We are doing it for Tito!
Long live Yugoslavia
Long live Yugoslavia
Yes. Extremely fascistic. But, fascism isn't all bad.Turquoise wrote:
Have you ever been to America?... If you were a politician and even hinted at implementing a policy like that, you'd get assassinated -- as you should, to be quite frank.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
The military go from house to house... And they remove any guns they find... And then they destroy them... Any guns that turn up after that, are removed and destroyed.... And continue... Yes, it would take some time... Yes, it would require a lot of manpower... Yes, it would really piss a lot of people off... But it could be done.... If there were the political will (in both the politicians and the electorate).Turquoise wrote:
Scorpion, how do you propose removing guns from America?
In principle, your idea works if your society has never had a prevalence of guns among the public (like Japan), but countries like America have always had guns. Since guns are so common here, I don't see any practical solution to this other than making it easy for law-abiding and mentally sane people to have them to defend against criminals.
Seriously, man... Don't you think your plan sounds a bit fascist?...
LOL... now, you're just being silly...
Says the man that wants Derren Brown to be able to run for president...Turquoise wrote:
LOL... now, you're just being silly...
He wouldn't be a fascist, that's for sure...Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Says the man that wants Derren Brown to be able to run for president...Turquoise wrote:
LOL... now, you're just being silly...
Roll back 60 years and any politician who hinted at giving full equal rights to black people would have been assassinated, that shouldn't and didn't stop them.Turquoise wrote:
Have you ever been to America?... If you were a politician and even hinted at implementing a policy like that, you'd get assassinated -- as you should, to be quite frank.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
The military go from house to house... And they remove any guns they find... And then they destroy them... Any guns that turn up after that, are removed and destroyed.... And continue... Yes, it would take some time... Yes, it would require a lot of manpower... Yes, it would really piss a lot of people off... But it could be done.... If there were the political will (in both the politicians and the electorate).Turquoise wrote:
Scorpion, how do you propose removing guns from America?
In principle, your idea works if your society has never had a prevalence of guns among the public (like Japan), but countries like America have always had guns. Since guns are so common here, I don't see any practical solution to this other than making it easy for law-abiding and mentally sane people to have them to defend against criminals.
Seriously, man... Don't you think your plan sounds a bit fascist?...
The only practical solution to remove firearms from American society is a slow phasing out of which types of firearms can legally be owned and limitations on the numbers of guns that can be owned with a state buy-back scheme followed by gun amnesties, before getting anywhere near a total ban. Any even remotely reasonable plan would take most likely a couple of decades to impliment and would therefore require massive bi-partisain support which is obviously not ever going to happen. This kind of thing has happened in some countries but America seems a little overly obsessed by their desire to have guns to ever get the support that would be needed.
I think it happened on Friday neighbor.Nenad1234BGD wrote:
just by chance I saw this topic and... imagine it happened in my country! Not something to be proud of but I certainly agree with the Aussie guy saying that this is probably "better" than the bombs and war. The war probably stayed withing people's hearts and minds, and this is what comes out at some point with some people. All kind of guns and weapons are available to the people and it is hard to control it. No-one knows when another war might break out and "tools" might be needed again. I am really sorry for the community where it happened... any idea when this took place, since I don't recall anything like this in the papers?
About 2 months ago the garbageman found a bag full of hand grenades in the dumpster just out side my apartment
Imagine that killing spree...
This is such a flawed logic. Sure, mass killings may be foiled by armed vigilantes, but do you seriously believe that arming MORE people will lead to fewer deaths?SEREMAKER wrote:
well I know this will kick up or turn into another pro/anti--gun thread
But this shows disbanning guns is a bad idea - fucked up guy shoots random people, if random people had a gun - then just fucked up guy would be dead but the country disbans guns (good job)
another example - Virgina Tech shooting - fucked up guy goes on a shooting spree, it is against the law to carry on school grounds - so even though the chances are good that there are gun owners at the college they can not carry on thegrounds
I have a federal issued FBI checked concealed carry gun permit but yet I can not carry on school grounds or where that you have to pay admission etc. etc.
some laws need to change and stricter background checks need to be placed
1 law I would change is if you have a concealed carry permit then you can carry on school grounds
The problem is that the guy had a gun in the first place. Not that others didn't have guns. Arming the masses and encouraging vigilante justice is literally asking for people to shoot eachother. In a society where people will burn down houses of people who disagree with them on the Internet, and open fire on people who beat them in a video game, how can anyone believe that arming MORE people will lead to FEWER deaths? I've heard all the tired old clichés about how people will think twice if they know the other person has a gun, but how on Earth does that apply to a person who already decided to kill someone else, knowing full well the consequences of his actions? Capital punishment hasn't proven to be a noticable deterrent, so what difference does it make to these people if they die now, or die after spending five years on death row?
It's a half-thought through attempt to patch a problem instead of attacking it at the root. There's a reason for why this methodology rarely works, no matter where you apply it.
you kidding me. i was not so surpise to see "another mass shooting" i was more sick with the video: "daughter sought in father's castration death" on the same site.CC-Marley wrote:
Messed up.
buy back programs dont work. tried that in fallujah. gave everyone a couple of weeks to turn in any contraband weapons and theyll be compensated for it. turned out, most the weapons they were turning in were old and worthless. malfunctioning RPG's, machine guns with bent barrels, etc.PureFodder wrote:
Roll back 60 years and any politician who hinted at giving full equal rights to black people would have been assassinated, that shouldn't and didn't stop them.Turquoise wrote:
Have you ever been to America?... If you were a politician and even hinted at implementing a policy like that, you'd get assassinated -- as you should, to be quite frank.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
The military go from house to house... And they remove any guns they find... And then they destroy them... Any guns that turn up after that, are removed and destroyed.... And continue... Yes, it would take some time... Yes, it would require a lot of manpower... Yes, it would really piss a lot of people off... But it could be done.... If there were the political will (in both the politicians and the electorate).
Seriously, man... Don't you think your plan sounds a bit fascist?...
The only practical solution to remove firearms from American society is a slow phasing out of which types of firearms can legally be owned and limitations on the numbers of guns that can be owned with a state buy-back scheme followed by gun amnesties, before getting anywhere near a total ban. Any even remotely reasonable plan would take most likely a couple of decades to impliment and would therefore require massive bi-partisain support which is obviously not ever going to happen. This kind of thing has happened in some countries but America seems a little overly obsessed by their desire to have guns to ever get the support that would be needed.
I guess that would only work if the populace actually wanted to be rid of guns from their society or if they knew a ban was coming where they'd loose the guns anyway. If they didn't obviously it'd be a waste. I guess It doesn't work in Iraq as every house is alowed one assault rifle if I recall correctly. Then again malfunctioning RPGs sound like something that nobody should have lying around in the cupboard.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
buy back programs dont work. tried that in fallujah. gave everyone a couple of weeks to turn in any contraband weapons and theyll be compensated for it. turned out, most the weapons they were turning in were old and worthless. malfunctioning RPG's, machine guns with bent barrels, etc.PureFodder wrote:
Roll back 60 years and any politician who hinted at giving full equal rights to black people would have been assassinated, that shouldn't and didn't stop them.Turquoise wrote:
Have you ever been to America?... If you were a politician and even hinted at implementing a policy like that, you'd get assassinated -- as you should, to be quite frank.
Seriously, man... Don't you think your plan sounds a bit fascist?...
The only practical solution to remove firearms from American society is a slow phasing out of which types of firearms can legally be owned and limitations on the numbers of guns that can be owned with a state buy-back scheme followed by gun amnesties, before getting anywhere near a total ban. Any even remotely reasonable plan would take most likely a couple of decades to impliment and would therefore require massive bi-partisain support which is obviously not ever going to happen. This kind of thing has happened in some countries but America seems a little overly obsessed by their desire to have guns to ever get the support that would be needed.
it was a way of trying to create less combatants right before we dropped the hammer. But i think its impossible to completely remove firearms from a society that has had them for so long. I also dont see weapons as being the source of societies problems. every civilization in recorded history has had the use of human killing weapons engrained in the fabrique of their society.PureFodder wrote:
I guess that would only work if the populace actually wanted to be rid of guns from their society or if they knew a ban was coming where they'd loose the guns anyway. If they didn't obviously it'd be a waste. I guess It doesn't work in Iraq as every house is alowed one assault rifle if I recall correctly. Then again malfunctioning RPGs sound like something that nobody should have lying around in the cupboard.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
buy back programs dont work. tried that in fallujah. gave everyone a couple of weeks to turn in any contraband weapons and theyll be compensated for it. turned out, most the weapons they were turning in were old and worthless. malfunctioning RPG's, machine guns with bent barrels, etc.PureFodder wrote:
Roll back 60 years and any politician who hinted at giving full equal rights to black people would have been assassinated, that shouldn't and didn't stop them.
The only practical solution to remove firearms from American society is a slow phasing out of which types of firearms can legally be owned and limitations on the numbers of guns that can be owned with a state buy-back scheme followed by gun amnesties, before getting anywhere near a total ban. Any even remotely reasonable plan would take most likely a couple of decades to impliment and would therefore require massive bi-partisain support which is obviously not ever going to happen. This kind of thing has happened in some countries but America seems a little overly obsessed by their desire to have guns to ever get the support that would be needed.
yeah but you have to admit that its different in a war zone. Fallujah is Fallujah.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
buy back programs dont work. tried that in fallujah. gave everyone a couple of weeks to turn in any contraband weapons and theyll be compensated for it. turned out, most the weapons they were turning in were old and worthless. malfunctioning RPG's, machine guns with bent barrels, etc.
In Bosnia there was a Operation called "Harvest" where people were given amnesty for all the weapons they turn it.
In 2003 alone about 11,000 handguns and rifles and 45,000 hand grenades were turned in.
I couldnt find the numbers for previous years but the program is in place since 1998.
http://www.shape.nato.int/sfor/factshee … 40202a.htm
America definitely needs a similar program. Of course you wont get rid off all the guns and crime, but you would get rid of a lot. Arguments like "if a criminal wants a gun he will get it easily" are true because the country is flooded with illegal firearms.
Heroin is 100% illegal in every state in the U.S., and there is NEVER a reason for ANYONE to have it, and it is ALWAYS a violation of the law to have it, but plenty of people get it and use it every day.
If guns were 110% illegal, just like heroin, only those willing to break the law would have them, and the rest of us would be at their mercy.
If guns were 110% illegal, just like heroin, only those willing to break the law would have them, and the rest of us would be at their mercy.
Fortunately, in reality, it doesn't work like that .Dersmikner wrote:
Heroin is 100% illegal in every state in the U.S., and there is NEVER a reason for ANYONE to have it, and it is ALWAYS a violation of the law to have it, but plenty of people get it and use it every day.
If guns were 110% illegal, just like heroin, only those willing to break the law would have them, and the rest of us would be at their mercy.
and where exactly is he off the mark??PureFodder wrote:
Fortunately, in reality, it doesn't work like that .Dersmikner wrote:
Heroin is 100% illegal in every state in the U.S., and there is NEVER a reason for ANYONE to have it, and it is ALWAYS a violation of the law to have it, but plenty of people get it and use it every day.
If guns were 110% illegal, just like heroin, only those willing to break the law would have them, and the rest of us would be at their mercy.
He is off the mark where he assumed that we live in an uncivilised society.lowing wrote:
and where exactly is he off the mark??PureFodder wrote:
Fortunately, in reality, it doesn't work like that .Dersmikner wrote:
Heroin is 100% illegal in every state in the U.S., and there is NEVER a reason for ANYONE to have it, and it is ALWAYS a violation of the law to have it, but plenty of people get it and use it every day.
If guns were 110% illegal, just like heroin, only those willing to break the law would have them, and the rest of us would be at their mercy.
That kind of fearmongering is just not a portrayal of how the real world works. A vast majority of people have never, and will never own a gun. Are they "at the mercy" of the people who do? Of course not. Why? Because this is not 1750. The US is not based on mob rule. Assuming that you need a gun to be safe in the West because other people have guns is delusional paranoia.
No I think the delusion is yours, if you think we all live our lives in America owning guns, EXPECTING at any minute, to have to draw down on someone and defend ourselves for our lives. Believe it or not the vast majority of us gun owners go about our daily lives having never seen our guns for months, and only then to go out and target shoot or hunt. We are not "paranoid", we have taken it upon ourselves to have the means to defend ourselves and not rely on the govt. to do it for us. My guns are there if I need them for defense ( and I doubt I ever will) and locked away until I decide to out and shoot clay pigeons.mikkel wrote:
He is off the mark where he assumed that we live in an uncivilised society.lowing wrote:
and where exactly is he off the mark??PureFodder wrote:
Fortunately, in reality, it doesn't work like that .
That kind of fearmongering is just not a portrayal of how the real world works. A vast majority of people have never, and will never own a gun. Are they "at the mercy" of the people who do? Of course not. Why? Because this is not 1750. The US is not based on mob rule. Assuming that you need a gun to be safe in the West because other people have guns is delusional paranoia.
You drama queens are wayyyyyyyyyy over reacting about gun ownership. Just because you were stupid enough to give up yours to your govt. Do not expect us to follow you.
A cell.
2m by 2m.
No light.
Solitary confinement for 25 years with 1 hour sunlight each day in a 5m by 5m excersise yard.
Diet: Enough to keep him alive.
2m by 2m.
No light.
Solitary confinement for 25 years with 1 hour sunlight each day in a 5m by 5m excersise yard.
Diet: Enough to keep him alive.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
We're happy having about one percent of you gun crime rate over here. Clearly gun ownership for defence doesn't work since homicide, rape and violent crime are all so much higher in the US. Shouldn't you all be defending yourselves successfully against these attacks as you have guns?lowing wrote:
No I think the delusion is yours, if you think we all live our lives in America owning guns, EXPECTING at any minute, to have to draw down on someone and defend ourselves for our lives. Believe it or not the vast majority of us gun owners go about our daily lives having never seen our guns for months, and only then to go out and target shoot or hunt. We are not "paranoid", we have taken it upon ourselves to have the means to defend ourselves and not rely on the govt. to do it for us. My guns are there if I need them for defense ( and I doubt I ever will) and locked away until I decide to out and shoot clay pigeons.mikkel wrote:
He is off the mark where he assumed that we live in an uncivilised society.lowing wrote:
and where exactly is he off the mark??
That kind of fearmongering is just not a portrayal of how the real world works. A vast majority of people have never, and will never own a gun. Are they "at the mercy" of the people who do? Of course not. Why? Because this is not 1750. The US is not based on mob rule. Assuming that you need a gun to be safe in the West because other people have guns is delusional paranoia.
You drama queens are wayyyyyyyyyy over reacting about gun ownership. Just because you were stupid enough to give up yours to your govt. Do not expect us to follow you.
ok there are ones from europe, australia, new zealand, japan... but for every australian massacare there were like 10 american ones...SenorToenails wrote:
You're right ... Australia's gun culture is out of control!Magpie wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres
Furthest down on the pageSeriously though, there are European massacres on that list.Martin Bryant shoots 35 people dead and injures 37 at the tourist town of Port Arthur, Tasmania.Robert Steinhäuser broke into his former high school and killed 13 teachers, 2 students and a police officer before finally turning a gun on himself. (Erfurt, Thuringia, Germany, 2002)
Friedrich Leibacher entered the Zug parliament and opened fire, killing three members of the cantonal government and 11 parliamentarians before turning the gun on himself. (Zug, Switzerland, 2001)
Nope because like I said, we are not paranoid gun owners, we do not all carry our guns on us wherever we go. I said, usually they are locked in the house in a gun safe. The majority of crimes commited are not on people who are packing. The reason we are not packing 24/7 is because we are not as paranoid as you want to portrait us, and can and have been caught with our gaurd down.PureFodder wrote:
We're happy having about one percent of you gun crime rate over here. Clearly gun ownership for defence doesn't work since homicide, rape and violent crime are all so much higher in the US. Shouldn't you all be defending yourselves successfully against these attacks as you have guns?lowing wrote:
No I think the delusion is yours, if you think we all live our lives in America owning guns, EXPECTING at any minute, to have to draw down on someone and defend ourselves for our lives. Believe it or not the vast majority of us gun owners go about our daily lives having never seen our guns for months, and only then to go out and target shoot or hunt. We are not "paranoid", we have taken it upon ourselves to have the means to defend ourselves and not rely on the govt. to do it for us. My guns are there if I need them for defense ( and I doubt I ever will) and locked away until I decide to out and shoot clay pigeons.mikkel wrote:
He is off the mark where he assumed that we live in an uncivilised society.
That kind of fearmongering is just not a portrayal of how the real world works. A vast majority of people have never, and will never own a gun. Are they "at the mercy" of the people who do? Of course not. Why? Because this is not 1750. The US is not based on mob rule. Assuming that you need a gun to be safe in the West because other people have guns is delusional paranoia.
You drama queens are wayyyyyyyyyy over reacting about gun ownership. Just because you were stupid enough to give up yours to your govt. Do not expect us to follow you.
I don't quite get you here. I replied to a post suggesting that if people were armed, the world would be a safer place. That is -precisely- suggesting that people carry guns around, expecting the need to defend themselves. That is delusional paranoia.lowing wrote:
No I think the delusion is yours, if you think we all live our lives in America owning guns, EXPECTING at any minute, to have to draw down on someone and defend ourselves for our lives. Believe it or not the vast majority of us gun owners go about our daily lives having never seen our guns for months, and only then to go out and target shoot or hunt. We are not "paranoid", we have taken it upon ourselves to have the means to defend ourselves and not rely on the govt. to do it for us. My guns are there if I need them for defense ( and I doubt I ever will) and locked away until I decide to out and shoot clay pigeons.mikkel wrote:
He is off the mark where he assumed that we live in an uncivilised society.lowing wrote:
and where exactly is he off the mark??
That kind of fearmongering is just not a portrayal of how the real world works. A vast majority of people have never, and will never own a gun. Are they "at the mercy" of the people who do? Of course not. Why? Because this is not 1750. The US is not based on mob rule. Assuming that you need a gun to be safe in the West because other people have guns is delusional paranoia.
You drama queens are wayyyyyyyyyy over reacting about gun ownership. Just because you were stupid enough to give up yours to your govt. Do not expect us to follow you.
I know that you're quick to jump at everyone who even hints at anything you think you might somehow disagree with, but at least do me the favour of reading my posts and understanding them fully before calling me delusional for thinking something that I in the very same post am actually calling delusional paranoia. It is obviously not my perception when I'm arguing how ridiculous that would be.
Calm down, lowing.
Last edited by mikkel (2007-07-31 02:17:27)
Not really sure why ya think I am "all excited" over your post.mikkel wrote:
I don't quite get you here. I replied to a post suggesting that if people were armed, the world would be a safer place. That is -precisely- suggesting that people carry guns around, expecting the need to defend themselves. That is delusional paranoia.lowing wrote:
No I think the delusion is yours, if you think we all live our lives in America owning guns, EXPECTING at any minute, to have to draw down on someone and defend ourselves for our lives. Believe it or not the vast majority of us gun owners go about our daily lives having never seen our guns for months, and only then to go out and target shoot or hunt. We are not "paranoid", we have taken it upon ourselves to have the means to defend ourselves and not rely on the govt. to do it for us. My guns are there if I need them for defense ( and I doubt I ever will) and locked away until I decide to out and shoot clay pigeons.mikkel wrote:
He is off the mark where he assumed that we live in an uncivilised society.
That kind of fearmongering is just not a portrayal of how the real world works. A vast majority of people have never, and will never own a gun. Are they "at the mercy" of the people who do? Of course not. Why? Because this is not 1750. The US is not based on mob rule. Assuming that you need a gun to be safe in the West because other people have guns is delusional paranoia.
You drama queens are wayyyyyyyyyy over reacting about gun ownership. Just because you were stupid enough to give up yours to your govt. Do not expect us to follow you.
I know that you're quick to jump at everyone who even hints at anything you think you might somehow disagree with, but at least do me the favour of reading my posts and understanding them fully before calling me delusional for thinking something that I in the very same post am actually calling delusional paranoia. It is obviously not my perception when I'm arguing how ridiculous that would be.
Calm down, lowing.
Your post suggests that we all think this is a mob ruled society in 1750 and you had to reassure us that it is not. THAT is your delusion I speak of. SO once again, stop being a drama queen, as it would apppear, YOU are the excitable one.
I have friends who have moved their recently. Ethnic tensions are still high from the war. And like any war zone the peoples become desensitised to violence and things like this we continue for a generation or two yet.
We have an unusually high murder rate her ATM too, but that's hopefully the last generation brought up surrounded by violence and no nothing else. Hopefully the Baltic and N.Ireland people will work it out of their systems asap.
We have an unusually high murder rate her ATM too, but that's hopefully the last generation brought up surrounded by violence and no nothing else. Hopefully the Baltic and N.Ireland people will work it out of their systems asap.