INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: DirtDawg on January 11, 2011, 06:41:24 PM
-
I think I have made my position quite clear over the past evening.
I live in a country that invites one to defend oneself, upon principle. Not all of our populace can do so, however. Those retard throw-backs often expect us who CAN defend them to step forward every time the need arises.
If not, then they ALL end up in the evening news as horror stories.
Guess what? Bullets are expensive!
-
Are you worth saving?
-
I think I have made my position quite clear over the past evening.
I live in a country that invites one to defend oneself, upon principle. Not all of our populace can do so, however. Those retard throw-backs often expect us who CAN defend them to step forward every time the need arises.
If not, then they ALL end up in the evening news as horror stories.
Guess what? Bullets are expensive!
:laugh: I don't know what to say
Firstly. Is it cool to call people who disagree with your point of view "retard throw-backs?" I mean, I think there should always be tight gun controls, but I would never dream of calling people who disagree with me "retard throw-backs"
And secondly. Are you really saying that you want the right to keep a gun, but that you would resent using it to help your neighbour, if your neighbour is anti-gun, and in trouble?
-
Fuck `em. I guard my own perimeter. No one elses.
-
Are you worth saving?
Maybe I should say:
"Are you lot worth saving for a third time?"
-
Guess what? Bullets are expensive!
Uuum, I make mine from melted down wheel-weights.
They're pretty cheap for me. ;) 8)
-
Are you worth saving?
Maybe I should say:
"Are you lot worth saving for a third time?"
:moon: :razz: :moon:
-
Guess what? Bullets are expensive!
Uuum, I make mine from melted down wheel-weights.
They're pretty cheap for me. ;) 8)
OK, but have you seriously known a single Non-American, worth the trouble of casting a bullet or two?
Our country has spent untold billions of dollars of our most precious resources defending the likes of the Brits who fucking dis' us at every opportunity.
What is the point of it all?
-
Are you worth saving?
Maybe I should say:
"Are you lot worth saving for a third time?"
:moon: :razz: :moon:
Quoted to show your disdain for what you can not even begin to achieve.
-
Guess what? Bullets are expensive!
Uuum, I make mine from melted down wheel-weights.
They're pretty cheap for me. ;) 8)
OK, but have you seriously known a single Non-American, worth the trouble of casting a bullet or two?
Our country has spent untold billions of dollars of our most precious resources defending the likes of the Brits who fucking dis' us at every opportunity.
What is the point of it all?
In my opinion, a battle consisting of the US versus the rest of the world would not turn out very well for us. We defended Britain because it was in our interest to do so.
Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.
-
Guess what? Bullets are expensive!
Uuum, I make mine from melted down wheel-weights.
They're pretty cheap for me. ;) 8)
OK, but have you seriously known a single Non-American, worth the trouble of casting a bullet or two?
Our country has spent untold billions of dollars of our most precious resources defending the likes of the Brits who fucking dis' us at every opportunity.
What is the point of it all?
DD, could you help me out here. I'm really not sure if you're serious here or not. If you're on the wind-up, then it is funny. If you're serious, then you would be an arse of the highest order.
I'm really not sure how to take you, and it leaves me in a position where I really don't know whether to like you, and admire your sense of humour, or dislike you, and think of you as a total plonker.
-
Guess what? Bullets are expensive!
Uuum, I make mine from melted down wheel-weights.
They're pretty cheap for me. ;) 8)
OK, but have you seriously known a single Non-American, worth the trouble of casting a bullet or two?
Our country has spent untold billions of dollars of our most precious resources defending the likes of the Brits who fucking dis' us at every opportunity.
What is the point of it all?
DD, could you help me out here. I'm really not sure if you're serious here or not. If you're on the wind-up, then it is funny. If you're serious, then you would be an arse of the highest order.
I'm really not sure how to take you, and it leaves me in a posistion where I really don't know whether to like you, and admire your sense of humour, or dislike you, and think of you as a more articulate version of Richard.
I like DirtDawg very much and he's nothing like Richard. I think by defending the Brits, he's referring to the US entering the first and second world wars on the side of the British.
-
Guess what? Bullets are expensive!
Uuum, I make mine from melted down wheel-weights.
They're pretty cheap for me. ;) 8)
OK, but have you seriously known a single Non-American, worth the trouble of casting a bullet or two?
Our country has spent untold billions of dollars of our most precious resources defending the likes of the Brits who fucking dis' us at every opportunity.
What is the point of it all?
DD, could you help me out here. I'm really not sure if you're serious here or not. If you're on the wind-up, then it is funny. If you're serious, then you would be an arse of the highest order.
I'm really not sure how to take you, and it leaves me in a posistion where I really don't know whether to like you, and admire your sense of humour, or dislike you, and think of you as a more articulate version of Richard.
I like DirtDawg very much and he's nothing like Richard. I think by defending the Brits, he's referring to the US entering the first and second world wars on the side of the British.
Actually. I was refering to:
Those retard throw-backs often expect us who CAN defend them to step forward every time the need arises.
OK, but have you seriously known a single Non-American, worth the trouble of casting a bullet or two?
-
I think I have made my position quite clear over the past evening.
I live in a country that invites one to defend oneself, upon principle. Not all of our populace can do so, however. Those retard throw-backs often expect us who CAN defend them to step forward every time the need arises.
If not, then they ALL end up in the evening news as horror stories.
Guess what? Bullets are expensive!
The British defeated the Argentinians without outside assistance.
-
And also. America sees itself as some kind of defender of the free. Surely it had a moral obligation to stand side by side with its "free" friends and fight Naziism, rather than staying out of the majority of the fight. It was quick enough to expect its alies to join in it's pathetic war on terror in Iraq of all places. I've never understood the American view of "helping us in WW2"
-
I like DirtDawg very much and he's nothing like Richard. I think by defending the Brits, he's referring to the US entering the first and second world wars on the side of the British.
Yes Dirtdawg might be a great guy. I'm hoping he'll answer my question and confirm it. Sadly, I'm beginning to wonder if he is on the wind-up or if he is for real.
-
And also. America sees itself as some kind of defender of the free. Surely it had a moral obligation to stand side by side with its "free" friends and fight Naziism, rather than staying out of the majority of the fight. It was quick enough to expect its alies to join in it's pathetic war on terror in Iraq of all places. I've never understood the American view of "helping us in WW2"
There is no "American view". America is possibly the most politically diverse country in the world. When you say, "America sees itself" or "the American view", you are falling into the same pattern of stereotyping that you are criticizing DirtDawg for engaging in.
-
And also. America sees itself as some kind of defender of the free. Surely it had a moral obligation to stand side by side with its "free" friends and fight Naziism, rather than staying out of the majority of the fight. It was quick enough to expect its alies to join in it's pathetic war on terror in Iraq of all places. I've never understood the American view of "helping us in WW2"
There is no "American view". America is possibly the most politically diverse country in the world. When you say, "America sees itself" or "the American view", you are falling into the same pattern of stereotyping that you are criticizing DirtDawg for engaging in.
Yes. It was a poor choice of phrase. I meant those who see Ameruca as the white knight of WW2.
-
I don't really care about the laws in other countries.
-
And also. America sees itself as some kind of defender of the free. Surely it had a moral obligation to stand side by side with its "free" friends and fight Naziism, rather than staying out of the majority of the fight. It was quick enough to expect its alies to join in it's pathetic war on terror in Iraq of all places. I've never understood the American view of "helping us in WW2"
There is no "American view". America is possibly the most politically diverse country in the world. When you say, "America sees itself" or "the American view", you are falling into the same pattern of stereotyping that you are criticizing DirtDawg for engaging in.
Yes. It was a poor choice of phrase. I meant those who see Ameruca as the white knight of WW2.
We might not have won it by ourselfs but without the manufacturing power and the military of the US you would have been in very sad shape. We supplied a lot of the arms for all the allies. As for our current venture in Iraq I tend to agree
-
I don't really care about the laws in other countries.
TBH nether do I. At the moment I'm more concerned about finding out if DirtDawg is serious or not. Obviously I'm not really taking his comments as a joke, and if I've got the wrong end of the stick I would appreciate him letting me know.
-
And also. America sees itself as some kind of defender of the free. Surely it had a moral obligation to stand side by side with its "free" friends and fight Naziism, rather than staying out of the majority of the fight. It was quick enough to expect its alies to join in it's pathetic war on terror in Iraq of all places. I've never understood the American view of "helping us in WW2"
There is no "American view". America is possibly the most politically diverse country in the world. When you say, "America sees itself" or "the American view", you are falling into the same pattern of stereotyping that you are criticizing DirtDawg for engaging in.
Yes. It was a poor choice of phrase. I meant those who see Ameruca as the white knight of WW2.
We might not have won it by ourselfs but without the manufacturing power and the military of the US you would have been in very sad shape. We supplied a lot of the arms for all the allies. As for our current venture in Iraq I tend to agree
I'm not arguing about who won the war. I'm saying that America, in my eyes had an absolute moral responsibilty to stand side by side with us throughout WW2 against the forces of Nazism.
-
And also. America sees itself as some kind of defender of the free. Surely it had a moral obligation to stand side by side with its "free" friends and fight Naziism, rather than staying out of the majority of the fight. It was quick enough to expect its alies to join in it's pathetic war on terror in Iraq of all places. I've never understood the American view of "helping us in WW2"
There is no "American view". America is possibly the most politically diverse country in the world. When you say, "America sees itself" or "the American view", you are falling into the same pattern of stereotyping that you are criticizing DirtDawg for engaging in.
Yes. It was a poor choice of phrase. I meant those who see Ameruca as the white knight of WW2.
We might not have won it by ourselfs but without the manufacturing power and the military of the US you would have been in very sad shape. We supplied a lot of the arms for all the allies. As for our current venture in Iraq I tend to agree
I'm not arguing about who won the war. I'm saying that America, in my eyes had an absolute moral responsibilty to stand side by side with us throughout WW2 against the forces of Nazism.
That does seem like it's what you meant
-
I'm not arguing about who won the war. I'm saying that America, in my eyes had an absolute moral responsibilty to stand side by side with us throughout WW2 against the forces of Nazism.
Wars are about money and power, not morality. WW2 saved the world economy.
-
And also. America sees itself as some kind of defender of the free. Surely it had a moral obligation to stand side by side with its "free" friends and fight Naziism, rather than staying out of the majority of the fight. It was quick enough to expect its alies to join in it's pathetic war on terror in Iraq of all places. I've never understood the American view of "helping us in WW2"
There is no "American view". America is possibly the most politically diverse country in the world. When you say, "America sees itself" or "the American view", you are falling into the same pattern of stereotyping that you are criticizing DirtDawg for engaging in.
Yes. It was a poor choice of phrase. I meant those who see Ameruca as the white knight of WW2.
We might not have won it by ourselfs but without the manufacturing power and the military of the US you would have been in very sad shape. We supplied a lot of the arms for all the allies. As for our current venture in Iraq I tend to agree
I'm not arguing about who won the war. I'm saying that America, in my eyes had an absolute moral responsibilty to stand side by side with us throughout WW2 against the forces of Nazism.
You're wrong. All governments have a responsibility to act in the interests of their citizens, whatever those interests may be.
-
And also. America sees itself as some kind of defender of the free. Surely it had a moral obligation to stand side by side with its "free" friends and fight Naziism, rather than staying out of the majority of the fight. It was quick enough to expect its alies to join in it's pathetic war on terror in Iraq of all places. I've never understood the American view of "helping us in WW2"
There is no "American view". America is possibly the most politically diverse country in the world. When you say, "America sees itself" or "the American view", you are falling into the same pattern of stereotyping that you are criticizing DirtDawg for engaging in.
Yes. It was a poor choice of phrase. I meant those who see Ameruca as the white knight of WW2.
We might not have won it by ourselfs but without the manufacturing power and the military of the US you would have been in very sad shape. We supplied a lot of the arms for all the allies. As for our current venture in Iraq I tend to agree
I'm not arguing about who won the war. I'm saying that America, in my eyes had an absolute moral responsibilty to stand side by side with us throughout WW2 against the forces of Nazism.
That does seem like it's what you meant
Well. It's not what I mweant. To me America was no white knight. America should have thrown its stall in with us right from the beginning. It was its moral responsbility to do so. It certainly had far more moral responsiblity to help us during WW2 than the rest of the world had to help America in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That is a different issue to arguing about whether the war would have been won without Americvas help. The truth is I don't know the answer to that, and therefore am in no position to argue on that matter.
-
And also. America sees itself as some kind of defender of the free. Surely it had a moral obligation to stand side by side with its "free" friends and fight Naziism, rather than staying out of the majority of the fight. It was quick enough to expect its alies to join in it's pathetic war on terror in Iraq of all places. I've never understood the American view of "helping us in WW2"
There is no "American view". America is possibly the most politically diverse country in the world. When you say, "America sees itself" or "the American view", you are falling into the same pattern of stereotyping that you are criticizing DirtDawg for engaging in.
Yes. It was a poor choice of phrase. I meant those who see Ameruca as the white knight of WW2.
We might not have won it by ourselfs but without the manufacturing power and the military of the US you would have been in very sad shape. We supplied a lot of the arms for all the allies. As for our current venture in Iraq I tend to agree
I'm not arguing about who won the war. I'm saying that America, in my eyes had an absolute moral responsibilty to stand side by side with us throughout WW2 against the forces of Nazism.
You're wrong. All governments have a responsibility to act in the interests of their citizens, whatever those interests may be.
I disagree with that. I think governments have a duty to stand up for what they see as the right thing to do.
I'm not really interested in debating this at the moment though. TBH I'm more pissed at DirtDawg and would like to know if he's for real with his comments.
-
I disagree with that. I think governments have a duty to stand up for what they see as the right thing to do.
No. Your govenment has the duty to protect you and your interest first.
-
I disagree with that. I think governments have a duty to stand up for what they see as the right thing to do.
No. Your govenment has the duty to protect you and your interest first.
So, why were we in Iraq?
-
And also. America sees itself as some kind of defender of the free. Surely it had a moral obligation to stand side by side with its "free" friends and fight Naziism, rather than staying out of the majority of the fight. It was quick enough to expect its alies to join in it's pathetic war on terror in Iraq of all places. I've never understood the American view of "helping us in WW2"
There is no "American view". America is possibly the most politically diverse country in the world. When you say, "America sees itself" or "the American view", you are falling into the same pattern of stereotyping that you are criticizing DirtDawg for engaging in.
Yes. It was a poor choice of phrase. I meant those who see Ameruca as the white knight of WW2.
We might not have won it by ourselfs but without the manufacturing power and the military of the US you would have been in very sad shape. We supplied a lot of the arms for all the allies. As for our current venture in Iraq I tend to agree
I'm not arguing about who won the war. I'm saying that America, in my eyes had an absolute moral responsibilty to stand side by side with us throughout WW2 against the forces of Nazism.
You're wrong. All governments have a responsibility to act in the interests of their citizens, whatever those interests may be.
I disagree with that. I think governments have a duty to stand up for what they see as the right thing to do.
I'm not really interested in debating this at the moment though. TBH I'm more pissed at DirtDawg and would like to know if he's for real with his comments.
Very well, although I still disagree with your opinion.
-
So, why were we in Iraq?
The majority of Americans have the same question.
-
Oh, and oil. Like I said, money.
-
And also. America sees itself as some kind of defender of the free. Surely it had a moral obligation to stand side by side with its "free" friends and fight Naziism, rather than staying out of the majority of the fight. It was quick enough to expect its alies to join in it's pathetic war on terror in Iraq of all places. I've never understood the American view of "helping us in WW2"
There is no "American view". America is possibly the most politically diverse country in the world. When you say, "America sees itself" or "the American view", you are falling into the same pattern of stereotyping that you are criticizing DirtDawg for engaging in.
Yes. It was a poor choice of phrase. I meant those who see Ameruca as the white knight of WW2.
We might not have won it by ourselfs but without the manufacturing power and the military of the US you would have been in very sad shape. We supplied a lot of the arms for all the allies. As for our current venture in Iraq I tend to agree
I'm not arguing about who won the war. I'm saying that America, in my eyes had an absolute moral responsibilty to stand side by side with us throughout WW2 against the forces of Nazism.
You're wrong. All governments have a responsibility to act in the interests of their citizens, whatever those interests may be.
I disagree with that. I think governments have a duty to stand up for what they see as the right thing to do.
I'm not really interested in debating this at the moment though. TBH I'm more pissed at DirtDawg and would like to know if he's for real with his comments.
Very well, although I still disagree with your opinion.
That's cool. That's what a good argument is all about, and I'll be happy to re-engage with you on the topic. I just can't really have a proper debate with you though when I am genuinely pissed off at someone else.
-
Personally I think starting this thread, and then running away and not answering questions that were directed at him makes DD seem either a coward, which I'm guessing he isn't, or someone trying to troll for a reaction :thumbdn: :thumbdn: :thumbdn:
-
Personally I think starting this thread, and then running away and not answering questions that were directed at him makes DD seem either a coward, which I'm guessing he isn't, or someone trying to troll for a reaction :thumbdn: :thumbdn: :thumbdn:
I reckon he'll be back. :chin:
-
Personally I think starting this thread, and then running away and not answering questions that were directed at him makes DD seem either a coward, which I'm guessing he isn't, or someone trying to troll for a reaction :thumbdn: :thumbdn: :thumbdn:
Possibly, although he is responding to other threads (which I see popping up in my "Unread Posts" screen). Maybe he's just busy.
-
Personally I think starting this thread, and then running away and not answering questions that were directed at him makes DD seem either a coward, which I'm guessing he isn't, or someone trying to troll for a reaction :thumbdn: :thumbdn: :thumbdn:
I reckon he'll be back. :chin:
Welll, it's been an hour and 20 minutes. It kind of looks like he was trying to cause trouble :thumbdn:
Personally I think starting this thread, and then running away and not answering questions that were directed at him makes DD seem either a coward, which I'm guessing he isn't, or someone trying to troll for a reaction :thumbdn: :thumbdn: :thumbdn:
Possibly, although he is responding to other threads (which I see popping up in my "Unread Posts" screen). Maybe he's just busy.
The board isn't that busy, and he doesn't seem to have been making long posts elsewhere :thumbdn:
-
Personally I think starting this thread, and then running away and not answering questions that were directed at him makes DD seem either a coward, which I'm guessing he isn't, or someone trying to troll for a reaction :thumbdn: :thumbdn: :thumbdn:
Possibly, although he is responding to other threads (which I see popping up in my "Unread Posts" screen). Maybe he's just busy.
The board isn't that busy, and he doesn't seem to have been making long posts elsewhere :thumbdn:
:-\
To give DirtDawg the benefit of the doubt, I will point out that Callaway takes a relatively long time to compose relatively short posts, although her posts are usually more thoughtful than DirtDawg's. It is possible that he simply types slowly.
On the other hand, he could be a troll who was upset with the title of Heinrich's thread.
-
I think I have made my position quite clear over the past evening.
I live in a country that invites one to defend oneself, upon principle. Not all of our populace can do so, however. Those retard throw-backs often expect us who CAN defend them to step forward every time the need arises.
If not, then they ALL end up in the evening news as horror stories.
Guess what? Bullets are expensive!
The British defeated the Argentinians without outside assistance.
Oh yeah. Did anyone make a notation?
-
I think I have made my position quite clear over the past evening.
I live in a country that invites one to defend oneself, upon principle. Not all of our populace can do so, however. Those retard throw-backs often expect us who CAN defend them to step forward every time the need arises.
If not, then they ALL end up in the evening news as horror stories.
Guess what? Bullets are expensive!
The British defeated the Argentinians without outside assistance.
Oh yeah. Did anyone make a notation?
??? What do you mean? ???
-
Personally I think starting this thread, and then running away and not answering questions that were directed at him makes DD seem either a coward, which I'm guessing he isn't, or someone trying to troll for a reaction :thumbdn: :thumbdn: :thumbdn:
It's not an uncommon American viewpoint. He seems to be saying you think our guns are bad until you need the protection of them. He may have been speaking of his fellow anti-gun Americans as well, but I can't speak for him or be certain. He could have phrased it more diplomatically to make it an easier pill to swallow. He doesn't seem the diplomatic type though.
-
Sorry for the third person reference, Dirtdog.
-
Personally I think starting this thread, and then running away and not answering questions that were directed at him makes DD seem either a coward, which I'm guessing he isn't, or someone trying to troll for a reaction :thumbdn: :thumbdn: :thumbdn:
It's not an uncommon American viewpoint. He seems to be saying you think our guns are bad until you need the protection of them. He may have been speaking of his fellow anti-gun Americans as well, but I can't speak for him or be certain. Though he could have phrased it more diplomatically to make it an easier pill to swallow. He doesn't seem the diplomatic type though.
I'm not arguing about the America v Britain thing. For me that was all just a laugh. I like debating stuff. I have no problem with America at all.
My problem is totally DDs attitude.
-
I asked him a question, and he has so far refused to answer it. In my opinion that is the height of ignorance.
-
If it is all about the morals then why no action on other fronts in the last 40 years. You know the poor ones like Africa pretty much the whole continent is fucked much of it can be traced to European imperialism and the interference since. Government do the things they do for their own reasons it's rarely has anything to do with morals and what they do doesn't accurately reflect how the people who live there feel much of the time
-
I asked him a question, and he has so far refused to answer it. In my opinion that is the height of ignorance.
You could call him out and demand that he answer your question.
He also seems ignorant of the Falklands War. Great Britain did not need any outside assistance to defeat Argentina.
-
If it is all about the morals then why no action on other fronts in the last 40 years. You know the poor ones like Africa pretty much the whole continent is fucked much of it can be traced to European imperialism and the interference since. Government do the things they do for their own reasons it's rarely has anything to do with morals and what they do doesn't accurately reflect how the people who live there feel much of the time
I'm sure you're right. Like I say, I was only engaging in the Britain v America thing for fun. Really, all I am nterested in now is finding out if Dirtdawg is as much of a wanker as I think he is. I think it is pretty pathetic of him to start this thread, and then avoid my questions.
-
I asked him a question, and he has so far refused to answer it. In my opinion that is the height of ignorance.
You could call him out and demand that he answer your question.
He also seems ignorant of the Falklands War. Great Britain did not need any outside assistance to defeat Argentina.
Ignorance appears to be his forte, if past behaviour on this site is anything to go by.
-
And now he's offline. Still not answered my questions. I think he is an ignorant twunt :thumbdn: :thumbdn: :thumbdn:
-
I'm not gonna read all this thread, but having skimmed the first post, is this about ww1 and ww2?
If so, what does that have to do with ordinary citizens walking around with guns or not?
-
I'm not gonna read all this thread, but having skimmed the first post, is this about ww1 and ww2?
If so, what does that have to do with ordinary citizens walking around with guns or not?
Not a lot. It seems to have been a troll by DirtDawg.
-
I guess he failed then :dunno:
-
I'm not gonna read all this thread, but having skimmed the first post, is this about ww1 and ww2?
If so, what does that have to do with ordinary citizens walking around with guns or not?
DirtDawg was apparently upset with the thread that you posted yesterday, and posted this thread in retaliation. All of his arguments so far have consisted mostly of ad hominem attacks on foreign countries.
-
I guess he failed then :dunno:
No. I'd say he was rather successfull.
-
How was it successful? (I haven't read all the thread so dunno)
I guess MY thread was successful though :laugh:
-
How was it successful? (I haven't read all the thread so dunno)
I guess MY thread was successful though :laugh:
He was successfull because he pissed me off by refusing to answer my questions that were totally reasonable to begin with.
-
How was it successful? (I haven't read all the thread so dunno)
I guess MY thread was successful though :laugh:
It was, and it has given me a few ideas.
-
About threads to make or people to shoot ? :P
-
About threads to make. I don't have to worry about who to shoot; they usually make themselves obvious. ;)
-
I honestly can't believe what a xenophobic twunt DD actually appears to be. I honestly thought he was joking at first, but he seems to have been for real. This comment is the pick of the bunch, but there are one or two other gems hidden in there as well. :( :( :(
OK, but have you seriously known a single Non-American, worth the trouble of casting a bullet or two?
-
I honestly can't believe what a xenophobic twunt DD actually appears to be. I honestly thought he was joking at first, but he seems to have been for real. This comment is the pick of the bunch, but there are one or two other gems hidden in there as well. :( :( :(
OK, but have you seriously known a single Non-American, worth the trouble of casting a bullet or two?
For a while, I thought that he was referring to his affection for General Razorbeard. :laugh:
-
I honestly can't believe what a xenophobic twunt DD actually appears to be. I honestly thought he was joking at first, but he seems to have been for real. This comment is the pick of the bunch, but there are one or two other gems hidden in there as well. :( :( :(
OK, but have you seriously known a single Non-American, worth the trouble of casting a bullet or two?
Honestly I usually skim his posts , I never understand his rambling style of posting.
But... I agree that is a shitty comment to make. :thumbdn:
-
I honestly can't believe what a xenophobic twunt DD actually appears to be. I honestly thought he was joking at first, but he seems to have been for real. This comment is the pick of the bunch, but there are one or two other gems hidden in there as well. :( :( :(
OK, but have you seriously known a single Non-American, worth the trouble of casting a bullet or two?
Honestly I usually skim his posts , I never understand his rambling style of posting.
But... I agree that is a shitty comment to make. :thumbdn:
:agreed:
He seems to think that speaking in incomprehensible riddles makes him appear more intelligent.
Who the fuck does he think he is? Mr Miyagi :hahaha:
-
I think I have made my position quite clear over the past evening.
I live in a country that invites one to defend oneself, upon principle. Not all of our populace can do so, however. Those retard throw-backs often expect us who CAN defend them to step forward every time the need arises.
If not, then they ALL end up in the evening news as horror stories.
Guess what? Bullets are expensive!
The British defeated the Argentinians without outside assistance.
No, the British Harriers were using American supplied Sidewinder missles to shoot down Argentinian Air Force Jets. French made Jaguars IIRC. 8)
-
I think I have made my position quite clear over the past evening.
I live in a country that invites one to defend oneself, upon principle. Not all of our populace can do so, however. Those retard throw-backs often expect us who CAN defend them to step forward every time the need arises.
If not, then they ALL end up in the evening news as horror stories.
Guess what? Bullets are expensive!
The British defeated the Argentinians without outside assistance.
No, the British Harriers were using American supplied Sidewinder missles to shoot down Argentinian Air Force Jets. French made Jaguars IIRC. 8)
And many of the Argentinian commanders involved in the conflict were actually trained by the British, years before. The British still didn't "assist" the Argentinians in the conflict. Furthermore, I assume that the British paid for those missiles when they acquired them.
-
I think I have made my position quite clear over the past evening.
I live in a country that invites one to defend oneself, upon principle. Not all of our populace can do so, however. Those retard throw-backs often expect us who CAN defend them to step forward every time the need arises.
If not, then they ALL end up in the evening news as horror stories.
Guess what? Bullets are expensive!
The British defeated the Argentinians without outside assistance.
No, the British Harriers were using American supplied Sidewinder missles to shoot down Argentinian Air Force Jets. French made Jaguars IIRC. 8)
That was more of a free market thing than assistance we didn't provide them for free neither did the french provide their for free
-
I honestly can't believe what a xenophobic twunt DD actually appears to be. I honestly thought he was joking at first, but he seems to have been for real. This comment is the pick of the bunch, but there are one or two other gems hidden in there as well. :( :( :(
OK, but have you seriously known a single Non-American, worth the trouble of casting a bullet or two?
For a while, I thought that he was referring to his affection for General Razorbeard. :laugh:
Sounds to me like a belief that there's nobody outside the US who is dangerous enough to be a worthwhile enemy.
-
Can't you guys let me play devil's advocate without messing with my equilibrium yo!!! :smarty:
-
Can't you guys let me play devil's advocate without messing with my equilibrium yo!!! :smarty:
No, we can't. :P
Refer to the one rule of I2.
-
I honestly can't believe what a xenophobic twunt DD actually appears to be. I honestly thought he was joking at first, but he seems to have been for real. This comment is the pick of the bunch, but there are one or two other gems hidden in there as well. :( :( :(
OK, but have you seriously known a single Non-American, worth the trouble of casting a bullet or two?
For a while, I thought that he was referring to his affection for General Razorbeard. :laugh:
Sounds to me like a belief that there's nobody outside the US who is dangerous enough to be a worthwhile enemy.
I suppose it's possible, but his posting in this thread does appear extremely xenophobic, and I did ask him politely to explain his comments, which he has so far refused to do. I think it would be hard for most reasonable people to defend some of his posts in this thread.
This is what the full post said:
OK, but have you seriously known a single Non-American, worth the trouble of casting a bullet or two?
Our country has spent untold billions of dollars of our most precious resources defending the likes of the Brits who fucking dis' us at every opportunity.
What is the point of it all?
-
I honestly can't believe what a xenophobic twunt DD actually appears to be. I honestly thought he was joking at first, but he seems to have been for real. This comment is the pick of the bunch, but there are one or two other gems hidden in there as well. :( :( :(
OK, but have you seriously known a single Non-American, worth the trouble of casting a bullet or two?
For a while, I thought that he was referring to his affection for General Razorbeard. :laugh:
Sounds to me like a belief that there's nobody outside the US who is dangerous enough to be a worthwhile enemy.
I suppose it's possible, but his posting in this thread does appear extremely xenophobic, and I did ask him politely to explain his comments, which he has so far refused to do. I think it would be hard for most reasonable people to defend some of his posts in this thread.
This is what the full post said:
OK, but have you seriously known a single Non-American, worth the trouble of casting a bullet or two?
Our country has spent untold billions of dollars of our most precious resources defending the likes of the Brits who fucking dis' us at every opportunity.
What is the point of it all?
I think if that had been a GR thread we'd all rightly have jumped on his back.
-
Yep. Most people here dislike GR, so any little bit of bullshit he posts will get a reaction. Someone like DD though, the same people will mostly just ignore it
-
Yep. Most people here dislike GR, so any little bit of bullshit he posts will get a reaction. Someone like DD though, the same people will mostly just ignore it
:agreed:
And the sad thing is, DD should know better than that. Everybody standing quietly and saying nothing only lets him think statements like that are acceptable. I think DD has the ability to learn, and maybe if some more people showed disaproval he would learn that it is not acceptable conduct, even on a site like this, and hopefully learn from his mistakes.
-
If we piss him off too much though, he might get his gun and go off on a killing spree - I mean he is aspie after all, and we all know what autistic people are like when they get hold of a gun :zoinks:
-
And the sad thing is, DD should know better than that. Everybody standing quietly and saying nothing only lets him think statements like that are acceptable. I think DD has the ability to learn, and maybe if some more people showed disaproval he would learn that it is not acceptable conduct, even on a site like this, and hopefully learn from his mistakes.
You've got to be kidding me.
*sends waves of snooty impotent moral indignation DD's way*
*thinks better of it and flashes two thumbs up instead*
But then agagin, I'm not an inbred, degenerate american :snowman:
-
Course, I'll probably annoy DD more by agreeing with him than otherwise. Yay for equal opportunity annoyance!
-
If we piss him off too much though, he might get his gun and go off on a killing spree - I mean he is aspie after all, and we all know what autistic people are like when they get hold of a gun :zoinks:
I can't stand him, but I think he's probably a decent guy underneath. I just don't understand his need to constantly act like an obnoxious, ignorant twunt.
TBH if he had just been man enough to stay around and discuss what he said, none of thisw ould have happened. I can't understand why he came out with a lot of bigoted BS, and then slinked away, even though he was being directly questioned on his coments. It doesn't seem very manly to me. I would have thought a big bad dirt dog would have been big enough to stand his ground, and back up his words.
TBH I'm not surprised though. It's not the first time he's pulled this crap with me :facepalm2:
-
He seems easily pissed off tbh
-
He seems easily pissed off tbh
"Easily pissed off" :laugh: He seems fucking Will Freund unstable :laugh:
-
Yep. Most people here dislike GR, so any little bit of bullshit he posts will get a reaction. Someone like DD though, the same people will mostly just ignore it
:agreed:
And the sad thing is, DD should know better than that. Everybody standing quietly and saying nothing only lets him think statements like that are acceptable. I think DD has the ability to learn, and maybe if some more people showed disaproval he would learn that it is not acceptable conduct, even on a site like this, and hopefully learn from his mistakes.
And the sad thing is, DD should know better than that. Everybody standing quietly and saying nothing only lets him think statements like that are acceptable. I think DD has the ability to learn, and maybe if some more people showed disaproval he would learn that it is not acceptable conduct, even on a site like this, and hopefully learn from his mistakes.
You've got to be kidding me.
*sends waves of snooty impotent moral indignation DD's way*
*thinks better of it and flashes two thumbs up instead*
But then agagin, I'm not an inbred, degenerate american :snowman:
I agree with Pyraxis. Your indignation is rather selective.
-
Yep. Most people here dislike GR, so any little bit of bullshit he posts will get a reaction. Someone like DD though, the same people will mostly just ignore it
:agreed:
And the sad thing is, DD should know better than that. Everybody standing quietly and saying nothing only lets him think statements like that are acceptable. I think DD has the ability to learn, and maybe if some more people showed disaproval he would learn that it is not acceptable conduct, even on a site like this, and hopefully learn from his mistakes.
And the sad thing is, DD should know better than that. Everybody standing quietly and saying nothing only lets him think statements like that are acceptable. I think DD has the ability to learn, and maybe if some more people showed disaproval he would learn that it is not acceptable conduct, even on a site like this, and hopefully learn from his mistakes.
You've got to be kidding me.
*sends waves of snooty impotent moral indignation DD's way*
*thinks better of it and flashes two thumbs up instead*
But then agagin, I'm not an inbred, degenerate american :snowman:
I agree with Pyraxis. Your indignation is rather selective.
I don't think I've said anything nasty about America at all. Mostly because I have nothing at all against America. TBH I would hope Soph was joking with that comment, and I assume he was. I did make a point of asking Dirtdawg politely to clarify his comment, and got no response at all. If someone had seriously asked Soph if he really held that view about Americans, I'm sure he would have told them it was just a wind-up.
I don't like xenophobia no matter what direction it is going in. There is a big difference between banter, and xenophobia. Dirtdawg was given ample oppurtunity to explain away his comments as harmless banter, and if he had I would have been the first to join in the laughing. As far as I know nobody took Sophs comment seriously, or at least they never asked him to clarify his comments. If Soph seriously stands by his comments, I will be the first person to say they are wrong.
-
Exactly. No one who knows me would seriously think I assume all americans are inbred or degenerate. Also, look at the fucking snowman smiley next to it :P
I think I told semicolon, when he asked, that I was mostly just fucking around to argue with people. I can't remember if that's exactly what I said though, so don't quote me to that.
My post is totally different to DD's, so unless I'm just missing DD's sense of humour here (which I will accept is possible, people here often do the same with me), then it's a pretty weird comparison lol
-
Exactly. No one who knows me would seriously think I assume all americans are inbred or degenerate. Also, look at the fucking snowman smiley next to it :P
I think I told semicolon, when he asked, that I was mostly just fucking around to argue with people. I can't remember if that's exactly what I said though, so don't quote me to that.
My post is totally different to DD's, so unless I'm just missing DD's sense of humour here (which I will accept is possible, people here often do the same with me), then it's a pretty weird comparison lol
That's the same with me. I'm not sure if his behaviour is his idea of humour. I spent ages hoping his ignorant behaviour was just a slightly bad joke, but I tried my best to discuss his comments, and he totally ignored me. Therefore I've got no option but to assume that he thinks this is reasonable behaviour :thumbdn:
-
Exactly. No one who knows me would seriously think I assume all americans are inbred or degenerate. Also, look at the fucking snowman smiley next to it :P
I think I told semicolon, when he asked, that I was mostly just fucking around to argue with people. I can't remember if that's exactly what I said though, so don't quote me to that.
My post is totally different to DD's, so unless I'm just missing DD's sense of humour here (which I will accept is possible, people here often do the same with me), then it's a pretty weird comparison lol
I don't believe that you ever said that (unless I missed the post, which is a possibility). When I asked if your were trying to start an argument and you didn't answer, I simply assumed that I was correct. :)
Not that it really matters. As far as I know, no one was offended by your statements. Also, that was a very entertaining argument you stirred up. :clap:
-
Yeah it seems that way to me as well. I dunno why so many americans* get so worked up about the gun debate. More than other issues I mean. Guess it's just something most people in Europe will never
*omg I'm making generalisations! Shoot me! :zoinks:
Exactly. No one who knows me would seriously think I assume all americans are inbred or degenerate. Also, look at the fucking snowman smiley next to it :P
I think I told semicolon, when he asked, that I was mostly just fucking around to argue with people. I can't remember if that's exactly what I said though, so don't quote me to that.
My post is totally different to DD's, so unless I'm just missing DD's sense of humour here (which I will accept is possible, people here often do the same with me), then it's a pretty weird comparison lol
I don't believe that you ever said that (unless I missed the post, which is a possibility). When I asked if your were trying to start an argument and you didn't answer, I simply assumed that I was correct. :)
Not that it really matters. As far as I know, no one was offended by your statements. Also, that was a very entertaining argument you stirred up. :clap:
wow I thought I answered that post you made. I remember reading it anyway. I'll see if I can find my response. Maybe I just forgot or couldn't be arsed.
-
Can't you guys let me play devil's advocate without messing with my equilibrium yo!!! :smarty:
No, we can't. :P
Refer to the one rule of I2.
We have rules around here?? :autism:
-
Here's my reply:
Yeah I notice now I didn't actually say outright that I was just fucking around, but I thought most people would realise that from what I did say - ie I was just lookig to argue, but that I do agree with stricter gun laws
:laugh: Honestly? I feel like arguing. Not necessarily drama. Something to post in though. I can't be arsed with just the usual crap much anymore
But I definitely do prefer the gun laws we have in this country though, rather than american ones
but the "bad guys" will still have guns. I think it is important to be able to defend yourself.
Here the "bad guys" almost exclusively use them on each other - it's usually gang related and drugs related. Very unlikely I will ever get shot. If my neighbours all had guns though...
-
Can't you guys let me play devil's advocate without messing with my equilibrium yo!!! :smarty:
No, we can't. :P
Refer to the one rule of I2.
We have rules around here?? :autism:
We stand for freedom of expression, combative debate, and the generation of ideas. There are no boundaries here over what may be said, save for one rule - be prepared to back up your words. Or face the wrath of the community.
-
Exactly. No one who knows me would seriously think I assume all americans are inbred or degenerate. Also, look at the fucking snowman smiley next to it :P
I think I told semicolon, when he asked, that I was mostly just fucking around to argue with people. I can't remember if that's exactly what I said though, so don't quote me to that.
My post is totally different to DD's, so unless I'm just missing DD's sense of humour here (which I will accept is possible, people here often do the same with me), then it's a pretty weird comparison lol
I don't believe that you ever said that (unless I missed the post, which is a possibility). When I asked if your were trying to start an argument and you didn't answer, I simply assumed that I was correct. :)
Not that it really matters. As far as I know, no one was offended by your statements. Also, that was a very entertaining argument you stirred up. :clap:
Yes. Yesterday we had a fun argument between Brits and Yanks. Some trash talk, and some teasing, but no animosity. As soon as DirtDawg started spewing his vitriol it all changed and the Brits and Yanks are at each others throats. The only difference I noticed was DirtDawg.
-
I guess some people just can't handle a bit of piss-taking :dunno:
-
I guess some people just can't handle a bit of piss-taking :dunno:
TBH PPK is cool. I think he's got the wrong end of the stick on this occasion though, but you can't really blame him. He wasn't online when DD was up to his nonsense. If you look at this thread retrospectively it maybe doesn't look too bad for DD. If he was online while it was going on he might have seen the crap DD was pulling, and the fact that he was deliberately avoiding answering my questions.
-
I meant DD. I think he is too sensitive to some things
-
I meant DD. I think he is too sensitive to some things
Oh. Hell yeah. DDis flipped. Too sensitive.lol I would say Im too sensitive but DD brings sensitivity to new levels. He could be a cool guy if he didnt keep losing it at nice people. I think even Cbc and QV have had to deal with his BS , although I might be wrong. They seem like two of the sweetest people on the site.
-
I meant DD. I think he is too sensitive to some things
Oh. Hell yeah. DDis flipped. Too sensitive.lol I would say Im too sensitive but DD brings sensitivity to new levels. He could be a cool guy if he didnt keep losing it at nice people. I think even Cbc and QV have had to deal with his BS , although I might be wrong. They seem like two of the sweetest people on the site.
DD is getting old and is a bit cranky sometimes. He means well, but is also passionate about things he feels are right. If he got a little over the top, it could be that he felt you were just a presumptious youngin' without his real life experience. He's had to use guns to defend himself, as have I.
-
I meant DD. I think he is too sensitive to some things
Oh. Hell yeah. DDis flipped. Too sensitive.lol I would say Im too sensitive but DD brings sensitivity to new levels. He could be a cool guy if he didnt keep losing it at nice people. I think even Cbc and QV have had to deal with his BS , although I might be wrong. They seem like two of the sweetest people on the site.
DD is getting old and is a bit cranky sometimes. He means well, but is also passionate about things he feels are right. If he got a little over the top, it could be that he felt you were just a presumptious youngin' without his real life experience. He's had to use guns to defend himself, as have I.
I really don't have a problem with guns. I actually enjoy playing with them. I also have no problem with America. I do disagree with some of it's politics, but then, I disagree with a lot of British politics. I just joined in the first debate because I enjoy a good debate. Personall I wouldn't want to live in a society where everyone has the right to arm themselves, but as it's illegal for most people here to own a gun, it is not an issue for me. If Americans want the right to shoot each other up with their guns, then that's fine by me. I have no reason to care what the laws on guns are in a foreign country.
The only problem I have is with DerpDawg. I found his comments nasty, and I found him choosing not to address my concerns pathetic. I find his comments towards everybody on the site that he disagrees with to be nasty and OTT. I've tried on one or two occasions to find out if I was just failling to get his sense of humour, but he never responded, which leaves me to assume that he is for real. I have no problem with people disagreeing with my opinions, and I am happy to listen to other peoples reasons for disagreeing with me. Hell, they might even change my mind if they put forward a good argument. However, responding to everyone you disagree with in insults is not cool in my eyes, and I will continue to criticize him any time he responds to me, or somebody I like in a nasty manner.
-
Fair enough.
-
BAW WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA
:'(
-
The only problem I have is with DerpDawg.
:rofl:
I found his comments nasty, and I found him choosing not to address my concerns pathetic. I find his comments towards everybody on the site that he disagrees with to be nasty and OTT.
Honestly he's just like an older version of Pentagram in that way.
BAW WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA
:'(
:lol:
-
Yeah, DD went off on me a couple of times and did apologize after explanations and apologies on my part. Anyway, I am presuming that he's paid a hell of a lot of dues along the way and led an interesting life. Part of that life may be catching up with his body now and he doesn't want to "go quietly into the night."
Also, it's good to remember that autism, like most conditions, is a spectrum. Just as everyone's cancer or cold is different so is the autism that affects us. You may be a .25 in facial recognition, while I may be a .39, but we both have autism. I just cut him some slack and try to remember to put LOL behind any funny posts directed at him so he'll know I'm fooling around.
-
Being autistic is no excuse for being pathetic
-
He went off on me once cause I was talking about not dreaming in a thread that wasnt about dreaming :thumbdn:
-
I think he might be losing it in his old age... going senile? :dunno:
-
Yeah, DD went off on me a couple of times and did apologize after explanations and apologies on my part. Anyway, I am presuming that he's paid a hell of a lot of dues along the way and led an interesting life. Part of that life may be catching up with his body now and he doesn't want to "go quietly into the night."
Also, it's good to remember that autism, like most conditions, is a spectrum. Just as everyone's cancer or cold is different so is the autism that affects us. You may be a .25 in facial recognition, while I may be a .39, but we both have autism. I just cut him some slack and try to remember to put LOL behind any funny posts directed at him so he'll know I'm fooling around.
There is no doubt, you are right, and I wish I had your attitude. Sadly, I don't. I just lack the ability to turn the other cheek. I know this is a problem for me, and over the years it has resulted in a good few beatings. I really don't think I'm capable of changing.
I know what you mean about all of our AS affecting us in different ways. Once again you are right. I thought myself that DerpDawg was just perhaps a bit more Aspie than the rest of us. If he came out and explained that his AS makes him act like a total dick, and that he was unable to control it, then I would cut him some slack. He hasn't, and therefore I cannot make allowances for him. Even if it is true, and he has more severe AS, and that makes his posts seem a bit nasty, it is no excuse for deliberately ignoring my polite questions at the beginning of the thread. I find it hard to believe that his AS is responsible for his ignoring my posts. That would appear to be down 100% to ignorance.
-
Maybe his dementia made him forget to reply
-
He went off on me once cause I was talking about not dreaming in a thread that wasnt about dreaming :thumbdn:
Do you believe his "attitude" is an attempt at humour? I have been undecided ever since I joined this site, but am getting more sick of him with every post of his I read. I have tried to find this out off of him, but have met with no success.
Maybe his dementia made him forget to reply
No, he seemed happy to reply to Semicolons post, although his reply made little sense :dunno:
-
naa, he went off, called me a bunch of names. I dont care, I expect it here it's just that it didnt make sense. I would understand if I did something annoying, but he just didnt like that " I was talking about something that should have been in another thread to make things more organized for people to read" It was totally out of the blue, too, I wasnt even talking to him.
-
Maybe his dementia made him forget to reply
:lol:
I remember once having a bit of a go at him in the shoutbox over him swearing off at everyone , then he called me stupid for not getting his "humour" , thats what annoys me is this what annoys you butterflies , eris and soph?
-
If it is his humour then that's cool. If he was just taking the piss or trolling then obviously it worked and hats off to him. But I got the feeling he was being serious, genuinely got pissed off at my gun thread. And if that is the case then he's just being an ass
-
naa, he went off, called me a bunch of names. I dont care, I expect it here it's just that it didnt make sense. I would understand if I did something annoying, but he just didnt like that " I was talking about something that should have been in another thread to make things more organized for people to read" It was totally out of the blue, too, I wasnt even talking to him.
Thanks. That is pretty consistant with my experience with him. I didn't see that post, but it's that type of behaviour that makes me really dislike him.
If it is his humour then that's cool. If he was just taking the piss or trolling then obviously it worked and hats off to him. But I got the feeling he was being serious, genuinely got pissed off at my gun thread. And if that is the case then he's just being an ass
If it is humour, then it would pay off to let others in on the joke. Clearly there appears to be a few people who just ain't getting it.
-
I liked DD, but he can be a tosser. One of the things I found hardest about him was that he seemed really unpredictable in how he behaved on the forums
-
It's ok to troll, it's ok to piss-take, it's even ok to flip out on someone that is being a twat.... but it seems like it's just random with him sometimes and doesnt have any reasoning behind it :screwy:
-
If it is his humour then that's cool. If he was just taking the piss or trolling then obviously it worked and hats off to him. But I got the feeling he was being serious, genuinely got pissed off at my gun thread. And if that is the case then he's just being an ass
Fair enough :thumbup:
I liked DD, but he can be a tosser. One of the things I found hardest about him was that he seemed really unpredictable in how he behaved on the forums
Eh , I always just payed little attention to him , I dont like the way he talks to a lot of people here , I think most of it is a few steps behind Pentagram.
It's ok to troll, it's ok to piss-take, it's even ok to flip out on someone that is being a twat.... but it seems like it's just random with him sometimes and doesnt have any reasoning behind it :screwy:
:indeed:
-
I wouldn't be bothered if he was just some random person who's joined and was fucking around, like pentagram or GR, but he has potential imo and seems cool sometimes
-
I wouldn't be bothered if he was just some random person who's joined and was fucking around, like pentagram or GR, but he has potential imo and seems cool sometimes
I agree with that so much. Some of what he says seems cool. He appears to have lived an interesting life, he loves music, and he speaks with real warmth and love when speaking of his kids. In general, the type of guy I like. Sadly, all of that is drowned out by his regular twuntish behaviour.
If it is his humour then that's cool. If he was just taking the piss or trolling then obviously it worked and hats off to him. But I got the feeling he was being serious, genuinely got pissed off at my gun thread. And if that is the case then he's just being an ass
Fair enough :thumbup:
I liked DD, but he can be a tosser. One of the things I found hardest about him was that he seemed really unpredictable in how he behaved on the forums
Eh , I always just payed little attention to him , I dont like the way he talks to a lot of people here , I think most of it is a few steps behind Pentagram.
It's ok to troll, it's ok to piss-take, it's even ok to flip out on someone that is being a twat.... but it seems like it's just random with him sometimes and doesnt have any reasoning behind it :screwy:
:indeed:
Perrhaps, although I'm not sure. A lot of what Duke says is clearly aimed at getting a response. I don't think DerpDawg is trying to get a response with his behaviour. I really don' think he knows any better.
It's ok to troll, it's ok to piss-take, it's even ok to flip out on someone that is being a twat.... but it seems like it's just random with him sometimes and doesnt have any reasoning behind it :screwy:
:agreed: I know I can be a total bitch sometimes, but I'm only like that to people who provoke me. I can understand him being nasty to people he dislikes. It is the apparent randomness of his outbursts that puzzles me. Sometimes they are aimed at some of the sweetest people on the site. The type of people who would probably never deliberately provoke him.
-
He's gonna read this tomorrow as get so pissed off :laugh:
-
He's gonna read this tomorrow as get so pissed off :laugh:
So? He started this argument.
-
I know, Im just finding it really funny right now for some reason. :laugh: And Im such a nice girl, too, it's a shame. I blame lack of sleep.
-
He's gonna read this tomorrow as get so pissed off :laugh:
That is something for me to look forward to :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup:
I'm guessing he'll respond with some bizzare incomprehensible riddle, some dekarmaing, and then storm off feelling intellectually superior because nobody has a fucking clue what the hell he's saying :thumbdn:
-
:laugh:
I want him or someone else to come online and respond. I feel like arguing about nonsense again :P
-
:laugh:
I want him or someone else to come online and respond. I feel like arguing about nonsense again :P
You've been here a lot longer than me. Is this the first time anybody has ever really criticized him for his behaviour? It's always surprised me that nobody ever comments on his behaviour. If someone new joined the site and behaved like him they would probably be torn to pieces. Is he some kind of forum "special" case? There does almost seem to be some unwritten rule where nobody ever pulls him up for his behaviour :dunno:
-
Yeah I think you're right. He has been here a long time I think. Also he's older. The old members here don't usually like shitting on other old people, especially ones who have kids. If you're young and childless, you're more likely to get called out on your behaviour from what I have seen
I don't recall anyone criticising DD much before (hey his name is Callaway's bra size :autism: ), but I might be wrong.
-
Yeah I think you're right. He has been here a long time I think. Also he's older. The old members here don't usually like shitting on other old people, especially ones who have kids. If you're young and childless, you're more likely to get called out on your behaviour from what I have seen
I don't recall anyone criticising DD much before (hey his name is Callaway's bra size :autism: ), but I might be wrong.
Right. That kind of makes sense to me. TBH it had always puzzled me.
-
If it is his humour then that's cool. If he was just taking the piss or trolling then obviously it worked and hats off to him. But I got the feeling he was being serious, genuinely got pissed off at my gun thread. And if that is the case then he's just being an ass
I've had difficulty in figuring out when he's joking too. :-\
-
People here seem to miss it a lot when I'm joking as well - but I don't flip out and go crazy at people like he does, so I don't see it as a problem really. If someone's acting like they're really pissed off though, it'd be better to make it obvious if they're joking. If you want to get on well with other members anyway
-
If it is his humour then that's cool. If he was just taking the piss or trolling then obviously it worked and hats off to him. But I got the feeling he was being serious, genuinely got pissed off at my gun thread. And if that is the case then he's just being an ass
I've had difficulty in figuring out when he's joking too. :-\
-
People here seem to miss it a lot when I'm joking as well - but I don't flip out and go crazy at people like he does, so I don't see it as a problem really. If someone's acting like they're really pissed off though, it'd be better to make it obvious if they're joking. If you want to get on well with other members anyway
-
People here seem to miss it a lot when I'm joking as well - but I don't flip out and go crazy at people like he does, so I don't see it as a problem really. If someone's acting like they're really pissed off though, it'd be better to make it obvious if they're joking. If you want to get on well with other members anyway
I've a feeling we're gonna be on his ignore list as soon as he reads this thread :laugh:
If it is his humour then that's cool. If he was just taking the piss or trolling then obviously it worked and hats off to him. But I got the feeling he was being serious, genuinely got pissed off at my gun thread. And if that is the case then he's just being an ass
I've had difficulty in figuring out when he's joking too. :-\
If I knew he was joking I would probably never have had a problem with him.
-
Being put on someone's ignore list means you've WON :2thumbsup:
-
Being put on someone's ignore list means you've WON :2thumbsup:
Only partly. It also means you lose the ability to rub their nose in it :( It's no fun if they can't read your insults.
-
Yeah but remember, most people who put someone on ignore still read that person's posts - they just can't resist the temptation :P
-
Being put on someone's ignore list means you've WON :2thumbsup:
Only partly. It also means you lose the ability to rub their nose in it :( It's no fun if they can't read your insults.
IIRC, you can still read an ignored person's posts if you click on "Most Recent Posts".
-
There's also a reveal button by each of their posts in any thread they posted in, so it's easy to still read themm
-
Yeah but remember, most people who put someone on ignore still read that person's posts - they just can't resist the temptation :P
Then that suggests they're only putting the person on ignore to make a point to them, and they want the person on ignore to know they've pissed them off. I'm hardly likely to feel bad if I know that I've pissed of DerpDawg.
I know you can read ignored posts, but if DerpDawg puts me on ignore, it will obviously be because he doesn't want to read what I have to say.
-
And also. America sees itself as some kind of defender of the free. Surely it had a moral obligation to stand side by side with its "free" friends and fight Naziism, rather than staying out of the majority of the fight. It was quick enough to expect its alies to join in it's pathetic war on terror in Iraq of all places. I've never understood the American view of "helping us in WW2"
There is no "American view". America is possibly the most politically diverse country in the world. When you say, "America sees itself" or "the American view", you are falling into the same pattern of stereotyping that you are criticizing DirtDawg for engaging in.
Yes. It was a poor choice of phrase. I meant those who see Ameruca as the white knight of WW2.
The American people did not want to fight in either one of your fucking wars. 2 False flag operations ( Lusitania,and Pearl Harbor) were foisted on the american people to piss us off enough to fight. Do not downplay the deaths of our military.
If you do.....Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
-
And also. America sees itself as some kind of defender of the free. Surely it had a moral obligation to stand side by side with its "free" friends and fight Naziism, rather than staying out of the majority of the fight. It was quick enough to expect its alies to join in it's pathetic war on terror in Iraq of all places. I've never understood the American view of "helping us in WW2"
There is no "American view". America is possibly the most politically diverse country in the world. When you say, "America sees itself" or "the American view", you are falling into the same pattern of stereotyping that you are criticizing DirtDawg for engaging in.
Yes. It was a poor choice of phrase. I meant those who see Ameruca as the white knight of WW2.
The American people did not want to fight in either one of your fucking wars. 2 False flag operations ( Lusitania,and Pearl Harbor) were foisted on the american people to piss us off enough to fight. Do not downplay the deaths of our military.
If you do.....Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
Yes. And the British people were honoured to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan :hahaha:
-
The American people did not want to fight in either one of your fucking wars. 2 False flag operations ( Lusitania,and Pearl Harbor) were foisted on the american people to piss us off enough to fight. Do not downplay the deaths of our military.
If you do.....Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
:zombiefuck: :zombiefuck: :zombiefuck: :zombiefuck: :zombiefuck:
How the fuck was Pearl Harbor a "False Flagging Operation"?? :zombiefuck:
-
Since the Bush and Blair administrations were in cahoots, I reckon you are. 9/11 was a false flag operation just like the subway bombing in London.
It is up to us people alive today to stop the bullshit our governments are doing.
-
The American people did not want to fight in either one of your fucking wars. 2 False flag operations ( Lusitania,and Pearl Harbor) were foisted on the american people to piss us off enough to fight. Do not downplay the deaths of our military.
If you do.....Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
:zombiefuck: :zombiefuck: :zombiefuck: :zombiefuck: :zombiefuck:
How the fuck was Pearl Harbor a "False Flagging Operation"?? :zombiefuck:
:LMAO:
I think Skyblue is having a :angrydance: :angrydance: and needs to go, take his meds, and lie down in a dark quiet room.
-
Since the Bush and Blair administrations were in cahoots, I reckon you are. 9/11 was a false flag operation just like the subway bombing in London.
It is up to us people alive today to stop the bullshit our governments are doing.
Dude, quit watching Glenn Beck!!!
:tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil:
-
And also. America sees itself as some kind of defender of the free. Surely it had a moral obligation to stand side by side with its "free" friends and fight Naziism, rather than staying out of the majority of the fight. It was quick enough to expect its alies to join in it's pathetic war on terror in Iraq of all places. I've never understood the American view of "helping us in WW2"
There is no "American view". America is possibly the most politically diverse country in the world. When you say, "America sees itself" or "the American view", you are falling into the same pattern of stereotyping that you are criticizing DirtDawg for engaging in.
Yes. It was a poor choice of phrase. I meant those who see Ameruca as the white knight of WW2.
The American people did not want to fight in either one of your fucking wars. 2 False flag operations ( Lusitania,and Pearl Harbor) were foisted on the american people to piss us off enough to fight. Do not downplay the deaths of our military.
If you do.....Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
The Lusitania was a British ship that was torpedoed by the Germans.
-
Scrapheap, please stop flooding the thread.
-
The American people did not want to fight in either one of your fucking wars. 2 False flag operations ( Lusitania,and Pearl Harbor) were foisted on the american people to piss us off enough to fight. Do not downplay the deaths of our military.
If you do.....Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
:zombiefuck: :zombiefuck: :zombiefuck: :zombiefuck: :zombiefuck:
How the fuck was Pearl Harbor a "False Flagging Operation"?? :zombiefuck:
The US government backed the japanese into a corner, knowing they would have no choice but attack. Churchill & Roosevelt were well aware the attack was coming and allowed it to continue. As I stated,to piss the american public off enough so we would join the wars.
Hell we financed the Third Reich, we furnished all of their heavy metals. We set up their eugenics program. A lot of people in our government actually admired what Adolph was doing, all the way up to 1939.
By the way the president of the bank that gave them money was Prescott Bush. Grandfather of 2 of our presidents
-
lol skyblue doesn't know his arse from his elbow
-
Since the Bush and Blair administrations were in cahoots, I reckon you are. 9/11 was a false flag operation just like the subway bombing in London.
It is up to us people alive today to stop the bullshit our governments are doing.
Dude, quit watching Glenn Beck!!!
:tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil:
Fuck off asshole, I am a conservative democrat, and dont watch Fox news at all.
-
The American people did not want to fight in either one of your fucking wars. 2 False flag operations ( Lusitania,and Pearl Harbor) were foisted on the american people to piss us off enough to fight. Do not downplay the deaths of our military.
If you do.....Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
:zombiefuck: :zombiefuck: :zombiefuck: :zombiefuck: :zombiefuck:
How the fuck was Pearl Harbor a "False Flagging Operation"?? :zombiefuck:
The US government backed the japanese into a corner, knowing they would have no choice but attack. Churchill & Roosevelt were well aware the attack was coming and allowed it to continue. As I stated,to piss the american public off enough so we would join the wars.
Hell we financed the Third Reich, we furnished all of their heavy metals. We set up their eugenics program. A lot of people in our government actually admired what Adolph was doing, all the way up to 1939.
By the way the president of the bank that gave them money was Prescott Bush. Grandfather of 2 of our presidents
Do you have any sources for this statement?
-
lol skyblue doesn't know his arse from his elbow
Since it is one of my obsessions I know a hell of a lot more about it than you do , obviously
-
lol skyblue doesn't know his arse from his elbow
Since it is one of my obsessions I know a hell of a lot more about it than you do , obviously
WW2 is one of my obsessions. My dissertation is on Operation Barbarossa
-
lol skyblue doesn't know his arse from his elbow
Since it is one of my obsessions I know a hell of a lot more about it than you do , obviously
WW2 is one of my obsessions. My dissertation is on Operation Barbarossa
Keep on studying, you have a ways to go.
-
Skyblue seems butthurt :laugh:
-
lol skyblue doesn't know his arse from his elbow
Since it is one of my obsessions I know a hell of a lot more about it than you do , obviously
WW2 is one of my obsessions. My dissertation is on Operation Barbarossa
Keep on studying, you have a ways to go.
lol
I don't wanna end up a nutcase conspiracy theorist like you
And conveniently ignored Semicolon's request for sources to backup your delusional bullshit eh?
-
lol skyblue doesn't know his arse from his elbow
Since it is one of my obsessions I know a hell of a lot more about it than you do , obviously
WW2 is one of my obsessions. My dissertation is on Operation Barbarossa
Keep on studying, you have a ways to go.
lol
I don't wanna end up a nutcase conspiracy theorist like you
And conveniently ignored Semicolon's request for sources to backup your delusional bullshit eh?
He has me on ignore; he won't read what I post.
-
The American people did not want to fight in either one of your fucking wars. 2 False flag operations ( Lusitania,and Pearl Harbor) were foisted on the american people to piss us off enough to fight. Do not downplay the deaths of our military.
If you do.....Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
:zombiefuck: :zombiefuck: :zombiefuck: :zombiefuck: :zombiefuck:
How the fuck was Pearl Harbor a "False Flagging Operation"?? :zombiefuck:
The US government backed the japanese into a corner, knowing they would have no choice but attack. Churchill & Roosevelt were well aware the attack was coming and allowed it to continue. As I stated,to piss the american public off enough so we would join the wars.
Hell we financed the Third Reich, we furnished all of their heavy metals. We set up their eugenics program. A lot of people in our government actually admired what Adolph was doing, all the way up to 1939.
By the way the president of the bank that gave them money was Prescott Bush. Grandfather of 2 of our presidents
Do you have any sources for this statement?
QFT
-
Skyblue seems butthurt :laugh:
I believe it is you who is butthurt. Dont knock america, if you arent american. Worry about yourself and your country.
-
Still waiting for them sources...
Can't be hard to find them, given how obsessed and knowledgeable you are
-
Skyblue seems butthurt :laugh:
I believe it is you who is butthurt. Dont knock america, if you arent american. Worry about yourself and your country.
You are wrong. The world today is very interconnected. Actions in one country can have repercussions in others. Furthermore, I criticized you and I am an American. I have stood up for my country on this forum before.
If your statement is valid, it should stand up to criticism from any rational source.
-
Skyblue seems butthurt :laugh:
I believe it is you who is butthurt. Dont knock america, if you arent american. Worry about yourself and your country.
If you've read my posts you'll know I am not Anti-American. Disagreeing with Americas politics is not knocking America. Am I not allowed to have an opinion of a country I don't live in? Do you not have opinions on any countries other than America?
-
Skyblue seems butthurt :laugh:
I believe it is you who is butthurt. Dont knock america, if you arent american. Worry about yourself and your country.
You are wrong. The world today is very interconnected. Actions in one country can have repercussions in others. Furthermore, I criticized you and I am an American. I have stood up for my country on this forum before.
If your statement is valid, it should stand up to criticism from any rational source.
Just thought I should post this, saying he's got you on ignore :laugh:
-
Most Americans couldn't name another country, never mind formulate an opinion on them :snowman:
-
Most Americans couldn't name another country, never mind formulate an opinion on them :snowman:
I can too name another country! Canadia! It's big and has lots of maple syrup! :snowman:
-
Most Americans couldn't name another country, never mind formulate an opinion on them :snowman:
Of course they can! Half the people in the South are originally from Mexico. :zoinks:
-
:lol:
-
Most Americans couldn't name another country, never mind formulate an opinion on them :snowman:
I can too name another country! Canadia! It's big and has lots of maple syrup! :snowman:
And let's not forget the evil, repressive dictatorship of Great Britain! No taxation without representation!
-
Still waiting for them sources...
Can't be hard to find them, given how obsessed and knowledgeable you are
Cant be arsed to do that.
I made my statements. Either accept them or dont. Doesnt matter to me either way.
After all this is a free speech forum.
-
Still waiting for them sources...
Can't be hard to find them, given how obsessed and knowledgeable you are
Cant be arsed to do that.
:LMAO:
You lose!
-
Still waiting for them sources...
Can't be hard to find them, given how obsessed and knowledgeable you are
Cant be arsed to do that.
I made my statements. Either accept them or dont. Doesnt matter to me either way.
After all this is a free speech forum.
We stand for freedom of expression, combative debate, and the generation of ideas. There are no boundaries here over what may be said, save for one rule - be prepared to back up your words. Or face the wrath of the community.
-
Still waiting for them sources...
Can't be hard to find them, given how obsessed and knowledgeable you are
Cant be arsed to do that.
:LMAO:
You lose!
Indeed. Skyblue1 has been pwned.
Rational thinkers: 1
Skyblue1: 0
-
Still waiting for them sources...
Can't be hard to find them, given how obsessed and knowledgeable you are
Cant be arsed to do that.
I made my statements. Either accept them or dont. Doesnt matter to me either way.
After all this is a free speech forum.
We stand for freedom of expression, combative debate, and the generation of ideas. There are no boundaries here over what may be said, save for one rule - be prepared to back up your words. Or face the wrath of the community.
Fair point Semi. I'll post it for anybody that is being a major faggot and ignoring you
-
Still waiting for them sources...
Can't be hard to find them, given how obsessed and knowledgeable you are
Something that you may be interested in Heinrich, would be Zeitgeist, watch all the episodes. Only available on the internet.
The new addendum is out this month.
If you are a WWI & WWII fan you will really enjoy them, lots of good information on numerous subjects.
-
You may also be interested in watching the documentary The End Game. Good info in that also.
-
Conspiracy theories are not facts. I suppose you are referring to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist:_The_Movie
"Part III", entitled Don't Mind the Men Behind the Curtain, argues that three wars of the United States during the twentieth century were waged purely for economic gain by what the film refers to as "international bankers". The film alleges that certain events were engineered as excuses to enter into war including the sinking of the RMS Lusitania, the Attack on Pearl Harbor, and the Gulf of Tonkin Incident.
According to the film, the US was forced by the Federal Reserve Bank to become embroiled in these wars, not with a view to win but to sustain the conflict, as this forces the US government to borrow money from the bank, allegedly increasing the profits of the "international bankers". The film then goes on to claim that the Federal Income Tax is illegal.
Oh and I like DirtDawg 8)
-
Still waiting for them sources...
Can't be hard to find them, given how obsessed and knowledgeable you are
Cant be arsed to do that.
I made my statements. Either accept them or dont. Doesnt matter to me either way.
Nice to see that you have such high standards of truth for yourself. ::)
:rofl:
-
Still waiting for them sources...
Can't be hard to find them, given how obsessed and knowledgeable you are
Something that you may be interested in Heinrich, would be Zeitgeist, watch all the episodes. Only available on the internet.
The new addendum is out this month.
If you are a WWI & WWII fan you will really enjoy them, lots of good information on numerous subjects.
Zeitgeist is a work of fiction you fucking 'tard. :hahaha:
-
Conspiracy theories are not facts.
Yes, but Facts used to explain Theories are still Facts.
-
Everyone knows that the Jewish fairies that fly out of my arse did 9/11
-
Still waiting for them sources...
Can't be hard to find them, given how obsessed and knowledgeable you are
Something that you may be interested in Heinrich, would be Zeitgeist, watch all the episodes. Only available on the internet.
The new addendum is out this month.
If you are a WWI & WWII fan you will really enjoy them, lots of good information on numerous subjects.
Zeitgeist is a work of fiction you fucking 'tard. :hahaha:
Think again, dung heap
-
Conspiracy theories are not facts.
Yes, but Facts used to explain Theories are still Facts.
Give us the facts then.
-
Personally I think starting this thread, and then running away and not answering questions that were directed at him makes DD seem either a coward, which I'm guessing he isn't, or someone trying to troll for a reaction :thumbdn: :thumbdn: :thumbdn:
Possibly, although he is responding to other threads (which I see popping up in my "Unread Posts" screen). Maybe he's just busy.
Of course, you are correct.
I do have two young children that still expect their only daddy to read to them in all of his mysterious stage drama-trained voices as they prepare for bed.
I would not miss this amazing and absolutely engaging daily experience/adventure for any amount of passing forum thread activity.
I did keep about ten or so threads open, active and methodically journeyed through them as the night progressed.
I am back again for the evening, but in about twenty minutes the same daily event will begin.
-
Everyone knows that the Jewish fairies that fly out of my arse did 9/11
Israel did know about it, thats why jews were in the minority among those that died. Most didnt come to work that day or their offices had been moved; after the Israeli government warned them.
-
Still waiting for them sources...
Can't be hard to find them, given how obsessed and knowledgeable you are
Something that you may be interested in Heinrich, would be Zeitgeist, watch all the episodes. Only available on the internet.
The new addendum is out this month.
If you are a WWI & WWII fan you will really enjoy them, lots of good information on numerous subjects.
Zeitgeist is a work of fiction you fucking 'tard. :hahaha:
Wow.
I mean fucking WOW!!!
-
Personally I think starting this thread, and then running away and not answering questions that were directed at him makes DD seem either a coward, which I'm guessing he isn't, or someone trying to troll for a reaction :thumbdn: :thumbdn: :thumbdn:
Possibly, although he is responding to other threads (which I see popping up in my "Unread Posts" screen). Maybe he's just busy.
Of course, you are correct.
I do have two young children that still expect their only daddy to read to them in all of his mysterious stage drama-trained voices as they prepare for bed.
I would not miss this amazing and absolutely engaging daily experience/adventure for any amount of passing forum thread activity.
I did keep about ten or so threads open, active and methodically journeyed through them as the night progressed.
I am back again for the evening, but in about twenty minutes the same daily event will begin.
Yes. You had no time to reply. That's why you're posting in tons of other threads :wanker:
-
Just out of curiosity, skyblue1 are you a fan of Alex Jones?
-
Yeah he's too busy looking after his kids, but not too busy to be posting in the Add Three Words To This Story thread :autism:
-
:screwy:
-
Yeah he's too busy looking after his kids, but not too busy to be posting in the Add Three Words To This Story thread :autism:
In any case, now that he's here, he will hopefully answer the challenges that have been issued against him.
-
I asked him a question, and he has so far refused to answer it. In my opinion that is the height of ignorance.
You could call him out and demand that he answer your question.
He also seems ignorant of the Falklands War. Great Britain did not need any outside assistance to defeat Argentina.
Nope, I am not ignorant.
-
Just out of curiosity, skyblue1 are you a fan of Alex Jones?
Sort of. I cant stand listening to the guy, tho, very annoying voice.
By the by, my obsession is not with war. It is american politics. Of course in going through the history, you have the wars to deal with.
-
I asked him a question, and he has so far refused to answer it. In my opinion that is the height of ignorance.
You could call him out and demand that he answer your question.
He also seems ignorant of the Falklands War. Great Britain did not need any outside assistance to defeat Argentina.
Nope, I am not ignorant.
I don't think DerpDawg wants to talk about his rudeness :o
-
Just out of curiosity, skyblue1 are you a fan of Alex Jones?
Sort of. I cant stand listening to the guy, tho, very annoying voice.
By the by, my obsession is not with war. It is american politics. Of course in going through the history, you have the wars to deal with.
I thought as much :facepalm2:
-
He's gonna read this tomorrow as get so pissed off :laugh:
I did read your posts and Parts and Scr'eaps.
I never expected it to go this far.
:facepalm2:
You guys fucking roKK!!
-
I know, Im just finding it really funny right now for some reason. :laugh: And Im such a nice girl, too, it's a shame. I blame lack of sleep.
Honestly, I had no idea that you were a girl.
-
I never expected it to go this far.
:facepalm2:
You guys fucking roKK!!
Everybody hates you. :LOL: Congrats!
-
I never expected it to go this far.
:facepalm2:
You guys fucking roKK!!
Everybody hates you. :LOL: Congrats!
I don't hate him. I just think he's a twunt.
-
I also don't get all this patriotic nonsense
-
I don't hate him. I just think he's a twunt.
'Cause hate is only for morally reprehensible people and you're too good for that, huh?
-
How did she imply that?
-
I don't hate him. I just think he's a twunt.
'Cause hate is only for morally reprehensible people and you're too good for that, huh?
No. Coz it's only an internet forum :facepalm2:
-
Right, and that's why you pitched such a tantrum in this thread. I find the whole butthurt/passive agressive routine pretty amusing. I don't know where the idea developed that unless people answered immediately, they were somehow copping out of the argument.
-
Right, and that's why you pitched such a tantrum in this thread. I find the whole butthurt/passive agressive routine pretty amusing. I don't know where the idea developed that unless people answered immediately, they were somehow copping out of the argument.
OK. I'm sure he'll answer now then ::)
-
Sounded to me like he gave up on you already. Just like he gave up on everyone else outside the USA. :zoinks: DD maybe you should go back to the south Texas border.
-
Sounded to me like he gave up on you already. Just like he gave up on everyone else outside the USA. :zoinks: DD maybe you should go back to the south Texas border.
::)
-
Or maybe he should get his gone, go out and shoot some obese, degenerate americans, do us all a favour :dunno:
-
Personally I think starting this thread, and then running away and not answering questions that were directed at him makes DD seem either a coward, which I'm guessing he isn't, or someone trying to troll for a reaction :thumbdn: :thumbdn: :thumbdn:
Possibly, although he is responding to other threads (which I see popping up in my "Unread Posts" screen). Maybe he's just busy.
Of course, you are correct.
I do have two young children that still expect their only daddy to read to them in all of his mysterious stage drama-trained voices as they prepare for bed.
I would not miss this amazing and absolutely engaging daily experience/adventure for any amount of passing forum thread activity.
I did keep about ten or so threads open, active and methodically journeyed through them as the night progressed.
I am back again for the evening, but in about twenty minutes the same daily event will begin.
Yes. You had no time to reply. That's why you're posting in tons of other threads :wanker:
I chose my time, in my own way.
I generally do not read your posts. Lets us get one thing out into the open, shall we?
I rarely read your posts, and most especially never those directed at me, for obvious reasons. I do not like anything that you post and I have a gut feeling that, if I met you you, I would not like anything about you. I do not think I can gain from reading your posts and I follow my gut in this matter.
I did see, in a few of those who I do read who quoted you, that you are expecting something from me.
I can only say that, if you are such a smart person, you have already made up your mind. Nothing I can say will set or settle your mind for you.
If all that shows just how ignorant I truly am, then I am quite safe from your brand of intellect.
-
Or maybe he should get his gone, go out and shoot some obese, degenerate americans, do us all a favour :dunno:
At least we "obese, degenerate Americans" know how to spell "gun".
-
Aww shit I pwned myself totally :LMAO:
I really gotta start reading through my posts before I hit Submit
-
Another point worth noting ...
Just because some random persona creates some random thread on some random forum, it does not mean that that same random persona owns that random thread in any way and no one who enters that random thread has any power over the creator of such a random thread. :lol:
-
Or maybe he should get his gone, go out and shoot some obese, degenerate americans, do us all a favour :dunno:
I like it.
-
Personally I think starting this thread, and then running away and not answering questions that were directed at him makes DD seem either a coward, which I'm guessing he isn't, or someone trying to troll for a reaction :thumbdn: :thumbdn: :thumbdn:
Possibly, although he is responding to other threads (which I see popping up in my "Unread Posts" screen). Maybe he's just busy.
Of course, you are correct.
I do have two young children that still expect their only daddy to read to them in all of his mysterious stage drama-trained voices as they prepare for bed.
I would not miss this amazing and absolutely engaging daily experience/adventure for any amount of passing forum thread activity.
I did keep about ten or so threads open, active and methodically journeyed through them as the night progressed.
I am back again for the evening, but in about twenty minutes the same daily event will begin.
Yes. You had no time to reply. That's why you're posting in tons of other threads :wanker:
I chose my time, in my own way.
I generally do not read your posts. Lets us get one thing out into the open, shall we?
I rarely read your posts, and most especially never those directed at me, for obvious reasons. I do not like anything that you post and I have a gut feeling that, if I met you you, I would not like anything about you. I do not think I can gain from reading your posts and I follow my gut in this matter.
I did see, in a few of those who I do read who quoted you, that you are expecting something from me.
I can only say that, if you are such a smart person, you have already made up your mind. Nothing I can say will set or settle your mind for you.
If all that shows just how ignorant I truly am, then I am quite safe from your brand of intellect.
The funny thing is, I haven't made up my mind about you. I dislike a certain part of your behaviour, but I've seen some parts of you that make me think you could be a decent person. If I'm honest I would like to hear why you adopt such an aggressive posting style towards people you disagree with. If I understood that maybe I might be better placed to make up my mind about you.
And forget the callout if you want. I'm happy to speak to you here.
-
Still waiting for them sources...
Can't be hard to find them, given how obsessed and knowledgeable you are
Something that you may be interested in Heinrich, would be Zeitgeist, watch all the episodes. Only available on the internet.
The new addendum is out this month.
If you are a WWI & WWII fan you will really enjoy them, lots of good information on numerous subjects.
Zeitgeist is a work of fiction you fucking 'tard. :hahaha:
Think again, dung heap
Here's a quote from Tim Callahan from Skeptic Magazine:
"Some of what it asserts is true. Unfortunately, this material is liberally—and sloppily—mixed with material that is only partially true and much that is plainly and simply bogus. […] Zeitgeist is The Da Vinci Code on steroids."
-
Still waiting for them sources...
Can't be hard to find them, given how obsessed and knowledgeable you are
Something that you may be interested in Heinrich, would be Zeitgeist, watch all the episodes. Only available on the internet.
The new addendum is out this month.
If you are a WWI & WWII fan you will really enjoy them, lots of good information on numerous subjects.
Zeitgeist is a work of fiction you fucking 'tard. :hahaha:
Think again, dung heap
Here's a quote from Tim Callahan from Skeptic Magazine:
"Some of what it asserts is true. Unfortunately, this material is liberally—and sloppily—mixed with material that is only partially true and much that is plainly and simply bogus. […] Zeitgeist is The Da Vinci Code on steroids."
Zeitgeist is most definitely not the gospel on this matter, tho it definitely has little grains in it that are worth noting; I was pointing it out to Heinrich who may not have seen it.
-
Personally I think starting this thread, and then running away and not answering questions that were directed at him makes DD seem either a coward, which I'm guessing he isn't, or someone trying to troll for a reaction :thumbdn: :thumbdn: :thumbdn:
Possibly, although he is responding to other threads (which I see popping up in my "Unread Posts" screen). Maybe he's just busy.
Of course, you are correct.
I do have two young children that still expect their only daddy to read to them in all of his mysterious stage drama-trained voices as they prepare for bed.
I would not miss this amazing and absolutely engaging daily experience/adventure for any amount of passing forum thread activity.
I did keep about ten or so threads open, active and methodically journeyed through them as the night progressed.
I am back again for the evening, but in about twenty minutes the same daily event will begin.
Yes. You had no time to reply. That's why you're posting in tons of other threads :wanker:
I chose my time, in my own way.
I generally do not read your posts. Lets us get one thing out into the open, shall we?
I rarely read your posts, and most especially never those directed at me, for obvious reasons. I do not like anything that you post and I have a gut feeling that, if I met you you, I would not like anything about you. I do not think I can gain from reading your posts and I follow my gut in this matter.
I did see, in a few of those who I do read who quoted you, that you are expecting something from me.
I can only say that, if you are such a smart person, you have already made up your mind. Nothing I can say will set or settle your mind for you.
If all that shows just how ignorant I truly am, then I am quite safe from your brand of intellect.
The funny thing is, I haven't made up my mind about you. I dislike a certain part of your behaviour, but I've seen some parts of you that make me think you could be a decent person. If I'm honest I would like to hear why you adopt such an aggressive posting style towards people you disagree with. If I understood that maybe I might be better placed to make up my mind about you.
And forget the callout if you want. I'm happy to speak to you here.
But just so that you know that, even though I have stated quite concisely how little respect I hold for some of your views, I do not automatically disregard most people, outright.
I was reading to my daughter tonight and she wanted to make another choice of reading material, aside from what we were already reading - she wanted to read from a huge artful book I have by a photographer named, Anne Geddes. (http://www.google.com/images?q=Anned+geddes&hl=en&prmd=ivnso&source=lnms&tbs=isch:1&ei=z1ouTcK4CYG0lQeD84TNCw&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&ved=0CAcQ_AU&biw=1760&bih=815) It is one of the books with babies in unbelievable circumstances as the subjects. When my daughter was a bit younger, we would look at Anne's work and I would read the captions to her in a kind of Fantasy or elfin voice that I drew from the art itself, then we would both make cooing baby sounds to match the photos, imagining what sounds such a comfortable baby would make, as pictured on each page of the artwork.
(I know, :puke: ... but she is MY daughter!)
Out of the fucking blue, my daughter wanted to show me her very favorite of all of Anne Geddes' work. She chose, as her very favorite, the image of a sleeping baby with a butterfly having landed upon its upper back as it dreamt soundly within the comfort of the pristine, full blossomed petals of a purple-heart, phalaenopsis orchid.
The caption was an intriguing notion:
“There are no seven wonders of the world in the eyes of a child. There are seven million.”
This all happened earlier this evening. Honestly, I seldom ignore such parallels. (... also, she has never seen a single page of this forum, either. This occurred merely as an interesting coincidence.)
I would not have shared this with you if I thought it had no meaning. I am still trying to work out the meaning, however.
-
Personally I think starting this thread, and then running away and not answering questions that were directed at him makes DD seem either a coward, which I'm guessing he isn't, or someone trying to troll for a reaction :thumbdn: :thumbdn: :thumbdn:
Possibly, although he is responding to other threads (which I see popping up in my "Unread Posts" screen). Maybe he's just busy.
Of course, you are correct.
I do have two young children that still expect their only daddy to read to them in all of his mysterious stage drama-trained voices as they prepare for bed.
I would not miss this amazing and absolutely engaging daily experience/adventure for any amount of passing forum thread activity.
I did keep about ten or so threads open, active and methodically journeyed through them as the night progressed.
I am back again for the evening, but in about twenty minutes the same daily event will begin.
Yes. You had no time to reply. That's why you're posting in tons of other threads :wanker:
I chose my time, in my own way.
I generally do not read your posts. Lets us get one thing out into the open, shall we?
I rarely read your posts, and most especially never those directed at me, for obvious reasons. I do not like anything that you post and I have a gut feeling that, if I met you you, I would not like anything about you. I do not think I can gain from reading your posts and I follow my gut in this matter.
I did see, in a few of those who I do read who quoted you, that you are expecting something from me.
I can only say that, if you are such a smart person, you have already made up your mind. Nothing I can say will set or settle your mind for you.
If all that shows just how ignorant I truly am, then I am quite safe from your brand of intellect.
The funny thing is, I haven't made up my mind about you. I dislike a certain part of your behaviour, but I've seen some parts of you that make me think you could be a decent person. If I'm honest I would like to hear why you adopt such an aggressive posting style towards people you disagree with. If I understood that maybe I might be better placed to make up my mind about you.
And forget the callout if you want. I'm happy to speak to you here.
But just so that you know that, even though I have stated quite concisely how little respect I hold for some of your views, I do not automatically disregard most people, outright.
I was reading to my daughter tonight and she wanted to make another choice of reading material, aside from what we were already reading - she wanted to read from a huge artful book I have by a photographer named, Anne Geddes. (http://www.google.com/images?q=Anned+geddes&hl=en&prmd=ivnso&source=lnms&tbs=isch:1&ei=z1ouTcK4CYG0lQeD84TNCw&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&ved=0CAcQ_AU&biw=1760&bih=815) It is one of the books with babies in unbelievable circumstances as the subjects. When my daughter was a bit younger, we would look at Anne's work and I would read the captions to her in a kind of Fantasy or elfin voice that I drew from the art itself, then we would both make cooing baby sounds to match the photos, imagining what sounds such a comfortable baby would make, as pictured on each page of the artwork.
(I know, :puke: ... but she is MY daughter!)
Out of the fucking blue, my daughter wanted to show me her very favorite of all of Anne Geddes' work. She chose, as her very favorite, the image of a sleeping baby with a butterfly having landed upon its upper back as it dreamt soundly within the comfort of the pristine, full blossomed petals of a purple-heart, phalaenopsis orchid.
The caption was an intriguing notion:
“There are no seven wonders of the world in the eyes of a child. There are seven million.”
This all happened earlier this evening. Honestly, I seldom ignore such parallels. (... also, she has never seen a single page of this forum, either. This occurred merely as an interesting coincidence.)
See. I hear you speaking about your kids and I genuinely think you sound like a great dad. I love old guys that are into music, and sometimes you say things that are genuinely funny. In so many ways you are the type of person I really want to like.
I just can't understand why you appear so aggresive and OTT at other times. People disagree with you. Why do you need to be so rude to them? The reason I want to understnad is not because I want to fight you. I honestly want to understand you.
-
Sounded to me like he gave up on you already. Just like he gave up on everyone else outside the USA. :zoinks: DD maybe you should go back to the south Texas border.
Not really up for all the beheadings and pirate-like shit happening on the lake where my grandfather taught me to fish for freshwater bass.
My brother still lives there, though. he says it is far worse than what makes the national news.
:'(
-
<CHOP>
See. I hear you speaking about your kids and I genuinely think you sound like a great dad. I love old guys that are into music, and sometimes you say things that are genuinely funny. In so many ways you are the type of person I really want to like.
I just can't understand why you appear so aggresive and OTT at other times. People disagree with you. Why do you need to be so rude to them? The reason I want to understnad is not because I want to fight you. I honestly want to understand you.
OK, B'fly, what do you want to know that I have not already spent about four years laying out for everyone about as clearly as any personal dissection could be.
I am an aggressive, hot tempered person (Irish and Italian heritage) who also patiently grows flowers from seeds. I have been abused and viciously attacked in the past so, I have learned to physically defend myself quite well yet I seek to help others in any way that I can. I am a late bloomer and married a younger woman and so, at fifty six, I have two kids not yet in their teens - now you know why I have so much hands-on work to do with them every day. I work eight to ten hours per day at a meaningless job, come home, exhausted, and usually spend a half hour beating the hell out of a hanging sandbag that I hit and kick for all I am worth until I am soaked with sweat. I drink more water than any other human you have ever seen, but I am alcohol free. I am rarely ever sick, but I have had to have my wisdom teeth removed twice already and they are growing back again. My right hip is giving up and I am going in for a procedure to correct it in February - my courage allows me to cry a bit over my dreading. I have about fifty odd musical instruments, several of which I can play a bit. I own some historically significant treasures, but I rarely share them with anyone I know. I usually keep three or four books going at the same time, quoting sometimes full paragraphs that have inspired me, but at times I have to think a bit to remember where I keep my clean towels. I do collect weaponry, but many of my latest acquisitions have been blades of various sorts. My garage is useless as a place to park a car, because I do woodworking and normally have a couple or three projects going in varying stages of completion. I have done well for myself in life, but I live a very minimalistic lifestyle. I do own over twelve thousand CDs, about three thousand DVDs and some rather esoteric sound equipment, though.
A large portion of my life is spelled out on these pages, if you care to read back a bit. I am not hiding. I even posted a real pic of myself in the "members" thread.
BTW, I do not know what OTT means. It makes me think of an open source template coding, though.
-
I do own over twelve thousand CDs
Fucking hell
How'd you manage that?
-
BTW, I do not know what OTT means. It makes me think of an open source template coding, though.
"Over the top"
-
I do own over twelve thousand CDs
Fucking hell
How'd you manage that?
I have lived a lot of years, rarely short of money and I have been obsessed with music since I was a child. I did not think that mentioning the four thousand plus LPs I own as relevant, but my interest in music goes back to the time before CDs were invented.
:laugh:
-
BTW, I do not know what OTT means. It makes me think of an open source template coding, though.
"Over the top"
Nice!
... a boxing reference. I boxed in high school (early seventies) as a light heavy weight. :-\
-
<CHOP>
See. I hear you speaking about your kids and I genuinely think you sound like a great dad. I love old guys that are into music, and sometimes you say things that are genuinely funny. In so many ways you are the type of person I really want to like.
I just can't understand why you appear so aggresive and OTT at other times. People disagree with you. Why do you need to be so rude to them? The reason I want to understnad is not because I want to fight you. I honestly want to understand you.
OK, B'fly, what do you want to know that I have not already spent about four years laying out for everyone about as clearly as any personal dissection could be.
I am an aggressive, hot tempered person (Irish and Italian heritage) who also patiently grows flowers from seeds. I have been abused and viciously attacked in the past so, I have learned to physically defend myself quite well yet I seek to help others in any way that I can. I am a late bloomer and married a younger woman and so, at fifty six, I have two kids not yet in their teens - now you know why I have so much hands-on work to do with them every day. I work eight to ten hours per day at a meaningless job, come home, exhausted, and usually spend a half hour beating the hell out of a hanging sandbag that I hit and kick for all I am worth until I am soaked with sweat. I drink more water than any other human you have ever seen, but I am alcohol free. I am rarely ever sick, but I have had to have my wisdom teeth removed twice already and they are growing back again. My right hip is giving up and I am going in for a procedure to correct it in February - my courage allows me to cry a bit over my dreading. I have about fifty odd musical instruments, several of which I can play a bit. I own some historically significant treasures, but I rarely share them with anyone I know. I usually keep three or four books going at the same time, quoting sometimes full paragraphs that have inspired me, but at times I have to think a bit to remember where I keep my clean towels. I do collect weaponry, but many of my latest acquisitions have been blades of various sorts. My garage is useless as a place to park a car, because I do woodworking and normally have a couple or three projects going in varying stages of completion. I have done well for myself in life, but I live a very minimalistic lifestyle. I do own over twelve thousand CDs, about three thousand DVDs and some rather esoteric sound equipment, though.
A large portion of my life is spelled out on these pages, if you care to read back a bit. I am not hiding. I even posted a real pic of myself in the "members" thread.
BTW, I do not know what OTT means. It makes me think of an open source template coding, though.
Thank you. I do appreciate that. And to be honest you do sound very cool.
The one thing I would like to know is why you appear so rude sometimes. You often appear very aggresive towarsds people you appear to have no reason to dislike. I would like to know why you do that, and even if you're aware that you do it.
I would also like to take this oppurtunity to apologize for some of the things I said earlier in the thread. Not all things, but certainly some things.
Perhaps we don't need to dislike eachother.
-
<CHOP>
See. I hear you speaking about your kids and I genuinely think you sound like a great dad. I love old guys that are into music, and sometimes you say things that are genuinely funny. In so many ways you are the type of person I really want to like.
I just can't understand why you appear so aggresive and OTT at other times. People disagree with you. Why do you need to be so rude to them? The reason I want to understnad is not because I want to fight you. I honestly want to understand you.
OK, B'fly, what do you want to know that I have not already spent about four years laying out for everyone about as clearly as any personal dissection could be.
I am an aggressive, hot tempered person (Irish and Italian heritage) who also patiently grows flowers from seeds. I have been abused and viciously attacked in the past so, I have learned to physically defend myself quite well yet I seek to help others in any way that I can. I am a late bloomer and married a younger woman and so, at fifty six, I have two kids not yet in their teens - now you know why I have so much hands-on work to do with them every day. I work eight to ten hours per day at a meaningless job, come home, exhausted, and usually spend a half hour beating the hell out of a hanging sandbag that I hit and kick for all I am worth until I am soaked with sweat. I drink more water than any other human you have ever seen, but I am alcohol free. I am rarely ever sick, but I have had to have my wisdom teeth removed twice already and they are growing back again. My right hip is giving up and I am going in for a procedure to correct it in February - my courage allows me to cry a bit over my dreading. I have about fifty odd musical instruments, several of which I can play a bit. I own some historically significant treasures, but I rarely share them with anyone I know. I usually keep three or four books going at the same time, quoting sometimes full paragraphs that have inspired me, but at times I have to think a bit to remember where I keep my clean towels. I do collect weaponry, but many of my latest acquisitions have been blades of various sorts. My garage is useless as a place to park a car, because I do woodworking and normally have a couple or three projects going in varying stages of completion. I have done well for myself in life, but I live a very minimalistic lifestyle. I do own over twelve thousand CDs, about three thousand DVDs and some rather esoteric sound equipment, though.
A large portion of my life is spelled out on these pages, if you care to read back a bit. I am not hiding. I even posted a real pic of myself in the "members" thread.
BTW, I do not know what OTT means. It makes me think of an open source template coding, though.
Thank you. I do appreciate that. And to be honest you do sound very cool.
The one thing I would like to know is why you appear so rude sometimes. You often appear very aggresive towarsds people you appear to have no reason to dislike. I would like to know why you do that, and even if you're aware that you do it.
I would also like to take this oppurtunity to apologize for some of the things I said earlier in the thread. Not all things, but certainly some things.
Perhaps we don't need to dislike eachother.
I do not really feel aggressive at all. I usually feel like a submissive wimp who is constantly walked over like a floor mat. I have been told my entire life that I am quite aggressive, very determined and forceful and I have come to believe it, but I do not feel that way. I am usually timid around new people and I have trouble accepting them (BTW, YOU are still new to me).
Unfortunately, pure logic and simple reason do not always surface when I relax into the real me. I only come here to relax and I can be myself and sometimes blow off steam. I have actually let go of all the other forums I used to visit, except for one audio site, one jazz artists site, Joe Satriani's site and Dunc's place. I have chosen this site to relax.
-
I take back what I said about you acting like a twat. You are being reasonable here and this is the kind of DD I think is cool, for what it's worth
-
I appreciate that insight into your person. I regret the way this whole incident came about, buit I am glad that it did. This sounds silly, but it annoyed me badly that I was not able to decide whether I liked you or not. Now I feel in a much better position to form an opinion on you. I have read some of your posts about your kids, and I am sometimes touched by the warmth, love, and affection you seem to have for them
I hope there are no hard feelings.
I would just ask you to do one thing. When you feel a bit angry or pissed off at someone on this site, please think about whether they really deserve for you to be mean to them, before you say not nice stuff to them. Please consider the possibility that the first impression of you some people on this site get is of feeling attacked by you, while not understanding why you are attacking them. Perhaps some people form a negative impression of you based on that first confrontation. I know that was where my negative feelings towards you came from.
-
I never expected it to go this far.
:facepalm2:
You guys fucking roKK!!
Everybody hates you. :LOL: Congrats!
I don't hate DD :) I agree with a small amount of things he has to say. But when people repeatedly snap at me sometimes I get urges. All is forgiven, just please stop taking me so seriously from now on.
I appreciate that insight into your person. I regret the way this whole incident came about, buit I am glad that it did. This sounds silly, but it annoyed me badly that I was not able to decide whether I liked you or not. Now I feel in a much better position to form an opinion on you. I have read some of your posts about your kids, and I am sometimes touched by the warmth, love, and affection you seem to have for them
I hope there are no hard feelings.
I would just ask you to do one thing. When you feel a bit angry or pissed off at someone on this site, please think about whether they really deserve for you to be mean to them, before you say not nice stuff to them. Please consider the possibility that the first impression of you some people on this site get is of feeling attacked by you, while not understanding why you are attacking them. Perhaps some people form a negative impression of you based on that first confrontation. I know that was where my negative feelings towards you came from.
:thumbup: I agree with this too
-
(http://poorlydressed.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/fashion-fail-run-away-the-british-are-coming.jpg)
-
Not really up for all the beheadings and pirate-like shit happening on the lake where my grandfather taught me to fish for freshwater bass.
My brother still lives there, though. he says it is far worse than what makes the national news.
:'(
:/ Yeah I saw that.
I don't really get the patriotism thing. I'm for the US gun laws, I'm not for playing world nanny, but I'm not under any illusions that the only worthwhile people in the world are within one arbitrary border.
-
Not really up for all the beheadings and pirate-like shit happening on the lake where my grandfather taught me to fish for freshwater bass.
My brother still lives there, though. he says it is far worse than what makes the national news.
:'(
:/ Yeah I saw that.
I don't really get the patriotism thing. I'm for the US gun laws, I'm not for playing world nanny, but I'm not under any illusions that the only worthwhile people in the world are within one arbitrary border.
:lol:
I'm sure you're on the wind-up, but if you're not you would be the kind of white-trash that sadly gives the good people of America a bad name.
-
I'm sure you're on the wind-up, but if you're not you would be the kind of white-trash that sadly gives the good people of America a bad name.
Did you even read what she said?
-
but I'm not under any illusions that the only worthwhile people in the world are within one arbitrary border.
I assumed she meant the American border?
-
Obviously apologies if she meant the worlds borders :laugh:
-
Think she meant any border.
-
but I'm not under any illusions that the only worthwhile people in the world are within one arbitrary border.
I assumed she meant the American border?
I think you misunderstood what Pyraxis said, Butterflies.
She said that she's NOT under the illusion that the only worthwhile people are within one arbitrary border.
That's not the same as saying that the only worthwhile people are within one arbitrary border, it means the opposite.
-
but I'm not under any illusions that the only worthwhile people in the world are within one arbitrary border.
I assumed she meant the American border?
I think you misunderstood what Pyraxis said, Butterflies.
She said that she's NOT under the illusion that the only worthwhile people are within one arbitrary border.
That's not the same as saying that the only worthwhile people are within one arbitrary border, it means the opposite.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
OK. I'll take my foot out of my mouth then :laugh: :-[
-
Yes. I've read it again. You are both right.
Apologies Pyraxis :laugh:
-
Yes. I've read it again.
And looked up arbitrary? :laugh:
-
Yes. I've read it again.
And looked up arbitrary? :laugh:
I do know what arbitrary means. I'm not that dumb :P
I should have read the post properly. I have self-pwn'd. :-[ :-[
-
Yes. I've read it again. You are both right.
Apologies Pyraxis :laugh:
:laugh: No worries.
-
Obviously apologies if she meant the worlds borders :laugh:
Oh so it would be ok if I were prejudiced against aliens? :borg: :P
-
apparently, this bump didn't work the last time. :dunno:
-
I think this topic is dead. Come help me annoy the n00b with inappropriate personal questions. :zoinks:
-
DD was here a couple of days ago and this is one of his threads.
I was wondering if he had any new thoughts to add.
-
The last time we let people have guns, they revolted.
-
British men don't need to own guns because we have adequately sized working penises.
-
British men don't need to own guns because we have adequately sized working penises.
So you shoot them at home invaders? :laugh:
-
Here we go. This is the point in the conversation when the gun nut posts up NRA supplied statistics and everyone else has a really good laugh at them.
Not that I've been through this at least a dozen times.
I'm not anti-gun. Used to own one. Now I don't. Don't need one.
And yes lax gun laws mean higher murder rates. But post up your proof otherwise. I could do with a good old laugh.
-
British men don't need to own guns because we have adequately sized working penises.
So you shoot them at home invaders? :laugh:
You should see them take down a deer. :zoinks:
-
British men don't need to own guns because we have adequately sized working penises.
My dick is so big it has it's own dick, and my dick's dick is bigger than your dick. :zoinks:
-
Here we go. This is the point in the conversation when the gun nut posts up NRA supplied statistics and everyone else has a really good laugh at them.
Not that I've been through this at least a dozen times.
I'm not anti-gun. Used to own one. Now I don't. Don't need one.
And yes lax gun laws mean higher murder rates. But post up your proof otherwise. I could do with a good old laugh.
Search through the old posts here. The laughs are all over the place.
-
Here we go. This is the point in the conversation when the gun nut posts up NRA supplied statistics and everyone else has a really good laugh at them.
Not that I've been through this at least a dozen times.
I'm not anti-gun. Used to own one. Now I don't. Don't need one.
And yes lax gun laws mean higher murder rates. But post up your proof otherwise. I could do with a good old laugh.
Search through the old posts here. The laughs are all over the place.
It's a shame he missed out on the penis contest. :zoinks:
-
My dick is so big Steven Hawking created a theory about it. :zoinks:
-
Here we go. This is the point in the conversation when the gun nut posts up NRA supplied statistics and everyone else has a really good laugh at them.
Not that I've been through this at least a dozen times.
I'm not anti-gun. Used to own one. Now I don't. Don't need one.
And yes lax gun laws mean higher murder rates. But post up your proof otherwise. I could do with a good old laugh.
Search through the old posts here. The laughs are all over the place.
I had quite literally just had the arguement (again) on another forum and was feeling a little jaded by the whole subject.
It's just Darwinism in action. Ironic. if you think about it.
-
Here we go. This is the point in the conversation when the gun nut posts up NRA supplied statistics and everyone else has a really good laugh at them.
Not that I've been through this at least a dozen times.
I'm not anti-gun. Used to own one. Now I don't. Don't need one.
And yes lax gun laws mean higher murder rates. But post up your proof otherwise. I could do with a good old laugh.
Search through the old posts here. The laughs are all over the place.
I had quite literally just had the arguement (again) on another forum and was feeling a little jaded by the whole subject.
It's just Darwinism in action. Ironic. if you think about it.
It's mostly just sad, IMHO.
-
My dick is so big Steven Hawking created a theory about it. :zoinks:
Hawking would have staff shoot you if you were in his yard. :zoinks: :trollface:
-
My dick is so big Steven Hawking created a theory about it. :zoinks:
Hawking would have staff shoot you if you were in his yard. :zoinks: :trollface:
Stephen Hawking's dick is so big it has an agent, so my dick's people have to call his dick's people. :zoinks:
-
And yes lax gun laws mean higher murder rates. But post up your proof otherwise. I could do with a good old laugh.
That's not how it works. Since you're the one who made a truth claim, you're the one who has to provide evidence for it.
BTW, off the top of my head, Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the US but the murder rates there are off the charts.
-
My dick is so big it has a board of directors. :zoinks:
-
My dick is so big it has a board of directors. :zoinks:
And each of them are cunts. :zoinks:
-
My dick is so big it has a board of directors. :zoinks:
And each of them are cunts. :zoinks:
:lol1: :plus:
-
And yes lax gun laws mean higher murder rates. But post up your proof otherwise. I could do with a good old laugh.
That's not how it works. Since you're the one who made a truth claim, you're the one who has to provide evidence for it.
BTW, off the top of my head, Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the US but the murder rates there are off the charts.
You are joking, aren't you?
-
:popcorn:
-
Even though I find thousands of ghetto niggers shooting each other amusing, no, them's the facts.
All across the US, the States, counties and cities with the most restrictive gun laws have the highest gun violence rates.
-
My dick is so bit it has a horizon. :zoinks:
-
As in "event horizon"?
-
Yeah that too. My dick is so big it has its own gravity. :zoinks:
-
Even though I find thousands of ghetto niggers shooting each other amusing, no, them's the facts.
All across the US, the States, counties and cities with the most restrictive gun laws have the highest gun violence rates.
So it is your opinion that these areas have high murder rates BECAUSE they have restrictive gun laws? The murder rate wasn't that bad and then they brought in gun laws and this led to the murder rate increasing? Is that what you personally believe? (and you are not just having a joke with me?)
-
My dick is so big it has a star on the Hollywood walk of fame. :zoinks:
-
My dick is so big it has a star on the Hollywood walk of fame. :zoinks:
Next to Hugh Grant?
-
My dick is so big it has a star on the Hollywood walk of fame. :zoinks:
Next to Hugh Grant?
Chuck Norris. His dick is so big it has its own gang sign. :zoinks:
-
So it is your opinion that these areas have high murder rates BECAUSE they have restrictive gun laws?
No, I never said that. Correlation doesn't equal causation. Or are you too retarded to understand that??
I point that out to show how ineffective gun restrictions are in reducing gun violence rates.
BTW, I's STILL waiting for you to provide evidence that gun restrictions reduce gun violence rates.
-
Switzerland has guns and has one of the lowest crime rates in Europe right?
-
The Swedes dicks are so big the French can see them from the Eifel tower. :zoinks:
-
My dick is so big it wears a congressional medal of honor. :zoinks:
-
You're certainly sticking to your guns.
-
Switzerland has guns and has one of the lowest crime rates in Europe right?
It does have a slightly higher murder/suicide by gun rate than the rest of Europe. There's a lot of "Divorce by Kalashnikov" followed by a news report that ends "and then he turned the gun on himself". But compared to the USA it is still ver very low.
-
I should point out here that I do like America. The team I work with consists of 9 Americans (from PA and OH mostly. One from Philly) and me. The token Brit. The butt of most of the jokes. I've spent time in the US and can report that I was never shot at. Although I was pickpocketted on the subway under Madison Square Gardens.
America is a good place to be. It would just be better without all the small arms fire in my most humble opinion.
-
So it is your opinion that these areas have high murder rates BECAUSE they have restrictive gun laws?
No, I never said that. Correlation doesn't equal causation. Or are you too retarded to understand that??
I point that out to show how ineffective gun restrictions are in reducing gun violence rates.
BTW, I's STILL waiting for you to provide evidence that gun restrictions reduce gun violence rates.
When Chicago (and other places) brought in gun controls did the murder rate go up or down? It is the highest violence areas with the gun controls becaue they were the places that had the political will to overcome the NRA. You have to think abotu it without putting the cart before the horse.
Evidence that gun control works? Every other western civilisation that has gun control. Every murder report from every western country including the USA.
I've just spent a few evenings pulling figures for gun nuts on another forum and the conclusion I have come to is that they are too ignorant to change. I'm not wasting the time again.
If you believe unfettered access to guns makes your kids junior school a safer place to be then thats fine with me. My kids are safe.
So lets all place bets where the next high school massacre will be. According to the NRA it could be anywhere and most opther countries are just as bad.. But I think I'll bet... ummmm..... America. Yes America. We'll only have to wait a few days to see if I'm right.
-
Evidence that gun control works? Every other western civilisation that has gun control.
Pappy's request isn't out of line. Any reliably sourced graph from any western civilization which has enacted strict gun control, displaying a statistical decrease in homicide, would suffice to prove your point.
I've just spent a few evenings pulling figures for gun nuts on another forum and the conclusion I have come to is that they are too ignorant to change. I'm not wasting the time again.
Then it would appear you're simply trolling this thread for a reaction.
-
You're certainly sticking to your guns.
I really love troll threads, this one is proving more entertaining than usual. :green:
My dick is so big it has stock options. :zoinks:
-
Evidence that gun control works? Every other western civilisation that has gun control.
Pappy's request isn't out of line. Any reliably sourced graph from any western civilization which has enacted strict gun control, displaying a statistical decrease in homicide, would suffice to prove your point.
I've just spent a few evenings pulling figures for gun nuts on another forum and the conclusion I have come to is that they are too ignorant to change. I'm not wasting the time again.
Then it would appear you're simply trolling this thread for a reaction.
This thread's got a title accusing Brits of faggoty gun laws, he is a Brit and posts here, and he is the one doing the trolling?
-
Granted he's new and may not realize this thread is very old, or that it's a troll thread, inspired by irritation at another troll thread, this is true. Though his posts were also provocative and claim staking, either he wishes genuine debate or he doesn't.
-
I'm pretty sure he got most of that. I didn't find his comments all that provocative.
I can see why they would be for an American, though. :trollface:
-
Meant provocative as inviting others to provide proof contrary to his claim. Inspiring interest, and even irritation as it's a hot button topic.
-
TBH, most claims made by the pro-NRA people are provocative.
-
Pro-NRA usually seems to come from a defensive standpoint, rather than instigation of the argument. This thread as stand alone on its own is a bad example of that viewpoint, though it still was a defensive reaction.
-
Pro-NRA usually seems to come from a defensive standpoint, rather than instigation of the argument. This thread as stand alone on its own is a bad example of that viewpoint, though it still was a defensive reaction.
Granted I did some into this thread on the back of the same arguement held elsewhere. So yeah. Maybe I was a bit in your face.
But then again, my child is more likely to be killed in an accident involving furniture than by a gun, so forgive my smugness.
-
When Chicago (and other places) brought in gun controls did the murder rate go up or down? It is the highest violence areas with the gun controls becaue they were the places that had the political will to overcome the NRA. You have to think abotu it without putting the cart before the horse.
There was no change, proving the gun control to be ineffective.
Evidence that gun control works? Every other western civilisation that has gun control. Every murder report from every western country including the USA.
Comparisons between Europe and America are always an apples to oranges comparison. Europe doesn't have the social ills (the true cause of violence here) that America has to deal with, not to mention spineless politicians who won't address root causes.
I've just spent a few evenings pulling figures for gun nuts on another forum and the conclusion I have come to is that they are too ignorant to change. I'm not wasting the time again.
In other words, you don't have the goods.
If you believe unfettered access to guns makes your kids junior school a safer place to be then thats fine with me. My kids are safe.
1) I never claimed I believe in zero restrictions. Mentally ill and felons shouldn't have them of course.
2) The high school I went to had an indoor shooting range under the theater where kids used to bring their guns to school for target practice. It was closed down due to lead contamination, not due to school shootings. Those didn't start happening until the mid 90's.
So lets all place bets where the next high school massacre will be. According to the NRA it could be anywhere and most opther countries are just as bad.. But I think I'll bet... ummmm..... America. Yes America. We'll only have to wait a few days to see if I'm right.
I'm betting the next major massacre will occur in France or Belgium, by Islamic terrorists, despite their strict gun control. :hahaha:
-
Pro-NRA usually seems to come from a defensive standpoint, rather than instigation of the argument. This thread as stand alone on its own is a bad example of that viewpoint, though it still was a defensive reaction.
Granted I did some into this thread on the back of the same arguement held elsewhere. So yeah. Maybe I was a bit in your face.
But then again, my child is more likely to be killed in an accident involving furniture than by a gun, so forgive my smugness.
It's true people often see a gun as a more awful way to die or be killed. To my knowledge, that reliably sourced chart or graph displaying a statistical decrease in homicide, post gun reform, doesn't exist. Have tried to find it multiple times. If you do find one, post it.
-
Granted I did some into this thread on the back of the same arguement held elsewhere. So yeah. Maybe I was a bit in your face.
A fun troll would engage me in some dick jokes. :emosad:
-
The high school I went to had an indoor shooting range under the theater where kids used to bring their guns to school for target practice. It was closed down due to lead contamination, not due to school shootings. Those didn't start happening until the mid 90's.
In my school it was compulsory to be an Army cadet from 14 years old and onwards. We had a range in the cellar that ran the length of the school where we'd fire the .22 rifles. One evening a week and some weekends we were bussed out in groups to a range were we would fire the .303s. A couple of times per term we went on weekend manouvres with whaever our parent unit was (mine was the Prince of Wales Regiment - light infantry) where we would use the 7.62mm FN semi-autos and would taught the niceties of the bayonet and such. Nights would be spent sitting in damp holes in the woods in ambush groups. As a result of all this my school put more officers into the British Army than any other.
We were taught what guns were for. They are for killing people. (And for stealing their countries, but that bits frowned upon these days.)
Editted to say.... There are 700,000 licenced gun owners in Britain (I used to be one of them). To call us an unarmed society is incorrect. We just don't have the same culture of ownership and tend to only rarely go ape shit in public with them. The question that needs to be addressed is why there is this American phenomena of the killing spree. And to be honest until both sides of the arguement sit down and talk about it properly it's going to keep happening.
-
The question that needs to be addressed is why there is this American phenomena of the killing spree. And to be honest until both sides of the arguement sit down and talk about it properly it's going to keep happening.
Can't seem to find a world analysis of spree killers; it's probably buried on page fifty of google under all the links which prefer to only analyze shooters. The best could come up with is Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers The tables in the body of the page only display fifteen entries but the links to the right of the top of the page display the full tables. It's not as detailed as it could be, and offers no statistical analysis. North and South America are counted as one entity with the US owning right at half of the instances, and all European countries are also counted as a whole. The number of occurrences between the Americas and Europe isn't remarkably separated; though its difficult to know how that relates to a per capita statistic as the tables date back to the late eighteen hundreds for the Americas and Europe. Though if one really wanted to do the math using this table, a ten or twenty year study of instances for the US and Europe based on current populations could be easily done. The US certainly leads the pack in educational settings, with two thirds of the listed US instances perpetuated by adults.
-
North and South America are counted as one entity with the US owning right at half of the instances,
Correction, 80%.
-
Now really wishing could find a decent analysis, instead of digging around a Wikipedia link. The site does state the listing is incomplete, but will assume the data for the last twenty years is likely to be fairly accurate for the US and Europe. When analyzing the tables for the Americas and Europe, the US displays 36 spree killer instances in the last twenty years, while Europe displays 33. Considering the population of Europe is 2.3 times the US, one could conclude Europe statistically has twice the instances of spree killings as the US. However, the Americas and Europe tables do not include educational and workplace killings, which the US is the clear front runner. So to be fair, added the 12 workplace and 14 educational US instances in the last twenty years, while not bothering adding anything for workplace or educational settings for Europe. That brings the total US instances to 62 compared to the previous stated 33 for Europe. Calculating the population of Europe as rounded down to twice the size of the US, the statistical occurrence of spree killings would appear to be close enough to consider as equal. The fact mass murder is often viewed as primarily an American issue probably speaks more to the narrow focus of national news. Edited to add, a ten year analysis using the same fairness of adding workplace and educational to the US and not Europe, yields the same results. In fact, the ten year totals are almost exactly half the twenty year totals, indicating nothing much has recently changed.
-
Not sure if you care for that perspective; comparing Europe as a continent to the US. Didn't bother comparing North America as a continent because the Canadians wouldn't add much to US totals anyway and their populations might sku the per capita results. The Europe table displays 3 instances in the last twenty years specific to the UK, compared to the previously stated US 62 which included school and work. The US population is approximately five times larger than the UK, so US spree killings occur three times as often in the US as Great Britain in particular, according to these tables. Even the twenty year familicide instances which fit spree killing criterias are statistically balanced between the US and Europe, though the UK specific entries total only 1. Wanted to say maybe you're right, and the British are culturally less likely to snap, but there doesn't appear to be any single European country that stands out as more or less the spree type. It's odd.
-
You lured Jack into a spreadsheet and she ate into my time. >:(
But in case you were wondering, my dick is so big the NSA keep a 24 hour watch on it. :zoinks:
-
Not sure if you care for that perspective; comparing Europe as a continent to the US. Didn't bother comparing North America as a continent because the Canadians wouldn't add much to US totals anyway and their populations might sku the per capita results. The Europe table displays 3 instances in the last twenty years specific to the UK, compared to the previously stated US 62 which included school and work. The US population is approximately five times larger than the UK, so US spree killings occur three times as often in the US as Great Britain in particular, according to these tables. Even the twenty year familicide instances which fit spree killing criterias are statistically balanced between the US and Europe, though the UK specific entries total only 1. Wanted to say maybe you're right, and the British are culturally less likely to snap, but there doesn't appear to be any single European country that stands out as more or less the spree type. It's odd.
The UK has one mass shooting (4 or more victims dead) about once every ten years.
The UK has about 55 to 65 gun murders per year (that's about a months worth for the city of Chicago).
Last year the UK police shot dead a total of 2 people. And that was a bad year. Most years it's less.
I grant you that we're lucky in that we are surrounded by water and can make it difficult for people to import guns illegally.
editted to say...... If you really know the British you will know that we have a streak of evil insanity deep within our national culture. It is possible that the reason we don;t have guns is that we don;t know how to play nicely. I reckon if we were armed to the degree that the US is then we'd show you all what a murder rate was. I think our society would last a week at most before we either destroyed ourselves or our neighbours.
-
editted to say...... If you really know the British you will know that we have a streak of evil insanity deep within our national culture. It is possible that the reason we don;t have guns is that we don;t know how to play nicely. I reckon if we were armed to the degree that the US is then we'd show you all what a murder rate was. I think our society would last a week at most before we either destroyed ourselves or our neighbours.
That might not be correct. The UK shows a marked increase in homicide in the few years immediately after gun reform, with a mostly steady decline over the last dozen years, and is now equally comparable to rates at the time of gun reform in the mid 80's. Give it a few years and you might have that graph to post, but thus far it doesn't look like fewer guns really matter much for UK murder rates. Though it's difficult to look at it only from a perspective of guns. Misspoke before and US spree killings are four times higher than the UK, but US homicide rates in general are also about four times the UK. The US has seen a similar decline in homicide as the UK over the last fifteen years, and are also comparable to rates in the mid 80's. Maybe it's related to the techno boom and people are too tapped into their electronics to be bothered with murdering; couldn't say.
-
The high school I went to had an indoor shooting range under the theater where kids used to bring their guns to school for target practice. It was closed down due to lead contamination, not due to school shootings. Those didn't start happening until the mid 90's.
In my school it was compulsory to be an Army cadet from 14 years old and onwards. We had a range in the cellar that ran the length of the school where we'd fire the .22 rifles. One evening a week and some weekends we were bussed out in groups to a range were we would fire the .303s. A couple of times per term we went on weekend manouvres with whaever our parent unit was (mine was the Prince of Wales Regiment - light infantry) where we would use the 7.62mm FN semi-autos and would taught the niceties of the bayonet and such. Nights would be spent sitting in damp holes in the woods in ambush groups. As a result of all this my school put more officers into the British Army than any other.
It sounds more like the school provided guns rather that kids bringing their own guns.
We were taught what guns were for. They are for killing people. (And for stealing their countries, but that bits frowned upon these days.)
:fp: Guns are ALSO for hunting, recreation and self defense. ::)
Editted to say.... There are 700,000 licenced gun owners in Britain (I used to be one of them). To call us an unarmed society is incorrect.
I don't recall anyone making that claim in the first place.
We just don't have the same culture of ownership and tend to only rarely go ape shit in public with them. The question that needs to be addressed is why there is this American phenomena of the killing spree. And to be honest until both sides of the arguement sit down and talk about it properly it's going to keep happening.
It's a social problem that began to appear in the mid 90's. Prior to that, school shootings were extremely rare. Therefore, you have to look for a sociological cause, not blame it on guns.
-
http://www.vakkur.com/hx/guns/guns_kia_79_99.htm
-
It's a social problem that began to appear in the mid 90's. Prior to that, school shootings were extremely rare. Therefore, you have to look for a sociological cause, not blame it on guns.
If children were being beaten to death by sociological causes I'd be inclined to agree. But they get shot by guns. It's difficult not to include guns in the blame. As they are being shot. By guns. The link is about as direct as you can ever get.
-
http://www.vakkur.com/hx/guns/guns_kia_79_99.htm
Facts? Well you can prove anything with facts.
-
http://www.vakkur.com/hx/guns/guns_kia_79_99.htm
Facts? Well you can prove anything with facts.
I was especially fascinated by this:
1979 32,689
1980 33,477
1981 33,778
1982 32,682
1983 30,842
1984 31,078
1985 31,324
1986 33,126
1987 32,638
1988 33,757
1989 34,471
1990 36,866
1991 38,077
1992 37,474
1993 39,358
1994 38,187
1995 35,957
1996 33,750
1997 32,166
Clearly a social problem. :P
-
http://www.vakkur.com/hx/guns/guns_kia_79_99.htm
It's interesting to note that the majority of firearm deaths in America are due to suicide.
That's an argument in favor of guns since it makes suicide painless.
-
That a social problem, too?
-
It's a social problem that began to appear in the mid 90's. Prior to that, school shootings were extremely rare. Therefore, you have to look for a sociological cause, not blame it on guns.
If children were being beaten to death by sociological causes I'd be inclined to agree. But they get shot by guns. It's difficult not to include guns in the blame. As they are being shot. By guns. The link is about as direct as you can ever get.
:facepalm2: FFS, the guns were there BEFORE the rise in school shootings. Hell, in 1933 a 10 year old kid could walk down to a hardware store and buy a FULLY AUTOMATIC THOMPSON SUBMACHINE GUN! Was there a rash of school shootings back then?? no. :M
-
That a social problem, too?
Not as bad as the suicide rate in Sweden. :hahaha:
-
That a social problem, too?
Don't feed the troll
-
That a social problem, too?
Don't feed the troll
He's got a social problem.
-
That a social problem, too?
Not as bad as the suicide rate in Sweden. :hahaha:
His argument probably is that suicide rates would be far higher with guns.
-
http://www.vakkur.com/hx/guns/guns_kia_79_99.htm
Facts? Well you can prove anything with facts.
This is true. Though some facts can sometimes lead to intellectually dishonest conclusions. It's probably easy to prove US homicide rates are primarily a gender problem. Some people do a really good job of using facts to prove it's racial issue, and have seen it factually correlated specifically to drug trends. Some contend it's primarily socio-economic. It could be a single thing, a combination of things, or only cultural mindset.
-
That a social problem, too?
Not as bad as the suicide rate in Sweden. :hahaha:
Suicide rates according to Wiki here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate). Sweden and the USA very similar figures. Both twice the rate of Britain. Which to be honest suprises me. Have you ever experienced our weather? It's fucking depressing.
-
http://www.vakkur.com/hx/guns/guns_kia_79_99.htm
Facts? Well you can prove anything with facts.
I was especially fascinated by this:
1979 32,689
1980 33,477
1981 33,778
1982 32,682
1983 30,842
1984 31,078
1985 31,324
1986 33,126
1987 32,638
1988 33,757
1989 34,471
1990 36,866
1991 38,077
1992 37,474
1993 39,358
1994 38,187
1995 35,957
1996 33,750
1997 32,166
Clearly a social problem. :P
It was stealing an obscure quote.
-
I totally blame testosterone, because my dick is so big the Israelis and Palestinians are fighting over it. :zoinks:
-
That a social problem, too?
Not as bad as the suicide rate in Sweden. :hahaha:
Suicide rates according to Wiki here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate). Sweden and the USA very similar figures. Both twice the rate of Britain. Which to be honest suprises me. Have you ever experienced our weather? It's fucking depressing.
London is actually somewhat less depressing than Gothenburg, weather-wise.
-
That a social problem, too?
Not as bad as the suicide rate in Sweden. :hahaha:
Suicide rates according to Wiki here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate). Sweden and the USA very similar figures. Both twice the rate of Britain. Which to be honest suprises me. Have you ever experienced our weather? It's fucking depressing.
The high suicide rate in the US is a recent phenomenon and will likely drop in the next few years.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/health/us-suicide-rate-surges-to-a-30-year-high.html?_r=0
-
It's a social problem that began to appear in the mid 90's. Prior to that, school shootings were extremely rare. Therefore, you have to look for a sociological cause, not blame it on guns.
When I was in high school, most of the farm kids had a shotgun and a twenty two carbine hanging in the back of their pick up trucks.
Altercations were VERY common, but the idea to go out and bring back one of the guns they had at school just was not done.
You get into a fight it is going to be a FIST FIGHT.
I always carried a huge buck knife on my belt as did most guys and got into plenty of fights for looking like a hippie (I dressed like Hendrix in high school and had my hair as long as was allowed - we had a horrid dress code) but BEING a cowboy/redneck; fights with both sides of the question.
I never pulled my Buck out even though I could easily field dress a deer or a boar with it or fatally wound a human being and neither did either one else. (that shit was for Saturday night and turf wars - not for school)
There were plenty of guns in school, but something else has changed.
Maybe it is gaming to blame where you kill your enemy and hit reset and they get up and play all over again.
/simpleton analysis
Everything is just different these days!
:hair:
-
My dick is so big it violates zoning laws. :zoinks:
-
I'm betting the next major massacre will occur in France or Belgium, by Islamic terrorists, despite their strict gun control. :hahaha:
Does 8 dead count as major, or do we have to define major more precisely?
-
I'm betting the next major massacre will occur in France or Belgium, by Islamic terrorists, despite their strict gun control. :hahaha:
Does 8 dead count as major, or do we have to define major more precisely?
If your talking about Ohio I would not put that is the same category as a school or spree type shooting
-
I'm betting the next major massacre will occur in France or Belgium, by Islamic terrorists, despite their strict gun control. :hahaha:
Does 8 dead count as major, or do we have to define major more precisely?
If your talking about Ohio I would not put that is the same category as a school or spree type shooting
Do you not think that having so many incidents of multiple gun deaths that you feel the need to categorise them is not in some way indicative of having something of a problem?
-
I'm betting the next major massacre will occur in France or Belgium, by Islamic terrorists, despite their strict gun control. :hahaha:
Does 8 dead count as major, or do we have to define major more precisely?
If your talking about Ohio I would not put that is the same category as a school or spree type shooting
Do you not think that having so many incidents of multiple gun deaths that you feel the need to categorise them is not in some way indicative of having something of a problem?
I categorize everything so I don't view doing that is indicative of anything other than my OCD tendencies. I feel the problem is more along the lines of people thinking that violent behavior is a way to solve their problems guns just happen to be convenient. Until peoples attitudes towards violence change things like this will still happen guns or no guns.
-
Homicide circumstances are categorized, sub-categorized, sub-sub-categorized, cross referenced and sub-cross referenced, and pivoted for analysis in a multitude of ways. This is why people are able to prove multiple causations, focus on the data sets they find most applicable to their own viewpoint, and they can all be perfectly correct in some way according to the numbers while having different answers and never agreeing. Agree with parts that cultural attitudes are too easily dismissed as it leaves the debate lacking numbers. US culture has both state sanctioned and citizen sanctioned homicide rights which are not necessarily present in all other cultures, when it is not only legal but socially acceptable to kill people. Even within an illegal context, there are circumstances when the general public, or subsets within the public, will find circumstances of homicide to not only be justified but also just. These cultural justifications have a broad rage from protective, racial, economic, and political.
-
So gun deaths are caused by many number of things but not the easy availability of guns...
-
Found that graph yet? Seriously, personally would prefer to be on your side of the debate, but there's nothing to be found which directly connects the availability of firearms to homicide rates in any logical way. If so, the US would by far have the highest homicide rates in the world. Frankly, the only valid homicide argument ever seen based in reliable data is an economic debate. The only one that ever came close to economics is a racial debate, but it's hard to debate race without considering economics so tend to view racial crime stats as crap too. Personally view certain cultures as simply having more respect for human life than other cultures. That's actually a more harsh indictment than focusing on a country's weapons of choice, but have to consider it's more likely to be true.
-
So gun deaths are caused by many number of things but not the easy availability of guns...
Even if you were to illegalize them here in the US, they would still be easy to get because a thriving black market would appear, just like it did with the prohibition of alcohol.
We have a very porous border with Mexico and there's machinists like me who could make guns out of their garage.
-
There is one thing I have a theory might well have a lot to do with it.
The fact that we live in a tyranny, or at best, a fascist govt in anything but name. Those who wish to retain a stranglehold on power, do not, usually, have a very welcoming view on outside forces having such a force multiplier. It could be used against them far too easily. Treat people like idiots, rob them blind, and then ask them to believe its for our own good? that isn't really what I'd think of as a winning strategy in a popularity contest. Act like a prick, someone, somewhere is going to REALIZE your a prick. And act accordingly.'they' in this context, meaning government. heck you don't really need to, someone somewhere is going to hate you, no matter what. You can't please everybody, all the time, especially when said everybody have a large number of widely differing views as to what constitutes prickdom.
But its backfired really I think. No pun intended. Because when owning a firearm, with no regard to its end use by the owner, simple uncomplicated ownership, is 'criminal' then
ONLY the criminal elements will have guns. Not the white collar crooks, but the vicious, bloodthirsty thugs who will USE them against people. owned several in the past, does it equate to having used them in the comission of murder or robbery? no. It doesn't. In this case, its equated to putting dinner on the table sometimes, when otherwise there would have been a bare table for the next month.
I mean by criminal elements, the thug wannabes, eastern european gangsters, ragheads on the rampage. Whilst old ladies who's (quite unaware of) now dead husband's antiqeu service revolver from WWII get taken to court and threatened with or sent to prison because it was found by filth in a drawer? not only that but threatened with a decade inside PER ROUND, in addition to penalty for the gun having been there? does that sound like justice to anyone? I remember reading about that case, in the paper a whlie back.some OAP lady got busted, dragged through the courts, and left with a record because of that. All because their husband retained their service revolver (question-weren't they GIVEN to british officers who had seen their service out?) and been so inconsiderate of jonny law and the govt as to die without handing it in.
And it more or less makes certain that any incident like the paris attacks, or the recent incident in belgium WILL end up as a bloodbath, because there is almost certain to be nobody packing. Meanwhile the gangbangers without either the contacts to buy a gun, or sufficient skills to go and build something a bit more....high-tech than a powder-based firearm, like PIKLs/PEPs, ECT guns, coil/rail based gauss weapons, chemical munitions, that kind of thing go out and shank some innocent party for their wallet.
If you AREN'T a thug, then there is much much less chance to begin with that the owner of a firearm will use it in such a way, or indeed, use violence at all, outside the realms of either self defense against such a threat or hunting. To whit, how many poncy toff bellends do you see switching from grouse hunting to predator sport hunting for human skulls? If that weren't true then everyone has access to knives here, and pretty much everywhere else, but you don't see people of good nature, engaging in that sort of behaviour BECAUSE they are not of a violent thuggish nature. I've only ever once drawn a blade in anger against someone, and even then, it was used to disarm the katana being swung my way, and it was my FIST, not my blade, that then got used to put the one wielding the other sword down.Dropped with a punch in the face, not sliced to pieces.or stabbed, although of course I could have chosen to were that my nature or inclination. It isn't, so it wasn't. I expect this is a generality rather than a personal character trait applicably to myself only.
-
Frankly, the only valid homicide argument ever seen based in reliable data is an economic debate.
Actually, the only statistic that I've heard of that is linked to crime is abortion rates. As abortion rates go up, crime goes down.
That was discovered by the economists who wrote the book Freakonomics.
-
Haven't ever seen that about abortion rates. There's definitely government stats available linking crime to income levels, and within the context of non-lethal violent crime, income analysis appears to discredit the racial debate.
-
Other that pro-lifers bombing up abortion clinics:P
But hey, it does make sense (what pappy said, not blowing up abortion clinics I mean) sort of at least. But those that get aborted as a foetus don't typically go on many crime sprees.
-
I blame the poor people, because my dick is so big it only tips hundred dollar bills. :zoinks:
-
So gun deaths are caused by many number of things but not the easy availability of guns...
Even if you were to illegalize them here in the US, they would still be easy to get because a thriving black market would appear, just like it did with the prohibition of alcohol.
We have a very porous border with Mexico and there's machinists like me who could make guns out of their garage.
The idea of accessibility sounds really good in theory, and makes sense because fewer guns must mean fewer gun related killings; that sounds good. However when looking at UK stats for firearm related homicide rates, those graphs look similar to the general homicide graphs. It would appear fewer guns not only hasn't improved the homicide rate, but also hasn't improved gun related homicide rates. Though to be fair, can only find UK gun homicide stats which date to 2011 so maybe there's something in the last few years am not seeing which has some notable variation to the homicide rates as a whole.
-
Found that graph yet? Seriously, personally would prefer to be on your side of the debate, but there's nothing to be found which directly connects the availability of firearms to homicide rates in any logical way.
Does this count?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828709/
-
No. FourAceDeal said the proof gun control works, is every other Western civilization with gun control.
-
Without guns people resort to other ways and the casualties can still be very high. Happy Land fire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire) show what a little container of gasoline will do, 87 dead :zombiefuck:
-
US homicide rates not related to guns are still higher than homicide rates in the UK.
-
Just found this and thought it would fit the thread nicely The Mistake of Only Comparing US Murder Rates to "Developed" Countries (https://mises.org/blog/mistake-only-comparing-us-murder-rates-developed-countries)
-
Just found this and thought it would fit the thread nicely The Mistake of Only Comparing US Murder Rates to "Developed" Countries (https://mises.org/blog/mistake-only-comparing-us-murder-rates-developed-countries)
Really have no problem with comparing the US to other western countries, but the article has a fair point that it's a rather holier-than-thou attitude to take when discussing the morality based topic of murder, as if the citizens of poor less industrialized nations lack some human capacity for morality because of their economic status. Mentioned before of finding economic correlation to crime to be the most valid when analyzing data, but it does in fact imply poor people are more prone to violence. That's why preferring to view murder as more likely related to cultural standards, and the manner of killing which is deemed as acceptable in a given society.
-
US homicide rates not related to guns are still higher than homicide rates in the UK.
IF you were so weak as to not know how to use a weapon of any kind, while a HUGE cross section of the population can well defend themselves even with sticks and sling shots and garden tools, why would you NOT end your own life?
I could invite every one of them to a seminar where I teach them how to defend "oneself" with a garden rake or a spatula or a book or a pen or any small tool in hand or how to make anything nearby into a nearly deadly weapon.
Otherwise they can face the music.
:viking:
(OK, maybe it would be a little of a stretch to turn a book into a deadly weapon, especially a paperback, but knowing that you can use the spine of even a paperback to stun significantly an attacker while you make your getaway is kind of important thing to know. And a pen is nothing short of absolutely deadly, if you are threatened.)
-
Found that graph yet? Seriously, personally would prefer to be on your side of the debate, but there's nothing to be found which directly connects the availability of firearms to homicide rates in any logical way.
Does this count?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828709/
2 problems with this. First, even the researchers themselves admit that there is merely a correlation and they can't establish a link between the two. And second, they only include firearm homicides and they don't compare them to overall homicide rates. It's entirely possible that homicide rates remained the same and the availability of firearms merely changed the preferred murder weapon.
-
Just found this and thought it would fit the thread nicely The Mistake of Only Comparing US Murder Rates to "Developed" Countries (https://mises.org/blog/mistake-only-comparing-us-murder-rates-developed-countries)
:thumbup: This puts the nail in the coffin of the argument that other "developed" countries with restrictive gun laws have lower murder rates as a result.
-
Found that graph yet? Seriously, personally would prefer to be on your side of the debate, but there's nothing to be found which directly connects the availability of firearms to homicide rates in any logical way.
Does this count?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828709/
2 problems with this. First, even the researchers themselves admit that there is merely a correlation and they can't establish a link between the two. And second, they only include firearm homicides and they don't compare them to overall homicide rates. It's entirely possible that homicide rates remained the same and the availability of firearms merely changed the preferred murder weapon.
It's a very comprehensive study and has huge potential to serve as a good example for the argument that fewer guns equals fewer gun related homicides; a much better example than other Western countries where gun reform has taken place. However you're right that they do not attempt to analyze this data alongside general homicide rates. That's really a shame because the study is so otherwise detailed and spanning thirty years, though it may only serve to prove that gun related homicides do in fact involve a gun, and guns are the preferred weapon for murders who have a gun.
-
2 problems with this. First, even the researchers themselves admit that there is merely a correlation and they can't establish a link between the two.
It's not really a problem with the study, and a sign of fairness that they do. In the last decade the number of US citizens with open and concealed carry permits has nearly tripled, and pro-gun proponents don't mind charting that data alongside declining US murder rates. Those same people would say fewer guns caused the murder spike in the UK post pro-gun reform because citizens were defenseless; have even seen that viewpoint on this very forum. It's all a bunch of nonsense from both sides of the argument, and people are too stuck applying numbers to emotions to accept it's entirely possible guns don't really make anything better or worse. There's nothing that can explain how US homicide rates have reached a fifty year low over the last fifteen years, other than a cultural shift; that's why Jack previously credited technology. Should I find a graph? :laugh:
-
I'm so glad this thread is still going. Thanks for bumping this one, Pappy, I guess it's not really dead after all. :thumbup:
My dick is so big it has a commemorative stamp. :zoinks:
-
Even I'm getting tired of the dick jokes. :yawn:
-
Even I'm getting tired of the dick jokes. :yawn:
:agreed: It was great at first but would totally be more fun if someone were playing with me with comebacks how my dick is so small. :emosad:
-
You'e just being a dick. :M
-
You mean a colossal dick, right? :zoinks:
-
^^ yer dick is so small you could fuck a Cheerio.
-
^^ yer dick is so small you could fuck a Cheerio.
... so small you could make a ponytail of it using a Cheerio as a scrunchie. :trollskull:
-
What dick? I don't see any dick.
-
you need a microscope to see it. :zoinks:
-
An electron microscope?
-
Those things burn up the stuff they study.
-
What is there to burn up?
-
Not much. :zoinks:
-
Looks like the pro-gun side won this one. :litigious:
-
Even I'm getting tired of the dick jokes. :yawn:
Maybe, but his dick's dick being bigger was pretty good comedy.
:headbang2:
-
Those things burn up the stuff they study.
... and your problem would be?
-
Looks like the pro-gun side won this one. :litigious:
Hey, I like guns. I actually own one.
Not sure what pro-gun means, though.
-
Aw shucks, I really do love you guys. :lol1:
Maybe, but his dick's dick being bigger was pretty good comedy.
:headbang2:
I stole most of that crap from Drew Carey, but yeah it's pretty funny. :agreed:
Looks like the pro-gun side won this one. :litigious:
I think Jack just wanted to prove violent video games reduce homicide. :zoinks:
-
Because we can.
-
Looks like the pro-gun side won this one. :litigious:
I think the pro-dick side won it. :M
-
Aw shucks, I really do love you guys. :lol1:
Maybe, but his dick's dick being bigger was pretty good comedy.
:headbang2:
I stole most of that crap from Drew Carey, but yeah it's pretty funny. :agreed:
Looks like the pro-gun side won this one. :litigious:
I think Jack just wanted to prove violent video games reduce homicide. :zoinks:
Can you or this "Jack" person that everyone else seems to know, provide any evidence that such a statement can possibly be true?
I also can not offer any proof that these horrid sit down games "cause" anything at all other than obesity and a lack of self esteem.
That is already out there for us all to worry about, but since I actually go outside from time to time and shoot REAL GUNS at REAL TARGETS and spend time cleaning them afterwards, I feel that my obesity and lowered self esteem may be put off a bit while I continue to exercise and work my hand-eye coordination to a result that IS provable.
DO not get me wrong, I love a good shooter game for about twenty or so minutes, but I really want to go out and do the real thing. OK, we do not have volunteer live targets, but it will amaze you when you try, A paper target that resembles your boss can be very satisfying to blow the shit out of!!
... in real life.
-
I think Jack just wanted to prove violent video games reduce homicide.
Can you or this "Jack" person that everyone else seems to know, provide any evidence that such a statement can possibly be true?
That was a joke. Jack pointed out US homicide rates have reached a fifty year low over the past fifteen years, and the reasonable explanation for that decline is a cultural shift, mainly the proliferation of personal tech devices in general, not specific to video games or any particular genre. However, if you would like to see graphs displaying side-by-side stats for increasing video game sales compared to decreasing violent crime rates, they do exist. Most of those graphs are specific to youth violent crime and they probably aren't intended to show video games reduce crime, but rather used to discredit people who claim video games make children more violent.
-
Looks like the pro-gun side won this one. :litigious:
I think the pro-dick side won it. :M
My dick is so big because it's made of win. :zoinks:
-
Its not going to appear so big if it were used in a non-toddler or preteen. Or family dog.
And if you were some day ever to pull the tampon out of your ass, so it stops pushing on your prostate from behind, there'd be less force acting to push your 'dick' outwards, causing it to atrophy yet further :P
Quote-gopher gayry: ''my dick is made of THin''
Fixed ^
-
This thread is full of the very best kind of win :autism:
-
Of course it is. I posted, did I not?
-
Looks like the pro-gun side won this one. :litigious:
And you win first prize, which is 40,000 gun casualties in 2015 alone. Congratulations. You must be so proud of yourself.
So how does it feel to have a murder so very much higher than other western countries? Please describe how superior it makes you feel? I would very much like to understand your thinking.
-
Looks like the pro-gun side won this one. :litigious:
And you win first prize, which is 40,000 gun casualties in 2015 alone.
The majority of which are suicides.
So how does it feel to have a murder so very much higher than other western countries? Please describe how superior it makes you feel? I would very much like to understand your thinking.
Apparently you had your fingers stuck in your ears when it was explained to you why you can't compare the US to western Europe.
-
Looks like the pro-gun side won this one. :litigious:
And you win first prize, which is 40,000 gun casualties in 2015 alone. Congratulations. You must be so proud of yourself.
So how does it feel to have a murder so very much higher than other western countries? Please describe how superior it makes you feel? I would very much like to understand your thinking.
Thinking this may be the first time participating in a gun debate; that's interesting. Statistics are interesting. You're interesting. This topic really isn't. Maybe later you and I can find something else.
-
Thinking this may be the first time participating in a gun debate; that's interesting.
Stick around. It's a twice monthly tradition around here ;)
-
I support the gun laws in Australia.
I also support gun laws in America.
-
Looks like the pro-gun side won this one. :litigious:
And you win first prize, which is 40,000 gun casualties in 2015 alone.
The majority of which are suicides.
So how does it feel to have a murder so very much higher than other western countries? Please describe how superior it makes you feel? I would very much like to understand your thinking.
Apparently you had your fingers stuck in your ears when it was explained to you why you can't compare the US to western Europe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0ELuyJ12D4
You have a lot in common with Charlton Heston.
-
Thinking this may be the first time participating in a gun debate; that's interesting.
Stick around. It's a twice monthly tradition around here ;)
Have noticed. Trying to bond with the new member.
-
Aren't you using the wrong account for that?? :orly:
-
No.
-
Looks like the pro-gun side won this one. :litigious:
And you win first prize, which is 40,000 gun casualties in 2015 alone.
The majority of which are suicides.
So how does it feel to have a murder so very much higher than other western countries? Please describe how superior it makes you feel? I would very much like to understand your thinking.
Apparently you had your fingers stuck in your ears when it was explained to you why you can't compare the US to western Europe.
I can see the Us figures for 2015. I can see the UK figures for 2015. I am a reasoning adult capable of basic mathematics. Why can't I compare them?
-
I can see the Us figures for 2015. I can see the UK figures for 2015. I am a reasoning adult capable of basic mathematics. Why can't I compare them?
Apparently you had your fingers stuck in your ears when it was explained to you why you can't compare the US to western Europe.
The raw numbers don't explain the sociological factors behind them, FFS. :facepalm2:
-
The raw numbers don't explain the sociological factors behind them, FFS. :facepalm2:
The sociological factors are very interesting to consider. US homicide rates differ dramatically by age, with the highest rates among ages 20-30. Homicide drops dramatically at age 40, and at that same age suicide rates begin to take over, with adults 45-60 equally suicidal as the young are murderous. While homicide has dramatically decreased to less than half the rates in 1990, US suicide rates have seen similar dramatic increase over the past two decades. When considering age, one could contemplate the young adult generation after then end of the Vietnam war and the age they are now today, and conclude the baby boomers are a sociologically damaged generation.
-
The raw numbers don't explain the sociological factors behind them, FFS. :facepalm2:
The sociological factors are very interesting to consider. US homicide rates differ dramatically by age, with the highest rates among ages 20-30. Homicide drops dramatically at age 40, and at that same age suicide rates begin to take over, with adults 45-60 equally suicidal as the young are murderous. While homicide has dramatically decreased to less than half the rates in 1990, US suicide rates have seen similar dramatic increase over the past two decades. When considering age, one could contemplate the young adult generation after then end of the Vietnam war and the age they are now today, and conclude the baby boomers are a sociologically damaged generation.
It's easy to look at US homicide rates over time, and wonder what happened from 1970 to 1990, and easy to look at suicide rates for the last fifteen years and wonder what is happening now. It's doesn't seem so difficult to understand when one considers who are these people.
-
The raw numbers don't explain the sociological factors behind them, FFS. :facepalm2:
The sociological factors are very interesting to consider.
I wonder if there's a difference in the homicide rates for African immigrants and "native" blacks.
-
Apparently you had your fingers stuck in your ears when it was explained to you why you can't compare the US to western Europe.
Still not sure about this stance. The US is so historically and culturally different, one would have to claim the US can't be compared to any country at all, and that's not helpful. Though it is fair to say it's equally acceptable to compare western countries to other regions, as it is to only compare the western world to itself.
I am a reasoning adult capable of basic mathematics.
Interesting since the mathematics of UK homicide rates, gun related homicides, and gun crime in general don't support your claims. You also seem to be suggesting a weapon can somehow change a person into a murderer.
-
The raw numbers don't explain the sociological factors behind them, FFS. :facepalm2:
The sociological factors are very interesting to consider.
I wonder if there's a difference in the homicide rates for African immigrants and "native" blacks.
Not sure if race matters, much less immigrant race compared to native born of the same race. Crime analysis considering only race is easily discredited when economics is entered into the equation. Government violent crime stats by income show poor whites and poor black rates are so statistically close to be considered equal, and poor Hispanics are the less violent. There are no government stats specific to only Homicide which analyze both income and race. Though violent crime rates and homicide rates tend to mirror each other, so not sure if much difference can be assumed from that lack of study.
-
Government violent crime stats by income show poor whites and poor black rates are so statistically close to be considered equal, and poor Hispanics are the less violent.
Links??
-
Government violent crime stats by income show poor whites and poor black rates are so statistically close to be considered equal, and poor Hispanics are the less violent.
Links??
Sure. Underneath the highlights, there's a .pdf link for the full report.
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5137
For the period 2008–12—
Persons in poor households at or below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) (39.8 per 1,000) had more than double the rate of violent victimization as persons in high-income households (16.9 per 1,000).
Persons in poor households had a higher rate of violence involving a firearm (3.5 per 1,000) compared to persons above the FPL (0.8–2.5 per 1,000).
The overall pattern of poor persons having the highest rates of violent victimization was consistent for both whites and blacks. However, the rate of violent victimization for Hispanics did not vary across poverty levels.
Poor Hispanics (25.3 per 1,000) had lower rates of violence compared to poor whites (46.4 per 1,000) and poor blacks (43.4 per 1,000).
Poor persons living in urban areas (43.9 per 1,000) had violent victimization rates similar to poor persons living in rural areas (38.8 per 1,000).
Poor urban blacks (51.3 per 1,000) had rates of violence similar to poor urban whites (56.4 per 1,000).
-
Before you criticize it, already know the flaws, but it's the only government sourced study. There's lots of independent studies for sociological correlations to crime rates, education levels, religion, climate, race, religion, substance abuse; pick a reason. Not saying any one is correct. The only single factor which stands out above and beyond any other factor, is gender, and that can be consistently applied on a global scale. That could definitely be sociological. If wanting to stick to the race topic and consider genetics, studies for testosterone levels have also been correlated to crime for both males and females.
-
Not going to watch any Michael Moore propaganda. :M
Your choice, but your reasoning still reminds me of Charlton Heston's in that clip.
-
Apparently you had your fingers stuck in your ears when it was explained to you why you can't compare the US to western Europe.
Still not sure about this stance. The US is so historically and culturally different, one would have to claim the US can't be compared to any country at all, and that's not helpful. Though it is fair to say it's equally acceptable to compare western countries to other regions, as it is to only compare the western world to itself.
I'd say it's pretty much a bullshit claim, very effectively shot down by Michael Moore in the clip I linked to.
I am a reasoning adult capable of basic mathematics.
Interesting since the mathematics of UK homicide rates, gun related homicides, and gun crime in general don't support your claims. You also seem to be suggesting a weapon can somehow change a person into a murderer.
It's a lot harder to kill if you don't have access to weapons. This is a fact used by many governments to prevent gun-related violence.
There is a degree of blind desperation that I find fascinating to watch when the pro-gun folks defend their views. It can't be the guns, it must be sociological, it must be because we're so different from everyone else. Anything but the guns.
-
It's a lot harder to kill if you don't have access to weapons. This is a fact used by many governments to prevent gun-related violence.
Is it really a fact? If so, does harder prove less likely?
There is a degree of blind desperation that I find fascinating to watch when the pro-gun folks defend their views. It can't be the guns, it must be sociological, it must be because we're so different from everyone else. Anything but the guns
Do I really come across as blindly desperate in this conversation? Tend to find the most irritating comments about guns to be statements of fact which aren't actually facts. Am not denying facts, making up facts, or claiming things to be facts unsupported. Neither of the sociological suggestions made to explain US declining homicide are illogical, and don't believe that decline can be attributed to the 5% of the population roaming around with concealed guns. There is no middle road to take in a gun debate; am pro-gun simply due to not being anti-gun. Personally have no want for one. Crime studies are sociological studies and are they are still sociological studies when considering guns. See nothing desperate about discussing why people are killers; some people seem to believe weapons are why people are killers and it simply must be the guns; don't see them as desperate, but happen to disagree. One way the US does stand out above the world in homicide is serial killers, not only statistically but also documented cases greater than the rest of combined, and people don't mind viewing them as a sociological phenomenon of the US, maybe because serial killers don't predominantly use guns. Is it so far fetched to be called desperation, to consider it's more likely there's something cultural other than the presence of guns which makes US citizens more violent than other western nations, and what ever that might be it's changing dramatically? Even when the US is still more murderous and violent when omitting all instances of guns? Not saying I know the right answer, but other people can't seem to show me they know the right answer either, and it's not because am stubborn about it. Do believe guns are dangerous and gun safety is very important, but this discussion hasn't been about safety. If it were, some people might not appreciate my stance on personal safety laws either.
-
It's a lot harder to kill if you don't have access to weapons. This is a fact used by many governments to prevent gun-related violence.
It's somewhat difficult, even only within the context of the US to prove gun control is effective for murder rates, because homicide rates are declining nation wide and gun homicide declining along with them. The US has very few national laws regulating guns, and individual states can vary with laws stricter than the national level. There have been instances when a single state enacted stricter gun control laws, and boast their homicide rates have amazingly decreased within a decade. However the US experienced the same decline on a national scale. Both sides of the topic are easy to argue, by not focusing on the weapon but rather with sociological reasonings, and it's disappointing no one in this conversation has offered sensible factual based arguments in favor of gun control. Anti-gun means supporting legislation which prevents sane law-abiding citizens from owning a gun, so that makes me pro-gun. Though pro-gun doesn't necessarily mean anti-gun control. Would you prefer if I instead argued in favor of US gun control, since no one else has effectively done it? The US has enacted federal gun control laws, not by focusing on the number of guns in the US but rather taking a sociological look at who is doing the killing. In 1993 the Brady Act was adopted for handguns and extended to long guns in 1997. While this act may not be completely effective, statistics show background checks to have been highly effective by preventing the legal sale of firearms to convicted criminals, people with warrants, people with known substance abuse issues, perpetrators of domestic violence, and illegal aliens. Since 1993 US homicide rates and gun related crime rates have dropped over 50%. One might argue, the US already has gun control, the US has the gun control it needs, and it's effective because the facts show it's working, with national laws based in sociological reasoning and without denying the constitutional rights of the entire law abiding population. There's undeniable numbers to prove it, and it sounds really good right? Did I win? Personally have trouble agreeing with that analysis, because homicide rates and violent crime rates not related to guns have seen the same 50% decline and gun control can't explain that.
-
There should be logical tests on people eligible to own guns, have pets and have children.
We have people in the UK throwing thousands of knives away to stop knife crime, which is mentally retarded when they can go straight back and buy more from Waitrose. People are the problem, it's time we realise that.
-
It's a lot harder to kill if you don't have access to weapons. This is a fact used by many governments to prevent gun-related violence.
Is it really a fact? If so, does harder prove less likely?
If it is a lot harder to kill without guns (which I'd think is pretty obvious), I'd say it's also less likely since killing without an obvious and easy way is messy and would require a lot more from the would-be murderer.
There is a degree of blind desperation that I find fascinating to watch when the pro-gun folks defend their views. It can't be the guns, it must be sociological, it must be because we're so different from everyone else. Anything but the guns
Do I really come across as blindly desperate in this conversation? Tend to find the most irritating comments about guns to be statements of fact which aren't actually facts. Am not denying facts, making up facts, or claiming things to be facts unsupported. Neither of the sociological suggestions made to explain US declining homicide are illogical, and don't believe that decline can be attributed to the 5% of the population roaming around with concealed guns. There is no middle road to take in a gun debate; am pro-gun simply due to not being anti-gun. Personally have no want for one. Crime studies are sociological studies and are they are still sociological studies when considering guns. See nothing desperate about discussing why people are killers; some people seem to believe weapons are why people are killers and it simply must be the guns; don't see them as desperate, but happen to disagree. One way the US does stand out above the world in homicide is serial killers, not only statistically but also documented cases greater than the rest of combined, and people don't mind viewing them as a sociological phenomenon of the US, maybe because serial killers don't predominantly use guns. Is it so far fetched to be called desperation, to consider it's more likely there's something cultural other than the presence of guns which makes US citizens more violent than other western nations, and what ever that might be it's changing dramatically? Even when the US is still more murderous and violent when omitting all instances of guns? Not saying I know the right answer, but other people can't seem to show me they know the right answer either, and it's not because am stubborn about it. Do believe guns are dangerous and gun safety is very important, but this discussion hasn't been about safety. If it were, some people might not appreciate my stance on personal safety laws either.
You don't but quite a few people do come off as kind of desperate when trying to explain away the statistics. The discussion is polarised, yes, but I don't see the kind of desperation from those opposing guns.
-
If it is a lot harder to kill without guns (which I'd think is pretty obvious), I'd say it's also less likely since killing without an obvious and easy way is messy and would require a lot more from the would-be murderer.
Then what do you think happened in the UK, something cultural not related to guns? Genuinely not saying that in a provoking or snarky way, but really curious what's the take on it for people there. Thirty years is long enough to shape a generation, and that's a long time on a backwards effect road to only end up in the same statistical position where things started.
You don't but quite a few people do come off as kind of desperate when trying to explain away the statistics. The discussion is polarised, yes, but I don't see the kind of desperation from those opposing guns.
Personally see it from both sides, but don't consider it desperation, rather nonsense at either end of the pole. People who claim guns prevent crime, are equally absurd as people who claim guns cause crime. They're both denying statistics, but that's not the reason they're claims seem absurd. The statistics can equally be used to support or discredit either side, because none of them offer reasonable answers. Anyway, going to step out of this one. Have already had years of opportunity to discuss guns with you and Pappy and somehow managed to miss that boat, and the new member was really my only inspiration to this topic. The quantity of language expressed has been outside of my comfort zone, and the minimal response makes that regrettable in an anxious way, so my appreciation to you and Pappy anyway. Though do answer the question above if you don't mind; not looking to argue or discuss it but am interested to know. Maybe the new member might answer it too.
-
Really well said Jack.
-
If it is a lot harder to kill without guns (which I'd think is pretty obvious), I'd say it's also less likely since killing without an obvious and easy way is messy and would require a lot more from the would-be murderer.
Then what do you think happened in the UK, something cultural not related to guns? Genuinely not saying that in a provoking or snarky way, but really curious what's the take on it for people there. Thirty years is long enough to shape a generation, and that's a long time on a backwards effect road to only end up in the same statistical position where things started.
I honestly don't know, and I don't claim to know.
You don't but quite a few people do come off as kind of desperate when trying to explain away the statistics. The discussion is polarised, yes, but I don't see the kind of desperation from those opposing guns.
Personally see it from both sides, but don't consider it desperation, rather nonsense at either end of the pole. People who claim guns prevent crime, are equally absurd as people who claim guns cause crime. They're both denying statistics, but that's not the reason they're claims seem absurd. The statistics can equally be used to support or discredit either side, because none of them offer reasonable answers. Anyway, going to step out of this one. Have already had years of opportunity to discuss guns with you and Pappy and somehow managed to miss that boat, and the new member was really my only inspiration to this topic. The quantity of language expressed has been outside of my comfort zone, and the minimal response makes that regrettable in an anxious way, so my appreciation to you and Pappy anyway. Though do answer the question above if you don't mind; not looking to argue or discuss it but am interested to know. Maybe the new member might answer it too.
I would if I could, but I don't have an answer.
What is it that they say about statistics and damned lies? I think you can prove just about anything with statistics.
-
Interesting since the mathematics of UK homicide rates, gun related homicides, and gun crime in general don't support your claims. You also seem to be suggesting a weapon can somehow change a person into a murderer.
In what way do the maths not support my claims? (Whatever you perceived "my claims" to be).
And yes a weapon does effect whether a person can be a murderer. It is basic psychology. A gun depersonalises the act of killing to the point where it is almost a button press. A knife is far more up close and personal and requires the motivational bar to be somewhat higher. I think the lack of Drive-by stranglings make this point fairly obvious.
-
There should be logical tests on people eligible to own guns, have pets and have children.
We have people in the UK throwing thousands of knives away to stop knife crime, which is mentally retarded when they can go straight back and buy more from Waitrose. People are the problem, it's time we realise that.
I think it's a conspiracy to force up sales by the big knife companies and the sheffield mafia.
-
You don't but quite a few people do come off as kind of desperate when trying to explain away the statistics. The discussion is polarised, yes, but I don't see the kind of desperation from those opposing guns.
Agree. It's not desperation. I laugh my guts up at gun lobbyists. My kids are safe. At the end of the day I don't give a flying f*ck if Americans have guns, grenades or any other armament. The only thing that pisses me off is the way they pervert maths and statistics to prove that it makes them safer. Murder each other, but leave logic alone.
-
In what way do the maths not support my claims? (Whatever you perceived "my claims" to be).
Have perceived your claims to be what's been claimed, lax gun laws equal more murder, the proof gun control works is any other western country with gun control, and weapons create murderers. The UK National Archives site data for homicide trends show thirty years of gun control hasn't proved effective for homicide rates. The National Archives site doesn't provide data trends specific to method, and it's difficult as an outsider to know what a UK citizen considers as a reliable data source from their own country, so will withdraw the statement that gun control also hasn't improved gun homicide or gun related crimes over the same thirty years. Though it's not really my responsibility do disprove your claims in this discussion; the onus is on you to show me they are true. Have only requested from you, the claim of any other western country with gun control. Even I was able to show gun control works, using the US as an example.
leave logic alone.
No. Jack's purpose is logic. Mentioned earlier, personally would prefer to be on your side of the discussion, but logic wont allow me to do it. The anti-gun stance is largely an emotional stance. Guns are dangerous, gun are scary, and a madman wielding a gun is probably the most dangerous and scary sort of madman there is except for one with a bomb, so anti-gun just feels like common sense. Many people are anti-gun for emotional reasoning and it's completely understandable. Personally am not anti-gun because of logic, but am pro-gun for emotional reasons. That emotion is based in nationalistic attitudes and personal appreciation for the founding principles of the United States.
-
Okay, this thread is too long and too complicated for me to do more than skim (and selectively ignore.)
However, even if gun laws are strengthened, changes/improvements won't come overnight. Simply tightening the gun purchase requirements won't get the guns out of the hands and homes of the owners who no longer qualify. In any case it wouldn't stop anyone who is bound and determined to own a gun.
That said, I support more restrictive gun ownership laws. What they may be I leave to more organized minds that mine.
-
The anti-gun stance is largely an emotional stance. Guns are dangerous, gun are scary, and a madman wielding a gun is probably the most dangerous and scary sort of madman there is except for one with a bomb, so anti-gun just feels like common sense. Many people are anti-gun for emotional reasoning and it's completely understandable. Personally am not anti-gun because of logic, but am pro-gun for emotional reasons. That emotion is based in nationalistic attitudes and personal appreciation for the founding principles of the United States.
Sorry, Jack, but I completely disagree with this. The anti-gun stance, to me, is pure logic. Getting rid of a device that was largely designed to kill people with makes perfect sense to me in a society claiming itself to be civilised.
The pro-gun stance, on the other hand, seems to be largely an emotional one, for the reasons you stated.
-
The anti-gun stance is largely an emotional stance. Guns are dangerous, gun are scary, and a madman wielding a gun is probably the most dangerous and scary sort of madman there is except for one with a bomb, so anti-gun just feels like common sense. Many people are anti-gun for emotional reasoning and it's completely understandable. Personally am not anti-gun because of logic, but am pro-gun for emotional reasons. That emotion is based in nationalistic attitudes and personal appreciation for the founding principles of the United States.
Sorry, Jack, but I completely disagree with this. The anti-gun stance, to me, is pure logic. Getting rid of a device that was largely designed to kill people with makes perfect sense to me in a society claiming itself to be civilised.
The pro-gun stance, on the other hand, seems to be largely an emotional one, for the reasons you stated.
No need for apology. Don't claim to know the right answer, and don't mind being wrong. This is two different statements. One stating it's logical; the other stating it's sensible. Even I can acknowledge guns are dangerous so it's not difficult to see how prudence can dictate an anti-gun stance, but no, logic is based in validity and it hasn't been quantified with logic. That's not to say it's impossible to, nor will never be, but rather it simply isn't.
-
The anti-gun stance is largely an emotional stance. Guns are dangerous, gun are scary, and a madman wielding a gun is probably the most dangerous and scary sort of madman there is except for one with a bomb, so anti-gun just feels like common sense. Many people are anti-gun for emotional reasoning and it's completely understandable. Personally am not anti-gun because of logic, but am pro-gun for emotional reasons. That emotion is based in nationalistic attitudes and personal appreciation for the founding principles of the United States.
Sorry, Jack, but I completely disagree with this. The anti-gun stance, to me, is pure logic. Getting rid of a device that was largely designed to kill people with makes perfect sense to me in a society claiming itself to be civilised.
The pro-gun stance, on the other hand, seems to be largely an emotional one, for the reasons you stated.
No need for apology. Don't claim to know the right answer, and don't mind being wrong. This is two different statements. One stating it's logical; the other stating it's sensible. Even I can acknowledge guns are dangerous so it's not difficult to see how prudence can dictate an anti-gun stance, but no, logic is based in validity and it hasn't been quantified with logic. That's not to say it's impossible to, nor will never be, but rather it simply isn't.
Just to be clear, making the point about emotional stances on both sides of the issue was really more intended for FourAceDeal. He's presented three different types of approach to this discussion, and each of those approaches is conflicted by another. He's new, and there's no baseline for interacting, so testing boundaries more than anything and the multiple approaches have only made that confusing. This is why have addressed the points of trolling, logic, and emotion. Not intending to say you have presented an emotional argument.
-
Really well said Jack.
Missed this before. Thank you, Benjiman. Expressing language certainly isn't a strong suit, especially in this volume, so that's a compliment.
-
There should be logical tests on people eligible to own guns, have pets and have children.
We have people in the UK throwing thousands of knives away to stop knife crime, which is mentally retarded when they can go straight back and buy more from Waitrose. People are the problem, it's time we realise that.
I think it's a conspiracy to force up sales by the big knife companies and the sheffield mafia.
:rofl:
-
Really well said Jack.
Missed this before. Thank you, Benjiman. Expressing language certainly isn't a strong suit, especially in this volume, so that's a compliment.
You're being too hard on yourself. Just being pretty neutral regarding this argument takes a lot of independent thought and you made very good points as well as expressing them brilliantly.
-
It's a lot harder to kill if you don't have access to weapons. This is a fact used by many governments to prevent gun-related violence.
:bssign:
There is no way for the US government to stop the black market of firearms that would be created as a result of wide scale gun prohibition. We can't even stop 12 million Mexicans and millions of tons of drugs from coming into our country, much less something as small as a pistol.
So let's hear it odeon, what is your solution to squashing the black market so criminals can't get access to guns?? (this aught to be quite entertaining)
There is a degree of blind desperation that I find fascinating to watch when the pro-gun folks defend their views. It can't be the guns, it must be sociological, it must be because we're so different from everyone else. Anything but the guns.
Back in 1933, a 10 year old kid could walk into a hardware store and walk out with a FULLY AUTOMATIC THOMPSON SUB-MACHINE GUN. What is your explanation as to why there wasn't an epidemic of school shootings back then?? (again, this aught to prove entertaining)
-
And yes a weapon does effect whether a person can be a murderer. It is basic psychology. A gun depersonalises the act of killing to the point where it is almost a button press. A knife is far more up close and personal and requires the motivational bar to be somewhat higher. I think the lack of Drive-by stranglings make this point fairly obvious.
It's pretty obvious that you don't know a damn thing about psychology. ::)
-
The only thing that pisses me off is the way they pervert maths and statistics to prove that it makes them safer.
There's no perversion of math necessary. Florida had a significant drop in all cromes after they passed concealed carry reform, that made it easy for any gun owner, with no criminal record, to get a concealed carry permit. The criminals became afraid, because their "victims" started shooting back at them.
-
The anti-gun stance, to me, is pure logic. Getting rid of a device that was largely designed to kill people with makes perfect sense to me in a society claiming itself to be civilised.
The flaw in your logic, of course, is how do you get rid of the gun black markets??
In a world of outlawed guns, only the outlaws will have them. :M
-
There's no real answer to that, Pappy, and it probably doesn't matter anyway. There's a few possible negative implications to consider, and the likelihood of potential civil unrest from a government revolt by US militia groups is the most disturbing for me. It's completely understandable that people from another country might not understand how their viewpoints would involve tipping this country on it's ear and ripping up the foundation. There's simply no need for that. One has to consider what is really the purpose, gun bans aren't a purpose but rather a course of action toward a purpose, a course of action which can't be shown as effective, and a course of action which isn't well suited to the US. Sure, existing US gun control measures might not completely calculate for me, but a lot of people on both sides of the gun issue would probably agree it's working very well, and I also can't deny the facts or directly associate those facts to anything else other than gun control. Her majesty said improvements don't happen overnight, but that's exactly what happened with the Brady Act. In 1993 the homicide rate was 9.5, the improvement was visible within the first year, and the improvements haven't stopped coming. The US is by far the best example of effective implementation of gun control, and no one had to change what it means to be an American. Fuck yeah.
-
And yes a weapon does effect whether a person can be a murderer. It is basic psychology. A gun depersonalises the act of killing to the point where it is almost a button press. A knife is far more up close and personal and requires the motivational bar to be somewhat higher. I think the lack of Drive-by stranglings make this point fairly obvious.
It's pretty obvious that you don't know a damn thing about psychology. ::)
So... It is your opinion that having a gun makes no difference to the likelyhood of you committing the act of murder? Can you clarify that this is your belief or state your view point in a clearer fashion please.
-
The only thing that pisses me off is the way they pervert maths and statistics to prove that it makes them safer.
There's no perversion of math necessary. Florida had a significant drop in all cromes after they passed concealed carry reform, that made it easy for any gun owner, with no criminal record, to get a concealed carry permit. The criminals became afraid, because their "victims" started shooting back at them.
Florida Gun Murders Rise 38 Percent Since 2000: Report (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/22/florida-gun-murders_n_3131722.html)
-
So... It is your opinion that having a gun makes no difference to the likelyhood of you committing the act of murder?
I've owned 20+ guns for 20+ years and I've already murdered all the people I wanted to. The grand total? Zero. :M
-
The only thing that pisses me off is the way they pervert maths and statistics to prove that it makes them safer.
There's no perversion of math necessary. Florida had a significant drop in all cromes after they passed concealed carry reform, that made it easy for any gun owner, with no criminal record, to get a concealed carry permit. The criminals became afraid, because their "victims" started shooting back at them.
Florida Gun Murders Rise 38 Percent Since 2000: Report (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/22/florida-gun-murders_n_3131722.html)
:facepalm2: The law in question was enacted in 1992. Crime fell between then and 2000.
BTW, Huffington Post is a well known left wing propaganda site.
OK, I just followed the links as far as I could and there are NO ORIGINIAL SOURCES CITED.
The one thing they did mention though is that homicide rates overall are still down from 2000.
So even they admit (if they do indeed have original sources) is that despite the influx if guns, overall murders went down. It's just that guns were used instead of knives or other weapons.
-
So... It is your opinion that having a gun makes no difference to the likelyhood of you committing the act of murder?
I've owned 20+ guns for 20+ years and I've already murdered all the people I wanted to. The grand total? Zero. :M
I'm afraid that you misunderstood my question. I apologise for not being more precise.
In general terms does having access to a gun make you no more likely to take the action of murdering someone than if you only had access to non-firearm weapons?
-
It's a lot harder to kill if you don't have access to weapons. This is a fact used by many governments to prevent gun-related violence.
:bssign:
There is no way for the US government to stop the black market of firearms that would be created as a result of wide scale gun prohibition. We can't even stop 12 million Mexicans and millions of tons of drugs from coming into our country, much less something as small as a pistol.
So let's hear it odeon, what is your solution to squashing the black market so criminals can't get access to guns?? (this aught to be quite entertaining)
I don't have a solution to prevent it, but I would say that it would help to start by making things harder. And if you think that's entertaining, good for you. Me, I think it's kind of sad.
There is a degree of blind desperation that I find fascinating to watch when the pro-gun folks defend their views. It can't be the guns, it must be sociological, it must be because we're so different from everyone else. Anything but the guns.
Back in 1933, a 10 year old kid could walk into a hardware store and walk out with a FULLY AUTOMATIC THOMPSON SUB-MACHINE GUN. What is your explanation as to why there wasn't an epidemic of school shootings back then?? (again, this aught to prove entertaining)
Funny how you'd pick 1933. What part of the link I gave earlier (http://www.vakkur.com/hx/guns/guns_kia_79_99.htm) did you find was so difficult to understand? And again, if you find this entertaining, good for you, but that fact alone is kind of sad.
-
Funny how you'd pick 1933. What part of the link I gave earlier (http://www.vakkur.com/hx/guns/guns_kia_79_99.htm)
It's no more funny than picking data from a 1999 blog post, for which the timing of said blog conveniently omits 15 years of progress.
-
I don't have a solution to prevent it, but I would say that it would help to start by making things harder. And if you think that's entertaining, good for you. Me, I think it's kind of sad.
As a teenager living in the US, it was easier for me to buy pot than it was to buy a 6-pack of beer. Drug dealers don't ask for ID or make you fill out paperwork. A robust black market in guns will make it easier for criminals to get guns, not harder.
Back in 1933, a 10 year old kid could walk into a hardware store and walk out with a FULLY AUTOMATIC THOMPSON SUB-MACHINE GUN. What is your explanation as to why there wasn't an epidemic of school shootings back then?? (again, this aught to prove entertaining)
Funny how you'd pick 1933. What part of the link I gave earlier (http://www.vakkur.com/hx/guns/guns_kia_79_99.htm) did you find was so difficult to understand? And again, if you find this entertaining, good for you, but that fact alone is kind of sad.
I read the link and the data doesn't prove what you think it does. The majority of those gun deaths are suicides which made the act of suicide less painfull. That's a good thing in my book.
I picked the year 1933 because that was before the passage of the Firearms Control Act of 1934 which required a special permit to own fully automatic weapons. It was passed because of all the gangster violence surrounding prohibition. The violence decreased not as a result of the gun law of 1934 but because of the repeal of alcohol prohibition.
-
So... It is your opinion that having a gun makes no difference to the likelyhood of you committing the act of murder?
I've owned 20+ guns for 20+ years and I've already murdered all the people I wanted to. The grand total? Zero. :M
I'm afraid that you misunderstood my question. I apologise for not being more precise.
In general terms does having access to a gun make you no more likely to take the action of murdering someone than if you only had access to non-firearm weapons?
Did owning a gun make you more likely to murder someone?
-
So... It is your opinion that having a gun makes no difference to the likelyhood of you committing the act of murder?
I've owned 20+ guns for 20+ years and I've already murdered all the people I wanted to. The grand total? Zero. :M
Personally as someone who owns guns and has been around guns from the time I was small, "if" I ever decided to murder someone I would choose poison.
Shooting is far too messy. :zombiefuck:
As an avid gardener I have a variety of plants that would do the job and be far less traceable as to origin.
The black market is alive and well in the US and I doubt any measures to contain it will make much of a difference. When their is a lack of supply for something due to fact that it can no longer be obtained legally, their will always be someone waiting in the corner to cash in on that "lack". Prohibition made a lot of people rich, or they deemed the risk of getting caught well worth the money anyways.
Some of us here live in the middle of nowhere, we don't have CCTV camera's waiting around every corner, the security of living in a gated community, neighborhood watch, some don't even have a "local" police force due to corruption or lack of funding the duties have been farmed out to the next closest community, and maybe every 3rd person we know is hooked on something or has kids that are.
There are responsible gun owners here that have invested in guns the way people in other countries buy gold coins, cars, or jewelry. My father was one, and he owned some very expensive "investments".
Some hand down their investments from generation to generation...taking little johnny or sue out on their first squirrel hunt with the .22 their great-great grandfather used. It is more than a tool of self-defense or violence here, it's a past-time, a hobby, and for some a tradition, no matter how others may view it.
So we outlaw guns tomorrow, and only the outlaws now have guns...and I bring in my collection "possibly" worth more than my car and get a voucher for a free ice cream sundae and a pat on the head telling me what a great, responsible citizen I am for helping reduce the rates of gun violence. Then I go home and fall asleep secure that my baseball bat will save me if some illegally gun toting drug addict breaks into my house at 3:00 am like they have so often around here.
Really?
I don't think so. ;)
-
I don't have a solution to prevent it, but I would say that it would help to start by making things harder. And if you think that's entertaining, good for you. Me, I think it's kind of sad.
As a teenager living in the US, it was easier for me to buy pot than it was to buy a 6-pack of beer. Drug dealers don't ask for ID or make you fill out paperwork. A robust black market in guns will make it easier for criminals to get guns, not harder.
Back in 1933, a 10 year old kid could walk into a hardware store and walk out with a FULLY AUTOMATIC THOMPSON SUB-MACHINE GUN. What is your explanation as to why there wasn't an epidemic of school shootings back then?? (again, this aught to prove entertaining)
Funny how you'd pick 1933. What part of the link I gave earlier (http://www.vakkur.com/hx/guns/guns_kia_79_99.htm) did you find was so difficult to understand? And again, if you find this entertaining, good for you, but that fact alone is kind of sad.
I read the link and the data doesn't prove what you think it does. The majority of those gun deaths are suicides which made the act of suicide less painfull. That's a good thing in my book.
I picked the year 1933 because that was before the passage of the Firearms Control Act of 1934 which required a special permit to own fully automatic weapons. It was passed because of all the gangster violence surrounding prohibition. The violence decreased not as a result of the gun law of 1934 but because of the repeal of alcohol prohibition.
The majority? About a half of them. But I'm sure you think of the glass as being half full. :thumbup:
Oh, and what do I think it proves? I can't recall having told you so obviously you can read minds now.
-
Shooting is far too messy.
Used to think women are more likely to poison, because blood is icky and women are sneaky bitches like that. :laugh: About 40% of women killers in the US use guns, as apposed to about 70% of male killers. While guns are the most common method, women are still seven times more likely than men to use poison, and twice as likely to use a knife.
-
Shooting is far too messy.
Used to think women are more likely to poison, because blood is icky and women are sneaky bitches like that. :laugh: About 40% of women killers in the US use guns, as apposed to about 70% of male killers. While guns are the most common method, women are still seven times more likely than men to use poison, and twice as likely to use a knife.
Sneaky I am. :ninja:
:LOL:
-
Surely a knife produces more icky blood than a gun does.
Poison may produce vomiting and that's its own type of icky.
-
Poisons rank low on the list in general for both genders. Knives are second place for both genders.
-
My mother kept a baseball bat in the living room, for whatever that might have been worth in a crisis.
We lived in a quiet suburban neighborhood, no break-ins, no need ever arose to swing the bat. :LOL:
My mother was of two minds about guns. Personally she was afraid of them and wouldn't have had one
in the house, yet she used to quote "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns," and
"I will give up my gun when they pry it from my cold dead hand" as if she liked the ideas, even though
she couldn't bring herself to be a gun owner for real. I have a feeling she'd have been a great shot. 8)
-
Surely a knife produces more icky blood than a gun does.
Poison may produce vomiting and that's its own type of icky.
Dead bodies are sort of icky anyway. :zombiefuck:
-
Just got to let them decompose long enough and then they're perfectly clean.
-
Just got to let them decompose long enough and then they're perfectly clean.
Let us clean it up for you! We're here to help! (http://smileys.emoticonsonly.com/emoticons/v/vulture-88.gif)
-
Just got to let them decompose long enough and then they're perfectly clean.
True, but before that happens it's quite icky.
-
Just got to let them decompose long enough and then they're perfectly clean.
True, but before that happens it's quite icky.
That's why you go on a long holiday right after leaving the person to water your plants some poisoned biscuits for the effort.
-
You freaks are going to frighten away the n00b. >:(
-
What noob?
-
You freaks are going to frighten away the n00b. >:(
You already did, you fuzzy little bastard! :rollingpin: (http://images.bravenet.com/common/images/smilies/gopher.gif)
-
What noob?
FourAceDeal. :orly:
You freaks are going to frighten away the n00b. >:(
You already did, you fuzzy little bastard! :rollingpin: (http://images.bravenet.com/common/images/smilies/gopher.gif)
But I'm adorable. :eyelash:
-
Lol
-
Just got to let them decompose long enough and then they're perfectly clean.
True, but before that happens it's quite icky.
That's why you go on a long holiday right after leaving the person to water your plants some poisoned biscuits for the effort.
Is there something you wish to share with us? :zoinks:
-
You freaks are going to frighten away the n00b. >:(
I don't think so. I think it's simply that he's got an actual life.
-
Just got to let them decompose long enough and then they're perfectly clean.
True, but before that happens it's quite icky.
That's why you go on a long holiday right after leaving the person to water your plants some poisoned biscuits for the effort.
Is there something you wish to share with us? :zoinks:
You want biscuis?
-
No, I'm not watering your plants either. :P
-
I've been busy. I have a wife, kids and a time consuming career.......
Meanwhile...
On average, he said, nine children under age 18 are unintentionally shot in the United States every day. Of those, about seven die each day. Hutson said those numbers have been fairly steady over the past few years. (http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/11/us/detroit-girl-shoots-herself/index.html)[/b]
7 kids a day dead? Yeah. Guns aren't dangerous. If there weren't guns then kids would just stab each other instead.
-
I've been busy. I have a wife, kids and a time consuming career.......
If you had a gun you could solve the problem of having a wife and kids. :autism:
-
I've been busy. I have a wife, kids and a time consuming career.......
Meanwhile...
On average, he said, nine children under age 18 are unintentionally shot in the United States every day. Of those, about seven die each day. Hutson said those numbers have been fairly steady over the past few years. (http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/11/us/detroit-girl-shoots-herself/index.html)[/b]
7 kids a day dead? Yeah. Guns aren't dangerous. If there weren't guns then kids would just stab each other instead.
No one said guns aren't dangerous.
-
I've been busy. I have a wife, kids and a time consuming career.......
Meanwhile...
On average, he said, nine children under age 18 are unintentionally shot in the United States every day. Of those, about seven die each day. Hutson said those numbers have been fairly steady over the past few years. (http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/11/us/detroit-girl-shoots-herself/index.html)[/b]
7 kids a day dead? Yeah. Guns aren't dangerous. If there weren't guns then kids would just stab each other instead.
The most recent CDC statistical 2013 report displays an annual total of 505 unintentional firearm deaths, for a statistical rate of 0.2. Couldn't find any government accidental gun death stats by age. That's still nowhere near seven people per day. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
-
Couldn't find any government accidental gun death stats by age. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
Am mistaken. That report does in fact contain a supplemental table of annual totals by age. 69 ages 0-14, and 107 age 15-24.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_-N9_tnWBo
-
Am thinking he left. Hopefully not because of this thread. He should come back and talk about something else.
-
Who?
-
Who?
HU!
-
hue hue hue. :zoinks:
-
Been too busy to waste time argueing with a brick wall. Sorry.
But to comment on last posting here....
"Fifteen year old girl with vested interest in gun violence repeats NRA dogma to crowd of planks"
40000 gun casualties a year yet to to be explained away.
-
Been too busy to waste time argueing with a brick wall. Sorry.
The brick wall idiom is one that goes two ways, and speaks as much for the argumentative nature of one who argues with the wall, as it does about the inflexibility of the wall. If arguing with a brick wall entails making unsubstantiated claims, condemning logic in favor of emotion, presenting inaccurate supporting reference, ignoring when those things are pointed out, not answering the questions one presents to others, all the while claiming one doesn't actually care, then yes, it's a questionable course of action. You've taken four approaches to this discussion, trolling, humble personal opinion, factual logic, and emotion. The successful one was the personal opinion, no one even responded to it. There's plenty of people who believe guns are dangerous and largely unnecessary, who also have no interest in supporting legislation to control the lives of other law abiding citizens.
40000 gun casualties a year yet to to be explained away.
Once again the number presented is inflated, so thus incorrect according to current reliable sources of fact. No one has tried to explain it away.
-
This was my response to this thread five years ago.
I don't really care about the laws in other countries.
-
I don't care either, and I just want to say that loudly so everyone knows. :zoinks:
-
40000 gun casualties a year yet to to be explained away.
Once again the number presented is inflated, so thus incorrect according to current reliable sources of fact. No one has tried to explain it away.
I said "casualties" Not "deaths". So 40K a year is about average isn't it? With approx 12K deaths.
This website (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/) keeps a running total of verified incidents for the year. As of today (4th June) it's up to 5569 deaths from 22000 incidents including 238 children. Or are these numbers inflated?
-
40000 gun casualties a year yet to to be explained away.
Once again the number presented is inflated, so thus incorrect according to current reliable sources of fact. No one has tried to explain it away.
I said "casualties" Not "deaths". So 40K a year is about average isn't it? With approx 12K deaths.
This website (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/) keeps a running total of verified incidents for the year. As of today (4th June) it's up to 5569 deaths from 22000 incidents including 238 children. Or are these numbers inflated?
Given that this is a site with an ideological axe to grind, I'd say they're probably cooking the numbers somehow. First of all, I notice how they don't separate out suicides.
Now on this page, I notice that they have 2 articles, one talking about how gun sales in California continue to grow and the one below it talks about California's falling homicide rates. Those 2 articles together disprove your "theory"
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/analysis-opinion
I also like the article about how most of the shootings in Tampa Florida are done with stolen guns.
-
Who?
HU!
*groan*
-
This was my response to this thread five years ago.
I don't really care about the laws in other countries.
And you shouldn't, which is why you also shouldn't care what others may think about the laws in yours.
-
40000 gun casualties a year yet to to be explained away.
Once again the number presented is inflated, so thus incorrect according to current reliable sources of fact. No one has tried to explain it away.
I said "casualties" Not "deaths". So 40K a year is about average isn't it? With approx 12K deaths.
This website (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/) keeps a running total of verified incidents for the year. As of today (4th June) it's up to 5569 deaths from 22000 incidents including 238 children. Or are these numbers inflated?
Given that this is a site with an ideological axe to grind, I'd say they're probably cooking the numbers somehow. First of all, I notice how they don't separate out suicides.
Now on this page, I notice that they have 2 articles, one talking about how gun sales in California continue to grow and the one below it talks about California's falling homicide rates. Those 2 articles together disprove your "theory"
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/analysis-opinion
I also like the article about how most of the shootings in Tampa Florida are done with stolen guns.
So whenever someone produces a site like this, they have an axe to grind?
-
40000 gun casualties a year yet to to be explained away.
Once again the number presented is inflated, so thus incorrect according to current reliable sources of fact. No one has tried to explain it away.
I said "casualties" Not "deaths". So 40K a year is about average isn't it? With approx 12K deaths.
This website (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/) keeps a running total of verified incidents for the year. As of today (4th June) it's up to 5569 deaths from 22000 incidents including 238 children. Or are these numbers inflated?
Given that this is a site with an ideological axe to grind, I'd say they're probably cooking the numbers somehow. First of all, I notice how they don't separate out suicides.
Now on this page, I notice that they have 2 articles, one talking about how gun sales in California continue to grow and the one below it talks about California's falling homicide rates. Those 2 articles together disprove your "theory"
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/analysis-opinion
I also like the article about how most of the shootings in Tampa Florida are done with stolen guns.
Jsut deny the numbers again rather than explaining them. Same old..
-
This was my response to this thread five years ago.
I don't really care about the laws in other countries.
And you shouldn't, which is why you also shouldn't care what others may think about the laws in yours.
Oh, I don't, which is why this is the first time ever caring to discuss it. Jack cares about talking to the new member.
-
This was my response to this thread five years ago.
I don't really care about the laws in other countries.
And you shouldn't, which is why you also shouldn't care what others may think about the laws in yours.
Oh, I don't, which is why this is the first time ever caring to discuss it. Jack cares about talking to the new member.
Fair enough and a good point. :)
-
40000 gun casualties a year yet to to be explained away.
Once again the number presented is inflated, so thus incorrect according to current reliable sources of fact. No one has tried to explain it away.
I said "casualties" Not "deaths". So 40K a year is about average isn't it? With approx 12K deaths.
This website (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/) keeps a running total of verified incidents for the year. As of today (4th June) it's up to 5569 deaths from 22000 incidents including 238 children. Or are these numbers inflated?
Average based on what? Assumed that meant deaths, and wondering why the actual numbers aren't good enough to build an argument. It's not like that source wasn't already handed out, so have no clue where 12k deaths is coming from; it's well more than double that, even firearm suicide is over 20k so have no clue what's being said. Haven't taken the time to look up non-death related injuries; have you? Have tried to be helpful in this discussion, by demonstrating how the US is an excellent example of effective gun control implementation, providing US government sources for homicide, suicide, accidents, and even legitimate dead baby data. Have already basically proven your point for you that gun control works, but will leave it to you to demonstrate how gun bans are effective.
-
Jsut deny the numbers again rather than explaining them. Same old..
I did explain the numbers. First of all, they failed to separate out suicides. This shows the dishonesty in their numbers.
Second of all, their California numbers disprove your point. Gun sales have gone up while gun violence has gone down.
-
Who?
HU!
*groan*
I think it was you who (I mean hu who) pointed out that this could easily turn into an Abbott And Costello routine without even trying.
:zombiefuck:
-
Who?
HU!
*groan*
I think it was you who (I mean hu who) pointed out that this could easily turn into an Abbott And Costello routine without even trying.
:zombiefuck:
Hu? Me? :trollface:
-
40000 gun casualties a year yet to to be explained away.
Once again the number presented is inflated, so thus incorrect according to current reliable sources of fact. No one has tried to explain it away.
I said "casualties" Not "deaths". So 40K a year is about average isn't it? With approx 12K deaths.
This website (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/) keeps a running total of verified incidents for the year. As of today (4th June) it's up to 5569 deaths from 22000 incidents including 238 children. Or are these numbers inflated?
Average based on what? Assumed that meant deaths, and wondering why the actual numbers aren't good enough to build an argument. It's not like that source wasn't already handed out, so have no clue where 12k deaths is coming from; it's well more than double that, even firearm suicide is over 20k so have no clue what's being said. Haven't taken the time to look up non-death related injuries; have you? Have tried to be helpful in this discussion, by demonstrating how the US is an excellent example of effective gun control implementation, providing US government sources for homicide, suicide, accidents, and even legitimate dead baby data. Have already basically proven your point for you that gun control works, but will leave it to you to demonstrate how gun bans are effective.
Compare the statistics between yourselves and a country that has gun controls like the UK (Note I said "controls". We do not ban guns.) It's easy to do. Everyone has done it. Do I have to do it again? We both know it will be a waste of my time as you will ignore it and throw another NRA dogma turd on the floor.
-
Compare the statistics between yourselves and a country that has gun controls like the UK (Note I said "controls". We do not ban guns.)
Why does that statement come across like US doesn't have gun control? The US has had citizen targeted gun control measures for almost as long as the UK has had a ban on handguns. Yes, the UK does ban guns. During that time, since the US Brady Act and UK handgun ban, the US has shown remarkable improvement in homicide rate trends over the last twenty years, while the UK hasn't. You've made the claim that the proof gun control works is any other western nation with gun control, and I've effectively shown otherwise; the US is the proof gun control works. So, if you're not promoting gun bans in the US, then what exactly are you saying?
We both know it will be a waste of my time as you will ignore it and throw another NRA dogma turd on the floor.
Haven't ignored anything said, nor provided any NRA dogma. NRA dogma promotes gun ownership as a positive. Personally view guns as neither positive nor negative, so it's not only unfair but also untrue to make that claim about anything I've said in this discussion. If you're wasting your time talking to me, then stop talking to me.
-
My time is so rare and precious, even the Smithsonian can't appraise its value. :zoinks:
-
My time is so rare and precious, even the Smithsonian can't appraise its value. :zoinks:
Gophers are so common and cheap, every redneck diner serves a 99-cent roadkill special. :evillaugh:
-
My time is so valuable people take a number and wait for it. :zoinks:
-
My time is so valuable people take a number and wait for it. :zoinks:
Your pelt is so scruffy, only the desperate wear wigs made of it. :trollface:
(http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd100/austinrengirl/trump_hell_toupee.jpg)
-
My time is so valuable people take a number and wait for it. :zoinks:
Your pelt is so scruffy, only the desperate wear wigs made of it. :trollface:
(http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd100/austinrengirl/trump_hell_toupee.jpg)
:lol1:
-
My time is so valuable people take a number and wait for it. :zoinks:
Your pelt is so scruffy, only the desperate wear wigs made of it. :trollface:
(http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd100/austinrengirl/trump_hell_toupee.jpg)
The Donald knows exactly how valuable The Gopher's time truly is. :zoinks:
-
Oh dear. Apparantly someone has entered a Florida gay bar with a semi-automatic mental health issue. He fired at least 20 shots with this mental health issue and there are multiple casualties.
When will people realise that their constitutional rights to have mental health issues are killing people?
Thank god we have the NRA to tell us the truth.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/36510272 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/36510272)
Modified to say: Some reports are saying that the mental health issue was a fully automatic type.
-
+
Good post.
-
Reports say the shooter was also wearing a bomb. What exactly is the solution being advocated again? Or is the conversation now one of talking at me instead of to me?
-
Can't you see I've been trying to agree with you on a certain level, FourAceDeal? You've been all over the place in this discussion, to the point of my not knowing exactly what is being suggested or even discussed. Laws which control and judge an entire population based on the acts of a society's criminal element are not fair and just laws. Propose at least one problem solving suggestion, with a supporting argument which is fairly applied to all citizens. Just one. Am not going to do it for you. Unless of course, the intention is to now report in this thread on every US shooting, while claiming to be right...about something.
-
Reports say the shooter was also wearing a bomb. What exactly is the solution being advocated again? Or is the conversation now one of talking at me instead of to me?
Sorry mate. I really do apologise. If he was wearing a bomb then obviously it doesn't count.
-
Can't you see I've been trying to agree with you on a certain level, FourAceDeal? You've been all over the place in this discussion, to the point of my not knowing exactly what is being suggested or even discussed. Laws which control and judge an entire population based on the acts of a society's criminal element are not fair and just laws. Propose at least one problem solving suggestion, with a supporting argument which is fairly applied to all citizens. Just one. Am not going to do it for you. Unless of course, the intention is to now report in this thread on every US shooting, while claiming to be right...about something.
Just the big ones. I don't have the time to do them all.
-
Reports say the shooter was also wearing a bomb. What exactly is the solution being advocated again? Or is the conversation now one of talking at me instead of to me?
Sorry mate. I really do apologise. If he was wearing a bomb then obviously it doesn't count.
Certainly it does count, toward two crime statistics.
-
Can't you see I've been trying to agree with you on a certain level, FourAceDeal? You've been all over the place in this discussion, to the point of my not knowing exactly what is being suggested or even discussed. Laws which control and judge an entire population based on the acts of a society's criminal element are not fair and just laws. Propose at least one problem solving suggestion, with a supporting argument which is fairly applied to all citizens. Just one. Am not going to do it for you. Unless of course, the intention is to now report in this thread on every US shooting, while claiming to be right...about something.
Just the big ones. I don't have the time to do them all.
What does that accomplish with no proposed solution?
-
I was using the implied values of an opposing belief system to satirise that very same belief system. You either have to appreciate it or not, because explaining it, as I am doing now, collapses the inherent humour of the situation.
-
I was using the implied values of an opposing belief system to satirise that very same belief system. You either have to appreciate it or not, because explaining it, as I am doing now, collapses the inherent humour of the situation.
Fair enough, that post completely aside, do believe there's are reasons anti-gun proponents find these discussions so frustrating, and many of those reasons have been displayed in this discussion by leaving one's self completely open to valid apposing stances and proofs by making arguments based in disprovable or opinionated assertions. Respectable innovators can see fair solutions, while whiners only point at the problem.
-
Oh dear. Apparantly someone has entered a Florida gay bar with a semi-automatic mental health issue. He fired at least 20 shots with this mental health issue and there are multiple casualties.
When will people realise that their constitutional rights to have mental health issues are killing people?
Thank god we have the NRA to tell us the truth.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/36510272 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/36510272)
Modified to say: Some reports are saying that the mental health issue was a fully automatic type.
Why weren't you making the same arguments about gun control after the Paris shootings?? :pwned:
-
I was using the implied values of an opposing belief system to satirise that very same belief system. You either have to appreciate it or not, because explaining it, as I am doing now, collapses the inherent humour of the situation.
Actually, this is being investigated as an act of terrorism, not a mental health issue.
-
I was using the implied values of an opposing belief system to satirise that very same belief system. You either have to appreciate it or not, because explaining it, as I am doing now, collapses the inherent humour of the situation.
Actually, this is being investigated as an act of terrorism, not a mental health issue.
Yeah, I know. Which I must admit, somewhat pisses on my bonfire.
I'l have to wait for the next one for another chance to be sardonic.
-
F**k me. 50 dead.
-
I was using the implied values of an opposing belief system to satirise that very same belief system. You either have to appreciate it or not, because explaining it, as I am doing now, collapses the inherent humour of the situation.
Actually, this is being investigated as an act of terrorism, not a mental health issue.
Yeah, I know. Which I must admit, somewhat pisses on my bonfire.
I'l have to wait for the next one for another chance to be sardonic.
Simply mocking a situation, or criticizing it with complete disregard to effective corrective measures, gives the impression you don't wish to be taken seriously. It reduces the conversation to you basically saying hahahah the US has a problem, and me basically saying yeah so what?
-
I was using the implied values of an opposing belief system to satirise that very same belief system. You either have to appreciate it or not, because explaining it, as I am doing now, collapses the inherent humour of the situation.
Actually, this is being investigated as an act of terrorism, not a mental health issue.
Semicolon once made an interesting argument in favor of the mentally ill, in that mental illness isn't in itself a crime. It's a valid stance, regarding laws which negate the rights of the individual based on the criminal actions of another.
-
Actually Jack, I'm a bum for using this to make a point. 50 dead. And the irony is that although the targets of this attack are the type of people that ISIS throw off buildings, they're also the demographic that are the least likely to be Islamophobic (or any other "phobic").
-
And the irony is that although the targets of this attack are the type of people that ISIS throw off buildings, they're also the demographic that are the least likely to be Islamophobic (or any other "phobic").
I noticed that irony too. Perhaps now the political left will start to wake up to what a dangerous death-cult a large minority of Islam is.
I've always felt the left's love affair with Islam is because most of it's adherents are brown skinned and PC types are so eager to prove they're tolerant and inclusive, to an almost pathological degree.
It could also be driven by envy, in that they try to emulate the Jihadists fanaticism.
-
Actually Jack, I'm a bum for using this to make a point. 50 dead.
Stop doing that. Denying the numbers, guns aren't dangerous, it obviously doesn't count, I'm a bum...it's putting words in my mouth which aren't being said. If the intent is snooty mockery, then that's fine, mock away. Personally love patriotism; it's having a sense of pride and loyalty to crap I didn't do. Everyone should enjoy it. Though don't personally need to bash anyplace else in order to have that. There's nothing wrong with appreciating one's own country's laws and civic structure; if that's all that's being said then yay Britts. Whatever. Have handed you the most recent and reliably sourced data for all measures of death in the US, as well as pointing out current US measures of gun control and homicide trends with 60% decrease over the last twenty years. My point is, the US has a problem, it's a problem which is steadily improving due to federal measures of gun control, and there are further control measures which could be taken without changing the constitution. What point are you trying to make about it?
-
The shooter legally bought his guns with very little background check because he had a job history as a security guard for a major security company.
I do think people are being bums (and also short-sighted and catastrophizing) to use the panicked aftermath of an event like this to make a political point.
-
The shooter legally bought his guns with very little background check because he had a job history as a security guard for a major security company.
His ex-wife is publicly stating he has a history of domestic violence; have no clue if that's a legally substantiated claim. If there was a glitch in the system, or not, it will come out eventually.
-
And the irony is that although the targets of this attack are the type of people that ISIS throw off buildings, they're also the demographic that are the least likely to be Islamophobic (or any other "phobic").
I noticed that irony too. Perhaps now the political left will start to wake up to what a dangerous death-cult a large minority of Islam is.
I've always felt the left's love affair with Islam is because most of it's adherents are brown skinned and PC types are so eager to prove they're tolerant and inclusive, to an almost pathological degree.
It could also be driven by envy, in that they try to emulate the Jihadists fanaticism.
No. No. No.
Jsust because the man made a phone call before he did this to self justify what he was doing that does not make this an act of terrorism.
This was just another suicide by cop killing spree that has happened before. The gunman was criminal and the crime was one of homophobia.
He had no more to do with ISIS than you or me. The fact he mentioned them in a phone call means nothing. He would have done this if they existed or didn't - he would just have chosen some other nutbag cause to self validate himself.
-
Actually Jack, I'm a bum for using this to make a point. 50 dead.
Stop doing that. Denying the numbers, guns aren't dangerous, it obviously doesn't count, I'm a bum...it's putting words in my mouth which aren't being said. If the intent is snooty mockery, then that's fine, mock away. Personally love patriotism; it's having a sense of pride and loyalty to crap I didn't do. Everyone should enjoy it. Though don't personally need to bash anyplace else in order to have that. There's nothing wrong with appreciating one's own country's laws and civic structure; if that's all that's being said then yay Britts. Whatever. Have handed you the most recent and reliably sourced data for all measures of death in the US, as well as pointing out current US measures of gun control and homicide trends with 60% decrease over the last twenty years. My point is, the US has a problem, it's a problem which is steadily improving due to federal measures of gun control, and there are further control measures which could be taken without changing the constitution. What point are you trying to make about it?
50 dead. I'd just heard the number. Sometimes I post what I genuinely feel. Like then. I was really feeling depressed about it all.
But worry not, I'll be back on form as a sardonic shit real soon.
-
Don't even know what to say about it. So many things wrong. :(
-
Actually Jack, I'm a bum for using this to make a point. 50 dead.
Stop doing that. Denying the numbers, guns aren't dangerous, it obviously doesn't count, I'm a bum...it's putting words in my mouth which aren't being said. If the intent is snooty mockery, then that's fine, mock away. Personally love patriotism; it's having a sense of pride and loyalty to crap I didn't do. Everyone should enjoy it. Though don't personally need to bash anyplace else in order to have that. There's nothing wrong with appreciating one's own country's laws and civic structure; if that's all that's being said then yay Britts. Whatever. Have handed you the most recent and reliably sourced data for all measures of death in the US, as well as pointing out current US measures of gun control and homicide trends with 60% decrease over the last twenty years. My point is, the US has a problem, it's a problem which is steadily improving due to federal measures of gun control, and there are further control measures which could be taken without changing the constitution. What point are you trying to make about it?
50 dead. I'd just heard the number. Sometimes I post what I genuinely feel. Like then. I was really feeling depressed about it all.
But worry not, I'll be back on form as a sardonic shit real soon.
Good point, and excellent choice of stance. No one can ever say you feel wrong. Jack appreciates FourAceDeal for wasting some time on her.