(December 27, 2012 at 1:08 pm)The_Germans_are_coming Wrote: I never, not in a single post, stated that nothing should be done to lower the crime rate! I only stated that strickter regulations of guns werent the right solution.

I had given France as an example of a European nation which has low gun regulations and a "low" crime rate, and so does Swizerland. In Swizerland - citizens can actualy own full automatic assault rifles - which would be illegal in the US.


The homicide rate in the US is: 4,2 homicides per 100 000 people.

0,3 in Iceland, 0,6 in Norway, 0,8 Germany, 1,1 France,

You could actualy read through this statistic which lists nations by their gun regulation laws and their homicide rates.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/...world-list

And if you think the sole reason, that Germany, Norway, Japan and Iceland have lower homicide rates is because of low gun control, then you are nuts. And I hope you really dont believe this.

These countries are also in the top ten of the nations with the highest living standerds, have a low poverty rate and they are culturaly different and have are wellfare states. Which certainly to is a factor for a lower crime rate.

If I could give you a thousand kudos for that post, I would.

(December 27, 2012 at 3:46 pm)Shell B Wrote: Brian, it is considered shouting. It has nothing to do with whether it makes me uncomfortable. It is in the forum guidelines.

It is also not in the guidelines of other websites, atheist or not, so it amounts to the owners comfort level. Like if you smoke or don't smoke in your house.

Now, if you want to call it an internet meme many people buy into, that is a better case. But it is no different than someone liking South Park vs someone else who does not.

Quote:That is not, what I am trying to say!!!!!!!!!!!!


I never, not in a single post, stated that nothing should be done to lower the crime rate! I only stated that strickter regulations of guns werent the right solution.

You pointed out how our homicide rate is 'average', implying that we're making too big a deal out of it when we point out how high it is.

Quote:But this is a silly notion, of course, and I'm sure everyone here who has a stick up their ass about gun ownership is going to tell me I'm completely wrong, flying their arguments right in the face of reality...

It is completely wrong. How do you think illegal guns get on the streets? Do gun manufacturers set up a manufacturing quota of guns which will be legal and ones which won't? Do they divide distribution between legitimate gun stores and illegal gun runners?

Of course not. Illegal guns don't start out as illegal guns. Obviously, we've let many horses out of the barn already, but that's no reason to continue to leave the doors open.

By all means, though, keep setting up the "banning guns will solve EVERYTHING" strawman that not a single gun control advocate believes.

(December 27, 2012 at 4:27 pm)Ryantology Wrote:

Quote:That is not, what I am trying to say!!!!!!!!!!!!


I never, not in a single post, stated that nothing should be done to lower the crime rate! I only stated that strickter regulations of guns werent the right solution.

You pointed out how our homicide rate is 'average', implying that we're making too big a deal out of it when we point out how high it is.

Quote:But this is a silly notion, of course, and I'm sure everyone here who has a stick up their ass about gun ownership is going to tell me I'm completely wrong, flying their arguments right in the face of reality...

It is completely wrong. How do you think illegal guns get on the streets? Do gun manufacturers set up a manufacturing quota of guns which will be legal and which ones won't? Do they divide distribution between legitimate gun stores and illegal gun runners?

Of course not. Illegal guns don't start out as illegal guns. Obviously, we've let many horses out of the barn already, but that's no reason to continue to leave the doors open.

What does that have to do with them not caring about the amount? You can claim all they want that the manufactures do not have the intent of selling to people who can't have them. But like any business, when new problems come up in society, laws don't always keep up with changing times and most of the time that business will do everything it can to avoid regulation, EVEN when it is clear that the product they sell is dangerous.

If you sell cars, or diapers or navel lint, your objective is to expand your market. This is no different a mistake BP made with it's oil spill. Once you forget how you can affect society that's when your product can become dangerous.

The gun manufactures to me need to be put in their place like Nader did with cars. Nader didn't call for the ban of cars, but because of his bitching, cars have become safer.

It isn't simply the manufacturers saying "we don't sell to people who shouldn't have them". It shouldn't matter. They are not worried about the epidemic of when they do sell them to legal people, how others get them from the legal people they sell them to.

Quote:You can claim all they want that the manufactures do not have the intent of selling to people who can't have them.

I think you misunderstand me; I'm not defending the manufacturers. I'm pointing out that America's illegal guns start out as legal guns, save for those which are smuggled in. The reason it's easy to obtain illegal guns is because the number of legal guns means there are plenty to steal, or purchase off the books. Illegal guns do not have some separate, mystical unknown source of origin.

(December 27, 2012 at 4:24 pm)Brian37 Wrote: It is also not in the guidelines of other websites, atheist or not, so it amounts to the owners comfort level. Like if you smoke or don't smoke in your house.

Now, if you want to call it an internet meme many people buy into, that is a better case. But it is no different than someone liking South Park vs someone else who does not.

Bullshit. I was on staff here for quite a while. I know the rules.

From the guidelines:

Quote:Similarly, typing in all capital letters is associated with shouting. IF YOU TYPE LIKE THIS, PEOPLE WILL FEEL LIKE YOU'RE SHOUTING AND IT WILL ALSO MAKE IT HARDER TO READ BECAUSE PEOPLE THEN READ IT WORD FOR WORD INSTEAD OF AS A FLOWING SENTENCE. If you want to convey shouting, that's fine, and it can be appropriate in some cases. If I'm making a sarcastic comment, I sometimes use the caps lock button myself. However, typing in all caps is not necessary and nobody really likes it.

As I've stated before, I am all for the idea of making the sale of guns much more difficult rather than just selling them as easily as soda and candy bars, but that's not going to stop the illegal procurement, and NEITHER is outright banning them. All banning them outright is going to do is generate a huge black market for guns. People aren't going to just give up in this country because guns are illegal; either responsible or irresponsible, people are going to get a hold of guns. Is it going to stop anyone? As someone who has seen the slums of American society and ergo grew up surrounded by people constantly getting their hands on guns regardless of whether or not they were supposed to, I can assure you: No. It's only going to make things restrictively annoying and prohibitive for the other 65,000,000 of us who DON'T go around shooting other people. You'll sure stop people from target practice and turkey shooting and hunting with firearms! But fire-arm related homicides? *chuckles* You're as deluded as the fundies if you think so.

(December 27, 2012 at 5:21 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(December 27, 2012 at 4:24 pm)Brian37 Wrote: It is also not in the guidelines of other websites, atheist or not, so it amounts to the owners comfort level. Like if you smoke or don't smoke in your house.

Now, if you want to call it an internet meme many people buy into, that is a better case. But it is no different than someone liking South Park vs someone else who does not.

Bullshit. I was on staff here for quite a while. I know the rules.

From the guidelines:

Quote:Similarly, typing in all capital letters is associated with shouting. IF YOU TYPE LIKE THIS, PEOPLE WILL FEEL LIKE YOU'RE SHOUTING AND IT WILL ALSO MAKE IT HARDER TO READ BECAUSE PEOPLE THEN READ IT WORD FOR WORD INSTEAD OF AS A FLOWING SENTENCE. If you want to convey shouting, that's fine, and it can be appropriate in some cases. If I'm making a sarcastic comment, I sometimes use the caps lock button myself. However, typing in all caps is not necessary and nobody really likes it.

Ok, since you posted your objection to my caps, I have observed others using caps too. Now, I seriously DO get it. But ultimately it amounts to a comfort level.

If I type "fuck" vs "FUCK" there are still going to be people who don't like cussing. Just like with many theists, you don't even have to say(for example) "fuck jesus, or fuck Allah), in many cases all we have to do is say "Jesus wasn't real" or "Allah wasn't real" and to many(not all) but many it still reads to them as "FUCK YOU".

Now, it can only be a comfort level, because both you and I know as atheists there will always be people, no matter how you explain yourself will not be satisfied with the words you chose or the way you act. So it still ends up being that we can only be ourselves.

Now without cussing lets take caps as an example.

If I type only one word "CAPS", and even today I have seen caps used by others, then the issue becomes amount. Where do you say, "this amount is ok, but after that it is too much?"

One word, two words 50?

Now I DO understand comfort level. I have been online since 01. In all that time there has been only 1 person that pissed me off to the point of wanting him banned. Someone else rightfully to their credit, pulled me over and told me to let it go. This guy had insulted my x wife who was Japanese by saying Japan's Tsunami was our(America's warning) to find god.

But the guy who pulled me over and said "let it go" was in line with the the thinking I have had long before that asshole insulted me. "Let the reader decide".

It is true that anyone with who owns something should have control over it, and set the rules. But, if we are to as atheists and pluralists who do not silence dissent, I do not think it serves anyone here well to simply make rules that suit our own comfort levels. This is why I am glad I am not a mod on that board, or even own that board when he made that vile comment. Because I could not do as well as the founders of America in allowing even the most offensive things.

Think long term, don't think about me. I am one person. I get that we do not think alike on all things, and most certainly I get that you are not fond of some of what I do. But if we are to convey the very thing we think the theists and fascists lack, this very conflict you and I are having should strictly be relegated to letting the reader decide, not you, not me.

Otherwise we only serve to project ourselves on each other the very same way we rightfully accuse others of doing.

(December 27, 2012 at 3:16 pm)Brian37 Wrote: No, I am not morally superior to anyone. You simply are not comfortable with the way I communicate with others. I get that, if we all liked everything all the time and everyone all the time we'd be clones of each other.

Heh, you call that communication? I guess monkeys throwing shit at eachother is also communication, by your definition. <---See what I did here? I gave emphasis to a part of my post withouth caps. Technology these days is awesome.

Quote:I see nothing wrong with being passionate about a very real issue that HAS been ignored for far too long that affects REAL people.

Ever heard of reasonable argument?

Quote:Now, as far as my caps, that is a comfort issue. You are not comfortable with caps. Ok. And as far as my spelling, I have never been a great speller. And sometimes I do miss the red underline before I hit submit.

I don't really care about your spelling, but your caps usage is just abhorrent. It makes me skim over your posts faster than the mouse wheel is capable of doing, it also might help you to get a new perspective 'cause you said this:

Quote:And as far as doing "nothing" everyone here, you, me, AND our disagreements are vital, every single post, even when we "shout" at each other. First and foremost it demonstrates that atheists exist. Secondly it also shows that we are not godless clones, much less clones of each other. There is no right way to be an atheist. We are still ultimately individuals, no matter our labels.

Disagreements are good, but as per your caps policy you will soon find yourself disagreeing with yourself.

(December 27, 2012 at 5:13 pm)Ryantology Wrote:

Quote:You can claim all they want that the manufactures do not have the intent of selling to people who can't have them.

I think you misunderstand me; I'm not defending the manufacturers. I'm pointing out that America's illegal guns start out as legal guns, save for those which are smuggled in. The reason it's easy to obtain illegal guns is because the number of legal guns means there are plenty to steal, or purchase off the books. Illegal guns do not have some separate, mystical unknown source of origin.

Quote:I think you misunderstand me; I'm not defending the manufacturers. I'm pointing out that America's illegal guns start out as legal guns,

So we are not on different pages. This is my point. This is no different to me than the guy who owns the mom an pop breakfast place I work at. He thinks he is more like McDonald's and Denny's not understanding that THEY, not him, set the "race to the bottom" climate that he tags along with because of the title "business owner".

Guns, from the manufacturing standpoint, DO, start out legal, but the further down you go the culpability from the top means far less because, just like when you drive a car off the lot, it is yours, even if the manufacturer knows the car has defective breaks, "I didn't tell you to buy it".

Yes, you are absolutely right. Guns used in illegal crimes are always legally made and most of the time legally purchased. But no one wants to place blame on the manufacturers.