why an elementary school..

penfold1992 · **Joined:** Apr 2007 **Posts:** 4060 **Location:**

BuDo wrote:

Being wrong ruins one's argument...not being condescending:

Since having a few vanilla flavor AR15s won't help you against a military/government takeover...and since you can stop criminals with a hand gun....Why not settle with just a hand gun?... You're rights are still in tact isn't it? But no wait!...that's not the issue...the issue is more symbolic....partially infringing on your rights is just as bad right?..because it could lead to other infringements right?....Why such a big fuss over this particular right though??? weren't there far more important rights that were/are being infringed upon??? Where was/is the huge fuss over these ones???...

How about this....I vote for all gun lovers to have any gun they want..even RPGs...I'm serious...Military grade if you want...but all these weaponry are kept at a facility where you go there and use them to your hearts content...they're yours you just can't take them home....That way you get to enjoy your hobby...plus you still get to keep your hand guns at home...Would this be good enough?... *awaits the wrath*

yep. thats true. We should look a lot more a the death due to cigarettes not guns...

Azilius · **Joined:** Oct 2006 **Posts:** 4236 **Location:** CS:GO

BuDo wrote:

Being wrong ruins one's argument...not being condescending:

Since having a few vanilla flavor AR15s won't help you against a military/government takeover...and since you can stop criminals with a hand gun....Why not settle with just a hand gun?... You're rights are still in tact isn't it? But no wait!...that's not the issue...the issue is more symbolic....partially infringing on your rights is just as bad right?..because it could lead to other infringements right?....Why such a big fuss over this particular right though??? weren't there far more important rights that were/are being infringed upon??? Where was/is the huge fuss over these ones???...

Going to ignore heavy trolling in second paragraph.

As for partially infringing on rights..Yes you are correct. Why such a big fuss over this one though? You tell me..I'm not the one advocating gun control, you are. As for the jab at only making a fuss over this one alone..that's VERY untrue. When the NDAA bill went through people who understood what was happening were extremely pissed. I don't really need to refute that though..it's not logical to say that because someone didn't raise their voice over something related to a current topic that they shouldn't then raise their voice about said current topic.

BuDo · **Joined:** Dec 2008 **Posts:** 4714 **Location:**

Azilius wrote:

BuDo wrote:

Being wrong ruins one's argument...not being condescending:

Since having a few vanilla flavor AR15s won't help you against a military/government takeover...and since you can stop criminals with a hand gun....Why not settle with just a hand gun?... You're rights are still in tact isn't it? But no wait!...that's not the issue...the issue is more symbolic....partially infringing on your rights is just as bad right?..because it could lead to other infringements right?....Why such a big fuss over this particular right though??? weren't there far more important rights that were/are being infringed upon??? Where was/is the huge fuss over these ones???...

Going to ignore heavy trolling in second paragraph.

As for partially infringing on rights..Yes you are correct. Why such a big fuss over this one though? You tell me..I'm not the one advocating gun control, you are. As for the jab at only making a fuss over this one alone..that's VERY untrue. When the NDAA bill went through people who understood what was happening were extremely pissed. I don't really need to refute that though..it's not logical to say that because someone didn't raise their voice over something related to a current topic that they shouldn't then raise their voice about said current topic.

That highlighted part didn't make sense...gun advocates are making a fuss over their rights being infringed upon and I am asking why because I am NOT a pro gun advocate...Therefore I don't know so I can't "tell you"..

Extremely pissed (or not at all) but relatively quiet about other rights infringement bills (such as women's rights, gay rights which are basically just human rights) but very vocal about a possible gun curbing bill?... Points scored for establishing priorities I'll say...I guess they don't have to care about anything else and its their right so I can't argue there..

Azilius · **Joined:** Oct 2006 **Posts:** 4236 **Location:** CS:GO

BuDo wrote:

Azilius wrote:

BuDo wrote:

Being wrong ruins one's argument...not being condescending:

Since having a few vanilla flavor AR15s won't help you against a military/government takeover...and since you can stop criminals with a hand gun....Why not settle with just a hand gun?... You're rights are still in tact isn't it? But no wait!...that's not the issue...the issue is more symbolic....partially infringing on your rights is just as bad right?..because it could lead to other infringements right?....Why such a big fuss over this particular right though??? weren't there far more important rights that were/are being infringed upon??? Where was/is the huge fuss over these ones???...

Going to ignore heavy trolling in second paragraph.

As for partially infringing on rights..Yes you are correct. Why such a big fuss over this one though? You tell me..I'm not the one advocating gun control, you are. As for the jab at only making a fuss over this one alone..that's VERY untrue. When the NDAA bill went through people who understood what was happening were extremely pissed. I don't really need to refute that though..it's not logical to say that because someone didn't raise their voice over something related to a current topic that they shouldn't then raise their voice about said current topic.

That highlighted part didn't make sense...gun advocates are making a fuss over their rights being infringed upon and I am asking why because I am NOT a pro gun advocate...Therefore I don't know so I can't "tell you"..

Extremely pissed (or not at all) but relatively quiet about other rights infringement bills (such as women's rights, gay rights which are basically just human rights) but very vocal about a possible gun curbing bill?... Points scored for establishing priorities I'll say...I guess they don't have to care about anything else and its their right so I can't argue there..

Relatively quiet about other rights infringement bills? What?

You not seeing things != they don't happen

That kind of sums all your argument up..

Tasdik · **Joined:** Jan 2007 **Posts:** 13206 **Location:** Life

penfold1992 wrote:

Tasdik wrote:

Lol at comparing America to UK.

i was talking about guns... not people.

Oh, fun fact: UK actually has more violent crimes that the U.S.

Spoiler!

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents.

Love · **Joined:** Nov 2007 **Posts:** 5336 **Location:**

Tasdik where did you get those fabricated facts, North Korea ? From the committee of people who let children die and crave mass nonsensical violence so that in their next life they can own land equal to that off the blood theyve spilled.

I think so.

penfold1992 · **Joined:** Apr 2007 **Posts:** 4060 **Location:**

yeah... i dont see somalia, pakistan, bahrain?

Tasdik · **Joined:** Jan 2007 **Posts:** 13206 **Location:** Life

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Violent+Crimes+UK

Love · **Joined:** Nov 2007 **Posts:** 5336 **Location:**

Pen fun question for you, are you aware of what countries border the US, what that implies ?

Spoiler!

penfold1992 · **Joined:** Apr 2007 **Posts:** 4060 **Location:**

Love wrote:

Pen fun question for you, are you aware of what countries border the US, what that implies ?

Spoiler!

are you high? what does french have to do this? Canada and mexico boarder the states...

also @ tasdik there are more factors in this then what you are saying...
if a country has 3 people in it and 1 person commits a violent crime. 33% of the population are violent.
if a country has 3 billion people in it.... 30 million people would have to be violent to match that. the more people, the more violent people you will need to match nations with smaller populations.

also compared to the US, the UK is densely populated. If a violent criminal was in a neighborhood that he can commit 200 offences he will more likely commit more violent crimes then if only had only 50 families living. Considering people live much much much closer together in the UK then america, it would be expected for the crime rate to increase.

Also, because lots of things are expensive over here (like petrol and living cost) its more likely for the middle class to take an opportunity to be a criminal then in places in america where money is more stable... And yes I know that there are poorer parts of america which this doesnt apply too but there are also richer parts too. Poor people wont get far robbing other poor people, there is not an opportunity for wealth there

.curve · **Posted:** Wed Jan 23, 2013 10:03 pm

penfold1992 wrote:

Love wrote:

Pen fun question for you, are you aware of what countries border the US, what that implies ?

Spoiler!

are you high? what does french have to do this? Canada and mexico boarder the states...

also @ tasdik there are more factors in this then what you are saying...
if a country has 3 people in it and 1 person commits a violent crime. 33% of the population are violent.
if a country has 3 billion people in it.... 30 million people would have to be violent to match that. the more people, the more violent people you will need to match nations with smaller populations.

also compared to the US, the UK is densely populated. If a violent criminal was in a neighborhood that he can commit 200 offences he will more likely commit more violent crimes then if only had only 50 families living. Considering people live much much much closer together in the UK then america, it would be expected for the crime rate to increase.

Also, because lots of things are expensive over here (like petrol and living cost) its more likely for the middle class to take an opportunity to be a criminal then in places in america where money is more stable... And yes I know that there are poorer parts of america which this doesnt apply too but there are also richer parts too. Poor people wont get far robbing other poor people, there is not an opportunity for wealth there

I like how your argument to statistics becomes "well what about this this and this and this and this?!" but your argument this whole time has simply been "guns." You and your arguments are a joke, my friend.

Azilius · **Joined:** Oct 2006 **Posts:** 4236 **Location:** CS:GO

penfold1992 wrote:

Love wrote:

Pen fun question for you, are you aware of what countries border the US, what that implies ?

Spoiler!

are you high? what does french have to do this? Canada and mexico boarder the states...

also @ tasdik there are more factors in this then what you are saying...
if a country has 3 people in it and 1 person commits a violent crime. 33% of the population are violent.
if a country has 3 billion people in it.... 30 million people would have to be violent to match that. the more people, the more violent people you will need to match nations with smaller populations.

also compared to the US, the UK is densely populated. If a violent criminal was in a neighborhood that he can commit 200 offences he will more likely commit more violent crimes then if only had only 50 families living. Considering people live much much much closer together in the UK then america, it would be expected for the crime rate to increase.

Also, because lots of things are expensive over here (like petrol and living cost) its more likely for the middle class to take an opportunity to be a criminal then in places in america where money is more stable... And yes I know that there are poorer parts of america which this doesnt apply too but there are also richer parts too. Poor people wont get far robbing other poor people, there is not an opportunity for wealth there

Ok ok where to begin...

First off:

Quote:

if a country has 3 people in it and 1 person commits a violent crime. 33% of the population are violent.
if a country has 3 billion people in it.... 30 million people would have to be violent to match that. the more people, the more violent people you will need to match nations with smaller populations.

You are trying to say that using PERCENT based statistics rather than using actual values is wrong or somehow misleading. This is actually just stupid, and I don't feel the need to argue it any further. Just know percents are used because it's FAR more logical to say a % of your population is doing X rather than "this many people" are doing X.

Quote:

also compared to the US, the UK is densely populated. If a violent criminal was in a neighborhood that he can commit 200 offences he will more likely commit more violent crimes then if only had only 50 families living. Considering people live much much much closer together in the UK then america, it would be expected for the crime rate to increase.

This is you bullshitting. You have ZERO facts to back up any of this. You are making guesses as to why something is true and using it as your proof.

Quote:

Also, because lots of things are expensive over here (like petrol and living cost) its more likely for the middle class to take an opportunity to be a criminal then in places in america where money is more stable... And yes I know that there are poorer parts of america which this doesnt apply too but there are also richer parts too. Poor people wont get far robbing other poor people, there is not an opportunity for wealth there

This is an equal amount of bullshit. Again your claims are baseless and are derived on nothing but figments of your imagination.

You should be the one who is getting asked if they are high, not Love who is clearly trolling you..

penfold1992 · **Joined:** Apr 2007 **Posts:** 4060 **Location:**

i know love was trolling -.-

i dont need to give full accurate information with back up proofs of the reasons why because i was showing that there are OTHER factors. me and my gf would both rather live in the usa but both of us agree that the uk is a safer place to live.

and % based statistics is exactly the reason the data is skewed. An example I heard about the other day is a good example.
if you take the population of every country in the world and looked at the first digit of each number, what do you think the likelihood of seeing a 1 is? (as a percentage)

Love · **Joined:** Nov 2007 **Posts:** 5336 **Location:**

Heh it wasn't that complicated. Answer is Mexico. I doubt you know much regarding the emigration and security situation, specially in a place like Los Angeles.

You wouldn't believe the amount of human soup stories i have heard.

penfold1992 · **Joined:** Apr 2007 **Posts:** 4060 **Location:**

well then america better increase there boarder control then.
Am I the only one that feels like everyone else keeps coming up with excuses to kill other people?

.curve · **Posted:** Thu Jan 24, 2013 1:42 am

penfold1992 wrote:

well then america better increase there boarder control then.
Am I the only one that feels like everyone else keeps coming up with excuses to kill other people?

You don't think we have been trying to increase border patrol for a while now? Pure ignorance.

Also yes, you are the only one who feels that, as you have the mentality of a teenage girl blowing everything out of proportion.

penfold1992 · **Joined:** Apr 2007 **Posts:** 4060 **Location:**

.curve wrote:

Also yes, you are the only one who feels that, as you have the mentality of a teenage girl blowing everything out of proportion.

no you just dont care when people die for unnecessary reasons. oh well thats life, people die, cant do anything about it, whats the point, meh.

oh and if you still have a boarder control issue then people arent doing there job right. you can bet that if mexicans turned islamic tomorrow they wouldnt get 10feet of the american boarder without months of background checks

.curve · **Posted:** Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:31 am

penfold1992 wrote:

.curve wrote:

Also yes, you are the only one who feels that, as you have the mentality of a teenage girl blowing everything out of proportion.

no you just dont care when people die for unnecessary reasons. oh well thats life, people die, cant do anything about it, whats the point, meh.

oh and if you still have a boarder control issue then people arent doing there job right. you can bet that if mexicans turned islamic tomorrow they wouldnt get 10feet of the american boarder without months of background checks

That IS life. People die every day from any number of things. Should we take away cars so that we can prevent any more motor vehicle deaths?

Your ignorance regarding the border patrol issue is astonishing. It's easy to sit back as an outsider and criticize another country for something they do or do not do, sure. It just makes you seem grossly uneducated and your opinion weighs very little.

Love · **Joined:** Nov 2007 **Posts:** 5336 **Location:**

People aren't doing their job :-)

BuDo · **Joined:** Dec 2008 **Posts:** 4714 **Location:**

.curve wrote:

penfold1992 wrote:

.curve wrote:

Also yes, you are the only one who feels that, as you have the mentality of a teenage girl blowing everything out of proportion.

no you just dont care when people die for unnecessary reasons. oh well thats life, people die, cant do anything about it, whats the point, meh.

oh and if you still have a boarder control issue then people arent doing there job right. you can bet that if mexicans turned islamic tomorrow they wouldnt get 10feet of the american boarder without months of background checks

That IS life. People die every day from any number of things. Should we take away cars so that we can prevent any more motor vehicle deaths?

Your ignorance regarding the border patrol issue is astonishing. It's easy to sit back as an outsider and criticize another country for something they do or do not do, sure. It just makes you seem grossly uneducated and your opinion weighs very little.

I didn't know people were intentionally murdering people with their vehicles.....intentionally embarking on mass killings with their SUV and sports cars...

Azilius · **Joined:** Oct 2006 **Posts:** 4236 **Location:** CS:GO

penfold1992 wrote:

i dont need to give full accurate information with back up proofs of the reasons why

penfold1992 · **Joined:** Apr 2007 **Posts:** 4060 **Location:**

lol you removed the last part of the sentence which was the important part. /fail

Fury · **Joined:** Jan 2008 **Posts:** 1596 **Location:**

Ok ive got it guys. Lets kill the entire human race...that way no one can murder each other :sohappy:

.curve · **Posted:** Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:06 pm

BuDo wrote:

I didn't know people were intentionally murdering people with their vehicles.....intentionally embarking on mass killings with their SUV and sports cars...

You really didn't know that? It would be considerably easier to run a car full speed through a crosswalk of children than it would to obtain a gun and plot out a murder spree.

*BlackFox · **Joined:** Sep 2008 **Posts:** 7923 **Location:**

Love wrote:

People aren't doing their job :-)

What "kind of job" are you talking about. eh?

penfold1992 · **Joined:** Apr 2007 **Posts:** 4060 **Location:**

*BlackFox wrote:

Love wrote:

People aren't doing their job :-)

What "kind of job" are you talking about. eh?

keeping illegal drugs/guns and other contraband out of the country?

*BlackFox · **Joined:** Sep 2008 **Posts:** 7923 **Location:**

Ah... You're damn right. Well, we should sue them!

Love · **Joined:** Nov 2007 **Posts:** 5336 **Location:**

http://guardian.co.tt/news/2013-01-21/s ... ting-penis

Wow now it has gone too far, we really need gun control. Now people are losing their penis.

*BlackFox · **Joined:** Sep 2008 **Posts:** 7923 **Location:**

Oh dear... Such a "responsible gun owner".

omier · **Joined:** Aug 2006 **Posts:** 5985 **Location:** ...

^He didn't even legally own the gun.

Silkroad Online Forums

why an elementary school..

Who is online