So you didnt read the part where the above author said that they like blends and single malts both just fine and then you missed it again when I said it didnt you?
Well to be fair salt and sugar "sell" because that's what people want to buy. Companies don't stay in business long selling what people dont want to buy.
The author of the above post did not state they had a preference for single malt, you made that up. The author in fact goes out of their way to say they enjoy both blended and single malts.
What the author of the above post is saying here, basically, is that they dont like being lied to which seems perfectly reasonable to me.
So cultures are static and never change? Individuals cant effect culture at all? So when Australia decided to largely ban guns that wasnt decided by individuals?
Also, I love this fantasy that people who favor more gun control dont like America. Did abolitionists hate America too? Maybe they loved it more because they saw it could be better.
People have generally switched to knives in Europe due to poor gun availability and their 3 to 4 times lower homocide rates reflect this.
Absolutly mental health is an important concern and as you say the US doesnt do a very good job at taking care of those with issues. The homocide and gun violence levels in the US versus Europe are so drastically different that it doesnt seem that mental health issues alone can come close to explaining away the difference, however.
So when one is presented with a model that works better then ones own one shouldnt try to emulate the more effective model? The one in question should just keep plugging along with their own shitty model?
And comparing the US to other Western countries is not comparing it to an alien standard (I dont know what to make of the chauvinistic comment). We are widely accepted as part of Western culture.
I did. You pointed to a bunch of tools that have different primary uses then killing people and that are used at rates drastically lower than guns to intentionally kill people and then you point to a minor side use to guns as if all that stuff is the same. I thought maybe you didnt articulate your point properly but it seems like you just made a poor point now.
As stated in the post you replied to, guns are far more efficient at killing people then anything you listed because that is a guns primary purpose and what they have been designed for.
Any rational person would rather have someone try to kill them with a knife then a gun because knives can be run away from. It's why waaaayyyy more people are intentionally killed in this country with guns than knives or any of the other nonsense you mention (bombs kill too!? Good thing they're totally legal!).
Alright, for starters you must have skipped the part of my post where i explained why regional US gun control will always fail so I'll just ignore all of that in your post and you can get back to me. And no, short term stock piling does not mean gun control is doomed to fail. Stock piles are found and confescated or run out.
After that, that just leaves your criminals will always get guns cause they're criminals and again you seem to have ignored what I said above. Since this point is the crux of our discussion I'll repeat myself though.
America has drastically higher gun violence and homocide rates ( but yet similiar rates of crime in general so maybe guns arent the "proven" deterrent you claim) then any other comparible Western nation precisely because we have so many guns. ALL guns start out as legal. There is no such thing as illegal gun factories in this country and we are an exporter of guns, not an importer, both legally and illegaly speaking. Once again, our criminals are FAR more likely to have guns then in any other western country because we have so many legal guns.
Our homocide rate would not be 3 to 4 times higher than western Europe if guns made us safer!
You made a mistake in your math there. For the most part, criminals in the US only have guns because they are so widely available legally. Thus, your (and everyone else's) gun ownership clearly creates a very substantial public risk that is self reinforcing. More guns mean more criminals with guns which means we need more guns to keep ourselves safe which means criminals will have even more guns which means we need more guns and on and on...
The statistics are plain as day that all of our guns arent making us safer when you run us versus any other Western nation with substantial gun control.
And pointing to regional gun control in the US will of course shows that gun control "doesnt work" because illegal guns, made plentiful by wide open gun laws outside the region, still come into the region freely.
They didnt refute your argument because you're argument is foolish and was thus dismissed. You jumped on the smallest of points (are guns cheap or not) within the above text rather than address what is actually being said. Then you make the claim that guns aren't cheap because there are cheaper ways to kill people? So something cant be cheap because something else is cheaper? Sounds like ridiculously poor logic to me. Maybe you should take a college class on logical thinking.
Oh and scary knives!? So many people get killed by knives in all of those country's without guns it's just crazy!
Wow, you had me all the way to the end, i was nodding along and thinking, "what a thoughtfull post". Then you had to turn it all partisan and make big broad baseless accusations about half the population. Honestly, I think you're part of pur country's problems if you dont think the extremes of both of the Right and the Left lie like it's going out of style.
A) I doubt you've ever spent any time talking to Muslim immigrants in this country. Saying they cant move beyond primitive religious practices ( or have any desire to engage in such) is like saying Christians cant but then our Christian based western societies have. Gays are supposed to be killed according to the old testament which Jews, Christians, and Muslims all follow.
But "wait!" you're bound to say, the fact that they havent moved beyond is proof beyond all doubt of their degenerecy! Except it's not. Behavior like this is a function of wealth or the lack thereof. The poorer a society the more prone they are to engage in religious radicalism.
B) As for Ukraine, there's no proof of US involvement. There were however elections that were held a bit later that garnered 60 percent of the population where no pro Russia candidate showed any impressive standings. This certainly suggests a wide spread distaste for the prior government.
Really things like the Ukraine crisis highlight 70 years of failed Russian foriegn policy. Why would any non ethnically Russian Eastern European want their country under the thumb of Russia after all Russia has put them through.
If you believe nation states could exist allowing anyone to vote themselves out of a country youre sorely mistaken.
I laughed about Muslims and Sharia law. They're fleeing that nonsense not seeking to put it on us. Name a significant movement in this country of Muslim immigrants who are trying to implement Sharia law in this country? Or maybe lay off the far right racial purity nonsense, this country was founded contrarily to those values.
As for Crimea, the Russians only live their because of commie bullshit too. AGAIN. All kinds of countries have all kinds of minorities in them, the presence of Russians does not justify an invasion. And "momentary decision"? What's that supposed to mean? Aren't all decisions ultimately made in a moment? Arent all boarders set in a "moment"?
Finally, I would suggest that letting Russia invade and occupy Crimea is not at all practical. Letting a single country arbitrarily decide that a boarder doesnt suit them and then take territory from another country does not set good precedent for maintaining global order. Maybe we should just let China redraw a bunch of boarders too while we're on it. That will clearly satisfy both countries and they will never ever have ambitions beyond those.
For starters, I fail to see how I "shut down a conversation". Second, what was the point of posting that link? are you confirming my point that Republicans of this era actually did things?
So any ethnic minority has the right to cede from their country and join themselves to another? That sounds like a great recipe for global chaos and the degeneration of the institution of the nation state. Should my neighbor Mohammed down the street be able to announce the property him and his family are on is now independent and then pledge allegiance to whatever country he's ethnically from? How about hispanic neighborhoods? We've got a lot of those in the US. Should we let any that want to vote to join Mexico or any other Latin American country?
And really it is democratic as Crimea is not a country and thus has no standing in this. I think it's safe to say Ukraine would not vote for their independence.
Slashdot Mirror
So you didnt read the part where the above author said that they like blends and single malts both just fine and then you missed it again when I said it didnt you?
Wow, you turned a discussion thread about subway meat quality into a conservative rant.
Good for you, that's super.
Well to be fair salt and sugar "sell" because that's what people want to buy. Companies don't stay in business long selling what people dont want to buy.
The author of the above post did not state they had a preference for single malt, you made that up. The author in fact goes out of their way to say they enjoy both blended and single malts.
What the author of the above post is saying here, basically, is that they dont like being lied to which seems perfectly reasonable to me.
So cultures are static and never change? Individuals cant effect culture at all? So when Australia decided to largely ban guns that wasnt decided by individuals?
Also, I love this fantasy that people who favor more gun control dont like America. Did abolitionists hate America too? Maybe they loved it more because they saw it could be better.
People have generally switched to knives in Europe due to poor gun availability and their 3 to 4 times lower homocide rates reflect this.
Absolutly mental health is an important concern and as you say the US doesnt do a very good job at taking care of those with issues. The homocide and gun violence levels in the US versus Europe are so drastically different that it doesnt seem that mental health issues alone can come close to explaining away the difference, however.
Er, I mean deffinitly killed by an Alien
He was deffinitly killed in Aliens, you're thinking of a different character. It's arguable in Terminator.
Here's all three in one go.
Bill Paxton - An Alien, a Predator and a Terminat: http://youtu.be/DHg6S4AYlb4
The only actor to be killed by an Alien, Predator, and Terminator!
So when one is presented with a model that works better then ones own one shouldnt try to emulate the more effective model? The one in question should just keep plugging along with their own shitty model?
And comparing the US to other Western countries is not comparing it to an alien standard (I dont know what to make of the chauvinistic comment). We are widely accepted as part of Western culture.
I did. You pointed to a bunch of tools that have different primary uses then killing people and that are used at rates drastically lower than guns to intentionally kill people and then you point to a minor side use to guns as if all that stuff is the same. I thought maybe you didnt articulate your point properly but it seems like you just made a poor point now.
As stated in the post you replied to, guns are far more efficient at killing people then anything you listed because that is a guns primary purpose and what they have been designed for.
Any rational person would rather have someone try to kill them with a knife then a gun because knives can be run away from. It's why waaaayyyy more people are intentionally killed in this country with guns than knives or any of the other nonsense you mention (bombs kill too!? Good thing they're totally legal!).
Alright, for starters you must have skipped the part of my post where i explained why regional US gun control will always fail so I'll just ignore all of that in your post and you can get back to me. And no, short term stock piling does not mean gun control is doomed to fail. Stock piles are found and confescated or run out.
After that, that just leaves your criminals will always get guns cause they're criminals and again you seem to have ignored what I said above. Since this point is the crux of our discussion I'll repeat myself though.
America has drastically higher gun violence and homocide rates ( but yet similiar rates of crime in general so maybe guns arent the "proven" deterrent you claim) then any other comparible Western nation precisely because we have so many guns. ALL guns start out as legal. There is no such thing as illegal gun factories in this country and we are an exporter of guns, not an importer, both legally and illegaly speaking. Once again, our criminals are FAR more likely to have guns then in any other western country because we have so many legal guns.
Our homocide rate would not be 3 to 4 times higher than western Europe if guns made us safer!
You made a mistake in your math there. For the most part, criminals in the US only have guns because they are so widely available legally. Thus, your (and everyone else's) gun ownership clearly creates a very substantial public risk that is self reinforcing. More guns mean more criminals with guns which means we need more guns to keep ourselves safe which means criminals will have even more guns which means we need more guns and on and on...
The statistics are plain as day that all of our guns arent making us safer when you run us versus any other Western nation with substantial gun control.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And pointing to regional gun control in the US will of course shows that gun control "doesnt work" because illegal guns, made plentiful by wide open gun laws outside the region, still come into the region freely.
So he bought his gun illegally?
They didnt refute your argument because you're argument is foolish and was thus dismissed. You jumped on the smallest of points (are guns cheap or not) within the above text rather than address what is actually being said. Then you make the claim that guns aren't cheap because there are cheaper ways to kill people? So something cant be cheap because something else is cheaper? Sounds like ridiculously poor logic to me. Maybe you should take a college class on logical thinking.
Oh and scary knives!? So many people get killed by knives in all of those country's without guns it's just crazy!
So what's your point?
Sounds like the "you can't compare the US to other countries because we're special and unique" card.
Or in other words "you cant compare a Fuji Apple to another apple because it's a different apple!"
It must be hard being you.
Wow, you had me all the way to the end, i was nodding along and thinking, "what a thoughtfull post". Then you had to turn it all partisan and make big broad baseless accusations about half the population. Honestly, I think you're part of pur country's problems if you dont think the extremes of both of the Right and the Left lie like it's going out of style.
Your shit smells too.
A) I doubt you've ever spent any time talking to Muslim immigrants in this country. Saying they cant move beyond primitive religious practices ( or have any desire to engage in such) is like saying Christians cant but then our Christian based western societies have. Gays are supposed to be killed according to the old testament which Jews, Christians, and Muslims all follow.
But "wait!" you're bound to say, the fact that they havent moved beyond is proof beyond all doubt of their degenerecy! Except it's not. Behavior like this is a function of wealth or the lack thereof. The poorer a society the more prone they are to engage in religious radicalism.
B) As for Ukraine, there's no proof of US involvement. There were however elections that were held a bit later that garnered 60 percent of the population where no pro Russia candidate showed any impressive standings. This certainly suggests a wide spread distaste for the prior government.
Really things like the Ukraine crisis highlight 70 years of failed Russian foriegn policy. Why would any non ethnically Russian Eastern European want their country under the thumb of Russia after all Russia has put them through.
If you believe nation states could exist allowing anyone to vote themselves out of a country youre sorely mistaken.
I laughed about Muslims and Sharia law. They're fleeing that nonsense not seeking to put it on us. Name a significant movement in this country of Muslim immigrants who are trying to implement Sharia law in this country? Or maybe lay off the far right racial purity nonsense, this country was founded contrarily to those values.
As for Crimea, the Russians only live their because of commie bullshit too. AGAIN. All kinds of countries have all kinds of minorities in them, the presence of Russians does not justify an invasion. And "momentary decision"? What's that supposed to mean? Aren't all decisions ultimately made in a moment? Arent all boarders set in a "moment"?
Finally, I would suggest that letting Russia invade and occupy Crimea is not at all practical. Letting a single country arbitrarily decide that a boarder doesnt suit them and then take territory from another country does not set good precedent for maintaining global order. Maybe we should just let China redraw a bunch of boarders too while we're on it. That will clearly satisfy both countries and they will never ever have ambitions beyond those.
For starters, I fail to see how I "shut down a conversation". Second, what was the point of posting that link? are you confirming my point that Republicans of this era actually did things?
I think it has more to do with the value you put on 500 bucks. The vast majority of people would not call your scenario a good deal.
Personally, I do. He did it in a wonderfull past in which conservatives actually did things that helped tue country
So any ethnic minority has the right to cede from their country and join themselves to another? That sounds like a great recipe for global chaos and the degeneration of the institution of the nation state. Should my neighbor Mohammed down the street be able to announce the property him and his family are on is now independent and then pledge allegiance to whatever country he's ethnically from? How about hispanic neighborhoods? We've got a lot of those in the US. Should we let any that want to vote to join Mexico or any other Latin American country?
And really it is democratic as Crimea is not a country and thus has no standing in this. I think it's safe to say Ukraine would not vote for their independence.