How many badges did I _earn_? About 4. The rest I got from Greg by sacrificing those Evony women in his name. Ever wonder why there aren't many Evony ads around anymore? There's your answer. How many badges did I earn? About 4. The rest I got from Greg by sacrificing those Evony women in his name. Ever wonder why there aren’t many Evony ads around anymore? There’s your answer.

2009-11-19T16:42:50-08:00

true

1477542

65515

2009-11-19T16:42:50-08:00

327007

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/9/topics/24763?page=20#posts-1477491'>Iggyshark</a>:</cite> <blockquote> Animals can’t be injured? </blockquote> I can’t see that as anything but a desperate attempt to divert the point. Animal rights have nothing to do with this discussion.</blockquote> You asked how is hunting on your own property injury or murder. Killing animals fits at least one of the two, subject to opinion. Accusing me of diverting the point doesn't really work when that _was_ the point. Of course, if you're hunting well hidden tin cans, then it's a different story. Possibly another consideration for something to be allowed under careful control? <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/24763?page=20#posts-1477491">Iggyshark</a>:</cite> <blockquote> Animals can’t be injured? </blockquote> I can’t see that as anything but a desperate attempt to divert the point. Animal rights have nothing to do with this discussion.</blockquote> You asked how is hunting on your own property injury or murder. Killing animals fits at least one of the two, subject to opinion. Accusing me of diverting the point doesn’t really work when that was the point. Of course, if you’re hunting well hidden tin cans, then it’s a different story. Possibly another consideration for something to be allowed under careful control?

2009-11-19T16:20:26-08:00

true

1477495

490

24763

2009-11-19T16:22:17-08:00

327007

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/9/topics/24763?page=20#posts-1477482'>Iggyshark</a>:</cite> <blockquote> Better? </blockquote> How is hunting on my own property of injury or murder?</blockquote> Animals can't be injured or killed? <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/24763?page=20#posts-1477482">Iggyshark</a>:</cite> <blockquote> Better? </blockquote> How is hunting on my own property of injury or murder?</blockquote> Animals can’t be injured or killed?

2009-11-19T16:16:54-08:00

true

1477486

488

24763

2009-11-19T16:17:29-08:00

327007

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/9/topics/24763?page=20#posts-1477408'>Iggyshark</a>:</cite> <blockquote> If people started using them solely for the purpose of injury or murder, then it might be necessary. </blockquote> … Except not even guns are used solely for those purposes. Protip: Saying so a bunch of times doesn’t make it true.</blockquote> I apologise, I'll rephrase my statement: If people started using pencils solely for the purpose of injury or murder - outside of shooting ranges (or similar) or collections, in which case they just need careful controlling - then it might be necessary. Better? <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/24763?page=20#posts-1477408">Iggyshark</a>:</cite> <blockquote> If people started using them solely for the purpose of injury or murder, then it might be necessary. </blockquote> … Except not even guns are used solely for those purposes. Protip: Saying so a bunch of times doesn’t make it true.</blockquote> I apologise, I’ll rephrase my statement: If people started using pencils solely for the purpose of injury or murder – outside of shooting ranges (or similar) or collections, in which case they just need careful controlling – then it might be necessary. Better?

2009-11-19T16:14:55-08:00

true

1477476

486

24763

2009-11-19T16:14:55-08:00

327007

Everyone ignored Q... Easily the most underated of all the letters. Everyone ignored Q… Easily the most underated of all the letters.

2009-11-19T16:11:23-08:00

true

1477459

65520

2009-11-19T16:11:23-08:00

327007

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/9/topics/24763?page=20#posts-1477385'>Iggyshark</a>:</cite> And I suppose pencils should be banned because their “fun” is subjective, psychopaths could be more dangerous with them, as well as pencils having the possibility to cause collateral damage. You see, banning pencils isn’t so much different as you think.</blockquote> If people started using them solely for the purpose of injury or murder, then it might be necessary. <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/24763?page=20#posts-1477385">Iggyshark</a>:</cite> And I suppose pencils should be banned because their “fun” is subjective, psychopaths could be more dangerous with them, as well as pencils having the possibility to cause collateral damage. You see, banning pencils isn’t so much different as you think.</blockquote> If people started using them solely for the purpose of injury or murder, then it might be necessary.

2009-11-19T15:49:08-08:00

true

1477404

484

24763

2009-11-19T15:49:08-08:00

327007

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/2/topics/65487?page=1#posts-1476687'>Minnakht</a>:</cite> Everyone on this forum is one and the same person. And the person, therefore, is me too.</blockquote> You have 26,443 accounts open *at the same time!?* That must kill your internet. <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/2/topics/65487?page=1#posts-1476687">Minnakht</a>:</cite> Everyone on this forum is one and the same person. And the person, therefore, is me too.</blockquote> You have 26,443 accounts open at the same time!? That must kill your internet.

2009-11-19T10:49:03-08:00

true

1476697

65487

2009-11-19T10:50:25-08:00

327007

AlisonClaire is Ducklette? AlisonClaire is Ducklette?

2009-11-19T10:34:49-08:00

true

1476684

65487

2009-11-19T10:34:49-08:00

327007

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/9/topics/65480?page=1#posts-1476605'>Vanguarde77</a>:</cite> <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/65480?page=1#posts-1476602">Iggyshark</a>:</cite> <blockquote> You better check out OP again… </blockquote> No, you check it again. All the link provides is what people with an obvious bias say about an incident that occurred three years ago. Which the OP assumes guilt upon.</blockquote> I have read over a dozen other website accounts on this, I only posted one. It’s not my job to fetch the details for everyone.</blockquote> No, but it is your job to back up any arguments that you make. It's your argument, you prove it. I can't judge on this until it the facts are actually uncovered, but in all honesty I wouldn't be surprised if both sides are somewhat at fault. Exagerration is much easier to get away with than outright lies. <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/65480?page=1#posts-1476605">Vanguarde77</a>:</cite> <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/65480?page=1#posts-1476602">Iggyshark</a>:</cite> <blockquote> You better check out OP again… </blockquote> No, you check it again. All the link provides is what people with an obvious bias say about an incident that occurred three years ago. Which the OP assumes guilt upon.</blockquote> I have read over a dozen other website accounts on this, I only posted one. It’s not my job to fetch the details for everyone.</blockquote> No, but it is your job to back up any arguments that you make. It’s your argument, you prove it. I can’t judge on this until it the facts are actually uncovered, but in all honesty I wouldn’t be surprised if both sides are somewhat at fault. Exagerration is much easier to get away with than outright lies.

2009-11-19T09:48:41-08:00

true

1476640

65480

2009-11-19T09:48:57-08:00

327007

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/9/topics/65484?page=1#posts-1476613'>Vanguarde77</a>:</cite> <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/65484?page=1#posts-1476606">JohnRulz</a>:</cite> So… don’t talk about anything controversial? If we follow everything on that list SD would seize to exist.</blockquote> When we talk about it, it only ends in fighting and pain.</blockquote> What you call fighting we call debating, and I've never seen anyone be hurt by an online discussion. If everyone agrees, what's the point in discussing it? <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/65484?page=1#posts-1476613">Vanguarde77</a>:</cite> <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/65484?page=1#posts-1476606">JohnRulz</a>:</cite> So… don’t talk about anything controversial? If we follow everything on that list SD would seize to exist.</blockquote> When we talk about it, it only ends in fighting and pain.</blockquote> What you call fighting we call debating, and I’ve never seen anyone be hurt by an online discussion. If everyone agrees, what’s the point in discussing it?

2009-11-19T09:45:00-08:00

true

1476633

65484

2009-11-19T09:45:00-08:00

327007

*EVERYONE SHUT UP* Thank you. Now, I believe we had a topic to discuss. <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/9/topics/65478?page=1#posts-1476461'>Santos8x</a>:</cite> I recently came across the results of a survey about mobile games that suggested games, in general, have been “stigmatized as child’s play in Europe and North America”, as opposed to Asia. Do you think that mobile games(in particular), such as the ones on your cellphone on portable devices, have the power to change this aspect of our cultural lifestyle due to their increased social factor? Or is this the way it’s going to stay in our society?</blockquote> Games on mobile phones are designed to be nothing more than some entertainment to pass the time while you're waiting for the bus or sitting on the train. Most successful mobile games are based upon that idea and are therefore designed to be simplistic mini games that are quick and easy to complete. These games are just minor entertainment, so I they're not really seen as just for kids. Larger more serious games, however, are different. Mobile games are not going to make everyone view all computer games as not just for kids. They're just going to affect mobile phone games. EVERYONE SHUT UP Thank you. Now, I believe we had a topic to discuss. <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/65478?page=1#posts-1476461">Santos8x</a>:</cite> I recently came across the results of a survey about mobile games that suggested games, in general, have been “stigmatized as child’s play in Europe and North America”, as opposed to Asia. Do you think that mobile games(in particular), such as the ones on your cellphone on portable devices, have the power to change this aspect of our cultural lifestyle due to their increased social factor? Or is this the way it’s going to stay in our society?</blockquote> Games on mobile phones are designed to be nothing more than some entertainment to pass the time while you’re waiting for the bus or sitting on the train. Most successful mobile games are based upon that idea and are therefore designed to be simplistic mini games that are quick and easy to complete. These games are just minor entertainment, so I they’re not really seen as just for kids. Larger more serious games, however, are different. Mobile games are not going to make everyone view all computer games as not just for kids. They’re just going to affect mobile phone games.

2009-11-19T09:42:10-08:00

true

1476628

65478

2009-11-19T09:42:19-08:00

327007

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/9/topics/65427?page=1#posts-1476161'>Donut_Master</a>:</cite> <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/65427?page=1#posts-1476159">SithDoughnut</a>:</cite> <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/65427?page=1#posts-1476156">dd790</a>:</cite> <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/65427?page=1#posts-1475850">Thatsomegoodname</a>:</cite> So if someone gets raped and pregnant… would they be fined for having kids without license?</blockquote> No, they would abort same as they would without such license laws</blockquote> And if their religious beliefs stop them from getting an abortion?</blockquote> Stop believing in propaganda?</blockquote> And if they choose to believe in propaganda? I believe there is this thing called 'freedom of belief'... <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/65427?page=1#posts-1476161">Donut_Master</a>:</cite> <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/65427?page=1#posts-1476159">SithDoughnut</a>:</cite> <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/65427?page=1#posts-1476156">dd790</a>:</cite> <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/65427?page=1#posts-1475850">Thatsomegoodname</a>:</cite> So if someone gets raped and pregnant… would they be fined for having kids without license?</blockquote> No, they would abort same as they would without such license laws</blockquote> And if their religious beliefs stop them from getting an abortion?</blockquote> Stop believing in propaganda?</blockquote> And if they choose to believe in propaganda? I believe there is this thing called ‘freedom of belief’…

2009-11-19T09:36:39-08:00

true

1476623

65427

2009-11-19T09:36:39-08:00

327007

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/9/topics/65427?page=1#posts-1476156'>dd790</a>:</cite> <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/65427?page=1#posts-1475850">Thatsomegoodname</a>:</cite> So if someone gets raped and pregnant… would they be fined for having kids without license?</blockquote> No, they would abort same as they would without such license laws</blockquote> And if their religious beliefs stop them from getting an abortion? <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/65427?page=1#posts-1476156">dd790</a>:</cite> <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/65427?page=1#posts-1475850">Thatsomegoodname</a>:</cite> So if someone gets raped and pregnant… would they be fined for having kids without license?</blockquote> No, they would abort same as they would without such license laws</blockquote> And if their religious beliefs stop them from getting an abortion?

2009-11-19T02:26:14-08:00

true

1476159

65427

2009-11-19T02:26:14-08:00

327007

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/9/topics/65219?page=2#posts-1475043'>SaintAjora</a>:</cite> <blockquote> Don’t know how to do that for men. </blockquote> There is chemical castration, no idea how reliable it is.</blockquote> _"If we take the European and United States approach then we could impose chemical castration as a condition of parole. A number of countries already use surgical and chemical castration to good effect with stunning cuts in recidivism rates in Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, Germany Iceland and many states in USA. Depo-Provera for example, has been used quite successfully. Also, a new drug Triptorelin would be a good place to start. While Depo-Provera has reduced paedophile recidivism from 50% to below 5%, Triptorelin has been reported in the New England Journal of Medicine to have a success rate of 100% when used in conjunction with psychotherapy."_ "Source":http://www.safenz.org.nz/Articles/sexoffenders.htm It's not a brilliant source, but there isn't a lot on success rates out there. It obviously isn't 100%, although looking through various websites seems to suggest it has a pretty high one. <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/65219?page=2#posts-1475043">SaintAjora</a>:</cite> <blockquote> Don’t know how to do that for men. </blockquote> There is chemical castration, no idea how reliable it is.</blockquote> “If we take the European and United States approach then we could impose chemical castration as a condition of parole. A number of countries already use surgical and chemical castration to good effect with stunning cuts in recidivism rates in Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, Germany Iceland and many states in USA. Depo-Provera for example, has been used quite successfully. Also, a new drug Triptorelin would be a good place to start. While Depo-Provera has reduced paedophile recidivism from 50% to below 5%, Triptorelin has been reported in the New England Journal of Medicine to have a success rate of 100% when used in conjunction with psychotherapy.” <a href="http://www.safenz.org.nz/Articles/sexoffenders.htm">Source</a> It’s not a brilliant source, but there isn’t a lot on success rates out there. It obviously isn’t 100%, although looking through various websites seems to suggest it has a pretty high one.

2009-11-19T02:25:18-08:00

true

1476157

65219

2009-11-19T02:25:18-08:00

327007

bq. Arming a child is ridiculous, because children do not have the necessary mental and physical tools to handle a gun. Oh, they do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_use_of_children I know that in most cases the children have been manipulated, but that fact remains that children can kill someone just as easily as an adult, maybe even more easily. The only reason children in developed countries are innocent(ish) and can't use a gun is because we don't let them. I'm not saying that they should have guns, because they shouldn't, as I've said before I believe no one should. This is just an off-topic reply to that statement. <blockquote> Arming a child is ridiculous, because children do not have the necessary mental and physical tools to handle a gun. </blockquote> Oh, they do. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_use_of_children">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_use_of_children</a> I know that in most cases the children have been manipulated, but that fact remains that children can kill someone just as easily as an adult, maybe even more easily. The only reason children in developed countries are innocent(ish) and can’t use a gun is because we don’t let them. I’m not saying that they should have guns, because they shouldn’t, as I’ve said before I believe no one should. This is just an off-topic reply to that statement.

2009-11-19T02:16:43-08:00

true

1476155

473

24763

2009-11-19T02:19:45-08:00

327007

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/9/topics/65236?page=1#posts-1473601'>TheBSG</a>:</cite> Remember when we were going to have debates and then no one took charge and actually organized them?</blockquote> You mean the one on one debates from ages ago? <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/65236?page=1#posts-1473601">TheBSG</a>:</cite> Remember when we were going to have debates and then no one took charge and actually organized them?</blockquote> You mean the one on one debates from ages ago?

2009-11-18T08:46:41-08:00

true

1473697

65236

2009-11-18T08:46:41-08:00

327007

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/9/topics/24763?page=19#posts-1472847'>Iggyshark</a>:</cite> <blockquote> At the same time, I see know reason to allow people in the UK to own guns. </blockquote> Yeah, resisting a tyrannical government is no reason to own a gun.</blockquote> Good job I don't live under a tyrannical government then. It doesn't ban me from owning a gun, it just heavily restricts when and where I can use it. If the population as a whole wanted to revolt, it really wouldn't be that difficult. It's individual people wanting to overthrow the government that would have an issue. Which isn't exactly a bad thing. bq. To the third (Success of Previous Gun Control Laws): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Politics#Self-defense (yes, this link again) This is only about the success in America, it doesn't take into account the success of gun control in other countries. As far as I know gun control is managed by the state, which would obviously make it less effective - people could just head into the next state and pick up their guns there. A federal law may have more effect, but I don't think it would be impossible if it was a very gradual change. <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/24763?page=19#posts-1472847">Iggyshark</a>:</cite> <blockquote> At the same time, I see know reason to allow people in the UK to own guns. </blockquote> Yeah, resisting a tyrannical government is no reason to own a gun.</blockquote> Good job I don’t live under a tyrannical government then. It doesn’t ban me from owning a gun, it just heavily restricts when and where I can use it. If the population as a whole wanted to revolt, it really wouldn’t be that difficult. It’s individual people wanting to overthrow the government that would have an issue. Which isn’t exactly a bad thing. <blockquote> To the third (Success of Previous Gun Control Laws): <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Politics#Self-defense">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Politics#Self-defense</a> (yes, this link again) </blockquote> This is only about the success in America, it doesn’t take into account the success of gun control in other countries. As far as I know gun control is managed by the state, which would obviously make it less effective – people could just head into the next state and pick up their guns there. A federal law may have more effect, but I don’t think it would be impossible if it was a very gradual change.

2009-11-18T08:39:36-08:00

true

1473687

463

24763

2009-11-18T08:43:56-08:00

327007

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/2/topics/65282?page=1#posts-1472790'>lycn191</a>:</cite> 1<a href="http://www.sexygirl.com/sharika/bootyshake1">www.sexygirl.com/sharika/bootyshake1</a> didnt work</blockquote> Well for a start, that's not an image. <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/2/topics/65282?page=1#posts-1472790">lycn191</a>:</cite> 1<a href="http://www.sexygirl.com/sharika/bootyshake1">www.sexygirl.com/sharika/bootyshake1</a> didnt work</blockquote> Well for a start, that’s not an image.

2009-11-17T18:40:29-08:00

true

1472798

65282

2009-11-17T18:40:29-08:00

327007

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/9/topics/24763?page=18#posts-1472707'>generalvalter</a>:</cite> <blockquote> “Widespread gun ownership has not been found to reduce the likelihood of fatal events committed with other means. Thus, people do not turn to knives and other potentially lethal instruments less often when more guns are available, but more guns usually means more victims of suicide and homicide.” Source (pg 19) </blockquote> That conclusion seems to come primarily from two graphs, on pages 12 and 14. The most significant problem with those graphs, though, is that they only test the relationship between gun ownership and gun homicide, and gun ownership and non-gun homicide. What interests me is that they don’t just directly compare gun ownership and total homicide within the listed countries. That would be more direct data, and a much more effective “proof” of increased homicide rates than the method they chose to use. This makes me somewhat suspicious of their methods, to say the least.</blockquote> That's a good point, I'll have to look over it again. I'll also have to read your sources more thoroughly in the morning, but they do seem to focus largely on the effects of guns when defending, rather than guns and the affect on homocide rates themselves. It also seems to say that gun ownership has no positive effect on violence, but that the same applies to gun control laws. It also seem that your source is only about the US. The issue I have with that is that in that case you are dealing with a country where guns are always available somewhere, even if they are not available in your state. Have any states in the US ever banned civilian ownership of guns completely? I don't think they have, which means that that cannot be taken into account when discussing the effectiveness of gun control. Finally, I didn't see anything that draws a relation between gun ownership and homocide rates, so in all honesty all I have to work on is my source. In all honesty I don't think a total ban of guns would work in somewhere like America. Not only is it unconstitutional, it would be up against the gun culture and availability of weapons that currently exists. I think that stricter regulations and standards would be useful though. At the same time, I see know reason to allow people in the UK to own guns. Gun related incidents are very rare, so while overall levels of violence may not see a great difference with gun control (whether this applies internationally I do not know), there is no reason to bring them back. <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/24763?page=18#posts-1472707">generalvalter</a>:</cite> <blockquote> “Widespread gun ownership has not been found to reduce the likelihood of fatal events committed with other means. Thus, people do not turn to knives and other potentially lethal instruments less often when more guns are available, but more guns usually means more victims of suicide and homicide.” Source (pg 19) </blockquote> That conclusion seems to come primarily from two graphs, on pages 12 and 14. The most significant problem with those graphs, though, is that they only test the relationship between gun ownership and gun homicide, and gun ownership and non-gun homicide. What interests me is that they don’t just directly compare gun ownership and total homicide within the listed countries. That would be more direct data, and a much more effective “proof” of increased homicide rates than the method they chose to use. This makes me somewhat suspicious of their methods, to say the least.</blockquote> That’s a good point, I’ll have to look over it again. I’ll also have to read your sources more thoroughly in the morning, but they do seem to focus largely on the effects of guns when defending, rather than guns and the affect on homocide rates themselves. It also seems to say that gun ownership has no positive effect on violence, but that the same applies to gun control laws. It also seem that your source is only about the US. The issue I have with that is that in that case you are dealing with a country where guns are always available somewhere, even if they are not available in your state. Have any states in the US ever banned civilian ownership of guns completely? I don’t think they have, which means that that cannot be taken into account when discussing the effectiveness of gun control. Finally, I didn’t see anything that draws a relation between gun ownership and homocide rates, so in all honesty all I have to work on is my source. In all honesty I don’t think a total ban of guns would work in somewhere like America. Not only is it unconstitutional, it would be up against the gun culture and availability of weapons that currently exists. I think that stricter regulations and standards would be useful though. At the same time, I see know reason to allow people in the UK to own guns. Gun related incidents are very rare, so while overall levels of violence may not see a great difference with gun control (whether this applies internationally I do not know), there is no reason to bring them back.

2009-11-17T18:35:14-08:00

true

1472776

453

24763

2009-11-17T18:35:14-08:00

327007

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/9/topics/24763?page=18#posts-1472687'>Iggyshark</a>:</cite> <blockquote> The hypothetical situation discussion is all about what I would do, not about what gun policy everyone should have. </blockquote> The point of the hypothetical was relative to overall policy. Please pay attention before accusing others.</blockquote> It was a 'what would I do'. I said what I would do. I did not say that everyone should be able to do what I can do. <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/24763?page=18#posts-1472687">Iggyshark</a>:</cite> <blockquote> The hypothetical situation discussion is all about what I would do, not about what gun policy everyone should have. </blockquote> The point of the hypothetical was relative to overall policy. Please pay attention before accusing others.</blockquote> It was a ‘what would I do’. I said what I would do. I did not say that everyone should be able to do what I can do.

2009-11-17T18:12:48-08:00

true

1472694

448

24763

2009-11-17T18:12:48-08:00

327007

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/9/topics/24763?page=18#posts-1472663'>Iggyshark</a>:</cite> <blockquote> If I cannot hide then having a gun would not help me at all, because I barely know how to use one. </blockquote> Okay. Why should that prevent those who do from having them?</blockquote> 'More guns usually means more victims of suicide and homicide'. I never said that because I can't use a gun, other people should not have them. Other people should not have them because more guns = more homicides and suicides. Please avoid putting words in my mouth. The hypothetical situation discussion is all about what I would do, not about what gun policy everyone should have. bq. It is unequal, because the reason given for enacting it is other means for defense exist. Those means don’t exist for everyone. It was a reason. Not *the* reason. Other means of defense exist for everyone, such as alarms, other potential weapons, the police, even bodyguards. If the reason given for having guns is that they are self-defense against other guns, then it is just as unequal to people who cannot use them. <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/24763?page=18#posts-1472663">Iggyshark</a>:</cite> <blockquote> If I cannot hide then having a gun would not help me at all, because I barely know how to use one. </blockquote> Okay. Why should that prevent those who do from having them?</blockquote> ‘More guns usually means more victims of suicide and homicide’. I never said that because I can’t use a gun, other people should not have them. Other people should not have them because more guns = more homicides and suicides. Please avoid putting words in my mouth. The hypothetical situation discussion is all about what I would do, not about what gun policy everyone should have. <blockquote> It is unequal, because the reason given for enacting it is other means for defense exist. Those means don’t exist for everyone. </blockquote> It was a reason. Not the reason. Other means of defense exist for everyone, such as alarms, other potential weapons, the police, even bodyguards. If the reason given for having guns is that they are self-defense against other guns, then it is just as unequal to people who cannot use them.

2009-11-17T18:08:12-08:00

true

1472677

446

24763

2009-11-17T18:11:57-08:00

327007

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/9/topics/24763?page=18#posts-1472649'>likan8888</a>:</cite> <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/24763?page=18#posts-1472513">SithDoughnut</a>:</cite> <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/24763?page=18#posts-1472505">likan8888</a>:</cite> and proceed to get shot in the back and robbed.</blockquote> Not if I jump out the window before the would-be murderer finds me. If he has the intention of killing me he will shoot on sight. I have no chance of survival with any kind of weapon unless he hasn’t found me yet.</blockquote> assuming there is a window.</blockquote> If there isn't a window. I could hide. If I cannot hide then having a gun would not help me at all, because I barely know how to use one. <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/24763?page=18#posts-1472649">likan8888</a>:</cite> <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/24763?page=18#posts-1472513">SithDoughnut</a>:</cite> <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/24763?page=18#posts-1472505">likan8888</a>:</cite> and proceed to get shot in the back and robbed.</blockquote> Not if I jump out the window before the would-be murderer finds me. If he has the intention of killing me he will shoot on sight. I have no chance of survival with any kind of weapon unless he hasn’t found me yet.</blockquote> assuming there is a window.</blockquote> If there isn’t a window. I could hide. If I cannot hide then having a gun would not help me at all, because I barely know how to use one.

2009-11-17T18:01:23-08:00

true

1472651

441

24763

2009-11-17T18:01:23-08:00

327007

bq. Irrelevant. Not when you claim that gun control is unequal, because not everyone can protect themselves. Not everyone can use a gun, so it is no less unequal. <blockquote> “the numbers of defensive uses of guns by crime victims each year are probably substantially larger than the largest estimates of the number of crimes committed of offenders using guns. Thus, defensive gun use by victims is both effective and, relative to criminal uses, frequent.” You tell me.</blockquote> "_Widespread gun ownership has not been found to reduce the likelihood of fatal events committed with other means. Thus, people do not turn to knives and other potentially lethal instruments less often when more guns are available, but *more guns usually means more victims of suicide and homicide.*_" "Source":http://www.unicri.it/wwk/publications/books/series/understanding/19_GUN_OWNERSHIP.pdf (pg 19) I would say that any decrease in the number of homicides under effective gun control is a good thing. bq. Gun control laws have been observed to have little to no effect on crime rates. Seemingly other studies beg to differ. Out of curiosity, I've scanned the study you linked to, and it only seems to compare the effectiveness of guns and gun control in the US. Is that the case or am I missing something? <blockquote> Irrelevant. </blockquote> Not when you claim that gun control is unequal, because not everyone can protect themselves. Not everyone can use a gun, so it is no less unequal. <blockquote> “the numbers of defensive uses of guns by crime victims each year are probably substantially larger than the largest estimates of the number of crimes committed of offenders using guns. Thus, defensive gun use by victims is both effective and, relative to criminal uses, frequent.” You tell me.</blockquote> “Widespread gun ownership has not been found to reduce the likelihood of fatal events committed with other means. Thus, people do not turn to knives and other potentially lethal instruments less often when more guns are available, but more guns usually means more victims of suicide and homicide.” <a href="http://www.unicri.it/wwk/publications/books/series/understanding/19_GUN_OWNERSHIP.pdf">Source</a> (pg 19) I would say that any decrease in the number of homicides under effective gun control is a good thing. <blockquote> Gun control laws have been observed to have little to no effect on crime rates. </blockquote> Seemingly other studies beg to differ. Out of curiosity, I’ve scanned the study you linked to, and it only seems to compare the effectiveness of guns and gun control in the US. Is that the case or am I missing something?

2009-11-17T17:55:16-08:00

true

1472632

439

24763

2009-11-17T17:59:54-08:00

327007

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/9/topics/65260?page=3#posts-1472592'>dd790</a>:</cite> <blockquote> Good things happen too </blockquote> e.g….</blockquote> I believe pivotman is a deist, i.e. God started things off and now everything is up to us. <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/65260?page=3#posts-1472592">dd790</a>:</cite> <blockquote> Good things happen too </blockquote> e.g….</blockquote> I believe pivotman is a deist, i.e. God started things off and now everything is up to us.

2009-11-17T17:46:13-08:00

true

1472596

65260

2009-11-17T17:46:13-08:00

327007

bq. How can men and women be equal, when they are different in many ways? Biological differences are unimportant when you deal with society. Women can have children, men can't. That doesn't mean the woman has to look after the child, or raise and family. It doesn't mean that only the man can go out and work. The only thing women do that men cannot is have children. In terms of rights and society in general, that's barely a difference. <blockquote> How can men and women be equal, when they are different in many ways? </blockquote> Biological differences are unimportant when you deal with society. Women can have children, men can’t. That doesn’t mean the woman has to look after the child, or raise and family. It doesn’t mean that only the man can go out and work. The only thing women do that men cannot is have children. In terms of rights and society in general, that’s barely a difference.

2009-11-17T17:44:29-08:00

true

1472590

65134

2009-11-17T17:44:29-08:00

327007