Why should there be a government registry of gun ownership, that's fucking madness.Originally Posted by Boydy
Why should there be a government registry of gun ownership, that's fucking madness.
Do you own a gun Mert?
Exactly. Take that, mom and dad.
I've answered this a number of times. My school does not allow gun ownership on campus, therefore I temporarily do not own any guns. I have shot many and will own numerous once I have graduated.
Give your fucking head a wobble, son.
Was probably @randomlegend proving a point to me.
Just to flip this, could you tell me what would be fundamentally wrong with a database showing who owns what guns?
Remember seeing that Elliot Rodgers video and thinking this is probably what mert is like. No wonder he likes guns and I wonder what his kill count will be?
Gross violation of privacy, and creating an easier pathway for gun confiscation/criminalization.
Slight difference; I am not severely depressed and have no issues finding female companionship.
What a bizarre reason.
The Government already know where you live, where you work and who your family is - they have a record of the car you drive (hello drivers license), and the overseas travel you take (hi Mr Passport) amongst a myriad of other data currently being collated. The only thing a ownership database will do is increase the ability to find criminals quicker, and hopefully deter anyone thinking of committing a crime in the first place.
You're a nutjob.
You are 100% deluded if you think a gun database would deter any criminals. Also not sure you're aware of this but guns can already be traced back to owners after a crime has been committed through their serial number. Regardless, having such a database would be entirely unfeasible as criminals would simply obtain false identification or give false information. And that's the point, if the government did have a database and they wanted to criminalize gun ownership, confiscation would become far easier.
So in summary:
1. Not a detterent to commit crime as criminals would use stolen guns or evade the system in other ways such as by providing false information while buying guns
2. Totally unfeasible in a nation with 300 million firearms
3. Less invasive tracking systems already exist
4. A gross violation of privacy and step towards easier confiscation of guns
You're the nutjob who apparently doesn't care about liberty or rational thought.
10th most homicides by firearms in the world. 1st in the developed countries.
LIBERTY!!!
I hope you're not stupid enough to take that figure at face value, you would want to look at per capita homicides not simply the total number.
Anyways a gun registration system would do absolutely nothing to alleviate that issue. Let me know when you come up with an actual logical rebuttal that convincingly argues otherwise.
Don't forget, White Americans are subject to about the same level of very low gun violence as the 'civilized' Western European countries. It is the urban enclaves with ongoing gang warfare that inflates the figures.
That is per capita, numbnuts.
As for the comments about race... I'm out.
How would you alleviate the high gun crime in urban enclaves?
Genuine question so I'd appreciate a genuine answer instead of some 'lol libtard' nonsense.
The numbers in support of these proposals, even within the NRA, are massive. From the way the media cover it you'd presume it was split down the middle.
I've seen that stated, but I've never seen figures to back it up. Honest question: could you support that?
The closest I can come is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_vi...tates_by_state
When you sort per capita deaths by state, it doesn't seem to support your point. Maryland is high, and Michigan just cracks the top ten. But if what you're saying is true regarding centers of urban development, I wouldn't expect Louisiana and Missouri to round out the top three. Let alone South Carolina and Delaware at five and six.
Gun Murder States (blackest state):
1. District of Colombia (not a state but very, very black)
2. Louisiana (2nd blackest state)
3. Missouri (19th)
4, Maryland (4th)
5. South Carolina (5th)
6. Delaware (8th)
7. Michigan (16th)
8. Mississippi (1st)
9. Florida (11th)
10. Georgia (3rd)
Missouri and Michigan look like the outliers, but their blackness is concentrated in death hubs like St. Louis and Detroit.
Remember when I was championing racial issues on the old boards and posted FACTS that showed a direct correlation between gun crime and high ethnic populations?
Surely everywhere is a high ethnic population
It's a small sample, but you get the point. What sets the Finns off?
Which proposals? Support for guns rights is generally higher than its been for decades.
Do you need further evidence or has Lewis done enough?
So you're using "urban" as racial shorthand for black?
And Lewis' numbers still have white American deaths as being 25% higher than the highest Western European nation (Finland). 47% higher than Belgium. 78% higher than Norway. 127% higher than the UK and France (and Australia). 177% higher than Sweden, Italy and the Netherlands (and New Zealand). So actually, even the best figure there is still dramatically worse than developed Western European nations.
In Finland it's dark all the time, cold all the time, and nothing happens. They also have the highest drinking and suicide rates I believe.
Not quite there for drinking.
http://www.itv.com/news/channel/upda...ems-in-jersey/
I've been drinking with Finns and, anecdotally at least, they put everyone else I've ever drunk with to shame. They drink like it's their last night on Earth. And not in the party way - in the "I'm going to ingest as much vodka as is available, with a minimum of frivolity or fuss." And then they will.
That said, two of my Finnish friends are among the most lovely and cheerful people I have ever met. So I guess you just can't pick 'em.
I'd rather know what the deal is with Lithuania.
Let me introduce you all to the Triangle of Doom.
Nothing other than total, abject misery has ever happened inside the Triangle of Doom. The peoples within always rank ridiculously high up on every misery measure there is. Auschwitz and Stalingrad are both in there, as are most of the pogroms and a lot of darkness and suicide and drunkenness and death.
EDIT: Stalingrad is further south actually, but I'm not drawing it again.
Might as well make it the Diamond of Doom and include the Middle East.
Those nations don't have black on white crime.
And anyways it's 'close enough' that the 1 extra death per 100,000 isn't really too high of a cost for the added liberty enjoyed by American citizens.
Hard to argue. Belarus goes under the radar on this stuff, but it's a terrible place to be at the moment. Repressive absolute dictatorship.
EDIT: At Jimmy
It's basically anything touched by Russia. Poland still votes almost perfectly in accordance with the 1914 German/Russian border.
I centred my map by whacking 'Minsk' into google.
Yo ital, why do you think there are a disproprotionately high number of math geniuses from these areas? Belarus had the IMO winner a couole years back, all the best (non-asian) math students here are from Bulgaria or Russia or Belarus. Half the theorems you learn have Russian names. Is it just all the social inept kids who have no Western distractions and are forced to devote their lives to solving proofs?
Leftover non-assimilated into American culture pure Ashkanazi Jew genetics IMO
Chess as well. And musical geniuses. It leads to intensity and massive focus on one (indoor) thing.
There's a reason why Spain has loads of great footballers and fuck all great composers.
There was a massive intensity in Russian mathematics and science during the Cold War. One of my old professors brought in their high school texts, and it was seriously advanced stuff. They pushed them hard from the get-go.
Conflict spurs on development, because it demands technological and intellectual progress. It's the same reason that the Dutch intellectual golden era coincided almost perfectly with the phase of their history where they were at war with England, and that physics experienced its greatest progress for 400 years in the first half of the 20th century.
Couple that with the rigour on which Russian mathematics is built (different educational traditions "do" mathematics in different ways, and that can lend itself to strengths and weaknesses in different areas - nobody beats the French for analysis, the Japanese are right at the front when it comes to algebraic geometry, etc.), and they spent most of the 60s and 70s being outrageously productive. I live in constant concern that everything I've done has already been done by some obscure Russian mathematician in the '70s and just hasn't been translated yet.
EDIT: It's also interesting how it changes over time. Right now, you'd say that the French lead the way in modern pure mathematics, and by a fairly comfortable margin. It's probably to do with the fact that their mathematical tradition emphasizes rigour and abstraction (due to the Bourbaki group, and its influence on French mathematical education), which become far more important than things like intuition or visualization when you get to the cutting edges of the field.
Spain, not us; but our development of a honking great navy to bash the Dutch with helped to drive our rise by hoovering up ideas and material.
I wonder how much the Soviet emphasis on maths/science/number things was also down to the restrictions they placed on word things. You were hardly at liberty to publish whatever you liked in the humanities/social sciences, lest it fall foul of the official government line on whatever you were doing, so maybe, as well as wanting rockets, they pushed the other fields as a 'safer' outlet for intelligent people.
They did have scientific purges as well. Lysenko came down heavily on anyone pushing evolutionary biology/genetics, in favour of a Lamarkian approach. Lysenko did such a degree of damage to Soviet biology that it wasn't really repaired for over three decades. He also interfered with the rest of the scientific establishment - there are a number of physicists who attracted his ire. But still, it's true that it wasn't nearly as bad as the arts and social sciences.
EDIT: My mistake on the Spain/England thing too. I've never looked too closely at Dutch military history. As, I suspect, has anyone not Dutch.
It's not that bad.
Are you being paid to say that?
No. My best mate has family out there and has been out a couple of times. You can't go out protesting against the government in the streets but it really isn't that bad.
So you can't show peaceful dissent?
Yup sounds like a perfectly democratic country.
Democracy is overrated.
I didn't say it was perfectly democratic.
Ital said it was a terrible place to be. I said it wasn't that bad. In an all-round sense. People have the things they need - jobs, houses etc. The not being able to protest is a downside obviously but it's not the totalitsrian hellhole it was being painted as.
It's worth noting that those figures wheeled out above are only homicides. Also, I don't know how much you can tout 'added liberty' based around gun ownership. It's technically another right for citizens, but the society it creates is far more oppressive.
Also, Mert, you're a cunt.
6 dead. Shooter in custody.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...kills-randomly
7 confirmed now.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
