Gun Debate

posted on April 13th, 2011, 3:51 pm

I thought it would worked but i couldnt ever get to the reply box after i did it o well. We are very off topic but for the most part my question has answered so i dont really care anymore.

posted on April 13th, 2011, 4:40 pm

Feel free to block me out, thats fine.

posted on April 13th, 2011, 4:55 pm

In any case Drrr, Please tell me the correct way to interperate this statistic I posted earlier.  No really, tell me.

1. NRA is a highly biased organization...and therefore statistics should be examined with more care.
2. The assumtion "more guns = less crime" is ... much much too simple. I will produce some more "facts" about guns for you so you might see what I mean.

a) more guns = rising debt for the US government
b) more guns = rise of global mean temperature
c) more guns = less biodiversity

Here we go. What do you say about my facts about guns?

Btw. taking a statistics course does enable you to read statistics the right way BUT
they do not enable you to understand them...that is done through "reasoning" on a scientific basis. I learned this in university and at the research institute I am working now.  Took me quite a while to get there.
On the other hand, there are those dumb people that think they could read and understand statistics or "facts" because "it is obvious". The world is not as simple as many retards believe.
I had the opinion that everyone can be convinced through good explanations. Now I start to believe that some ppl are just "lost" in a certain way...best would be that all the smart, clever or how you would call them people build their own state and exclude all the others that don't believe in reasoning and logic.

posted on April 13th, 2011, 5:13 pm

people build their own state and exclude all the others that don't believe in reasoning and logic.

yes with one people, one nation, one... what was the last one? i forget that one. meh im sure it'll work, what could possibly go wrong?

posted on April 13th, 2011, 5:35 pm

@Lt. Cmdr. Marian Hope

So... in English, Nazi is "Patriot"?  I didn;t know that.  I thought it meant Scocialist.   I bet many other germans would disagree though.  You should correct wikipedia man. Nazism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not entirely sure how navyguy's statements are Socialist, so you must be right about them being patriotic.  Thanks for clearing that up, though, I still don't think he would be called a Nazi in Germany.

However if you are comparing the actions of American Patroits to those of German Nazis, then you know better than ibench.

I don't get your link to socialism, nevertheless I want to clear something up. If someone in Germany would state things about Germany like Navyguy did about USA (USA is great, stop talking negative about it, the constitution is sacred blabla) people would probably call him a "Nazi" here, since we have a screwed relation concerning love to our country(because of the fascists, you know). Nevertheless I got the impression via US American TV series that a behaviour like that is regarded as being "patriotic" in the USA. You may correct me if these are only clichees, but I think we are moving away from topic with this. Sorry Dircome  .

Whoa Drrrr, I share some of your thoughts about guns - they are waste of ressources. In my eyes they could melt all weapons, tanks, submarines and make useful stuff out of it. Metal is always nice.
Nevertheless you have strange thoughts about "dumb" people. One needs a proper education system, not exclude them. We aren't in the third Reich you know, you can't just do away with people you regard as retarded.

posted on April 13th, 2011, 6:15 pm

One needs a proper education system, not exclude them.

Its not about education...its about character traits, behavior and such...there seems to be a combination where some people are lost and can't reached even with the best arguments and evidence...thos people should build their own society and live on their own...thats all I said.

posted on April 13th, 2011, 6:18 pm

I don't get your link to socialism, nevertheless I want to clear something up. If someone in Germany would state things about Germany like Navyguy did about USA (USA is great, stop talking negative about it, the constitution is sacred blabla) people would probably call him a "Nazi" here, since we have a screwed relation concerning love to our country(because of the fascists, you know). Nevertheless I got the impression via US American TV series that a behaviour like that is regarded as being "patriotic" in the USA. You may correct me if these are only clichees, but I think we are moving away from topic with this. Sorry Dircome  .

Well, Navyguy's attitude here would mostly just make him sound like a bit of a radical, proselytizing dick whose been watching too much CNN. In general though, that attitude is kind of the steriotipicalized concept of patriotism. Most of that I think has come from the recent (last 10-25 years) influx of illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central/South America. Since they are generally willing to work for a fair bit less than minimum wage they are seen as "stealing" jobs from Americans. This is despite the fact that the jobs these illegal immigrants are taking are not exactly the most desirable; but, this far into an economic down turn, people are pretty much willing to take what they can get. But anyway, because of all this there have been a lot of - I won't say anti-immigrant - but certainly anti-Hispanic sentiments floating around. Or to say it another way, pro-citizen or pro-native-born sentiments. Case in point: the screwy law passed in Arizona which allowed police to stop anyone they believed to be an illegal immigrant and request ID and documentation proving they aren't here illegally.

Here's the full law if you want to read it: Arizona Immigration Law

It got everyone in an uproar and parts have been suspended by the Federal Courts, but it's one of the more prominent examples of rising xenophobia - if it can be called that. On top of all that, these immigrants don't pay taxes and thus cost the government money, (and don't vote either) yet they expect to receive the benefits of national programs like health insurance, unemployment, etc which costs even more money. So between immigrants stealing our jobs and companies outsourcing to China and India and every other poor country on Earth  we've gotten a little xenophobic and some media plays on this and amplifies it as a kind of pro-American/anti-immigrant propaganda. Don't worry, most common Americans I know aren't of so radical an opinion.

Ironically, those outsourced jobs in China are paying less than we pay illegal immigrants here yet we're more worried about said immigrants stealing jobs. At least illegal immigrants live here and contribute to the economic flow by spending money here, unlike some worker in China who does nothing for the American economy.

posted on April 13th, 2011, 6:49 pm

watching too much CNN

You mean a normal broadcasting day of Fox news?

I won't say anti-immigrant

I would say its pretty anti-immigrant over here, and its kinda sad to say but yes your cliches about patriotism in the US that you see on TV are pretty accurate. And remember as a US senator recently said on National television, he doesn't want his kids to grow up in an atheistic society ruled by a fundamentalist Islamic government. No, it makes no sense

posted on April 13th, 2011, 6:54 pm

Whoa Drrrr, I share some of your thoughts about guns - they are waste of ressources. In my eyes they could melt all weapons, tanks, submarines and make useful stuff out of it. Metal is always nice.
Nevertheless you have strange thoughts about "dumb" people. One needs a proper education system, not exclude them. We aren't in the third Reich you know, you can't just do away with people you regard as retarded.

In a ideal world i would agree with you however the world that we live in is not so ideal. I dont want to have to shoot someone however i think its my responsibly to take care of myself and my family. So if push comes to shove i will shoot them. I dont ever really want to take that action but if i have to i will.

All im going to say about the ariziona law is that the way that i understand it they are only enforcing a federal law. I dont think there would be a need for it if we would enforce our own federal border. I find this sign to be rather sad. In case you didnt know the federal government put those signs up 50(?) miles inland

posted on April 13th, 2011, 7:37 pm

One needs a proper education system, not exclude them. We aren't in the third Reich you know, you can't just do away with people you regard as retarded.

And yet just a few years ago America granted a few german families asylum in the united states because they were being persecuted, under a law that went into effect under the nazis, over the fact that they wanted to homeschool their children due to not being able to opt out of certain instruction in the classroom that went against their beliefs.

Whoa Drrrr, I share some of your thoughts about guns - they are waste of ressources. In my eyes they could melt all weapons, tanks, submarines and make useful stuff out of it. Metal is always nice.

And if we followed that philosiphy, you would be speaking Russian.

I would say its pretty anti-immigrant over here

I believe what you're thinking of is opposition to criminals entering the country illegally (thats right, anyone sneaking into a country is breaking the law, and this a criminal) often from that third world nation on our border.....

All im going to say about the ariziona law is that the way that i understand it they are only enforcing a federal law. I dont think there would be a need for it if we would enforce our own federal border. I find this sign to be rather sad. In case you didnt know the federal government put those signs up 50(?) miles inland

Dircome those signs are in some spots 80+ miles from the border.

As for the Arizona law it was quite fair. It only allowed to check the imigration status (as I understand it) once you're allready in custody or pulled over. The police are not allowed under that law to just go 'ohh mexicans lets check em' and rightly so, as a large part of the population in that area is hispanic.

As for the whole 'it makes people have to show their papers and thats bad' arguement,, 99% of the time it would be used on people in cars, who would have drivers license they would have to show anyway.

And FEDERAL law already requires that any LEGAL alien (IE: Any non-American here legally) has their papers on them at all times. Of coruse that law is largely ignored as are most immigration laws these days.

[Atlantisbase]

posted on April 13th, 2011, 9:12 pm

Last edited by Atlantisbase on April 13th, 2011, 9:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

You mean a normal broadcasting day of Fox news?

Does it matter? They've all pretty much gone off the deep end and killed objective reporting. But that's a separate issue.

I would say its pretty anti-immigrant over here, and its kinda sad to say but yes your cliches about patriotism in the US that you see on TV are pretty accurate. And remember as a US senator recently said on National television, he doesn't want his kids to grow up in an atheistic society ruled by a fundamentalist Islamic government. No, it makes no sense

But it's not as if were against all immigrants as we were at the turn of the 20th century. Right now it's mostly Hispanics and Muslims that we "hate" (although for different reasons). I mean you don't see people flaming European immigrants or East-Asian immigrants. Maybe that's just because the volume from those countries is very small, but still.

As for the Arizona law it was quite fair. It only allowed to check the imigration status (as I understand it) once you're allready in custody or pulled over. The police are not allowed under that law to just go 'ohh mexicans lets check em' and rightly so, as a large part of the population in that area is hispanic.

As for the whole 'it makes people have to show their papers and thats bad' arguement,, 99% of the time it would be used on people in cars, who would have drivers license they would have to show anyway.

And FEDERAL law already requires that any LEGAL alien (IE: Any non-American here legally) has their papers on them at all times. Of coruse that law is largely ignored as are most immigration laws these days.

Well the point is that this law basically gave the police justification to pull you over just on suspicion

And I quote: (Sorry for all caps, that's how it was in the original document)

E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON
IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED
ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.

Now it depends on how you interpret it, but based on this section it sounds like the only reason a cop needs to pull someone over is their [the cop's] belief that the person has committed a crime. Well, guess what, being in the country illegally is a crime, ergo if they think you are here illegally, over you go. Theoretically there's nothing wrong with this, but in context this means that hispanics will be targeted because they are more likely to be there illegally. What it basically comes down to is prejudicial treatment since someone could be here legally but still be suspected and arrested without a warrant, i.e. no hard evidence. That's what's really at issue, not the validity of the state to enforce its boarders.

posted on April 13th, 2011, 9:16 pm

You could always arrest someone if you had probable cause.

posted on April 13th, 2011, 9:26 pm

You could always arrest someone if you had probable cause.

True, but in this case it's prejudicial treatment. Hispanics are more likely to be here illegally so target hispanics. Therefore it's more likely that a hispanic individual will get arrested under this law - even if falsely - than a non-hispanic.

posted on April 14th, 2011, 1:01 am

Not saying I support the law, but if, as you said, hispanics are more likely to be illegal then isn't a slight bit of stereotyping called for.  At least in areas where you need a sign to warn people about the drug and people trafficing...   Personally, I think if we secured our border, and thereby protecting our citizens, but also made it easier to gain acess legally, then alot of those problems would be solved and there would be no need for laws like that.

Wow, we are wayy off topic.

posted on April 14th, 2011, 1:25 am

True, but in this case it's prejudicial treatment. Hispanics are more likely to be here illegally so target hispanics. Therefore it's more likely that a hispanic individual will get arrested under this law - even if falsely - than a non-hispanic.

On the southern border it's just common sense, as it's a border with a hispanic nation that is currently trying to descend into third world status (and HAS that status in some regions allready) which is also a highway for an almost entirely hispanic continent below it which also is a source of great ammounts of illegal entry into the country as well as drug smuggling.

On the northern border, caucasians should likewise get slightly increased scrutinity due to the same issue. however that should be reduced due to the fact that there are not issues with regular incidents of gunfire coming over the border and striking buildings on the northern border.

To be honest, 95% of this would go away if the border were simply secured, national guard/reserve components of the states on the border for example I think should be left out of the current wars and reassigned to securing the border.