AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2007-04-21, 19:20   Link #141
Solace
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbes_fan View Post
What about other countries who's gun related homicide rates have decreased since introduction of gun restrictions (note restrictions not bans). How do you disprove that? Or do their experience mean nothing as well. If that's the case good luck to the US, gun related crime and will continue to increase, but hey as long as it doesn't come here it's not my problem. Because our laws work despite what you believe, and I have more to fear from being bitten by a dog than to walk into an armed situation.
There are statistics that show in some countries banning or extremely strict rules on guns actually increase crime, including areas in the US. I have no fear of guns in America, with the one exception being if I'm going through a "shady" part of a city (and all cities have a place like this). Honestly every country handles thier gun control differently, with varying degrees of success mitigated by many social/political factors. What works very well in a place like Switzerland may not show the same results in a country like Russia. It's a completely different culture and political structure.

As for WanderingKnights comments I'm not taking offense but you do show a bit of a nieve/idealistic streak (which isn't bad, I'm a bit like that too ). I wish things in the world were so cut and dry but they rarely are. It would certainly make things easier to change. It's one thing to suggest ideas, but implementing requires considering many different opinions and suggestions in a democratic enviroment. Everyones voice is important here, not just the majority (which isn't always right), so it's important to consider all sides before making choices that affect everyone. Quite frankly, a well intentioned change isn't always the best change.

Bush wasn't the most popular President until 9/11. His ratings spiked after, and he used that approval to push things he never would have been able to without that confidence. He barely won the second term, and a major reason was because the other candidates showed no real reason to be elected over him. If you pay attention to his ratings, he's been in decline since the Iraq war began, and he's one of the few presidents to not have a high approval rating in a war time enviroment. There is a popular conspiracy theory that he might have even been involved in the 9/11 attacks to gain approval, however at this point there is no proof to implicate outside of some coincidences. Watch Loose Change sometime to see one such conspiracy theory behind the attacks.

The public overwhelmingly replaced the republican party during the last congressional election, and I doubt a republican will be in office when the presidential election is over. People are sick of the policies this current administration has, and they are tired of the war and how much it's cost everyone (not just in monetary measures either).

Bush did far more harm than good for this country and it's going to take alot of work to repair that. I'm not sure some of that can ever be truly repaired. All I can say for certain is that there is growing sentiment among Americans that things need to change, and I have no doubt that some kind of Revolution is on the horizon. For better or worse, who knows?

The whole "American arrogance" comment made me chuckle. The founders probably could have just named the country the United States. But they didn't, and it's a bit silly to change the name of the country just to satisfy an argument that is based in semantics. I'm sure there are more pressing issues to occupy ones mind, no?

Oh and I agree with Ibreatheanime. If you really don't like how the world is, then do something about it! Sitting around and complaining isn't helping the problem. Sometimes actions speak louder than words. Voting is a powerful tool. But educate yourself on the candidates and issues before you fill in the ballot.
__________________
Solace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-21, 19:59   Link #142
WanderingKnight
Gregory House
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Age: 25
Send a message via MSN to WanderingKnight
Quote:

As for WanderingKnights comments I'm not taking offense but you do show a bit of a nieve/idealistic streak (which isn't bad, I'm a bit like that too ). I wish things in the world were so cut and dry but they rarely are. It would certainly make things easier to change. It's one thing to suggest ideas, but implementing requires considering many different opinions and suggestions in a democratic enviroment. Everyones voice is important here, not just the majority (which isn't always right), so it's important to consider all sides before making choices that affect everyone. Quite frankly, a well intentioned change isn't always the best change.
I understand, but crossing your arms, thinking 「仕方ないだろう...」, and then going your own way, ain't gonna help anyone. People need to start thinking about themselves as a society once and for all.

But anyways, if you read my posts, I said I expected nothing from the American society. And that the decision to carry weapons is perfectly understandable, but not justifiable as a method to solve issues.

Quote:
Bush wasn't the most popular President until 9/11.
But he damn freakingly won the earlier elections, too.

Quote:
The whole "American arrogance" comment made me chuckle. The founders probably could have just named the country the United States. But they didn't
Actually, didn't they name it "United States of America" (in reference to the continent)?
__________________


Place them in a box until a quieter time | Lights down, you up and die.
WanderingKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-21, 20:58   Link #143
Solace
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by WanderingKnight View Post
I understand, but crossing your arms, thinking 「仕方ないだろう...」, and then going your own way, ain't gonna help anyone. People need to start thinking about themselves as a society once and for all.

But anyways, if you read my posts, I said I expected nothing from the American society. And that the decision to carry weapons is perfectly understandable, but not justifiable as a method to solve issues.
I agree with you. This begs the question of what society is the "right" one, and cultural clashes often lead to conflicts of words and violence. It's all well and good that a society unites for the "greater good", but that should extend worldwide and globalisation faces a major hurdle with that one. The one world nation is still an idealistic pipe dream. We all just think and feel too different, come from a huge variety of experiences and backgrounds....while we do share many common dreams we also have many idealogical differences which create problems.



Quote:
But he damn freakingly won the earlier elections, too.
It's a reflection on the shallow pool of candidates that appear during elections in America, which is another issue. It also didn't help that the Clinton administration reflected poorly on democrats which allowed republicans to sweep the majority. The two party system shows many flaws and recieves heavy debate as to how much good it actually does for us.



Quote:
Actually, didn't they name it "United States of America" (in reference to the continent)?
Yes. In technical terms, it should read - The United States, of America. The 13 original colonies became states, and the distinction of a North/South America wasn't as prevalent as it is now. Back then people just referred to both continents as "the Americas". Spain held a large portion of the continents, with the British Colonies claiming most of the now East Coast in North America. France held much of Canada north of that, and Florida was claimed by the Spanish. In those times, these lands were considered parts of the Spanish, French, and British Empires, with each trying to stem the others power gains. France and Spain were allies of the colonies during the Revolution mainly because of thier interest in preventing British expansion. Much of the land claimed by America was through bartering/paying or through war in the waning years of those nations. The exception is mainly Mexico, who refused to let the US annex the southwestern states and resulted in a war that ended with those lands treatied to the US.

So yeah...it's semantics on the naming.
__________________
Solace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-21, 22:49   Link #144
ibreatheanime
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: St. Louis MO
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankoku View Post
Oh and I agree with Ibreatheanime. If you really don't like how the world is, then do something about it! Sitting around and complaining isn't helping the problem. Sometimes actions speak louder than words. Voting is a powerful tool. But educate yourself on the candidates and issues before you fill in the ballot.
That is what I am saying! Educate yourself before you vote, and get your facts straight...

There is nothing that I dislike more than someone who will blindly make a coment like "Bush is a stupid War pig!" Okay If you don't like the president tell me why, don't just make blunt comments. If you aren't educated on a topic and you make blind accusations it just makes you look stupid.

If people stayed informed about current events and researched topics before they stated their opinons and voted blindly, I personally think that our country could be a better place.

We need to elect people who arent just smooth talking polticans. Vote for the best person for the job, who you agree with on most issues.

Also for "08" I am just saying if anyone is planning on voting for Clinton just because she is a women, don't do that unless you agree with her politically. I want to see a woman in the white house, but not one who is unfit for the job.
__________________
I AM BACK!
ibreatheanime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-22, 01:11   Link #145
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 57
Its actually more complicated than that (though not much). A certain percentage of people will be voting for "anyone not a Republican" whether it be Clinton, an ashtray, or whomever simply because they want to send a message to the Republicans to spend some time cleaning house of their neocons, looters, incompetent ideologues, and wingnuts. The danger of course, is that this simply puts *another* single party in charge of both Houses and the Exec branch... so you just get different brands of this sort of thing.
Wheee..... single party rule is a trainwreck without brakes because the wingnuts come out of the woodwork.
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-22, 02:31   Link #146
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by WanderingKnight View Post
But anyways, if you read my posts, I said I expected nothing from the American society. And that the decision to carry weapons is perfectly understandable, but not justifiable as a method to solve issues.
I kept linking what you were saying back to the gun control issue, and to be honest I started forgetting whose side you were on. Because, I thought that at the start of all of this, you were against guns. Yet your views seemed to support armed citizens, although perhaps for a different reason than was initially discussed here (not for vigilante justice/self defense, but for revolutionary purposes). I may have misunderstood you.

Either way, I'm glad that everyone in this thread seems to be a group of thinkers.
__________________
Ledgem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-22, 09:40   Link #147
WanderingKnight
Gregory House
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Age: 25
Send a message via MSN to WanderingKnight
Quote:
I kept linking what you were saying back to the gun control issue, and to be honest I started forgetting whose side you were on. Because, I thought that at the start of all of this, you were against guns. Yet your views seemed to support armed citizens, although perhaps for a different reason than was initially discussed here (not for vigilante justice/self defense, but for revolutionary purposes). I may have misunderstood you.
Believe me, I am against guns. That's why I said I can't justify it. But I can understand the thought process that leads Americans to do that. They're two different things.
__________________


Place them in a box until a quieter time | Lights down, you up and die.
WanderingKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-22, 11:31   Link #148
Aoie_Emesai
♪♫ Maya Iincho ♩♬
*Artist
 
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Unnecessary
Age: 28
Send a message via Yahoo to Aoie_Emesai
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furudanuki View Post
In the state where I reside, a set of laws that are commonly referred to as the "Castle Doctrine" (taken from the saying that "a man's home is his castle") are in effect. The "Castle Doctrine" can be summed up as follows:
  1. It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, so the occupant may use force, including deadly force, against that person.
  2. It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others.
  3. It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force. It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.
Wow, I would love these Doctrines to be enacted in all of the 50 States instead of the The District of Columbia. But wouldn't this be rather the same as the many laws that's included within the "Self-Defense" laws passed? The Doctrine is just a more radical form of the typical self-defense clause. (United States Version)
__________________

How to Give / Receive Criticism on your work / Like to draw? Come join Artists Alike
Visit my Deviantart Or Blog ~A Child should always surpass his/her parent, Remember.
Aoie_Emesai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-22, 12:56   Link #149
Furudanuki
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: State of denial
Age: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aoie_Emesai View Post
Wow, I would love these Doctrines to be enacted in all of the 50 States instead of the The District of Columbia. But wouldn't this be rather the same as the many laws that's included within the "Self-Defense" laws passed? The Doctrine is just a more radical form of the typical self-defense clause. (United States Version)
"Castle Doctrine" laws or similar variants have been signed into law in over 20 states, and are under consideration by the legislatures in several others. This Wikipedia article has some basic information on the topic, but you would need to look up the details for each state if you want to be reasonably sure of having accurate information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine
__________________
Now watching: Akane-iro ni Somaru Saka, Allison to Lillia, Clannad - After Story, Daughter of Twenty Faces, Hidamari Sketch x365, Kannagi, Kyouran Kazoku Nikki, Mahou Tsukai ni Taisetsu na Koto ~Natsu no Sora~, Telepathy Girl Ran, To Aru Majutsu no Index, Toradora, Zettai Karen Children
Recently completed: Ghost Hound, Aria: The Origination, Kanokon, Kure-nai, Itazura na Kiss, Special A, Birdy the Mighty Decode, Macross Frontier, Ryouko's Case File, ToLoveRU, Wagaya no Oinari-sama
Furudanuki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-23, 04:07   Link #150
Nergol
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
In 1930 America had nearly no gun laws, and the murder rate was a fraction of what it is today. That's with Prohibition, Al Capone, Bugsy Siegel, and Murder Incorporated at their height.

In fact, from 1930 on, we've had progressively more gun laws, and progressively more murders. There's a better case to be made that gun laws cause more murder than that they prevent them, because at least there's corrolation, if not provable causation.

Penn & Teller debunk gun control:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWeTEXSV7ts
Nergol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-23, 05:10   Link #151
WanderingKnight
Gregory House
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Age: 25
Send a message via MSN to WanderingKnight
Quote:
In 1930 America had nearly no gun laws, and the murder rate was a fraction of what it is today. That's with Prohibition, Al Capone, Bugsy Siegel, and Murder Incorporated at their height.

In fact, from 1930 on, we've had progressively more gun laws, and progressively more murders. There's a better case to be made that gun laws cause more murder than that they prevent them, because at least there's corrolation, if not provable causation.
A society is more complicated than that. You can't analyze a consequence in spite of a single element. From 1930 to today millions of things have changed in every society, and there are millions of things you aren't taking into account when making your statement. Why don't you take a look at poverty rate, for example? What was 1930's poverty rate, and what was the one for the successive years?

A society isn't that simple.
__________________


Place them in a box until a quieter time | Lights down, you up and die.
WanderingKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-23, 09:33   Link #152
ibreatheanime
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: St. Louis MO
The official poverty rate in 2005 was 12.6 percent, not statistically different from 2004.
in 1959 22.4 percent was the poverty rate... but 1959 was the first year the US census collected the poverty rate.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/povdef.html
(I got this info off the US census, and this is how they collect it.)

During the 1930's there was a worldwide depression and many people were poor and without jobs.

I am not saying that there are more crimes today than in 1930 because of looser gun control as Nergol said, however I don't think poverty rate was the factor either.
__________________
I AM BACK!
ibreatheanime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-23, 13:21   Link #153
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by WanderingKnight View Post
A society is more complicated than that. You can't analyze a consequence in spite of a single element. From 1930 to today millions of things have changed in every society, and there are millions of things you aren't taking into account when making your statement. Why don't you take a look at poverty rate, for example? What was 1930's poverty rate, and what was the one for the successive years?

A society isn't that simple.
That is actually his point.... too often gun-control advocates will tout causally deficient connections to "prove their point" so he was just showing how silly it was to do that. We've got people over here defining "children" as anyone under 25 just to pump their numbers and including gang-vs-gang activities (if two 19 year olds are shooting at each other over drugdealing turf ... are they children?).

So yes, absolutely you can't take data stream one and data stream two and assert cause and effect Penn and Teller do an excellent job debunking such junk thinking. If both sides would bootkick their "black'n'white world" extremists, we might get a little farther in the resolution of the mixed bag of this debate (and the larger issues that are the underlying forces in the events that start these discussions).
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-23, 21:36   Link #154
Solace
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
<3 Penn and Teller. Another episode that reminds me of your point Vexx is Numbers, where they show how statistics are easily abused to further personal agendas.
__________________
Solace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-23, 21:36   Link #155
Takeru
Jag šter idioter
*Graphic Designer
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Vereinigte Staaten
Age: 24
Send a message via AIM to Takeru Send a message via Skype™ to Takeru
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankoku View Post
Yes. In technical terms, it should read - The United States, of America. The 13 original colonies became states, and the distinction of a North/South America wasn't as prevalent as it is now. Back then people just referred to both continents as "the Americas". Spain held a large portion of the continents, with the British Colonies claiming most of the now East Coast in North America. France held much of Canada north of that, and Florida was claimed by the Spanish. In those times, these lands were considered parts of the Spanish, French, and British Empires, with each trying to stem the others power gains. France and Spain were allies of the colonies during the Revolution mainly because of thier interest in preventing British expansion. Much of the land claimed by America was through bartering/paying or through war in the waning years of those nations. The exception is mainly Mexico, who refused to let the US annex the southwestern states and resulted in a war that ended with those lands treatied to the US.

So yeah...it's semantics on the naming.
You also forget that, at the time, we believed in Manifest Destiny. Where the United States would at some point expand to the entire Western Hemisphere, becoming one giant country. To which eventually the US agreed upon Manifest Destiny meaning land between the Atlantic and Pacific, and above the Rio Grande, and at the Canadian border.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ibreatheanime View Post
Also for "08" I am just saying if anyone is planning on voting for Clinton just because she is a women, don't do that unless you agree with her politically. I want to see a woman in the white house, but not one who is unfit for the job.
I agree with you on that. You shouldn't just vote on somebody because "she'll be the first woman president" or "the first black president". That may be a big move in United States history, but that's small compared to what they will do in office. Besides, on the case of Clinton, I would place her husband's actions in office as a reflection on what she would possibly have if she were elected. But, then again, I may be wrong.

And on Bush, I don't agree with many of the decisions that he has made, but I do believe that he was the better choice and has done more than John Kerry was by far.
__________________
Takeru is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
gun control, guns

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 17:48.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.