Saying that being closed-minded is bad and prevents people from negotiating effectively is "drivel"? Thanks for proving my point.
Author of post 75 understood what I said for what it was, and also, what you said for what it is. i said incapacity to detect humour. not "tone". Now, try taking the advice and lighten up, and accept it that while others obviously knew what I meant, you didnt. Your post was pretty funny, really, it being so pompous and so mixed up. So smile! You got a laugh. - - - Updated - - - wow you still dont get it that I was kidding, and that what you said in response to a joke is drivel? dont keep dribbling on it!!
What you said was not inherently funny, though I believe it was probably meant in jest. In verbal communication, tone would dictate intent. Your assumption that strangers reading this forum should automatically read your post as a joke, must mean that you expect them to assume tone... Of course, you do have a partial point... After all, half the things I read on here are a joke to me, whether the poster meant it that way or not. Aren't you the one who likes to point out perceived "snark"? Hypocrisy much? Whereas I believe (as I said above) that what you said might have been in jest, I have interacted with the person to whom I was responding enough times to know that his somewhat crotchety post (#71) wasn't in jest.
Speaking of not having a point, was there a purpose to this other than flamebait? I wasn't aware that I was making "a big deal out of nothing" by pointing out that being closed-minded is not an admirable trait. Seems like you've made "a big deal out of nothing" by continuing to critique that comment.
Tu Quoue fallacy much? More ad hominem fallacies? Do you really believe this makes your position credible? Once again, the fact that you refer to "EX-marine"s illustrates your knowledge is lacking. Please provide some proof that I need a firearm in order to have "my defense".
America was founded by people who rejected by tyranny and sought prosperity. We are the decedents of men and women who risked everything for their right to be free. We are the decedents of the people who made planes, incandescent light bulbs, the assembly line, Apple, Microsoft, Google, GM, and Ford. We are decedents of people who left their home nation to start anew here. We are the decedents of innovators and free thinkers. We have been wrong in the past on many things, we have done awful things as any nation has but we have corrected ourselves, sometimes times through blood. The United States is unique in its founding, in its spirit, its patriotism, and its history. We are the decedents of patriots and heroes.
Ever heard of intercity gang violence, the US is the drug using capital of the world and has cause gang violence in major cities and an increase in suicides due to overdosing. Chicago had a higher body count than Afghanistan in 2013 and has the strictest gun control laws on the books, New York is not far behind them.
Problem: increased suicide rate due to overdosing, increased healthcare cost on an already crippling system, increased burglary due to people needing money to pay for the addiction (some may be fatal cause of home owner gun owners), increased automobile accidents. Save your comments about alcohol, it does not justify adding more into the mix.
The answer is to reduce gang violence, the problem in America today is that the 'nuclear family' has dissolved in many communities. Millions of children are born out of wedlock, many homes are single parent and the child often sees the gangs, drugs, and crime as the only options. Not to mention the bad economic times have made it much worse. Something needs to be done about these things. Restricting guns is not the answer, but guns are not the only answer to the problem. The dissolution of the family structure plays a major part in the violence in America. I think that people should be allowed to own any gun they want that holds as much ammo as they want to ensure their protection and that of their families. What ever they see as necessary is not my business. If I lived in an area where gang violence was prominent, I would want a gun on me and one at home for my family, God forbid I would ever have to use it. Sadly, to many areas like that have strict gun laws and it prevents people to do that.
Actually, you're position (that you do need one) would be an affirmative statement, and therefore subject to the onus of proof. Of course, I'm not asking you to prove that... nor am I even vaguely interested in your rhubarb.
Again, they are not rolling in the drugs as the US is. Even then, overall violent crime is up in the UK and Australia, as well as in the EU.
That's why I am here, consider yourself relieved from service. You have as much of a right to speak as me, American or not. Like they all say, I do not agree with what you say, but I'll fight for your right to say it.
I'd like to see the source that illustrates that per capita illegal importation of drugs is higher in the US than it is in other countries. Similarly, I'd like to see the source that "overall violent crime" stats from other english-speaking first-world democracies actually includes the same specific offenses as those being measured in the US. After all, "sexual assault" is defined differently in different countries (and tends to be narrower in scope in the US).
Don't believe we are not "rolling in drugs" - look who we have for neighbours plus we have a VERY long coastline - more unwatched outback than you can poke a stick at and a huge amount of smuggling going on into and out of this country. You might have south America but WE have Asia and all it's poppy fields. We have multicultural riots - like the one at Cronulla but since there are not huge amounts of guns there are not, thankfully, huge amounts of gun deaths. UK - same thing. At the height of the "Skin head" movement when gangs of youths would descend on Brighton and because there WERE no guns they would come with big steel capped boots so they could "kick the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of the others" Police stopped that - in such a Brit fashion - they confiscated the shoe laces of everyone wearing steel capped boots
You have proven my point then. It is not guns, it is people. Guns are tools, just like knives are tools. It is all a matter of who is in control of them. I do not want to live in a society where the only people who have guns are Criminals and the government. I want to be on a level playing field if my life or those of my family are threatened, or at least as close as I can. The old saying goes, "God made man, Samuel Colt made them equal." If you do not like guns, fine that is your opinion, but I do not want to be hindered in protecting myself or my family. If your solution is to ban everything, when will it end? Knives? Pencils? Toothpicks? Fists? If someone is going to cause pain, they will do it regardless of what tool they have at their disposal.
Oh! I admit there is nothing stupider than a know it all teen (particularly males - their brains seem to land in their balls for a couple of years - fortunately it improves later) But mate guns do NOT make you equal. What if you are short sighted? What if you are a hopeless shot? What if you are shaking so badly you manage to shoot the sidewalk, the lamppost and the cop who was coming to assist? What if you are senile or drunk or high?
Not sure what the "know it all teen" thing was about. People who conceal carry and own guns are some of the most responsible people I know. People who conceal carry are trained to use their gun and use it accurately. Stress plays a factor, as you stated, so having a firearm with an ample supply of ammunition in the firearm and on standby is recommended. If you are a hopeless shot and know it, you get training beforehand. Short sighted: Glasses, dude. Background checks make sure you are not crazy when purchasing the weapon. Cops are usually not on the scene when a crime is happening, even if they were, the cop is trained to take control of the situation, Either way, accidents happen. If you are Drunk or High, ban cars while you are at it. You are more likely to hit something with that instead of a gun. If I am without a gun, and a criminal has one. That is not equal. If I have a gun, and he has a gun. That is equal. If they have a gun, I want a gun.
Great! So let's figure out how the criminals are realistically getting their firearms... http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html Straw purchases are a major issue because we simply don't have the ability to identify straw purchasers. What would fix that? Several problems/fallacies here: 1) Psychologist's fallacy. Your assertion that your perceived needs are a sound basis for determining policy on a societal level. 2) Lucid fallacy. You're assuming that your family faces risks that can only be addressed with deadly force, while ignoring the greater risk presented to your family by maintaining tools capable of (accidentally or intentionally) inflicting deadly force. 3) Straw Man fallacy. You're implying that knives, pencils, toothpicks and fists present the same risks as firearms. If this were true, our military could save a lot of money...
Your study was conducted in 1994, before modern background checks, therefore not relevant. Ask any criminal today and they will tell you that: 1.) If they knew a home owner had a gun, they would be less likely to rob it. 2.) They got most of their guns on the street. My perceived needs are the realities of millions of Americans (aka society). I want all Americans to be able to defend themselves as they see fit, regardless of method. Any tool is capable of accidentally or intentionally inflicting deadly force. Responsibility and safety are the first thing to firearms. The risk of accident is far less than that of a threat to my family. In the wrong hands, they do present the same risks. If guns are so great at killing, send them and leave our troops at home. A gun is a tool that can be used for violence, but also for sport and self defense. It is a matter of responsibility.
