Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[RedKing]

Just read over the last several pages to see where the topic has gone.

Nope nope nope. Not stepping into this one, because Toady would wind up having to ban me.

(unconstructive remark removed)

[smjjames]

Just read over the last several pages to see where the topic has gone.

Nope nope nope. Not stepping into this one, because Toady would wind up having to ban me.

I will say this, though: Shonus....get help. Seriously. Your shiny steel phallus worship does not bode well for your future.

That's like telling all americans to get help for their 'shiny steel phallus' worship, which I'm not really seeing from Shonus, I mean he doesn't seem like a frothing pro-gun supporter.

Also, for a moment I thought you were talking about swords, not guns because you know, swords.....

[Owlbread]

I think it would serve American pro-gun activists well to disengage themselves from the whole "self defence" argument and focus on fighting to retain the ownership of firearms for the chief purpose of recreation and pest control. Unfortunately gun ownership is caught up in other things like nationalism and American founding mythology and safeguards against tyrants and all the rest of it.

Incidentally "recreation" doesn't have to mean bolt action hunting rifles and shotguns (the kinds that keep timid Liberals with little firearms experience apart from action movies happy) but it can mean anything from handguns to semi automatic rifles of all shapes and sizes to AR15s to fully automatic rifles, just as it is now. There is no reason why you should need to "ban" or prevent the ownership of such things outright because it will have no effect on crime (how can it when the guns aren't used in crime to begin with?); instead heavy British style regulation is the best answer.

As a side note - if anyone else is considering attributing their debating partner's viewpoint to a sense of sexual inadequacy/insecurity (the metal phallus stuff) could I please ask them to consider the following before doing so: when has that tactic ever helped or improved the standards of debate? Rather than just needlessly dragging the debate into the gutter, insulting your opponent and making them hate you for attacking them personally?  Think on that, thanks.

[Blargityblarg]

Incidentally "recreation" doesn't have to mean bolt action hunting rifles and shotguns (the kinds that keep timid Liberals with little firearms experience apart from action movies happy) but it can mean anything from handguns to semi automatic rifles of all shapes and sizes to AR15s to fully automatic rifles, just as it is now. There is no reason why you should need to "ban" or prevent the ownership of such things outright because it will have no effect on crime (how can it when the guns aren't used in crime to begin with?); instead heavy British style regulation is the best answer.

Have I parsed this wrong or are you suggesting handguns are not used in crime

because what

[GreatJustice]

To anyone using the UK as an example for why gun control works:

Initially, comparing homicide rates between the US and UK supports the idea that gun control works wonders. Except if you look at historic data, you find that UK homicide rates were comparatively very low even when there were basically no restrictions on gun ownership, and they actually rose significantly after the introduction of gun restriction laws, whereas US crime rose in the 1920s probably due to Prohibition and has generally risen and fallen in relation to the status of the Drug War, with increases during Prohibition, Nixon's Drug War escalation and the 1990s and drops from the end of Prohibition and from the 2000s onwards. So really, the evidence is fairly strong that gun control, at best, has a net neutral effect on homicide, and at worst increases homicide rates to some degree. Comparing US states with stricter gun laws to those with laxer gun laws generally supports the same conclusion (though differences in poverty rates, etc can make it less clear).

[Sheb]

Blarg: Depending on the level of regulation (I don't know the ins and outs of Britain's gun control laws), it's perfectly possible if, for exemple, weapons have to be kept at the range.

[Morrigi]

Incidentally "recreation" doesn't have to mean bolt action hunting rifles and shotguns (the kinds that keep timid Liberals with little firearms experience apart from action movies happy) but it can mean anything from handguns to semi automatic rifles of all shapes and sizes to AR15s to fully automatic rifles, just as it is now. There is no reason why you should need to "ban" or prevent the ownership of such things outright because it will have no effect on crime (how can it when the guns aren't used in crime to begin with?); instead heavy British style regulation is the best answer.

Have I parsed this wrong or are you suggesting handguns are not used in crime

because what

I think he was referring to the part I bolded.

Anyway, wasn't it British-style regulation that got us into this whole "United States" thing in the first place? 

[LordSlowpoke]

british regulation, as far as i know, bans everything possible

unless you're a hunter, then you get a shotgun

that's good enough i guess

but hunters get so much shit nowadays, i remember talking to someone who honestly believed throwing wolves into the packed environment that europe is just to get rid of the "barbaric bastards" is a 11/10 idea

[Loud Whispers]

british regulation, as far as i know, bans everything possible

unless you're a hunter, then you get a shotgun

that's good enough i guess

but hunters get so much shit nowadays, i remember talking to someone who honestly believed throwing wolves into the packed environment that europe is just to get rid of the "barbaric bastards" is a 11/10 idea

Oh god, that wolf argument got on bay12 and it was hilarious. People were honestly saying that the rarity of wolf attacks in Yellowstone park was a good reason to bring wolves into the UK instead of just culling more deer with guns even though Yellowstone park is the size of greater London four times larger than greater London.

[Sheb]

Romania is packed full of wolves and they don't have a problem with them.

[LordSlowpoke]

that'd be the vampires balancing it out

try another if you'd please

[Loud Whispers]

Romania is packed full of wolves and they don't have a problem with them.

Romania has nature reserves with more total area than yellowstone park and their current wolf population is unsustainable without allowing wolves to prey on domestic sheep because the wolves prefer the hilly farms close to human habitation for their livestock.

[Sheb]

So? They still don't attack human, so your point about wolf attacks is completely moot. Unless you meant wolf attacks on livestock too, but then why did you bring up the Yellowstone park?

Anyway, I'd love to talk about this (I'm big on 'rewilding', although I like hunting too), but I don't think this is the thread. Want to discuss it in some other place?

[Loud Whispers]

Spoiler: WOLVES (click to show/hide)

So? They still don't attack human

1. There is no definitive study on wolf attacks, though numerous wolf attacks on humans have been reported. Difficult to tell as many news reports are sensationalized.
2. Farmers are well defended and even then still fall victim to attacks. It is a bit telling that on that one Romanian study, 21% of Wolf diet on domestic animals were dogs.
3. Bulgaria is twice the size of England with plenty of mountainous hilly areas, national parks the sizes of Londons and still has a wolf problem. England is a narrow island of cities, farmlands, meadows and a few forests/parks. Human contact would be ever present.

so your point about wolf attacks is completely moot.

Explain why? My point is the wolves are attacking. They are attacking, so...? This is not even counting the fact that even in areas as vast as Russia or North America wolf attacks on humans in addition to livestock are all too well documented even when America has entire swathes of unpopulated land larger than the entire British isles. At some point I'm prolly just going to begin pulling from the old argument, because most of this stuff basically is just what I remember from that tangent.

Unless you meant wolf attacks on livestock too, but then why did you bring up the Yellowstone park?

I already explained why in my post, it was brought up in a previous discussion on Bay12. I am including all effects of wolf reintroduction.

[DJ]

Bosnia has plenty of wolves, and yeah, attacks on sheep are very common, but I've never heard of an attack on a human. Though TBF not that many people wander the woods due to danger of landmines, and the ones that do are mostly hunters so they're armed. But I do have a friend who lived up in the mountains, and he did run into wolves and bears on several occasions, and they just gave each other a wide berth.