm. There's no magic there.

My last comment about education was a shot at you. You know nothing about Canada and you're also a racist bigot. Thank god you live in the US, please don't move here.

While you are baselessly insulting everyone, let me join in just for fun. You are a complete fool. And before you complain, let me point out that that single statement carried as much weight and validity as your lengthy post quoted here.

I'm not baselessly insulting everyone. Get your facts straight. I'm just insulting you and it's not baseless. Your a racist bigot.

Also when referring to a statement I made, don't just say, "that statement".

Hey, grammar king, I think you meant You're and not Your.

Welcome to the club, Vic.

If your only argument is a mistake in spelling then you are no longer worth debating with. I know the difference between your and you're and just because I typed it out quickly means nothing more than I was in a rush.

Attacking Vic for no reason was out of line.

I have made valid arguments, but you have elected to ignore, misconstrue, or twist all of them and be a @ss in the process.

It hasn't been much of a debate at all since you seemingly can?t or won't understand almost anything I said.

I have not attacked Vic. I said his comment was racist and ignorant. You seem convinced that I attacked him, show me where. Your points are not always valid and I chose to debate the ones that I don't agree with. Those points that I chose to ignore as you put it, I either cannot be bothered to respond or I've agreed.

Please read what is quoted above. You clearly said "Your(sic) a racist bigot".

So, you admit to ignoring vaild arguments that challenge your position? Easier to evade than defend I guess.

Calling someone a racist bigot is no attack. It was nothing more than me calling him out. He made the statement which he has yet to defend after I pointed it out to him and you defend him like he's your lover. Do you think his comment was either ignorant or racist?

I didn't admit ignoring valid arguments. I admitted to ignoring some of your points and agreeing to others. I never specifically said which ones were which. It's sometimes easier to walk away from the ignorant than to educate them. I know I won't convince you on some aspects so why beat a dead horse?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Oderus

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Oderus

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Oderus

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Oderus

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Oderus
No, I inferred that your COMMENT was racist and ignorant. I never said YOU were ignorant or racist. When you can comprehend the difference, let me know.

You also have no clue what you are talking about which confirms that not only was your statement ignorant and racist but you ARE ignorant and racist. (yes, this time I am insulting you) Read the definition of homegeneous..

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=homogenous
adj : all of the same or similar kind or nature; "a close-knit homogeneous group"

Your comment suggest that our crime is lower because we have less non-whites or that we have less ethnicities overall, which is absurd and ignorant. (I guess my comment about being ignorant and racist still holds) Thanks.

Alcohol and drugs should be legalized as we should have the freedom to choice what we like. If I drink at home I hurt no one, if I smoke a joint I'm also not hurting anyone. Guns have no purpose in life other than to cause harm. There's no magic there.

My last comment about education was a shot at you. You know nothing about Canada and you're also a racist bigot. Thank god you live in the US, please don't move here.

While you are baselessly insulting everyone, let me join in just for fun. You are a complete fool. And before you complain, let me point out that that single statement carried as much weight and validity as your lengthy post quoted here.

I'm not baselessly insulting everyone. Get your facts straight. I'm just insulting you and it's not baseless. Your a racist bigot.

Also when referring to a statement I made, don't just say, "that statement".

Hey, grammar king, I think you meant You're and not Your.

Welcome to the club, Vic.

If your only argument is a mistake in spelling then you are no longer worth debating with. I know the difference between your and you're and just because I typed it out quickly means nothing more than I was in a rush.

Attacking Vic for no reason was out of line.

I have made valid arguments, but you have elected to ignore, misconstrue, or twist all of them and be a @ss in the process.

It hasn't been much of a debate at all since you seemingly can?t or won't understand almost anything I said.

I have not attacked Vic. I said his comment was racist and ignorant. You seem convinced that I attacked him, show me where. Your points are not always valid and I chose to debate the ones that I don't agree with. Those points that I chose to ignore as you put it, I either cannot be bothered to respond or I've agreed.

Please read what is quoted above. You clearly said "Your(sic) a racist bigot".

So, you admit to ignoring vaild arguments that challenge your position? Easier to evade than defend I guess.

Calling someone a racist bigot is no attack. It was nothing more than me calling him out. He made the statement which he has yet to defend after I pointed it out to him and you defend him like he's your lover. Do you think his comment was either ignorant or racist?

I didn't admit ignoring valid arguments. I admitted to ignoring some of your points and agreeing to others. I never specifically said which ones were which. It's sometimes easier to walk away from the ignorant than to educate them. I know I won't convince you on some aspects so why beat a dead horse?

The answer to my question is clearly a yes then.

If ad hominem responses and personal attacks are the best you can do then you are not worth talking to.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Oderus

Originally posted by: Vic
I would love for him to point out a single statement that justifies him calling me a racist bigot. I have clearly demonstrated that gun ownership is a right of ALL the people. Clearly he has been unable to refute this argument and has simply turned to baseless personal attacks ever since. As it is, I take a lot of offense at being called a "racist bigot" out the blue, with neither cause nor reason for it, and I think a little mod clean-up and some vacation time for Oderus should be in order here if he can't play nicely.

You must either blind or just incompetent. I told you exactly what you said was racist & ignorant and why. Here it is in case you forgot.

"If you need an explanation on why I think your comment was ignorant and racist here goes. You said that Canada is far less homogenous than the US which implies 2 things, 1) you know nothing about the level of diveristy in Canada (which makes your comment ignorant) and 2) It's a racist statement to imply that due to your 'higher level of diversity' your crime is higher. That pretty much blames the non-whites in the US."

You better get your quotes straight, asshole. I never made any such comment regarding Canada's diversity, homogeneousness, or lack thereof. And because I did not make any such comment, calling me a "racist bigot" out of the blue most certainly was a unjustified personal attack.
Now who the fsck is blind and incompetent? You cannot even remember who argued what, just that you like to rain ad hominem down from the sky. You are completely worthless.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Oderus

Originally posted by: Vic
I would love for him to point out a single statement that justifies him calling me a racist bigot. I have clearly demonstrated that gun ownership is a right of ALL the people. Clearly he has been unable to refute this argument and has simply turned to baseless personal attacks ever since. As it is, I take a lot of offense at being called a "racist bigot" out the blue, with neither cause nor reason for it, and I think a little mod clean-up and some vacation time for Oderus should be in order here if he can't play nicely.

You must either blind or just incompetent. I told you exactly what you said was racist & ignorant and why. Here it is in case you forgot.

"If you need an explanation on why I think your comment was ignorant and racist here goes. You said that Canada is far less homogenous than the US which implies 2 things, 1) you know nothing about the level of diveristy in Canada (which makes your comment ignorant) and 2) It's a racist statement to imply that due to your 'higher level of diversity' your crime is higher. That pretty much blames the non-whites in the US."

You better get your quotes straight, asshole. I never made any such comment regarding Canada's diversity, homogeneousness, or lack thereof. And because I did not make any such comment, calling me a "racist bigot" out of the blue most certainly was a unjustified personal attack.
Now who the fsck is blind and incompetent? You cannot even remember who argued what, just that you like to rain ad hominem down from the sky. You are completely worthless.

In Vic's defense (Just stumbled over this), non-whites do most of the crime, and that is not a rascist statement.
It's the realization that ghetto's are created, and colored stereotypes are created.
The same thing could happen in europe, i hope it won't.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Oderus

Originally posted by: Vic
I would love for him to point out a single statement that justifies him calling me a racist bigot. I have clearly demonstrated that gun ownership is a right of ALL the people. Clearly he has been unable to refute this argument and has simply turned to baseless personal attacks ever since. As it is, I take a lot of offense at being called a "racist bigot" out the blue, with neither cause nor reason for it, and I think a little mod clean-up and some vacation time for Oderus should be in order here if he can't play nicely.

You must either blind or just incompetent. I told you exactly what you said was racist & ignorant and why. Here it is in case you forgot.

"If you need an explanation on why I think your comment was ignorant and racist here goes. You said that Canada is far less homogenous than the US which implies 2 things, 1) you know nothing about the level of diveristy in Canada (which makes your comment ignorant) and 2) It's a racist statement to imply that due to your 'higher level of diversity' your crime is higher. That pretty much blames the non-whites in the US."

You better get your quotes straight, asshole. I never made any such comment regarding Canada's diversity, homogeneousness, or lack thereof. And because I did not make any such comment, calling me a "racist bigot" out of the blue most certainly was a unjustified personal attack.
Now who the fsck is blind and incompetent? You cannot even remember who argued what, just that you like to rain ad hominem down from the sky. You are completely worthless.

In Vic's defense (Just stumbled over this), non-whites do most of the crime, and that is not a rascist statement.
It's the realization that ghetto's are created, and colored stereotypes are created.
The same thing could happen in europe, i hope it won't.

If the argument is that poverty and racial tension can lead to violence, I won't disagree. Of course it can, and I don't see how it could possibly be racism to make that observation. Oderus, I think, has watched Bowling for Columbine a few too many times. Here's a tip to him: that "evil" Charlton Heston, who Michael Moore characterized as a racist, walked arm-in-arm with MLK Jr. in many civil rights marches and is considered almost single-handedly responsible for opening up minority employment in Hollywood.

However, the point still remains that I never made the argument that he attributes to me, that it was made by someone else, and that his personal attack against me was completely unjustified and out of line, even by ATPN standards.

 

[imported_Oderus]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Oderus

Originally posted by: Vic
I would love for him to point out a single statement that justifies him calling me a racist bigot. I have clearly demonstrated that gun ownership is a right of ALL the people. Clearly he has been unable to refute this argument and has simply turned to baseless personal attacks ever since. As it is, I take a lot of offense at being called a "racist bigot" out the blue, with neither cause nor reason for it, and I think a little mod clean-up and some vacation time for Oderus should be in order here if he can't play nicely.

You must either blind or just incompetent. I told you exactly what you said was racist & ignorant and why. Here it is in case you forgot.

"If you need an explanation on why I think your comment was ignorant and racist here goes. You said that Canada is far less homogenous than the US which implies 2 things, 1) you know nothing about the level of diveristy in Canada (which makes your comment ignorant) and 2) It's a racist statement to imply that due to your 'higher level of diversity' your crime is higher. That pretty much blames the non-whites in the US."

You better get your quotes straight, asshole. I never made any such comment regarding Canada's diversity, homogeneousness, or lack thereof. And because I did not make any such comment, calling me a "racist bigot" out of the blue most certainly was a unjustified personal attack.
Now who the fsck is blind and incompetent? You cannot even remember who argued what, just that you like to rain ad hominem down from the sky. You are completely worthless.

My apologies. It was K1052 that made the comment. I am very sorry. Perhaps you quoted him and I took it as being said by you. There are no excuses for what I said to you. Again, I'm sorry.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Oderus
My apologies. It was K1052 that made the comment. I am very sorry. Perhaps you quoted him and I took it as being said by you. There are no excuses for what I said to you. Again, I'm sorry.

Apology accepted. No worries.

 

[Thorny]

Back on topic, I agree that allowing concealed carry would drastically reduce some types of crime. Granted, not everyone is mentally suited to own a weapon and it is a very personal choice that should not be taken lightly. However, guns in the hands of responsible citizens is the greatest deterent to violent crime there is.

Keep in mind that if you are the victim of a violent crime, the police are not going to be there to help you til it's to late. It is your responsibiltiy to protect yourself and if you don't take that responsilbility seriously, you have no right to bitch about the crime rate. Even though your attacker may only have a knife or his fist, being armed and prepared is your best protection. There is an old saying about my 1911 being better than your 911, and it is very, very true.

"Law-abiding citizens have a responsibility to provide their own protection because governments cannot be held civilly or criminally responsible for failing to provide such protection "

 

[eno]

Unfortunately gun control is such a divisive issue with neither side telling much of anything resembling truth that the necessary compromise to make guns safer is not within sight.

News flash. Guns are designed to kill. Period. As long as there are idiots in the world, they will use all sorts of tools the wrong way. With guns, idiots end up hurting/killing themselves or others.

I do agree that banning guns won't do it. You could try to educate people on gun safety, like don't point it at someone, don't put your finger on the trigger until ready to fire, never pick up a gun that you don't know how to check yourself for ammo. But, remember they are idiots.

I think it might help if they seriously crack down on punishments for gun related issues. Stop all the slap on the hand punishments , give idiots what they deserve. But again that will only affect the people abidding by the law.

Don't know of a good way to fix the problem. All I can do is, teach people I know like family,friends the proper handling of firearms. You don't have to be scared of firearms, be scared of the idiot people owning them. If you have family members that are scared of firearms, show them you are responsible with them. 1.) They stay out of reach/access from unauthorized people by using quick open locking devices, gun lockers/safes. You never bring out a gun with ammo, when you clean guns the ammo is left in the other room ALWAYS. Teach them how to check a gun for ammo and how to hold it. Finger off trigger ALWAYS, treat the direction of the barrel like a death beam, "its never to cross a person, even if unloaded". Never pick up a gun or handle it without first checking it for ammo. Anyone that doesn't follow some type of safety rules like these, don't be around them if they have guns.

Sorry I just kept writing what the brain was thinking.